Director's Pledge

[melvill]

A.S., I'm hiding under my desk expecting a cruise missile, at any time, launched from your combine cab! Or from your exquisitly equipped shop.

My apologies for interrupting a political debate to talk about marketing strategy. Reminds me of the debate I overhead between a guy from then Yugoslavia and a guy from Saudi Arabia about which is the best religion - Christianity or Islam.

And I disagree strongly that the option strategy is any more speculative than holding inventory in the bin.

[Kodiak]

Well Parsley, only if you revelled in the discomfort it might cause them! I'm not convinced it would though.

Nor am I convinced their role is to do what you want. I think I differ with you on that. The appointed directors must have difficult time biting their tongues many times. But what good would jumping into the mudhole do them? The votes at the board table won't change. The majority of the board are still of the mindset that they have to control everything, and that won't change until the people change.

I think all that would happen if the appointed directors waded into the frey would be to invite more political mudslinging and diversion. Nothing in the way of real reform or improvement can happen in an atmosphere like that. I'm quietly hoping they are keeping soles to the heat where they can on the inside.

[AdamSmith]

melvill, I agree that holding grain in the bin is also pure speculation, but my bin doesn't ask for margin money.

oh by the way, was it the Suadi or the Slav who was insisting that their religion be the ONLY religion allowed and the other not be allowed to exist?

Or were they just defending their prefered individual choice?

[wilagro]

Over the years I have seen elected AND appointed directors of the CWB change their position once they have learned how the CWB really works in achieving greater gains for farmers in the DA.

Once they see the advantages of having a CWB, they forget that "choice" crap and get right down to working for those who elected or appointed them.

This must be especially galling for the various government leaders who have tried to skew things at the CWB.

[AdamSmith]

Oh Willy, if you liked that one,

did you here the one about the Little Red Riding Hood, it's about a young girls encounter with a wolf,

or Goldilocks and the Three Bears it's about a mommy bear and a daddy bear and a baby bear discovering a strange little girl in their house.

[parsley]

Why bother appointing/electing a choice director if they do not promote choice...

They must present and defend choice instead of seemingly cringing and hiding in the corners; lend explanations about choice; give support to choice arguments; talk about their role as choice directors; in other words...PROVIDE leadership.

OMG Think about that one.

Several choice directors abandoned choice, and the odd one wavering, to boot. Shouldn't have to argue with and convince a choice director to remain choice, as has happened in the past. Better off to drown him in his appointed/elected gopher hole. AS made a good point.

The way it is now, it might have initially been more effective in moving forward towards choice, if we had voted the directorship plumb full of Netties. At least farmers would know where they stood.

The Minister has been pelted with mud.

The Government has been pelted with mud.

Jim Pallister is often attacked in the papers, I read.

John DePape is attacked in the papers every week.

Monopoly directors have constantly and consistently pelted and slung and tossed while their counterparts snoozed. How many Kyle letters have you read in the Western Producer? Lots.

But it appears the directors that choice farmers depend upon to provide leadership, are simply not prepared to write in the paper, or send a press release or call a farmers' meeting or give interviews that lend crdibility to the choice view. Is that smart or is it actually weak? Are they whipped, or simply not worth their weight in wheat?

Granted, jailed farmers made a stand.
A strong one. And the public has not forgotten.

But lately, the public has heard one side only.

Voters have heard one side.

Monopoly.

Agri-business too, hears the constant monopolist PUBLIC arguments supported and supplemented and interpreted and consolidated and endorsed and confirmed by....
yup...fellow monopoly directors.


Where was a CWB alternate choice-paper that should have been sent to the WTO to support open marketing, non protectionism?

Where is an editorial titled Conflict of Interests During the 2008 CWB Elections?

Zippo.

Silence and withdrawal by choice- directors has been a very unsuccessful tactic.

Has the present choicers on the Board created momentum for choice? Think about that one.

A lot of farmers ask, "Where is their voice when we need them?"

We can hardly even remember their names.

Parsley

[bucket]

I am still toying with the idea to run in the elections but when I see people like flaman who have no scruples to do the honorable thing and resign - it really becomes an issue of whether I would want to be associated with him.

Its obvious that some of the board are card carrying socialists with only their self interest at heart but being on any board still must have rules that are enforced or implied that makes the board publicly accountable.

It doesn't matter what you think of the cwb as a director but the general rule as a director - you just can't have the obvious conflict flaman has and sit quietly by. Mcreary,ritter et all know this. They all sit on other boards.

If I sit on the local co-op board wouldn't it be a conflict to own a competetive business selling fuel or chemical in the same area?

Jesus flaman, just do the right thing. You might actually gain some votes for integrity reasons.It seems you lack some!

[agstar77]

And where are Ken Motiuk and Bruce Johnson these days. Their silence speaks volumes for how bad a job the CWB is doing.

[charliep]

Agstar77

Are you suggesting it would be appropriate for board of directors to openly comment on activities within the CWB board room?

I will note the following from the Code of Conduct (lots more places where mentioned or has implications).

G. Public Comment

Begin quote - "Directors have an obligation to make official public comment within the parameters established by the Board approved Communications Policy . All other comments are to be clearly identified as personal opinion and not official Public Comment or CWB Policy." End quote.

Source: http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/about/people/#code

[agstar77]

Personal opinion eh?

[parsley]

Personal opinion?

The Moderators on this site have been MORE than tolerant with Vader, aka, Rod Flaman's personal rantings.

Wheat Board Directors trying to influence farmers by working under the radar is probably what I'd expect you to advocate. Are you a CWB Director as well?

Until you sign your own name on this issue of personal opinion, stick it in your ear, agstar.


Parsley

[charliep]

Actually was just a question.

Been searching around the office for a presentation on the role of the CWB Board of Directors but lost in the paper mountain. It had very good definition but the base is too look after the interests of the corporation.

The board of director code of ethics is very clear about what can be shared or not.

[charliep]

Perhaps another interpretation is that Agstar77 was expressing a personal opinion. Still not clear about what it is.

[agstar77]

I am glad to see your true self , no more charades of being nice. With all their personal appointments on the board, if there was problems or illegalities that all of you spout something would have come to light by now. Isn't that galling , and that is what has touched a nerve. It really hurts when the truth slaps you in the face.

[charliep]

I just highlight all I noted was the CWB code of
ethics. Are you uncomfortable with this?