GRAINGROWERS Limited northern region director election candidates and NSW growers - Rebecca Reardon, Moree, and Xavier Martin, Mullaley.
IN any industry organisation, members should be the ones empowered to choose who represents them and subsequently use that mandate to lead their industry forward.
And those leaders need to drive good process and systems in order to achieve the best possible outcomes in the areas of representation, policy and industry good functions.
But at the most recent GrainGrowers Limited board elections the declaration of the end result did not align with the views of the majority of members who were actively engaged in the process and voted directly.
Instead, the result determined by Members was yet again skewed by the casting of proxy votes despite constant assurances by GGL that the organisation is seeking to resolve this permanent stain that blots their governance and transparency.
Having been at the heart of the GGL board elections over the past two months listening to the comments of current members and ex-directors, it is clear the board election process and the use of standing proxies must now be seriously reviewed and the constitution amended.
GGL has the potential to contribute enormously to our industry.
Next year there will be another national election for the two Southern Region board members and it will be a critical litmus test to determine if this year’s lessons are learned and a fair process underpins the election result.
One of the most important issues raised by members over the past couple of months has been GGL board’s support of preferred candidates.
During this election, GGL invested in hiring an independent recruitment specialist to assess candidates and make a final recommendation, without fear or favour.
The response by GGL to this process - after the recommendations were made - was to introduce a new priority criteria of “continuity” and “board stability” which then required the board to recommend the two incumbent directors.
Another issue was the use of on-line voting.
Some members who received their packs by post and tried to vote on-line struggled to cast their vote after being unable to clearly determine that the first digit of the membership number - it was an ‘I’, not a ‘1’.
This ambiguity led to a lot of frustration, with some members eventually giving up on casting a vote.
One member who phoned GGL to complain was told by the Returning Officer that this was a common problem.
Another issue was the integrity of on-line voting.
Only a member number and postcode were required to vote on-line and unlike previous years there was no PIN number.
This system may have been satisfactory, except that members were advising us of old membership lists floating around with these numbers.
Another issue was GGL’s claim that they have “absolutely no dead members” but this is incorrect and therefore continued efforts must be made by GGL to clean up its membership list and restore confidence.
Transparency of the GGL voting system was also a concern based on the use of votes ‘for’ and ‘against’ candidates, which created confusion due to complexity and misunderstanding.
This confusion applied to members, candidates and even ex and current directors.
This system needs to simplified (as one member called for at the AGM) and/or the voting rules clearly published to ensure the system is not misunderstood or misused.
With 12 months until next election, GGL now has the opportunity to clean up these standing proxies, but what is clear from members this election is they want a united voice to represent the grains industry.
