Numbered Ballots Undemocratic?

[Fransisco]

[Vader]

I am not suggesting anything sinister about KPMG.

I am just stating the fact that the design of their voting process was to be able to link the ballot with the voter.

I know the stated reason was to enable them to identify inelligible voters and to subsequently remove their ballot.

I know that despite their good intentions this is not a recognized procedure in the running of democratic elections.

Having said that I will reiterate what the Minister said over and over again. This was simply "advice" to the Minister. He also said over and over again that it was not binding on the government. Further it was no different than the polling done by the CWB and returned the same result. If you ask people if they want their cake and eat it too the majority will respond "yes". That does not make it a viable option. The reason the CWB asks the question is to gage the effectiveness of our communications. The reason the Minister asked the question is to stir the pot.

[Vader]

Charlie,

The process for director elections is not the same. Once you get a ballot it is deemed to be valid. The ballot is not identified in any way, only the envelope containing the ballot. The ballot and the envelopes are separated in front of the scrutineers so the identity of the voter is protected.

The process of developing the voters list is the root of the problem. We all know that there are problems with the development of the voters list for Director Elections and there has been a review panel to invetigate the problem and recommendations have gone to the government. Knowing full well the problems with the development of valid and legitimate voters lists the government chose to let KPMG participate in a flawed voters list development process which KPMG thought they could deal with by numbering the ballots. Perhaps that was not KPMG's fault at all. The government has decades of experience in democratic elections and should not have allowed this debacle to unfold. Or perhaps in the interest of garnering the governments "preferred" option from the process, the event took place exactly as planned. After all it was only "advice" to the Minister. What does the process matter in providing "advice" to the Minister when he knows exactly what he plans to do for the get go.

[gregpet]

Vader, I am fairly new to this blog so am not up to speed on everyone’s background and their positions, but judging from your response are you a CWB director or employee? I quote:

“Having said that I will reiterate what the Minister said over and over again. This was simply "advice" to the Minister. He also said over and over again that it was not binding on the government. Further it was no different than the polling done by the CWB and returned the same result. If you ask people if they want their cake and eat it too the majority will respond "yes". That does not make it a viable option. The reason the CWB asks the question is to gage the effectiveness of our communications. The reason the Minister asked the question is to stir the pot.”

The emphasis is mine. My question is, if the CWB knew the majority of producers want a voluntary CWB, and it is an organization supposedly run by producers, why not follow through with the wishes of the majority and offer marketing choice/freedom?

[Fransisco]

gregpet you are correct in your assumption.

Vader is a CWB director, and there are some rumours as to which one he might be.

Can anyone confirm or deny this?

[Vader]

No secret who I am greg.

Rod Flaman
CWB Director - District 8
rodflaman@imagewireless.ca
306-771-2823

The dual market option is not workable. We have said that over and over. If you want the CWB out of wheat or barley there is a process for that.

[Fransisco]

So there we have it, CWB director Flaman is in favour of democracy at times when it suits him such as when it gets him into power, and is against it at times in which it doesnt suit him, such as his personal monopoly agenda.

There are many unflattering names for this but lets just leave it as a "double-standard" for now.

Speaking of which isn't it about time Rod that you reversed yourself and started playing the minority rights card? I mean after all you lost the vote and double standards hasn't really been a big problem for you in the past.

[Fransisco]

As to the process it has been done, farmers voted for choice, they don't believe you that it can't be done. And August 1st we will have choice.

It's now just a question of whether the CWB wants to be a part of it.

[TOM4CWB]

Vader; "The dual market option is not workable. We have said that over and over."

"is not workable"

ONLY BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE IT WORKABLE... How many times must we say this to you? 1, 10, 1000, 100,000, 1,000,000... into infinity ROD... There I trump you.

Now the majority of your slaves have ... told you to reform... choose this day whom you serve...

Western Canadian "designated area" barley growers...

or;

The Dino... "single desk" Directors who would abuse your freinds and neighbours.

You went into this battle with the best of intentions ROD...

Don't forget those servants who put you in your place of authority in the first place.

I can explain adnosium why KPMG and Minister Strahl did a much better administrative job than did MNP/CWB on the 2006 CWB Directors Election...

What would it matter?

THe results are what they are.

IMHO there is nothing the Courts would do to change the results of these votes.

If you choose the COurts... please use your own money... then I will know you aren't just a slave driver lashing our backs.



The Privacy Act looks after the conspiracy theories... and if anyone has proof of breach of confidentiality or legal abuse of either MNP/CWB or KPMG/AAFC ballots...

Either PUT UP or SHUT UP.

If you don't have evidence of a breach of trust ROD... the expedient action would be the latter.

[gregpet]

Vader, thank you for an honest response to one of my questions. I prefer to take the high road in a debate and not resort to any type of other tactics. I feel others on this blog on both sides of the debates do this out of frustration, if we could take our feelings out the discussion and focus on the facts we could accomplish much more. This may be something that is holding the CWB back from looking at this development objectively and taking a look at the opportunities that are out there for it. With all its knowledge and contacts it is absurd to think that the CWB has no plan going forward other than ‘demanding’ the government for a full set of assets and cash. Further to my other questions that remain unanswered I will refer back to something that Parsley had posted a while ago, hope there is an answer for this one way or another:

QUOTE

“Here's a quote from a quote in Larry Weber's Commodity Newsletter this morning:

QUOTE
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Lib.): Thirdly, the allegation has been made that the board has not done contingency
planning in relation to a number of matters, but most especially what happens in the event that a plebiscite
succeeds and therefore the process and the act is triggered, and so forth. Reference was made to contingency
planning.


Mr. Adrian Measner: You have my assurance as CEO that we have looked at contingency planning very
seriously. We are looking at the barley issue very seriously. We will be ready for whatever changes are going to be made there.

I do want to know what those changes are. If there are going to be changes, I want to know whether there are going to be guarantees. If we're involved in barley, I want to know if we're going to be able to use the contingency
fund to backstop that.UNQUOTE

Parsley

Who doesn't know what they are talking about, Measner or Ritter?”
UNQUOTE

If the CWB cannot come up with a viable option moving forward perhaps these people should resign and replaced with others who have a vision and see the opportunities that lie ahead for the CWB in an open market. The CWB could choose the low road, use producers money and challenge the government in court, or the CWB can take the high road and think of solutions. Beside, the results closely mirror what the CWB already knows, so prove you represent the producers of the designated area and do what they have told the CWB to do, give us choice.

Answers, not rhetoric please.

P.S. My name is Greg Petryshyn and I farm near the town of Foam Lake. Nothing to hide, so thank you Mr. Flaman for answering one of my questions, please answer the others also.

[gregpet]

I don't get it. The plebiscite was consistent with the findings of the CWB's own surveys. Flaman said it. Ritter said it.

<i>The results of the barley plebiscite announced today are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings.</i>

So if the results are consistent with the CWB's surveys, and if we assume the CWB's process was acceptable to the CWB, then let's get on with life and accept that over 60% of farmers surveyed or answering the plebiscite <b>want the choice to sell barley to whomever they like</b>, some of them including the CWB in that mix.

This arguing over the "nuances" of the voting process is boring. Who cares? The results of the plebiscite are the same as the CWB's own survey results. SO WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT THE BALLOTS ARE NUMBERED? IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE HAD ANY IMPACT ON THE RESULTS.

More important issue: what's the new barley marketplace going to look like on Aug 1 2008, a full year into a choice market?

[chaffmeister]

I don't get it. The plebiscite was consistent with the findings of the CWB's own surveys. Flaman said it. Ritter said it.

<i>The results of the barley plebiscite announced today are not overly surprising. The CWB has been surveying farmers every year for the past 10 years and these results appear to be consistent with our annual findings.</i>

So if the results are consistent with the CWB's surveys, and if we assume the CWB's process was acceptable to the CWB, then let's get on with life and accept that over 60% of farmers surveyed or answering the plebiscite <b>want the choice to sell barley to whomever they like</b>, some of them including the CWB in that mix.

This arguing over the "nuances" of the voting process is boring. Who cares? The results of the plebiscite are the same as the CWB's own survey results. SO WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE THAT THE BALLOTS ARE NUMBERED? IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE HAD ANY IMPACT ON THE RESULTS.

There are many other much more important questions being pondered on this thread. Perhaps Evader can provide the CWB's perspective on these.

[craig]

What am I missing. We have a wheat board director talking about poor democratic process in the barley plebisite while at the same time admitting that the voters list for CWB elections is basically flawed and needs reform. He talks about the fact that the CWB directors were chosen by majority( from a somewhat flawed voters list) and that the board he belongs to should have the ultimate say in what is right and wrong for producers. This from the very same director who has spearheaded a movement to trample the rights of the majority( organic producers ) for the rights of a few. He complains about a gag order but is part of an organization who purposely gags the director who represents me. He is also part of an organization who lobbied the government to jail those who did not share their same view. This same organization feels it has the right to do whatever it pleases regardless of the view of the goverment. Is it any wonder there are producers who do not want to be part of this organization.I understand and respect that there are others who do not share my same views.Because someone does not share my viewpoint does not mean he or she is stupid. What it does mean is that is not likely we will ever be meaningful partners in future endeavours.We should have the right to succeed or fail on our own merit. The CWB should also have the right to succeed or fail on it's own merit.