THE CBH board will have you believe that it has done a thorough governance review and that it is a necessary part of the operation of the board.
And it is.
But if CBH really wants to protect itself in the future then it should not be mucking around at the edge.
Sure introduce a time limit of three terms at a time, introduce a reduction in the board size - but only of the independents.
Introduce an independent assessment panel and reduced electioneering and let the growers decide who the best person for the job is without quotas - like we already have.
But real change would be to sell off poor performing businesses like the flour mills and the Eastern States ports.
A huge amount of money has been spent on these investments with little or no return to the growers after 15 or more years when the promises were that they would be paid off in seven.
Real change would be to sell off the grain trading arm where there is no longer market failure and they can concentrate on core business.
There is more than enough competition in the grain market to keep prices up.
CBH does not have to be and rarely is the market leader.
By trying to be as it did last year it will go broke very quickly.
Real change would be to change to a trading co-operative where the capital actually rests on the balance sheet of the grower and where you can actually get some of your investment back should you exit the business.
There is no longer, now there is a single taxation system (you dont pay tax twice on the profits of a company; dividend imputation) any great tax advantage in having as non-distributing co-operative.
Geraldton Fishermans Co-op demonstrates this well.
Real change would be to throw out the old network strategy which was part of a push for making the business look attractive for takeover which forced costs back on to the grower and still does.
More costs have been and continue to be pushed back on the grower because of the perception that sites which are bigger are more efficient than the smaller ones.
Simply not true.
Real change would be to separate the company secretary and head of legal and risk because the one person cannot serve two masters.
Real change would be to get rid of the independent directors and employ the expertise when it is needed.
Three independents can never cover all the expertise needed.
One is needed for audit and risk expertise and even that may be an outside expert who doesn't get a vote.
Real change would see reduced politicking on the board which is caused by the independents not the grower directors as many would have you believe (which was addressed in an article in Farm Weekly a couple of weeks ago).
Real change would be to allow directors to express their individual views in order to encourage debate and not stifle them with deeds of confidentiality (which is an extra onerous thing CBH does over and above standing conventions driven by the CoSec would be my guess).
One of my many favourites sayings is the cornerstone of democracy is sound reasoned and robust debate.
By stifling the directors' ability to debate with threats of action through the corporate governance charter and the courts (using grower funds on their own members) lessens CBH's strength.
Real change would be changing the justice system which saw the disgusting way in which Trevor Badger was removed and making it reflect contemporary legal proceedings instead of the kangaroo court it currently is.
Real change would be to separate the trains so that those who patronise them participate in the capital; because they are the only ones who pay for them.
A good start would be to not replace the first of the three independent directors who come up for election on a rolling basis.
Stop mucking around at the edges and ask the growers for their opinions on real change which would make CBH really accountable to its members and to make it really strong.
