Board dynamic changed after election, says director

As I grew up respect, along with honesty and integrity, were taught as the cornerstones on which we should live.

I have always tried to mirror this in family, business and community life.

When I stood for the Murray Irrigation Board of Directors, an opponent was the current chair Phil Snowden.

We fought a hard campaign, but always with respect and, while we do not agree on everything around the board table, as chair and deputy chair the integrity and respect never wane.

It was an agonising decision when we had to ask the former chair, Steve Fawns, to stand down after being made aware of behavioural complaints which did not uphold the level of respect that is now mandatory for any successful organisation.

As a company director sometimes you have to make tough decisions; it comes with the territory.

Until the MIL election at the end of last year there remained a high level of respect in the board room, even though we did not always agree.

Debates were at times rigorous, but when a decision was made we respected each other’s views and moved on.

That changed after the November election. A sound, working and respectful board with a high level of shareholder and non-member director skills quickly became, as the general meeting requisitioning directors have said, dysfunctional.

But it was not like that before November 30, 2023.

Nor did myself and other directors have to endure malicious, disrespectful and misinformed attacks that we have been forced to deal with in recent times.

While I abhor this type of behaviour I can deal with it; what I don’t accept is the hurt it causes my family.

I have enjoyed most of my time on the MIL board, and I know that every decision I have made and supported is what I believe to be in the best interests of the company and the shareholders.

Hopefully I can continue in this role after April 10.

If the ‘yes’ vote prevails, I would be morally and ethically compromised.

I could not in good conscience continue to serve as a director if the actions of requisitioning directors are condoned and would be forced to resign.

I initially ran for the board on a platform of transparency and giving shareholders a say in their future.

I have upheld those commitments, even with some restrictions from legal obligations and when decisions may not be popular.

A relevant question which must be asked is: What radical changes to the company do the requisitioning directors want to make that they obviously do not believe will be supported by myself and the current chair? We have always been open to discussing issues which may improve the company.

I also believe that as a farming community we should be proud of our achievements, not undermining them, especially when it is done for personal gain or vendetta.

Your board over the past two years has developed a business strategy that offers financial stability, high level efficiency of water delivery and a workforce that is committed to the company and our community. How much of this are we putting at risk?

At the very least we may lose some of our enthusiastic and dedicated team members, especially talented young professionals, if the general meeting condones the lack of respect that has infiltrated the company with a ‘yes’ vote.

We will also jeopardise relationships with key government stakeholders that have been carefully built, for the betterment of shareholders and the broader community.

There is little doubt many of these people will not deal with individuals who lack respect.

I encourage all shareholders to be informed and vote at the general meeting.

Have a say not just about your future, but the future of your children, grandchildren and the broader community.

Please vote ‘no’ for a positive future and to send a clear message that the level of respect to which we all should aspire must be upheld in our company.

Yours etc.

Lachlan Marshall

Deputy Chair, MIL