turnover at SPG

[oneoff]

My head spins over several unanswered questions

Quote "Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Announce Election Results
.December 11 2012
.FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE –Tuesday, December 11, 2012

It is official: Pulse growers in Saskatchewan have chosen their 2013 Board of Directors.

With 2,995 votes cast from 1,589 ballots, John Bennett of Biggar and Vicki Dutton of Paynton were elected to the two open spots on the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers (SPG) Board of Directors."

Unquote

So supposedly 1589 ballots cast. With 5 nominees and a maximumum of two positions; just what information does the 2995 figure add to informing anyone what the voting results were.

Any of the two winners could have had any percentage of those 2995 votes cast. Did anyone vote for more than two candidaates and how was that handled?

Why not simply report what the vote count was for each candidate and be done with it.

Then we get to appointments. What part of an election process do they assume.
Surely a re-elected board member remains in place continuously through to Jan 7,2013. Surely the `non-incumbent ``returning candidate`` is not now in office; and the appointed board members are stated as `for a one year term`which should expire on Jan 7, 2014 so the next time they would hopefully gain office through an election process.

By my calculation; there was not a quorum to make the decisions that led to the immediate press release on December 14, 2012

Lets see.... Two current board members left and òne newly re-elected Director equals three in office currently..........all the rest either resigned effective Dec. 13; or waiting for their appointed one year term to begin Jan. 7, 2013 or the former (not incumbent) who assumes his position on Jan 7, 2013 too. Those `non current positions add up to four.

Ergo..... NO QUORUM

Remember it is the SPG board that says they appointed the two to act as directors; and if that decision was made on Friday; it seems pretty clear it was made by less than half the full board size.

[dave4441]

It is a board of seven, three resign. Four are left.
What in the f--k are you talking about?

[TOM4CWB]

Oneoff,

Quorum is normally a percent of sitting directors... not
possible max. number of positions. Looks to me to be
done correctly.

Cheers

[bucket]

TOM


Such kind words for Bert. Maybe he can explain the declining yields on yellow peas even though farmers buy new seed regularly. His breeding programs seem to be sending the industry backwards on yields and plant growth.

Better innoculants, better farming practices yet less yields? Hmmmm

[oneoff]

dave... I think there is the small matter of a `returning director .....from Biggar`referred to in the IMMEDIATE RELEASE. That person`s status is different from the `newly re-elected director .....from Paynton``

Now next time before you literally tell me to xxxxx; perhaps you could see if your count isn`t out by one until Jan. 7,2013

Now as for Tom. Math isn`t one of your strong suits; but maybe you do have a point that could be argued.

I say it depends on the constitution and any Articles of Incorporation that may pertain to the organization. I am not familiar with those particulars; and would put it to all that probably no one else is either.
There has obviously been some things going within the Board of Directors which have not been seen as `commonly acceptable conduct`. It would seem prudent that as little other business be conducted; until there is a full quorum.

And Tom...As for the math; please see my comments for dave... and then please your evidence that the last standing director would have full authority to move, second and unanimously carry any motion he so chose.

[Jfreedom]

Some times I read your posts oneoff and they
seem to make sense and other times it looks like
the ramblings of a raving lunatic . Everything that
happens doesn't have to be a conspiracy with
people out to screw the masses . Some people at
least have the courage to run for boards and
councils . They make decisions to the best of their
abilities and sometimes we don't agree with them.
These people are farmers faced with unbelievable
circumstances with thousands of people looking
over their shoulder with the benefit of hindsight .
Maybe think before posting because you sure like
sitting in the dark of your basement criticing the
decisions of others in positions you will never
have the guts to run for

[dave4441]

Oneoff,
3 resign, leaving Vicki, Morgan, Dan Flynn and
Lee Moats as existing directors on the old board.
These 4 are in place to make decisions until the
new board is in place after the AGM. John
Bennett has no involvement until after AGM. I
guess I shouldn't have pounced as I should have
realized you didn't know who was on the board
currently. Look at SPG site for current board.

[dave4441]

And my count isn't out by one, your count is!

[oneoff]

You probably beat me to it; I did not factor in the totally unmentioned person(s) not seeking reelection. My error.

Be back soon to probably eat crow.

But get your best arguments ready for your defence of the other actions which are undermining the foundations of democratic priciples.

[gustgd]

I'm going to nominate Saskfarmer3. SPG needs
a soybean grower that "knows everything"

[oneoff]

Just so uninformed people (such as myself) don't get it wrong; tell me about how Bert, is related to Dr. Vandenberg; and the various SPG board positions; and though to the projects that producers fund and everything else we should know.
One of the tenants of democracy is that elected leaders and officials are given their position to represent their peers. You can't be the decision maker; and the disproportionate benefitter of those decisions at the same time.

One who is given that trust position is supposed to distance themselves from real and perceived instances of giving input and making decisions and at the same time being a participant in a project that has just been approved.

No one is entitled to multiple chances to learn that lesson. And it is not a grey area; if you are thinking clearly.

[dave4441]

Bert is extremely closely related to Dr
Vandenberg. Here in lies the problem
that I refered to a couple weeks ago.
Too much information out there or what?
You are asking how one person is related
to himself. Do you grow pulses? Grow
anything? You rally about the
principles of democracy but have not
even looked at the website for yourself.

Surely you are joking with this
question?

[oneoff]

Jfree... That tired old line of thankless job, doing their best, courageous leaders, inconsiderate followers is also sometimes used as cover by overly eager, corner cutting, error prone individuals, bullies and self serving crooks. It would be some importance for everyone to know which is the case. It is not just "their " business at stake; and one does not have to be all the above.

To deny that reality (however infrequent it may be) is one's decision; and their legacy. However those few (and their more numerous followers) are not fit to ever govern; in my opinion.

In the future can we rely on people such as yourself to keep everyone enlightened about the above two possibilities.

[Jfreedom]

Oneoff just trying to point out that a lot of people
run for boards and due their very best and are
good at it . Some get on a board and end up in a
shitshow like SPG has been in for a couple of
years . I feel for people that end up in that kind of
situation it only took the actions of one individual
to undue the continuity that the board had which
led to this election fiasco . I just don't like it when
people look over their shoulder with grandiose
ideas how they would have done . Your other
issues about guys that due take liberties on
boards or councils for their own benefit . Trust me
I've seen some just unbelievable things on RM
council and other boards . It bogles my mind why
guys take a risk on things for a few bucks and I
wonder at times how people that stupid could get
elected to dog catcher but it happens all the time .
I have seen things end when people get involved
and challenge them in the right way . Going ape
shit in a council meeting just gets ya talked about
though .

[oneoff]

Since we both know the dirtiest, nastiest side of what calls itself humanity

we can also probably relate to it being possible to hold one's own in even very uneven fights.

And just because the rumor of your cowardice; and your unjust grievances have been widely spread; and deeply swallowed.....does not mean there is much of substance in what you have heard.

For few will have ever had the courage to attend one of those council meetings and many will have missed the vilification of others; if not themselves.