CWB Director Henry Vos -Why we need CWB election reform

[parsley]

1.Then, don't give the process legitimacy.

2. Hammer away on their weak spot.When women wanted a vote, they didn't care about the age of the men. or their location. Or their size.

3. I'm sure you have "talked to" a few cowboys. And I've "talked to" a few organic farmers. Do you also want me to "draw" a few conclusions?

4. Don't become what you despise....rejection of farmer participation via more regulation. Pars

5. Don't expect to run over a snake once and kill it. You have to run over it again and again.

6. Elimination of any class of farmers to be able to participate is NOT what business is about. IF you believe in free enterprise. Pars

[Fransisco]

Since when are director elections based upon or about free enterprise?

BTW-When do the rest of us "farmers" get to vote on supply management?

[parsley]

now sicso, you know well enough what I support by now, don't you?


Once we have marketing choice, and I have my own export license, I could care less if the voluntary participants in the revised CWB chose to limit blondes from pooling, or allow participation to only bulimiacs. It becomes a voluntary organization.

Under the present mandatory CWB, everyone hneeds to be allowed access.

"Since when are director elections based upon or about free enterprise?" They are not.

"BTW-When do the rest of us "farmers" get to vote on supply management?"

You didn't.

Nor did I imply either supposition.

As you well know.lol

Pars

[Fransisco]

"Under the present mandatory CWB, everyone needs to be allowed access."

Sure, and right now some(those with the least skin in the game) have more 'access' than others. This is one of the problems. And the likelihood of anyone getting the kind of export licenses you're talking about is a lot less likely as long as it stays that way.

There are all sorts of ways of voting, by tonne, by acre, by permit book, by person, by a very broad and all encompasing definition of farmer(a couple of tomato plants beside the house, LOL).

Why do we have, or would even want to have one, that so heavily weights things in the direction of people who for all intents and purposes make their living on things other than selling wheat or barley?

[parsley]

Study on weights
Study on lengths
Study on profiles
Study on 0utput
Study on input
Study on putput
Study on putting out
Study demographics Sask permit holders
Alberta
Manitoba
Nunavit
Haiti
Sierra Leone

Study on two tomato plants
Study on three tomato plants
Study on 4 tomato plants
Study on 5 tomato plants
Study on 6 tomato plants
Study on 7 tomato plants
Study on 8 tomato plants
Get the picture?

Kinda lika, ah, Gray kinda studies
Kinda like a Cash Plus study

uh huh

Who likes this more.. you or the Board?

lol Pars

[pilpilsner]

I dont know what you guys are getting at,i was here years before cotton.He does coppycat alot of my thoughts though.

Funny how a regular CONTRIBUTOR got the boot for pickin a fight with a pop up money solisitor,but i suspect the powers that be were trying to get even for pryer confrontations.

C'est la vie

[tipsy]

This isn't a startling revelation.I think barley and wheat grower organizations have been saying,and suspected much the same for a number of years now. Iwonder how many of the 18000 producers that produce 80%of the grain are voting in cwb elections?My guess would be, probably not that many,maybe 10-20%.The really disappointing part of cwb elections for me,is that there are absolutely no election reforms coming in the near future.I may be wrong and I hope I am but with the moronic advice and leadership of the present p.c. party,I don't expect any cwb election reforms any time soon.

[Fransisco]

“The Wheat Board are experts at changing focus.”

Somehow, I don’t think they’re real keen on the focus Henry has put on their lack of a mandate from wheat and barley growers. Call it a hunch.

“Hard to ask that young farmer for his vote and get it when he is "excluded" from the list of REAL farmers you've established, and particularly the young ones with two quarters of land, and a job in the oil patch.”

Let’s add in the schoolteacher with the 200 acres handed down from their grandfather, the lawyer who bought a quarter section for a tax write-off, the plumber who bought 100 acres so he can shoot ducks on it every fall and all of the absentee landlords from Toronto and Victoria. By all means, the more the merrier! These are exactly the type of people I want deciding on how or even if, I should be able to sell my crop.

“Maybe the discussion has to right back to leadership. Leadership doesn't bloody decide for me. And don't ever, ever, ever forget it.”

Ahh, if only that were true, but unfortunately right now wheat board ‘leaders’, the chosen few, get to decide for all of us. And they keep deciding that they’ll be the only ones doing the deciding, thank you very much.

“Hammer away on their weak spot.”

The board has numerous weak spots, why should we limit ourselves to just one? (There’s nothing wrong with walking and chewing gum at the same time.) And why should director elections not be one of the focus points?

“When women wanted a vote, they didn't care about the age of the men. or their location. Or their size.”

Would it have changed anything if they had? In this case changing the vote to better reflect those whose livelihoods depend on commercial grain production would make a big difference.

“Don't become what you despise....rejection of farmer participation via more regulation.”

Good grief. In all elections there are rules and there are people disallowed from participating. You have to be 18 for federal elections and you have to be a Canadian Citizen, people in Ontario don’t elect the premier of BC etc. And why 18? Why not 16 or 21? People who have shares in Chrysler don’t get to vote for the CEO of GM. And people with 20 shares in whatever company don’t get the same number of votes as people with 1000 shares.
We’re not talking about more rules or regulation here, just different ones, better ones.

“Elimination of any class of farmers to be able to participate is NOT what business is about. IF you believe in free enterprise.”

Participation in what exactly? I didn’t realize insisting that every Tom, Dick and Harry should vote on how you sell the product of your effort was a litmus test on ones belief in free enterprise.

“Under the present mandatory CWB, everyone needs to be allowed access.”

Access to what? A vote? The same way everyone has access to low cost buybacks, and the seed and feed mill exemptions? And what constitutes ‘everyone’? I don’t see the guys in Ontario and Quebec who depend on the Board for their free export licenses getting a say in who the directors are.

As to the endless studies and debate. We’re not talking about how many CWB directors can dance on the head of a pin or how far east they have to travel before they’re heading west. A minimum threshold and a weighted ballot are what’s needed to make things fair.

All of the major political parties use some form of weighted ballot system to elect their leaders, the NDP weight things towards union boss’s, the conservatives used the weighted district election model to elect both Joe Clark and Stephen Harper, and it looks like the liberals are going to be doing something similar with their new weighted one member one vote system if they ever decide to move beyond the coronation of leaders. And like I said before publicly traded companies divvies up votes based on how many shares you own in the company.

My starting point is always it’s my grain and nobody should get a vote on how I sell it. I think we still need to push that point. Having said that, that’s not how things work right now, right now we have elections and as long as we do they need to be done in a fair manner, the current system is already weighted but in a manner that is far from fair.

Having said all that I’m afraid tipsy is right, even thinking about rearranging the deck chairs on the SS CWB Titanic gets the current crop of conservatives shaking like a leaf.

[stubblejumper]

Nice rant to bad it's the same old BS.

[parsley]

One of the problem about participation, is that under the present legislation, the Wheat Board is obligated to buy all wheat and barley OFFERRED to the Board by any Designated Area producer.

And yes, a twenty prong approach is good. But the constant is the licensing issue because it is the one that transforms the Board completely without having to have legislatvie changes. As you have noted, Parliamentarians are reluctant brides.

And Frisco, I would encourage every young fellow inheriting a quarter section of land from his grandfather to seed it, to tend it as a farmer, to get him involved in the producer associations, and yes, get a vote,and to feel part of them, to encourage him/her to be involved. To feel "with it" sitting beside a ten thousand acre farmer, who I would even suggest, take time to mentor him. (Now that should get you screaming)

Because the young are the hope, not more of the same. They are the new blood, and it seeks change.

Leadership will encourage those young people that have a profession and a farm on the side. Yes they will. Managing a farm from a basement office is not unheard of, did you know? LOL

Henry Voss is stirring:

</em><strong>[URL="http://parsleysnotebook.blogspot.com/2009/05/cwb-director-henry-vos-manga-aro.html"](Voss Taking Leadership Role )[/URL]</strong>
<blockquote></blockquote>

[Fransisco]

So stubble you believe that the numbers sitting director Vos got from the boys and girls at the board are BS. Is that correct?

[stubblejumper]

I beleive almost everything coming out of your mouth to be BS