© AgMedia Inc.
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Agricorp’s decision to prohibit staff members from joining some farm organization boards is unrealistic say provincial agricultural leaders.
It couldn’t come at a worse time, says Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Bette Jean Crews, Trenton, who expects to meet with officials of the provincial crown corporation, which delivers risk management programs to farmers, before the New Year.
Ontario’s agricultural industry is in crisis and needs leaders. Some of these leaders must find off-farm jobs to make ends meet; some work for Agricorp. Now they can’t be farm leaders. “You can see the irony in it,” she says.
Agricorp began to gradually introduce the policy in July 2008.
Agricorp spokesperson Stephanie Charest says fewer than 15 conflicts have been found so far.
Wayne Black, Huron County Federation of Agriculture’s president, says three or four local commodity boards are affected in his area and he fielded nearly 40 e-mails about the issue last weekend.
One of the boards affected is the Ontario White Bean Producers. Vice-chair Grant Jones says chair Gilbert VanSteelandt works as a field adjuster with Agricorp. VanSteelandt confirmed his intent to resign directorship at the bean board’s Jan. 12 meeting and referred a Better Farming reporter to Jones for all other comments.
Charest says the prohibition stems from changes made to align Agricorp’s conflict of interest policy with the 2007 Public Service of Ontario Act. The policy prohibits all of the company’s 400 seasonal, contract and permanent employees from serving on boards of general farm and commodity organizations at regional, county and provincial levels.
She explains that the change was needed to ensure transparency and accountability for the public by removing any potential conflict. Charest did not know if a 2008 audit of Agricorp’s services had influenced the changes. Ensuring public accountability and transparency is a major priority for Agricorp, she says.
“Basically when we have a staff member who sits on a board, that board director has a duty and obligation to their constituents to uphold the best interest of the board,” which, in the case of general farm or commodity boards could include setting policy about business risk management programs, Charest says. “They could lobby our stakeholders or direct their staff to lobby our stakeholders about programs we deliver, so that could be a conflicting situation.” Moreover, Agricorp employees are required to keep corporation information confidential, which could conflict with their board duties.
Agricorp permits and even encourages employees to participate in organizations such as 4-H and fairs because these don’t have an impact on the corporation’s business interests, Charest says.
Jones says the policy is unrealistic. Only those coming from an urban background would be able to declare themselves free of conflicts – but they would also lack the expertise that practicing farmers bring to their work with Agricorp.
Crews points out that those on farm boards must also follow conflict of interest policies but these usually revolve around money or some sort of profit. “I think there’s room for another interpretation,” she says of Agricorp’s position on the issue.
If local municipalities have found a way to deal with conflicts of interest as they arise, Black wonders why Agricorp can’t. “There are ways of working around it,” he says.
Black fears other organizations or businesses might follow suit, resulting in more loss of volunteer power on local boards. BF
Comments
Agricorp is giving lame excuses - for example, the entire farm accounting community fought tooth-and-nail for seven years, to get rid of the P2/P2 inventory pricing system used in farm support programs. If an entire community of highly-qualified, very-experienced, and highly-vocal, professionals couldn't influence the most wretched accounting procedure any of us had ever seen, what chance does a handful of honorarium-collecting laypeople have of influencing any government policy?
Since I'm part of the farm accounting community, and was at the centre of the P2/P2 issue, I take particular offense with Agricorp's so-called "reasons" and, I'll gladly post my name
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
I sat as a Director on the OFA representing Junior Farmers for 3 years and when I had exceeded the age limit for JF, my boss in the Ag Division at Statistics Canada encouraged me to find another way to remain on the board. He felt my involvement was a benefit to Stats Can even though I dealt with confidential agricultural data in my position. He and his bosses trusted me to keep my volunteer work and my paid work separate.
Since most farmers I've talked to feel Agricorp is a top-heavy, secretive organization that doesn't really do anything for farmers, I would think any involvement of staff in commodity organizations would only enhance Agricorp's image. It's unfortunate that Agricorp doesn't see the assets their staff involvement can provide to the organization.
Barb
Thank you for posting the article about the Agricorp issue. You have Agricorp spokesperson stating:
“Basically when we have a staff member who sits on a board, that board director has a duty and obligation to their constituents to uphold the best interest of the board,” which, in the case of general farm or commodity boards could include setting policy about business risk management programs, Charest says. ... Moreover, Agricorp employees are required to keep corporation information confidential, which could conflict with their board duties.
So in a sense, what Agricorp is suggesting, we can not have a councillor on our municipal council who is a farmer, or has a lease agreement for a wind turbine, or is a resident of the municipalitiy because there would be a conflict of interest when an issue comes up about changing requirements for building permits on AG1 land, wind turbine moritoriums, or implementing a property standards by-law.
Agricorp is the "delivery agent" for the programs, from my understanding. As long as they follow the policy implemented by the government, who cares? The government sets the policy I thought.
As I have suggested - when a subject matter comes up about the Agricorp business - the person should have the knowledge to "step out" of the discussion.
By telling their employees they can not be board members because "Agricorp employees are required to keep corporation information confidential" Agricorp is basically admitting they can not trust their employees. We all have confidential information that we must keep confidential relating to our farm business or other off-farm jobs.
Like the letter to the editor by Mr. Thompson states "Agricorp is giving lame excuses".
Wayne Black, Auburn, ON
Post new comment