• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

New R-CALF President comments on NCBA

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
There seems to be a wide gap between R-CALF and NCBA. As a man who’s served both organizations, will you be able to help bring them closer together?


Chuck Kiker-Texas President elect of R-CALF:

"I don’t know if anyone can bring R-CALF and NCBA closer together. In my opinion, NCBA has some serious flaws. That’s one of the reasons I’ve gotten so involved in R-CALF. I actually felt like I was being represented through R-CALF.



NCBA’s representation structure is based on money. The more money you pay in, the more representation you get. That’s fine as long as you know the ground rules. Where the real conflict surfaced is when inter-industry issues surfaced and one segment of the industry had more influence than another within NCBA, to the point they influenced the information presented to the grassroots producers. This is where you get into the differences between the structure of NCBA and R-CALF, and it makes for two completely different organizations.



I have sat on the board of NCBA representing the Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas and I am now on the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. If me sitting down and discussing issues with NCBA members, its executive board, officers, or staff makes for a better cattle industry and keeps U.S. producers profitable, I’ll be on the front row. R-CALF has tried to initiate dialogue with NCBA in the past, to no avail. We have also never passed on an opportunity to debate our positions with any stakeholders in the beef industry.



I do feel I can bridge the gap between R-CALF members and their concerns about the Beef Checkoff. There shouldn’t be a gap there at all. Most of the gap has been a result of NCBA, its policies, and the fact that it is the lead contractor for the Checkoff. In fact, Leo and I are both working toward this effort and are going to initiate dialogue between our membership and CBB officers and staff on ways to improve the Checkoff at R-CALF’s convention this January in Denver."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Maple Leaf Angus said:
what an exciting topic

I gave you another one--Will give Canadians another diety beside Bill and Leo - Or in the case of Tam and Frenchie, give them someone else to blame for everything thats happened in Canada for the last 50 years :wink:
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Oldtimer said:
There seems to be a wide gap between R-CALF and NCBA. As a man who’s served both organizations, will you be able to help bring them closer together?


Chuck Kiker-Texas President elect of R-CALF:

"I don’t know if anyone can bring R-CALF and NCBA closer together. In my opinion, NCBA has some serious flaws. That’s one of the reasons I’ve gotten so involved in R-CALF. I actually felt like I was being represented through R-CALF.



NCBA’s representation structure is based on money. The more money you pay in, the more representation you get. That’s fine as long as you know the ground rules. Where the real conflict surfaced is when inter-industry issues surfaced and one segment of the industry had more influence than another within NCBA, to the point they influenced the information presented to the grassroots producers. This is where you get into the differences between the structure of NCBA and R-CALF, and it makes for two completely different organizations.



I have sat on the board of NCBA representing the Independent Cattlemen’s Association of Texas and I am now on the Cattlemen’s Beef Board. If me sitting down and discussing issues with NCBA members, its executive board, officers, or staff makes for a better cattle industry and keeps U.S. producers profitable, I’ll be on the front row. R-CALF has tried to initiate dialogue with NCBA in the past, to no avail. We have also never passed on an opportunity to debate our positions with any stakeholders in the beef industry.



I do feel I can bridge the gap between R-CALF members and their concerns about the Beef Checkoff. There shouldn’t be a gap there at all. Most of the gap has been a result of NCBA, its policies, and the fact that it is the lead contractor for the Checkoff. In fact, Leo and I are both working toward this effort and are going to initiate dialogue between our membership and CBB officers and staff on ways to improve the Checkoff at R-CALF’s convention this January in Denver."

Not surprisingly, Kiker attempts to make the fact that MOST membership organizations need money to function seem somehow sinister in the lone example of NCBA.

First, he fails to separate the Policy/dues/membership division from the national association of state beef councils which is the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA. Those are two quite separate groups, both financially and by activitiy, under the umbrella name of NCBA. The Federation is comprised of representatives of all the state beef checkoff groups, including members of MANY cattle organizations, including but not limited to: (and using SD as the example) SD Cattlemen, SD Cattlemens' Aux., SDStockgrowers, SD CattleWomen, SD Farm Bureau, SD Farmers Union, SD Beef Improvement Federation, & SDLMA. This Federation of State Beef Councils is the part of NCBA which contracts with the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB).

Further, the method directing "more money you pay in" is different for each of the divisions of NCBA. The Federation Division is based upon numbers of CATTLE in each state. States having more cattle can have more representation on the board, plus, if they do not need to use all the state 50 cents from the Beef Checkoff, they may choose to give more than the required 50 cents to the CBB and thereby gain more board seats, thus a bigger voice for their state in decisions involving the checkoff.

The Policy/Dues/Membershhip division method is based on numbers of PEOPLE who are members of the NCBA affiliate in each state (SD Cattlemen in SD, for instance). More members qualifies a state organization to have more seats on the board, thus a bigger voice for that state in MEMBERSHIP POLICY issues, which for this division, has NOTHING to do with the Beef Checkoff issues or projects.

Both systems are absolutely fair. The money=board seats simply reflects the level of effort and contribution via either numbers of CATTLE (checkoff dollars coming in to the national level) or numbers of PEOPLE (paying their dues) to the Policy/Dues/Member division.

I do not know what Kikers cryptic reference to "...conflict....when inter-industry issues surfaced and one segment of the industry had more influence than another within NCBA to the point they influenced the information presented to the grassroots producers." is all about. It would be interesting if he would call a spade a spade instead of talking in innuendo.

However I do know that the Policy/Dues/Membership division is the ONLY side of NCBA that is involved in policy issues that are lobbied on. ONLY the Policial Action Committee raises the money to fund lobbying, and NO beef checkoff dollars EVER have been, are, or will be used for lobbying. It is absolutely against the law! And that preclusion was placed in the law at the insistence of members of the predecessor organization of NCBA which got the law passed because those cattle producers realized that while not every producer will agree on every political issue affecting producers, we all should be able to come to agreement on projects to improve the product we sell and they also recognized that our end product is BEEF, not ONLY cattle.

In reality, it is the philosophies of the two organizations that make them different, because it is an absolute fact that money is required to run a professional organization of cattle producers. IMO, NCBA's Policy division dues structure of a substantial minimum amount, plus a "fair share" addition based upon cattle numbers owned by the member treats small and large operators fairly and demonstrates a substantial effort on the part of the members to support the organization.

Kiker, and R-CALF leadership seem to be attempting to place themselves in the position of the offended group seeking diligently for a better relationship, and being rebuffed by mean ol' NCBA leaders. Facts bear our that R-CALF, as the legal activist organization was born out of anti-checkoff and anti-NCBA propaganda saturating much of the ag media in SD and other northern and western states for months and years. That the leaders have recently morphed it into a membership organization intending to compete with NCBA for the hearts and minds of cattle producers is no real surprise and still the deceit continues with claims that NCBA does not represent the cattle producer exclusively. The fact is the cattle producer members of NCBA made a decision to work with all segments of the beef industry because we understand that a divided industry warring against one another is not good for any segment, least of all the cattle producer. LEARNING from one another, UNDERSTANDING one anothers' needs, and RESPECTING one anothers' positions will keep us stronger in the face of reality in a world economy.

Kiker illustrates either his failure to understand the real division and separation of the two divisions of NCBA, or his intention to promote the deception that there is none. His claims of a "gap" caused by NCBA being the "lead contractor" is an illusion. That division of NCBA, the Federation of State Beef Councils is representatives of virtually ALL cattle organizations in the nation, and is NOT controlled by the Policy/Dues division of NCBA! That claim as a reason for not supporting the Beef Checkoff is a complete red herring! And Kiker SHOULD know that because he has served on the CBB.

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top