CWB - ABP and marketing choice

[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.

[wade]

They should not have to sign such a piece of BS. Represent issues elected for by the people not the institution!

Bunch of bull representaitves not representing-not able, abstaining or absent for votes on issues against party/organization guidelines!

[dmlfarmer]

If they truly believe the CWB would be stronger, then I would not question their ethics. But with all the debate over the issue, never once have any of the pro choice candidates made the argument the CWB would be stronger, how it would be stronger, or even how it would function.
In any corporate institution, directors must be willing to look at all options, must be willing to listen to all shareholders, but at the end of the day they, they must act in the best interest of the institution. That is why they have been given the duty of director; regardless if they have been appointed or elected to the board of directors of the institution.

[wade]

The best interest of the CWB is to survive. Don't know if survival of the CWB is in the best interest of farmers so I think represent the farmer/voter. Not trying tyo debate pro/con of CWB. Some are believers and some aren't. Both should have a voice in their grain.

[charliep]

Note the comment about looking after the best interests of the institution. I thought the reason for a board of directors was to look after the best interests of shareholders (perhaps stakeholders in the case of ABP/the CWB).

On the CWB side, I note the results of the last several CWB producer surveys.

http://www.cwb.ca/public/en/farmers/surveys/producer/

Farmer want a CWB that works in an open market. Shouldn't this be how the CWB board of directors view their mandate?

Will note the following from the CWB code of ethics (would be interesting to see how ABP approaches in their corporate documents grassfarmer).

Quote:

B. Directors must act in the best interests of the Corporation

C. The mission of the CWB is to maximize returns to Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers.

D. The views and concerns of western Canadian wheat and barley farmers are an important element in Board decision-making and each director has a responsibility to ensure those views and concerns are brought forward to the entire Board.


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

[dmlfarmer]

charliep:
There should be no difference. Ensuring the best interests of the institution should result in the best interests of the shareholders. Every company in which I own shares provides a list of candidates for director which I can accept or reject. I may not agree with the personal views of individual directors, but I trust the company is recommending someone who has the best interests of the company at heart, has skills the company needs, and thus will provide a positive return on my investment in that company.

As far as your statement that farmers want a CWB that works in the open market, that position is based on the assumption the CWB could still be viable in an open market. To this point there has been no information presented as to if this assumption is possible. Until it is known if this could work, farmers should not be led to believe it is possible. Therefore you have to consider only the current monopoly and open market as the alternatives. In doing so, the majority of farmers want the CWB.