Arrogant corporate culture

[Incognito]

Two questions for you Parsley:

1) Has the NAFTA anomally been conveyed to government?

If it is in public record there could be repercussions to the Corp and BOD and to the Government.

Merchant may want to quit chasing ambulances for awhile and tackle this one.

2) Does the Act not state that the BOD are indemnified ONLY if they are acting in the best interest of the corporation?

The Corporation's best interest are generally not FARMERS best interest.

And one repeat question for Vader:

1) Have you looked at the Corporation's Director's and Officer's Insurance Liability policy?

[parsley]

Good Morning incognito,

Firstly

Mr. Measner should have notified the Minister that the B of Directors have adopted a policy of prohibition, and are consequently in contravention of NAFTA because the Act clearly states:

61.1(1) In exercising its powers and performing its duties, the Corporation shall give effect to the provisions of the Agreement [NAFTA] that pertain to the Corporation."

If Mr. Measner has given the Minister that notification, he has done his job properly.

Secondly

If Mr. Measner has not notified the Minister, he is subject to dismissal without pay for incompetence.Knowing that the CWB is not following the Act and then hiding the fact is serious, because the CWB Act is very clear:


"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"

If the Government does not yet know that the CWB is contravening NAFTA, maybe someone will tell them so that they can correct the problem and punish the CEO for gross incompetence.

AdamSmith, Maybe Deanna Allen doesn't realize she's playing a game with the rules written in the CWB Act.

Parsley

[Incognito]

Morning 2 u 2 Mr. Parsley:

A freedom of information request may soon see the minutes of ALL the board meetings to ascertain if NAFTA was even discussed.

Insofar as the "game" as D. Allen so eloquently calls farmer's livelihood challenges: the arrogant corporate culture has not changed...

Butch Harder called it a "game" back in the 90's.

[parsley]

Minister Strahl can ask the CWB to excerpt all the NAFTA discussions from the Directors' meetings, including in-camera ones, and ask for them on his desk for Thursday morning if he so desires.

Normally, the Minister PRESUMES the CWB is following the Act that governs them.

The fact that they are not, makes the CEO and Directors liable.

In 2002, Jim Chatenay formally brought his concerns to the Board of Directors, so he will be exempt from liability, wouldn't he?

This is an excerpt from his letter, cc'd to some of his constituents in Alberta:


QUOTE

"I initially brought my concerns to my fellow Board members, as required by the Board of Directors’ Code of Conduct which states, “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.”

Simply put, the general feeling is that CWB policy does not reflect CWB legislative requirements. The Code of Conduct states, “Duties for corporate directors emanate from common law obligations and the provisions of the statute or instrument under which the company is incorporated”, and as required, I am being pro-active in the performance of my duties by “being vigilant to ensure CWB is being properly managed and is complying with laws affecting the CWB;”

Not only the Code of Conduct requires a duty of care. As well, Parliament requires that Directors have a duty of care to the Corporation under 3.12(2) of the CWB Act which reads:
“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

Parsley