By MEGGIE. I. FOSTER
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Under growing pressure within the cattle industry, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA) recently announced a decision to suspend plans to make any changes to its governance structure to allow the Federation of State Beef Councils an opportunity to clarify its role and intentions to all industry shareholders.

According to Scott George, division chair of NCBA’s Federation, NCBA is not turning its back on revising its governance structure, but rather turning its attention to U.S. producers to ensure a governance structure is developed that fosters unity within the industry.”

“We want to do this right. The Federation effectively represents all cattle producers paying into the checkoff,” said George, who is also beef and dairy producer from Wyoming. “Quite frankly, it is impossible to do so when there is so much controversy driving a divide within the industry. We have critical issues affecting this industry that require us to be united, not divided. We are calling a timeout to clarify our role and wishes to all shareholders.”

George said the unintended controversy around NCBA’s governance proposal was getting in the way of an accurate discussion about the Federation and other issues pertinent to cattle producers.

The “controversy” referred to by George began when a coalition of six other national farm groups, led by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), the National Farmers Union (NFU), National Livestock Producers Assoc., the National Milk Producers Federation, U.S. Cattlemen’s Assoc., and the Livestock Marketing Assoc. (LMA), addressed what they called “grave concerns” in a March 22 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

At issue was how the NCBA would set industry policy and spend beef checkoff dollars as outlined in its proposed governance structure that the NCBA presented at the Texas and Southwest Cattle Raisers Assoc. (TSCRA) convention, held March 17-20 in Fort Worth.
In their four-page letter to Vilsack, the coalition said while the law prohibits the use of funds for any type of activity to influence government policies or actions, the ‘firewall’ keeping checkoff funds for beef advertising and industry advocacy should be maintained to separate those monies from NCBA dues and other revenue to avoid compromise.

“This firewall (that keeps checkoff funds for advertising and funds to support advocacy and policy) is already mistrusted by many producers because checkoff programs are often managed by NCBA staff in the same offices as staff who manage a major beef policy’s trade association,” the letter stated. “In fact, of the 45 state beef councils, 18 share some level of staff with the NCBA affiliate.”
While, in general, the coalition said they supported the checkoff, they claimed the new governance structure would “further erode the separation” between the check-off side (the Federation of State Beef Councils) and the policy side (NCBA) of the organization.

Patti Brumbach, executive director of the Washington State Beef Commission, said the Federation of State Beef Councils is the body that develops and executes a coordinated checkoff plan to build and protect beef demand at the state and national level. She said in order for the Federation to effectively continue building beef demand and addressing critical industry issues, delaying NCBA’s governance discussions is necessary until the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and other “vocal” industry groups fully understand the role and wishes of the Federation.

“Without a functioning Federation, coordination is lost and producers’ checkoff dollars become ineffective at tackling issues and breaking through a very cluttered consumer environment. Consumers are bombarded everyday with misinformation about beef, and the only way for producers’ story to be heard is through the Federation’s coordinated efforts.”

Brunbach reemphasized the word “coordinated” several times in the June 25 press conference announcing NCBA’s decision to delay changes to governance structure.

“Delaying the discussion about NCBA’s governance is not only the right thing to do for state partners, but essential to the effectiveness of the beef checkoff program, which is no more important to any other organization than it is to NCBA,” she said. “We are doing this to coordinate our efforts for the good of cattle producers working hard to feed a growing global population.”
When asked if and when the NCBA will revisit the recommendation to make changes to its governance structure, George could not provide a specific timeline, except that a suspension was underway until further notice.

“There has been so much confusion on this issue, it’s actively been distracting people from what’s important in our industry,” added George. “If a decision is made to separate (NCBA’s checkoff and policy efforts), we will ultimately lie with the State Federation of Beef Councils. But as of right now, a suspension has been made and this issue will not be on the docket in July (at NCBA’s annual meeting in Denver, Colo.).”

For more information, visit www.ncba.org