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

R-CALF on the Checkoff

Help Support Ranchers.net:

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
Beef Checkoff Committee Established; Resolutions Head to Members for Vote

(DENVER) – During its recent annual convention in Denver, R-CALF USA held an inaugural Beef Checkoff Committee meeting, a concept created by R-CALF USA Co-Founder, Region I Director and Former President Leo McDonnell, as well as R-CALF USA President and Region V Director Chuck Kiker.

“Both gentlemen realized R-CALF members had concerns about the Checkoff and wanted the organization to become more involved in the process,” said Jim Hanna, R-CALF USA Beef Checkoff Committee Chair. “Both leaders stressed, however, that in no way was this an attempt to derail the beef promotion process, but rather a format R-CALF could use to advocate for positive changes.

“We started with a clean slate,” continued Hanna, a longtime R-CALF USA member and Nebraska rancher. “We had tremendous interest and participation from the members during the convention, and in the end, I felt we came away with a couple of very good resolutions.”

Members will vote on the proposed resolutions during this year’s mail-in ballot, and the proposals contain three major themes:

1. To encourage R-CALF USA affiliate organizations and their members to become active in the process used to select members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) and state beef councils, and to encourage those individuals to actively seek positions at both levels.

2. To make appropriate changes to the Beef Promotion Act and Order that would allow Beef Checkoff dollars collected from U.S. cattle producers to be used to promote products derived from cattle that are exclusively born, raised and processed in the United States.

3. To establish a referendum process that could effect changes to the Act and Order including:
* the initiation of a required periodic referendum;
* the assurance that all national cattle organizations have adequate representation on the CBB and are able to participate in approved projects;
* the ability to promote branded products;
* the ability for a larger portion of funds to be used on “in-state” projects;
* the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts.


“I want to stress that none of these ideas advocate for R-CALF to receive Checkoff dollars,” Hanna said. “Our membership and leadership insisted that any organization, including ours, that lobby for specific policy purposes should not be a primary contractor for Checkoff funds.

“We recognize the importance of beef promotion and look forward to working with the CBB to create an even stronger program,” Hanna continued. “We need to move away from finding things we can’t do, and toward finding ways to do more things that benefit U.S. cattle producers.”

Kiker said he has known since the first R-CALF USA convention he attended that member producers were not opposed to the Beef Checkoff.

“We’ve built a dialogue with the Cattlemen’s Beef Board staff, and this year they attended the R-CALF convention,” Kiker said. “We had an open forum with those gentlemen, and it went extremely well, resulting in the two resolutions that will go before our membership for a vote.

“And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the Checkoff, we do want our members who pay Checkoff dollars to feel like they’re engaged and have a vested interest in the Checkoff process,” emphasized Kiker.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Leo McDonnell claimed that the checkoff is supporting anti-producer organizations.

Does anyone know what organizations that would be?


* the initiation of a required periodic referendum;

In place now with a measely 10% producer signatures. OCM's siamese twin, the LMA, couldn't come up with the measely 10% producer signatures even with 33% of those signatures being fraudulent.


* the assurance that all national cattle organizations have adequate representation on the CBB and are able to participate in approved projects;

Already in place. Bet they thought they had an original concept here................ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


* the ability to promote branded products;

Ridiculous! The funds need to go towards beef research, promotion of beef consumption, and education about nutritional benefits. Not using public money to promote individual private company products.


* the ability for a larger portion of funds to be used on “in-state” projects;

Like promoting beef consumption to those who already eat beef?


* the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts.

contrasted with:

“And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the Checkoff, we do want our members who pay Checkoff dollars to feel like they’re engaged and have a vested interest in the Checkoff process,” emphasized Kiker.


OCM, if R-CALF's resolution suggests more recently formed cattle-producer organizations should be allowed to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts, why would Kiker suggest that R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the checkoff?

Which way is it?


~SH~
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
~SH~ said:
Leo McDonnell claimed that the checkoff is supporting anti-producer organizations.

Does anyone know what organizations that would be?


* the initiation of a required periodic referendum;

In place now with a measely 10% producer signatures. OCM's siamese twin, the LMA, couldn't come up with the measely 10% producer signatures even with 33% of those signatures being fraudulent.


* the assurance that all national cattle organizations have adequate representation on the CBB and are able to participate in approved projects;

Already in place. Bet they thought they had an original concept here................ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


* the ability to promote branded products;

Ridiculous! The funds need to go towards beef research, promotion of beef consumption, and education about nutritional benefits. Not using public money to promote individual private company products.


* the ability for a larger portion of funds to be used on “in-state” projects;

Like promoting beef consumption to those who already eat beef?


* the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts.

contrasted with:

“And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the Checkoff, we do want our members who pay Checkoff dollars to feel like they’re engaged and have a vested interest in the Checkoff process,” emphasized Kiker.


OCM, if R-CALF's resolution suggests more recently formed cattle-producer organizations should be allowed to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts, why would Kiker suggest that R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the checkoff?

Which way is it?


~SH~
As of now any beef organization formed in the last 20 years is automatically disqualified from being a contractor. This exclusion leaves primarily NCBA and the Meat Export Federation. A lot of others are excluded. R-CALF wants them to be qualified. The organization (whose name I cant' remember) that offered a bid lower than NCBA's recently was disqualified because it was newly formed in the last twenty years. That wasted us a lot of checkoff money.

There is a very prevalent attitude amongst membership that R-CALF does not want checkoff funds. Read what I put in bold. This was not a resolution but is a prevailing attitude.

R-CALF does not want any organization that lobbies to recieve checkoff funds, even if the funds are separate. The NCBA benefits from the checkoff simply by having their logo on all the checkoff material they produce. This materially enhances their lobbying position.

By the way, I am not in total agreement with R-CALF's checkoff policy, but it is one I can live with. I will say that if R-CALF ever becomes a prime contractor, I will withdraw my membership. I think that most R-CALF members feel the same way.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
~SH~ said:
Leo McDonnell claimed that the checkoff is supporting anti-producer organizations.

Does anyone know what organizations that would be?


* the initiation of a required periodic referendum;

In place now with a measely 10% producer signatures. OCM's siamese twin, the LMA, couldn't come up with the measely 10% producer signatures even with 33% of those signatures being fraudulent.


* the assurance that all national cattle organizations have adequate representation on the CBB and are able to participate in approved projects;

Already in place. Bet they thought they had an original concept here................ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


* the ability to promote branded products;

Ridiculous! The funds need to go towards beef research, promotion of beef consumption, and education about nutritional benefits. Not using public money to promote individual private company products.


* the ability for a larger portion of funds to be used on “in-state” projects;

Like promoting beef consumption to those who already eat beef?


* the ability for more recently formed cattle-producer organizations to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts.

contrasted with:

“And while R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the Checkoff, we do want our members who pay Checkoff dollars to feel like they’re engaged and have a vested interest in the Checkoff process,” emphasized Kiker.


OCM, if R-CALF's resolution suggests more recently formed cattle-producer organizations should be allowed to bid on Beef Checkoff contracts, why would Kiker suggest that R-CALF has no interest whatsoever in contracting with the checkoff?

Which way is it?


~SH~
As of now any beef organization formed in the last 20 years is automatically disqualified from being a contractor. This exclusion leaves primarily NCBA and the Meat Export Federation. A lot of others are excluded. R-CALF wants them to be qualified. The organization (whose name I cant' remember) that offered a bid lower than NCBA's recently was disqualified because it was newly formed in the last twenty years. That wasted us a lot of checkoff money.

There is a very prevalent attitude amongst membership that R-CALF does not want checkoff funds. Read what I put in bold. This was not a resolution but is a prevailing attitude.

R-CALF does not want any organization that lobbies to recieve checkoff funds, even if the funds are separate. The NCBA benefits from the checkoff simply by having their logo on all the checkoff material they produce. This materially enhances their lobbying position.

By the way, I am not in total agreement with R-CALF's checkoff policy, but it is one I can live with. I will say that if R-CALF ever becomes a prime contractor, I will withdraw my membership. I think that most R-CALF members feel the same way.

ocm, point 1. Virtually EVERY beef organization in the nation ALREADY has representation on the state Beef Councils and the CBB. SD is a prime example with at least four of the eight organizations in SDBIC promoting R-CALF stances and many of them having R-CALF memberships.

2. Are you ready to exempt importers from paying into the Beef Checkoff?

Fact: many states have more cattle than their consumers can eat. Doesn't it make sense to spend more money to promote beef in more populous states rather than selling it to the "choir" so to speak? Additional money above the state 50 cent share also buys the state more influence at the national level, giving less populous states a more fair representation than if they could not do so.

Significant changes such as periodic mandated votes, exempting importers so you can advertise USA produced beef, and adding "new" cattle organizations to the contracting roster require opening the law by Congress to make those changes. There are significant dangers in doing that.

Re. "new" organizations as contractors: that stipulation was included in the law to prevent "new" bureaucracies of state organizations forming to be supported by the Beef Checkoff.

You seem to forget that it is NOT the membership division of NCBA that is the contracting agency. ONLY the Federation of state Beef Councils does that. The Federation division is simply the national organization of the state Beef councils, which gives the states another level of activity than just their state funds can allow, and prevented formation of another bureaucracy. The entire goal is to keep the overhead costs under the mandated 5% cap......and it is successful!

Can anyone find a single incidence of impropriety of actions funded by the Beef Checkoff, or of misuse of funds? The checks and balances and firewalls work!

MRJ
 

Tommy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
755
Reaction score
0
Location
South East Kansas
mj...point 1. Virtually EVERY beef organization in the nation ALREADY has representation on the state Beef Councils and the CBB.

Not true in Kansas mj. It is set up here that the KLA has the say so on who sits on the state beef council and the CBB.

mj..2. Are you ready to exempt importers from paying into the Beef Checkoff?

Yes!! Then we could advertise USA beef with checkoff dollars.

mj...Additional money above the state 50 cent share also buys the state more influence at the national level, giving less populous states a more fair representation than if they could not do so.

Say what?? You mean like Abramoff?

mj...Significant changes such as periodic mandated votes, exempting importers so you can advertise USA produced beef, and adding "new" cattle organizations to the contracting roster require opening the law by Congress to make those changes. There are significant dangers in doing that.

Laws are changed everyday. What dangers do you see?

mj...You seem to forget that it is NOT the membership division of NCBA that is the contracting agency. ONLY the Federation of state Beef Councils does that.

Yet it is still a part of the NCBA isn't it mj?
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
ocm said:
As of now any beef organization formed in the last 20 years is automatically disqualified from being a contractor. This exclusion leaves primarily NCBA and the Meat Export Federation. A lot of others are excluded. R-CALF wants them to be qualified. The organization (whose name I cant' remember) that offered a bid lower than NCBA's recently was disqualified because it was newly formed in the last twenty years. That wasted us a lot of checkoff money.

There is a very prevalent attitude amongst membership that R-CALF does not want checkoff funds. Read what I put in bold. This was not a resolution but is a prevailing attitude.

R-CALF does not want any organization that lobbies to recieve checkoff funds, even if the funds are separate. The NCBA benefits from the checkoff simply by having their logo on all the checkoff material they produce. This materially enhances their lobbying position.

By the way, I am not in total agreement with R-CALF's checkoff policy, but it is one I can live with. I will say that if R-CALF ever becomes a prime contractor, I will withdraw my membership. I think that most R-CALF members feel the same way.

ocm, point 1. Virtually EVERY beef organization in the nation ALREADY has representation on the state Beef Councils and the CBB. SD is a prime example with at least four of the eight organizations in SDBIC promoting R-CALF stances and many of them having R-CALF memberships.

2. Are you ready to exempt importers from paying into the Beef Checkoff?

Fact: many states have more cattle than their consumers can eat. Doesn't it make sense to spend more money to promote beef in more populous states rather than selling it to the "choir" so to speak? Additional money above the state 50 cent share also buys the state more influence at the national level, giving less populous states a more fair representation than if they could not do so.

Significant changes such as periodic mandated votes, exempting importers so you can advertise USA produced beef, and adding "new" cattle organizations to the contracting roster require opening the law by Congress to make those changes. There are significant dangers in doing that.

Re. "new" organizations as contractors: that stipulation was included in the law to prevent "new" bureaucracies of state organizations forming to be supported by the Beef Checkoff.

You seem to forget that it is NOT the membership division of NCBA that is the contracting agency. ONLY the Federation of state Beef Councils does that. The Federation division is simply the national organization of the state Beef councils, which gives the states another level of activity than just their state funds can allow, and prevented formation of another bureaucracy. The entire goal is to keep the overhead costs under the mandated 5% cap......and it is successful!

Can anyone find a single incidence of impropriety of actions funded by the Beef Checkoff, or of misuse of funds? The checks and balances and firewalls work!

MRJ

Yes, exclude importers money from the checkoff. The sheep industry does it that way.

NCBA takes advantage of the confustion between the membership and the Federation side of the organization. The logo on checkoff material does not distinguish between the two. That is the best reason in the world to unmerge the two organizations.

Allowing newer beef organization to contract would not require changing the law--the limit is not part of the original beef statute, it is somewhere else in regulations.

But, I see no problem in changing the law, and then having a referendum on the changes.

Also note that the resolution does not say we call for changes to allow R-CALF affiliates to participate, but rather that it encourages affiliates to get active and participate. At least on the national level that would not require any change.

PS These resolutions do not precisely identify my thoughts, but I can live with them.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Tommy said:
mj...point 1. Virtually EVERY beef organization in the nation ALREADY has representation on the state Beef Councils and the CBB.

Not true in Kansas mj. It is set up here that the KLA has the say so on who sits on the state beef council and the CBB.

mj..2. Are you ready to exempt importers from paying into the Beef Checkoff?

Yes!! Then we could advertise USA beef with checkoff dollars.

mj...Additional money above the state 50 cent share also buys the state more influence at the national level, giving less populous states a more fair representation than if they could not do so.

Say what?? You mean like Abramoff?

mj...Significant changes such as periodic mandated votes, exempting importers so you can advertise USA produced beef, and adding "new" cattle organizations to the contracting roster require opening the law by Congress to make those changes. There are significant dangers in doing that.

Laws are changed everyday. What dangers do you see?

mj...You seem to forget that it is NOT the membership division of NCBA that is the contracting agency. ONLY the Federation of state Beef Councils does that.

Yet it is still a part of the NCBA isn't it mj?

OK, Tommy, do you really want people outside the state of KS to tell you how to run your state Beef Council?

2. First, we DO advertise US beef with Checkoff dollars, along with that miniscule 5% of imported beef sold through retailers.

Are you sure you won't complain when those importers put their money saved by not paying the checkoff into high powered advertising of their expensive specialty beef items.......think along the lines of "Pristine Pampas Grass Fed Beef, Pampered by Genuine Gaucho's" with accompanying backdrop of scenic Gaucho's on endless praires with the prettiest piece of lean beef you ever saw, impaled on a long sword roasting over coals in the foreground, with a few succulent appearing slices on a plate being handed to an excited consumer.

Re. the additional money buying more influence at the national level; Can you not understand that higher contributions, above the mandated 50cents, to the Federation of Beef Councils gives a states Beef Council more directors? Nothing evil there!

Re. your "what dangers do you see?" How many people have attacked the Beef checkoff? And how many people, nationally, have attacked many such checkoffs legislated BY producers, FOR producer benefit?? So long as anti-NCBA Policy division people continue to insist, against all FACTS to the contrary, that NCBA Policy division "lives off your Checkoff" as Johnnie Smith said just yesterday on KBHB and KGFX radio, there is a clear and obvious danger to the Checkoff.

The Federation division is comprised of different people and represented groups than the Policy division of NCBA and is a separate organization ONLY sharing some common facilities and staff The Federation division is ONLY directors of the state Beef Councils, with NO members independent of those State Beef Councils. The Policy division of NCBA IS independent members from all states, plus the directors of the state MEMBERSHIP organizations AFFILIATED with the NCBA Policy/Membership national organization. They are housed in the same building; staff is shared, staffers keeping track of their time in 15 minute increments to assure the right division is paying the bills; votes are divided according to the affected division; officers are voted upon by the appropriate division......and more! They are TWO SEPARATE organizations under an umbrella of shared facilities and staff designed to keep costs down, and FINANCES and activities appropriately separated. The Cattlemen's Beef Board is independent of both NCBA divisions and CONTROLS the contracts for Beef Checkoff projects, currently contracting with about eight different contractors nationwide.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ, neither the beef checkoff nor the NCBArs in the USDA have stopped the substitution of chicken for beef. Sometimes facts matter more than what you think.
 

ocm

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
779
Reaction score
0
The Cattlemen's Beef Board is independent of both NCBA divisions and CONTROLS the contracts for Beef Checkoff projects, currently contracting with about eight different contractors nationwide.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand one of the contentions between the CBB and NCBA(Federation) is that NCBA(Federation) considers that money given by states directly to the NCBA(Federation) is not subject to CBB management.

Is it not a fact that state funds sent to national do NOT go to the CBB, but rather to the NCBA(Federation)?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
MRJ, neither the beef checkoff nor the NCBArs in the USDA have stopped the substitution of chicken for beef. Sometimes facts matter more than what you think.

Explain what you mean by "the substitution of chicken for beef". By whom?

I do not know whether you refer to consumer choice, or what is used in school lunches, for instance.

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
ocm said:
The Cattlemen's Beef Board is independent of both NCBA divisions and CONTROLS the contracts for Beef Checkoff projects, currently contracting with about eight different contractors nationwide.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand one of the contentions between the CBB and NCBA(Federation) is that NCBA(Federation) considers that money given by states directly to the NCBA(Federation) is not subject to CBB management.

Is it not a fact that state funds sent to national do NOT go to the CBB, but rather to the NCBA(Federation)?

I will find out. I suppose it could be directed either way. I believe there have been times when it went to a specific project that was of particular interest to the state contributing the money (believing SD has done that). I don't know as there would be a problem either way, because the CBB already has control of all of their share automatically, and the "extra" money wouldn't logically, or even legally belong to them, IMHO. I will ask about that. Have you asked anyone at CBB about it? May not get back to you real soon as we are leaving for Denver tomorrow, doing some visiting enroute.

MRJ

MRJ
 

Latest posts

Top