So What Now With The NCBA-CBB Feud?

[Soapweed]

“Embarrassing” Describes CBB-NCBA Feud

Aug 6, 2010 2:58 PM, Troy Marshall



I’ve literally received hundreds of emails from producers looking for insight into the rift between the executive committee of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). It’s about a three-hour conversation if one wants to discuss all the behind-the-scenes interactions that led up to this mess. Suffice it to say that it should never have unfolded as it has and there’s plenty of blame to go around. If I had to describe this situation in one word, I’d choose “embarrassing,” with “maddening” coming in a close second.

If you’re like me, you need a scorecard to keep track of all the players because the checkoff structure has always been cumbersome and confusing. After having it explained to me six or seven times, I’m still not sure I truly understand it, but here’s my shot.

It’s a complicated web and with all the political intrigue involved, it’s difficult to summarize. But, while driving through the pastures this week, an analogy came to me that, while not perfect, does characterize the situation well.

First, we have the overall CBB; then there’s the CBB executive committee, the CBB operating committee, qualified state beef councils and the Federation of Beef Councils. One also needs to include USDA – which actually has the majority of the power – as well.

Now, imagine a 10-year married couple contemplating divorce. One spouse wants to try to save the relationship and move forward (NCBA), while the other spouse isn’t interested in reconciling and definitely wants out (CBB executive committee).

Then there are the children who don’t want to choose sides and are committed to keeping the family together because they’re confident it’s the best thing for the family in the long run. The kids are the Federation of State Beef Councils, while the family is the overall U.S. beef industry.

The overall CBB is one set of in-laws – the set of in-laws who see the value in the relationship, and realize that while families often have difficult times, the marriage is worth saving. Meanwhile, the other set of in-laws is represented by the outside organizations that have been, and continue to be, adamantly opposed to NCBA. This set of in-laws opposed the marriage from the start and have done everything possible to destroy it; these in-laws have the ear of the spouse pushing for divorce.

If you can picture that social situation in your mind, then you have a pretty good idea of the dynamics that have created this mess. It also explains all the actions that have resulted in the past few weeks.

[Oldtimer]

Well- just like in real life often when one member of a marriage is a repeated abuser, steals the kids lunch money to go partying, has lost the respect of all the kids-and no one any longer trusts them-- the best answer here is a D I V O R C E...

CBB should be a stand alone entity-wedded to no one....Especially not to a special interest group that represents only 1 of every 32 checkoff taxpayers- and one that has for years been fraudulently misusing those checkoff payers tax dollars...

[~SH~]

[mrj]

OT, Troy missed a few of the 'players' behind the scenes....R-CALF and Farmers Union members of state Beef Councils and CBB and it's various committees. They PERSIST in attempts to "stop NCBA".

First was the fraudulent 'get out the vote' to seduce cattle producers to call for an election to end the beef checkoff which failed when USDA discovered cheating by getting people to sign up for prizes...then used their signatures on petitions.

Next was the court case to end the beef checkoff which the Supreme Court tossed out.

Now we have more lies and innuendo claiming yet again that bookkeeping errors are "misuse of checkoff funds" and "breach of the firewall" between NCBA Dues/Policy div. and the beef checkoff. Didn't happen!

Accounts have to be approved by the CBB before NCBA is paid for the work they do as a contractor. If an expense cannot be verified, it isn't paid and NCBA loses that money. Any project brought in under budget is adjusted so the budgeted checkoff money is used on other APPROVED projects.

Plus a bogus claim that USDA demanded the CBB set up a proposed new Federation of State Beef Councils structure under CBB auspices to remove it from NCBA offices. That, according to USDA did not come from them! And USDA oficials also said they did not dictate that the Federation be "separated from NCBA". Clearly, USDA knows that the Federation and NCBA already ARE separate organizations, simply share some office space, staff, and meeting sites, fully separated for accounting purpose as well as separation of voting on Federation business which is ONLY by Federation members (who are appointed by state Beef Councils and are representatives from ALL cattle organizations in the state, plus the Livestock Marketing Assoc. in SD).

This attack on NCBA strongly smells of SOME members of CBB determining to grow their staff and structures, begun when they moved out of the NCBA offices. Now their overhead is budgeted at the top of the 5% cap allowed for it under the law. That seems excessive in that it takes money away from programs, and has gone up from the usual 2-3%+/- overhead cost prior to moving out of offices space shared with NCBA a few years ago.

It would also be interesting to see the uncorrected audits of CBB and all it's entities and contractors besides NCBA now that we have seen the uncorrected audit of NCBA projects.

mrj

[Texan]

[mrj]

Texan, what is your justification for saying NCBA "is trying to sweep it under the rug"?

Why do you believe there cannot be bookkepping errors? Do you know that there are over 8000 different codes for expenses? Have you, or anyone for that matter, never made a legitimate bookkeeping error?

The truth and facts of this matter are going to be very different than the sensationalism, particularly of some in the most notorious media. And id DO mean the New York Times! That writer was at the meeting and fell far short of the facts in his 'reporting'.

I believe it is not a good thing for ANY spouse to travel on checkoff dollars, with the exception of being if they are in the same car and share the driving to a meeting.

However, IF it is common practice for CBB to pay for travel for members (and there are MANY who are NOT members of NCBA) expenses AS WELL AS to pay spouse expenses, AND if it is because the spouses are expected to, and have, contributed materially to those meetings, then why is it wrong for them to pay in the same situation simply because the staffer or volunteer is a member of NCBA?

And IF this has been done previously, why didn't anyone complain or question the practice? I certainly would have. Just as I question giving VOLUNTEER leadership roles to those who do not accept unless they get their expenses paid, even if they can afford it themselves.

I do understand and approve the idea that paying volunteers' travel costs (and it never covers the real costs!) makes it possible for those who can well serve the industry, but could not afford to do it without some help with expenses, just don't appreciate those who NEVER do anything without getting expenses paid when they could.

mrj

[HAY MAKER]

[HAY MAKER]

[Tommy]

This doesn't have anything to do with the checkoff, but I thought it was interesting that the NCBA, AMI, and NMA were a no show.


Is It Because They Have the Truth to Hide?



NCBA, AMI, NMA Decline Opportunity for Public Debate



Billings, Mont. – Monday, Aug. 9, 2010, has come and gone – to the detriment of independent U.S. cattle producers who had hoped to learn more about the state of competition in the U.S. cattle industry by attending or listening in via the Internet to a forum on that subject featuring representatives of R-CALF USA, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the American Meat Institute (AMI) and the National Meat Association (NMA).



Last month, KSDZ radio in Gordon, Neb., invited these four groups to participate in an open, public debate in light of the new competition rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) that would establish measures to benefit cattle farmers and ranchers and make the U.S. cattle market more transparent and competitive.



GIPSA and the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice) are hosting the last of a series of competition workshops on Aug. 27 in Fort Collins , Colo. The proposed competition rule has been hotly contested by NCBA, AMI and NMA, as well as the National Pork Producers Council – all of which more represent the interests of the multinational meatpackers and not the interests of the actual producers on the ground.



When asked his view on the refusal of NCBA, AMI and NMA to participate in the debate scheduled for Aug. 9 , KSDZ Radio Owner/Manager Jim Lambley had this to say: “Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, was the only one willing to debate the hard questions to be asked by beef cattle producers. I would think the membership of the three refusing meat industry leaders would be ashamed of the organizations they pay dearly to represent them.”


Lambley said his radio station covers the largest cattle-producing county in Nebraska and the second largest cattle-producing county in the nation.



“The facts speak for themselves,” he continued. “NCBA, AMI and NMA obviously were afraid to step into the Round Pen with the TRUTH. On the other hand, R-CALF USA was more than willing. That fact alone tells all of us who really is working honestly for independent U.S. cattle producers.”


“The new GIPSA rule is the first meaningful effort in decades to require accountability on the part of packers and transparency in the marketplace – essential steps for restoring competition,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “It is a disservice to all Rural Americans when the leaders who are opposing these important new rules refuse to justify their positions in an open forum. Obviously they have something to hide and they know their position cannot withstand the critical analysis that would occur in a public debate.”

[HAY MAKER]

Sorry damn theives,stealin cattle mans money,with them damned shell games..
good luck

[Tommy]

mj...Why do you believe there cannot be bookkepping errors? Do you know that there are over 8000 different codes for expenses? Have you, or anyone for that matter, never made a legitimate bookkeeping error?

If the CBB was a stand alone entity and completly seperate from the NCBA there would not be those kinds of bookkeeping errors to begin with, if they are bookkeeping errors as you say mj.

[Oldtimer]