Dear Editor,
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
Thank you for allowing me to make an appeal to the landholders of Murray Irrigation (MIL), and to all of us with friends eligible to vote on the April 10 motions.
The wrong choice will seriously harm all who live here: everyone who works, owns a home, farm or business in our community.
This might sound alarmist, but it’s not.
Importantly, those who can vote includes many small block owners where MIL supplies their stock and domestic water.
The vote will determine whether we cop the worst of the government’s water recovery strategy currently in negotiation and development.
People familiar with Wakool will rightly fear the effects of mass sale of water entitlements, with risk to: population, jobs, kids at school, services and of course property values.
It’s why this is an appeal to both landholders and their friends to vote – we all have much at stake.
Voters need to know that voting opens a week before the meeting, is easy, anonymous, and can be done online or on paper.
There is no need to attend the meeting or find yourself in an argument.
It’s easy to be lost in the detail but critical to not be distracted from the fact that the vote is about two starkly different paths that will impact us all.
It’s not “just another board room stoush” nor is it about MIL’s water delivery reliability.
By voting against the two motions, MIL (and by extension, all of us) we have a real chance of better outcomes from the water recovery negotiations.
Board stability will be restored along with stable management transitions.
MIL can continue three years of tactical advocacy, initiatives, alliances with neighbouring irrigation companies and relationships with state and federal governments and other key stakeholders.
The commitment by the “opposing” directors to resign gives opportunity to strengthen the board.
This path gives us, (farmers and community) the best prospects from the water recovery program.
However if the motions get up, we are in serious strife.
We become the sitting duck of water recovery.
Why?
Key, irrefutable facts are the loss of the CEO and key staff and with them three years of advocacy, initiatives, alliances and relationships.
Add the loss of two independent directors and quite probably the current chair and deputy chair.
But it’s what is left that is of greater concern for advocacy outcomes; two directors with a few months MIL board experience, unknown other people to be appointed as interim directors, and most difficult of all, the director likely to be chair and spokesperson whose advocacy credibility is handicapped by an acknowledged record of workplace sexual harassment (see MIL website for details).
“Handicapped” understates the reality.
Just last week, the Tabcorp board and their CEO of 20 years acted promptly (within days) with the CEO “regrettably” agreeing to resign following one “allegation he used sexually inappropriate language.” (SMH March 14).
They prioritised the company and its shareholders.
They recognised the very real impact on workplace safety, reputation and capacity to advocate.
This is reality, not hype.
To those still reading, thank you.
I hope it’s clear why this vote is incredibly important to all our futures, that it’s a choice between becoming the target or negotiating a better path, and that’s why we should vote if we can and encourage friends to vote.
Most of all, it’s in all our interests for these motions to be rejected resoundingly.
It’s the only way we can emphatically signal to government and each other that we are good people wanting to find the best possible path for us all.
Yours faithfully
Rob Brown
Deniliquin
Contributed content