As I sit down to write this piece I do so on the understanding that, firstly, the IFA is much more that a general secretary or a president. As I said in my editorial last week, the IFA is the farmer calving the cow, lambing the ewe and harvesting the crops.

Secondly, that the executive council of the IFA is the governing body of the organisation and that through the branch structure the farmers that sit on this body are trusted by grassroot members to do the right thing for their organisation.

Based on this understanding we should question the logic behind calling a snap election to replace Eddie Downey. If the organisation goes ahead in line with the protocol set out we will see branches voting in mid to late January or just ahead of a general election.

It is understandable the motions of no confidence in the executive board are now coming forward from a number of counties. Farmers want to vent their anger and with no president or general sectary it is natural that the executive board are next in line.

Heads to roll

However, how many heads need to roll? I say this not in anyway to absolve the board from their responsibility but in the context of what is right in the long term for the organisation and farmers. One thing farmers are keen to see happen out of this crisis is for their influence over the direction of the organisation to be strengthened. Forcing the voluntary board to step down at this time will certainly not aid in achieving this outcome.

Rudderless

A more serious issue for farmers is that forcing the board to stand down and triggering a presidential election will leave the organisation rudderless for a period of at least six to nine months. The internal issues that currently need to be dealt with will be parked in favour of electioneering leaving the incoming president with the challenge of dealing with these before he can get down to the real business of protecting farmers interests.

Farmers will not thank the IFA if they are not on the pitch to engage on critical issues such as climate change talks in Paris early next month, trade deals between the US and Europe and a proposed bilateral trade deal between the EU and the Mercusor trading block, spearheaded by Brazil.

Closer to home there is no doubt that triggering a presidential election in December will limit the organisations ability to influence political parties ahead of a general election. It will also be a difficult environment for presidential candidates to canvas farmers in if they are milking cows at 26c/l or selling cattle out of the shed at a loss.

Options

So what are the options? Instead of allowing the executive board to walk away from the issues, they should be mandated to deliver the necessary reforms that will allow farmers to once again trust the organisation. Key to this will be moving on. The organisation should stop fighting it out on the public airwaves with their former general secretary Pat Smith. This relationship will undoubtedly be settled through legal channels.

Governance

Instead the focus should be on establishing and communicating the governance changes that are going to be implemented by the board with close oversight and approval from the national executive over the next six months.

Meanwhile, the acting president must continue to deliver on the day to day functions of representing farmers on both EU and domestic issues.

Cool heads

This will only be delivered if the national executive agree to postpone the presidential election - a decision that would require a rule change - as the governing body the national executive has the power to do this.

They could, in theory, elect a caretaker president from within the executive to represent farmers for an agreed period or mandate the executive board to oversee the reform process and for the deputy to carry out the the president's role.

Throwing a presidential election into the current mix could do real damage to the organisation. It is a time for cool heads to prevail and ensure all steps taken are for the long term interests of the organisation and farmers.