|
| Author |
Message |
dosen't matter
Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2010
Posts: 4
Location: ne
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: CBB Executive committee makes motion |
 |
|
From: Cattlemen’s Beef Board Executive Committee
Subject: Action Taken at the CBB Executive Committee Meeting
The Executive Committee of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) strongly believes that the Federation of State Beef Councils is a full partner in checkoff activities, but also takes seriously its responsibility for oversight of producer-invested, checkoff funds. CBB continues to have a great deal of respect for the work and responsibilities of the Federation. Further, CBB has a significant interest in, and oversight responsibilities for, the Federation. The Executive Committee believes that a separate and independent Federation is in the best interest of all those who pay the checkoff, regardless of organizational affiliation or policy position.
The CBB Executive Committee believes that the Federation of State Beef Councils should exist independently from any policy organization. The Executive Committee prefers a Federation structure that assures that no policy organization has influence on programming, budget or governance decisions made by the Federation.
The structure and function of the Federation often are topics of discussion for the Executive Committee. Recently, these discussions have occurred more frequently, due to increased interest from industry organizations, as well as recent USDA guidance regarding the Federation. The Executive Committee met today and discussed the structure of the Federation in light of concerns expressed by USDA and other industry organizations.
On many past occasions, the Executive Committee recommended the need for greater separation of the Federation from NCBA. In addition to its programming functions, the Executive Committee’s position is that two of the Federation’s primary responsibilities, 1) election of Federation members to the Operating Committee, and 2) a recipient of funds from state beef councils, should be organized and operated as a separate legal entity from any industry organization. After considering USDA’s recent guidance, as well as continued industry concern, the CBB Executive Committee voted today to recommend complete separation between NCBA and the Federation of State Beef Councils.
The Executive Committee-approved motion states: “The Federation should be a strong, independent, checkoff entity. The Federation should be separate from any policy organization, since all funds for the checkoff come from mandatory assessments of producers and importers. The checkoff is owned by, and responsible to, all producers and importers, and no specific organization. It is not the intent of the Executive Committee that this motion has any effect on the structure of state beef councils.”
If you have questions about the Executive Committee’s action, please contact a member of the Executive Committee.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
dosen't matter
Member
Joined: 23 Jun 2010
Posts: 4
Location: ne
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| is this the unwinding of the NCBA?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
RobertMac
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 3725
Location: Mississippi, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dosen't matter wrote: |
| is this the unwinding of the NCBA? |
We can only hope...packers will have a say before this happens.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NCBA just seems like it cannot see the light- that cattlemen nationwide want them/and their Packer bedpartners to get their fingers out of the Checkoff cookie jar- and get totally away from the CBB ... 
| Quote: |
Outside Groups Still Concerned with NCBA Governance Proposal
Indiana Prairie Farmer - June 25, 2010
Recent revisions by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to its governance proposal have not erased stakeholders’ concerns. Earlier this week the Cattlemen's Beef Board's executive committee voted unanimously to urge the Federation of State Beef Councils to completely separate from NCBA.
American Farm Bureau lobbyist Mary Kay Thatcher says emotions are running high on both sides of this issue.
"NCBA believes having the Federation within NCBA is a good idea; the other groups believe that is leads to a perception in the country, or a reality that NCBA controls the checkoff," Thatcher said. "We believe that it has to be more inclusive, that the people that don't belong to NCBA or don't belong to any cattlemen's organization or dairy organization have to have as much ability to have input and have final say-so over the product as does NCBA."
In addition to Farm Bureau the other groups Thatcher referred to are the National Farmers Union, Livestock Marketing Association, National Milk Producers Federation, U.S. Cattlemen’s Association and National Livestock Producers Association. They told NCBA officials in the presence of senior USDA aides last week that they would not support any increase in the beef checkoff rate as long as the Federation of State Beef Councils remains under the NCBA umbrella.
indianaprairiefarmer.com |
| Quote: |
Check off committe says separate NCBA and Federation of State Beef Councils
Bob Hoff - AgInfo.net - June 25, 2010
Washington Ag Today June 25, 2010 The 11-member Cattlemen’s Beef Board executive committee has voted unanimously to recommend complete separation between the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Federation of State Beef Councils. The Washington Beef Commission is part of federation.
Cattlemen’s Beef Board Vice Chair Tom Jones says the CBB believes the Federation of State Beef Councils, which overseas state check off investments at the national level, should exist independently from NCBA or any other policy organization.
Jones: “An independent organization with not a huge staff or anything but just the ability to take those federation dollars and use them for the benefit of all producers in the country and with a complete and transparent structure.”
Jones says it was USDA that asked the check off board to weigh in on an NCBA proposal to exert more influence on beef check off decision making by a closer working relationship with the federation. The NCBA has expressed disappointment with the vote.
A coalition of beef check off stakeholders led by the American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union and Livestock Marketing Association, strongly oppose the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s new proposed governance structure.
aginfo.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
nenmrancher
Member
Joined: 13 Feb 2005
Posts: 418
Location: north eastern new mexico
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| As long as the CBB doesnt go jump in bed with another organization, they might do ok on their own. But if they dump NCBA and go straight to bed with RCALF or any other organization then aint nothing goin change expect for whos doin the screwin.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Beef Checkoff declares independence
By Alan Guebert / Columnist | Posted: Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:30 pm
In a toughly worded statement last week, the executive committee of the Cattlemen's Beef Board, the group created by Congress to collect and oversee the $1-per-head beef checkoff, served notice that it strongly backed the independence of the Federation of State Beef Councils in the debate over the checkoff's future.
"The Federation," noted the CBB "should be separate from any policy organization... The checkoff is owned by, and responsible to, all producers and importers, and no specific organization."
The declaration of independence was aimed directly at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. For almost two years NCBA has been designing and debating a massive "governance" plan to pull state beef councils under its meatpacker-dominated umbrella.
Several state councils, who, by law, control 50 percent of all checkoff funds (the Cattlemen's Beef Board controls the other half), view the plan as little more than a NCBA grab for a chunk of the $80 million or so per year checkoff.
NCBA, however, says reorganization is necessary so the "industry" can move forward, as its CEO Forrest Roberts explained in a January, with "one vision, one plan, one budget and one voice."
All this oneness has one big problem, though: Almost no one outside of NCBA-and that's nearly everyone because 32 out every 33 checkoff-paying producers choose not to be NCBA members-want anything to do with it and its Big Meat buddies.
Worse, the governance plan hopes to fold one-half of the non-political checkoff, the state councils, into the almost purely political NCBA.
As such, the biggest naysayer is Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the final word on all federally-chartered checkoffs like the beef program.
In a mid-May letter to NCBA President Steve Foglesong, Vilsack observed that NCBA's "reorganization would weaken the firewall between policy and checkoff funded activities." The move, the Secretary noted, was in direct opposition to other checkoff groups who were building "a stronger firewall between" checkoffs and political players.
Vilsack went on to list seven elements NCBA needed to incorporate into any governance restructuring if it was to get USDA's seal of approval for the change.
After that clear admonition, says one state beef rep, NCBA leaders went "back to Denver and did little more than shuffle the deck;" made few elemental changes to it plans to address the Secretary's concerns.
"NCBA just doesn't get it," the state beef rep said. "The federation represents one-half of all checkoff dollars and 30 times more cattlemen than NCBA. We have said repeatedly that we want more independence of NCBA, not less. So what's NCBA's big plan? It gives us less. Unbelievable."
Proof of NCBA's tin ear-and the packer lard that greases its policy positions-came June 18 after Vilsack proposed new rules to make it easier and less costly for livestock and poultry growers to challenge meatpacker and packer-integrator market power.
The announcement was loudly hailed as bold and innovative by ag groups as politically polar as the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union.
The one major commodity group to oppose the proposed rules? Yep, NCBA.
Its major objection, noted by Prez Foglesong later that day, would make a Wall Street banker blush. The proposed rules were unneeded "efforts to increase government intrusion in the marketplace."
Golly, this must be part of that "one vision, one plan, one budget, one voice" thing because only one person out of 100 would call more oversight in today's livestock and poultry markets "government intrusion."
Little wonder 32 out 33 cowboys choose not to join NCBA. It clearly doesn't represent working cattlemen and, as such, it clearly should have a smaller-not larger-role in the checkoff that 33 out of 33 pay.
Alan Guebert is a freelance agricultural journalist. He can be reached at agcomm@sbcglobal.net or at agcomm, 21673 Lago Drive, Delavan, IL 61734. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
R-CALF United Stockgrowers of America
“Fighting for the U.S. Cattle Producer”
For Immediate Release Contact: R-CALF USA Communications Coordinator Shae Dodson-Chambers
July 6, 2010 Phone: 406-672-8969; sdodson@r-calfusa.com
Group Supports CBB Executive Committee
in Vote of Total Separation from NCBA
Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA has signed on to a joint letter with nine other groups in support of the recent vote by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) executive committee to keep the Federation of State Beef Councils separate from any policy organization, specifically the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).
“We support any action by USDA (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture) that would lead to the separation of NCBA from the Federation of State Beef Councils (Federation)…We believe this recent move by this (CBB) executive board may very well be a deciding factor in the survival of the Beef Checkoff and ultimately the profitability and viability of these producers,” the joint letter states in part.
Cattle producers pay $1 per each head of cattle they sell into the National Beef Checkoff Program. In most state programs, 50 percent of that dollar goes to the state beef council where the producer lives and the other 50 percent goes to the CBB, which is then contracted out to various entities for the marketing of and promotion of beef. NCBA is the largest contractor organization. The various state beef councils make up the Federation.
“According to the Beef Promotion and Research Order of 1985 Section 1260.112 the Federation of State Beef Councils was implemented by, and transitioned to, NCBA as a successor organization to the Beef Industry Council of the National Livestock & Meat Board, the joint letter also states. “This then would affirm that there is no policy firewall between the policy side of NCBA and the State Beef Councils. Therefore since the Federation is actually under the rule of a policy organization (NCBA) all indications are that it is in violation of the Beef Promotion and Research Act, Section 2904 (10). In turn our State Beef Councils do not have a nonpartisan independent voice with which to voice producer concerns to the (CBB) Operating Committee.”
“More than 97 percent of cattle producers belong to organizations not affiliated with NCBA, and of that amount, about 72 percent are exclusively represented only by their state beef councils and the Federation, so that means that 72 percent of the cattle producers in the country would not have an equal voice in the governance of their Checkoff program if the Federation continues under the dominance of NCBA,” said R-CALF USA Region XII Director Joel Gill, who also chairs the group’s checkoff committee.
“We support the Checkoff and the prospects of it, but we expect some changes so our members have solid representation that they know will benefit the actual producers out there who are paying the Checkoff,” said R-CALF USA President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry. “It’s not 1988 any more. There’s got to be some changes. We have some differences with NCBA, and we don’t want NCBA to be the CBB’s and the Federation’s only source of information. If genuine producers aren’t allowed to participate in the process, you will continue to see opposition to any increase in their Checkoff assessment.”
# # #
R-CALF USA (Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America) is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the continued profitability and viability of the U.S. cattle industry. R-CALF USA represents thousands of U.S. cattle producers on trade and marketing issues. Members are located across 47 states and are primarily cow/calf operators, cattle backgrounders, and/or feedlot owners. R-CALF USA directors and committee chairs are extremely active unpaid volunteers. R-CALF USA has dozens of affiliate organizations and various main-street businesses are associate members. For more information, visit www.r-calfusa.com or, call 406-252-2516. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
NCBA misused checkoff funds, audit indicates
By Tom Johnston on 7/27/2010
A routine compliance review indicated that the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has misused beef checkoff dollars, prompting further investigation, Cattlemen’s Beef Board Secretary-Treasurer Robert Fountain Jr. said today in a news release.
The review, conducted by CBB with the help of an independent accounting firm, included fiscal years 2008 and 2009 as well as the first five months of fiscal 2010, ended Feb. 28. The firm reviewed NCBA compliance with its agreements to conduct checkoff-funded programs in the areas of beef promotion, research, consumer information and industry information. The review specifically tested overhead costs; employee time reporting as a basis for the allocation of salaries and benefits to the checkoff; travel expenses; costs of NCBA’s Federation of State Beef Councils division; and subcontractor selection procedures.
NCBA charges to the checkoff in these five areas, Fountain said, showed expenses improperly charged or insufficiently documented. Among them, he said, were travel expenses for the spouses of staff and volunteer leadership; consulting fees for investigating a certified beef program for the policy division; travel performed to initiate an NCBA-member insurance program and time spent by employees in meetings related to non-checkoff revenue development were charged in full or in part to the checkoff. The alleged infractions occurred in all three periods tested, but they were more prevalent in fiscal 2009 and the first five months of fiscal 2010, Fountain said.
“These findings are extremely troubling to the CBB Executive Committee,” he said.
The report has been sent to the USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, which oversees the beef checkoff, as well as Beef Board members and qualified state beef councils.
NCBA’s response
NCBA released a statement saying it received the auditor’s final report and is reviewing the information that CBB has released to the public. Meanwhile, NCBA said it is working to formulate a response that it would release later today.
CBB said it will look further into NCBA’s checkoff expenditures for fiscal 2009 and 2010, as well as implement new monthly review procedures of NCBA’s checkoff expenditures and issue more detailed guidelines to all contractors.
“The objectives of the additional testing will be to gain a better understanding of the CPA firm’s findings, to determine the pervasiveness of the reported issues, and to calculate the monetary impact of those issues on the amounts billed by NCBA to CBB and the Federation,” Fountain said.
Established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill, the checkoff assess $1 per head on the sale of live domestic and imported cattle, in addition to a comparable assessment on imported beef and beef products. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3333
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
A few facts are missing from the 'story' claimed "misuse of funds".
That audit was released before completion, which in past years included asking NCBA why the discrepancies occurred, or if they had been misunderstood, corrections made, and addjustments in payment made if they were not validated correct and proper.
Could it be that this was done differently this year because CBB is trying to control ALL checkoff dollars, not just the fifty cents properly under their control? I'd like to know!!!
May be just part of the push to remove the STATE Federation of Beef Councils from contact with NCBA. And, maybe the overhead of CBB is getting out of control (there is a 5% cap under the law) since moving out of the NCBA building, so they are looking for ways to cut expenses for programs.....just my speculation as to why they want to cause dissention we don't need in the checkoff or the cattle industry, but suppose they could gain some rent money if Fed. moved in with them.
Both CBB and the Federation are comprised of members of ALL cattlemen organizations, not just NCBA members, BTW.
Further, my experience has been that no spouse expense is allowed for a director spouse, whether of BIC, Federation, or staff. Nor should it be, IMO. I don't know if the same applies to NCBA Policy Div. spouses, but bet it does, and in any case that is NOT funded by checkoff $$$, so is not the business of anyone but NCBA dues paying members.
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
ranch hand
Member
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 544
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| That audit was released before completion, which in past years included asking NCBA why the discrepancies occurred, or if they had been misunderstood, corrections made, and addjustments in payment made if they were not validated correct and proper. |
What do you mean by above statement? This has been going on for 2 1/2 years and maybe longer with out being corrected. Do they just correct things that are caught and then they can lie about why they occurred.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
mrj
Rancher
Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 3333
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When the "things that are caught" are honest mistakes in recordkeeping, verifiable as such, this no lie involved in correction.
I'm not certain about the time frame you mentioned, since I have had a busy day and not been able to read everything minutely that has been printed about this.
Nor do I know the typical time frame for audits, or if this was a routine audit or if it was a 'special' one, possibly intended to influence decisions at the mid-year meeting to favor special interests' wishes.
What does your state Beef Council, or your favorite cattlemens org. have to say about it, given that they have checked the facts available?
mrj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Oldtimer
Rancher
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 24330
Location: Northeast Montana
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrj wrote: |
When the "things that are caught" are honest mistakes in recordkeeping, verifiable as such, this no lie involved in correction.
I'm not certain about the time frame you mentioned, since I have had a busy day and not been able to read everything minutely that has been printed about this.
Nor do I know the typical time frame for audits, or if this was a routine audit or if it was a 'special' one, possibly intended to influence decisions at the mid-year meeting to favor special interests' wishes.
What does your state Beef Council, or your favorite cattlemens org. have to say about it, given that they have checked the facts available?
mrj |
When there is even the perception of impropriety involving taxpayers dollars- the reasons for that perception (NCBA) should be removed from the picture.....
This has been going on for years and years like I've told you several times before MRJ- and most people know it...The reason only 1 in 32 cattle producers belong to NCBA- and the reason there will never be an affirmative vote to raise the Checkoff fee to promote beef as long as NCBA has their fingers in the cookie jar or allowed to use checkoff to further their Packer influenced agenda....
No special interest groups like NCBA should have any control/influence on how it used....
SET THE CBB BOARD FREE!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
