Pulse elections

[parsley]

http://www.flaxcouncil.ca/english/index.jsp?
p=board

Has this Federal Board put more money into the
producers' pockets? Pars

[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]

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.