Board Solidarity – bah and humbug!
Our Director of District Three, Larry Hill’s comments as quoted in the Dec. 24 Western Producer, “Views of new CWB directors won’t be muzzled,” give me cause for concern.
Although I supported Hill as a pro-Wheat Board candidate, I am troubled that he is advocating the equivalency of “cabinet solidarity” as the modus operandi for the new board.
Decisions would be presented to his electorate (us) sans minority opinion no matter how contrary that opinion. I should have demanded specifics from Hill, during his campaign, as to how he thought the board would function. It would have been a service to him because I think he has missed significant elements of others’ perceived need for that election, that is, the main complaints of the detractors of the CWB, “the lack of openness,” “no full disclosure,” and “secrecy of the CWB.” For the sake of the Wheat Board, we don’t need to give those largely false claims stronger legs.
Read Also
Farmer ownership cannot be seen as a guarantee for success
It’s a powerful movement when people band together to form co-ops and credit unions, but member ownership is no guarantee of success.
Hill’s substantial experience as a member of our former local Credit Union’s Board of Directors (with the same MO as he is now advocating) saw the sudden collapse of our co-operative institution. The membership believed we had a strong and vibrant CU, until the whole mess was dumped in our lap – with Board Solidarity of course!
One of the major problems of the CWB Districts is that they are just so damned big. How does a Director report to his constituents? I don’t know, but in asking that question, a major fact becomes evident.
Unlike other public enterprises, whether they be Credit Unions or the Cabinets of federal or provincial governments, Hill and other CWB Directors are there because they were elected by their District constituents! Not elected “at large” as in the Credit Union; not re-elected from elected delegates as in the Saskatchewan Wheat Corporation (formerly SW Pool); or appointed by the premier or prime minister as in senior government. Remember Goodale’s selling point? A Canadian Wheat Board with farmer representation!
I never once thought I would take solace from the likes of James Chatenay. But when he claims he and his dual marketing pal are the official opposition in the new CWB, and that he will carry Board discussion back to his District, I am relieved.
There is now at least a possibility of cracking the wall Hill would construct. (I must try to get on Chatenay’s mailing list!)
When Greg Arason, the government-appointed CEO, says the directors should be able to respond to their constituents with specific information he is absolutely right, although that puts the onus on the farmer constituent to ask the right kind of questions.
It may be that those of us in District Three will suffer a CWB-internal-workings-news-blackout under the self-imposed blanket of security brought down by Larry Hill.
I would strongly suggest Mr. Hill reconsider his function. Failing that, Mr. Hill had better lay plans for his non-board status three years hence.
– Edwin Wallace,
Pennant, Sask.
