ASI Members Approve Proposal
For New National Organization

By Colleen Schreiber

DENVER — A proposed plan to unify the sheep industry through a new national individual-fee membership organization is one step closer to reality.

Members of the American Sheep Industry Association, in their annual convention here last week, voted to accept a 14-member industry-wide task force proposal that ultimately calls for replacement of ASI as it is known today with the proposed new organization. Funding for ASI is expected to be depleted in the fall.

It is believed that other industry organizations such as the National Lamb Feeders Association will also eventually fold into the new association.

Talk of developing such an organization began soon after the repeal of the federal Wool Act. It was recognized that something had to be done to stop further fragmentation of the industry, and the development of a new national industry-wide organization was thought to be the first step.

Plans took shape in April 1997 when a group of 20 individuals representing 14 industry associations came together in a meeting facilitated by Texas A&M University professors Russell Cross and Jeffrey W. Savell.

Over a period of time the group developed a plan which identified seven survival goals and numerous "action steps." In presenting that plan to the industry as a whole, the group stressed that the goals it had identified must be implemented if the sheep and wool industry is to survive.

From there, ASI hired Tecker Consultants of Trenton, New Jersey to study the feasibility of developing a new industry-wide organization. When the Tecker team came on board, the "Cross" group was again brought together for the purpose of developing a model. The model that was ultimately developed called for a huge shift in the way the industry thinks.

That model was ultimately approved by the various industry associations and a 14-member transition team was appointed. All segments of the U.S. sheep industry are represented through the transition team. Jim Butler, assistant vice chancellor of external affairs for Texas A&M, led the transition team.

In their first meeting, which took place in May 1998 in Denver, the team began work to implement the Tecker Project. A conceptual plan was presented at various state meetings throughout the fall of 1998. In November, the 11-member ASI Executive Board met and unanimously decided to recommend a plan to their 61-member board of directors. It was this plan that was presented to the membership during the annual convention.

"The transition team has spent the last eight months working together, focusing on the future and ways to revive the industry," Butler told listeners. "Ultimately, the best plan is that plan which the whole industry will support."

He noted that the plan developed by the team is a conceptual one, in which changes are already being made.

Various members of the transition team walked through the proposed plan with ASI members.

"I believe we are right on the edge of a major paradigm shift," team member Tom Boyer said. "The sheep industry will not look like it has in the past. I see an exciting new future for the sheep industry. There are some exciting and new opportunities waiting for us."

He related an incident in which he had a chance meeting with another hotel guest who had read his name tag.

"He said, 'Can’t you see the gold mine you people are sitting on? Can’t you see how tired the American consumer is of sitting down to beef and pork and chicken and only having a few choices? They’re ready for lamb, but the housewife isn’t ready to come home to a 10-pound leg of lamb after working all day. You guys need to create some products that are user and consumer friendly. You just don’t understand the market that exists for all your products. You’re one of the best kept secrets in America.'"

Boyer stressed the importance of incorporating integrity into everything the new industry organization does.

"We have to build our trust levels. Trust is critical to our future. We have to have open and effective communication at all levels and facets of the industry," Boyer said.

The new organization, which is intended to be member-focused, needs input from everyone and it must be business and consumer-focused as well, he insisted.

"It’s going to take all of us to make this shift occur. We’ve got the opportunity right here in our hands today and tomorrow. We can make this thing happen and happen effectively."

Mike Caskey, Pipestone, Minn., discussed the membership structure.

The proposed plan calls for an individual-based membership organization open to anyone who is interested in the goals and mission of the organization. Two categories of memberships are proposed: individual membership, which is what most will be belong to; and affiliate membership, which will include "friends of the industry" such as animal health representatives and manufacturers.

When members pay their dues they will choose a forum which represents the particular segment of the industry in which they are most interested.

Forums are groups of people with like interests and like concerns who work together collectively on particular issues. Their role, Caskey told listeners, is to consider issues of public and governmental policy; provide a venue for discussion of issues; and recommend implementation programs to action teams or the board of directors.

A portion of a member's dues is allotted to the forum of their primary area of interest. The figure being proposed is 15 percent. Those funds are then available to be used by the forum. Each forum has the authority and responsibility to use that allotment as appropriate — to develop and implement programs specific to the forum segment, and to communicate segment-specific information to segment members.

Proposed forums include: feedlot, range flock, farm flock, seedstock, textile/fiber, and post-harvest lamb (packers, processors, retailers, HRI). Each forum will determine its own leadership structure. Finally, Caskey said, each forum can act independently to address policy issues not agreed upon and/or not addressed by the full association board.

Affiliate members may join a forum, but they would not be eligible to participate in association governance or vote on forum issues.

The proposed dues structure is tiered and based on size of the operation. For producers and feeders it ranges from $50 to $1000. The various tier levels have yet to be determined. For "post-harvest" members, packers would pay $500 to $1000; processors $200 to $1000 based on size of operation; pelts, sale barns, auction markets, retailers and HRI, $200. Manufacturers would pay $200 to $1000 based on size; warehouses $200; and buyers $200.

Academic members would pay $50 and affiliate members $500.

A tremendous amount of discussion went into deciding the format for electing association leadership, Caskey said. The plan calls for a board of directors made up of 15 voting members and one non-voting member. Two directors would be selected by the range flock forum, two from the farm flock forum, one seedstock representative, two from feedlots, two from post-harvest, two from textile and fiber, and three at-large producers elected by the total membership of the organization. The plan also calls for one state executive to serve as a non-voting member for improved communications and working relationships.

The president, Caskey said, is elected by the board of directors for a one-year term with a maximum of two terms. President-elect and secretary-treasurer are also one year terms while directors serve two-year terms with a maximum of two consecutive terms, with the exception of forum chairs.

Douglas, Wyoming producer and transition team member Frank Moore told listeners that policy issues may be forwarded to the board by forums, action groups, or individuals.

"The board will address each issue," Moore said, "but it will take a two-thirds majority vote by the directors before it becomes an issue of the association."

Any issue not approved by the full board can be addressed by a forum or group of forums with funding appropriated by the various forums.

Team member Bob Mertz, representing the National Lamb Feeders Association, told ASI members that the long-term success of the industry, in his opinion, will be made by the action teams.

The board of directors will establish industry action teams made up of eight to 12 people. These teams will have the authority and responsibility to develop and implement programs in their areas of expertise. Teams may include individuals from outside the membership of the association. They will be non-policy teams, non-government type teams, Mertz said.

Suggested teams are: business development; food safety and stewardship; consumer growth; production and cost efficiencies; and wool/fiber enhancement.

Casa Grande, Arizona, sheep producer and team member Dolly Echeverria discussed the part of the plan involving the consortium of industry associations. Their goal, Echeverria said, is to facilitate industry-wide communication and issues management through a consortium of interest and invited organizations.

The consortium would involve groups with a shared interest in the sheep industry; be designed to facilitate information sharing and consideration of common issues and concerns; and provide an opportunity to consider how participating organizations could work together to benefit the sheep industry.

Another entity, Echeverria said, is the research and education foundation. Its goal would be to provide vision and leadership to the industry through research and education; raise and distribute funds to conduct research; and share research findings through educational outreach efforts.

Funding of the foundation could include grants which may be treated as business expenses or as charitable contributions; contributions with different levels of contribution recognized; sales of publications and research; and capital campaigns on specific issues or initiatives.

Menard, Texas, sheep and goat producer Carl Menzies discussed the team's proposed timeline for getting the new industry association up and running.

The next six months, Menzies noted, are critical. In January and February an implementation task force will address such issues as bylaws, programs, staffing, facilities, how to handle legislative issues, and incorporation. The task force suggested a six-member board — three coming from the transition team and appointed by the team and three appointed by the ASI executive board.

During March, April and May, nominations would be submitted for the first elected board of directors and a legal review of bylaws would be scheduled.

In June, formal notice of the ASI board meeting would be mailed with the first meeting of the new association proposed for August.

The team discussed various names for the new association but no one in particular was brought forth with the plan.