Ooh Ooh... CWB!

[TOM4CWB]

Parsley;

I see the comments of Chairman Ritter and Director Flaman have gotten them in hot water on CBC this morning!

"...Wheat Board election controversy

Meanwhile, some farmers are demanding an investigation into whether the Wheat Board's directors violated a code of conduct by getting involved in the export dispute."

http://cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2002/11/02/farmers_021102

Very interesting!

[parsley]

Glad to see that the WCWGA has taken umbrage with the CWB's two pretty pink poster boys, Ritter and Flaman!

"Enns says Ritter's comments broke a code of conduct. But the Wheat Board president denies taking sides." is what the report says, TOM4CWB.

Can ANYONE on Agri-ville actually say, with a straight face, that the CWB isn't taking sides?

Ritter and Flaman have been on every line, and in every paper, trying to make it seem as if the farmers ordered the courts to set the trials right at election time so that they could make a jail-fuss.

Every farmer in Western Canada has to ask, "Really, would anyone take the word of these Poster Boys, considering what they promised to get elected?"

Parsley

[Everest]

The statements and activity of the CWB public relations and information department lately have been nothing less than electioneering on behalf of the incumbent candidate directors. The CWB’s own Election Period Code of Conduct first principle requires all CWB personnel to refrain from “Any activity, real or perceived, which detracts from a public perception of integrity and impartiality…..” Given that the major election issue this time is the validity and value of the single desk marketing system, the code would seem to behoove the CWB to stay out of the public debate during the election period at least. Clearly, Mr. Ritter and others have not done that. While they may feel compelled to promote their views, the Code specifically directs them not to.

But perhaps an even more serious infraction stems from item (I) of the code. “A director should not issue or encourage the issuance of material or statements that are inflammatory or defamatory or intended to undermine the reputation of the Corporation, other board members……..”

What does everyone think? Do the comments of Ritter, Halyk, Harder, et al regarding “grandstanding’, ‘publicity stunts’ etc. not qualify as defamatory towards Mr. Chatney, a fellow director? I would think so. Will Ritter, Flaman, and all the rest be forced to cool their heals in the hallway at the next Board meeting in an act of penance for their behavior? I doubt it.

The only conclusion one can draw, is that the CWB and its directors are campaigning on behalf of incumbent directors who support the single desk. I wish Halyk, Hill, Macklin and Nicholson would raise their own money for their campaigns, and quit dipping into the pool accounts by using the CWB public relations department as their campaign office.