Pulse elections

[parsley]

Will a federal Pulse Board serve the ordinary
producer the same way the federal Flax Council
does? And how do you like it?

How well do/will either federal orgs, their chairs
filled with govt and industry, add to farmers'
bottom lines significantly, considering the amount
of money deducted via checkoffs?

I rather like this thread Pars

[grower99]

The fact that the previous chair of SPG resigned and the Executive Director, Garth Patterson, left SPG tells me that there is a problem at the board level in our multi million dollar farmer funded organization. The fact that a Manitoba firm was hired by SPG to find a replacement for Garth Patterson and no advertising for this position was done at the U of S or U of R or in Saskatchewan major provincial newspapers tells me that something is amiss at the board level. Are there no capable replacements in Saskatchewan? The fact that SPG was asked by the AgriFood Council (the provincial overseeing body) to explain some of their actions (the first time ever in the hisory of the board) makes me, as a farmer, ask what the SPG strategic plan is. The fact that we are losing other staff members at SPG also raises my level of concern. It is my understanding that SPG supplies about 69% of Pulse Canada's core funding which then is used to help access federal dollars. SPG gets two seats at the Pulse Canada Board table. Manitoba and Alberta account for about 16% of the funding and receive one seat each at the table. Ontario accounts for about 1% of Pulse Canada funding and is entitled to one seat at the table. Canadian Special Crops Association receives two seats for approximately 14% of Pulse Canada's core revenue. These percentages are approximate but the number of seats at the table tells me that Saskatchewan pulse growers and their views are not being well represented at Pulse Canada. I don't know many people who would supply the majority of funding for an organization and have so little representation. This is not to say that Pulse Canada does not do valuable work for the pulse industry but the above shows that the governance model has to change. Possibly a return on investment study for SPG's dollars going to Pulse Canada could be done at the U of S. This study would be similar to the one done several years ago by the U of S relating to SPG's research expenditures. I am supporting Shawn, Jim and Bert because of their proven expertise and transparency. All three of them have the best interests of Saskatchewan growers at heart. To say otherwise is a misrepresentation of the truth. I am sure that Cynthia also wants what is best for Saskatchewan growers but at this critical time, experience counts. The current SPG Board of Directors will also benefit from the executive knowledge of Shawn, Jim and Bert to better enhance the pulse industry. I look forward to your comments.

[LEP]

Pulse elections

Grower99 sounds like Shawn to me.

Anyway, I don't think it is as big a deal as it is made out to be regarding Pulse Canada. I believe that Pulse Canada should be in Winnipeg not Saskatoon as nothing that happens in the trade occurs here. In my opinion Pulse Canada works because of Gord Bacon and his team. So if they want to have Pulse Canada in Ottawa, you let them.

I believe that SPG and Pulse Canada have been working on increasing the seats on the board.

SPG funds Pulse Canada to the level they do, because everytime they work through an issue it benefits almost exclusively Saskatchewan producers.

I still have a HUGE problems with Bert running for the board. As the face of CDC, the largest recipient of SPG research dollars, he shouldn't be steering the "ship". It is just one continual conflict of interest.

The three Amigos are sure spending the money to get elected. Are there any rules about this? Hope per diem rates don't jump after they get in.

[LEP]

Grower99 sounds like Shawn to me.

Anyway, I don't think it is as big a deal as it is made out to be regarding Pulse Canada. I believe that Pulse Canada should be in Winnipeg not Saskatoon as nothing that happens in the trade occurs here. In my opinion Pulse Canada works because of Gord Bacon and his team. So if they want to have Pulse Canada in Ottawa, you let them.

I believe that SPG and Pulse Canada have been working on increasing the seats on the board.

SPG funds Pulse Canada to the level they do, because everytime they work through an issue it benefits almost exclusively Saskatchewan producers.

I still have a HUGE problems with Bert running for the board. As the face of CDC, the largest recipient of SPG research dollars, he shouldn't be steering the "ship". It is just one continual conflict of interest.

The three Amigos are sure spending the money to get elected. Are there any rules about this? Hope per diem rates don't jump after they get in.

[srbuhr]

Afraid not LEP
Just joined agriville this morning.

Cheers

Shawn

[dave4441]

The governance model is changing to reflect the level of contribution. One board seat per $250,000 of core and targetted funding. This decision was made last summer with the smaller details being sorted out this fall. This structure allows organizations to invest more dollars in the future and have additional seats at the table. To be totally trasparent, in the last 3 years that i have been at PUlse Canada board table, there has never been a vote on a issue that was divided. National orgs must give and take with other stakeholders.

SPG is approx 57% of core and targetted funding in 2011/2012 fiscal year.


Regards,
David Nobbs
Chair-Pulse Canada

[grower99]

Given the new model does that mean that SPG will have the majority seats at the Pulse Canada Board table? If not the model is not acceptable. I hear how there is such harmony and understanding at the PC Board table; has the same atmosphere been in place at the SPG Board table and office? Has there been a lot of give and take at the provincial level? Let's discuss the issues/questions in a mature manner and stop the personal attacks. If people are in favour of GM pulses I would suggest we have someone from the CDC at our board table.I think Bert would be best person given his expertise and long time committment to our industry.I am sure that the present SPG Board is trying to set what they see is the best direction for our pulse industry and with Jim, Shawn and Bert I think it will be a win/win for growers, processors, exporters, researchers and our very capable and professional SPG staff!

[wcfarmer]

grower99 sounds like dan flynn current spg board member and neighbor of shawn buhr.

[JoeyPotato]

sorry wcfarmer,

its not dan flynn

[dave4441]

Why would growers have to have a breeder at the board table, as a director to discuss if GM pulses should be pursued? First of all, GM pulses are a marketing question first and a breeding question second. Secondly, CDC advise can be sought by a board of farmers. If farmers are running, that believe they are incapable of making decesions about the industry without having a breeder on their board, then maybe they should consider weather or not they are capable to run for that position as a director.

[haveapulse]

There has been some discussion about increasing the number of chairs at the SPG baord. We have identified the benefit of including outside expertice including a research chair. However ,there has been no conclusion. From my opinion I believe that the chairs should be designated according to our need for expertice, and to add value to the board dialogue. However in order to avoid conlfict of interest they should be a non voting chair, for a one year reappointable term, and subject to the six year full term of all board members. If we feel we should have a marketing or trade chair, this also should also be a non voting chair.
I am firly of the beleif the base chairs should remain producer chairs, as these days the range of expertice in a farm chair is significant, and in itself subjet to criticism based upon their origin(s).

I also beleive we are priviledged to have two new gen producers on our board, given the grey hair in the industry (including mine) Sask Pulse is fortunate to have new blood.

We all benefite when we mentor and reward new candidates who are brave enough to toss their name in the ring!

At the end of the day it is all our charge to bring value to this industry and the primary stakeholders which are farmers.

[haveapulse]

PS this is Vicki Dutton!