There are really only two issues here.
1. The CWB dropped the ball with respect to the administration of these contracts.
2. The Free Press did a lousy job of reporting the story.
The fact that farmers need to return over payments is not a big deal, even though the Free Press would like you to think it is. The contracts didn’t backfire on farmers – poor program administration backfired on the CWB.
The fact that the CWB didn’t make provisions for this potential is a big deal.
The Free Press article quotes Heather Frayne from the CWB:
“Frayne said nobody foresaw the huge run-up in prices that occurred late last fall and early in 2008. " If the farmers had seen that coming they wouldn't have locked in their prices early on and the situation would never have arisen," she said.
If the farmers had seen that coming….!!??? So it’s the farmers’ fault they were overpaid?!
The people who designed these contracts and then administered them should have considered this potential. What Frayne should be saying is “If the CWB had seen this coming, we would have prepared for it. But we didn’t see it foresee the huge run-up in prices so we were caught off-guard.”
Free Press also wrote:
“She added it would have been logistically difficult -- and expensive -- to pay out lower initial payments to the thousands of farmers enrolled in the fixed-price contracts, thereby preventing the overpayments.”
What a crock. Before you roll out a program like this you get your agents (the grain companies) onside. You set down provisions that allow them to (1) pay the initial payment (apparently this is administratively the easiest approach), (2) deduct the conventional deductions (freight, handling, etc) and then (3) make a payment adjustment (addition or deduction) so that the net is the contract price.
This is just one of many, many ways to administer this kind of contract. The way the CWB has done it is certainly not one of them.
What a mess.
According to the Free Press, “Doug Chorney, an East Selkirk farmer, said "it's kind of ironic" that farmers who have demanded greater marketing options from the wheat board should now be upset when using these sales tools backfires on them.”
BACKFIRE? Chorney, get a grip. The contracts didn’t backfire on farmers. The CWB administration of the program backfired on the CWB.
Also from the Free Press: "It's too bad that this is turning into a negative for the board because the board's responding to what farmers have wanted,".
Of course it’s a negative for the board – the CWB SCREWED UP.
Also from the Free Press:
“Wheat board officials say this is a unique situation, and nobody could have predicted the dramatic run-up in prices last fall and earlier this year. Certainly, the farmers who now owe the CWB money didn't.”
There they go again – pointing a finger at farmers. A more correct way to write this would be:
“Certainly, the CWB designers and administrators of this program didn’t.”
I now have absolutely no confidence in anything the CWB does. Makes me wonder if the CWB is capable of providing any program properly and efficiently.
There should be a complete audit of all these PPO programs.
1. The CWB dropped the ball with respect to the administration of these contracts.
2. The Free Press did a lousy job of reporting the story.
The fact that farmers need to return over payments is not a big deal, even though the Free Press would like you to think it is. The contracts didn’t backfire on farmers – poor program administration backfired on the CWB.
The fact that the CWB didn’t make provisions for this potential is a big deal.
The Free Press article quotes Heather Frayne from the CWB:
“Frayne said nobody foresaw the huge run-up in prices that occurred late last fall and early in 2008. " If the farmers had seen that coming they wouldn't have locked in their prices early on and the situation would never have arisen," she said.
If the farmers had seen that coming….!!??? So it’s the farmers’ fault they were overpaid?!
The people who designed these contracts and then administered them should have considered this potential. What Frayne should be saying is “If the CWB had seen this coming, we would have prepared for it. But we didn’t see it foresee the huge run-up in prices so we were caught off-guard.”
Free Press also wrote:
“She added it would have been logistically difficult -- and expensive -- to pay out lower initial payments to the thousands of farmers enrolled in the fixed-price contracts, thereby preventing the overpayments.”
What a crock. Before you roll out a program like this you get your agents (the grain companies) onside. You set down provisions that allow them to (1) pay the initial payment (apparently this is administratively the easiest approach), (2) deduct the conventional deductions (freight, handling, etc) and then (3) make a payment adjustment (addition or deduction) so that the net is the contract price.
This is just one of many, many ways to administer this kind of contract. The way the CWB has done it is certainly not one of them.
What a mess.
According to the Free Press, “Doug Chorney, an East Selkirk farmer, said "it's kind of ironic" that farmers who have demanded greater marketing options from the wheat board should now be upset when using these sales tools backfires on them.”
BACKFIRE? Chorney, get a grip. The contracts didn’t backfire on farmers. The CWB administration of the program backfired on the CWB.
Also from the Free Press: "It's too bad that this is turning into a negative for the board because the board's responding to what farmers have wanted,".
Of course it’s a negative for the board – the CWB SCREWED UP.
Also from the Free Press:
“Wheat board officials say this is a unique situation, and nobody could have predicted the dramatic run-up in prices last fall and earlier this year. Certainly, the farmers who now owe the CWB money didn't.”
There they go again – pointing a finger at farmers. A more correct way to write this would be:
“Certainly, the CWB designers and administrators of this program didn’t.”
I now have absolutely no confidence in anything the CWB does. Makes me wonder if the CWB is capable of providing any program properly and efficiently.
There should be a complete audit of all these PPO programs.
Comment