FAIR and open elections are crucial to public confidence in any
democratic organization.
Yet right to privacy issues are not matters to be cast haphazardly
aside.
This debate has become a key election issue for two commodity
organizations on the Prairies.
Candidates for positions on the board of directors at the Manitoba
Canola Growers Association and the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers have
complained about rejection of their requests to see the voters’ lists.
The Manitoba group has since been ordered by a court to release its
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
voters’ list to the public, but the controversy persists.
These groups must find ways to address concerns about fair elections or
they could find themselves irrelevant to the members they are set up to
serve.
In the Manitoba case, a candidate for a director’s post insisted the
organization’s list was inflated and outdated. The Manitoba provincial
court ordered the organization to revise its list and make it publicly
available. The revised list reduced the number of potential voters by
20,000.
The association has since announced plans to institute a new bylaw that
will remove the names of any grower who has not paid a checkoff on
canola for two years.
Those changes come too late for the vote now under way, but the judge’s
message was clear: an open election is crucial to any democratic
organization.
The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers face different provincial laws, so the
Manitoba case forms no legal precedent. But there are lessons to learn.
One candidate for the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers board wants to contact
voters to explain his intentions. The request is a natural one and
vital to healthy debate.
As well, there were requests that the list be public so the voters
could be verified.
But the picture becomes fuzzy for the pulse growers because the group’s
members voted earlier this year to keep names confidential.
The organization must now try to find middle ground between the
members’ right to privacy and public assurance of fair elections.
Without a court ruling in Saskatchewan, there may still be enough
ground in the middle to address both concerns.
The group should consider hiring an independent consulting firm to
audit its voters’ list to ensure only those who deserve a ballot get
one. It may be the only way to guarantee a fair election, while also
soothing public concerns, short of releasing the voters’ list.
Audit costs vary according to the size of the job, but what price can
an organization place on public confidence?
Perhaps by also offering to send candidate literature to voting members
for a fee, the associations can provide candidates more access to
voters while still keeping the names confidential.
There may be no way to fully satisfy all parties, but these steps offer
a compromise.
