What Will R-CALF's Implosion Bring?

[johndeerefarmer]

I found this on the other forum

Mar 9, 2007 10:48 AM from Beef Cow Calf Weekly




It's been known for quite some time that the leadership of Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund (R-CALF) was divided in its vision. Some wanted a mainstream organization focused on a wide range of issues; others wanted to retain the focus on a narrow range of market issues.

The group that wanted R-CALF to become part of the mainstream envisioned establishing themselves as a legitimate lobbying force in Washington, D.C. The more militant wing was committed to pursuing legal remedies above all else, and maintaining the confrontational anti-establishment posture that helped them to generate membership in the beginning.

Well, the issue was decided recently when those who wanted to pursue the legal remedies and the narrow focus succeeded in ousting the leadership that favored a mainstream approach. It's revolutionary to see a president get removed from office during his term due to power plays in a membership organization, and equally unheard of to have the driving personalities and founding leadership resign as a result.

By now, everyone's heard of the internal power struggles, the resignations of committee leaders and board members over this internal division that threatens R-CALF's viability. Most people overlooked the membership numbers that didn't match dues revenues, or the financials that were so poorly done and lacked transparency to the point that auditors wouldn't stand behind their accuracy.

But those factors were largely discounted as simple understandable failures of a new organization. The thinking was the group would develop the infrastructure and policy-making framework over time.

In the aftermath of the R-CALF implosion, the question is whether a third group will evolve?

One thing we can say is that while all people will never all agree on the proper industry course, we should be able to agree that its important to speak with one voice. Also important is to have a democratic policy-making apparatus where the majority's will prevails but the minority stays committed to the process.

This industry's political capital was decimated on marketing issues when the industry split, and a lot of rhetoric and no action has been the result. We certainly don't need three voices.
-- Troy Marshall

 

[ocm]

I would believe this statement better. From Cattlenetwork.com Jolley's Five minutes with Randy Stevenson.


As an active R-CALF member and Region II Director you've undoubtedly been close to the recent change in leadership. It's created a lot of discussion. Can you shed some light on what happened and how the change will affect the future direction of R-CALF?

For quite some time, there was a difference of opinion on the board as to whether R-CALF should proceed using different tactics, with some wanting R-CALF to be kinder and gentler, and basing our progress on relationships and access instead of moving forward based on our strength of membership and rightness of our ideas. I don't have a problem with folks on the board having different opinions, but when there is a difference of opinion, then we ought to carefully follow all of the proper procedures and when the dust is settled, the majority rules. The board itself is limited to what it can do by the policy resolutions voted on and passed by membership. The board doesn't have the prerogative to violate those policies.

Let me also say that I think it is necessary for R-CALF, like any organization, to expect its directors and officers to follow the proper procedures and bylaws of the organization. When they don't, then there should be consequences. The president acted with a minority of board members outside the normal procedures and bylaws of the organization and the situation needed to be dealt with. The majority tried for quite some time to come to a solution short of removing the president from office. Those efforts were not successful. After the president was removed from office, he resigned from the board. A number of other resignations followed, but the board dealt only with the office of president, and only because the majority believed that it was in the best interest of R-CALF to do so.

I know the board has been criticized for not following the bylaws in removing the president. Unfortunately, many things that led up to that situation happened in executive session meetings and directors are precluded from divulging the proceedings of those sessions. I am a stickler for following the rules and I can assure you that the rules were followed.

From here R-CALF will stay on the course it always has. We will continue to address issues such as BSE, COOL, Animal ID, Checkoff reform, property rights, and competition issues, and we will do so just like our membership policy directs us to.

 

[HAY MAKER]

I would believe this statement better. From Cattlenetwork.com Jolley's Five minutes with Randy Stevenson.


As an active R-CALF member and Region II Director you've undoubtedly been close to the recent change in leadership. It's created a lot of discussion. Can you shed some light on what happened and how the change will affect the future direction of R-CALF?

For quite some time, there was a difference of opinion on the board as to whether R-CALF should proceed using different tactics, with some wanting R-CALF to be kinder and gentler, and basing our progress on relationships and access instead of moving forward based on our strength of membership and rightness of our ideas. I don't have a problem with folks on the board having different opinions, but when there is a difference of opinion, then we ought to carefully follow all of the proper procedures and when the dust is settled, the majority rules. The board itself is limited to what it can do by the policy resolutions voted on and passed by membership. The board doesn't have the prerogative to violate those policies.

Let me also say that I think it is necessary for R-CALF, like any organization, to expect its directors and officers to follow the proper procedures and bylaws of the organization. When they don't, then there should be consequences. The president acted with a minority of board members outside the normal procedures and bylaws of the organization and the situation needed to be dealt with. The majority tried for quite some time to come to a solution short of removing the president from office. Those efforts were not successful. After the president was removed from office, he resigned from the board. A number of other resignations followed, but the board dealt only with the office of president, and only because the majority believed that it was in the best interest of R-CALF to do so.

I know the board has been criticized for not following the bylaws in removing the president. Unfortunately, many things that led up to that situation happened in executive session meetings and

directors are precluded from divulging the proceedings of those sessions.

I am a stickler for following the rules and I can assure you that the rules were followed.

From here R-CALF will stay on the course it always has. We will continue to address issues such as BSE, COOL, Animal ID, Checkoff reform, property rights, and competition issues, and we will do so just like our membership policy directs us to.

I hate to hear the executive meetings are secret,long gone are the days when business could be transacted openly and fairly,its sad that a cattle mans assoc. has to have secrecy to survive,would be nice to have the membership mailed the executive meeting minutes.
I support R CALF because they promote fairness and transparecy,and have little use for the cause of secrecy,also I hope the folks that walked out on R CALF realize what some of us think of them..............good luck
PS especially KIKER
jstout 830-3246520

 

[ocm]

I hate to hear that the executive meetings are secret,honesty fairness and transparency are the reasons I support R CALF.............good luck

[/quote]

I agree with you on that one. I hope they can change it. It wasn't this current board that made that rule. At least allow them to make certain things public by majority vote. There are some things (personnel discussions, etc) that need to be secret, but not others.

 

[Tommy]

Randy Stevenson...After the president was removed from office, he resigned from the board. A number of other resignations followed, but the board dealt only with the office of president, and only because the majority believed that it was in the best interest of R-CALF to do so.

This is my problem with those that resigned. Their loyalty was to one man other than R-CALF. They might not have liked what happened but do you quit just because things do not go your way? I say they should have stayed and tried to change it, that is if they really believe in why R-CALF was started in the first place.

 

[ocm]

Randy Stevenson...After the president was removed from office, he resigned from the board. A number of other resignations followed, but the board dealt only with the office of president, and only because the majority believed that it was in the best interest of R-CALF to do so.

This is my problem with those that resigned. Their loyalty was to one man other than R-CALF. They might not have liked what happened but do you quit just because things do not go your way? I say they should have stayed and tried to change it, that is if they really believe in why R-CALF was started in the first place.

Apparently those who left didn't like the idea that the majority should rule.

 

[cowcalf92]

Been watchin this discussion for some time, and I'm here to tell you that you don't know what you're talkin about. If Randy Stevenson, the Board and R-CALF are so concerned about moving forward on COOL and the like, why don't they have a Washington DC staff? Their DC guy, Jess, gave them a month to find someone and they didn't even make an effort. And now they are in the middle of farm bill with no representation. They're desperate to convince everyone that they still care about sumthin other than the litigation, but they don't. You watch, once these regional meetins are over and the membership wuiets down, you won't hear another word about competition reform or trade. You'll hear about COOL only because the work on that one is being done by other groups like NFU. But you won't hear about nothing else but the court case.

And I've talked to a lot of them people who resigned since it happened, speent a lot of time on that Swift Horses website, and those folks didn't quit because of one guy. They quit cause Buffalo Bill and his crew only care about suing to close the border and NOTHING else. No matter what they say. BB wants to keep that lawsuit going forever because it builds the membership which makes him money. And the others like it cause there is no telling how much they made the first time around in profits.

No matter what Stevenson says, Kiker quit after he was improperly removed without cause. And besides I won't trust a Board member (Ol Randy) who runs around Wyoming supporting the GOP and building himself up using R-CALF's brand. And if this was all on the up and up, where's Dr. Max? Why are conference closed that used to be open, now closed? Wh yare they moiving to remove McDonald from Montana and their Kansas membership chair? Cause all these guys want is people who will bow down to their will.

I hate the situation we're in, but it's our own fault. Ol Bill got too big for his britches and no one ever took him down a peg. Now the man we all trustd, Leo McDonnell, is out and Buffalo Bill is running the show. I almost feel sorry for you Canadians because if ya think R-CALF was hard on you before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Tam]

Just wondering here but if R-CALF splits into two organizations will the radical side that are still connected to the orginial organization legal debts have enough monetary support to carry on their endless litigation practices? How many roll over calf sales will it take to clear away the lawyers fees that are already piling up? :?

 

[Sandhusker]

Just wondering here but if R-CALF splits into two organizations will the radical side that are still connected to the orginial organization legal debts have enough monetary support to carry on their endless litigation practices? How many roll over calf sales will it take to clear away the lawyers fees that are already piling up? :?

How do you know there are any debts? How many lawyers do you know that will work if they have any doubts on getting paid?

 

[ocm]

Been watchin this discussion for some time, and I'm here to tell you that you don't know what you're talkin about. If Randy Stevenson, the Board and R-CALF are so concerned about moving forward on COOL and the like, why don't they have a Washington DC staff? Their DC guy, Jess, gave them a month to find someone and they didn't even make an effort. And now they are in the middle of farm bill with no representation. They're desperate to convince everyone that they still care about sumthin other than the litigation, but they don't. You watch, once these regional meetins are over and the membership wuiets down, you won't hear another word about competition reform or trade. You'll hear about COOL only because the work on that one is being done by other groups like NFU. But you won't hear about nothing else but the court case.

And I've talked to a lot of them people who resigned since it happened, speent a lot of time on that Swift Horses website, and those folks didn't quit because of one guy. They quit cause Buffalo Bill and his crew only care about suing to close the border and NOTHING else. No matter what they say. BB wants to keep that lawsuit going forever because it builds the membership which makes him money. And the others like it cause there is no telling how much they made the first time around in profits.

No matter what Stevenson says, Kiker quit after he was improperly removed without cause. And besides I won't trust a Board member (Ol Randy) who runs around Wyoming supporting the GOP and building himself up using R-CALF's brand. And if this was all on the up and up, where's Dr. Max? Why are conference closed that used to be open, now closed? Wh yare they moiving to remove McDonald from Montana and their Kansas membership chair? Cause all these guys want is people who will bow down to their will.

I hate the situation we're in, but it's our own fault. Ol Bill got too big for his britches and no one ever took him down a peg. Now the man we all trustd, Leo McDonnell, is out and Buffalo Bill is running the show. I almost feel sorry for you Canadians because if ya think R-CALF was hard on you before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

And I would guess that you're another one of those that doesn't like majority rule.

Simple example.
Bill Bullard had a majority approval when he sent his letter to the USDA on Jan 7
Chuck Kiker did not even let the board see his letter before he sent it to the USDA.

Should majority rule, or the minority?

As for your allegation that R-CALF is working on nothing besides litigation, that is total crap. I myself have contributed work on other non border, non BSE issues and have had good cooperation with board members and staff on it. And, on top of that, if they are only interested in litigation, what have the press releases been about?

Let's try something else from the slowhorses drivel. It says on there that on Feb 2 some members of the board contacted an attorney from Venable (a DC law firm). What they fail to tell you is that that attorney has been with the firm only about 6 months. He almost certainly went to his boss who is Nancy Bryson for help on the BSE-border question. Look her up on the internet. She worked at USDA as general counsel. She represented USDA in Cebull's courtroom on the current BSE case. Earlier, as general counsel of the USDA, she put forward the idea that the COOL law meant that producers had to get third party verification for birth dates on calves. She testified to Congress that this was what the law meant. She was responsible for the legal analysis behind the packer spin on how hard COOL was going to be on producers. Now she is the head of the agriculture group at the law firm Kiker hired to analyze the letters. Whose side is Kiker on when he teams up with that kind of people--R-CALF membership or his own self interest--they (the law firm) are the most anti-COOL there are. So who is more pro-COOL, the present board, or the past one?

 

[Tam]

Just wondering here but if R-CALF splits into two organizations will the radical side that are still connected to the orginial organization legal debts have enough monetary support to carry on their endless litigation practices? How many roll over calf sales will it take to clear away the lawyers fees that are already piling up? :?

How do you know there are any debts? How many lawyers do you know that will work if they have any doubts on getting paid?

February 9. Jane Wooster—a Certified Public Accountant and R-CALF COOL Committee Co-Chair, issues to the Board an email assessment of R-CALF's financial status. Exhibit No. B9 Among other things, Wooster states that R-CALF isn't using the accrual method of accounting, that R-CALF has several significant outstanding bills, and that the membership figures not only are not figured correctly but also are being used incorrectly.

Those significant outstanding bills according to the Certified Public Accountant Jane Wooster were $400,000 to Law firm Stewart and Stewart., $18,000 to the Miller Group, $50,000 that was to be paid out due to the Alabama Case. Now Sandhusker if one of your bank clients walk into your office, claiming he had net assets worth of $276,513.87 would you take his word or would you investigate for any possible LIABILITIES/unpaided bills before loaning him some money? Lets look at R-CALF, Bullard claimed a net asset worth $276,513.87 Jane claims there is $468,000 of liability against that $276,513.87 so does that not mean R-CALF's actual net worth to be about negative $191,000. Now if this happened when R-CALF was the fastest growing Beef organization in the US, What do you think will happen to that negative net asset balance, if members start fleeing like mice from a burning building? :wink:

 

[ocm]

Just wondering here but if R-CALF splits into two organizations will the radical side that are still connected to the orginial organization legal debts have enough monetary support to carry on their endless litigation practices? How many roll over calf sales will it take to clear away the lawyers fees that are already piling up? :?

How do you know there are any debts? How many lawyers do you know that will work if they have any doubts on getting paid?

February 9. Jane Wooster—a Certified Public Accountant and R-CALF COOL Committee Co-Chair, issues to the Board an email assessment of R-CALF's financial status. Exhibit No. B9 Among other things, Wooster states that R-CALF isn't using the accrual method of accounting, that R-CALF has several significant outstanding bills, and that the membership figures not only are not figured correctly but also are being used incorrectly.

Those significant outstanding bills according to the Certified Public Accountant Jane Wooster were $400,000 to Law firm Stewart and Stewart., $18,000 to the Miller Group, $50,000 that was to be paid out due to the Alabama Case. Now Sandhusker if one of your bank clients walk into your office, claiming he had net assets worth of $276,513.87 would you take his word or would you investigate for any possible LIABILITIES/unpaided bills before loaning him some money? Lets look at R-CALF, Bullard claimed a net asset worth $276,513.87 Jane claims there is $468,000 of liability against that $276,513.87 so does that not mean R-CALF's actual net worth to be about negative $191,000. Now if this happened when R-CALF was the fastest growing Beef organization in the US, What do you think will happen to that negative net asset balance, if members start fleeing like mice from a burning building? :wink:

You are presenting this as if you believe the board under the leadership of Kiker did not know what the financials were. Go back and read those minutes. Was there any place in them where Bullard was ordered to present financials on an accrual basis. NO. That was a BOARD FAILURE under the leadership of Kiker. Apparently there has never been an accrual based balance sheet from even before Bullard. Will they blame him for that, too? This stuff rests squarely on the board under Kiker. They, under any state law, are responsible for the financials. They bear the responsibility for telling staff how to present them, or what they accept. Check the minutes. No discussion of ACCRUAL method REQUIRED.

It's funny how much stuff in the minutes (and be careful, they are not all truly minutes) is condemning toward Kiker and company. Who do you think is responsible for the lack of minutes for some meetings. The president has the responsibility to see that someone is assigned to take minutes. When there are no minutes, who failed? Somebody was sloppy with the rules. a bad habit.

 

[mrj]

Disregarding the swifthorses material, is, or isn't it true that some of the by-laws were broken in removing Kiker, or some of the other actions taken, including removal of board members?

What is interesting is that this organization held itself up as the ultimate in member control......but apparently the members have no say in what happens after they elect the board......and the board apparently can make a lot of changes before the members have the opportunity to elect new board members!

The "Do as I say, not as I do" bunch doesn't seem to be gaining lots of producer confidence, except in the dedicated 'kool-aid drinkers' camp.

MRJ

 

[Tam]

How do you know there are any debts? How many lawyers do you know that will work if they have any doubts on getting paid?

February 9. Jane Wooster—a Certified Public Accountant and R-CALF COOL Committee Co-Chair, issues to the Board an email assessment of R-CALF's financial status. Exhibit No. B9 Among other things, Wooster states that R-CALF isn't using the accrual method of accounting, that R-CALF has several significant outstanding bills, and that the membership figures not only are not figured correctly but also are being used incorrectly.

Those significant outstanding bills according to the Certified Public Accountant Jane Wooster were $400,000 to Law firm Stewart and Stewart., $18,000 to the Miller Group, $50,000 that was to be paid out due to the Alabama Case. Now Sandhusker if one of your bank clients walk into your office, claiming he had net assets worth of $276,513.87 would you take his word or would you investigate for any possible LIABILITIES/unpaided bills before loaning him some money? Lets look at R-CALF, Bullard claimed a net asset worth $276,513.87 Jane claims there is $468,000 of liability against that $276,513.87 so does that not mean R-CALF's actual net worth to be about negative $191,000. Now if this happened when R-CALF was the fastest growing Beef organization in the US, What do you think will happen to that negative net asset balance, if members start fleeing like mice from a burning building? :wink:

You are presenting this as if you believe the board under the leadership of Kiker did not know what the financials were. Go back and read those minutes. Was there any place in them where Bullard was ordered to present financials on an accrual basis. NO. That was a BOARD FAILURE under the leadership of Kiker. Apparently there has never been an accrual based balance sheet from even before Bullard. Will they blame him for that, too? This stuff rests squarely on the board under Kiker. They, under any state law, are responsible for the financials. They bear the responsibility for telling staff how to present them, or what they accept. Check the minutes. No discussion of ACCRUAL method REQUIRED.

It's funny how much stuff in the minutes (and be careful, they are not all truly minutes) is condemning toward Kiker and company. Who do you think is responsible for the lack of minutes for some meetings. The president has the responsibility to see that someone is assigned to take minutes. When there are no minutes, who failed? Somebody was sloppy with the rules. a bad habit.

:wink: Glad to see you are breaking your silence to a Non member ocm about what you think you know, Who ever you are. :? :?

But the fact still remains that Sandhusker asked me how I knew there was debt And I provided the numbers for the Certified Public Accountant that examined the R-CALF finanicials that said that R-CALF has a negative net asset worth about $191,000 due to unpaided legal bills among other things, not a $276,000 net asset worth like Bullard wanted Convention goers to believe. Somehow I think most will believe Jane's version over the claimes of a bankrupter rancher turn CEO, and a guy that hides behind the title of ocm on ranchers.net :wink:

As far as the minutes go I have only ever seen the Feb. 8th minutes posted on the R-CALF web site. So if you have copies of the rest of the board minutes please post them here on Ranchers so we can all see that Bill was never asked to change his accounting practices. As for what Jane says she spoke to Bill way back in Aug 2005 about how the Finances were being presented :? When did Kiker become President ocm that you claim it is all his fault?

I have a question for you now that you are openning up to non members :wink: . From what I read in the Feb. 8th minutes Bill didn't have approval to send the letter to Johann that is why Kiker called him a LIAR. Some on the board still had questions about the truth to the claims in Bill's letter and were still waiting for clarification. If you are so connected who told Bill he could send it when some Directors were still questioning what was in it? :?

one more question do you think that the Board of Directors have a right to vote another REGIONAL Director off the board (Dennis McDonald) without giving the members of that REGION that voted for that person to represent them any say?

 

[Tam]

It's funny how much stuff in the minutes (and be careful, they are not all truly minutes) is condemning toward Kiker and company. Who do you think is responsible for the lack of minutes for some meetings. The president has the responsibility to see that someone is assigned to take minutes. When there are no minutes, who failed? Somebody was sloppy with the rules. a bad habit.

Do you really expect the minutes to condemn Bullard when Bullard is the official Secretary of R-CALF in charge of the minutes? Who do you think wrote the minutes to the Feb. 8th meeting that condemned Kiker and Company? Who do you think posted them ocm for all the world to see? :roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam, how many meetings have you been to where the secretary just made up things for the minutes? Not even our 4H club does that.

 

[ocm]

It's funny how much stuff in the minutes (and be careful, they are not all truly minutes) is condemning toward Kiker and company. Who do you think is responsible for the lack of minutes for some meetings. The president has the responsibility to see that someone is assigned to take minutes. When there are no minutes, who failed? Somebody was sloppy with the rules. a bad habit.

Do you really expect the minutes to condemn Bullard when Bullard is the official Secretary of R-CALF in charge of the minutes? Who do you think wrote the minutes to the Feb. 8th meeting that condemned Kiker and Company? Who do you think posted them ocm for all the world to see? :roll:

Tam, I have never seen any minutes except those posted on the internet. "The Minutes" that I referred to are the ones posted on SwiftDonkeys. I never saw them before. I say that if you read them carefully, they are condemnatory of the board (under Kiker) rather than Bullard. Bullard BECAME the secretary half-way through the Feb 8th meeting. Minutes must be approved by the board. Bullard can't just write what he wants.

I have been referring to those things posted on that idiotic website. Consider something else you can read there. Much has been made of the Larsen report. According to the minutes, shortly after receiving the report, it was given to a committee of the board to address. That committee was chaired by Kiker. What did they do. For over a year you can read nothing in the minutes about them doing anything in response to the report. It is my understanding the committee never met. (not entirely sure of this fact--but makes sense). Didn't Kiker and the committee care about R-CALF. What it looks more like now in hindsight is that Kiker just put the report in his back pocket to be used at a later time to destroy Bullard, not as it was intended as a document to help the board make decisions for improvements.

The board under Kiker is responsible for its inaction on the Larsen report. Now they spin it to be a condemnation of Bullard.

I have a question for you now that you are openning up to non members Wink . From what I read in the Feb. 8th minutes Bill didn't have approval to send the letter to Johann that is why Kiker called him a LIAR. Some on the board still had questions about the truth to the claims in Bill's letter and were still waiting for clarification. If you are so connected who told Bill he could send it when some Directors were still questioning what was in it?

Bullard's letter had board approval. I'm told it is documented. Majority of the board approved it. R-CALF's lawyer approved it. Documented. I'm told it is documented well enough to defend in court, absolutely, open and shut. (R-CALFs lawyer was at the convention and I talked with him).

So you see when Kiker called Bullard a liar(according to the minutes) at the Feb 8th meeting, by (apparently) saying that Bullard's letter did not have approval, the actual board members who approved it were sitting there (or on the phone as the case may be) effectively being called liars too.

And as has been admitted in a public forum, the board (except for maybe one or two members--at most I'm guessing) did not even see Kiker's letter before it was sent.

So the question is:
Does the majority rule, or the minority? Simple!!!!

one more question do you think that the Board of Directors have a right to vote another REGIONAL Director off the board (Dennis McDonald) without giving the members of that REGION that voted for that person to represent them any say?

The answer is in R-CALFs Bylaws.

 

[ocm]

Disregarding the swifthorses material, is, or isn't it true that some of the by-laws were broken in removing Kiker, or some of the other actions taken, including removal of board members?

What is interesting is that this organization held itself up as the ultimate in member control......but apparently the members have no say in what happens after they elect the board......and the board apparently can make a lot of changes before the members have the opportunity to elect new board members!

The "Do as I say, not as I do" bunch doesn't seem to be gaining lots of producer confidence, except in the dedicated 'kool-aid drinkers' camp.

MRJ

Apparently you missed this right from Cattlenetwork.com on Jolley Five Minutes with Randy Stevenson.

http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=110476

As an active R-CALF member and Region II Director you've undoubtedly been close to the recent change in leadership. It's created a lot of discussion. Can you shed some light on what happened and how the change will affect the future direction of R-CALF?

For quite some time, there was a difference of opinion on the board as to whether R-CALF should proceed using different tactics, with some wanting R-CALF to be kinder and gentler, and basing our progress on relationships and access instead of moving forward based on our strength of membership and rightness of our ideas. I don't have a problem with folks on the board having different opinions, but when there is a difference of opinion, then we ought to carefully follow all of the proper procedures and when the dust is settled, the majority rules. The board itself is limited to what it can do by the policy resolutions voted on and passed by membership. The board doesn't have the prerogative to violate those policies.

Let me also say that I think it is necessary for R-CALF, like any organization, to expect its directors and officers to follow the proper procedures and bylaws of the organization. When they don't, then there should be consequences. The president acted with a minority of board members outside the normal procedures and bylaws of the organization and the situation needed to be dealt with. The majority tried for quite some time to come to a solution short of removing the president from office. Those efforts were not successful. After the president was removed from office, he resigned from the board. A number of other resignations followed, but the board dealt only with the office of president, and only because the majority believed that it was in the best interest of R-CALF to do so.

I know the board has been criticized for not following the bylaws in removing the president. Unfortunately, many things that led up to that situation happened in executive session meetings and directors are precluded from divulging the proceedings of those sessions. I am a stickler for following the rules and I can assure you that the rules were followed.

From here R-CALF will stay on the course it always has. We will continue to address issues such as BSE, COOL, Animal ID, Checkoff reform, property rights, and competition issues, and we will do so just like our membership policy directs us to.



What does it say--rules followed, no board members removed--they resigned? There's your answer. Right out in public.

 

[Tam]

ocm you said Bullard was not asked to change the way he reported the finances. Then tell us why Jane Wooster said she talked to him way back in Aug. 2005 and in the Minutes dated Dec 7th 2006 Jon Wooster had took it upon himself to talk to accountants about the changes. Why hadn't Bullard looked into changing them? Dennis McDonald made a motion to change and Leo seconded it and Kiker told Jon to contacted the accountants to move forward on the Accrual basis. Looks like Bullard didn't want the change so the board had to do it for him!!!! :wink:

 

[Tam]

ocm

I have been referring to those things posted on that idiotic website. Consider something else you can read there. Much has been made of the Larsen report. According to the minutes, shortly after receiving the report, it was given to a committee of the board to address. That committee was chaired by Kiker. What did they do. For over a year you can read nothing in the minutes about them doing anything in response to the report. It is my understanding the committee never met. (not entirely sure of this fact--but makes sense). Didn't Kiker and the committee care about R-CALF. What it looks more like now in hindsight is that Kiker just put the report in his back pocket to be used at a later time to destroy Bullard, not as it was intended as a document to help the board make decisions for improvements.

The board under Kiker is responsible for its inaction on the Larsen report. Now they spin it to be a condemnation of Bullard.

Taken from the Minutes dated July 29 2006,
Move to have Chuck, Max, Jon and Bill review study by Don Larson and pull out recommendations they believe should be presented to the board and report back to the board. Motion made by Leo seconded by Dennis and passed.

First they didn't have the report for a year notice the date of the minutes ocm? And you are trying to tell us that the report was tucked away to be used to destroy Bill when Max and Bill were on the committee that was assigned to review it and bring the recommendations. :roll: