Reflection, curiosity and continuing education are learned and intentional parts of how we run our farm in southwestern Manitoba. Reflective questions help us make decisions for what we might need to change or do differently in future: “What are the things we need to learn about and integrate to make our business and family dynamic and farm better?”

As entrepreneurs, and producers, we often focus heavily on production, marketing and finance. These are good things, and certainly play a role in some of the questions asked above. One area we have been exploring more in our farm and business — and I often encourage other entrepreneurs to invest more in via my facilitation work — is human resources training. Learning the people side of things is particularly helpful if you have employees or work multi-generationally. It can also help with spousal and sibling partnerships.

Here are some key areas that fall under HR management, where skills development can be as critical for your operation as your production and marketing plans:

Staff training and retention

We need people to work on our farms. We require the skills and abilities to provide training and upskilling opportunities for ourselves and also for staff and the next generation. There is a huge incentive to retain key talent and skilled labour, to ensure continuity and capture intergenerational knowledge. Staff training and retention efforts can have significant impact on farm and ranch culture too. Providing learning and training opportunities, seeking feedback or simply posting a sign that says “We care” (while acting accordingly) can make a huge difference. Compensation can also be an issue in staff retention, so company culture that improves profitability and reduces waste (in the form of time and material waste) and focuses on liveable wages can make a big difference.

Conflict resolution and mediation

If you are looking for skill building that can change your workplace for the better — and help you raise your kids and get along with your spouse — you can start here. Conflict is everywhere, and conflict is not bad. You can be in a good conflict. Years ago, when I started taking conflict resolution and mediation training, my ‘aha’ moment was when I realized conflict skills are real and unskilled or destructive conflict prevents people from more creative forms of conflict and problem-solving. A major issue in farm transitions, family business and workplaces is unspoken and unresolved conflict.

These skills can also help when having difficult conservations around implementing new policies and best practices or exploring complex or new governance and role clarity on the farm. Many institutions and organizations provide in-person and online learning. I can sit at my farm kitchen table in Manitoba and take a course from the Justice Institute of B.C. in Vancouver — or I have the option of an in-person course at Mediation Services in Winnipeg.

Cultural and organizational alignment

What is the culture of your farm? What are your values? Knowing your culture and discussing your values can help bring you into organizational and familial alignment. Values are not prescribed, but are discussed and embraced. You have individual values and organization values. Do you value honesty, co-operation, independence, security — or is it courage, accountability, compassion and creativity? There are many more and there is no wrong answer. What’s important is to ensure alignment between family values and business goals.

What happens when different family members or family units in a business value different things? Perhaps exploring core values is more central and training can give you the skills to do and lead that effectively. Having a clear set of core values can help with leadership integration and next-generation transition as well as a founder’s exit.

Policy and governance

One recommendation for young farmers, as you step into management and leadership on your own farms, is to seek out opportunities to sit on a volunteer board and learn there about governance and policy. So often on farms, rules are not written but held in stories, histories and memory. It can be really helpful to explore, set up and practice policies that clarify expectations around matters such as compensation, perks or workplace accountability, and to have a more professional standard in a family-run environment where people might make assumptions about what others are supposed to be doing. Having a space and some skill to explore policy and governance does not mean you need to take the fun out of farming, but it can add clarity around roles, responsibilities, performance, asset transfer and transition, among other things. You might also have policies around safety and equipment use, social media, sourcing and family member engagement.

Family and non-family dynamics

It is important to appreciate and navigate the complexity of relationships and family histories within family businesses. This can be a difficult and ongoing challenge that requires skill building and personal and team work. Appreciating the unique dynamics between family members and employees can be key to the sustainability and future success of the farm or ranch.

If you have non-family employees who play significant roles in the current and future success of your business, it is important to have objective criteria for fair treatment of non-family employees and family in the business throughout a transition. When leadership changes, it’s important to communicate clearly with employees and for members of the leadership team to have training to support the continuity of employee satisfaction as well as their own confidence in leading a team, whether it be family members or non-family employees.

Investing in leadership training can build additional trust among team members and also reduce destructive conflict cycles.

The post Run the farm with its people in mind appeared first on Grainews.

Courtney Pullen’s book Intentional Wealth: How Families Build Legacies of Stewardship and Financial Health speaks to effective family systems.

Strong families that know their values can create a mission statement for their farm; they know their “why.” Their vision for the future is the “what.” Knowing why you are operating your farm, and what your goal is, help you create a solid foundation or, in Pullen’s words, an “anchor.”

How you create action comes from your system of making decisions or “family governance.”

How do you make decisions together as a family?

Some decisions as to how the family operates may come from a “family council” approach. A council to run a family is different than a governance or family business meeting model to run your farm operations and do strategic thinking. How farm business decisions are made comes from the structure and processes of the farm family business.

Here are some of Pullen’s tips for designing a system of governance:

• Start with what you have.
• Keep it appropriately simple.
• Focus on strengths.
• Foster leadership within the family.
• Emphasize ongoing communication through regular meetings.
• Establish a formal structure with a governance model that works for you.

The best time to start working on more structure and better decision-making for your farm team is now. For example: what is your policy for loans or gift to family members? Pullen says, “You might want a 48-hour cooling off period. Folks may need to consult the founders. The first-generation couple would have to consult with each other before giving an answer. If the amount is over $10,000, they would also consult their financial advisor. The second-generation members would follow the same process and consult with parents.”

I remember coaching a family that was quietly writing large cheques to an adult child in a large city because the child was not financially savvy. This lack of financial transparency was not healthy for the family or the farm business.

More questions to ask

What is the overall vision for family participation? Pullen uses an example where only family members have voting rights in decision-making. Spouses may get to sit in on the meetings for information. Other families use a consensus model. I believe every member of the family and their spouses or partners have skills and talents to offer to the growth and health of the farm business. Are you making assumptions as to who should be “left out” from the farm business meetings? You may be denying that a new approach or radical decision may be effective for your business goals. Ask each person to declare what level of involvement they would like to contribute to the decision-making process. Some folks, such as non-farm spouses, just want to be kept in the loop of information and don’t want to have a vote in the decision-making of the operation.

Who gets to be an owner? There are highly skilled women in agriculture who would like the answer to this question from their fathers, typically, who don’t see them as “being able” to manage and not fail! Fear of failure is a huge unspoken fear of the founding generation.

How do the new owners pay for their interest? And how do they exit? This is the policy giving clarity to debt servicing and business structure with shares which helps the next generation set up debt financing. I once had a young farmer go to a lender, where he was surprised to find $750,000 he could use to work toward paying his father out. The young farmer had no idea what power he had until he made the step to research lender options.

What are the criteria to work in the business? How are roles determined? You have read my articles on roles in the past, and the importance of having clear job descriptions. Ask me for Wittman’s job description list. As a founder your role is changing as you age in place on the farm, yet you are “stepping back without stepping away!”

How is compensation determined?

What is the process for hiring family members?

How do you foster leadership with personal development plans?

Who decides how performance is evaluated?

Above board

Dick Wittman, a renowned farm management consultant, talks often about the professionalization of the farm business. His farm uses a ‘board of directors’ model. Pullen cites an example where family members are voted into the board of directors by a large family. Underneath the board of directors there are a family foundation board and an investment company board, each having a mix of family and non-family advisors. Your farm’s CEO may listen and learn from the family and have ultimate decision-making while still being in close communication with the family office. Your board of advisors may help implement policy and be a great training ground for younger family members to learn more about business and leadership.

A model and system for making great decisions on the farm will likely be unique to your farm family culture and preferences, but the key is to have a structure and process that everyone buys into for making effective decisions.

I mentioned podcasts, and I think you would enjoy Farm4Profit’s interview with Kristjan Hiebert and Evan Shout (episode 414) and their own podcast, The Truth about Ag. Some farmers don’t appreciate large-growth farms, but there are nuggets on decision-making and development of employees that may flame some new ideas for you. Hiebert and Shout are both former professional accountants, so numbers and financial data are their game; they love to make data-based decisions for the farm. Even if you don’t like their large-scale approach, you might like the ideas of QR codes in machines to enhance learning and training of farm workers.

What’s one thing you can do this fall to have a better decision-making system on your farm?

The post Build a simple, effective farm framework for decision-making appeared first on Grainews.

U.K.-based Bluebell is also seeking an overhaul of Bayer’s corporate governance, the report added.

A Bayer spokesperson, who declined to comment on the report, said: “Generally speaking we are always open for a constructive dialogue with our stakeholders.”

Bluebell, which has previously taken stakes in companies such as Danone and Glencore, didn’t immediately respond to a request seeking comment.

The report follows news on Monday that the activist investment fund Inclusive Capital Partners, run by hedge fund veteran Jeffrey Ubben, had acquired a 0.83 per cent stake in Bayer, which continues to suffer from a weak market value.

Bloomberg said the size of the Bluebell holding was undisclosed.

— Reporting by Shivani Tanna in Bangalore; additional reporting by Tom Sims in Frankfurt.

The post Activist investor reported building stake in Bayer, seeking breakup appeared first on Grainews.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau on Wednesday announced Benoit Basillais, the CDC’s director of policy and economics, became the Crown corporation’s new CEO effective Monday.

Basillais replaces Serge Riendeau, the dairy producer and former Agropur Co-operative president who’s been the CDC’s chief executive since 2018.

Basillais, who studied agricultural economics in France and has a master’s degree in rural economics from Laval University, has worked for the CDC since 2003. Starting there as an economist, he was named director of policy and economics in 2016.

The new appointee “is very familiar with both the stakeholders and the issues facing the dairy industry,” Bibeau said in a release Wednesday.

“Now as CEO, I trust that he will make a significant contribution to the success of the dairy industry while increasing the transparency of the pricing mechanism.”

The CDC is tasked with co-ordinating federal and provincial dairy policies; it administers the dairy production control mechanism used to avoid production shortages or surpluses. Its CEO serves as one of three members of the commission’s board of directors, along with the chairperson and a commissioner.

Former CDC commissioner Jennifer Hayes was named as its chairperson at the end of 2021, which leaves just the commissioner’s seat vacant at the board table.

CDC governance was raised in a special report from the federal auditor general’s office in March last year, which called on the commission’s board to keep in touch with the ag minister’s office on a “timely basis” to make sure it maintains a full complement at the board table.

That report found no board meetings had to be cancelled or any decisions left unresolved, but having one empty chair at a three-member board table nevertheless “poses a significant risk that the board would be unable to make decisions and operate effectively,” the auditor general’s office said.

That poses a risk particularly for the CDC. Its requirement for members to have “significant dairy industry experience,” with one member also serving as CEO, makes it somewhat more likely that a “real, potential or perceived” conflict of interest could pop up, requiring at least one member to abstain from voting on certain decisions.

Maintaining a full slate of CDC board members, the report noted, is the responsibility of the federal Governor in Council — that is, Canada’s governor general on the advice of the federal cabinet.

An Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada spokesperson said via email Thursday the department is
in the midst of the ongoing process to fill the CDC commissioner position “following the open, transparent and merit-based processes for selecting Governor in Council appointees” — and thus can’t yet say when a commissioner appointee will be named.

The June 30 order in council to appoint Basillais as CDC CEO sets his term at four years.

Basillais “brings with him a complete understanding of the issues faced by the sector,” AAFC said in its statement Wednesday, adding his background and “extensive knowledge of the Canadian supply management system allows him to identify and present innovative approaches to each unique situation.”

Riendeau, whose term as CEO was extended in April 2021 for one additional year, “has worked to improve collaboration between segments of the dairy supply chain, and supported the modernization of supply management,” AAFC said. — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post New CEO named for Canadian Dairy Commission appeared first on Grainews.

The Churchill Marine Tank Farm and associated assets are also part of the deal, according to an Arctic Gateway Group release.

Pulse and durum processor AGT Foods and Ingredients and Toronto-based Fairfax Financial Holdings had held the other 50 per cent of the assets, up until the transition earlier this month, the partnership said.

“A tremendous amount of hard work has seen northern communities reach this critical milestone,” Churchill mayor and OneNorth co-chair Mike Spence said in the news release. “Together with our partners we are taking the next important steps to realize our vision for a national Arctic trade corridor.”

The OneNorth consortium of Indigenous and northern communities said it’s committed to the long-term success of the rail line and trade corridor.

The port and rail line have seen a significant turnaround since 2018, the partnership said, citing work to establish a local governance structure, which includes leadership from across northern Manitoba, to form the partnership.

“Our communities are ready to step up,” OneNorth co-chair and Opaskwayak Cree Nation Onekanew (chief) Christian Sinclair said. “We have a multi-generational socioeconomic development vision that will take this work forward as a truly northern Canadian success story.”

Under a 2018 partnership agreement supported by the federal government, AGT and Fairfax assisted OneNorth leadership in taking the Arctic Gateway Group through a “critical transition.”

Since then, passenger and freight rail service have been restored and port services have fully resumed for both import and export, including six cargo re-supply vessels for Nunavut.

Regina-based AGT will continue to provide management services during the transition period and plans to negotiate a terminal handling agreement to ship grain through the Port of Churchill.

Health and safety upgrades were undertaken on all operations, and environmental remediation and decommissioning of the former fuel tank farm was undertaken with the installation of new tanks., the partners said.

“We are very proud of all that we have accomplished over the past two and a half years with our partner, OneNorth,” AGT CEO Murad Al-Katib said in the same release.

“The long-term economic and social impact of this critical national infrastructure corridor will provide benefits to Canadians for generations.”

The port and railway had faced an uncertain future when its previous owner, U.S.-based rail operator OmniTrax, closed the rail line in 2017, after sections were washed out in high water.

After three years of no rail traffic to or from Churchill, OmniTrax sold the line to the Arctic Gateway Group consortium.

Compared to other Canadian grain-handling ports, Churchill is plagued by a much shorter shipping season, and the rail line is hampered by the shifting whims of the northern tundra.

However, loading at Churchill shaves off significant travel time for grain vessels bound for major export destinations such as in Europe, relative to ports in southern Canada such as Thunder Bay.

The post Port of Churchill moves to 100 per cent local ownership appeared first on Grainews.

As a statutory monopoly the port authority is both a port developer and regulator putting it in a conflict of interest, according to WGEA executive director Wade Sobkowich.

“We are working in a port oversight system that simply lacks proper checks and balances, in contrast to what we have in rail or air transportation where there are tools available to hold people accountable for decisions,” Sobkowich said in a news release Thursday.

“With marine ports, we have no recourse to an adequate appeal mechanism, no outside dispute resolution, no independent complaint process, and no effective input to (bod of) director nominations. The federal government needs to address these shortcomings in the Ports Modernization Review.”

The WGEA’s members are Canada’s biggest grain companies who handle more than 90 per cent of the nation’s bulk grain exports — most of them through Vancouver.

Why it matters: Most of Western Canada’s grain is exported through the Port of Vancouver; western farmers need the port to run efficiently and to keep costs, ultimately passed back to farmers, in check.

“The Government of Canada needs to act on the major clean-up of marine port governance that was recommended during the review of the Canada Transportation Act back in 2016-17,” Sobkowich said. “This is having a large negative effect on our ability to unlock existing capacity and to grow the agri-food export sector.”

Among the items on the WGEA’s list, it seeks:

• Adequate recourse to users to challenge and appeal port authority decisions.
• To address conflicts of interest that arise in port management’s role as developer and regulator/administrator.
• To make director appointment rules accountable:
• i) Overhaul nominating committee membership to reflect the users.
• ii) Remove outside interference with nominating committee decision making.
• iii) Allow people who actively work in industry to sit on the board.
• iv) Redesign appointments to adequately reflect provincial economies who rely on the port.
• To ensure port authorities are actively representing federal government jurisdiction on regulatory issues.

In 2019, 70 per cent of products exported from Vancouver were bulk commodities totalling 99.7 million tonnes — most of that from Western Canada.

Of that, 23.5 million tonnes, or 24 per cent of the total, was grain.

Total exports through Vancouver hit 144 million tonnes. Bulk grain, along with 7.5 million tonnes of containerized grain, accounted for 31 million tonnes, or 22 per cent of all Vancouver exports.

Yet the western provinces only get two seats on the port’s board — one for British Columbia and one for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, Sobkowich said in an interview.

“Something doesn’t add up here from our perspective when you have a port that is so important to the western Canadian economy,” he said.

“The nominating committee process (for port directors) gets interfered with by port management. We’ve been trying to get someone on there with a grain background for years.”

The last nominee from the Prairie provinces was a former vice-president with Cargill.

“We couldn’t even get him an interview,” Sobkowich said.

Vancouver also doesn’t allow directors representing port users to be actively working in the industry.

“Vancouver is very unique in that sense because other ports across the world, not only allow but encourage their users to sit on the board of directors,” he said. “Rotterdam, for example, has five users on the board of directors.”

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, in a separate release Friday, said the three Prairie premiers have written to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “to express a willingness to engage and work with the federal government on the port governance structure.”

“As a group, the western provinces make up 85 per cent of the port’s export value, but only have nine per cent of the representation on the board,” Moe said. “We believe that model does not provide balanced representation for the Prairie provinces and are asking for the (port authority) board to be restructured.”

The Saskatchewan government on Friday called for the board to be made up of two federal appointees, two appointees from each of the four Prairie provinces on the recommendations of port users, and one member representing municipalities that border the port authority’s jurisdiction.

‘Valuable space’

The WGEA is also concerned about what appears to be the port’s bias in favour of promoting a new container terminal, Sobkowich said.

The WGEA also suspects its members who operate grain export terminals at the port are paying for the new container terminal, although it’s unclear due to a lack of transparency, Sobkowich said.

“We believe those who stand to benefit should be the ones that should pay,” he said. “And we don’t feel that a developer, should be a regulator and that’s what is happening here. The same party that is advancing a project without a proponent, which will use valuable space in the Port of Vancouver to do container imports and exports, is being advanced by what is essentially a government entity.

“And that same entity is regulating us — charging us rents, charging us infrastructure fees, making decisions on environmental permit applications, making decisions on land use, making decisions on leases that get renewed or don’t get renewed.”

A review of port regulation began several years ago. In September 2019 Transport Canada released a document on what it heard from stakeholders about possible changes to be made.

“But it doesn’t look like it addressed the issues we have addressed here,” Sobkowich said.

Many of the complaints raised by the WGEA involve requirements under the Canada Marine Act, the Port of Vancouver said in a statement Thursday.

“It’s a complex mandate that requires balancing many opposing interests of a broad range of stakeholders, ultimately having to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians generally,” the port said.

“Many of the issues raised by the WGEA — governance, board nominations, and having to consider the impacts of port operations on local communities — are dictated by the Canada Marine Act, and therefore beyond the control of the port authority.”

To fulfill its mandate the port must to ensure infrastructure is in place to handle growing international trade, the port said. A lot of investment has gone into the port during the last 10 years benefitting all terminals, including for grain, resulting in record grain exports.

“Many of the current projects under way are specifically to build capacity for the grain sector, and others will address the increasing demand for container trade,” the port said. “Interestingly, containers are used to ship a significant amount of grain so those container capacity projects will benefit the agricultural sector. Any fees that we may charge terminal operators for common-use infrastructure improvements are subject to consultation with those operators.”

The port’s biggest challenge is the lack of industrial land, the port said.

“That may require difficult choices with respect to a current tenant, but overall the Port of Vancouver will remain Canada’s gateway for agricultural exports to the world.”

Check next week’s issue of the Manitoba Co-operator for more on this story.

— Allan Dawson reports for the Manitoba Co-operator from Miami, Man.

The port’s reply

The Port of Vancouver issued the following statement Thursday in response to concerns raised by the Western Grain Elevator Association on how the Port of Vancouver operates:

As a Canada Port Authority, we have a federal mandate established under the Canada Marine Act, to enable Canada’s trade through the Port of Vancouver, while protecting the environment and considering local communities. It’s a complex mandate that requires balancing many opposing interests of a broad range of stakeholders, ultimately having to make decisions in the best interests of Canadians generally.

Many of the issues raised by the WGEA — governance, board nominations, and having to consider the impacts of port operations on local communities — are dictated by the Canada Marine Act, and therefore beyond the control of the port authority.

In order to fulfill our federal mandate, we need to ensure port infrastructure is in place to handle growing international trade. For more than a decade, there has been an incredible amount of investment in the port and the surrounding gateway to benefit all terminals, including grain terminals. As a result, we have seen record grain cargo through the port in recent years, and many terminals have invested to grow their operations.

In planning for future infrastructure investment, we consider independent forecasts and consult with industry. Many of the current projects under way are specifically to build capacity for the grain sector, and others will address the increasing demand for container trade. Interestingly, containers are used to ship a significant amount of grain so those container capacity projects will benefit the agricultural sector. Any fees that we may charge terminal operators for common-use infrastructure improvements are subject to consultation with those operators.

Our biggest challenge in the Vancouver area is that there is not enough industrial land for all this growth, and so we have to make the best use of what we have. That may require difficult choices with respect to a current tenant, but overall the Port of Vancouver will remain Canada’s gateway for agricultural exports to the world.

CORRECTION, Feb. 18: Typo fixed in paragraph 14 to replace “wouldn’t” with “couldn’t.”

UPDATE, Feb. 19: Updated to include statements from the Port of Vancouver and the Saskatchewan government plus further clarifications.

The post Grain handler group seeks Vancouver port governance overhaul appeared first on Grainews.

Bayer has seen its share price tumble in the wake of its US$63 billion acquisition of Monsanto, which brought with it massive legal issues after more than 13,400 plaintiffs alleged the company’s glyphosate weedkiller caused cancer.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto last year, says studies and regulators have deemed glyphosate and Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide safe for human use, but the German company has struggled to contain the reputational and legal fallout.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday that German farmers would stop using glyphosate eventually, a stance which is at odds with the Leverkusen-based company’s view.

Activist shareholder Elliott Associates said it welcomed Bayer’s new steps to improve supervision of litigation issues, as it revealed for the first time its holding of Bayer shares.

Bayer said it has hired U.S. lawyer John H. Beisner from Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher + Flom LLP to advise the supervisory board on matters related to the glyphosate litigations, including trial tactics and mediation.

“His appointment is intended to add fresh and independent perspectives to the advice given to the board of management,” Bayer said in a statement.

“We are convinced that with his expertise, John H. Beisner will provide very valuable and concrete advice on the ongoing litigation as well as the mediation,” Bayer’s chairman Werner Wenning said in the statement.

Bayer also said a new supervisory board committee, comprised of eight supervisory board members, will consult with the board of management and make recommendations on litigation strategy.

The company appears to have changed its approach to litigation, from taking a “we will prevail, we will fight to the end” attitude to seeking a settlement more quickly as a way to reassure investors and employees, a person familiar with the discussion told Reuters on Wednesday.

Elliott Associates revealed that it holds Bayer shares and financial instruments equivalent to 1.1 billion euros (C$1.65 billion) worth of Bayer stock. Bayer’s market value is 52.2 billion euros.

It is the first time that Elliott has acknowledged holding a significant stake in the German company. Reuters last year reported that Elliott had amassed a stake of under three per cent, citing people familiar with the matter.

Elliott has a stake equivalent to 2.1 per cent of Bayer shares, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

“Elliott welcomes these steps, and is confident that today’s statement marks a step change in Bayer’s approach to addressing the legal challenges currently facing the company,” Elliott said in a separate statement.

Elliott said it believes that the creation of the special committee will provide a new level of oversight and a fresh perspective to a litigation strategy, which it said needs a radical overhaul.

Elliott also said Bayer could do more to maximize long-term value for all its stakeholders, saying the company had an opportunity to unlock more than 30 billion euros in value.

“Elliott looks forward to the company building upon today’s announcement, and making a credible commitment to the exploration of long-term value creative levers beyond the immediate litigation and governance enhancements,” it said.

Elliott wants Bayer to resolve its litigation issues as an immediate priority and is not pushing the company to pursue deeper structural changes right away, the source said.

— Reporting for Reuters by Edward Taylor and Arno Schuetze.

The post Bayer seeks glyphosate litigation advice as Elliott reveals stake appeared first on Grainews.

Just this morning, I realized the same principle applies to board governance. If you have solid bylaws and policies in place, it’s going to be easier to do the right thing.

But non-profits often operate more like the U.N. than solo actors. How can they work together effectively, especially if some pay more attention to governance than others?

Once again, I turned to Wendy Bulloch, owner of Building Up. Bulloch hails from Brandon, Manitoba, and has worked with many non-profit boards on governance issues. She’s also been on several non-profit boards. (If you missed the first column that featured Bulloch’s advice on board governance, go to Grainews.ca and search “Wendy Bulloch.”)

A non-profit’s relationships with other stakeholders are performance indicators, Bulloch says. In fact, Mel Gill writes about this in his book, Governing for Results. Bulloch lists four principles for board members to keep in mind:

• Be accountable.
• Be transparent.
• Be predictable.
• Be fully engaged in your role as a board member.

Once you’ve got those four pillars in mind, it’s time to sit down with the other non-profits you need to work with.

One option is to appoint someone from your board as the liaison. The liaison can attend the other group’s meetings, said Bulloch. Your board can also get the meeting minutes from the other group to stay in the loop.

But maybe you’re unsure whether the other stakeholders will have, or get, their ducks in a row. Bulloch suggests finding a way to invite them to step up to the plate, without making them look bad.

For example, let’s say you run a figure skating club that uses the local rink. Tell the rink board that you need to know about rental fees, ice times and other expectations so that your club can start scheduling and planning for the upcoming season. Ask to see the facility budget so that everyone involved knows the costs. Bulloch suggests giving the rink board fair warning before a joint meeting, so they have time to get their information together.

What to discuss at a shareholder meeting

At the meeting, Bulloch suggests you identify what all the groups have in common, what your non-profit needs, and what the other groups need. People at the meeting should also figure out what the expectations are overall, says Bulloch. Will each group be expected to contribute volunteer hours on top of rental fees to keep the facility running, for example?

Bulloch says you should also be aware of conflicts of interest. For example, is a board member part of a business that the rink is contracting for goods or services? This needs to be disclosed upfront to everyone involved, says Bulloch.

The groups sharing the skating rink can think of it as a condo board of sorts. There is a board that manages the facility. But there are also several people who live in the condo who are stakeholders, just as there are other clubs and community members who use the rink.

When hammering out rental/use agreements for shared facilities, Bulloch suggests discussing the following points:

• What is the budget to run the facility?
• How many partners are using/running the facility?
• What is expected of all the partners?
• What are the rules if something big breaks? Is there a contingency fund? If not, how will that cost be covered? “If you have artificial ice and something goes wrong with the machine, how are you going to pay for that?” Bulloch asks.
• What are the insurance needs for everyone involved? Are all the stakeholders and all their activities covered by the current policy? Are the stakeholders meeting the requirements set out by the insurance company? Bulloch says everyone who uses the facility should provide a copy of their current policy.
• What will the rental costs be to various partners?
• What is fair warning if rental fees go up? Bulloch suggests 90 days minimum.

The joint meeting should produce a signed memorandum of understanding or rental agreement that covers who is responsible for what, as well as fees. “And it needs to be all upfront,” says Bulloch.

We all know that unforeseen costs can arise. But stakeholders should avoid charging non-profits with unexpected costs as much as possible. Unexpected bills for small non-profits “are just killer,” Bulloch says.

Bulloch says board members often have the best intentions at first. “Their hearts are big and they want to do something for the organization.”

But whether you’re working with your own board or meeting with other non-profits, you need to grasp governance. You need to know how non-profit boards work, says Bulloch. Otherwise, before you know it, you’ve got trouble.

Of course, you can’t control what other non-profit boards decide to do or how people choose to act. All you can do is try to make the right thing easy.

The post Reporter’s Notebook: Working with other boards appeared first on Grainews.

Cigi, the Canadian International Grains Institute, on Tuesday announced the new funding model, plus a new governance model setting up a new 10-member board of directors representing its sponsor organizations.

Winnipeg-based Cigi said the new funding formula will see the three wheat commissions and seven grain firms provide $7.7 million over the next two years, representing the institute’s “core funding.”

The seven grain firms supporting Cigi will include:

• privately-held Winnipeg grain companies Richardson International, Paterson Grain and Parrish and Heimbecker;
• Viterra, the Canadian grain arm of commodity firm Glencore;
• the Canadian arm of U.S. agrifood firm Cargill;
• G3 Canada, the privatized former Canadian Wheat Board (CWB); and
• five farmer-owned grain terminal companies in Saskatchewan and Alberta, represented by the Inland Terminal Association of Canada.

The Alberta Wheat Commission, Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission and the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association will provide their shares of Cigi funding through their respective wheat checkoffs.

According to the wheat commissions in a separate statement, Cigi has asked the three commissions for funding that matches grain industry contributions over the next two crop years.

The commissions’ funding for Cigi replaces farmer checkoff funding the institute received through the Western Canadian Deduction. That checkoff, set up in 2012 by then-federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz following the deregulation of the CWB, sunsets on July 31, Cigi noted Tuesday.

“Today’s announcement represents the culmination of months of consultations involving the value chain,” JoAnne Buth, Cigi’s CEO since 2014, said in a release Tuesday. “We are extremely pleased that the provincial wheat commissions and the grain companies and handlers developed a consensus on a sustainable funding and governance model for Cigi.”

Where Cigi’s board had previously reflected its founding organizations, with members from the federal government, CWB and Canadian Grain Commission, the institute in 2013 reworked its governance to include representation from farmers as well as exporters, processors and others in the industry.

Under the latest funding and governance model, however, the first board will include five representatives from the wheat commissions and five representatives from the grain handler/exporter sector, elected June 29 at Cigi’s annual meeting.

Kevin Bender, a Sylvan Lake, Alta. farmer and the Alberta Wheat Commission’s vice-chair, will chair Cigi’s new board. Brent Watchorn, Richardson International’s executive vice-president for marketing, will be the new board’s vice-chair, while Jim Smolik, head of corporate affairs for Cargill Canada, will be board secretary.

New board members also include Drew Baker of the Manitoba Wheat and Barley Growers Association; Bill Gehl and Harvey Brooks of the Saskatchewan Wheat Development Commission;  Gary Stanford of the Alberta Wheat Commission; Trent Rude of Viterra; Jean-Marc Ruest of Richardson International; and (unavailable for the photo above) Ward Weisensel of G3 Canada.

Three previous Cigi board members, including chair Murdoch MacKay and directors Henry Van Ankum and Lawrence Yakielashek, will remain with the board as observers “to provide continuity during the transition,” Cigi said.

Randy Johner and Jim Wilson, farmer members of Cigi’s previous board, will retire as directors.

Bender, in Tuesday’s release, hailed the outgoing board members’ “foresight and determination… in guiding Cigi through a period of significant industry change.”

The new board, he said, comes to an organization with “a long and distinguished history of working on behalf of farmers and industry to promote and demonstrate the quality and functionality of Canadian grain in international markets.”

Cigi, set up as a not-for-profit body in 1972 with federal government and farmer funding via the CWB, is now billed as an independent organization working with field crop value chains in Canada and internationally.

The institute today provides applied research, training and technical support services to drive development and use of Canadian crops — including wheat, durum, barley, canola and other oilseeds, pulses and other special crops such as canaryseed and mustard — for domestic and export markets.

Cigi, which still also gets federal funding via the AgriMarketing and AgriInnovation programs, broadened its activities in recent years to include pulse crop product and market development.

That pulse crop work, Cigi said, is now backed by the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program, Pulse Canada, Alberta Innovates Bio Solutions, Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, Manitoba Pulse and Soybean Growers, Manitoba’s Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative (Manitoba Agriculture) and Warburtons. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Prairie wheat commissions, grain firms to fund Cigi appeared first on Grainews.

Agriculture Minister Oneil Carlier on Thursday announced the appointment of a new eight-member board for the provincial Agriculture Financial Services Corp., (AFSC), which has been handled by an interim board since last summer.

The previous board of directors was dismissed in June after the province’s chief internal auditor filed a report raising concerns about oversight of senior executive expenses and procurement practices at AFSC, mainly during the period from 2011 through 2015.

Three unnamed senior AFSC executives were also “relieved from active duty,” the province said at the time.

“As a board, our priority is to make sure AFSC management continues to keep pace with the evolving needs of agribusiness and conducts its operations in a transparent and accountable manner that reflects the expectations of Albertans,” Jennifer Wood, the new board’s chair, said in a release Thursday.

Wood is an Edmonton-based agrologist, partner in a private equity holding company focused on agribusiness, and co-operator of her family’s cattle ranch. She has 15 years of board experience in a “variety of roles, across sectors,” the province said.

Directors on the new board also include:

• Jerry Bouma, an agrifood management consultant in Edmonton;
• Gordon Cove, the Red Deer-based former CEO of the province’s now-dissolved Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency (ALMA);
• ag coach and farmer Peter Galloway of Fort Saskatchewan;
• Jo-Ann Hall, a former provincial assistant deputy agriculture minister, from Stony Plain;
• Harvey Hagman, president of Hagman Cattle Co., at Mayerthorpe;
• chartered professional accountant Anna Harder of Camrose; and
• Kiren Singh of Canmore, a financial executive with background in the energy and ag sectors.

In the new board members’ biographies, the province noted most of them also come to the table with years of board governance experience.

“The new board will provide essential oversight to help ensure that AFSC’s programs and services are delivered effectively and continue to meet the needs of rural Alberta,” Carlier said.

All eight new board members were chosen through an open recruitment process, the province emphasized in its release. — AGCanada.com Network

The post Alberta recruits new board for AFSC appeared first on Grainews.