The Three Amigos try to Takeover SPG

[LEP]

This press release is bs. Do they think all farmers
are idiots?

Last year they ran on a slate because they had
experience and this year they endorse two new
candidates because they bring new ideas.

Here's a new idea no plant breeders on the board of
an organization that provides millions in funding to
him directly.

I think we should have refundable levies. I give
thousands a year in pulse levies for valid research
not to be used for pet projects of one SPG board
member.

[LEP]

Oneoff you are rightfully pissed off at RM's that do
business behind closed doors.

What do you think will happen if the Three Amigos
become five? They will have effective control of the
board.

What do you think they will do then?

We need refundable levies so that there are checks
and balances in place so there isn't a runaway with
these left wing loons.

We should never have gotten to this in the first
place.

It never hurts to have a board comprised of
differing opinion, but when a large enough number
run on a slate as these five have created it gives
them control of a huge budget to push their
agenda.

I say wake up or regret it.

[charliep]

Just curious if you have considered
running for the director positions. My
life these days is attending Alberta
meeting as a presenter. An observation
is many positions are filled by
acclamation. There lots of room for
involvement in Alberta commissions
anyway.

[fiftytimes2]

Nice little circulars in mail boxes
today, sponsored by Buhr, Vandenburg and
Moen with a push to get Simpson and
Hundeby elected.
I agree that there should not be plant
breeders and other special interest
groups allowed on the board, but we must
be honest with ourselves. Our
complacency as an industry (active
farmers) has bitten us in the rear
again. We saw this last year when
Vandenburg and Buhr went in, but we
didn't exactly rush the ballot box to
stop it. Hopefully, this year, farmers
will have been beaten up by the pulse
industry enough to start paying
attention and voting for those that are
interested in moving our industry
forward.

[jamesb]

I for one has not "been beat up by the pulse industry" , id like to see .20 reds though. I dont expect the SPG board to work wonders and different than i would expect the Sask Canola board to create $20 Canola overnight.
I got my ballot today and I am pleased that there is interest in the grower boards. As Charlie said not near enough people are steping up to serve. I think there is a pretty good slate of candidates to choose from, far better than seeing aclaimation. I think its great that a couple younger farmers are taking an interest in these boards. I was at the spg annual meeting last year and after all the discussion that went on agriville last year on this stuff i expected fireworks, not so. I guess we will see this year. See you there

[haveapulse]

LEP you support a voluntary levy, just wanting to weigh in to see if the appetite for a voluntary has increased or decreased.

[LEP]

Haveapulse. I absolutely support R & D and have never asked for a refund of any levies in my 23 years of farming.

But if you have a slate of candidates trying to gain control of a producer board, I want the ability to have a check and balance in place.

I have to ask why would three individuals spend huge dollars taking out ads in rural weeklies as well as maildroping flyers in order to gain control of a board unless they have some "BIG" plans?

Another question? Does SPG save postage by having Bert pick up his cheque after the board meeting?

[haveapulse]

I beleive accountability for a mandatory levy is more ownerous and vigourous than a voluntary levy where retraction is possible. On the positive side a mandatory levy provides a much more predictable pool of money to invest on behalf of the industry by responsible directors. However, a refundable levy creates an environment where suscription is driven by recognition of value by producers, and disgruntled produers may seek a refund.

Interestingly, Alberta where the levy is refundable enjoys a subscription levy which I believe is in the high 90 percentile.

It is an interesting debate, worthy of discussion.

[sumdumguy]

Gotta wonder how pompous someone could be
to try to influence someone's vote to get their
supporters on the board to advance their own
adgenda. Pretty brash.

[ColevilleH2S]

SOB. And I though you all were just blowing smoke, but in my local paper there is an ad just as described.

<a href="http://s335.beta.photobucket.com/user/npksetal/library/Bucket" target="_blank"><img src="http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m441/npksetal/Bucket/SPG.jpeg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"/></a>

At least this makes it easier to pick whom I'm voting for. Two names knocked off my list. That's too bad, they were probably really good candidates.

I hate being told who to vote for by an organization I have next to no choice being a part of, or funding. Reminds me of an other organization, much discussed on this forum that existed before August 1st 2012.

[sumdumguy]

Wow, to see that in print! I cant believe someone
would actually do that. Could it be possible that
this is a bad joke being played on them?

This looks really bad. If I were one of those two
candidates, I could not continue knowing that
people were "advised" to vote for me. i would feel
terrible for myself and my fellow nominees.

[haveapulse]

The press release decribes a profile of younger producers, recommending new blood, last year the threesome,then candidates described the ideal candidate as one with experience. The one other candidate dropped out of the race, and we had acclamation.

[haveapulse]

I have a couple of quesionts as a candidate and as a director: How does this affect future SPG elections, if SPG directors hand pick and lobby for candidates.

I am concerned about who will want to run for SPG in the future, unless Bert, Sean and Jim endorse them. Because I can tell you as a candidate who is pretty tough, my name would not be on a ballot if I knew they would do this. It feels like I have been bullied.

And so the question what is the longrun impact to our organization and farm elections in general of these actions?

How does it affect the autonomy of board nominees when candidates are really hard to find in the first place.

[bucket]

The breeder promoting the seed growers and thats not a conflict of interest?

Too load a board for self serving interests, is that not leaving a bad taste in anyone's mouth?

[dave4441]

I think not only is there confict of interest issues here but also serious ethical issues. I can't imagine that this whole thing won't have long term ramnifications to Sask Pulse Growers as a organization. I feel for the people that have put their name forward, both currently sitting on the board and participating in this election. When i was at SPG we had our differances but i never once actively campaiged against someone that I would expect to be sitting with on the board with in the next term. It reeks of disrespect for people that have sat on this board in the past as well as those running currently.