CWB, Election Results

[les]

IAmCanola...So you are saying we should just shut up and do as we are told to do??

[TOM4CWB]

IamCanola;

Question;

Would you say charging $30-45/t buyback on feed wheat and barley, for a license any one else outside the "designated area" in Canada gets free...

when the CWB Act does not differentiate between we farmers inside the "designated area" and those Canadians outside...

That your enforcment and approval of CWB action... isn't it inherent in your statement?

Are you telling me this CWB buyback policy that stops trade, stops value adding, stops the creation of prosperity... and that when you personally have a share in these CWB proceeds... yourself... or worse yet just stop those who need an opportunity to work hard...

Dead in their tracks...


Dead and prevented the opportunity to create prosperity for their own community and family...

Isn't your own statement rather pompus in the first place... when the truth and obvious effect of CWB "Single Desk" policies are studied?

[charliep]

Just a couple of my thoughts.

1) The optics of the controller of the election lists putting out a press release celebrating the election of CWB candidates. See http://www.cwb.ca/en/news/releases/2004/123004.jsp. This would be like elections Canada celebrating a Liberal victory in a federal election. Major change is needed here. This is not criticizing Meyers Norris Penny as they are simply (from what I understand) administrators of the process and have nothing to do with the election list.

2) Perhaps some of this comes to a continuous mudding of the waters between board of director opinion/policy and operations responsibility/accountability to pool participants as well as impartiality in providing services. Major reform of CWB governance is needed.

3) For both sides of this issue, where is the 60 what ever percent not voters thinking at. Do they not care? Are they happy with the status quo? Are they so fed up and disenfranchised with the current system they think the election is a waste of time? If they are forced to come off the fence, which side will they go to?

4) Putting this into the context of change being caused by outside forces and impact on CWB three pillars. Government guarantees will be gone shortly. With producer pricing options, the whole concepts around price pooling have changed. The only pillar that remain almost untouched is single desk selling. With this election, this last pillar will be the lifeboat the current board of directors will hang onto.

[IAmCanola]

Question: Does spirited debate mean shutup and do what you are told?

Charlie, would you please explain moderator's role, as you see it in your position. Thank you.

[charliep]

As a moderator, I have the role of ensuring keeping this thread going. I also have a role of trying to include marketing topics other than straight CWB policy.

I also have a role within AAFRD as well as personal opinion. I feel free both in the organization and myself to express my opinion.

I realize things get heated in here on occasion but I have to ask what aspects of these threads prevents free speech. My goal is just the opposite. That does not prevent asking tough questions or guaranteeing people won't get mad at what has been said.

[les]

IAmCanola.......When I asked should we shut up and do as we are told I meant do as we are told by the CWB. I was not taking a stab at you.So what didnt you like about my comment?

[TOM4CWB]

Charlie;

You asked,

"3) For both sides of this issue, where is the 60 what ever percent not voters thinking at. Do they not care? Are they happy with the status quo? Are they so fed up and disenfranchised with the current system they think the election is a waste of time? If they are forced to come off the fence, which side will they go to?"

My answer:

Deceit, Intimidation, Corruption, Greed, and Fear are the trademarks of the "Single Desk".

Therefore many Farmers believe the "Single Desk" is from the pit of hell, and refuse to get involved in the election process.

THE latest Dec. 30, 2004 Speaking notes "2004 Director Election Results" the CWB's management, with obviuos approval of Directors Measner and Ritter, put out, prove this point beyond the shadow of a doubt to be.

Therefore clearly many Farmers have known for some time that the "Single Desk" is from the pit of hell, and refuse to get involved in the election process.

Total votes cast are half in our districts of what they were in 2000.

Clearly RICK Strankman and I knew it was near impossible for us to win, simply because the majority of our supporters either refuse to vote, or could not vote, in this corrupt election. Chairman Ritter made sure he got virtually 100% of those who would support the single desk, including saying he would represent those who need "Marketing Choice" if they would support him.

Chairman RItter and his team of heavy handed campaigners even phoned a number of my nominators... and scolded them for voting.

Yet the best Chairman Ritter could get was 25% of District 4's support. meanwhile Chairman Ritter/Measner spin this into virtual total support for the "Single Desk".

THis while CWB Management fails to admit 100% support, in District 2, of all District 2 voters, for a Choice outside the "single desk" by acclaiming Mr. Chatenay.

Obviously by far the majority of producers supported a choice Candidate in this election.

Hope this clears some things up for you Charlie.

[Vader]

I gather from the Statistics Canada Website that there are approximately 42,900 grain farmers in Saskatchewan, 24,900 in Alberta and 11,900 in Manitoba. That totals 89,700. If these grain farmers are divided evenly between the 10 CWB Districts that would mean less than 9,000 grain farmers per district.

The CWB sent out over 12,000 ballots in Districts 4, 6, and 8. So right off the bat that says that you would only expect 75% of the ballots to be reaching interested parties. Then you take off the absentee landlords, semi-retired farmers, and those who specialize in non-board crops and the ballots are again reaching a large group of individuals who are unlikely to participate in the elections process. Then simply consider those who were busy with harvest and neglected to mail their ballot by the deadline and there you have what I would submit is the explanation for the 30% voter turnout. I would submit that a 30% voter turnout is ample representation of those farmers who have a legitimate interest in farming and the future of the CWB.

Those farmers by the way favored you Tom with only 10.3% of their ballots in your district. Tom, do you believe in Democracy? You obviously represent a contingent of individuals who voted for you, but you lost, big time.

In District 8 where there was a five way race and plenty of vote splitting the most radical candidate, Art Mainil, who tried to overturn the entire CWB election garnered almost 15% of the first round votes, nearly one and a half times what you got. The contingent of people who subscribe to your idealogy is indeed very, very small.

I have challenged you over and over again to be constructive but for the most part you resort to name calling and derogatory comments. Who here is the fear monger?

[TOM4CWB]

Vader;

I do not consider voting to decide the method and amount of who my neighbour will sell their grain to, or for how much... an issue of democracy.

This is an issue of private property rights... an issue of respect for my neighbour and his right to the sell, and choose the service provider involved in, the grain he produced on his farm.

THis is an issue of coveting my neighbour's property to get some of it for my self.

Greed.

No different than Federated Co-op members voting to stop me from buying fuel, groceries, and farm supplies... from a supplier other than the Co-op.

Logic...

Because All Co-op members (then including me) could buy cheaper supplies and services in larger volumes...

if everthing was purchased through the Co-op...

Therefore CWB "Single Desk logic" is we must all get our supplies and services through the Co-op "Single Desk".

Simply, I do not have the democratic right to make this decision.

Common law maximums directly applicable:

1. That for every wrong there is a remedy;

I do not have the right to exercise control over property I have no rightful ownership in.

2. The end does not justify the means;

Saying will get more for my grain, with less work, is obviously wrong; because I morally do not have the right to confiscate my neighbour's grain and hard work, give him less, so I can get more. Simply put; THe CWB Buy-back.

3. Fundamental principals cannot be set aside to meet the demands of convenience or to prevent apparent hardship in a particular case;

I cannot obviously argue that my neighbour deserves less... because he has better land, is more gifted in selling his grain, or because he can work harder than I can.

4. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law;

Just because the CWB believes they are right in confiscating my grain, and many of my neighbour's grain... does not mean what the CWB is doing is legal and ethically correct.

5. Two wrongs do not make a right;
Obviously the CWB is breaking it's own bylaws, thus the CWB Statute... by chosing the "single desk" as the only way farmers may sell their grain and buy the services respecting this transaction.

For the CWB to use fear, intimidation,covetiousness, jelousy, and greed to acheive the "Single Desk" certainly qualifies the "single desk" itself... as being from the Pit of Hell.

And Vader every CWB Director who supports the "single desk" today is breaching the majority of the Code of Conduct and COnflict of Interest Guidelines bylaws you swore to fulfill.

One can enlarge the rights of the people, however they cannot be taken away without their informed consent.

Isn't it about time the CWB admitted the truth of what the "single desk" really is? THEFT.

[les]

Right on Tom..