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
Comments
And so it goes. Another slow day at the OFA.
It's the reporters at Better Farming who are "slow". I think you missed the real story here completely. It's not about Elk!
"Out sources communications" Hello!!!!!!!!!! Did you guys ask any questions about this? Which is it -- lazy reporting or hiding your heads in the sand? Go back and ask as many questions as you can think of. Then ask some more.
You are too kind to the press of agriculture. Non agriculture press are always looking for a scoop to break news and the E health situation was well documented tale of govt failure,etc. and the press dug the story out. The same with ontario lottery scandals. Mean while our Canadian agriculture press is satisfied with giving History not breaking news. The result being farmers of agriculture do not get the just results like non agiculture business. One has to question if agr-ibusiness advertising in our farm magazines etc has such income power as to overide hard hitting questions and reporting of the farm press . It took USA justice and the press to jail a Canadian business info mogul .
With the announcement of a contender for the upcoming OFA November presidential election some real press reporting is needed with far reaching questions or farming leader ship will continue to take farmers down the road to future economic decay.
NEWS NOT HISTORY
There was a glaring need to replace or otherwise shake up communications at OFA. Out sourcing maybe a solution based on economics but if you are going to have another voice speak for membership there should be a clear message with published goals and objectives within a stated timeline. Anything less would be a continued failure.
We have seen the stellar accomplishments of the outsourced lobbying of the Daisy groups representation of GFO's ...
Death by talking is a cruel way to go.
GFO hired a lobbyist to assist communications. They did not outsource their communications department. People couldn't understand why GFO chose a liberal firm to lobby a conservative government. If OFA communications staff needed a shakeup this is the exact opposite of what directors and executive members were saying.
In the first part of this story, 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.(Aug 25)“
At 9;10 Aug 27 this notice is still not posted.
In the part about On Communications, Was this an initiative of staff to close down the communication dept(thereby circumventing wrongful dismissal in the firing of staff) or a directive of the board? How many of the board were actually in favour of outsourcing? If staff felt the communication dept was not performing to their expectations why was nothing done about their poor performance over the last number of years? Maybe the outsourcing should happen from the top down instead of making fall guys from those at the bottom for CEO types at the top. Hail to a rollback of funding!!
If you know something about wrongful dismissal let's hear some facts that can be verified. If not this is just poorly-disguised, worthless, sleazy innuendo.
The question posed "Was this an initiative of staff to close down the communication dept(thereby circumventing wrongful dismissal in the firing of staff) or a directive of the board?"
I know the word "circumventing" threw you OR maybe just touched the right nerve button, but as the first poster said, let Better Farming (press) ferret out the answers. Farmers deserve the real answers to anything "sleazy" as you said, just like the rest of the public deserved the truth for e-health and lottery.
The truth will set you and us free
What a waste of my money. Let's lower our membership fees to where they were before. Spending money on these high priced consultants is not the way to go. Have these folks lost their mind? And their connection to their membership?
Ofa has become a hugh cruel joke feeding on farmers economic needs getting poor results for OFA's shareholders
I don't understand why the Ofa gets so much ink. They have nothing to offer except empty rhetoric echoing government policy.
Do farmers really need or want the kind of representation this group has to offer?
Why is it that the OFA thinks their communications are at fault? Maybe it doesn't matter how they communicate. Results are what counts. If there latest claim to fame (unrealistic power payouts for some landowners) is the best they can do, then their communications is pointless. What are they doing about increased hydro distribution charges, what are they doing about spring wheat dockages, what are they doing about increased wheat drying charges? Communications is not the problem, results are.
“ON’s grasp of agriculture is invaluable,” said Neil Currie,"
I wonder what Mr. Currie means by that statement?
Looking at ON Communication web site you will find the staff and brief bios. One staff member, Scott Hill the creative director, states he likes to "dance with devil in the moonlight".
Is that what it is going to take for the OFA to change their poor image? Voodoo strategy?
Does Mr. Currie really believe that dancing with a devil in the moonlight to be invaluable for agriculture?
The thought makes me shutter.
What Ofa needs to do is take a cold hard look at itself and see if they are getting real tangable economic results for their farmers, and list results besides tax rebates. Ever since Ofa has stable funding they have been afraid to speak up against govt inaction ,Ofa record of performance for real results shows signs of constant cooperation with government which produces meaningless press statements. Let us face facts, most farmers are too busy at farming , have not kept up with the true facts of ofa results or know OFA is ineffective but still become members hoping ofa will change. Sooner or later farmers will see ofa in the real since and take meaningful action to depose OFA for what it is, Ofa has been fooling the farmers most of the time but their trust is wearing thin in the farming community. Most farmers today are desendents of past farmers of 1 or 2 generations who imigrated to Canada for freedom, but now tell their children to chose another profession with better net income. It is a true mistake farmers have put their trust in farm organizations .
The facts of farmers needs are non disputable in fairyland of OFA
Halloween is coming so OFA and their new communication friends can dance in the shadows of a night-sky and two harvest moons.
What a waste of farmers membership increase and hard earned money; A mockery of our financial plight. Currie says they understand agriculture but pagan urban fools are not as connected to nature soil and God as the farmers they would communicate for. Bring on the clowns they're better than munster mash and not so seasonal.
You can make fun of the OFA's new approach to communications but I am thoroughly outraged.
Farmers are required to register with a farm organization by law.
The OFA is farm organization formed through legislation. It's sanctioned by OMAFRA which in turn is accountable to the Ontario public. The OFA represents 36,019 farmers and their families.
The OFA has determined that a new communication strategy is needed. No reasons for the decision but nonetheless, the decision has been made to execute new marketing and communications initiatives through-out the province.
ON Communication Inc. has been retained. The problem with ON Communication is that the company PUBLICLY announces and endorses the creative directors' desire and inclination to "dance with the devil in the moonlight". The company is proud to post on their web site that one of their own has an evil occult fetish. This must not be taken lightly. It is a public posting the company itself approved.
The OFA has seen fit to hire this company which means the Minister of Agriculture is endorsing the farmer's leanings to deal with communication companies with public self-proclaimed evil fetishes.
The OFA needs to:
1. Fire the communication company immediately as farmers should not be associated with a company that has a camaraderie with the devil.
2. Fire the person who made the recommendation to hire a company with public alliances with devil practicing pagan rituals.
3. The President of OFA apologize to all farmers and the public.
If the OFA does not, then the public will perceive that farmers are endorsing a relationship with with a devil connection. I don't know of any other arm of government which would approve of this kind of move.
I am starting to get a feeling for what Mr Currie is saying here and it does not feel goood
that'll explain why the ofa reely thinks the rmp is a good program.
the devil told them so.
LOL
I can imagine the motion needed at the Ofa AGM in November to execute new marketing and communications initiatives.
Motion #666
As the Ofa has engaged a new agency of record, On Communications, therefore in the spirit of further updates to the image this farm organization we recommend the following:
1. all Ofa excuetive meetings be held once a month on the Full Moon, one hour after sunset.
2. in the event of a Blue Moon; dress code: optional
3. Place: Devil's Punch Bowl Conservation Area, Hamilton
4. all meetings will be preceeded with ritual dancing.
5. Refreshments: Kool-Aid.
I believe the protocol is to have the motion passed in one "counties say once" to be forwarded to the "annual say once" meeting unless "incantations, hexes, curses, chants, or spells known as motions to the non cult" from the floor are recognized under new "cult procedural meetings" and manipulations of Roberts cult rules. All shall say, or give, an "eye" when the high priestess motions
This should pass handle y and be "grasped" and supported particularly by warlock Currie. All in favor, add eye of newt, or the whole newt if you wish, 2 fleas or anything else to the smoking cauldron brew to add "flavor and substance".
Dress code black with pointy hats, no hexes, incantations, spells or curses to be cast on politicians or bureaucrats, breaks the curse of OFA cult policy for stable funding. Crosses and crystal balls will be checked at the door, no black cats or garlic plse.
Was Rob Boyer, Principal of ON Communication Inc. not an MSR for OFA a few years back? Was this contract tendered for best dollar spent?
Since this drastic change to outsourcing would involve contracts of term and sizable financial commitment, what financial triggers or notices for approval are in place or waived by the board before this arrangement was enacted?
Before jumping into bed with the "devil," it would be good to know this was not an arranged marriage without the blessings and sanctity of the OFA charter.
Based strictly on the comments here I conclude that either 18 directors made a well thought out decision for the good of all members, or senior staff hatched a plot hiding behind the cover of the confidentiality of personnel matters and gave the directors a cover story afterwards.
If it was the former I agree that sometimes outsourcing can make a lot of sense in terms of variety of ideas, cost and performance. If it was the latter then senior management is completely out of control.
I'm keeping an open mind until there is some credible COMMUNICATION of the facts. The silence to date from everyone directly involved is deafening!
If (and I do mean IF) this is OFA senior management's version of Sponsorship directors will have a tough time sorting it out because in cases where a senior management is out of control they usually warn their staff not to talk about it. Has anyone asked low level staff what's going on and if so are they talking openly and positively about things. They might also know if there is any connection between senior staff and the new advertising agency.
Gary Struther's has been doing communications for OFA for a long time and surely his planned retirement came as no surprise so I can't understand why there was such a rush to replace him with an outside agency.
Agreed ... but if communications was doing such a poor job (and they have been) why was nothing ever done? It's not like it has never been pointed out!
There seems to be a flavor of not wanting change coming from new people, with new ideas from within. I fear despite restructuring OFA still runs from the seat of the old boys club.
Another question seems to be giving this story traction. What favoritism is playing out here to fire the dept. while out-sourcing ON rituals?
You only get one chance to make a first impression and so far "ON" and OFA have communicated an unprecedented lasting impression rather than getting results.
GIT R DONE
Did all the Executive directors know about the sudden communication switch before it happened?
We need to know who is in charge of the Ofa. Is it elected members or hired staff.
Should be membership. Why doesn't it work that way?
The style of the communication dept (under Struthers) has been the "tiny Tim" porridge bowl please sir an other bowlful followed by thank ya, thank ya, thank ya. Largely the message has been that of beggars not factual messages relating to our contribution to society, or food security requiring payment in full based on cost, generational rollover, and renewal. (yes means shinny new tractors too)
We are now to be represented as "one of" ON Communications agribusiness clients,as well as clients of healthcare, alternative energy, defense and automotive.
How many of these clients want cheep food or resources to make their bottom line look good? Can Ontario's largest industry not warrant and afford to tell our own story or be proud or forceful enough to get it straight?
Non of these other clients have been shy to ask for their needs. OFA brags of representing the largest industry but fails to represent us in the same proud light of accomplishment as say the auto sector who sells their worth on safety, innovation and home grown job creation including profit dividends to shareholders.
Without this stand up proud stance it is no wonder the younger generation is leaving in droves as evidenced by OFA's admitted 2% annual loss and newly reported avg age of 63.
First impression is, ON Communications does not represent the morals or values of farm families. Nor could ON Comm. be trusted to find a new direction for the entrenched past failures of OFA communications still not addressed from within despite restructuring.
We changed everything from the bottom up, has anyone thought about from the top down?
With all we read about writers losing their jobs maybe this was an opportunity to get a bargain replacement instead of paying for the overheads of an agency. I bet Struthers had a job description whereas did you see what the website says for the fellow at the ONcommunications agency who is involved with devil worship? No? That's because he has no job description. That's right it says he's still working on it. Can you believe they hired an agency with an employee who has no job description and then they actually put that on their website. I think that sends the wrong message and these are the guys hired to send out OFA's message. God save us from the devil
and the OFA
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.
OFA presidents, like politicians will tell you anything you want to hear if there is enough pressure. Question is, will they do a full transparent investigation with appropriate disciplinary actions for all upper staff found to be negligent without covering.
Will this be the motivation for resolutions at the AGM in November? Will any newly elected executive have the courage to stand up to make corrective change?
So far the crystal ball says confer with the witch you already had 2 wishes, don't bet the farm.
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.
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.
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?
I think you might be getting OFA confused with OMAFRA.
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?
Not confused, just delusional?
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.
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.
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.
So you're saying the directors and executives are petty and incompetent therefore the need for a dictatorial staff?
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.
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.
Can you put that in writing for the Tribunal for the next OFA review?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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" 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?
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.
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 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
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.
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.
Did OFA just outsource it's IT department? Another employee out of a job?
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!!!
Gone(?) but not forgotten.
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.
Anyone heard how the IT outsourcing is going?
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.
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.
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 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
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
4) All of the above.
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.
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.
Was there a relationship between the owner's spouse of On Communication Inc. and the OFA?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
Personnel matters can't be discussed in public.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
Post new comment