Disharmony in the Organization
By Ken Krizner, Senior Editor
When outgoing National Cattlemen's Association President Bob Drake announced that the vote to merge NCA with the National Live Stock and Meat Board was successful, the audience of more than 1,200 stood and applauded.
But that applause belies the fact that although the new National Cattlemen's Beef Association unites segments of the beef industry, there is disunity among its members.
A two-thirds majority in the affirmative was needed for the merger's passage during the final NCA convention in San Antonio. And while it is true that an overwhelming majority (774 out of 903) voted for the merger, NCA bylaws say only voting members in the room can vote. That means no proxies and no write-ins.
So, cattleman Barry Gates of Catarina, Texas, was unimpressed when new NCBA President John Lacey said the vote showed that there was a "mandate" for the new organization.
"Everybody knows that if absentee ballots were allowed, [the organization] would have no chance of passing," Gates stresses.
The vote ended more than three years and $1.6 million in planning. It also ended two days of passionate arguments, both pro and con about the merger.
Drake, who has been a tireless advocate of the new organization, admitted two days before the vote that he was "concerned" about an opposition that appeared only two months prior to the NCA convention.
In the convention's opening session, Drake delivered an impassioned speech warning a vote against the merger would be a vote against regaining beef's lost market share to pork, poultry and seafood products.
He expanded on his thoughts later, telling Meat Marketing & Technology: "According to the latest research, 56 percent of Americans say they are eating less red meat. We must unite in our efforts to regain market share and improve our profit opportunities. "We need to speak with one voice; we need to make our industry programs more productive and more cost-effective," he adds. "We must protect ourselves as never before from adverse laws and regulations."
But opponents of the merger ask who will protect small producers from NCBA?
Gates, sporting a pin with a line through NCBA similar to "Ghostbusters," called it a "big government" plan, "and I am opposed to big government."
During a five-hour, question-and-answer forum one day prior to the vote, California cattleman Lee Pitts accused NCBA of trying to take over the beef industry.
He portrayed the new organization as tyrannical, and only interested in "taxation without representation" in its efforts to control check-off dollars. Pitts spoke for five minutes and received a standing ovation from merger opponents in attendance.
The Livestock Marketing Association is opposed to the merger enough to query its members, who collect between 50 percent and 70 percent of check-off funds, about a possible producer vote on continuing the check-off collection. NCBA will have an operating agreement with the Beef Board, which administers the check-off funds.
Checking the funds
John McBride, director of information for the Kansas City, Mo.-based Livestock Marketing Association, tells MM&T that the association opposes the merger for four reasons:
-- The Beef Board and its operating committee will no longer be an independent body.
-- Check-off dollars will be spent on projects that are contrary to the intent of the funding.
-- Producers should get to vote on whether to merge with the Beef Board.
-- NCBA will be too bureaucratic and top-heavy.
Check-off dollars are raised by selling heads of cattle. For every sale of a head of cattle, one dollar goes to the check-off fund. It gives small producers as strong a voice as large producers in the check-off debate.
Lacey admits NCBA must work to gain the trust of the Livestock Marketing Association.
"We need to be able to justify programs that use check-off dollars," Lacey stresses. "We need to be sure that those check-off dollars will not be spent on programs that will be questioned, or on programs that might damage or destroy another segment of the industry."
Healing wounds
Supporters of the merger acknowledge that NCBA is not perfect, and maintain it is a work in progress. They believe they could do nothing to change the organization until after it was voted into existence.
"While not perfect, NCBA can and should change to reflect an evolving industry," Drake says. "The biggest positive [of NCBA] is that everyone can sit in one room and work from one document for the betterment of the beef industry."
Clark Willingham, NCBA vice president, reiterates that the focus of the organization will be on its long-range plan, which works for a "dynamic and profitable beef industry," concentrating resources around a unified plan, consistently meeting consumer needs and increasing market share.
A controversial part of the plan includes allowing packers, processors, purveyors and marketers of beef to attend meetings. IBP inc. has already submitted an application to sit on the committee, which angered opponents. However, Willingham says that there is nothing to worry about.
"[Packers and allied industries] will be a small percentage of the committee," he stresses. "There won't be a threat to control [NCBA]. I see it as a start to have people involved and talking to each other."
NCBA recognizes that the U.S. beef industry is not producer-driven, Willingham admits.
But packers are currently considered the enemy of producers because of the perception that packers undercut the price for cattle.
"But that is short-term," he warns. "The long-term of what we are trying to achieve is a closer relationship [with packers]. That includes packers participating in meetings and voting on issues."
Lacey says that NCBA gives the beef industry an opportunity to mend fences between packers and producers, which he believes will help strengthen links along the beef-industry line.
Drake notes: "When we can sit down and talk to each other instead of at each other through the media, our relationship will improve."
But the hard feelings that opponents have about the merger did not go away once the vote was taken.
Lacey says NCBA will form a committee to address producers' problems with the new organization.
"We will go out and systematically bridge the gap with those people who believe we have done wrong, as well as those people who are on the borderline," he points out. "Bottom line, a year from now, we will have to prove to our members that we have done the things we've said we would do."
Judging by comments of some attendees to NCA's last convention, there are big gaps to bridge for the new NCBA. And the first gap is unity.
ASSOCIATED ARTICLE:
New Group; New Dilemma
Here are answers to some questions that are being asked about the new National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Q: Will NCBA be controlled by grass roots beef producers?
A: Yes. How each member of the board of directors is selected depends on policies established by individual state cattlemen's associations or beef councils.
While only a dues-paying member can be a representative of his or her state on the policy board, anyone who pays the check off can be selected to represent a state on the check-off board. NCBA will welcome participation from allied industries, as well as processing and marketing companies.
Q: Is there a danger that state beef councils will lose control of check-off dollars?
A: Just the opposite, state beef council authority over check-off dollars will increase. State councils will continue to have complete authority over the 50 cents of each check-off dollar that remains under state control.
State beef councils will continue to invest state dollars in national programs that are funded by the Beef Board through NCBA.
Q: In fostering a strengthened position for beef in the marketplace, will NCBA advocate changes in the structure of the industry, to the detriment of independent producers and livestock markets?
A: NCBA will not advocate industry structural change. The organization's planning task force concluded that if beef is to stop losing market share and producers are to stop being forced out of business, individual producers and industry collectively will have to become more productive and reduce costs. Economics, not organizations, should determine any change in industry structure.
Q: Some people have objected to the name-National Cattlemen's Beef Association. Will anything be done about the name?
A: The transition executive committee felt that the new name was appropriate and descriptive.
Many cattlemen, however, believe the most important issue is what the new organization does-not what it is called.
Q: Why is NCBA expected to be more effective?
A: NCBA will be more effective and cost-efficient because the industry will work as one to plan, budget and implement programs.
Staff will work to represent the industry, not the organizations that hire them. Programs will be designed to achieve a single industry purpose, not divergent purposes.