Option 2 is "Advice to the Minister"

[wedino]

Coors imported malt barley from Montana to Canada Malt at Calgary last year. Ernie says in this post that price was very good.

[URL="http://u15205752.onlinehome-server.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=4391&mid=26309#M26309"][/URL]

[gregpet]

Well Rod if your position is to agitate on this discussion then I will lose a lot of respect for you. Why not instead answer the questions that were asked of you and stimulate some beneficial discussion. Not very good or very professional as a representative of the CWB. I was hoping you would have taken the high road, at least I could respect that. Is that too much to ask.

[chaffmeister]

Evader: I understand there's been 20 posts since I asked this so maybe it got lost in all the noise - I will repost:

Evader: Clarification, please.

you wrote:
<i>Tell him that you put my name on your membership list so that you could pretend to represent more people than you really do. This may have been more of John's doing than your own.</i>

This implies that you believe that your name was on this membership list. Is this what you are saying?

And if so, what evidence supports this allegation?

When you answer, I will explain why I am interested.

[ridgie]

vader
your a fine one to talk about getting angry at people when your or your position is challenged.
At least I have never wavered from my stand on choice in marketing!!!!!

[wedino]

Vader, I don't have the time & I don't like telling people what to do. Unlike you, I do have a main stream of income - O excuse me, I forgot, your main stream of income is your cwb job!!

[wedino]

Cotten, ""Anybody else here got the balls to say who they are?""

Done, long ago.
Care to answer your own question?

[sask]

vader, you're trying to keep your job, we
understand that. However, you are a bright guy with
lots of ideas. Show some leadership here and try to
lead the BOD in a new direction given that far too
many farmers want change for you to maintain the
status quo. How do you think the status quo can
survive when so many want change? Let's buy your
argument that the plebiscite was biased and should
have had only 2 questions we would still have had
30-40 % unhappy farmers (and I am one of them
and I grow a lot of barley). That's alot! Even if you
have a court case, and you win, how do you deal
with the large number of farmers who want change?
If you could come up with a good plan that brings
about real change then maybe people like me
would subsequently vote for keeping the CWB.

PLEASE answer this?

[Vader]

chaff

It's my word. John Husband phoned me up and asked if he could put my name on the list. I said yes.

Sask,

I have a lot of ideas about what can be done to make barley better. It takes time to work these through committee and for staff to do the work up. It then takes even more for a majority of directors to get on side.

You might be amazed at who votes against such initiatives. It seems that some anti-CWB directors want the CWB to fail and are opposed to moving ahead on good initiatives. I do hope that someone is asking for all the voting records at the board table under access to information.

It reminds me of John Husband telling me that his worst fear was that I might fix the CWB.

I am only one voice.

[Vader]

greg,

It would be very hard for me to say anything here without a whole lot of people getting agitated.

It feels like a tag team wrestling match where I have no partner and "those" guys have a bunch. I really should quite coming here.

[charliep]

Vader

You have an interesting quote: "I have a lot of ideas about what can be done to make barley better. It takes time to work these through committee and for staff to do the work up. It then takes even more for a majority of directors to get on side."

If it were as easy as you say it is and the issue is the new directors (who have been on the job for less than 6 months), why weren't these changes (no ideas what they are) made a long time ago. Perhaps you have struggled with the board of directors all the way along - even in the old days.

I also note you made no reference to industry consultation and getting their input. I would assume that improving supply chain performance would be a number one objective of the contracts so understanding business partners needs is important.

All interesting discussion but a irrelevant right now. An open barley market is coming August 1 with the only decision whether the CWB chooses to participate or not. As noted before, the CWB has made signicant contractual commitments to customers at high prices - you can deny if you like. Your solution is to turn these contracts into pricing opportunities for farmers.

[parsley]

Vader,
This morning OSPG was asked to do an exhaustive search for exact information and these are the results:

The executive director of OSPG's search found:
1. Rod Flaman has never been a member of OSPG
2. Rod Flaman has never submitted an OSPG membership form
3. Rod Flaman has never paid the required membership fee.

4. No donations from Rod Flaman are listed on OSPG financial statements.

5. The only association Rod Flaman has had with OSPG is he is in a press release dated June 15, 2000.

6. I am going to guess that Rod Flaman was not even certified organic at that time, and may not even be today.

7. Rod Flaman circulated many letters, (some of which are very personal thoughts and will remain so as a courtesy)throughout the farm community, during this period of time, and included this particular buyback-problem snapshot.

8. John Husband would not include Rod Flaman's name on a press release without Flaman's permission. It simply would not happen.

9.Because it is 7 years ago, we do not have "permission notes" jotted down when asking "Will you...", but we do have the original fax-copy of the letter from the Canadian Wheat Board answering Rod Flaman's frustration, which Flaman sent us.

Flaman is quoted in the OSPG Press Release and listed as a Contact to answer questions about his buyback problem with the media, and he would have been a willing participant.

10 John Husband has been very particular about the legitimacy of the membership of OSPG, because he has always been aware that a group of 160 organic producers who's sole membership and association purpose is to pursue marketing choice would be attacked. He is exact about his words and wording.

Flaman, as of today, remains a NON-MEMBER of OSPG.

I will be gone for the day, Vader, but I can answer any more of your questions tonight.

Parsley

[Vader]

Parsley, such a strong defence. You are obviously the caretaker of all things OSPG.

I don't care what records OSPG keeps. My view is that OSPG is largely a figment of your and John's imagination. I am not aware of any useful function that it performs other than your own person anti-CWB lobby vehicle. I stand by what I said about Johns offer to make me a member of OSPG to inflate its membership. It was a very long time ago and I did not take notes. It was a brief telephone converstaion. You can call me a liar if you like.

[parsley]

Good Morning Vader,

1. Ken Reischke, an organic farmer from GlenEwen, Saskatchewan, not I, has always managed the financial and membership records of OSPG since it's inception in 1996, so he deserves the credit for this dedicated work and purpose-committment.

Both Ken and his wife spent time yesterday morning researching the archival records and bank statements in order to verify whether or not Rod Flaman is currently, or ever was a member, which is the only way to address Flaman's accusation that he was falsely-listed as a member.

Flaman never was.

Surely this will put to rest this kind of intimidation tactic

2. Useful function? OSPG is a voluntary self-funded organization wanting marketing choice, with over 160 organic farmer-members from all the Designated Area region.

Please read that again.

It is an anti-CWB lobby vehicle! Each organic member paid a membership fee, signed their name on the application form , and joined OSPG.

Each one of them understand a)the CWB do not want our unified voice being voiced and b)will try to alienate each one of us from the other.

OSPG was formed in 1996, and has been active for 11 years. OSPG has appeared before the Standing Committee of Agriculture, met with the CWB Directors, made a presentation to the Western grain Marketing Panel etc. I am a member of OSPG, but I have not been the spokesperson or representative at any of these appearances, so once again, you are accusatory, but misinformed.

3. Other than being contacted for one press release concerning buybacks, Mr. Flaman has had no other association with OSPG.

As for credibility, I will leave it to Agri-villers to pass their own judgement about both the credibility and consistency of the positions Mr. Flaman adopts, as well as the professionlism with which he articulates his positions.

The credibility of the CWB with regards to the handling of organics is bankrupt.

4. The CWB should be interested in producer-association views and input, and instead of trying to discredit them,and trying to alienate them, and trying to intimidate them, the CWB should be encouraging producers to express improvements, and initate solutions via their groups.

According to both Mr. Korneychuck and Mr, Flaman, both of them stated very clearly, that THE BUYBACKS ARE A PROBLEM.

OSPG identified buybacks as the problem in 1996, and they remain as the CWB's most acute problem today, which reflects the problem-solving ability and effectiveness of the elected Directors during the past decade.

5. What is the Result?

Every producer has a family member,a friend, a neighbor, who inevitably observes three tactics the CWB always resorts to and employs:
1)humiliation,
2)alienation,
3)intimidation,

It only results in turning the CWB's long-standing support AWAY from the Board.

The movement away from 'supporting the Board' to condemning the Board' will continue to landslide if the CWB does not respond to farmers.

Directors elected to represent farmers would be wise to respect farmers.


If you have any futher questions, Vader, I will be home tonight.

Parsley