Agricorp's conflict of interest policy stirs ire

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

© AgMedia Inc.

by BETTER FARMING STAFF

Agricorp’s decision to prohibit staff members from joining some farm organization boards is unrealistic say provincial agricultural leaders.

It couldn’t come at a worse time, says Ontario Federation of Agriculture president Bette Jean Crews, Trenton, who expects to meet with officials of the provincial crown corporation, which delivers risk management programs to farmers, before the New Year.

Ontario’s agricultural industry is in crisis and needs leaders. Some of these leaders must find off-farm jobs to make ends meet; some work for Agricorp. Now they can’t be farm leaders. “You can see the irony in it,” she says.

Agricorp began to gradually introduce the policy in July 2008.

Agricorp spokesperson Stephanie Charest says fewer than 15 conflicts have been found so far.

Wayne Black, Huron County Federation of Agriculture’s president, says three or four local commodity boards are affected in his area and he fielded nearly 40 e-mails about the issue last weekend.

One of the boards affected is the Ontario White Bean Producers. Vice-chair Grant Jones says chair Gilbert VanSteelandt works as a field adjuster with Agricorp. VanSteelandt confirmed his intent to resign directorship at the bean board’s Jan. 12 meeting and referred a Better Farming reporter to Jones for all other comments.

Charest says the prohibition stems from changes made to align Agricorp’s conflict of interest policy with the 2007 Public Service of Ontario Act. The policy prohibits all of the company’s 400 seasonal, contract and permanent employees from serving on boards of general farm and commodity organizations at regional, county and provincial levels.

She explains that the change was needed to ensure transparency and accountability for the public by removing any potential conflict. Charest did not know if a 2008 audit of Agricorp’s services had influenced the changes. Ensuring public accountability and transparency is a major priority for Agricorp, she says.

“Basically when we have a staff member who sits on a board, that board director has a duty and obligation to their constituents to uphold the best interest of the board,” which, in the case of general farm or commodity boards could include setting policy about business risk management programs, Charest says. “They could lobby our stakeholders or direct their staff to lobby our stakeholders about programs we deliver, so that could be a conflicting situation.” Moreover, Agricorp employees are required to keep corporation information confidential, which could conflict with their board duties.

Agricorp permits and even encourages employees to participate in organizations such as 4-H and fairs because these don’t have an impact on the corporation’s business interests, Charest says.

Jones says the policy is unrealistic. Only those coming from an urban background would be able to declare themselves free of conflicts – but they would also lack the expertise that practicing farmers bring to their work with Agricorp.

Crews points out that those on farm boards must also follow conflict of interest policies but these usually revolve around money or some sort of profit. “I think there’s room for another interpretation,” she says of Agricorp’s position on the issue.

If local municipalities have found a way to deal with conflicts of interest as they arise, Black wonders why Agricorp can’t. “There are ways of working around it,” he says.

Black fears other organizations or businesses might follow suit, resulting in more loss of volunteer power on local boards. BF