by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Grain Farmers of Ontario, the amalgamation of the corn producers association and the wheat and soybean boards, is only a few weeks old and already tinged by controversy. The wife of a former wheat board director charges her husband has been defamed is threatening legal action.
In an e-mail to Grain Farmers of Ontario dated Feb. 19, Lanark County grower Geraldine Vanderspank says new Grain Farmers chair Don Kenny told her husband John Vanderspank he would never be named to a committee of Grain Farmers because of his “past history” with the Ontario wheat board.
John Vanderspank, who gained a high profile as a result of work with the Ontario Landowners Association, says he had requested that he be named to the new group’s research committee and also to a committee on government affairs.
Don Kenny, the new chair of Grain Farmers, from Ottawa Carleton, says committee members are chosen by the board as part of a “democratic process.” “John didn’t do anything wrong,” Kenny says. “I just said he had some past history when he was with his former board (the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board.)
The wheat board passed a non-confidence motion against then director Vanderspank last May, and banned him from its committees last year, citing violations of board confidentiality agreements.
Geraldine Vanderspank’s letter cited her husband’s concerns last year “about privacy infringement, the lack of return on investment by (lobby consultant) the Daisy Group, the research efforts in eastern Ontario and the research committee’s travel expenses spending.” Vanderspank says.
She says The Daisy Group received as much as $500,000 for lobbying governments in recent years.
Barry Seft, the new CEO of Grain Farmers, says the lobby was funded by the Grain and Oilseeds Committee, with contributions from Ontario grain and soybean groups and their counterparts. He said he didn’t know where the $500,000 number came from. Kenny is the director representing District 13, which includes Vanderspank’s area.
“I was being open and frank with John. I have known him for years,” says Kenny. Kenny was previously a director on the Ontario Corn Producers’ Association.
“I asked (Kenny) about sitting on a committee. He told me I wasn’t welcome because of my past history,” John Vanderspank says. “They want the old boys on the research committee.”
When the research committee met this week, Kenny says he was there to represent growers in district 13, which includes Lanark County. The GFO board has consulted with legal counsel because of the letter from Geraldine Vanderspank, Kenny confirmed. BF
Comments
Farmers, and farm organizations, always seem to be most-reluctant to accept the wisdom of the adage - "Keep your friends close, but keep your critics closer".
Therefore, the generally-accepted practice (anywhere except in agriculture) is to appoint your critic to so many committees that he/she "burns-out" and retires, both exhausted, and silent.
Is this case, because Mr. VanderSpank is anything but a typical farmer, and because Mrs. VanderSpank has considerable talents, and abilities, in her own right, The GFO board should be doing more thinking, and less consulting with legal counsel.
It will be interesting if this gets off the ground. There is far too much documentation and first account witness to try to make past dictatorial board actions seem as pure as new driven snow. I am not sure that the devil, not the genie in this case, can be put back in the bottle this time.
Email is a wonderful thing ... it leaves a trail
I am so glad to hear the new CEO is alive and well. The silence to- date has been deafening.
As the new chair is so freely willing to talk about a delegate/director's 'bad' history, I would like to give my impression on the Board's performance (i.e. history) to date. The points are as follows:
The new CEO's knowledge of his portfolio to date: poor; he has no idea what has been spent on lobby efforts to date. His chair and board must not know either and cannot bring him up to date; the membership remains in the dark on this topic.
The board's knowledge of its day-to-day operations: poor; they had to hold an emergency meeting to give a National Coalition representative its permission to sign on its behalf 'retroactively'. Note that grassroots members do not agree with this board's decision to reduce RMP to 40%.
People skills: poor; this article indicates that the chair and its new CEO need to brush on their people skills.
Response time to queries: poor; The turn around time to respond to legitimate questions is too long. A phone call amongst all of the impacted parties could have resolved this issue much sooner.
Voted Research Travel Expenses for Trip California: poor; very bad optics; more than six are going to California soon and they have no idea what they are doing. In my view, only 2 should be going and save the money for something more productive.
In my view, the new CEO and the GFO Board's overall performance to date has been poor. If this becomes another dysfunctional board, maybe we need an internal and external audit to fix it.
When individuals become leaders of farm organization they seem to be more concerned about their position and relationship with the politicians than about the farmers they represent.
I sadly agree with your statement. For agriculture, the underlining mandate for most farm organizations seems to be that is preferable to fight off your own dissenting members with all of the resources (legal,and financial) at hand rather than address the multitude of problems and issues that concern the membership at large. Most businesses run polls, surveys, feedback sessions, and etc., to determine their short and long term strategies but not farm organizations. For the most part, farm boards just go through the motions of looking busy while they are having some fun at our expense.
He doesn't seem to understand the role of a director on any organization. You may argue and disagree within the board but you represent the decisions of the board and don't have the right to criticize them outside the boardroom.
If you can't convince enough members of the board to support your position, that's your loss. If you can't support the majority decision than you have to resign - that's how all Boards of Directors work.
Mr. Vanderspank hasn't been defamed - he did all the damage to his own reputation.
Mr. Kenny was just being honest. Why would the newly appointed board democratically select someone they know historically has been a problem for not just the former wheat board but OFA and even the Landowners who also requested he resign.
Mrs. Vanderspank, your husband has created his own problems and all you are doing is wasting the money of hardworking farmers.
Post new comment