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

What’s Going On At R-CALF?

A

Anonymous

Guest
CattleNetwork_Today 3/21/2007 11:46:00 AM


Jolley: What’s Going On At R-CALF?



Maybe I should call this “Three rounds with Dr. Max Thornsberry. I contacted the R-CALF offices after reading an article by Steve Kay, editor and publisher of Cattle Buyers Weekly, which suggested that R-CALF was on its last legs. Shae Dodson, R-CALF’s Communications Coordinator, was shocked at the content and tracked down Thornsberry, their new president, to get answers to several questions I had asked.



Dr. Max was upset at the allegations, insisting that the group is still healthy and calling into question the accuracy of Kay’s story. His quick response shows that R-CALF is still the feisty, ready-to-do-battle organization it always has been. To read an earlier interview from January, 2006, “Five minutes with Dr. Max Thornsberry,” click here.



Thornsberry wanted to make the following comment before he answered my questions:



This piece is in response to an article authored by Steve Kay with several inaccuracies, which was posted Monday at www.MeatPoultry.com, at http://www.meatpoultry.com/news/daily_enews.asp?ArticleID=84254 . Kay stated in part that the creation of a new producer group “will likely lead to R-CALF’s demise…” and that “Several affiliated groups…dropped their affiliation with R-CALF.”



R-CALF USA President Max Thornsberry wants to ask Kay if he can be considered as a viable source of information for the cattle industry, when he has never owned any fat cattle, does not feed fat cattle, and has no money invested in the industry. “He once told me he was a journalist,” Thornsberry said. “If in fact, Mr. Kay is a journalist and not a cattle expert, should he not be held to a higher degree of accountability, and should he not check his sources before publishing such an article?”



1. Who is manning the Washington office and what are their responsibilities?

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard has been working in the Washington, D.C., office three days each week. Given the importance of the issues facing the U.S. cattle industry, R-CALF USA wanted an experienced representative in its Washington, D.C., office. R-CALF USA is currently seeking a candidate to assist Bill in advancing R-CALF USA’s membership-developed policies in Washington, D.C.





2. The consulting firm, AgWorks Solutions, consisting of former top USDA officials Bill Hawks and Valerie Ragan, has reportedly stopped representing R-CALF as lobbyists. Is there any truth to that report? And, if so, why?


Yes. The former USDA officials were retained by R-CALF USA in early 2006 to help R-CALF USA work more closely with the USDA. The expectation was the pair could help R-CALF USA to begin changing USDA policies by working from within, rather than being perceived as being adversarial on issues like COOL and animal identification. However, the effect of having these former USDA officials inside R-CALF USA was that they began to moderate R-CALF USA’s message and its efforts to prevent the USDA from relaxing import standards for countries with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).



This reached a critical point in early January 2007 when these former USDA officials assisted then-president Chuck Kiker in writing and sending a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture that effectively negated R-CALF USA’s efforts the day before to advance a legal argument R-CALF USA had previously made in its legal challenge against USDA’s minimal risk region rule and the organization’s effort to delay the publication of the agency’s over 30-month rule, until USDA made public its full intentions regarding the importation of Canadian beef from cattle over 30 months of age.



The letter that was drafted with the assistance of the former USDA officials and sent by the past president was dated January 8, 2007. That letter negated the letter supported by the majority of the R-CALF USA Board of Directors that was sent on January 7, 2007. Both letters are a part of the public record and are available by contacting R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson at [email protected] As a direct result of the objections raised by the majority of the R-CALF USA’s Board of Directors over AgSolutions involvement in this matter, Bill Hawks and Valerie Ragan ended their relationship with R-CALF USA.





3. Swift Horses.com has made some harsh comments about R-CALF. What are your reactions to their claims?

This anti-R-CALF USA website appears to be the work of a small group of individuals who disagree with R-CALF USA’s ongoing commitment to carry out the policies established by R-CALF USA members. R-CALF USA will not change its present course as a result of the inappropriate material posted on this website.





4. After the recent resignations, what does the R-CALF management structure look like and who are the key executives?

On Feb. 8, 2007, a majority of the R-CALF USA board voted that Missouri veterinarian Max Thornsberry should succeed Chuck Kiker as president. Thornsberry will continue in his roles as Region VI Director and chair of the R-CALF USA Animal Health Committee.



The board recently voted – again by a majority – R-CALF USA Region II Director Randy Stevenson into the vice president position. He also chairs the organization’s marketing committee.



The treasurer slot is served by the organization’s accountant, and the board recently voted that Bullard would serve as the group’s secretary.



Past Region IV Director Jon Wooster resigned, so the board must appoint a volunteer to fill that post. Director Chuck Kiker, resigned his post as Region V (Texas) Director, so the board must appoint someone to this post, as well.



Due to term limits, there are three directorships up for election this spring: Region VII, which includes Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan; Region VIII, which includes Florida, Georgia, Alabama, North Carolina and South Carolina; and, Region IX, which includes Maine, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Rhode Island, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and Ohio Members will soon receive their mail-in ballots, and an outside firm will tabulate the results. Winners likely will be announced in mid-April.





5. Let's do a wellness test on R-CALF. It has lost some membership and some key players. How healthy is the organization?

Just as the great Missouri philosopher Mark Twain said rumors about his death were greatly exaggerated, so are rumors of R-CALF USA’s demise greatly exaggerated.



Membership numbers from 2005’s all-time high of 18,000 have dropped off to about 15,000, and that was expected. During the record-breaking fund-raisers of 2005, many families signed up every single member of their family. Now, they’re decided to renew, but only under the ranch name, or only under the name of a single individual.



Negative reaction to the leadership changes has been minimal, and seems to be generated from the small group of individuals that chose to leave R-CALF.



Only one affiliate organization, ICA – the Independent Cattleman’s Association of Texas – has chosen to disaffiliate with R-CALF USA, but it is assumed that group will continue to work closely with NCBA. Interestingly, it was the ICA that brought forward policy against USDA’s proposed OTM rule, which R-CALF USA membership overwhelmingly voted into policy. To obtain ICA’s letter of disaffiliation, as well as R-CALF USA’s response to ICA, contact Dodson at [email protected]



This very week, cattle producers in Wyoming are organizing the Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming, I-COW, which plans to affiliate with R-CALF USA. The South Dakota Stockgrowers Association also renewed its affiliation status. And affiliates like the Independent Cattlemen of Iowa (ICI) and the Buckeye Quality Beef Association (BQBA) continue to see tremendous growth in membership.



R-CALF USA has over 60 affiliated organizations, but R-CALF USA’s strength lies in its 15,000 individual members. Only individual cattle-owning members have a right to vote in R-CALF USA. Affiliated organizations do not have a vote and are not involved in the governance of R-CALF USA.



R-CALF USA has risen to a very prominent position within the U.S. cattle industry in a very short period of time. It is not surprising that our dynamic growth, in both numbers and influence, would also bring about minor, internal conflicts. This is not the first time and probably won’t be the last. The important point is that R-CALF USA continues to remain true to its membership-developed policy and it continues to work aggressively to implement those policies. We’re in a battle against extremely influential forces in both Washington, D.C., as well as at the international trade-negotiating table that do not consider the maintenance of a profitable and viable U.S. cattle industry a priority. This is why R-CALF USA is so important to independent cattle producers today.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
This isn't near juicy nor negetive enough for the "R-CALF is the Boogey-Man Klan". The story would have much more credibility if the author had interviewed somebody who preferred to hide behind an internet pen name.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
New ranch group forms



By Gazette News Services

Billings Gazette

March 22, 2007



CASPER - A group of ranchers is creating a new organization of cattle producers in Wyoming.


The Independent Cattlemen of Wyoming, or ICOW, met Tuesday and appointed an 11-member steering committee to form the organization, according to organizer Judy McCullough, who runs a ranching operation at Moorcroft in northeast Wyoming.



McCullough said ICOW would be a state affiliate of the Montana-based R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America, which takes on national ranching issues such as mad cow disease and trade issues.



But ICOW would focus more on Wyoming issues, including land and water issues, she said. "Whatever affects the ranching industry we'll probably be involved in," she said.



McCullough said ICOW is temporarily based out of her ranch home.



McCullough said she and other ranchers had been talking for several years about creating the group.



billingsgazette.net
 

lazy ace

Well-known member
. Who is manning the Washington office and what are their responsibilities?

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard has been working in the Washington, D.C., office three days each week. Given the importance of the issues facing the U.S. cattle industry, R-CALF USA wanted an experienced representative in its Washington, D.C., office. R-CALF USA is currently seeking a candidate to assist Bill in advancing R-CALF USA’s membership-developed policies in Washington, D.C.

Sandhusker after reading a lot of your posts and since you have pointed out that Senator's are calling you.....maybe you should help Bill out in Washington.

have a cold one

lazy ace
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lazy-ace-- I've been handling the delegation from Montana :wink: :lol: ...Haven't got an absolute no on the border Rule 2, but all of the delegation want concessions from USDA before the border is open-- and #1 is that M-COOL be implemented before the border is open- and #2 that this imported beef/cattle be able to be tracked....

I think that if we all took a few minutes to write or e-mail our Congressman/Senator about our concerns we would have as much or more influence than any Hawks or Bullard could ever do...

Heres the last response I got back from Montana's junior Senator...


-----------------------------------------------------


Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts about Canadian beef imports.

I believe that Montana's ranchers raise the highest quality cattle in the world. Our beef is not only the best, it is the safest. Beef imports to the United States need to meet the highest quality and safety standards to avoid the spread of diseases into our domestic herd. Without adequate safeguards on meat, our foreign markets will close to trade, hurting our economy and ultimately putting consumers at risk.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do a better job of ensuring that only the highest quality and safest beef is allowed to enter the United States. I will work to make sure that the USDA is more diligent about monitoring the movement of cattle into this country. First and foremost, I call for immediate implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling so American consumers know where their meat comes from, and can make the choice to support American beef in the supermarket.

I appreciate the time that you have taken to be involved and informed about this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jon Tester
Unites States Senator, Montana

P.S. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. As I'm sure you understand, these first couple months have been extremely hectic and exciting as we've settled into temporary and new offices. We just got our constituent correspondence software up and running and I've been working really hard to get to all of your concerns. I appreciate your understanding.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lazy-ace-- I've been handling the delegation from Montana :wink: :lol: ...Haven't got an absolute no on the border Rule 2, but all of the delegation want concessions from USDA before the border is open-- and #1 is that M-COOL be implemented before the border is open- and #2 that this imported beef/cattle be able to be tracked....

I think that if we all took a few minutes to write or e-mail our Congressman/Senator about our concerns we would have as much or more influence than any Hawks or Bullard could ever do...

Heres the last response I got back from Montana's junior Senator...


-----------------------------------------------------


Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your thoughts about Canadian beef imports.

I believe that Montana's ranchers raise the highest quality cattle in the world. Our beef is not only the best, it is the safest. Beef imports to the United States need to meet the highest quality and safety standards to avoid the spread of diseases into our domestic herd. Without adequate safeguards on meat, our foreign markets will close to trade, hurting our economy and ultimately putting consumers at risk.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do a better job of ensuring that only the highest quality and safest beef is allowed to enter the United States. I will work to make sure that the USDA is more diligent about monitoring the movement of cattle into this country. First and foremost, I call for immediate implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling so American consumers know where their meat comes from, and can make the choice to support American beef in the supermarket.

I appreciate the time that you have taken to be involved and informed about this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Jon Tester
Unites States Senator, Montana

P.S. I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. As I'm sure you understand, these first couple months have been extremely hectic and exciting as we've settled into temporary and new offices. We just got our constituent correspondence software up and running and I've been working really hard to get to all of your concerns. I appreciate your understanding.


You tested 182 animals for BSE when your state quota was 5076, that is less than 25% of your quota. Don't test them Oldtimer you might just find something!!!!!!!
 

Work Hard and Study Hard

Well-known member
I don't get the "attitude" that Lazy Ace has towards R-Calf Supporters. If you are so opposed to R-Calf please post your feelings and I will gladly send them off to the TSLN. If you are as opposed to R-Calf as you and your wife seem to be then make that a pillar of your sale. Located in South Dakota as you are I doubt you have the guts to totally come out against Canadian beef. I see you advertise in the TSLN that publication must be a total slap in your face but a breath of fresh air to your true USA RAISED BEEF custumers. You've taken a stance I don't agree with and I hope you reap those rewards you so seek.
 

lazy ace

Well-known member
Work Hard Study Hard, ease up on those hammers buddy :cowboy: I didn't mean to give attitude for one thing. I was just being a smart ass. I hope you didn't lose too much sleep over this deal, especially where we advertise our bull sale, because you missed our ads in Pat's paper, cattlebusiness weekly, RA magazine, Farm and Ranch Guide, Tri State Neighbor and many others.

I hope you have a better day today :wink:

have a cold one

lazy ace
 

Mike

Well-known member
You tested 182 animals for BSE when your state quota was 5076, that is less than 25% of your quota. Don't test them Oldtimer you might just find something!!!!!!!

I must have missed it? When did OT become Chairman of the BSE Testing Quota Committee? :lol:

Isn't that the duty of the USDA/APHIS and the S-A-N-T-A G-E-T-R-U-B-I-S Society?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
lazy ace said:
. Who is manning the Washington office and what are their responsibilities?

R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard has been working in the Washington, D.C., office three days each week. Given the importance of the issues facing the U.S. cattle industry, R-CALF USA wanted an experienced representative in its Washington, D.C., office. R-CALF USA is currently seeking a candidate to assist Bill in advancing R-CALF USA’s membership-developed policies in Washington, D.C.

Sandhusker after reading a lot of your posts and since you have pointed out that Senator's are calling you.....maybe you should help Bill out in Washington.

have a cold one

lazy ace

I wouldn't be real effective, I don't think. I couldn't overbid Tyson and I'd be up front about them doing the bidding of big money and not the people.
 

Kato

Well-known member
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do a better job of ensuring that only the highest quality and safest beef is allowed to enter the United States. I will work to make sure that the USDA is more diligent about monitoring the movement of cattle into this country. First and foremost, I call for immediate implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling so American consumers know where their meat comes from, and can make the choice to support American beef in the supermarket
.

If he's so concerned about safest beef, perhaps he could better spend his time on working toward stopping the partitioning of Argentina into so called FMD free zones? :!: :!:

Or is it easier to make life difficult for a bunch of smaller independent cattle producers than it is to make life difficult for the big million plus acre corporate owned Argentinian/Cargill ranchers???? :shock: :shock:

Can he also tell you how giving yet another competitive advantage to poultry is going to help beef producers? Poultry will have no added costs from MCOOL because it is exempt. Does anyone here know what that means? :roll: It means that extra costs will be added to all beef, not just imports. You guys will also have to prove that yours is American, it is not assumed American by default. Who's going to pay for that? Not Cargill and Tyson, that's for sure. :!: It will either come off of what they pay for cattle, or it will add on to the cost of beef at the store, which can only be bad for comsumption.

COOL has been voluntary for a while now, and no one has taken part. Why? Not because they want to hide behind imported cattle, but much more likely because they know it does not pay. These corporations have research firms who do nothing but investigate ways to make more profit, and if there was more money to be made by voluntary COOL, and they knew people would pay more for beef because if it, they would have done it.

You guys are totally barking up the wrong tree here. While you work so hard to shut Canadian imports down, you are now handing out Christmas presents to Cargill and friends, and the poultry industry.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do a better job of ensuring that only the highest quality and safest beef is allowed to enter the United States. I will work to make sure that the USDA is more diligent about monitoring the movement of cattle into this country. First and foremost, I call for immediate implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling so American consumers know where their meat comes from, and can make the choice to support American beef in the supermarket
.

If he's so concerned about safest beef, perhaps he could better spend his time on working toward stopping the partitioning of Argentina into so called FMD free zones? :!: :!:

.

Look out Kato- or someone will be calling you an R-Calfer :lol: How dare you call for border restrictions to safeguard your own consumer or cattle herd :shock: :wink: :lol: :lol:

If you noticed- R-CALF was the group that brought this Argentine issue to light- and as far as I've seen, the only group opposing it....

And the Montana Congressional Delegation has been made aware of the USDA/NCBA/Tyson move to import in Argentine cattle and/or beef-- but I think we in all 50 states should be letting our Congressman know about USDA's proposals and the dangers/risks they present ...
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Kato said:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do a better job of ensuring that only the highest quality and safest beef is allowed to enter the United States. I will work to make sure that the USDA is more diligent about monitoring the movement of cattle into this country. First and foremost, I call for immediate implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling so American consumers know where their meat comes from, and can make the choice to support American beef in the supermarket
.

If he's so concerned about safest beef, perhaps he could better spend his time on working toward stopping the partitioning of Argentina into so called FMD free zones? :!: :!:

.



Look out Kato- or someone will be calling you an R-Calfer :lol: How dare you call for border restrictions to safeguard your own consumer or cattle herd :shock: :wink: :lol: :lol:

If you noticed- R-CALF was the group that brought this Argentine issue to light- and as far as I've seen, the only group opposing it....

And the Montana Congressional Delegation has been made aware of the USDA/NCBA/Tyson move to import in Argentine cattle and/or beef-- but I think we in all 50 states should be letting our Congressman know about USDA's proposals and the dangers/risks they present ...

It was not R-CALF that brought the Argentine issue to light!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato, " Poultry will have no added costs from MCOOL because it is exempt. Does anyone here know what that means? It means that extra costs will be added to all beef, not just imports."

It means to me that poultry won't benefit from COOL, but beef will.


Kato, "COOL has been voluntary for a while now, and no one has taken part. Why? Not because they want to hide behind imported cattle, but much more likely because they know it does not pay. These corporations have research firms who do nothing but investigate ways to make more profit, and if there was more money to be made by voluntary COOL, and they knew people would pay more for beef because if it, they would have done it. "

Not many have taken part because the vast majority of beef comes from the big packers and they don't want COOL. You are right, they do know how to make more money - and that way is to globally arbitrage beef prices and import beef from cheaper sources than you and I. Agman explained that in his lumber analogy when he revealed who's side he was on. COOL throws a big wrench in those plans. The packers know the money is made buying the materials, not selling the product. If consumers start getting picky on them, that cheapest source beef might not sell. This isn't hard to figure out, Kato. It's business 101.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Ben Roberts said:
Oldtimer said:
Kato said:
.

If he's so concerned about safest beef, perhaps he could better spend his time on working toward stopping the partitioning of Argentina into so called FMD free zones? :!: :!:

.



Look out Kato- or someone will be calling you an R-Calfer :lol: How dare you call for border restrictions to safeguard your own consumer or cattle herd :shock: :wink: :lol: :lol:

If you noticed- R-CALF was the group that brought this Argentine issue to light- and as far as I've seen, the only group opposing it....

And the Montana Congressional Delegation has been made aware of the USDA/NCBA/Tyson move to import in Argentine cattle and/or beef-- but I think we in all 50 states should be letting our Congressman know about USDA's proposals and the dangers/risks they present ...

It was not R-CALF that brought the Argentine issue to light!

They were to me :wink: :lol:

Their e-mailing was the first I'd heard of it- Was someone else questioning it prior?
 

Ben Roberts

Well-known member
Kato said:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do a better job of ensuring that only the highest quality and safest beef is allowed to enter the United States. I will work to make sure that the USDA is more diligent about monitoring the movement of cattle into this country. First and foremost, I call for immediate implementation of mandatory Country of Origin Labeling so American consumers know where their meat comes from, and can make the choice to support American beef in the supermarket
.

If he's so concerned about safest beef, perhaps he could better spend his time on working toward stopping the partitioning of Argentina into so called FMD free zones? :!: :!:

Or is it easier to make life difficult for a bunch of smaller independent cattle producers than it is to make life difficult for the big million plus acre corporate owned Argentinian/Cargill ranchers???? :shock: :shock:

Can he also tell you how giving yet another competitive advantage to poultry is going to help beef producers? Poultry will have no added costs from MCOOL because it is exempt. Does anyone here know what that means? :roll: It means that extra costs will be added to all beef, not just imports. You guys will also have to prove that yours is American, it is not assumed American by default. Who's going to pay for that? Not Cargill and Tyson, that's for sure. :!: It will either come off of what they pay for cattle, or it will add on to the cost of beef at the store, which can only be bad for comsumption.

COOL has been voluntary for a while now, and no one has taken part. Why? Not because they want to hide behind imported cattle, but much more likely because they know it does not pay. These corporations have research firms who do nothing but investigate ways to make more profit, and if there was more money to be made by voluntary COOL, and they knew people would pay more for beef because if it, they would have done it.

You guys are totally barking up the wrong tree here. While you work so hard to shut Canadian imports down, you are now handing out Christmas presents to Cargill and friends, and the poultry industry.

Kato, you are correct in some of what you say, but M-COOL was passed into law, with the 2002 farm bill. It will be implemented and on the books in 2007 or 2008 depending on who you ask. The USDA is now trying to figure out, what version of M-COOL will be in place, it won't be the version that the producers that want it, wanted. I can vision the labels now ( born in the US, fed in Canada, slaughtered in the US ) or ( born in Canada, fed in the US, slaughtered in the US ) I like you, don't see the significance in it, I believe there are far more important issues in the cattle industry, that need to be addressed.

Best Regards
Ben Roberts
 

Kato

Well-known member
There are lots of issues to be addressed, but this is still one of them in my opinion.

From what I have been reading, there is only one net benefit to MCOOL, and that is to damage us. :shock:

Beef consumption will not go up.
Costs will go up.

Perhaps in the short term, your prices might go up a bit, but only as long as it takes for your corporations in Canada to ramp up slaughter. Then it's business as usual, with the only difference being the same Canadian beef that now goes to you live will go to you processed. Your prices will only be affected (possibly) for a short term and in the meanwhile, we will suffer yet again, because we all know how fairly we will be paid for our cattle in the near future. :roll: :roll:

As for the poultry not benefitting from MCOOL, of course it won't, because you don't import chicken. What they will benefit from is not having to live with whatever regulations are finally decided on, and therefore increasing their competetive advantage.

Cheap chicken will do you more harm than Canadian cattle ever could.

BTW, in case no one has noticed, the pork producers are fighting MCOOL . Maybe they are a little more in touch with reality?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
OK, Kato, whats going to happen to your local economy when Tyson and Cargill can buy South American beef for a price that is below your cost of production?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
OK, Kato, whats going to happen to your local economy when Tyson and Cargill can buy South American beef for a price that is below your cost of production?

BTW, how much of our pork is produced by family producers? The demographics of "pork producer" has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Since this thread is titled What is going on with R-CALF? I have a question

I read this On Swift Horses
March 1 The R-CALF USA Board of Directors holds a conference call board meeting at 7:00 p.m. MST; the board meeting is "locked down" through an operator assisted call. Call in information and access codes are treated as restricted information. Anyone not on the list of approved participants is not permitted access. A number of members are refused access.
Refusing access to Board calls is an unprecedented move. Previously, all Board calls were open to the membership to listen in. During the board meeting, discussion is undertaken to possibly remove Jay Miller as a member of the organization. Miller is a current candidate for the R-CALF board of directors from Region VIII. Johnny Smith motions, with Eric Nelson seconding, to remove Dennis McDonald, Region I Director from the board. The 14 day notice period for McDonald's removal begins.

Now I read this on the R-CALF website.

Resolution BL 2001-1

The purpose of the change is to amend the Article Vlll of the Articles of Incorporation and Article lV of the By Laws creating a tenth board seat and corresponding tenth board District to be geographically defined by the Board of Directors.
Further By Law Article lV section 3 subparagragh C, shall be amended to allow only for members within each board district to vote for and select their respective board representative. Passed in the Spring of 2001

Now my question is why was Johnny Smith from Region lll which is N.D. S.D. and Nebraska and Eric Nelson from Region Vll which is Minn., Wis., Iowa, Ill., Ind., and Mich. motioning to remove a Director from Region l which is Wash. Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana when the BY laws clearing say only members within the district can vote for and select their representative?
 
Top