CWB - ABP and marketing choice

[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.

[wade]

I haven't seen any evidence that the CWB could not survive with dual market either- only assumptions also.

[parsley]

dmlfarmer,

You are referring to the quality of work submitted which is an entirely different issue from the one I broached, which is single-deskers making a conscious decision of "non-participation.". It is a childish decision, and obviously one which you would prefer having the subject changed. Nice try. Pars

[TOM4CWB]

Grassfarmer,

Your question:
"The question is whether ABP have the right to bar candidates from even standing for election if they perceive them to be troublemakers."

I respectfully submit that if folks were prevented from being candidates... who were in fact levy paying members... there would be action by Marketing Council to rectify this situation.

The ability to 'tax' comes with responsibilities...

[dmlfarmer]

wade:
You are right in that there is no conclusive evidence that the CWB, with no significant assests, no grain handling facilities, and no port terminal could not compete with the 4 multinational grain companies which now control 3/4s of the world wheat trade. However a recent news release states: "the federal government’s own task force which was set up in the summer of 2006 by then Ag Minister Chuck Strahl to study how the prairie wheat and barley market could be opened up. The task force, which included hand-picked pro-dual market advocates such as Mike Bast, Chair, Western Canadian Wheat Growers and Manitoba grain producer Paul Orsak, concluded that a dual market is not possible. The report clearly stated that dual marketing “implies to some that the existing marketing approach (a CWB with monopoly powers) could co-exist with an open market approach. This is not possible. ”"
The Ontario wheat board (which is now voluntary) is now only handling a very small percentage of the Ontario wheat crop.
And within a couple of years we will see if the AWB, which was given over 10 years to prepare financially for operating in the open market will survive.
Since we agree we do not know for sure if the CWB will exist in an open market the question which must be asked is if the risk of losing the CWB forever (if the CWB goes, international trade rules prevent such a body from being re-created) is worth the gamble of supporting an open market candidate in this election. By looking at the polls charliep alluded to, most farmers think such a risk is too great at this time.

[parsley]

dmlfarmer,

Quit shuffling the deck of facts.You can't play card tricks on people who've read the CWB Act.

" to act in the best interest of the institution " are your words.

1. The CWB ACT, read it again, (not institution), ACT, is what each director is legally responsible for upholding. Pissy-assed directors may pass any "recommendations" they want, but the CWB Act which is an Act of Parliament, is bosshog." Don't forget it

2. The CWB might pass a POLICY motion on variations to the code of conduct, might even call for a woman on the Board; or variations to the directors' goals, such as "six-year Plan" instead of five; or changes to the duties of 'who goes where' on committees; or increases to their own pay scale, but they are merely POLICY recommendations, POLICY flavors of the month, POLICY whims to satisfy the Political Guidelines rules. For example, for the Flamans of the world who wish to run for politics but not resign, the Political Guidelines can be changed in one conference call. Policy manipulation and Act adherence are NOT THE SAME, dmlfarmer, and don't forget it.

3. Do your really believe the last Board of Directors followed their "moral,legal, and fiduciary" responsibilities when they changed the Political Guidelines paid for political favors to the Liberal party? Good grief.

4. The "vision" or what you call
"interests of the institution", of so-called Director responsibility to the CWB is born in the POLICY navel gazing sessions we pay for. It is MERELY POLICY. It can be whisked out of the secretary's minutes overnight with a motion. If you want to see what the purpose of the CWB Act is, look it up. Read the bloody thing.That's what Directors are legally responsible for.

5. The new set of Directors can march into their job, move a motion to change the policy guidlenes, just like the singledeskers did over Liberal political donations, and second the motion. If it is carried, they have created a new vision. A new plan. A new direction. As long as it follows the legal purpose of the CWB Act iself, their vision is legitimate and legal.

Parsley

[parsley]

grassfarmer,

If you are a member,run as a director. If you win, good for you.If you can convince your fellow directors to change process, you have accomplished your goal.

You want a voice.

Having a voice is why black people no longer sit in the back of buses.

In the same way, Norway voted in their Parliament to secede from Sweden,and Sweden helped the determined Norwegians to obtain independence. Not one shot was fired! Although Swedes still get teased about the "thousand Swedes came through the weeds chased by one Norwegian" (One parliamentary vote to this day, it's a testament to co-operation.

Can we learn to look at change as a positive, constructive force? I wish.

Maybe my tightly-bound feet aren't really what I needed, after all..... Pars

[dmlfarmer]

Parsley:
I have read the CWB act and also studied corporate laws. When I used the term institution, I was not referring just to the CWB but any corporate structure.
Now for both you and charliep let me quote from The Law and Business Administration in Canada by Smyth and Soberman. On the role of directors it states: "One might conclude that their first duty is those those shareholders who have elected them. This is not so....the English and Canadian courts have stated directors owe their first duty to the company as a whole...and to state that the duties of the directors are owed almost exclusively to the company itself."
This is Canadian law which takes precedence over the CWB act and which the CWB act must adhere to!
As far as the rest of your rant, could you please provide the facts and details which support your statement: "Do your really believe the last Board of Directors followed their "moral,legal, and fiduciary" responsibilities when they changed the Political Guidelines paid for political favors to the Liberal party?"
Exactly what political favors are you accusing the board of directors of being party to?

[parsley]

You'd drive anybody to rant. lol Logic for Laugh-in ...well I had to laugh.

You say: "directors owe their first duty to the company as a whole...and to state that the duties of the directors are owed almost exclusively to the company itself. This is Canadian law which takes precedence over the CWB act and which the CWB act must adhere to!"

Think about that. Hard.

What you're saying amounts to this:
1. Ontario is a competitor to the CWB for all markets. Therefore the CWB can deny licenses to Ontario, because it's in the interest of CWB marketing to cut Ontario completely out of the market. You say CWB directors can overide the CWB Act.

Try it cowboy.

2. Uranium is a monopoly by way of an expropriation act. You're on the Board. You decide to sell uranium FOR THE BEST PRICE, for what you deem is in the interest of the company, you pick the Congo and North Korea. YOU tell the Government to butt out. Right.

3. Pretend: The Canadian Government gets in a rant with Iran and imposes sanctions , and tell the CWB directors to stop the sale of wheat. The CWB Directors say, nope. We're boss, and it's good cash. That's your spin, buddy. Even though the MInister has a legislative right to give the order, and a past Minister has already actually set a precedent stopping an order to Russia, you say that in you world, you are able to give the Minister the finger. And you are which disciple...?


4. The CWB states the Board will sell grain for what they deem "reasonable."
The present CWB Directors are constantly claiming they get the "best price" for farmers. Either they must LEGALLY get the "best price" or "reasonable " price. Which is it?

According to your reasoning, Western farmers could launch a class action if they are indeed not receiving the
"best price". Why don't they?(The Act prevents it)

5. And finally, I presume you think a bunch of farmers out West can do whatever they please because some single desk director heard it at at a Wayne Easter planning session,even though the Act actually states this:

QUOTE " 1. Sections 3, 6 and 18 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act state:

Duty to comply

3.12 (2) The directors and officers of the Corporation shall comply with this Act, the regulations, the by-laws of the Corporation and any directions given to the Corporation under this Act.UNQUOTE

What do you not understand about this section?

I'm sure some of the current Board feel they are above the law, as do you. Above our legislators. Above Parliament.

I cannot wait until these kind of people are gone, gone, gone.
Parsley

[dmlfarmer]

Parsley:
I disagree with every twisted and rediculous analogy you are trying to tie to me. The 5 points you make are your words not mine.
The focus of this thread is the question of the duties of a corporate director. Canadian law is clear. A corporate director has a duty to the corportation and this duty supercedes his duty to shareholders and stakeholders This must be taken into consideration by anyone seeking or in the role of corporate director.
Furthermore, never once have I said a director is above the law. The CWB ACT is clear directors must comply with the act but the CWB ACT is not above Canadian law as you seem to believe. The CWB is bound by the same Canadian laws as every other corporate body.
While I do not appreciate you smear tactics and twisting of my words, I have entered this debate freely and consider your words as your opinion. However, I do want you to answer my question in my last post regarding your statement and I quote: "Do your really believe the last Board of Directors followed their "moral,legal, and fiduciary" responsibilities when they changed the Political Guidelines paid for political favors to the Liberal party?"
Again: Exactly what political favors are you accusing the board of directors of being party to? You presented your statement as a fact, and not an opinion therefore I am asking you to back your statement with varifiable information.

[gustgd]

grassfarmer I think that you should be allowed to run as a candidate for the ABP if you get elected it would show the ABP what some of their members think of the job they are doing. Sometimes if a fringe candidate gets elected to a position it shows how weak an organization has become , it then works much harder to focus on it's position, Think David Orchard and the Conservatives and now David Orchard and the Libs they are too weak to even fight him off now he's a candidate
this is only my uninformed analogy of ABP as a Saskatchewan producer I don't pay levies or get a vote.
re: dmlfarmer
I get it as soon as I and other pro CWB- anti monopoly Candidates get elected and pass a motion stripping the CWB of it's monopoly we will get sued, by you and the friends of the CWB.
read a few profiles look up past work of ours I would say almost all of the candidates I know really know/believe the CWB can be a better place without the monopoly trump card.