South Dakota Brand Board just stepped in it....

[ranch hand]

The cold hard fact is that a lot of producers don't want their brand money going into an organization that supports R-CALF. Period. And they don't want their brand money anywhere near a market owner turned R-CALF director who threatens people if they don't contribute or donate to his cause. What's the difference between an auction market owner threatening producers and the perceived packer influence at NCBA? None

Who says it is producers brand money? I see once you pay for a brand inspection it belongs to someone else. Will you make sure the governor spends YOUR PRODUCER MONEY the way you want it, not just you the way every producer wants it spent.

As far as the auction barn threatening for you to contribute to R-calf, this is the same track NCBA does with feedlots. It is added to your bill that you now have a membership in NCBA.

 

[Reggie]

So what's the difference in tactics, RH? None.

If I don't want to be harangued about donating to R-CALF I sell somewhere else - like on video. I donated once and get an unwanted membership that took me years to get rid of which is a story in itself. Join once and you're there forever because Bullard gets a finders fee on every membership sold and they need to keep their numbers up. If I don't want to be a member of NCBA I feed my cattle somewhere else or make sure the feedlot owner knows I don't want dues collected.

Brand program profits going into SDSG offset other expenses which freed up money to pour into R-CALF to pay their lawyers with. Nothing different than checkoff contracts offsetting expenses at NCBA freeing up money to pay staff to lobby against me on NAIS.

An autonomous brand program sure appeals to me at this point.

 

[Reggie]

Cinch,

You sound like a little guy in a sandbox. "Prove it!" "Stop it" "No...YOU prove it." Because you're in denial doesn't make it misinformation. It's a cold hard fact that board members were required to sign confidentiality agreements. It's a cold hard fact that board and committee people were asked to sign oaths of loyalty. It's a cold hard fact that audited financial statements aren't available to members. It's a cold hard fact that a board member resigned this winter after the convention. It's a cold hard fact that the CEO was caught flying first class. It's a cold hard fact that R-CALF is spending a fortune on lawyers and lawsuits with no accountability to its membership as to where the money is going. It's a cold hard fact that Bullard's contract calls for a finders fee on every membership sold. It's a cold hard fact that R-CALF paid their own attorney to discover Leo McDonnell's contact information. It's a cold hard fact that members have refused to renew their dues because they aren't given appropriate access to meeting minutes and other documentation. WHAT'S TO HIDE????

Want some proof? Go to www.swiftstallions.com and take a look at the email exchanges and the ACTUAL documents generated by R-CALF. You might learn something.

 

[Cinch]

Cinch,

You sound like a little guy in a sandbox. "Prove it!" "Stop it" "No...YOU prove it." Because you're in denial doesn't make it misinformation. It's a cold hard fact that board members were required to sign confidentiality agreements. It's a cold hard fact that board and committee people were asked to sign oaths of loyalty. It's a cold hard fact that audited financial statements aren't available to members. It's a cold hard fact that a board member resigned this winter after the convention. It's a cold hard fact that the CEO was caught flying first class. It's a cold hard fact that R-CALF is spending a fortune on lawyers and lawsuits with no accountability to its membership as to where the money is going. It's a cold hard fact that Bullard's contract calls for a finders fee on every membership sold. It's a cold hard fact that R-CALF paid their own attorney to discover Leo McDonnell's contact information. It's a cold hard fact that members have refused to renew their dues because they aren't given appropriate access to meeting minutes and other documentation. WHAT'S TO HIDE????

Want some proof? Go to www.swiftstallions.com and take a look at the email exchanges and the ACTUAL documents generated by R-CALF. You might learn something.

Reggie,
You are still spewing garbage. I know WAY more than you do about most of this stuff.
You're making the accusation that SDSGA brand inspection money has gone to R-CALF. That is a serious allegation, that you either need to prove or shut up. Compare the cost of brand inspection in SD to other states. Some states charge twice as much.

I will address only two of your gabage accusations.
1) I have seen CPA reviewed financials. There is nothing wrong going on
2) Bill Bullard has frequent flyer miles and occasionally gets free upgrades to first class. I have also heard a rumor from a reliable source that whenever he gets an upgrade and when any uniformed military person is on the same flight, he will trade his first class seat for their economy one.

 

[Reggie]

Cinch,

I'm SO GLAD someone has seen "CPA reviewed" (whatever that means) financial sheets. As long as you have, I'm sure you'll be happy to share them on the site, correct? Because in today's world of Enron-like bookkeeping you realize that we can't just take some anonymous person's word for "nothing wrong going on". Ken Lay said the same thing. At NCBA members get an independent audit of the books every year and a complete explanation of every single expenditure is readily available.

You've said nothing about the confidentiality agreements and oaths of loyalty and since you're such an insider with so much information I'm sure you can explain that. Maybe ask someone close to you about it.

Your arrogance reeks.

 

[Cinch]

Cinch,

I'm SO GLAD someone has seen "CPA reviewed" (whatever that means) financial sheets. As long as you have, I'm sure you'll be happy to share them on the site, correct? Because in today's world of Enron-like bookkeeping you realize that we can't just take some anonymous person's word for "nothing wrong going on". Ken Lay said the same thing. At NCBA members get an independent audit of the books every year and a complete explanation of every single expenditure is readily available.

You've said nothing about the confidentiality agreements and oaths of loyalty and since you're such an insider with so much information I'm sure you can explain that. Maybe ask someone close to you about it.

Your arrogance reeks.

Montana law already requires confidentiality from board members of all non profit organizations. The signing of a confidentiality agreement added nothing to Montana law. It would highlight for anybody signing exactly what Montana law already expects.

Your arrogance reeks.[/quote]

 

[Reggie]

Cinch, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to cite the Montana Code that proves your point, correct? Following is a tidbit of Montana code that you should perhaps review. You're so full of inside information that I'm absolutely positive you'll be willing to share plenty. Afterall, what would a non-profit have to hide from its members?

35-2-907. Inspection of records by members. (1) Subject to 35-2-908(3) and subsection (5) of this section, a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and location specified by the corporation, any of the records of the corporation described in 35-2-906(5) if the member gives the corporation written notice or a written demand at least 5 business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy.
(2) Subject to subsection (5), a member is entitled to inspect and copy, at a reasonable time and reasonable location specified by the corporation, any of the following records of the corporation if the member meets the requirements of subsection (3) and gives the corporation written notice at least 5 business days before the date on which the member wishes to inspect and copy:
(a) excerpts from any records required to be maintained under 35-2-906(1), to the extent not subject to inspection under subsection (1);
(b) accounting records of the corporation; and
(c) subject to 35-2-910, the membership list.
(3) A member may inspect and copy the records identified in subsection (2) only if:
(a) the member's demand is made in good faith and for a proper purpose;
(b) the member describes with reasonable particularity the purpose and the records the member desires to inspect; and
(c) the records are directly connected with this purpose.
(4) This section does not affect:
(a) the right of a member to inspect records under 35-2-535 or, if the member is in litigation with the corporation, to the same extent as any other litigant; or
(b) the power of a court, independent of this chapter, to compel the production of corporate records for examination.
(5) The articles or bylaws of a religious corporation may limit or abolish the right of a member under this section to inspect and copy any corporate record.

35-2-911. Financial statements for members. Upon the written request of any member of the corporation, the corporation shall mail to the member its most recent financial statements showing in reasonable detail its assets and liabilities and the results of the operations.

35-2-908. Scope of inspection rights. (1) A member's agent or attorney has the same inspection and copying rights as the member the agent or attorney represents.
(2) The right to copy records under 35-2-907 includes, if reasonable, the right to receive copies made by photographic, xerographic, or other means.
(3) The corporation may impose a reasonable charge, covering the costs of labor and material, for copies of documents provided to the member. The charge may not exceed the estimated cost of production or reproduction of the records.
(4) The corporation may comply with a member's demand to inspect the record of members under 35-2-907(2)(c) by providing the member with a list of its members that was compiled no earlier than the date of the member's demand.

35-2-535. Members' list for meeting. (1) After fixing a record date for a notice of a meeting, a corporation shall prepare an alphabetical list of the names of all its members who are entitled to notice of the meeting. The list must show the address and number of votes each member is entitled to vote at the meeting. The corporation shall prepare, on a current basis through the time of the membership meeting, a list of members, if any, who are entitled to vote at the meeting but not entitled to notice of the meeting. This list must be prepared on the same basis and be part of the list of members.
(2) The list of members must be available:
(a) for inspection by any member for the purpose of communication with other members concerning the meeting, beginning 2 business days after notice is given of the meeting for which the list was prepared and continuing through the meeting; and
(b) at the corporation's principal office or at a reasonable place identified in the meeting notice in the city where the meeting will be held. A member, a member's agent, or a member's attorney is entitled, on written demand, to inspect and, subject to the limitations of 35-2-907(3) and 35-2-910 to copy the list, at a reasonable time and at the member's expense, during the period it is available for inspection.
(3) The corporation shall make the list of members available at the meeting, and any member, a member's agent, or a member's attorney is entitled to inspect the list at any time during the meeting or any adjournment.
(4) If the corporation refuses to allow a member, a member's agent, or a member's attorney to inspect the list of members before or at the meeting or to copy the list as permitted by subsection (2), the district court for the judicial district of the county where a corporation's principal office or, if the principal office is not located in this state, where its registered office is located, on application of the member, may summarily order the inspection or copying at the corporation's expense, may postpone the meeting for which the list was prepared until the inspection or copying is complete, and may order the corporation to pay the member's costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred to obtain the order.
(5) Unless a written demand to inspect and copy a membership list has been made under subsection (2) prior to the membership meeting and a corporation improperly refuses to comply with the demand, refusal or failure to comply with this section does not affect the validity of action taken at the meeting.
(6) The articles or bylaws of a religious corporation may limit or abolish the rights of a member under this section to inspect and copy any corporate record.

35-2-910. Limitations on use of membership list. (1) Without consent of the board, a membership list or any part of it may not be obtained or used by a person for any purpose unrelated to a member's interest as a member.
(2) Without limiting the generality of the provisions of subsection (1), without the consent of the board a membership list or any part of it may not be:
(a) used to solicit money or property unless the money or property will be used solely to solicit the votes of the members in an election to be held by the corporation;
(b) used for any commercial purpose; or
(c) sold to or purchased by any person.

 

[Sandhusker]

If you don't like how business is handled, drop your membership. If you're not a member, lay off the coffee, take a few deep breaths of air, go to your happy place, get back on your meds, whatever it takes to stop the frothing.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Liberty Belle,

Keep politics out of it? Then I suggest you stop bringing politics into it by rehashing Lyndell Petersen's and your own position that trouble started when SDSG associated with R-CALF. If you keep bringing it up we'll go there.

The cold hard fact is that a lot of producers don't want their brand money going into an organization that supports R-CALF. Period. And they don't want their brand money anywhere near a market owner turned R-CALF director who threatens people if they don't contribute or donate to his cause. What's the difference between an auction market owner threatening producers and the perceived packer influence at NCBA? None.

As I've said before, the hypocrisy among some of you knows no boundaries.

Reggie my dear, Lyndell Peterson was a Brand Board member participating in every Brand Board meeting and he's sharing his perspective with us. Don't you think he was paying attention to what was said and done? Politics have been brought into this issue big time, but it wasn't me and it wasn't Lyndell that dragged the subject into the discussion, it was partisan hacks like you that started this whole fiasco.

Pray tell me what the politics of any of these organizations has to do with a cheap, reliable and effective brand inspection? Give us some facts to back up your statements will you?

Reggie: If you keep bringing it up we'll go there.

Is that a promise?

I will repeat my statement from earlier in this thread – I have no use for either R-CALF or NCBA. I don't think either organization represents the concerns of livestock producers, although both of them have done a few things right. Unfortunately those things are overshadowed by the many other things they have done that are counterproductive. None of this has anything to do with brand inspection.

Again I'll ask - what do the politics of any of these organizations have to do with a cheap, reliable and effective brand inspection?

By the way, my name is Betty Olson. What's yours?

 

[Cinch]

Cinch, I'm sure you'll be more than happy to cite the Montana Code that proves your point, correct? Following is a tidbit of Montana code that you should perhaps review. You're so full of inside information that I'm absolutely positive you'll be willing to share plenty. Afterall, what would a non-profit have to hide from its members?

And my point is that I am a member and I have had no problem getting answers to my questions.

I have seen some former members state that they could not get answers to questions that they considered they should have. Further statements by those same members that are verifiably false makes me completely discount such claims.

If R-CALF has been violating Montana law, why is there no case brought against them. That silence speaks volumes.

Since you are no longer a member (according to your statement) you have no right to know some of these things.

If you think R-CALF is breaking Montana law, you have a duty to bring it to a DA or Attorney General. If you can't prove it, then shut up.

Same for SDGA. If they broke any law, bring it to the attention of the appropriate law enforcement agency.

Otherwise, be careful. libel and slander ARE against the law. Some of the statements you have made on this board could be considered a violation of libel laws if they are untrue. And you would have the burden in court of proving that they are true. (I personally have no intention of doing anything about it, but you set yourself up as an easy target).

Bottom line:
It is not difficult to get answers from R-CALF. Just ask a director, any director, or even some of the past directors. And you don't have to make the questions easy. Just be polite.

Another bottom line relevant to this thread. At $.80 a head for inspection it is extremely difficult to make a case that the SDSGA was squandering inspection money, or to believe that they have much left over to help R-CALF out of that revenue stream.

 

[ranch hand]

Why does the NCBA have information that only members can use? Just like R-calf, maybe nonmembers don't need to know if they don't pay. Same as their finanical sheet, NCBA doesn't make that public either. I bet most org. either non-profit or profit do the same.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Got another call from a neighbor who couldn't find a brand inspector for a barrel horse her daughter was trading to someone from North Dakota. The guy was coming to trade and they didn't even know who to call. I gave her the names of the only two inspectors left in this county and she couldn't find either one. Dang it, this is beyond irritating - this is down-right criminal.

Here's a story from this morning's Rapid City Journal you will probably find interesting. Read the comments too.

Rancher suggests alternative brand system
Reva rancher not optimistic about brand board's management of the inspection system.
By Andrea J. Cook, Journal staff Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Frustrated with the South Dakota Brand Board's first week in charge of the brand inspection program, a Reva rancher says it's time to start looking for another alternative.

Only one week after the brand board began operating the brand inspection system, Meyer predicts that the system may fail.

Meyer is trying to organize a meeting of livestock producers, county commissioners and western South Dakota legislators to sit down and talk about what the future could hold fold for brand inspection.

South Dakota's brand inspection area is all of western South Dakota. All horses and cattle leaving the brand inspection area must have a brand inspection certificate, including horses and cattle brought into the region.

Whether it's a legislative change, or a county-by-county brand area, the system has to be preserved, Meyer said.

"We can't live without it," he said. "We need to come up with a system of our own

Meyer believes that the state wants the system to fail.

"Then, it will just revert to a national animal ID with electronic tags," he said, and then the producer will be responsible for reporting the movement of his livestock within 24 hours.

Producers and county commissioners need to get on the bandwagon and "figure out where we're going," Meyer said.

Meyer's concern was prompted by calls he made last week to the brand board staff and someone in Gov. Mike Rounds' office to locate a brand inspector.

Meyer's ranch is about 50 miles from the Montana and North Dakota borders. His Sodak Angus Ranch sells Angus and red Angus bulls.

It's not uncommon during breeding season for a customer to drop in at his ranch in the evening looking for a replacement bull -- a bull they need to put in the pasture as soon as possible.

"We use the brand inspector pretty regularly, especially this time of year," said Meyer.

Meyer has depended upon a part-time brand inspector. The former inspector refused to work for the brand board that took the contract away from the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association.

Only four of the eight brand inspectors in the region who worked for the Stockgrowers have signed contracts, Meyer said. The closest is a Harding County deputy sheriff, whose time is limited.

When Meyer asked about an inspector, he was given the name of a full-time inspector living in Lemmon, 77 miles and at least 90 minutes away.

Meyer is responsible for not only the brand-inspection fee of 80 cents, but paying the brand inspector's mileage to and from his ranch -- an additional $57.

"Before, 12 miles was the most I ever paid," Meyer said.

Someone is going to have to cover that cost if a brand inspector can be located, he said.

Meyer asked about possible options for him and his customers, including sending a bull home without an inspection certificate.

It was hinted that no one would be checking that closely, Meyer said, but it was also suggested that both Meyer and his customers could be charged for violating the law -- a class one misdemeanor.

Larry Sterns, staff director for the brand board, could not be reached by the Rapid City Journal for comment Tuesday.

Meyer said he got "nowhere" when talking to people in Pierre.

At each office, he was asked for names of people who might be willing to work as brand inspectors. Meyer was also told repeatedly to be patient and give the new system a chance to work, he said.

If the brand board can't cover a request for a brand inspector on short notice, Meyer believes the new system will never handle fall cattle sales, when cattle are sold at the ranch and at livestock auction barns.

The brand board should have considered a lengthy transition to make the conversion, rather than an abrupt change, Meyer said.

"Basically, they have a program that is not there, and we're on hold. That's what's happened," Meyer said.

Individual producers are going to suffer -- not the Stockgrowers -- if the new system falters, Meyer said. Meyer is aware that what he is suggesting is "touchy subject" that will take research and time, but it needs to be done, he said.

"We better be prepared so if they allow theirs to die and want to push the electronic ID on us, ... we're ready to take over," he said.

Interested in investigating an alternative brand inspection system?

Contact Vaughn Meyer

Mail: 15571 Sorum Road, Reva, SD 57651

Phone: 605-866-4426

E-mail: [email protected]

Contact Andrea Cook at 394-8423 or [email protected].

http://rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/07/09/news/local/doc487452d60ecdb085927360.txt

 

[Anonymous]

Can you imagine how it will operate when the USDA get their "voluntary" mandatory ID into place-- and you need to have your animals inspected thru the federal system to move them :???:

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

Can you imagine how it will operate when the USDA get their "voluntary" mandatory ID into place-- and you need to have your animals inspected thru the federal system to move them :???:

Couldn't they just sign affidavits? :roll:

 

[Liberty Belle]

This letter is in all our local newspapers. It was written by Sen. Ryan Maher who also serves District 28. This brand inspection issue isn't even political among politicans. Sen. Maher is a Democrat and I'm Republican and we, and several other west river legislators in both parties, are doing our level best to protect our livestock producers.

July 8, 2008

Dear Editor;

Over the past couple of weeks the newspapers have been full of letters to the editor in regards to the states recent take over the brand inspection program, which has been operated by the South Dakota Stockgrowers for over 100 years.

As a result of this, Betty Olson and I, your elected officials in Pierre, have been inundated with phone calls and hundreds of questions that don't have answers. Betty and I have tried to get answers to these questions, however we both end up back at square one with really nothing of substance to report.

This week I am going to show you one more piece of the puzzle as we try to figure out where the state is going with this program, which in the end is going to affect your bottom line, and you don't have a choice. One thing is for sure the brand inspection is going to be one more expense you are going to have to eat, because as you know, you can't pass off these rising costs.

As many of you know the world is changing and so is the way we communicate. In the past couple of years a new technology out on the internet has taken shape and that is the development of BLOGS. One particular blog is very popular around the state and with state politics. The South Dakota War College can be found at http://www.dakotawarcollege.com. This past week Betty Olson sent the writer of this blog a copy of Lyndell Peterson's letter; this is the same letter that was in last weeks newspapers. Only here the readers have a chance to make comments, so I wrote the following response to the other writers under Lyndell's letter.

"Two years ago Betty Olson and I tried to prevent this very thing by breaking up the brand board to represent a more diverse group of people by introducing SB 103 in the 2007 session. In this legislation all that would have happened is the governor could still appoint Brand Board members, but they would have to be appointed by districts. The current make-up the brand board is very one sided. We, here in Northwestern South Dakota are not represented on the Brand Board as the members are all from south of I-90 or live east of the river where brand inspection does not take place. We got this legislation all the way to the governor's desk, and he vetoed the bill in the end, and we were not able to override the veto in the Senate. But like I said, we tried."

"This is just a slow process to implement electric animal ID. The state takes over the program, and they turn it into a total mess. Well then, all they have to do is say the hot iron brand is an antiquated system that no longer works, so here is this electronic tag to put in your cattle ear. Then the governor, the state vet and the former secretary of ag can all cash in on their investment in the electronic tag company."

After I posted this letter on the South Dakota War College web site, I received the following email from Mr. Sam Holland:

Senator Maher:
Someone sent me the below message this a.m…. Could you kindly inform me as to what "electronic tag company" I should contact to cash in??? This type of misinformation, falsehood, and character assassination is not the reason I have chosen to spend my life working for and with ag producers in our state first for 15 plus years in private practice and since with the Animal Industry Board….. Sam
State Veterinarian, Exe. Secy.

I just want to say I apologize to Mr. Holland and the others, because I do not have hard evidence to back up my statement.

However, the other facts remain; as livestock producers, we have been watching this play out over the past 4 years, ever since the governor fired the brand board members and then reappointed people he wanted. Coincidently, is this about the same time we, the cattle ranchers, first started hearing about cattle ID, premise registration, and a host of other government regulations?

One thing I have learned in the two short years that I have been in Pierre, is if you want to know why something is taking place and it doesn't make any sense just follow the money and it will lead you to your answer. I have traveled Northwestern South Dakota for 3 years, and the above statement always comes up, and Mr. Holland has responded. I have merely put into writing what I have heard for the past three years; now more than ever it is time to follow the money and ask the hard questions! In the end it is time for you the cattle producer and the voter to demand the truth.

Sincerely;

Ryan Maher
State Senator
Dist. 28

 

[lazy ace]

Liberty Belle could you find a copy of the brand inspection contract between the state and the Stockgrowers? I have been reading quite a bit on this and think it would be interesting to see the contract.

I was kind of hoping to keep the brand inspection with the stockgrowers as we have had no complaints with the current system. I also noticed that there was no mention of livestock owners getting a vet for health papers when crossing state lines. Our vet is 60 miles away and when we need to cross state lines we usually have to plan ahead a couple of days.

have a cold one

lazy ace

 

[EJ]

Lazy Ace, you might call the SDSGA office. #342 0429

How`s haying going?