CWB - ABP and marketing choice

[grassfarmer]

I'm posting this on both the beef and commodity forums as I would be interested in hearing the views of participants on both. The issue is a recent discussion held at the Alberta Beef Producers directors board meeting which I have posted below. I can see some obvious differences suggested here to what is happening in the CWB elections. Whatever your beliefs on the CWB at least it would appear producers wishing to change it are allowed to stand as candidates. The ABP does not seem to want such frivolous democratic principles to challenge their empire. I'd be interested also on comments regarding the legality of such a move by ABP. Afterall there is a mandatory levy paid by everyone selling cattle yet we might not be allowed to stand as a delegate because we are seen to oppose the way the organization is run?

"Waller spoke to the Board about a possible conflict of interest delegates could have with the mandate of ABP. When members join an organization they agree to abide by the bylaws of that organization and to work towards attaining the bylaws of that organization.
There is an obligation for a member to actively work for their organization. If an ABP delegate is actively working against us can they and should they be a delegate? Can they be a delegate or director if they are members of an organization that is fundamentally opposed to ABP?"

[parsley]

grassfarmer, I changed the statement a wee bit.

"Can they be Bloc Quebecois if they are members of an organization that is fundamentally opposed to Quebec in Canada?"

Parsley

[grassfarmer]

Care to elaborate parsley? are you for or against this practice in the case of the CWB or the ABP?

[parsley]

Jim Chatenay was elected by Alberta farmers on the platform of marketing choice to a Board who would not tolerate the whisper of it. It is a petty bunch of men, laughably weak minded men, who cannot tolerate a probing differing thought.

You should know by now grassfarmer, that I am all about choice. About not squelching voices. I think farmers and cattlemen should be able to disagree and then have a beer together. The odd good fist fight is very effective. lol

I'm not 100% sure of what your situation is, but if you are elected by your peers to represent a voice that isn't bedded in thought with the organization, I would be more than prepared to put up with you, discuss, even though it sounds as if you just might be a monopolist pain in the ass.

Everyone has worth. Everyone's ideas at some time have worth. If you cannot work together, you cannot grow together.And you cannot cahnge until you are told you are wrong.Pars

[parsley]

Choice should not DO, or become, what monopoly IS, what it stands for, or else Choicers will end up BEING what monopolists work towards grassfarmer....no choice.

Single desk directors? Monopolists? Read today's http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com/

And btw, I don't get paid for writing on a blog, grassfarmer.

All I have to gain is farms that thrive and grow. Pars

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley,

Prosperity for our communities is a great motivation... Keep up the good work!

Grassfarmer,

Politics is an interesting strategic process... both sides on all issues MUST be discussed... due diligence requires no less. Principal dictates it absolutely necessary.

To think that folks are so shallow... that they don't truly care about doing the right thing... and fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities... does not bode well for the future of our industry! Perhaps a sober second thought... on the future of 'political correctness'?

[parsley]

Tom4cwb,
"Politics is an interesting strategic process... both sides on all issues MUST be discussed... due diligence requires no less. Principal dictates it absolutely necessary."
Very telling about WHO you are Tom.

Also very telling about the single desk directors who threw up their hands and walked away from the Independent Business survey they were asked to participate in. They refused to even discuss issues!

Having a closed mind like that is detrimental to farming. Pars

[grassfarmer]

OK, you guys with the high fallutin' analogies lets keep it real simple so this simple cow guy can understand it.

Situations reversed - CWB decides that prospective delegates will not be allowed to serve as directors because they are deemed to be "actively working against us" or they are "members of an organization that is fundamentally opposed to the CWB" I guess that would rule out marketing choice candidates and particularly folks that are members of groups like the Western Barley Growers etc? How would you feel as a grain producer if this were the situation?
If you don't think that would be acceptable to you as a grain grower do you think cattle producers should be treated this way?

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

SIMPLE,in my small mind, IF a 'troublemaker' is elected by the members of ABP... they have an obligation to listen to and consider information presented by this person... and that point of view.

That does not mean they must change... it does mean ... again... the organisation must consider that point of view.

Many may consider the 'democratic' process a blunt instrument... and it is... it was never supposed to be a license to tell those who elected their representatives... what to think.

My thoughts... patience is a virtue... and the most patient and persistent party usually wins the point... if it has merit!

[dmlfarmer]

Re: Parsley statement "Also very telling about the single desk directors who threw up their hands and walked away from the Independent Business survey they were asked to participate in. They refused to even discuss issues!"
Single desk candidate were not the only ones who refused to answer."
Read and compare answers of the district 2 candidates to the Canadian Federation of Independant Business survey. Which district 2 candidate put more thought and effort into this survey? www.cfib.ca/legis/alberta/agri-business.asp

[grassfarmer]

Before this turns into an entirely CWB thread I must press TOM for clarification - you're way too much of a politician in your answers! The question is not whether ABP have a duty to listen to a "troublemaker" once they are elected. The question is whether ABP have the right to bar candidates from even standing for election if they perceive them to be troublemakers. That is quite a different question and one that has a more fundamental effect on the democratic process.

As I asked before would you be happy if none of your "marketing choice" candidates were allowed to stand for election because the CWB deemed them to be working against the organisation?

[mustardman]

I think that "marketing choice" candidates should be allowed on CWB board as soon as farmers are allowed on the boards of Pioneer, Viterra etc.

[wade]

An elected official should represent the issues that he/she was elected on.

If memory serves me correct, when a CWB representative is sworn in, they promise to serve in the best interest of the board not of the farmers that elected them.

[dmlfarmer]

wade is correct. Any board director has a moral,legal, and fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the institution for which they are a board director.
I understand in the current CWB election all candidates had to actually sign a declaration they will act in the best interests of the CWB if elected. I think it really shows the lack of morality and honesty of any CWB candidate who has signed this declaration while running on a platform which he knows is not in the best interest of the CWB or which will weaken the CWB.
Regardless of their position, I simply could never trust or support any candidate who would sign such a legal document knowing full well they will not honor their word or signature if elected. If they are willing to lie on this legal document, what other lies are they willing to tell and what other laws and legal documents would they willingly break?

[wade]

Maybe they truly believe the CWB would be better/stronger if voluntary.