Limiting the voting rights of the Canadian Wheat Board’s appointed directors is a bad idea that would make it difficult to recruit top candidates, says one of the board’s elected farmer directors.
“It wouldn’t be acceptable to anyone considering an appointment to not have full voting privileges,” said director Bill Nicholson of Shoal Lake, Man., citing liability issues associated with being a director.
The CWB election review panel recommended allowing only three of the five government-appointed directors to vote on any single issue before the board.
Read Also
University of Saskatchewan experts helping ‘herders’ in Mongolia
The Canadian government and the University of Saskatchewan are part of a $10 million project trying to help Mongolian farmers modernize their practices.
The panel said that would increase the accountability of the board and deal with concerns expressed by some farmers that appointed directors have too much influence.
“There was concern that there was a balance of power in the government’s hands,” said panel member Cecilia Olver.
“Producers didn’t like that and this way the government couldn’t swing the vote through the appointed directors.”
Olver described it as an interim solution, pending approval of another recommendation, that the 10 elected directors take over the job of appointing outside directors.
Several wheat board directors, both elected and appointed, said the proposal to limit voting rights is a bad idea.
“I see it as unworkable and unenforceable and just not part of good corporate governance,” said Dwayne Anderson of Fosston, Sask.
For example, how would it be determined which directors would vote on which issues? And how would director liability be affected?
Ross Keith, an appointed director from Regina, said the intent of the recommendation, which is to ensure farmers have control over their marketing agency, is laudable and has widespread support.
“But I think there has to be a lot better way of achieving that objective,” he said, specifically noting the idea of the 10 elected directors selecting the five appointed directors.
“I think once you do that, the three out of five proposal becomes superfluous.”
He added that while he understands farmers’ concerns about appointed directors, the five elected directors don’t vote as a bloc and take seriously their responsibility to act in the best interests of the corporation.
“I have never once received any instruction, or in fact any communication, from the government,” he said.
Director Ian McCreary said the appointed directors provide valuable expertise to the board, engage in active debate and have different views on different issues.
