You can read the new directors were elected within the framework of a rigorous, independent process that allowed candidates to make their case for consideration and demonstrate their skill set to voters.
Whether it is remotely relevant or not is another story and I have several issues with the statement.
For a start, I don’t want any rigorous, independent process telling me how I should vote. I’m quite capable of making my own mind up, as are farmers.
Further, I didn’t think much of the process and the skills were relevant.
I know two of the people who were nominated for board positions at Farmlands and my opinion is at considerable variance with the rigorous process employed by the co-op.
I also found it largely irrelevant and a means for the board to perpetuate its culture rather than allow a full and independent election.
So my advice to Farmlands would be not to waste your money by lining consultants’ pockets to give me largely irrelevant cliches when I’m capable of forming an opinion without them.
What I found interesting is that New Zealand’s richest person, Graeme Hart, left school at 16 to become a truck driver then a panel beater. Another rich lister, Eric Watson, was a butcher’s apprentice before working at Whitcoulls.
One could respectfully suggest that though being incredibly successful there’s no guarantee they’d pass a series of pointless academic interviews.
Further, I can’t see them queuing to demonstrate their skill set to voters.
To their credit Fonterra shareholders didn’t take much notice of what the company system told them and largely disregarded it.
Of the three who put themselves through the process only one was successful, which tells you something.
As I’ve written on previous occasions, Fonterra shareholders are fully capable of making their own decisions.
An issue or problem is that out of five candidates only two, Peter McBride and Leonie Guiney, received the required 50% support.
At the time we were told those not gaining 50% were ineligible to stand in subsequent elections.
Now the Shareholders Council is going back to farmers wanting them to vote again on the unsuccessful candidates.
Sitting director Ashley Waugh, who came close at 49%, isn’t making himself available, which leaves John Nicholls, who received 44% of the vote, and Jamie Tuuta who received just 40%.
So why waste a million dollars holding an election that’s restricted to candidates farmer shareholders didn’t support?
Why close the process to others who farmer shareholders might want representing them on the board?
The reasons given are ridiculous, in my view, and show a severe disconnect with rank and file shareholders who rejected the board and panel process.
The Shareholders Council’s reasons are, well, interesting.
Its first is that the candidates had strong support in the first election.
They didn’t.
Then we read that it respects the 2016 Governance and Representation Review which had strong shareholder support. That was possibly true before the latest gerrymandering and the fact that farmers rejected two out of the three who went through the system tells you something.
Then we’re told that shareholders have a choice between candidates but shareholders rejected both. What’s changed?
The rest is made up of excuses and self-justification, in my view.
My opinion is that there is absolutely no mandate for the coming election as shareholders have already rejected both candidates.
Is the Shareholders Council hoping that as farmer shareholders are over it combined with the fact it is a busy time of year that there’ll be a low turnout so 50% can be reached by someone?
Their excuse that if the election was opened to other candidates a vote couldn’t be held until March 2019 is vacuous.
We’re talking about the board of our biggest company and surely quality is more important than indecent haste. March is but three months away.
I can’t believe we’re going through this charade and can only wonder at the games being played at Fonterra HQ and the Shareholders Council.
The board has the ability to co-opt.
Professor Nicola Shadbolt was a respected board member for nine years so why not appoint her for another 12 months?
That guarantees continuity and the ability for a full and fair election at the end of 2019 and not having someone basically by default for the next three years.
So, my strong advice to dairy farmers is to vote.
If you don’t you’re allowing a gerrymandered system to run rampant. You deserve better.
Finally, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to write a column supportive of Fonterra. I’m a strong believer in co-ops.
Sadly the board and Shareholders Council are making that extremely difficult.
