checkoffs opt out question?

[parsley]

Well, dwayne, you twigged my memory to when I was sliding through CIGI's audited report yesterday and my woman's curiosity had saved a thumbnail of CIGI's 'furniture' style.

Louis the IVth?


Furniture expenses from 2006- 2009 don't lie. I quit as I thought you'd get the drift.


1. From CIGI 2008-2009 Audit Statement

2009 Office furniture $ Cost 389,911
Accumulated Ammortization $278,536
Net Book Value $111,375

2008
Net Book Value $124,195
Term 10 years

2. From CIGI 2007-2008 Audit Statement

2008 Office furniture Cost $375,086
Accumulated Ammortization $250,891
Net Book Value $124,195

2007
Net Book Value $132,468
Term 10 years

3. From CIGI 2006-2007 Audit Statement

2007 Office furniture Cost $ 355,637
Accumulated Ammortization $ 223,169
Net Book Value $132,468

Net Book Value $159,414
Term 10 years


4. From CIGI 2005-2006 Audit Statement

2006 Office furniture Cost $ 358,824
Accumulated Ammortization $196,410
Net Book Value $159,414

Net Book Value $172,079
Term 10 years

Yes, well.

Responsibility is absent. Shame is absent. Accountability by representatives is absent.

Keep working you stupid bloody overalls on the farm. CIGI needs more furniture. Pars

[parsley]

You might be asking, well who cares about CIGI?

The CWB pours cash into CIGI:


CIGI’s eligible operating expenses are partially funded by Ag and Agri-Food (up to 60 percent of the first $4,166,666 of eligible expenses and up to 50 percent of eligible expenses in excess of this amount) under the Canadian Agriculture and Food International (CAFI)
program to a maximum of $4,000,000.

The Canadian Wheat Board has committed to provide a .....MINIMUM, yes, MINIMUM , yes read it again, MINIMUM annual level of funding equal to 40
percent of the first $4,166,666 of eligible expenses.

In 2007-08, the Canadian Wheat Board agreed to contribute $1,966,667 in order to fund an increase in their market development activities.

Additional funds and support are provided by other sectors of the agriculture industry.

Go read the Shaun Haney thread for "other funders."

Your money.

Gusty, CWB money is taken by force. You want the Western grains to take money by force.

Surely you can see what will happen.

Pars

[per]

I suspect if the refunder names were published it would trigger more refunds as people could then be assured they were not alone in thinking the tax (check off) was being wasted. So make the list and see how it goes for you.

[checking]

A piddily little list as a deterrence! Go national, and use your ill gotten resources on large bill boards showing our farming faces. I'll send you my photo because if there is one checkoff - freight overcharge gathering board I'd like to look down on, it's WGRF!!

[gustgd]

I guess I am guilty of thinking other people thought as I do. There's a term for that but I can't think of it. I'll explain: I go to many farm meetings, more than most. Never once have I heard someone brag that they got back a big cheque because they opted out of research. I then inferred that
A: They were happy with the work done on their behalf. Or at least satisfied enough that they never complained to someone who might be able to influence change.
B: They were taking the money back but did not want to defend their actions.

What gets me is people who say "Research does not doing anything for me." All the while using modern farming techniques and the newest in genetics. There's a word for that as well.
For those that opt out I would say don't seed new varieties. Logistically this would be a nightmare. Nobody wants to have seed police tramping around the country side.
This idea would probably cost $1000 to administer and maybe help cut out the free riders. It accomplishes the goal of providing money for research, yet giving people an out.
I was following the axiom that you don't go to people with a problem unless you have a solution.

Voluntary organizations can work. The WCWGA have proven that for 40 years now.

By the way parsley LOL lots of love to you too.

[gustgd]

Per
You say the checkoff is being wasted at WGRF?
Where?
What would you like to see the money spent on?
How can the situation be made better?

Not trying to put you on the spot but if you or anyone have any ideas on how to make WGRF better,drop me a line
gustgd@sasktel.net
or post it here

[gustgd]

Per
You say the checkoff is being wasted at WGRF?
Where?
What would you like to see the money spent on?
How can the situation be made better?

Not trying to put you on the spot but if you or anyone have any ideas on how to make WGRF better,drop me a line
gustgd@sasktel.net
or post it here

neveragain good info on Mb sunflowers thanks
FYI
WGRF rates are set buy the Federal Minister of Agriculture
Wheat is at .30 cents/tonne
Barley at .50cents/tonne

[charliep]

Way off the topic of voluntary versus compulsory checkoffs but I found
articles in this week's western producer (April 29) that highlight why this
discussion is important.

Page 3 - Auditor General report highlighting the lack of funding and
planning in public research.

Page 10 - Editorial on the emergence of new players in the world wheat
market and the impact on Canada's competitiveness.

Page 17 - Tightening of standards around storage molds (ochratoxin A).

Research, development and commercial are critical to western Canada
remaining competitive. The question then is who does, who pays and who
benefits.

[wd9]

Parsely, are you saying a farmer cannot afford like canola a 1 dollar on a 380 dollar per tonne checkoff?

If that dollar is not spent, research and marketing programs do not happen. The government has changed and if the industry doesn't put up the money the funding does not happen and it all stops. Many times the money is matched 20 to 30 times, but not a dime is spent if the industry doesn't come to the table with commitment. Familiarize yourself with how the system works.

[dmlfarmer]

How would you handle two farmers living in same RM with same name. One supports checkoffs, other requests refunds. Putting that name on a list will "shame" both producers and open up the checkoff organization to a host of problems including the potential of a lawsuit by a farmer who supports the checkoff but finds his name on your list.

Second problem is Freedom of Information laws found in many provinces. FOIP lawyers would have a fieldday with any organization trying to use personal information to create a shame list.

Third, you are freely giving people who disagree with an organization's policy or practices a soapbox on which to preach the negatives of the organization. Every time the list is published naysayers of an organization will be clearly identified for access by media etc.

While may only cost a $1000 to set up the real costs of potential lawsuits, fighting FOIP battles, and negative publicity would likely make this the most costly non research program a checkoff organization would ever undertake.