2013-05-07 Oral presentation to U of S, Board of Governors, this morning. Includes critique of “Global Institute for Food Security” and rule of law re Board membership.

(The last part of the address challenges the “Global Institute for Food Security” recently established at the University.   Scroll down to pink high-lighting.)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

I appreciate the opportunity to address you.  Many thanks.

 

You will understand that in 10 minutes I cannot provide the accolades due to the University.  And I can only address one or two matters.

 

You have a copy of  the material I submitted on April 8th.  The concluding line reads:

 

Please explain how it is that Susan Milburn can, within the rule of law, serve as Chair of the Board and until 2016.

 

In the time since that submission to you, the University did make a response, through the Meeting of Senate on April 20th.   I will get to that.

 

First, let me quickly run over the issue:  The University Act sets out limitations on Board tenure.  The person elected by Senate may serve two 3-year terms.  Susan Milburn was elected in 2006;  her term expired June 30th 2012.   But the Board established her as Chair until 2016.

 

The Board of Governors took steps well in advance of 2012 to see that Milburn would be able to remain on the Board past the legislated departure date.   They undertook to get the Provincial Govt to change the University Act.  It didn’t happen.

 

They put forward Milburn’s name to the Provincial Govt, requesting that she be a Government Appointment to the Board.  The Government declined.  One of you wouldn’t likely be here, if they had agreed!

 

I don’t have anything against Susan Milburn.  I don’t know her.  My interest is in sound governance.  In a democracy that means upholding the rule of law.

 

In this case of tenure on the Board of Governors which required that the Board and the Senate (the legal phrase is) “intentionally, actively and knowingly circumvent the Act”, – – –  following my submission to you (Apr 8), I spoke with the Office of the Deputy Minister of Justice.   They  recorded the details and referred me to Phoebe, office of the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education (responsible for the administration of the University Act).

(CORRECTION:  I  spoke with the Government Departments BEFORE, not after,  sending the submission to the University.  It was April 5th.)

My reading of the conversation was that the Department was nervous.  Phoebe was most interested in knowing how widespread was the dissension.  I was frankly chagrined by such a response.

 

Coming now to the University’s arguments, as presented to Senate, April 20:

 

One of the lawyers I sought input from is Bill Hood.  He pointed out that it’s The Senate that  is responsible for Susan Milburn’s position on the Board, and further that the Senate does not have the authority to extend her stay.  It is not a question that Senate can even vote on – it’s a point of order – Senate would be acting ultra vires of its authority.

 

This is a position I understand and I provided it to Senate, approximately with this wording:

 

“The rule of law means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governors or governed, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and  (critically) no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.   “The rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply them – that is, to the government as well as the governed. (Repeat)  Nobody has the power to grant exceptions.”

 

As I understand the rebuttal provided by the University:

A.    The lawyers I consulted say Milburn’s stay until 2016 is outside the law.  The University lawyers’ opinion is the opposite.

B.    In the past there have been others who stayed on the Board well beyond the limitation periods.  The precedent has been set  (the precedent to operate outside the law?!)

C.    The Government is going to change the University Act in the upcoming fall sitting.  The University now has a letter from the Govt to that effect.

 

After the Senate meeting I spoke again with Bill Hood, and others with legal training.  There was laughter.  One response was “Yes I’ve driven over the speed limit.  Doesn’t mean that it’s legal.”

 

That is the substance of the arguments.

 

But all of that said,   I did not come here to argue the law.

 

I came to establish a relationship with you.  You are part of the governing structure, as am I (albeit I am subject to re-election!).   We have similar goals.   We will all accomplish more, if we are working together.  Resorting to legal action as a replacement for dialogue is a failure of our human faculties.

 

Let me explain my motivation:  my children know that the world they are inheriting is substantially degraded, with very serious consequences.  And it is largely my generation that bears responsibility for the degradation.

 

I don’t feel guilty about that.  Because my children know that I am doing my utmost to help bring about change.

 

I think you are most likely the same as me  in that you are motivated by the interests of your children and grandchildren.  They will likely remember you.  But when you are working in the public sphere, it is not just in THEIR memory.

 

Public defenders of old ideas go on record as such.  Secretaries and Historians record our decisions.  Writers like Pierre Burton documented the Great Depression and excoriated the dinosaurs in public office who defended old ideas, inhumane ideas and grand stupidity.  These people and their deeds are remembered because they worked in the public sphere as you and I do.

 

In addition, if WE KNEW BETTER than to do what we did, our names will reap the derision of future generations.   I don’t want to have my name and thereby my children’s names linked with failure to make necessary changes because I took the easy road of conformity and comfort.

 

I encourage us all to play an active role in the governance of the University.  That is our job.  The University must set high standards.  Operating blatantly outside the rule of law does not cut it.  Defending unconscionable conflicts-of-interest degrades the University’s reputation.  Golden parachutes undermine public support.

 

The University is no place for making deals, and making friends at the expense of integrity – at the expense of truth so far as we are able to establish truth.

 

(CHALLENGE TO GLOBAL INSTITUTE FOR FOOD SECURITY)

In closing, I draw to your attention another dinosaur the University is establishing, the Global Institute for Food Security.  It is another example where the University is being used by the Government and industry to funnel public money for corporate purposes which are at odds with the public interest.

 

Let me explain:  I have a longer life-experience than all of you!  I grew up in rural Saskatchewan;  I lived relatively close to Nature, camped outdoors a lot, helped in the fields from a young age.

 

The changes I have seen over my lifetime are very threatening AND they are the result of industrialized, chemical/biotech agriculture, as taught at the University.  I attended a lecture in January at the Johnson-Shoyama School of Public Policy in order to understand the line that would likely be pursued at the Global Institute for Food Security.

 

The concept of food “security” comes down the line from “homeland security”, military and corporate interests, the undermining and removal of democratic principles.

People understand that “Food sovereignty” is in the public interest, it comes down the line from sovereignty as in Quebec, self-determination as in First Nations, democracy movements like the Arab Spring to “take back” sovereignty.

“Food security” is about corporate ownership of seeds, our FOOD supply engineered by the criterion of its ability to survive applications of poisons.  Forget about agriculture’s contribution to healthy ecosystems, to water supplies that are not poisoned,  and to a reduction in childhood cancers and developmental problems.

 

I mentioned the changes over my lifetime.  The changes to the soil (the accumulated poisons mean the life in it is gone, and there is no humous);  the changes to the wildlife (the song birds like the meadow larks and others are about gone – you rarely hear them today);  and the changes to the health of people indicate that we have made expensive mistakes in the field of agriculture.

 

We have normalized cancers, developmental problems, and infertility.  I have lived long enough to know another time:  these disease levels are NOT NORMAL.  50 years and researchers are still diddling around with “finding a cure”, passing off “early detection” of disease as dealing with cause, when we know what carcinogens and teratogens do and are doing.

 

Instead of changing our ways we develop a coterie of “professionals” and whole industries around the problems.  The status quo becomes further entrenched.

 

A communications consultant told me he is one of 4 in the Research Department at the U of S.  I asked further and was told that there are more than a hundred communication consultants employed by the University (I can’t vouch for the veracity of the number).  Communication consultants are used to convince ourselves that we are progressive and grand.  While we plough the money into worn-out ideas from yesterday that serve the people of Saskatchewan badly.

 

I think we can do better.  There are exciting things happening in the world.  Don’t dismiss Occupy, the demonstrations in Quebec, or Idle No More.  Movements build one on the other.  On May 25^th  people around the whole planet are marching against Monsanto (chem/biotech agriculture to serve corporate interests).  I say “bless them”.  And I ask On whose side is the University?

 

Thank-you for your time.