Current SPG Directors Jim Moen, Bert Vandenberg, and Shawn Buhr apologize to the Board and candidate

[LEP]

So I have been away from things for the week and
wondered what I missed.

The three amigos were called out on their actions and
apologized. They were obviously very unprofessional
and should be embarrassed.

An article in the producer chides them for their
inappropriate action during the election.

But there are still ads endorsing two candidates are still
being run in the weekly newspapers.

I would suggest that they buy print and radio ads at
their own expense to express their apology.

I think SPG needs to put in place spending limits and
disclosure for candidates and third parties during
elections. I would be curious to know how much was
spent on the ads and maildrops. My guess is
somewhere above $3,000.

While they are at it, Bert should do the right thing and
resign so that the candidate that comes in third can
take his place on the board and avoid extra expense to
SPG.

SIA should also have a look at his membership as he is
breaching the code of ethics. He should be sanctioned
at the very least.

[bucket]

Maybe this doesn't have to be said but I would think since the the three directors endorsed specific candidates, if Simpson and Hundeby don't win now, the board will become disfunctional because of the animosity it created.

Besides it makes them look like weak candidates if they can't win on their own merit.

But it may be the way they have done it their whole lives anyway, needing daddy, in this case - buhr, moen and the scientist, to make things happen for them.

Interesting that for such a well read website only a couple candidates have shown up.

I thought these guys are at the leading edge of technology.

[oneoff]

No one can estimate the real damage that these inappropriate ads have done.

You shouldn't allow the guilty to decide an appropriate punishment.

In the absence of voluntary resignations; (along with their real sincere aploogies) then nothing less than an appropriate third party investigation (maybe at their cost) and prompt resignations should suffice.

This is also how a lot of municipal politics has been run for years.

If the "dictators: rulers don't want new blood; then there will be an election; otherwise they pick their successors.

[sumdumguy]

Sure would be good to know who signed the
cheque. It is possible that another person
actually did the deed. The engineer should
publicly fess up and let the truth be known. To
whisper from the corner, " I'm sorry" is one thing
but to stand up like a man and openly say, "I did
it, I wrote the cheque" is the telling moment. Now
they all are painted with the same brush. Some
babies, when they don't get their own way all the
time, just lash out and this was not received well.
i suspect there is at least one member on the
board with the guts to stand up to them. I am
sure Agrivillers know him/ her.

[Jfreedom]

I sure that none of these guys have the integrity
but my thoughts would be if your actions reflect
poorly on the board or cause the the ethics of the
borad to be questioned the time has come to
resign. Go ahead and run in the by election but at
least put your ethics to the voters . Since the
check off is nonrefundable and producers have no
other way to object to your actions be honorable
men and go to the voters . It's a shame that the
oversized egos of a few can taint an organization
that has taken years to build its reputation.

[food4u]

The three amigos sure made my voting
decision a lot easier.

[oneoff]

There is another obvious angle to this sad slap on the head to democracy.

The election process is tainted.

Even the guilty; and the current board is feigning to apologize; at
the very least (or is it the most)

And then there is the issue of the would be candidates who surely had knowledge of their director supporters who were actively campaigning for their election.



What if they do get elected? Will they simply "apologize" too. Who's to say that that advertising campaign won't be effective overall; as it is possible the majority of voters may never hear or realize the inappropriteness.

If that does occur; show me the punishment for poor judgement. Its being forgotten that the outrage that has been shown widely on agriville; may not be ever heard by hardly any eligable voters.

The election has been tainted. It should be obvious what the only remedy is.

[oneoff]

Some things just bear repeating. The comments below show that individuals such as grower99 just never get it. And I do hope that the offending advertisement originally posted within this copied Agriville Topic circa November 21/2012 is included. If not, check out the original. Its the eleventh hour before the election vote deadline on Dec.6/12; and IMO this is not over by a long shot.


LEP posted Nov 21, 2012 11:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

LEP posted Nov 21, 2012 11:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

charliep posted Nov 21, 2012 14:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

fiftytimes2 posted Nov 21, 2012 15:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

jamesb posted Nov 21, 2012 15:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
IP: Logged
Edit?

haveapulse posted Nov 21, 2012 21:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEP you support a voluntary levy, just wanting to weigh in to see if the appetite for a voluntary has increased or decreased.
IP: Logged
Edit?

LEP posted Nov 21, 2012 22:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
IP: Logged
Edit?

haveapulse posted Nov 21, 2012 22:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

sumdumguy posted Nov 22, 2012 0:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

ColevilleH2S posted Nov 22, 2012 0:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOB. And I though you all were just blowing smoke, but in my local paper there is an ad just as described.



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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

sumdumguy posted Nov 22, 2012 3:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

haveapulse posted Nov 22, 2012 7:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

haveapulse posted Nov 22, 2012 8:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

bucket posted Nov 22, 2012 8:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
IP: Logged
Edit?

dave4441 posted Nov 22, 2012 10:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
IP: Logged
Edit?

Burbert posted Nov 22, 2012 11:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT IS SIMPLE SOOOOOS SASK FRAMERS KIN
UNDERSTAND WHAT AN ELECTION IS ALL ABOOT!
IP: Logged
Edit?

westsider posted Nov 22, 2012 12:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
even though i cant vote but my father that lives in Saskatchewan can here is what he said. "My mind is made up. Not voting for either Simpson or Hundeby. In fact i have lost 100% respect for anyone that is currently on the board right now. Is there not a chair that can take control of this shit? i would support an election that started from scratch and not one of these board member's that are on right now are allowed to run again." (paraphrased)

maybe we need to bring back a couple of the old guard to get this ship back on course.

all this advertising reeks of Simpson's old money.

Politics - that's all this is. Why has it come to this?
IP: Logged
Edit?

sumdumguy posted Nov 22, 2012 13:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You got it.
IP: Logged
Edit?

haveapulse posted Nov 23, 2012 10:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ag Council governs boards in Saskatchewan, make your concerns known to them.
IP: Logged
Edit?

grower99 posted Nov 23, 2012 11:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally I felt it was great that
Shawn,Jim and Bert were elected to the
SPG board. Having these three on the
board gives it a lot of respect in all
aspects of our industry.I don't believe
that the SPG board has been summoned to
appear before the Agri food Council(the
government's supervisory agency)since
they were elected! These three can be
described as: honest, reliable,
innovative,ethical and hard working.They
have the ability to work with others to
try and develop a consensus. If they are
supporting Hundeby and Simpson I know
that they also share similar traits. No
one questions the importance and the
benefit of differing views on a board
but in the end the Board decision must
be supported by all board members. To
say that these three people are
unethical... is bs!
IP: Logged
Edit?

JohnGalt posted Nov 23, 2012 11:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just filled out my ballot and did not vote for either of the recommended candidates.

Is it just me or do others feel the need for a shower after coming in contact with Shawn Buhr?
IP: Logged
Edit?

dave4441 posted Nov 23, 2012 12:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gee, i was at the Agri Food COuncil meeting that you are refering to and you make it sound like we were pulled in front of them and had our hand slapped. It was simply a discussion about the changes that were made at SPG. Changes that were supported by the board of SPG at that time. You are stretching again grower99!!!
IP: Logged
Edit?

haveapulse posted Nov 23, 2012 16:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grower99 maybe you would like to comment on how the actions of these directors will effect the future automomy of SPG elections, and our potential candidates, not to mention the confidence in our electorate about the process.

Boards rely on people who feel comfortable and motivated to allow their names to stand for election, most do so assuming a fair shake at the process. Although boards do recruit potential members for talent, the difference here is the public endorsement by existing directors, and the question of ethics this brings forward.

Confidence in a board by the electorate is dependent upon the confidence in the neutrality of an individual candidate in their capacity to weigh in on issues without any allegiance to another board member or members as a group.

This is the question of ethics which anyone concerned about governance is weighing today.
IP: Logged
Edit?

grower99 posted Nov 23, 2012 16:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I've been told the SPG appeared
before the Ag food Council because the
Executive Director was let go, the
controller was quitting and so was the
head of SPG research. Sounds like
dysfunctional board at that time. That's
why the Three ran last time.
IP: Logged
Edit?

grower99 posted Nov 23, 2012 16:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I've been told the SPG appeared
before the Ag food Council because the
Executive Director was let go, the
controller was quitting and so was the
head of SPG research. Sounds like
dysfunctional board at that time. That's
why the Three ran last time.
IP: Logged
Edit?

LEP posted Nov 23, 2012 18:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is now obvious grower99 is either Shawn Buhr
or his mom..

Give it up Shawn , nobody believes Grower99 is
just an interested farmer.
IP: Logged
Edit?

dave4441 posted Nov 23, 2012 18:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we define a organization or company as dysfunctional, when staff move to other positions in other companies, then most organizations and companies in Saskatchewan must be classified as dysfunctional in the last 5 years. The job market is hot and people seek opportunity. Fact of the matter is that people dont stay in positions forever. But, this is a continued attempt to stir the pot and suggest something sinister has occured.
IP: Logged
Edit?

grower99 posted Nov 24, 2012 0:44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People can't say why they moved.Can anyone
tell us? The point is that the SPG board
will once again have some respect as the
best grower board in Sk like it used have
several years ago if growers elect some
young farmers like Hundeby and Simpson. By
the way why was the SPG board asked to
appear before the AF Council? Just for
coffee?
IP: Logged
Edit?

dave4441 posted Nov 24, 2012 2:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council wanted to discuss the changes. That is
all. On another note, Do you think we can discuss
people's individual employment records
publicly??? Do you think that would be a
professional response from a director who knows
why people made the decision to accept another
position elsewhere? Maybe you should read your
manual.

Answer that! still waiting for that call too. We can
discuss this meeting as well. For someone that is
so concerned about all of this you would think you
could take a few minutes to call. 460-9272
IP: Logged
Edit?

grower99 posted Nov 25, 2012 10:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's hoping people cast their ballots in
the Pulse election.I'm hoping that Hundeby
and Simpson are elected.They are fine
young people who will work hard for our
stakeholders-
growers,processors,exporters...Vote as you
wish but please vote! Go Stampeders! PS
this is not Shawn

[oneoff]

Here's an attempt to get that offensive advertisement in print once again. Never attempted this before so a little patience and tolerance please. Try this link
And here's the link to that offensive ad that won't copy in a text only "cut and paste". Frame it because it is a classic picture of how to shoot yourself in the foot



http://s335.beta.photobucket.com/user/npksetal/media/Bucket/SPG.jpeg.html?sort=3&o=4#/user/npksetal/media/Bucket/SPG.jpeg.html?sort=3&o=4&_suid=1354501816753093775 42357823836

[ColevilleH2S]

You mean this one?

<img src="http://mychinaconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shoot-foot.jpg">


I couldn't resist ;-)

[oneoff]

Cole.... Please tell me how to convert a link to posting the actual picture like you have done. I would appreciate learning that trick today.

Both pictures should be against the law.

The second picture results in a hospital visit(s) that the taxpayer gets stuck for.

The first picture does even more damage as naive people are subjected to propaganda that only says that three of the existing board of directors have decided that they personally want to see those candidates as their comrades. In the same way they may have sigficant influence on every other board decision; to the point that we are subjected to yet another dictatorship fifedom.

[chuckChuck]

While there may be issues in pulse board election process, those issues pale in comparison to the robo calls mis-directing voters to the wrong polls in the last federal election. The Tories have some bad apples in their ranks that should be removed.

The integrity of democratic institutions in this country are being seriously eroded by the current Federal government. What is the point in electing MPs when Harper pushes wide ranging 400 page Omnibus bills through Parliament with little debate in the house or at committee.

The only reason to do it is to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny and the public spotlight. Another indication is their refusal to provide information to the Parliamentary Budget Office on spending cuts.

[oneoff]

It is so easy to criticize what goes on a few hundred plus miles from home.

Those same persons who recognize and criticize it far away; always seem a lot less courageous when they might make eye contact with the neighbor; the reeve; and the mirror.

No... the problem gains its foothold much closer to the home and with individuals.
Just like prostitution. All forms of it; but you either are or are not selling out; and it should be known for what it is; no matter the location or service provided.

[chuckChuck]

Oneoff. I agree with most of what you have said. Mismanagement and conflict of interest should be challenged wherever they exist. However the jurisdiction of municipalities is very limited compared to other levels of government. The impact of problems at the federal and provincial level have a far greater impact on the lives of citizens. Lower levels of government are in fact a responsibility of Provincial governments.

I find it very interesting that many of the supporters of the current federal and provincial governments are willing to turn a blind eye to the erosion of democracy as long as their party has power. This is a reason why ruling parties get away with so many dirty tricks because supporters won't demand that they act fairly and responsibly.

[bucket]

chuckchuck

I am interested in your list of dirty tricks that lead to the erosion of democracy.

Although I am a redneck conservative, always have been and will be, I do not donate to any party as I believe their salaries are disgusting.

And I am also willing to call my MP if there is some erosion going on. If you write they have to answer. Although usually its a pretty shitty answer.