Who speaks for Sask. pulse growers

[gustgd]

Saw this come across my email. Not sure of all
the candidates. Hundaby lives close by and I
know him well enough to talk. He has spent a lot
of time on the board of Gardner dam terminal but I
don't know if hewas a good board member or not?

I know Simpsons sister I served on a board with
her and the family has been involved with pulse
for a generation. This is also a perceived
handicap, how much processor influence do we
want on a farmer board? Also he is younger. I
think he would bring a different perspective to the
board than some of the old war horses. Hope he
can assert himself and form his own opinions if
elected.
Dutton I know a bit am told she's a bit of a shit
disturber. Sometimes that's a good thing
sometimes not.
Wiens I'm told has been a very good director from
Sask Canola. Asks lots of questions. Don't know
about other guy.

This running as a slate and being endorsed
makes me wonder about director independence?
Will they make tough decisions if the decision has
already been predetermined? Hope so!

I'm working on a Sask wheat commission and
cotton I'll send your nomination forms in, when
the call for directors happens. If your idea has
merit,you get the credit.

2012-11-19 Corrected
Pulse candidates Robert Hundeby and Trevor
Simpson are endorsed by current directors
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Monday,
November 19, 2012 to Saskatchewan Farm
Media
Issued by: Saskatchewan Pulse Growers
Directors Buhr, Moen and Vandenberg

It’s Saskatchewan Pulse Growers (SPG) election
time again, and candidates Robert Hundeby and
Trevor Simpson are being endorsed by current
directors Shawn Buhr, Jim Moen and Dr. Bert
Vandenberg. A key duty of elected SPG directors
is to identify and encourage people to let their
name stand for election as director. The directors
assisted them in the nomination process and ask
pulse growers to vote for these young farm
businessmen in the election which is underway.
Two spots are open on the SPG board.
Robert Hundeby (37) is married with three
children and has operated a 3900 acre farm
business at Elbow, Saskatchewan since 1996.
Rob is a select seed grower and a third of his land
has been in pulses, including lentils, peas and
chickpeas. Among other endeavors, he is
currently vice president of the Gardiner Dam
Terminal.
Trevor Simpson (31), also married with one child,
is a select seed grower and manages the
Simpson family 8500 acre pedigreed seed farm at
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. Over the last 7 years,
Trevor has gained extensive experience in the
production, processing and value adding of
pulses, including the construction and
management of a red lentil splitting plant.
“It is encouraging to see this new generation of
young pulse growers run for our board”, says
Shawn Buhr, SPG Director. “We need their input
and new ideas to move our pulse industry
forward. It is so beneficial to our industry to have
an election which provides choices and stimulates
discussion.”
Buhr, along with Moen and Vandenberg, asks
pulse growers to support Robert Hundeby and
Trevor Simpson during the election which is now
underway. Ballots have been mailed out and
should be received by all Saskatchewan pulse
growers the week of November 19th. Completed
ballots need to be received no later than 4pm on
December 6th.
For more information please contact:

Shawn Buhr, Lucky Lake cell (306) 858 7256
office (306) 858-2408 srbuhr@sasktel.net
Jim Moen, Cabri cell (306) 587-7452 office (306)
587-2214 jim.moen@sasktel.net
Bert Vandenberg, Saskatoon cell (306) 221-2039
office (306) 966-8786 bert.vandenberg@usask.ca
Robert Hundeby, Elbow cell (306) 260-8338 office
(306) 854-4702 rob.hundeby@gmail.com
Trevor Simpson, Moose Jaw office (306) 693-
9402 trevor@simpsonseeds.com

[LEP]

This is BS. Running a press release endorsing two
candidates so they can carry their agenda at the board
table.

If you ask me even though I don't know these guys
personally, I won't vote for them because I don't like
how the three amigos ran on a slate last year.

I know John Bennett and have the greatest respect for
him. He makes reasoned decisions and has been an
innovator his entire life.

Vicki can be a shit disturber, but won't be run over by
the three amigos.

The pulse growers are in control of many millions of
dollars. We can't let the three amigos gain control of the
board.

I too would push for a voluntary checkoff if this
happened.

[bucket]

I hate old boys clubs. Arrogance.

If they want to be politicians they should go to another calling.

[Rareearth]

No individuals will let their name stand in the next
election, with out the endorsement of the board,
why would they? Shame

This is wrong, another conflict of interest,
manipulation. What is the risk, why the push to
maintain "control", what's broken?

Looks like a public meeting should be held to get
the conflicts, policies with wants and needs in the
open.

Shame, the negative campaigning. It looks like a
personal attack on all work, and effort of the other
candidates, a attack on their integrity?

Some times the easiest decision is not to make
one. Is youth really the experience and
contribution a organization with needs wants or
requires.

I vote for voluntary levy.

I believe exclusive varieties, with my levy dollars
should be available for all to grow. Many
companies now have International exposurure. I
have to wonder how many of our newest, latest,
and best varieties are in other countries at the
same time I have access to them? I see a
opportunity to generate a new revenue stream, at
what cost? Undermining our Sask and national
competitiveness, while the shameless promotion
benefits the company's promoting the varieties.

Looks to me like all candidates are qualified, and
with opions. Thanks to all for putting your good
names and integrity forward.

[gustgd]

To be fair every commodity association is
struggling for farm leaders. It would be safe to
say that anyone who has run for a position was
"recruited" or if they had issues encouraged to
run.
Maybe the three incumbents are just being more
upfront? I hope the real issues come forward
before the election. I can only get bits and bites
from those who might know. Mostly differences in
policy nothing serious, but with the dollars at
stake......
Chances of a special meeting during the election
are slim to none IMHO. Maybe they could start
having election after Crop production week.
Turnout for the AGM is likely better than the voter
turnout. I think I was told it was 12% last time.

Apathy is the enemy!

[haveapulse]

I take the "shit disturber' label as a compliment and you bet, I will look after producer interests!

[gustgd]

Haveapulse/ Vicci. I meant it both ways. Good
luck thanks for putting your name forward.

[wmoebis]

Sumdumguy: You said Some large companies could be way over their bond, and nobody would know.

Isn't the CGC's job to make sure these guys are bonded and then monitor them so they don't go over bond or make them increase value of bond?

[malleefarmer]

cotton we have this in australia but its
not quite like what your thinking of.

cleargrain.com.au

baiscally ebay for grain clear is the
clearing house buyer dont know sellers
and vice versa

transaction is agreed on grain goes to
clear and buyer money goes to clear when
clear get the money buyers get the grain
if buyer defaults within the 7 days
grain goes back to seller risk free

[TOM4CWB]

SDG,

"The bond system didnt work well enough. The audit process comes way after the fact. Large companies could be way over their bond and no one would know."

Primary Elevators are allowed to count inventory as assets for reporting purposes.... WHICH is right. Grain Dealers were NOT allowed this opportunity... which made the bond required much greater.

It is now an option; if being covered by insurance... it is up to the insurance co. to make sure assets are there... or the insurance policy pays the grower. Functionally now this is already an option under the 'old' legislation. EDC is providing an 'assurity' for security of grower liabilities for some buyers. Others can provide a Bank Bond with less cost to themselves for the security needed.

Under the new legislation... the CGC can hire a 3rd party to cover admin and liabilities (if they see value to growers)... so grower security could be better than under the present system.

THis way the more stable buyers pay a lower cost... and more risky buyers pay more. Which is as it should be. Growers should not be paying for security... other than in the buyers basis; as has been the case for a century.

Cheers