ABP Zone Meetings

[tower]

Finally got the ABP annual report and the itinerary of Zone Meetings.

[wd40]

I hear that the GM resigned. So their probably looking for another yes man.

[wd40]

Producers have the opportunity to vote for the delegates of their choice at the Zone meetings, so hopefully these meetings will be well attended.

[wd40]

WD40 - Resigned is not exactly the word.
A better explaination was made by someone in the office;
"Kind of like letting a coach go after a loosing season."

Yes a new person will be hired in time.

[rusty1]

rp - kinda long season eh. good news non the less!

[cowman]

Well obviously I don't know the reason Sargeant was let go but usually when things are screwed up someone has to go and often that is the employee...seldom the people who are elected!
The tide turns and all the politicians try to get in front of the parade sort of thing? Got to have an excuse for doing nothing the last year or so, right? So what are you going to do?...fire the guy who was following your directions...usually works fairly well!
I suspect Gary Sargeant is that fall guy?

[cowman]

cowman, how many producers do you think actually research the candidates and find out what qualifications they have before voting ? I have attended many zone meetings and seem the same few faces of producers in attendance. I think that if there are compliants and concerns about ABP, the onus is on producers to get out and vote for candidates they feel can do a better job.

[farmers_son]

I believe the reason there was a change of General Manager is because the ABP is a very different organization than it was even 5 years ago. The feedlot sector has basically taken over the ABP and Mr. Sargent did not have the support of the mega feedlots. A new GM will be hired who more closely listens to the wishes of the mega feedlots, to the detriment of the average cow calf producer.

Of even more concern at these fall meetings is a vote that will be put before those in attendance to allow the packers 2 seats on the board of directors under the guise of "Industry Council". Although the spin that will be put on the vote is to bring in the Auction Marts and order buyers, Industry Council is controlled directly and indirectly by the packers. If the push to have the packers sitting at the ABP board table is successful, the influence of the cow calf sector will be even further eroded. To the point where the cow calf guy is paying the checkoff but "Industry" is controlling the organization.

Whoever the new General Manager is, the board will make sure he/she is more supportive of the "Industry" than Gary Sargent was who did support the cow calf producer more than most know.

[grassfarmer]

Farmersson, Is it the case that these two packer reps will be elected in the fall meetings? I know when this was aired in the spring some of us were very unhappy at that prospect. I talked at length to my ABP rep about it but she informed me after the July(?) meeting in Edmonton that these people were no longer being elected to the ABP. Was I lied to or this still really a live issue? please let me know as we might be able to encourage a better turnout at meetings if we point out that Cargill and Tyson are going to be even more in control of our industry as well as our industry organisation if we stand back.

[farmers_son]

No your ABP rep did not lie to you.

This is what is going to happen. At this falls meetings, the ABP will ask you to vote on allowing two "industry council" reps to sit on the ABP board of directors. Actually, the majority of delegates have already voted and approved this change (note however that not all delegates did, some still represent the cow calf producer and voted against it but they are now a minority). All the ABP needs is this vote to pass at one fall meeting anywhere in the province (even if it was voted down at 30 other meetings) and then it can be brought forward to the Annual General Meeting where it will be rubber stamped by the feedlot delegates and directors of the ABP who now form a majority within the ABP.

This proposed change came from the board of directors who are going to see it happen one way or another. The talk is Shirley McClellan wants to see it happen and I certainly believe Ralph wants to see the packers represented on the Alberta Beef Producers.

Now don't be fooled for a minute. The spin will be that these two "industry council" reps will be an auction market rep and an order buyer rep but there is no doubt that the real purpose of this change is to allow the packers onto the ABP board to complete the transition from a producer organization to an industry organization. The door will be wide open for the packers to tap the auction rep and order buyer on the shoulder and say move aside we are sitting here now.

When your ABP rep says these people are not going to elected to the ABP she is right. Once the change is in place producers will not vote for or have any input regarding "industry council" reps. "Industry council" which is the packers, auctions, order buyers will simple appoint 2 people to the ABP board. Once the packers are on the board of ABP they can move from there to the board of CCA which is where they really want to be. Then the packers will control or have influence on both the Canada Meat Council and the Canadian Cattleman’s Association. No more worries about the federal government not siding with the packers positions from now on.

If you closely follow the CCA and their statements, you will have noticed the CCA never says anything bad about the packers knowing full well within the next few months two packer reps could be sitting on their board.

If you think this couldn't happen, you truly underestimate the producer apathy that is out there. The same old bunch will come to the meetings and stick their hands up for everything that is put before them. The rest of the producers will sit at home and watch the tube and then gripe about the ABP and why it doesn’t represent their interests. And it is no longer enough for producers to just come to the fall meetings, they need to go the AGM to make sure their delegates don’t say one thing at home and vote another way in Edmonton.

[farmers_son]

If producers feel strongly about this issue why aren't they putting forward a resolution at each of the zone meetings? This is one way to get concerns to the floor of the ABP AGM, and may have a lot more influence than sitting and complaining about things after they happen.

[BFW]

Could someone please explain to me how the "mega" feedlots with 3-4 seats on a board of directors of 19 or 20 have somehow taken control of the ABP? Clearly your statements Farmers Son have no basis in fact. If you think some things are now happening differently at he ABP board and delegate level it is because a broader industry perspective is now available to help aid in the decision making process and our industry will be much better served by this structure both now and in the future. I can't believe some of these comments, it's no wonder our organizations are less effective than we would like them to be!

[BFW]

I know some of the folks who represent the Feeder side of the industry as delegates to ABP, and they are hard working fellows trying to make a living just like the rest of us.

[cowman]

emerald: Well I don't attend or support the ABP, because simply I don't believe they should exist. I am forced into paying the checkoff to an organization that I believe works against my best interests. Did my best to get rid of them back when they had a vote on keeping the checkoff mandatory, but obviously that didn't work out and slightly more than 6% of producers decided to keep the checkoff...in other words about 12% of eligible producers botherd to vote!
What can you do? Nothing will change and the apathy will always be there. I guess a person just has to accept the fact you have aquired another permanent parasite in your life and learn to live with it?

[farmers_son]

The ABP is not another parasite that we just learn to live with and ignore. The ABP represents us whether we like how they do it or not. As such the policies and directions of the ABP do impact each and every beef producer. The ABP depends upon producer apathy to allow them to pursue policies and directions that they know do not represent the views of producers. By not participating producers are allowing control of their industry to be taken over by others who do not have their interests first and foremost.

It would be naive to believe that a few cannot influence the many. In the last year the Alberta Cattle Feeders (which for all intents and purposes is the mega feedlots) have gained special status within the Alberta Beef Producers. As a special interest group they have guaranteed delegate positions within each zone and guaranteed seats on the board of directors. Working as a cohesive group within the larger group they are influential far beyond what their numbers might suggest.

It is the same with the packers on the Board of Directors. If you are arguing what difference would 2 packer representatives make on a board of 19 or 20, it actually can make a very real difference. Certainly the potential exists for the 2 packer reps to sit on the executive committee as chair and finance chairman and directly control the direction of the ABP. More likely they would exert their influence in other ways as they have a direct economic stranglehold on many of the individual directors.

Utlimately the checkoff is paid by the cow calf operator. The feedlots just deduct the checkoff from what they pay for weaned calves and when it comes to the packers we don’t want to even think about what they are deducting from what they are paying. Producer apathy can be counted upon again this fall as producers sit at home and watch control of the ABP slip away from them as they pay higher and higher checkoffs with less and less control over how that money is directed.

BFW: the broader "industry" perspective you speak of is the feedlot and packers perspective. Just witness how much of the Government programs/handouts that were developed in conjunction with the ABP have gone to the feedlots and the packers and how little has gone to the cow calf operator and you will see what the "broader perspective" does. We are talking about Billions of dollars going to a handful of feedlots operators and packers. I have read these threads enough to know you represent the feedlots. Well I am a feedlot operator too but I am not a friend of the packers and the mega feedlots they are in bed with. They don’t represent me. I choose to not be a member of the Alberta Cattle Feeders and there are lots of smaller feedlots who want no part of the politics of the mega feedlots.

To reiterate my point, the ABP is proposing a change at this falls meetings to allow "industry reps" 2 seats at the Board of the ABP. These two seats will go to the packers or be controlled by the packers indirectly. Once the change is approved producers will have no opportunity to influence who is sitting in these two chairs. I believe this is outrageous given the actions of the packers during the BSE crisis. It may offer a broader perspective but it won’t be the producers perspective. Have we forgotten it is the producer who is paying the bills and is at the end of the rope when every one else passes their costs down the line?