Wheat Growers and weighted voting?

[chuckChuck]

Did the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association (WCWGA) change their voting system at their recent annual meeting? I was wondering, since many of their members are in favour of weighted voting when it comes to the CWB, that perhaps they would lead the way and give their 20,000 acre members twice as many votes as their 10,000 acre members when voting on WCWGA matters.

[RedRiverMB]

I do believe the difference between the WCWGA and CWB is the WCWGA is truly farmer run (look at its Board), 100% accountable to its membership (shareholders), must earn its membership, books are open to its shareholders (members), listens to farmers and is a leader, supports the freedom of choice for all farmers including those who wish to remain in a pool marketing system by choice, and has a real voters list comprised or genuine members.
Now lets look at CWB, shared governance between farmer and Federal Government, not accountable to its membership (either farmer or Government as Former Chair Ken Ritter said in committee meetings), does not earn its membership (it is forced by dictatorship), books are not open to membership (but Bill Toews can see them and we should trust him),doesn't listen to farmers (especially the majority, according to its own polls), does not support the freedom of choice, and has a voters list that does not reflect its organization, members, but instead an ideology.
Now wake up chuck and brace yourself, because reality is coming and it has a few friends..... Freedom, Choice and Accountability.

[RedRiverMB]

I do believe the difference between the WCWGA and CWB is the WCWGA is truly farmer run (look at its Board), 100% accountable to its membership (shareholders), must earn its membership, books are open to its shareholders (members), listens to farmers and is a leader, supports the freedom of choice for all farmers including those who wish to remain in a pool marketing system by choice, and has a real voters list comprised or genuine members.
Now lets look at CWB, shared governance between farmer and Federal Government, not accountable to its membership (either farmer or Government as Former Chair Ken Ritter said in committee meetings), does not earn its membership (it is forced by dictatorship), books are not open to membership (but Bill Toews can see them and we should trust him),doesn't listen to farmers (especially the majority, according to its own polls), does not support the freedom of choice, and has a voters list that does not reflect its organization, members, but instead an ideology.
Now wake up chuck and brace yourself, because reality is coming and it has a few friends..... Freedom, Choice and Accountability.

[charliep]

Maybe chuckChuck is suggesting that the CWB should be a voluntary organization based on a paid membership with all the rules clearly laid out prior to a farm manager making the business decision to pay the membership fee to participate.

[Fransisco]

The wheatgrowers are also completely voluntary. They don't go into a big pout and throw thier wheat and barley growing neighbors in jail if they don't want to play with them.

[vvalk]

Chuck. What if all the crops you grow were under the great marketing powerhouse we call the CWB. Then you could only sell 60% to 80% of all the crops you grow. How could you run your business? How would you pay your bills and manage cash flow? Where would you store next years crop? What would your bank say? They wouldn't lend you any money thats for sure. Why is it acceptable for the CWB to force you to hold onto 40% of your crop and store it for free? ( with all the risks, storage costs and time value of money) You can't even buy it back at any cost. You would not accept that for all your crops so why the board grains? Can any CWB supporter out there explain to me how this is acceptable to them?

[jensend]

now chuckchuck that wasn't very nice to throw thier principles back at them. lol.

[Fransisco]

It's much better to have no principles other than the single desk at all costs, is that it jensend?

[jensend]

no but i think we would all agree one must be consistent in one's principles.

[Fransisco]

And the principles governing a voluntary farm organization which doesn't sell anything on it's members behalf should be identical to a mandatory government bureaucracy that sells everything a farmer grows?

Apple meet orange.

[Fransisco]

Since we're speaking of consistency and principles.

If the wheat board is such a big believer in being run on the principle of one man one vote why did it ignore the results of the barley plebisite? And why does it ignore ten years worth of farmer survey's calling for voluntary participation?

Like I said before there is only one principle, the single desk at all costs. In the above two examples they said democracy be damned, the chains stay on!

[Fransisco]

BTW- since we're also talking about the principle of democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Modern democracies don't use the ballot box to take away the rights of others. The wheat boards version of democracy does.

Again, consistent, principled arguments go under the bus when they don't favour the single desk.

[Kodiak]

Chuckchuck,

Before I can comment on the CWB voting structure, I need to understand something. Is the CWB a governing and policy making organization, or is it a commercial entity?

[Fransisco]

Further to that could you please explain how the wheatgrowers are a comercial entity?

[furrowtickler]

jensend, the WCWGA, does not have any direct impact on the day to day finaces of the farm. And yes I beleive they should have weighted votes as well. BTW, it does not matter how many acres you have it is the production you get from those acres.