What Will R-CALF's Implosion Bring?

[Tommy]

Tam...Why not use those regional meeting to elect new reps from the regions that lost their representatives? Texas, California and Southwest, and Montana and Northwest.

Sandhusker beat me to the punch here Tam. I do not have much faith in quiters, get it Tam, they quit, no one forced them to leave.

 

[mwj]

Tam...Why not use those regional meeting to elect new reps from the regions that lost their representatives? Texas, California and Southwest, and Montana and Northwest.

Sandhusker beat me to the punch here Tam. I do not have much faith in quiters, get it Tam, they quit, no one forced them to leave.

I think what she is saying is that r-calf is punishing the remaining and loyal members in those regions if they leave them without any rep. for there region :shock: Should they punish every member of a region for the actions of one? That could leave a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouth.

 

[Sandhusker]

Tam...Why not use those regional meeting to elect new reps from the regions that lost their representatives? Texas, California and Southwest, and Montana and Northwest.

Sandhusker beat me to the punch here Tam. I do not have much faith in quiters, get it Tam, they quit, no one forced them to leave.

I think what she is saying is that r-calf is punishing the remaining and loyal members in those regions if they leave them without any rep. for there region :shock: Should they punish every member of a region for the actions of one? That could leave a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouth.

You're not getting it, either. It wasn't R-CALF that left them without any rep., it was the rep. that bailed.

 

[bigdog]

At this point, what they do for representation and board members is an academic exercise. The affiliates that they have left at the end of the year will be able to hold their convention in a phone booth. From now on, it seems more appropriate to refer to the organization in the past tense.

Something like "R-CALVED"

Ranchers Can't Agree, Lets Violate Executive Decisions

Use it in a sentence: "R-CALVED was opposed to National Animal Identification System protocols before they imploded and ultimately disbanded"

The past is the past, they were what they were... lets hope the bad feelings fade with time...

Editors note: I checked my spelling this time

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

At this point, what they do for representation and board members is an academic exercise. The affiliates that they have left at the end of the year will be able to hold their convention in a phone booth. From now on, it seems more appropriate to refer to the organization in the past tense.

Something like "R-CALVED"

Ranchers Can't Agree, Lets Violate Executive Decisions

Use it in a sentence: "R-CALVED was opposed to National Animal Identification System protocols before they imploded and ultimately disbanded"

The past is the past, they were what they were... lets hope the bad feelings fade with time...

Editors note: I checked my spelling this time

Your a quick study. Wouldn't want Econ to have to keep correcting you, it would take away from his time he has available to educate all us poor folk. :wink:

 

[Tam]

Funny thing about those regional reps, Tam, THEY RESIGNED!!! Now give your obsession a rest. You can't get even the simplest stuff right.

Just because those elected representatives resigned does that mean the members in those regions no longer deserve representation? :roll: Are the rest of the board going to replace those that RESIGNED with reps from Missouri and Tennesse and South Dakota or are they going to replace them with someone that lives within the regions that those that resigned can from? Somebody that might just know what the MEMBERS in that region want. Why hold meeting in regions that have representation instead of regions that need to replace their Regional representatives? Makes no sence where these regional meetings are being held but when has R-CALF ever done anything that makes SENSE. :roll: :roll:

 

[Econ101]

At this point, what they do for representation and board members is an academic exercise. The affiliates that they have left at the end of the year will be able to hold their convention in a phone booth. From now on, it seems more appropriate to refer to the organization in the past tense.

Something like "R-CALVED"

Ranchers Can't Agree, Lets Violate Executive Decisions

Use it in a sentence: "R-CALVED was opposed to National Animal Identification System protocols before they imploded and ultimately disbanded"

The past is the past, they were what they were... lets hope the bad feelings fade with time...

Editors note: I checked my spelling this time

Your a quick study. Wouldn't want Econ to have to keep correcting you, it would take away from his time he has available to educate all us poor folk. :wink:

And I do have my work cut out for me!!! :help:

 

[RobertMac]

Funny thing about those regional reps, Tam, THEY RESIGNED!!! Now give your obsession a rest. You can't get even the simplest stuff right.

Just because those elected representatives resigned does that mean the members in those regions no longer deserve representation? :roll: Are the rest of the board going to replace those that RESIGNED with reps from Missouri and Tennesse and South Dakota or are they going to replace them with someone that lives within the regions that those that resigned can from? Somebody that might just know what the MEMBERS in that region want. Why hold meeting in regions that have representation instead of regions that need to replace their Regional representatives? Makes no sence where these regional meetings are being held but when has R-CALF ever done anything that makes SENSE. :roll: :roll:

What makes you believe anyone cares what you think????????????????????????

 

[Tam]

Funny thing about those regional reps, Tam, THEY RESIGNED!!! Now give your obsession a rest. You can't get even the simplest stuff right.

Just because those elected representatives resigned does that mean the members in those regions no longer deserve representation? :roll: Are the rest of the board going to replace those that RESIGNED with reps from Missouri and Tennesse and South Dakota or are they going to replace them with someone that lives within the regions that those that resigned can from? Somebody that might just know what the MEMBERS in that region want. Why hold meeting in regions that have representation instead of regions that need to replace their Regional representatives? Makes no sence where these regional meetings are being held but when has R-CALF ever done anything that makes SENSE. :roll: :roll:

What makes you believe anyone cares what you think????????????????????????

Touchy touchy :wink:

Tell us Robertmac do you believe that just because a regional Director resigns the remaining members in the region he represented, no longer deserve to be represented? :?

 

[RobertMac]

What I KNOW is that your concern for R-CALF members is a charade!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Tam]

What I KNOW is that your concern for R-CALF members is a charade!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally I hope they are never represented by R-CALF ever again. But if they pay a membership due that Bulls**t Bullard recieves 5 bucks of they should at least get to have a person in the boardroom looking out for their interests. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Ding dong the witch is dead!


~SH~

 

[Jay Miller]

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself

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.

 

[Jay Miller]

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself

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.

 

[Jay Miller]

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself
so take this and any other view Terry has as what you would expect from a faction that pulled of improper power grab... and is struggling to remain in power.......R_Calf has put out more press releases since Feb 8 than the previous 6 months combined.....the press release and affliate meetings all remind me of a USDA listening session......all about window dressing and no action........

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?

 

[Econ101]

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself
so take this and any other view Terry has as what you would expect from a faction that pulled of improper power grab... and is struggling to remain in power.......R_Calf has put out more press releases since Feb 8 than the previous 6 months combined.....the press release and affliate meetings all remind me of a USDA listening session......all about window dressing and no action........

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?

If the substance of this post is true, it shows that Kiker was probably out of his league when it comes to DC politics. Unfortunately the people playing that game on the hill have a whole lot of experience. They easily grind newbies.

I am not sure rcalf could outspend the packers or even just Tyson on the hill to get their voice heard. Unfortunately, this is the system our legislators have allowed to occur in our capital.

I have said before, it is just like the money lenders in the temple.

 

[Jay Miller]

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself
so take this and any other view Terry has as what you would expect from a faction that pulled of improper power grab... and is struggling to remain in power.......R_Calf has put out more press releases since Feb 8 than the previous 6 months combined.....the press release and affliate meetings all remind me of a USDA listening session......all about window dressing and no action........

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?

If the substance of this post is true, it shows that Kiker was probably out of his league when it comes to DC politics. Unfortunately the people playing that game on the hill have a whole lot of experience. They easily grind newbies.

I am not sure rcalf could outspend the packers or even just Tyson on the hill to get their voice heard. Unfortunately, this is the system our legislators have allowed to occur in our capital.

I have said before, it is just like the money lenders in the temple.

You badly miss your mark with that interpretation.......Chuck Kiker is not out of his league in the Agencies or Capitol Hill......I know I have been there with him.

 

[Jay Miller]

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.

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself
so take this and any other view Terry has as what you would expect from a faction that pulled of improper power grab... and is struggling to remain in power.......R_Calf has put out more press releases since Feb 8 than the previous 6 months combined.....the press release and affliate meetings all remind me of a USDA listening session......all about window dressing and no action........

 

[Econ101]

Boys I will lay you 1000 to 1 odds that ocm is none other than Terry Stevenson good old Randy's brother......the Karl Rove/Tom Hicks figure behind R-Calf Vice President good old Randy Steveson.........In the board meeting when Chuck Kiker was improperly deposed it was good old Randy that brought up the USDA letters......he was called out of order twice but persisted......even though the R-Calf Board had agreed in Kansas City with the help of a mediator that the letters were no longer an issue....good old Randy persisted......then Eric Nelson made the motion with out the proper 14 day notice called for in the by laws...Johnny Smith seconded..... they voted and the rest is history.........AND all of this came to pass because the R-Calf CEO Bill Bullard misundertsands USDA rulemaking and the standards for Judicial review....
So when you read what OCM has to say just remember it is Terry or Possibly good old Randy himself
so take this and any other view Terry has as what you would expect from a faction that pulled of improper power grab... and is struggling to remain in power.......R_Calf has put out more press releases since Feb 8 than the previous 6 months combined.....the press release and affliate meetings all remind me of a USDA listening session......all about window dressing and no action........

If the substance of this post is true, it shows that Kiker was probably out of his league when it comes to DC politics. Unfortunately the people playing that game on the hill have a whole lot of experience. They easily grind newbies.

I am not sure rcalf could outspend the packers or even just Tyson on the hill to get their voice heard. Unfortunately, this is the system our legislators have allowed to occur in our capital.

I have said before, it is just like the money lenders in the temple.

You badly miss your mark with that interpretation.......Chuck Kiker is not out of his league in the Agencies or Capitol Hill......I know I have been there with him.

I would have to take your word on that, Jay, as I have no personal interaction and don't know.

I would like an explanation on refuting Bullard's letter in another letter to the USDA. To me, this is not "playing with the team".

Please also explain the link of the law firm explained by OCM.

It is not enough to just "get along" with the "good old boys" on capital hill. As you know, results are what count. From what I see has happened, this test gives little consolation to the stated goals of rcalf and Kiker. There seems to be more damage than good looking from the outside in.

Absent "results" from D.C., I see the actions initiated by some in rcalf resulting in more benefits to the people that they argue against than for the producer. If Kiker/rcalf think this is what is meant by "results", they need to adjust their definition.

It has been the most basic tactic of monopolists and oligopolists to divide and conquer. Do you see any other result than this?

 

[Jay Miller]

If the substance of this post is true, it shows that Kiker was probably out of his league when it comes to DC politics. Unfortunately the people playing that game on the hill have a whole lot of experience. They easily grind newbies.

I am not sure rcalf could outspend the packers or even just Tyson on the hill to get their voice heard. Unfortunately, this is the system our legislators have allowed to occur in our capital.

I have said before, it is just like the money lenders in the temple.

You badly miss your mark with that interpretation.......Chuck Kiker is not out of his league in the Agencies or Capitol Hill......I know I have been there with him.

I would have to take your word on that, Jay, as I have no personal interaction and don't know.

I would like an explanation on refuting Bullard's letter in another letter to the USDA. To me, this is not "playing with the team".

Not playing with the team started w/Bill Bullard when he received questionable approval from who knows how many board members on a Sunday afternoon??????why sunday????? does a LETTER of this importance need to go out on a Sunday afternoon w/out Full Board review....it was BB'S WILL that's why...and the directors I suspect covered his a--.......AND you don't send a letter to the Secretary of Agriculture that is full of mistakes.......Bill Bullard did not and possibly still does not understand the regulatory process......and Chuck was repairing what Bill had screwed up.......

Please also explain the link of the law firm explained by OCM.

Why??? you can't PROVE a negative......someone's boss worked @ USDA???is this a witch hunt...it's a ridiculous tactic.....but often sucessfully used......Villify the opposition

It is not enough to just "get along" with the "good old boys" on capital hill. As you know, results are what count. From what I see has happened, this test gives little consolation to the stated goals of rcalf and Kiker. There seems to be more damage than good looking from the outside in.

Way not true........see below

Absent "results" from D.C., I see the actions initiated by some in rcalf resulting in more benefits to the people that they argue against than for the producer. If Kiker/rcalf think this is what is meant by "results", they need to adjust their definition. ......

Way wrong...the complexion of Congress has changed......our issues (R-calf of old) are now mainstream....we had access in the halls of Congress ........and thanks to our R lobbyest we had agency access.... we are going to get COOL and some form of Competition title in the Farm.....unfair trade agreements are still passing.......but by very slim margins......we have raised a POPULIST Awareness.....so you don't just hit the Secretary of Agriculture in the mouth and expect to get something done........that is what this board wants to do.....quitter?????on these guys hell yeah......... they won.....but I 'll bet they can't hold it together....all the workers and the intellect have been removed or resigned...all that remain are single issue oriented.....sue at all costs.....being radical for the sake of being a radical is


It has been the most basic tactic of monopolists and oligopolists to divide and conquer. Do you see any other result than this?

I completely agree