Because he refused to sign a form to agree that he would
abide by the board’s bylaw on confidentiality and code of conduct, the board
cut him off from communications.
That included documents the board shares with DCRs via an
electronic portal they can access with an I-pad provided by the board,
attendance at DCR meetings and communications with board directors.
The board designates directors and DCRs who fail to sign the
agreements “non-participants” and effectively keeps them performing the duties
normally associated with the elected positions.
Kocsis objects to the entire policy as it applies to DCRs,
but limited his request to the tribunal to reversal of the board’s declaration
of him as a non-participant.
He said the board repeatedly embarrassed him by posting that
designation on its website since it took the action last year when he had
several months remaining on his two-year term.
Kocsis was defeated in his bid for election as a director
for 2018-19 and then refused nomination
as a DCR because he would need to sign the agreement if he wanted to serve his
fellow producers in District 5.
Lawyer Geoff Spurr, representing the chicken board, said the
bylaw does not prevent any chicken-producing board member in a district where
he resides from running for election, nor does it prevent him from advocating
for fellow chicken producers or filing appeals to the board or the tribunal.
But it does cut off communications because, testified board
chairman Ed Benjamins, there is information the board would like to share with
DCRs, but only on condition that it be kept confidential.
He cited examples such as trade negotiations, current
consultations to make modular chicken loading mandatory and the upcoming
cost-of-production study that will determine pricing.
Spurr said most bodies with public responsibilities are
adopting similar codes of practice and confidentiality agreements.
Benjamins said the bylaws reflect changes since he first
served as a board director in the 1980s and 1990s.
“The landscape and behaviours have changed astronomically.”
Now board directors and DCRs receive extensive training and
for directors it includes board meetings where they are briefed by a
psychologist on their behaviour and by a professor of business management.
Kocsis argued that the board has no regulations on which it
can rely to impose bylaws on DCRs.
Spurr countered that the board consulted its supervisory
body, the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission, which raised no
objections to the bylaws.
It did caution the board that in applying the bylaws, it
should not refuse DCRs, directors and farmer-members the right to make
representations to the board.
Kocsis has served at least 10 years as a DCR and terms as a
board director. During his dust-up with the board, he was acting as lawyer for
a chicken farmer who had an issue with the board.
That was mentioned during the public hearing, but only in
passing although at one point Spurr said Kocsis’s dual role as a lawyer for the
farmer and a DCR was the nub of the issue.
