CWB election forums coming soon

[bbrindle]

I hope to see some of you at the Alberta Grain Commission's CWB election forums. You can meet and hear the candidates in district 4 on November 8 in: - Cereal Community Hall from 1-3 pm - Provost Legion from 7-9 pm District 2 candidates will be at forums on November 9 in: - Vulcan Legion from 1-3 pm - Red Deer Capri Centre 7-9 pm The candidates were just announced this week. You will find the candidates biographies here: http://www.cwbelection.com/candidateBios.htm So, take a look and plan to come out and ask them questions on November 8 and 9th. The home page for the election coordinator is here: http://www.cwbelection.com/ And .. don't forget to vote!

[bbrindle]

You'll find details of the meetings in the Agri-ville Times Headlines, on the Agri-ville home page.

[oilcan]

Where exactly can farmers vote for the appointed directors? It would be nice to see farmers actually at the board table.

[bbrindle]

The 'Board' of the CWB is made up of 10 elected directors and 5 appointed. Five of the 10 districts are up for election now -- so those of you in even numbered districts, remember to vote. Ballots must be postmarked by Dec 7. Under the CWB Act, four of the appointed directors are appointed by the federal government on the recommendation of the CWB Minister. The fifth, is the president, and that person is also appointed by the government on the recommendation of the Minister after consulting with the Board. All directors (including appointed),with the exception of the president, hold office for a maximum term of four years, up to a maximum of three terms. So, if you have opinions/issues/concerns on the appointed directors, that would be best directed to your federal election candidates.

[oilcan]

Do you agree with the appointments? Would not farmers be better served and their views better understood and brought forth to the Minister in charge of the CWB, if all were elected full-time farmers?

[bbrindle]

I'll leave that to the farmers reading this to answer. What do all of you readers out there think? Another thought -- what if the 'extra' five people were elected based on the 'shares' farmers had in the CWB ie the tonnage, rather than appointed? Would that make any sense? Australia had a system something like that -- sort of 'a' and 'b' shares system.

[oilcan]

I would suggest using democratic due process for all directors, improve the electoral boundaries so farmers in southern Alberta are better represented and cut expenses by using more electronic communications to cut down the expenses of all those trips to Winnipeg. How would basing voting power on tonnage help family farms? Tonnage would be better used for the basis of any future farm initiative to counter the inequities of foreign subsidies on western grain producers.

[rockpile]

To Oilcan and Brenda, I went to the forum in Vulcan and met Brenda and Lee Melville, though they didn't meet me. Thanks to AGC for holding the forums. The moderator was excellant. The one thing that was made clear was that the current director does not believe in a proactive approach to communicating with his constituency. Call him and he may come to see you, but don't expect him to go out of his way to seek you or your opinions out. Ironic, because that is what this whole process is supposed to be about. Communication. Brenda's thoughts on weighted voting are out in left field. Tonnage means nothing. I could grow a thousand tonnes of something and it could be 100% of my livelihood, but my neighbor could grow ten thousand tonnes of the same thing, while operating a five thousand head feedlot, and it might only make up 10% of his livelihood. To whom is the decission most important. The only time an election is free and relevant is when we are all treated equally - and fairly. Otherwise, you have to agree with Orwell that we are all created equal, it's just that some of us are 'more' equal than others. As a society, we had better stay away from trying to draw these lines. Rockpile

[bbrindle]

Thanks for your comments. I threw out the comment about volume based voting as an alternative to appointed positions. I'm glad to see it stimulated some discussion. Here's a bit of information on Australia with regard to their Board: The Australian Wheat Board (AWB) is also a single desk seller. It has 12 Board members, 7 class 'A' shareholders are elected by region by farmers. One of the 'A' is elected by the Board as Chairman. Only growers can be 'A' shareholders and their shares can't be traded. The number of votes you are entitled to is based on the tonnage of wheat you have harvested and delivered to the AWB Group over the most recent rolling 3-year period. Growers who do not deliver to the AWB Group but complete a Statutory Declaration to prove their grower status will only be entitled to one vote regardless of the amount of wheat they grow. The other 5 are elected by class 'B' shareholders. B class shares represent the equity formerly held in the Wheat Industry Fund (WIF), can be owned by anyone although any one holder can only own a maximum of 10% of all B class shares. There is a trading mechanism for B class shares. You can find out more about the AWB at the link

[oilcan]

Full-time farmers that produce the crops handled by the CWB should be directors. Anything else is far from democracy.

[rockpile]

Barb and Oilcan, Thank-you for your response. First, to Barb's comments on Australia. Why do we always have to be looking at what someone else is doing? Are Canadians too niave to formulate their own strategies? The Aussies are notorious for 'working the system' to their own advantage. Keep in mind, they do not share a common border with the USA as we do. More importantly, why are we willing to be the sacrificial lambs in WTO talks, and why are we concerned about trading off the CWB. We gave and gave during the last round of talks, now it is time for others to come up to our level. Prairie farmers have given and paid. It is time for others to pay up. Besides, who has challenged the world's largest single-desk seller, the US Department of Commerce? To Oilcan, and your conerns about appointed CWB directors. First of all, at the Board level, most corporations design their boards to include participation from many areas of expertise - finance, trade, government connections, management, etc. This only strengthens their performance. It is very arrogant on our part to say that we as farmers know everything and can't benefit from outside experience. What do you and I know about international currency trading as it would relate to grain trading? Or the legal aspects of international contractual agreements, or doing business in countries all over the world? If you throw political partisanship aside for a momment, you have to admit that Goodale appointed a very sound governing group to cover these areas. Business - that's what it's about, and to succeed, you have to focus on that. The issues surrounding the board of the CWB are very political, but I can assure you that these issues do not come up at the boards of major corporations, like the banks, or Nortel, or whoever-they focus on their mandates to return profits to their stakeholders. Rockpile

[oilcan]

Thank-you for the responses. If the CWB is in need of a specific management trait, as you state the appointed directors fill, this person should be hired as an employee. Giving farmers the ability to bring forth beneficial change through better democratic representation. I have voiced my concerns and wish all farmer candidates the best, no matter what their ideology towards marketing is. What is more important is the viability of family farms in these tough economic times. As for comparing marketing systems, surely as Canadians we can bring our own ideas for positive improvements to marketing, limiting the constant bickering which only divides those whose livlihoods depend on a strong economic return from wheat and barley production.