by BETTER FARMING STAFF
The Ontario Federation of Agriculture anticipates that the Ministry of Natural Resources will shortly post a draft policy that would allow farmers to harass or kill nuisance elk destroying crops on their farms.
At an OFA directors meeting Aug 25, president Bette Jean Crews says the province has assured her the policy will be posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights website as early as today. “It’s good news for farmers but we don’t know details on how many elk can be removed,” Crews says.
Crews says the federation wanted the comment period on the policy to be shortened to 30 days because the critical harvest period, when marauding elk can do the most damage, is approaching. However, the ministry of natural resources insisted that the comment period must remain at 45 days.
Damage to crops in the Bancroft area has been a long-standing issue. The ministry released breeding animals there in order to establish a herd for hunting. Affected farmers say the animals were never native to the area.
Farmers must report stray voltage: Federation
Gencor wants a third party review process put into place to deal with stray voltage remains an issue on the province’s dairy farms. However, the province’s largest AI cooperative was not able to get the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the province’s largest farm organization, to lead the way.
Ontario already has the strongest regulations in the country to deal with farm stray voltage, says OFA vice-president Don McCabe. He says Ontario Hydro has only received 11 complaints about stray voltage in recent months “and they’ve all been dealt with.”
“Farm stray voltage is a cancer in the livestock industry here in Ontario and needs to be addressed much more aggressively than has occurred to date,” Gencor general manager Brian O’Connor wrote in a letter to the federation.
Farmers are afraid to complain to Hydro One, the largest rural distributor in the province, because their hydro might be turned off, says OFA director Ralph Brodie, Kent County. McCabe says that fear is unrealistic.
“It comes down to a communications exercise,” McCabe says.
“You will have to call your provider whether you like it or not,” director Mark Wales says. “I don’t think creating further bureaucracy . . . . will solve the problem.”
Still more power news
OFA vice president Don McCabe says farmers who were among the 11,000 landowners left in limbo with a micro-FIT application before July 2 must re-submit their applications by Sept. 7. The Ontario Authority needs assurance that individual applicants are still able to proceed.
Federation out sources communications role to London ad agency
Today the Ontario Federation of Agriculture announced it had selected ON Communications as their agency of record to execute their province-wide marketing and communications initiatives.
“ON’s grasp of agriculture is invaluable,” said Neil Currie, general manager of the province’s largest general farm organization. “Their hands-on experience and practical knowledge will be applied to help us meet our organization’s objectives.”
“We’re fortunate to have the opportunity to work with an agricultural leader like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture,” says Rob Boyer, Principal, ON Communication Inc. “We’re excited to be helping the OFA enhance its position as the voice of Ontario’s farmers.”
According to figures provided to directors at this month’s meeting, the federation has 36,019 members as of July 31. That’s down 584, a 0.2 per cent decline since the same time last year. BF
questions for OFA directors
Here are the questions every OFA member needs to ask their director
1) Did "other" quit, was she fired for a good reason, or was she paid off with excessive amounts of members money to go away quietly?
2) Is any OFA staff or executive member a close friend or relative of any key person at OnCommunications?
Depending on the answers to these questions Neil Currie's explanation on CKNX could be viewed as either excellent or extremely deceptive and depending on which it is he should either be recognized for his efforts at communicating or fired for deception.
The communication issue does not seem very big when you look at OFA's large list of urgent farming issues. At least one person here has mentioned adscam, which coincidentally was about serious wrongdoing by government staff and elected officials with their friends in communication agencies. Maybe that's the kind of thing that's happening at OFA and maybe it isn't. Both situations involve a lack of tenders for a large amount of money. That should raise the alarm at OFA. Handing over taxpayer's money to friends in communications agencies seemed like a small issue for the Liberals at first but it resulted in trials and inquiries and finally it brought down the government and destroyed the Liberal party because adscam went far beyond communication and exposed serious wrongdoing and an attitude that allowed them to spend taxpayer dollars as they wished.
If mistakes were made at OFA the executive and directors can still admit them quickly and openly. Show us that you control staff and not the other way around. Show us that you know right from wrong and have zero tolerance for wrongdoing when it comes to managing member's money and managing in an ethical manner. I'm sure most members can forgive mistakes because we all make them and directors especially have to deal with a lot of unfamiliar problems in a short time when they go to an OFA meeting and they have to keep their first priority on their farm back home. Fixing a mistake is always better than trying to live with a bad decision or even worse a cover up.
THERE IS 72 REPLIES to this
THERE IS 72 REPLIES to this ofa topic and mostly all are condeming ofa and some want an investigation or justice to right the economic pain done to farmers by the poor actions of OFA. Who should do the investigation? Heaven forbid if OMafra did it . Some one needs to be held legally respnseable for any near wrongfull action. let us face it Ontario farmers organizations are failing Ontario farmers so badly that the average age of farmers is 63 and few young people although some want to farm have decided not to because of the poor profits farming gives. Ofa executive and directors need to do the correct thing for the next generation farmer and right the wrongs they(OFA) have caused
There should be a NO confidence vote on OFA survival after 2 years of reconstruction, whats more this new oganization of GRAIN FARMERS OF ONTARIO SHOULD BE PUT ON NOTICE THAT they have no excuse either for their continued poor results actions following the same old path as their previous corn beans and wheat boards because of being a new organization, Legal action is needed now !!!
12 more months
12 more months and this government is gone. Mitchell will be gone too.
Its time to voice our problems to the other parties for next Octobers election.
Lets just hope Mitchell does not inflict more damage to the farming community before the end of their reign.
Another question for OFA directors
How many of their friends and relatives have OFA staff hired or promoted over the past three years?
The answer is important to every OFA member because friends and relatives can place loyalty to each other ahead of loyalty to the membership and the goals of the organization.
I think most directors who
I think most directors who want to know have a pretty good idea that something is wrong. The ONCommunications situation seems to be just the tip of the iceberg and as we can see a few members are beginning to ask good questions. If the current OFA president wins the November elections it will be a great day for NFU.
No Action is negligence
If most directors think there is something wrong and do nothing, even to satisfy some of the questions asked here. Is that not negligence?
If nothing is being done and no questions answered is that a directive of staff or directors posturing for another term.
Is anyone prepared to have a courtroom setting question and answer session before any ballots are cast at the fall elections OFAgate / adscam, annual meeting? Without clear answers we are guaranteed to be re-electing the same elected representation for another term.
It is an absolute shame that after two years of restructuring the net result is worse that anything we had before with no sign of concern from any present form of leadership.
No action is smart in this case
Needs of senior staff are being met. Director's needs evidently likewise.
It wouldn't make sense to agree to answer questions in an open meeting.
In situations like this you just have to keep your head down and hope things blow over or pray that a big issue come along to distract the restless natives.
The omnipotence of OFA?
So you feel the wrong doings of OFA are so highly godly we should accept relatives and friends being hired as normal acceptable course of business. You have no problem with the oaths of marriage and friendship priorities being mixed up in the daily business of OFA? Staff know so much better that anyone else.. You feel the unquestionable omnipotence of OFA so far beyond reproach there should be no questions raised about what would and has triggered full blown investigations in government and political scenarios, Adscam or patronage appointments for example.
It is this very blind acceptance without question that has brought cults down. It is your very unquestioning blind sheep following that has contributed to the lack of leadership OFA is displaying now.
Put some ethics in your life. You will feel better about yourself and the world around you and instead of going around with your head down you might find enough pride to hold in up.... even with an OFA hat on it.
Personnel matters can't be
Personnel matters can't be discussed in public.
Personnel matters
Trying to hide behind the "closed doors of personnel matters" does not resolve the matter of hiring On Communications without proper legal tendering.
There has been a breach of fiduciary duties by the OFA executives. Without a investigation the members will never know if there was a pecuniary conflict of interest inside the workings of the organization.
Where is Mitchell?
So you think that just
So you think that just because most directors think there is something wrong they would agree to answer questions in the open about this? You're joking right?
And the alternative is ?
"If the current OFA president wins the November elections it will be a great day for NFU."
And the guy running against her is any better?
Lets face it. The ON Communication mess really shows how incompetent the whole bunch is.
The OFA should be investigated and if it is found to be negligent with farmers' monies, then shut down the Ofa.
No one will miss any of them.
relatives at OFA
http://www.ofa.on.ca/staff.php
Let me make this as easy as I can. There are 2 in the left hand column and 2 in the right hand column before you get 1/2 way down the page. This does not include the fishing buddies friends, or friends that have benefited.
Any more specific BF won't print it so think of it as a scavenger hunt.
relatives at OFA
Was there a relationship between the owner's spouse of On Communication Inc. and the OFA?
Marital relationship
Yes Rob Boyer former MSR for OFA spouse is Michel Floyd owner of ON Communications http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/10/01/15547541.html
Imagine the dialogue with Currie and Perks to fire the OFA communications dept and hire ON Communications with no tender process or comparison of other services that might be better value for dollar spent.
Did ]:-> the devil make em do it?
A weird situation has existed for three weeks Directors and executive have been strangely silent about it officially. A few possibilities.
1) Don't know about it = unlikely unless they have been in a coma
2) Don't get it = maybe
3) Under a spell = hmm
Did ];-< the devil make em do it?
4) All of the above.
add scam
The alleged transgressions of OFA elected officials and staff are equally the same for politically elected officials representing and handling funds for others. A full investigation was called for and demanded for public accountability, of (public) funds. The add scam politicians and their staff were scrutinized and held accountable as to their decisions and discretion (or indiscretion) of public funds.
Last weeks speech from the OFA throne was conspicuously silent on this subject.It might have blown over but this week with new fuel for the fire of questions, anything short of a full investigation and appropriate action will fall short of satisfying member concern for an investigative address. After last weeks exposure of unnatural happenings what tender process was applied to this dept. Was the IT dept obliterated as was the communication dept ...
Last years increase in funding seems to have bought ...
The federal and provicial
The federal and provicial governments give the illusion they do not the the capital to right the wrong government through politics, have harmed Ontario and Canadian farmers , resulting in economic stress with net farm income harm in the last 2 decades. Ofa/CFA since STABLE FUNDING OF FARM ORGANIZATIONS have lacked vision to demand with forceful action and backup plans inducing govts to pass the lawful economic legislation for farmers , a class of people who till the soil and produce animal livestock for profit.
Time and again every suceeding OFA president and executive have made documented promises but failed the test to preform to benifit the farming public net income without a majority of farmers having off farm income, with wives working as nurses or teachers etc to fill the income gap on the future hope.
More to the point nobody has been held accountable , with the young farmers of Canada facing uncertain profit potential with high land and machinery cost not seen by the previous young farming generation
Outsourcing
Did OFA just outsource it's IT department? Another employee out of a job?
Anyone heard how the IT
Anyone heard how the IT outsourcing is going?
No News Is Good IT News
I'm sure if there were IT problems an OFA staff member would have said something here. I think some of the postings here are from staff. In this case no news is good news.
Outsourcing
This whole thing is starting to look like massive down-sizing before a complete shut-down.
Looks like the Ofa is addressing 'unfunded liabilities' (severance and pensions) while there are some funds still left in the account.
Is the government planning to outsource the GFO's and create a single farm organization much like what happened with the grain boards?
Who is running the Ofa? Staff, directors or the Minister of Agriculture?
The Minister is awfully quiet through this mess.
Oh to Frank Burt R.I.P
Is this another dept of OFA that has not measured up or the patronage of friend hiring?
When we consider the accomplishments initiated by resolutions that have been suspended or ignored our appointed voice has not accomplished much.
Maybe the best outsourcing we could get is to outsource this out of control OFA!!!
R.I.P. Frank Burt
Gone(?) but not forgotten.
Adscam?
This whole thing reminds me of something.
Oh yeah.
The liberals are in power in Ontario.
Does any one remember Adscam?
It doesnt make any
It doesnt make any difference if you have liberal or conservative provincial govt you get the same treatment for Ontario farmers. One has to look back at past government to see the complete failure towards non supply farmers
It doesnt make any
The government has not been on the farmers side for years now and we can't trust them to protect us.
The sad part is with the whole thing at the OFA and there lack of accountability and other failures, we are losing trust in them too.
We're on our own.
It doesnt make any
Your right and thats true.
But don't excuse the GFO's either.
They are a complete failure to non supply farmers also. There record is terrible. The only thing they can do good is bend over and say "thank ya, thank ya" wherever the government throws a scrap at them.
New Information
An excerpt from Aug 27, 2010
http://www.marketingmag.ca/english/news/marketer/article.jsp?content=201...
While the OFA chose its new agency without a review, Currie indicated that his organization would issue a request for proposals after its agreement with On expires.
Boyer said the agency viewed the short-term agreement with OFA as an opportunity to build a long-standing relationship.
"As long as we do everything we said we were going to do and effectively help them with their communications, hopefully they'll look at that as a long-term process," said Boyer. "It's starting at the higher level, from a strategy point of view, looking at how they've been communicating in the past and how we can add value and improve that."
On formally took over AOR duties earlier this month.
My interpretation
Currie hired On BEFORE bothering to tell directors
Currie DID NOT consider any other agencies.
Currie is billing this as a short term arrangement but no other agencies need apply.
CKNX Tuesday, August 31,
CKNX Tuesday, August 31, 2010 8:43 am
"The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is making a change in it's communications area.
One of it's communications staffers is retiring the end of September - the other is no longer with the Federation.
So O-F-A General Manager Neil Currie says they've decided to contract out the communications job."
He says the change comes at a time when communicating as a farm group is getting more complex.
Sounds reasonable!
Sounds Reasonable?
OFA is supposed to communicate to members, that is one of their jobs;
I am not sure how an out source company can be timely or have all the facts and info that OFA staff or Board would have from being at the table.
other is no longer around
The press release does sound reasonable but is it the whole story?
The question now is why the "other is no longer with the Federation".
What happened to the "other"?
If the "other" had a planned exit also, that might go a long way to explaining the non-tendered On Communication selection - devil dancing and all. Was there a sudden or planned departure of the "other"?
Can the OFA executive please tell us the whole story?
The devil is in the details.
sudden or planned departure
"sudden or planned departure" would that be like come git your stuff and we will walk you out? That might qualify as a planned and sudden departure. How could that happen and leave the 'remaining' of the dept when the strategy and rational was to obliterate the dept. in total?
Rational thinking does not work here so one would have to switch to sleazy innuendo or at the very least the ac-ult unnatural to understand the sacrifices of manipulation.
Based on the information here I think staff is under a very great spell of unholy and unethical thinking not becoming to the spirit of Ont. farmers business or moral standards?
If as the marketing magazine
If as the marketing magazine article seems to indicate On already has this in the bag why would any competing agency bother to spend the time and money to put together a detailed proposal? Answer--they wouldn't because aside from being plain dumb that would be a waste of their resources. The idea of asking other communications companies to bid at some future date seems like it is really a meaningless gesture added to make the Kool Aid taste better.
So what
So what. Carol Mitchell is not saying anything so that means she has no problem with the hiring of a new communication company, devil association and all. A little moonlight dancing can lighten the mood around the OFA.
If it is good enough for our minister, then its OK for the government.
So what is your real problem?
So what
I think you might be getting OFA confused with OMAFRA.
So what
Not confused at all.
OFA was created by OMAFRA. OMAFRA monitors the farm organization.
When OMAFRA shows it has no problem with what is going on, why should we?
Don't you trust that the minister and OMAFRA are watching out for the best interests of all farmers?
If Carol Mitchel, a minister (no pun intended) in the Ontario cabinet, does not mind, why should we?
We can't go running to
We can't go running to government every time one of our boards or GFOs has problems. Most Canadians have to pay taxes and it's the Auditor General's job to watch for improper spending and management. It was the auditor general who discovered Adscam and Liberal nepotism. Farmers have to select a General Farm Organization and most pay fees to one but we have no Auditor General to tell us when we have an Adscam or nepotism. We need an Auditor who scrutinizes management. If you think your membership fees are being mishandled you can opt out or join NFU. Demanding that government fix problems created by those we elect to farm organizations makes all farmers look bad.
We can't go running to
The OFA must meet accreditation standards and the minister ultimately oversees the farm organizations. It is the responsibility of the minister to ensure the farm groups follow proper and legal protocol.
The farmers have every right to demand the Minister ensures accountability from the OFA.
It is starting to make Mitchell look bad that the OFA is did not ask for tenders when they hired On Communications. Dont blame farmers for demanding accountability.
Saying the farmers look bad is just a bully tactic.
Stop victimizing the victim and demand Mitchell to be transparent in all OFA financial dealings.
sorry, but you really are confused
In the first place, the only people hired by any Board are the CEO, the Auditor, and possibly legal counsel. All other personnel issues are solely the jurisdiction of the CEO and his/her senior management team.
For example, if someone is hired, or fired, by the CEO, nobody on the Board of Directors, or even any member of the Executive, has any business asking why this happened.
Therefore, since personel issues are beyond the jurisdiction of the OFA Board, they are completely beyond the jurisdiction of the Minister.
Minister Jurisdiction
OFA is an independent farmer run organization. The Minister of Ag. has no say in anything it does, period.
The OFA Executive and board however can hold the CEO responsible for the performance of staff, firer or firee.
Minister has no say?
Can you put that in writing for the Tribunal for the next OFA review?
whos confused????
There is a general feeling that the ofa does not represent farmers.
Thank you for confirming it when you wrote "if someone is hired, or fired, by the CEO, nobody on the Board of Directors, or even any member of the Executive, has any business asking why this happened".
You are saying that the CEO has absolute power and not accountable to the board or directors. The directors are subservient to the CEO even though there are unfunded financial severance liabilities.
You are stating the OFA executives are negligent in their fiduciary duties.
If the executives and the directors do not represent staff then how do the directors represent the farmer? Sounds like the CEO runs the show.
When is the next review for accreditation? Farmers need to send in notes to the Tribunal.
you're ,missing the point
In any professionally-managed organization, the CEO is responsible for all personnel matters, and the only time a Board of Directors has the right to interfere, is when there's evidence of malfeasance.
Or, to look at it in another way, the Board of Directors makes policy, the CEO is responsible for carrying it out. Therefore, a decision to out-source communications would normally be a Board decision, and the ensuing termination and/or re-allocation of personnel would be the jurisdiction of solely the CEO.
At the OFA itself, one of the biggest, and longest-term, problems is that the Executive, and the Board of Directors, spend too much time meddling in things which aren't their business to meddle in.
you're ,missing the point
You are correct in your assertion that CEOs are responsible for personnel matters in professionally-managed organizations.
The underlining confusion of your message lies in the context of the word "malfeasance".
You confuse the argument of privately managed organizations with publicly mandated organizations.
Most private organizations command obligatorily staff administration by the CEO with defined budgetary parameters.
Malfeasance is reserved to wrongful or illegal acts of public officials so your rationale is not applicable to private organizations.
The OFA must meet Provincial ethical standards and other criterion for accreditation.
The legally elected OFA directors and their executives are quasi-public officials consequently assigned to oversee the pecuniary interests of the organization and execute due diligence in all financial dispensations of which includes employee remunerations whether it be in terms of salary or severance allocation.
The untendered process of hiring a communication agency by the quasi-governmental organization is a legitimate use of the term malfeasance, and as such, the actions or non-actions of the directors should be called into question by legislative authorities.
you're missing the point
So you're saying the directors and executives are petty and incompetent therefore the need for a dictatorial staff?
So what
Not confused, just delusional?
new information
No tender process means we can never have any assurance of good competent economic value. Most fair races start from a simultaneous start from the same start line. There are and were obvious impartialities given to friends and past acquaintances of ON Communications by both staff and now by the board, for ON with a 3-4 month head start.
The firing of a dept may be legal within the law but it sure breaks the "spirit" of the law and farm family values especially if all of the dept was not let go at the same time. Why should some long term communication staff be saved.
Breaking the spirit of good and fair value may result in long term curses or hexes.
Unnatural
Since things seem, dare I say it, unnatural, I would feel better if the OFA president would assure us that staff followed all proper procedures and that they have not hired a friend or relative for this contract.