IMPORTANT POSTAL VOTE INFORMATION
A number of legally submitted resolutions have not been included in the AGM postal voting package, which is extremely disappointing. This seems to have confused many members who were expecting to see a resolution about allowing members to have an input into constitutional changes over the next 2 years. The resolution in your voting package is instead about changes that have never been discussed with the membership, and involve some substantial, and in many cases, alarming changes (please scroll down and read about these changes below). We strongly suggest you do not accept these changes and vote NO.
We are also concerned that each postal vote sheet, proxy form and return envelope has been numbered, suggesting that anonomity has been compromised. It has also been noted that the postal package includes 'advertising' on how to vote for selected members only. Also note that the proxy sheet does not include a prompt for a signature - unsigned proxy forms are likely to be declared invalid.
Perhaps most concerning is the fact that the proposed changes to the constitution have not been clearly indicated by any means (you cannot tell what has been changed), and no explanation has been provided (despite an instruction letter stating it has).
We suspect that many new resolutions will be put forward at the meeting, therefore this postal votes will have no influence on these. This makes proxy voting especially important. Please please let any of the candidates below know of your interest to either attend or submitt a proxy form. Each attendee at the meeting can only hold 2 proxies each....so we need as many members as possible participating in this.
It is suggested that members make a copy of their finished postal vote in case further irregularities occur.
***********
Please note that the issue of contention within BAA is the introduction of certification and the associated conflict of interest and excessive confidentiality that has come with it. Certification was NEVER part of BAA's mandate, it was set up to educate and support biodynamic practitioners. Members have never voted on this fundamental change in direction, yet decisions are already being made to effect this change including support for trademarking the word 'biodynamic'; proposed changes to BAA's constitution; changes to BAA's mission statement to include certification; establishing affliation with the European certification body Demeter International. BAA is holding their AGM at the Melbourne University, 26th June, where it is expected that this issue will be finally voted on. We urge all members to do some research and then take the time to vote on the role they would like to see BAA take into the future, noting that education and certification are usually separated because of obvious conflicts of interest that ensure - hence why ACO was set up separately from BFA for example, and why BAA set up BCA (Biodynamic Certfication Australia) in 2007 in an attempt to prevent this very problem.
As new information comes to hand, it is being posted up with the most recent towards the top, moving back in history as you read down.
***************************
5th June - Julian Castagna emails his intention to instruct lawyers to make a formal request to the Director of Public Prosecutions of South Australia to press changes against Hugh Lovel, Shane Joyce and an internet publisher with regard to the recording of his voice and publishing it on the internet. [The timing of this is interesting given that the recording was emailed to the board first, then published over a month ago after the board failed to respond. It is now only a few days before the close of postal votes and two weeks before the AGM]
We assume Julian is referring to Section 4 of South Australia's Listening and Surveillance Devices Act 1972. But we would direct your attention to Section 7.
*********
Hugh Lovel's Membership is terminated!
Hugh's response to notification that his
membership will be terminated
Click on the green text above and throughout this document for more information and details
Response to Ulli's Letter
in the recent NewsLeaf
Julian Castanga Julian Castanga Julian Castanga Julian Castanga
**********
TO ENSURE RESTORATION OF BIODYNAMIC AGRICULTURE AUSTRLIA'S OBJECTIVES OF EDUCATION & SUPPORT TO ALL MEMBERS
VOTE FOR
Ray Unger
Cheryl Kemp
John Priestley
Carolyn Ditchfield
Matters of High Priority to be addressed
-
3 C’s – Confidence – Communications – Constitutional Changes
-
Openness & Transparency of Board to Membership
-
Seven Member Board
-
BD Preps Australian Experience - outcome more important than methodology
-
Promotion of BD practices
-
Better use of Finances - Teleconferences vs Face to Face Meetings
DO YOU CARE
ABOUT THE DIRECTION BAA TAKES FOR THE FUTURE
Ray Unger Cheryl Kemp John Priestley Carolyn Ditchfield
.02 6869 7635. .02 6657 5306. .02 4938 5116. .02 6721 5111.
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
2nd May - EU has refused to trademark 'biodynamic'
Demeter International was refused the right to trademark the word 'biodynamic' (2007/2008) from the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). Read more...
1st May - Hugh suspended without cause
With reference to defamatory statements published in a letter to members from the Board of Directors dated 6 April 2010, page 3, including the statement: “The court action against Hugh Lovel is the subject of a continuing investigation by NSW Worksafe(sic).”
I am advised by WorkCover NSW that no investigation has been initiated. Read more...
[Note that this OH&S issue has been used to suspend Hugh from board meetings]
14th April- legalities of tape recordings
ABC local talkback radio featured Pat Noonan, a highly respected Toowoomba solicitor. Someone called in about the legality of taping conversations without the knowledge of those who were being taped. Pat stated that taping any conversation or meeting in which one is a participant is perfectly legal and admissable in Court.
A concerned member decided to call in to describe the Board meeting Hugh Lovel attended in South Australia recently (see below) noting it was a situation involving a public company limited by guarantee where permission to tape was refused by other board members, but the taping proceeded regardless and it recorded the bullying and harrassment of that Board member.
Pat stated it was quite in order to tape this meeting, and that a company limited by guarantee is usually a not-for-profit company and as such would be in line for tax breaks and government funding, and that the company secretary of such a company would be expected to tape the meeting in order to ensure that he got the minutes right!!!
The MP3 recording of this meeting is now available. Note how Hugh conducts himself calmly and methodically - typical of his conduct in all situations.
Discussions have commenced as at 22nd April.
1st April - EGM Called Off (see explanations in the letters below)
Letter to the 70+ members that called for the EGM
Response to Ulli's letter in the latest NewsLeaf
Note that only the dates for the AGM have been provided in the latest NewsLeaf, but no venue nor postal voting forms were included. Delays in receiving these details will affect the ability of members to organise their attendance and make their representations. It has been suggested that it will be held somewhere in Victoria or even Paris Creek in South Australia, but these details will only be released in about 6 weeks.
It is also noted that a financial statement was not included in this NewsLeaf.
1st April - concerned members teleconference to plan the future - cancelled due to injunction proceedings
26th March - Injunction hearing postponed till Thursday 1st April
Perhaps surprisingly to BAA board members (ex Hugh and Shane), a lawyer was able to be present to represent BAA concerned members and the hearing has been postponed to 1st April (the last day for postal vote submissions). Defense is expected to be expensive due to BAA board member's (ex Hugh and Shane) choice of legal representation. Any assistance in this defense would be gratefully accepted - see details below.
26th March - Concerned members served an Injunction Notice
Interestingly, most the members served this Injunction only received their registered post alerting them to the fact AFTER the court hearing (10am today) which, perhaps deliberately, makes mounting a defense impossible. Fortunately one member did happen to receive the notice yesterday afternoon and a SA lawyer was found just in the nick of time (35 minutes to spare) to represent them. The BAA board (bar Hugh and Shane) have elected to use Counsel which is incredibly expensive. To defend themselves the concerned members are are also obliged to use Counsel which has required a $5,000 bond!! Apart from the worrying use of BAA monies by the BAA board (bar Hugh and Shane) in taking this action, concerned members are now being drawn into personal financial burden beyond their original EGM efforts (an oft used aggressive commerical tactic). Concerned BAA members have set up a BAA members defense fund to help cover this cost and would appreciate any help you may be able to offer.
Please enter your surname and postcode in the bank's reference field, then email
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
. A receipt will be sent to you and the contribution duly noted. Any funds not used will be returned pro rata.
BSB 084-610
Acct 56-899-2583
Acct name L Skidmore
It's interesting to ponder - is this court action really about protecting BAA interests or protecting individuals on the Board?
25th March - Board Nominees are requested to sign a form absolving the BAA from any liability that may be associated with their CVs.
This raises some interesting points. Given that each of the CVs are signed by each of the individual nominees, responsibility for these statements automatically rest with them, with or without additional signatures. In addition, given that all these nominees want to be part of the BAA board, it is hard to understand how these CVs could possibly be a liablity to BAA. It is certainly easy to see how they could be a liability to some BAA board members though. So is this notice served in the best interests of BAA and its membership, or rather the best interests of some members of the Board? This is an interesting use of BAA monies, time and resources.
This is one letter being sent back in response to this.
These are the forms he was required to sign before being allowed to attend any board meetings (note: this is on top of what is already covered by either the Corporations Act 2001 or the BAA constitution!)
9th March - concerned members outline their future vision through a survey
SURVEY FOR MEMBERS BAA
Do you want to be part of an organization where your voice is heard?
Do you want to be a member of an organization where you can actively participate?
Do you want to have access to an online chat line for members to learn from members?
Do you long for a community of farmers you can meet and become friends with?
Do you have ideas to make BAA a better organization?
Do you want open access to board minutes and minutes of all meetings? No secret agenda or meetings.
Do you want your friends and neighbors to have access to the BD preps?
Do you want to contribute your skills and ideas to BAA?
Do you want to attend AGM meetings which are affordable, fun and have workshops which you can learn during the weekend of the AGM?
Do you want to have pride in your membership owned organization?
Do want BAA to offer access to experienced BD consultants?
Do you enjoy making preparations and want to have a prep party at your farm?
If you answered yes to six of the above questions, you would be greatly benefited by voting in favour of the replacement of board members: Uli Spranz, Anton Van Klopper, Ross MacDonald, Julian Castana and Secretary Ian Cuming.
Board Candidates Carolyn Ditchfield, Cheryl Kemp, John Priestly, Ray Unger and Brett Sanders are committed to deliver the above promises.
Postal votes are due by April 1.
9th March - BCA Directors lodge cessation
Just discovered that Ulli and Ross have ceased their directorship of BCA, lodged today, but backdated to 12th February - they have obviously realised their conflict of interest to date!
Note that the events that led to Hugh's suspension from the Board are outlined in this response.
1st March 2010 - email feedback
BAA Members James and Maxine Blackburn have written about how Demeter International's trade marking of the word 'biodynamic' in Europe has affected biodynamic farmers in France, Italy and Ireland:
"The year before last, we spent a week each in France, Italy, England and Ireland. We made contact in each country with Biodynamic farmers or marketers, and in the case of Italy, were able to meet with the Vice President of Biodynamics Italy, and in Ireland with the head of what is left of the Biodynamic movement there.
Demeter appeared to be only of advantage to the large operators, farmers and producers , and their registration fees and charges are massive. In Ireland, this had virtually destroyed the biodynamic movement, since most Irish BD farmers have small acreages and production, and when BD Ireland decided to join Demeter the BD producers could not afford these fees and opted to give up the BD title, and move to being Organic. There were then only 4 individuals who still called themselves Biodynamic. Thus aligning themselves with Demeter virtually destroyed Irish Biodynamics. Even the President, who told us this had scaled down his operation to a token output and bought a fishing trawler.
We believe the same would happen here since the BD farmers we know would likely not be able to afford the $8,000 annual fees. Should we also be stopped from calling ourselves Biodynamic, then BD in Australia would be no more. Ulli Spranz and Ross McDonald both have a large commercial output, and would likely benefit from being able to market under the Demeter label, especially if they have plans to export, but their gain would possibly destroy most BD producers, the members of BAA, whose interests they are meant to be fostering. They, and their supporters on the Board, cannot be allowed to remain in control of BAA."
Counter Arguments
Some counter arguments to holding the EGM have begun to circulate. Below are some comments about them.
1) Since the last AGM with Ulli Spranz in the chair, board members have had to sign a 'Statement of Committment for Nominees and Directors' and a 'Statement of Disclosure' to the BAA Constitution and the 2001 Corporations Act. This has puzzled certain board members both current and past, as their allegience is with the membership, especially when from time to time there alledgedly have been allusions to breach of confidentiality and liability for damages. But is it damaging to BAA members to be aware of what the BAA board is doing? As confirmed on various occasions by ASIC, not-for-profit entities are run by members for members. In contrast, for-profit entities are run by their boards where commerical in-confidence issues are often necessary.
2) Hugh Lovel is not responsible for calling this EGM and will certainly not chair it as alleged. This EGM has been called by a group of concerned members, of which Hugh happens to be one.
Additionally every effort will be made to ensure all members are contacted and allowed to vote if eligible in regard to this EGM.
3) Ordinary members are legally and constitutionally permitted to hold their own EGM, separate from the BAA board and office. The rules are outlined in the BAA constitution link below. Concerned members decided to take this route because of the escalating intimidation coming from both the board and the BAA office. It does mean that this process has to be wholly funded by these concerned members - no BAA monies are being used.
4) BAA was never established to take on any certification role - it is a teaching and support body for biodynamics. The door is open to compromise when one organisation teaches and certifies farmers. BFA realised this too and separated their certifying activities to a separate body to avoid any possible conflict.
5) We have been refused access to BAA’s current member database, despite Section 173 of the Corporations Act allowing members a copy of an organisation’s Register of Members providing it is for a legitimate reason that is not for commercial purposes, ie advertising. We have requested an up-to-date Register on numerous occasions via post, phone and person since January without success, and despite a recent warning letter from ASIC to BAA for not supplying the Register. We have a list believed to be current at June 2009, which we have used. Unfortunately this means that some new members will miss out receiving a postal vote. To this end we will also use the media to alert any likely ‘missing’ members that they also have the right to vote in this EGM. We are confident that using these measures we will be notifying all members as best as possible under the circumstances.
6) Ulli Spranz was a founding director of BCA (Biodynamic Certification Australia) and is still a director and she has signed for BCA on every ASIC form to date.
7) Demeter USA has applied to trademark the word 'biodynamic' in Australia, as they hold this trademark in the US. They are a member/affiliate of Demeter International, which implies a close connection between the two. Demeter International has made their intentions clear on their website. (see Trademark link below or visit the website. If you need help searching Trademark application No. 1207719, follow these instructions).
8) It was contended that the reason the word 'biodynamic' had to be trademarked was to protect its use from companies like Monsanto - this argument was used successfully in the US in 2000 (read about the consequences of that for US biodynamic growers below) and was gaining traction in Australia. The argument has now shifted to claiming that it will protect biodynamic growers from Chinese exploitation. Apart from creating ownership and profits for an elite few in Germany, does granting Demeter International exclusive oversight of biodynamic certification in Australia for anyone marketing farm products as biodynamic really protect anyone from anything? In the US many biodynamic practitioners now simply do not/can not mention 'biodynamic'. Is this what we want for our membership?
9) It is claimed that without Demeter International standards Australian produce will find it difficult to access European markets. This may be true in some cases. The real question, however, is it appropriate for BAA to be acting in such a commercial matter, whose mission is education and support for biodynamic growers? Or should it be a consideration for an independent certifying entity, such as BCA, for which its very purpose of formation was to certify?
Clarification of Domestic Certification Status
The Australian National Biodynamic and Organic Standards are only for export at present.(although we use them as domestic standards) - but we have nothing legally domestic for imports to be assessed against.
These new standards being developed with Standards Australia will be a legal standard for domestic certification which means that any Organic or Biodynamic Standards coming into Australia must comply with these standards.
Until these domestic standards are approved, we have to accept whatever comes in organically/biodynamically. If Australian certified farmers want to export to USA or Japan or EU they have to pass their standards - NOSP, JANZ etc.
If the Demeter Standards are accepted here for our domestic biodynamic standards then only Demeter certified Biodynamic foods and produce will be allowed into Australia as Biodynamic. No other form of Biodynamic produce will be allowed in. (I dont know that we get that much anyway) - but if BD growers are turning away from Demeter for certification, then all overseas Biodynamic produce would come in under organic certification and we would not be aware that it was grown biodynamically.
Updates as of 15th February 2010
A group of concerned members spent a day working on the legalities of pulling an EGM (extraordinary general meeting) together. These members are committing their own resources to make this happen, which includes sending postal votes out to ALL BAA members via post. Only current members can vote, and worryingly, we have discovered that many members have not be notified of lapsed memberships, so we would like to urge all of you to check your membership status and renew if it has lasped so that you can vote on this important issue. Note: Newsleaf subscribers only are not members, so cannot vote.
The resolution being put forward to vote on is to remove Ulli Spranz, Anton Van Klopper, Ross McDonald and Julian Castagna as board member of Biodynamic Agriculture Australia, Ltd. (BAA); and to replace them by the following candidates for the BAA board: John Priestley, Cheryl Kemp, Ray Unger, Carolyn Ditchfield and Brett Sanders. The reasons for proposing this, and the intention of the new board are included in the post out.
IF YOU HAVE NOT RECIEVED YOUR POSTAL VOTE IN THE MAIL BY THE END OF FEBRUARY - PLEASE PLEASE EMAIL
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Contact was made with ASIC regarding what can and can't be done by members. Apparently members do have the right to access the membership database, but despite repeated requests over the last month or so, we have been told in no uncertain terms that the request will not be acted on - we are therefore restricted to only using an old database list to send out postal votes. If you know of other members that may be unaware of these issues, please spread the word. We need as many votes in as possible!
A day after the meeting of concerned BAA members, a group went to the Bellingen offices to request the membership database once again, in person. Again the request was declined, and a harassment form was lodged by the BAA manager against Hugh Lovel, John Priestley, Dorothy Priestley, Shabari Bird and Brett Sanders (a response that has occurred on numerous occasions against other members turning up at the BAA offices). It appears that the BAA offices are off limits to members! (Copies of previous written requests for the database can be emailed through to you).
A board meeting was held last Saturday where Hugh Lovel requested the use of a voice recorder as past Minutes have not be recorded correctly and he wanted security that all information would be recorded correctly. It caused a lot of consternation amongst the other board members and he was requested not to.
The first agenda item was the harassment notice from the BAA manager - at that point Hugh Lovel was ejected from the board meeting and has been suspended from future board meetings (and left to his own devices as to how to get back to the airport etc). Before removal though, Hugh and Shane were grilled over their signatures on the letter to the Standards Committee (see link to a copy below).
Soon afterwards Shane Joyce excused himself from the meeting stating that he would reflect on and consider his position. He found the environment far too hostile to contemplate spending the remainder of that Saturday and Sunday there.
Postal votes are being mailed out this week - PLEASE PLACE YOUR VOTE AND SEND IT BACK ASAP.
Other Pending Concerns
The current BAA board are taking steps towards attaining Demeter International Certification. It should be noted that 1) A biodynamic certification system has already been established in Australia that is up and running and accessible by all BAA members, 2) Demeter International certification requires more ‘purist’ biodynamic practices – innovations like broadcasters, homeopathies, altered spraying times etc will not be tolerated, and 3) it is believed that the cost of certifying through this organisation is relatively onerous at 2% of nett income, and value-adding of that product incurrs another 2%, and if a distributor is used another 2% is charged. This is all on top of existing local/national certification fees. (One recent European biodynamic practitioner visitor to Australia said that his DI dues to use the biodynamic demeter labelling was EU8000 per year for his 30 acre farm!!).
Demeter International (for which Demeter USA is a subsidiary) are also pushing to have the word 'biodynamic' trademarked despite it being a generic word used for over 80 years. Demeter USA has managed to trademark it with grave consequences for many existing biodynamic practitioners, and now there is a move to get Australia to do the same. Exclusive commercial ownership over such a word is repugnant to many members, yet the current Board is moving towards owning such a tradmark. (By the way, perhaps coincidently, it was immediately after Hamish Mackay stood up against this that he was ousted by the Board).
Even BAA educational programs would require adjustments to reflect these 'stricter' Demeter requirements Note: that is already taking effect under the guise of an updated Resource Manual, which is touted to become the sole basis for all biodynamic educational programs (Is this really an update or re-alignment with Demeter values in advance? Are these guidelines or rules?) Sharing innovative ideas are likely to be suppressed within the organisation.
In the latest NewsLeaf, the Chair indicated that BAA would be joining Demeter International soon (to date BAA has only been loosely aligned as a guest member) – yet this issue has not been discussed or voted on by BAA members. Joining Demeter will involve hefty annual fees, and will likely only benefit those who have commercial value-added enterprises wishing to access European markets. (Co-incidentally a majority of BAA Board members just happen to be in that position).
Perhaps a more appropriate avenue for such activities would be through BCA (Biodynamic Certification Australia) where the interests of that organisation’s members could best be served by such a move.
Note: BCA is in not ‘part of’ nor a ‘sister’ organisation to BAA (as suggested in the latest NewsLeaf). It is a separate legal entity. Interestingly, at the moment both Boards are served by three of the same individuals, which could be construed as a conflict of interest – particularly on this issue. To date BCA have no working capital. The Chair (who is is a director on both Boards) has already used BAA money to finance BAA's guest membership with Demeter International, so this idea may not be so radical as it may at first seem.
A letter of complaint has been recently sent to the Australian Standards Committee outlining many concerns. Please feel free to pen your own letter (BAA member or not) to the Standards Committee complaints and feedback section - you are welcomed to even rephrase the letter used above.
Some Public Documents of Interest
Letter to Standards Committee 17th February 2010
Final Request to BAA Office for Member Database
Trademark History
Trademark Details
BCA Appointment of Directors
BCA Financial Statement 2009
BCA Registration of Company 2007
BCA Constitution
Natural Sequence Farming (NSF) is a rural landscape management technique
aimed at restoring natural water cycles that allow the land to flourish
despite drought conditions. NSF offers a low-cost, widely applicable method
of reducing drought severity and boosting productivity on Australia's farms
and landscapes. The technique is based on ecological principles, low input
requirements and natural cycling of water and nutrients to make the land
more resilient.
Forgiveness Farming 
