Pulse elections

[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!