Jack,Dick,Rod Wesselman,Jim Sizemore,Bill Bennett and myself met in Connell this past Monday to discuss this issue. We also had Patti from the WSBC on a conference call to give us information and answer questions. I will be the first to say that I had not given this issue enough consideration mainly because I was under the misunderstanding that the proposed changes were not in the works.
There was a NCBA governance task for appointed with 21 members. We are fortunate in Washington was represented by both Sid Viebrock and Patti Brumbach. The outline and proposal can be found here
http://www.beefusa.org/NEWSNCBATaskForceRecommendsMajorStructureChange39978.aspx
I first want to say I appreciate the time and effort Sid and Patti and the rest of the task force put into this proposal. I do however have several concerns about this proposal. I am currently trying to keep an open mind and do more research and give the idea more thought. I was hoping we could get some discussion here so we could come to some kind of consensus before Convention in San Antonio.
I can appreciate what they are trying to do in making us "more nimble in response to issues" I just do not see how this is going to improve that much. Right now you have a policy set and that is policy for the year. Even in a rapid crisis I dont see how this setup will improve on what is current. I maybe need a scenario where I can see more value. I find it hard to believe that the unknown could present something much more critical than the "cow that ruined Christmas". I thought NCBA leadership, staff as well as the WSBC responded quickly and properly.
I feel that the perceived and potential positive merits of this structure will fall far short of the unintended consequences and downfalls.
in short form here are my worries
1.perceived non separation of checkoff dollars and promotion from NCBA policy and control
2.concentration of power in the hands of fewer. I can live with how policy is made now however I feel somewhat marginalized. As a cow/calf producer from Washington Cattlemens affiliate I am a very small speck in the NCBA structure. This new structure will in my mind have the potential to marginalize my standing even more.
3. the current committee makeup i feel has in the past and is working today
4. there are many people out in the country, both NCBA members and non members that have concerns about the separation of federation and policy sides now, this will add to that concern for many and cause some loss in membership to both NCBA and many state affiliates in my opinion
5. I feel that this proposal marginalizes the CBB as well and I feel they are an important entity
6. I do not feel we need to run and hide from bullets every time some other national organization criticizes NCBA. That being said I do not think buying them a box of ammunition and giving them a few free shots is a great idea.
7. This proposal has an air of elitism and a we know whats best for you and we don't need as much input from as many people so let us do it this way. In today's political climate that is suicide in my opinion.
8.This will be construed as the federation side "circling the wagons" to make sure some of the checkoff task force recommendations are not implemented. i.e new contractors. As well as some type of securing of jobs for beef commission staffs.
9. My biggest fear of all. We have needed an increase in checkoff level for quite some time in my view and we have it as WCA policy. An increase was going to be a hard sell out in the country as it is, this will guarantee that many out in the country will not support a assessment increase and may very possibly spark enough dissatisfaction for a referendum vote that may not be favorable.
Again I am open minded about this but those are my opinions at this time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI talked with Dan Mccarty today and got some numbers. NCBA has about 31,000 dues paying members. Under current structure that is one "power vote" (board of directors) for roughly every 112 members. Under the proposed changes it would be one "power vote" per roughly every 1100 members. This is a concern.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo Larry, I must have done like you and decided to start over. Short and sweet, the Federation needs to stay out of NCBA policy development and stay out of helping pick NCBA policy makers. They need to learn to trust that CBB is all they need and if NCBA wants to be a contractor, the good ideas can flow with NCBA (or any other contractor) asking for the necessary information from State Beef Councils (Commissions) or CBB on what might work. WCA needs to talk about this at length. That checkoff money belongs to EVERY producer that pays into it and as much as I would like every Washington cattle producer to belong to WCA it isn't going to happen.
ReplyDeleteLArry
ReplyDeleteI just lost a page long rant about how I thought this proposed NCBA change will end up in flames. I will try and see if this works.
thanks your open minded employee
jack
I think that NCBA needs to do a better job of explaing how this change will streamline the system.
ReplyDeleteI do not support the idea of changing anything if there is not a measureable improvement.
I think that the changes that need to be made are the elimination of the "weighted vote" in committees and to authorize the E board to act on finacial matters and other crtical isseus that face the NCBA between meetings.
jack
I'm glad all of you gentlemen are willing to be open minded about the proposed changes to the governance task force. I share your concerns about the potential power pyramid getting even narrower but I want to wait until the convention before I get too exercised about these proposals. No one understands better than I do how fragile the NCBA's link is to the average rancher. The way they have been communicating means we have to expend a little extra effort to follow their activities. I always get a prompt response on a question from their staff and have enjoyed working with the regional vice-presidents. I would like to think that the task force examined these questions about alienating members and balance of power in the policy/federation structure in depth before making drastic recommendations. They've sure been dealing with those questions as long I've been involved. The need to make changes was pretty clear in my view. Now it is up to the members to accept, modify, or reject those suggestions. We do need to give them a fair hearing. We're planning a conference call to discuss them soon and hope to have Patti and Sid on as well. Jack and I heard a lot of these concerns at Omaha and we each interpreted the answers differently. I think that is because the task force was still trying to nail down the details. If they don't have it figured out by the convention, it will be pretty apparent, and there will be 5000 folks there to take it apart!
ReplyDeleteI won't confuse your tongue in cheek comment about me being open minded with my ability to have an opinion. I don't mind NCBA looking at streamlining it's organization and financial situation (closing the Chicago office)by looking at having a smaller BOD. I do have a concern about how the BOD is selected and it smacks of the Federation not thinking the average cattlemen that could belong to NCBA has the ability to come up with qualified answers to today's problems in the cattle industry. It has a lot to do with communication (the same problem we sometimes have at county and state levels) but I know that if the imformation flows we'll come up with good answers. I just don't think you can let policy turn into cronyism, but then if I'm not open minded, maybe I can't see that.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you, Vic, in that cronyism is the worst thing that can happen. I'm not sure that we haven't had a little of that. It's probably more like we see in our state in that those that are willing to show up and speak up shape policy. Those that don't, are always willing to complain and promote the perception of an "old boys club" or something exclusive of the "real producers". I just think that is human nature and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can progress.
ReplyDeleteI would like to think that the proposal will give us the most qualified representatives. The Delegate, task force, and committee structure proposed should give us more input, not less.
As for your open mind, I think yours is an exceptionally clear and wise one. Heaven help us all if we can't tap it!