• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

87% Checkoff Funded Programs Went to NCBA

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
In trying to run down more info on this alledged NCBA awarded bid that was $850,000 over a lesser bid I came up with the following info from the CBB....Still getting no real details on who the other bidder was or what the contract was for....

The interesting point is that NCBA ended up with contract awards totalling $43 million of the $49.4 million budget--- which I figure is about 87% of the budget....
---------------------------------------------------------

Proposals and contracts for checkoff funded programs during fiscal year 2006 were considered at a meeting of the Beef Promotion Operating Committee held in Rapid City, South Dakota on September 21-22. The 1985 law requires the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) to contract with existing, national, not-for-profit, beef industry governed organizations to conduct programs intended to build beef demand and established the Operating Committee as the entity responsible for deciding which proposals and contractors to fund subject to approval by USDA.


The Beef Promotion Operating Committee is made up of 20 producers, each of whom pays the checkoff. It includes 10 elected members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and 10 elected members of the boards of directors of qualified state beef councils.



· The total amount of CBB checkoff dollars in the Fiscal 2006 budget available to fund proposals was $49.4 million.



· Six beef industry organizations submitted 56 proposals to the Operating Committee to conduct national checkoff programs in the coming year. I’ve attached a list of those proposals. They totaled $52.4 million, as follows:



o National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) submitted 35 proposals for a total of $45.8 million in funding.

o U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) submitted 12 proposals for $5.1 million.

o National Livestock Producers Association (NLPA) submitted three proposals for $664,550.

o American National CattleWomen (ANCW) submitted two proposals for $350,900.

o Meat Importers Council of America (MICA) submitted three proposals for $346,200.

o American Veal Association (AVA) submitted one proposal for $52,300.



· After receiving the proposals several days prior to the meeting, listening to presentations from each of the organizations represented and asking questions, members of the Operating Committee spent several hours discussing the merits of the proposals and then worked to prioritize them for funding, as the budget certainly could not accommodate all of them. USDA representatives also were at the meeting to hear presentations and ask questions, since the Operating Committee’s recommendations must be reviewed and approved by USDA, as well.



· The Operating Committee approved at least one proposal from all six organizations. Approved proposals totaled about $49.4 million, as follows:



o 28 proposals from NCBA totaling $43 million in funding.

o 12 proposals from USMEF totaling $5.1 million.

o One proposal from NLPA totaling $350,000.

o Two proposals from ANCW totaling $360,900 (the Operating Committee added $10,000 to one proposal).

o Three proposals from MICA totaling $346,200.

o One proposal from AVA totaling $52,300.



· The Operating Committee also turned down seven proposals from NCBA totaling $1.845 million and two proposals from NLPA totaling $264,550. Finally, the Operating Committee reduced funding on two approved NCBA proposals by $876,000 and on one approved NLPA proposal by $50,000.

· Members of the Operating Committee are:

Alan Svajgr, Chairman, NE Myron Williams, Vice Chairman, SD

Jay O’Brien, TX Ann Bruntz, NE

Dave Bateman, IL Clifford Dance, MS

Mike Brooks, OK David Dick, MO

Mike Cline, IA Scott George, WY

Jack Cowley, CA Larry Jones, KS

Lisa Hefner, OK Sid Sumner, FL

Jim Little, ID Mike Vache, OK

Charles Miller, KY Leo Vermadahl, TX

Gary Sharp, SD Jim Wilson, OR



All were in attendance.



 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
I wonder how many of these folks are NCBA members or members of the other organizations that received funds.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
OT, It would be nice if there were some USA beef proposals in there to round out the pot (I still do not discount the value of good Canadian beef). Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken as these are the substitutes that some on this board have said checkoff dollars are needed to compete against?

Just asking.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It becomes kind of easy to see why people think the Checkoff is NCBA and NCBA is the checkoff....Looks to me like they are well funded by the checkoff dollar......

Probably only a chosen few could fit into this description- especially with the requirement of existing in 1985:

The 1985 law requires the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) to contract with existing, national, not-for-profit, beef industry governed organizations to conduct programs intended to build beef demand and established the Operating Committee as the entity responsible for deciding which proposals and contractors to fund subject to approval by USDA.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT,

WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT THIS TIME?????

Unless you can show where checkoff dollars were misused, who gets what is totally irrelevant.

I suppose you would have rather given the checkoff dollars to R-CULT's lawyers huh?


~SH~
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
This is all I could find before I got bored.

Alan Svajgr, Chairman, NE Myron Williams, Vice Chairman, SD NCBA
Jay O’Brien, TX NCBA Ann Bruntz, NE NCBA
Dave Bateman, IL NCBA Clifford Dance, MS

Mike Brooks, OK David Dick, MO NCBA

Mike Cline, IA NCBA Scott George, WY

Jack Cowley, CA Larry Jones, KS NCBA
Lisa Hefner, OK NCBA Sid Sumner, FL NCBA
Jim Little, ID NCBA Mike Vache, OK NCBA

Charles Miller, KY Leo Vermadahl, TX NCBA

Gary Sharp, SD NCBA Jim Wilson, OR NCBA
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
This is all I could find before I got bored.

Alan Svajgr, Chairman, NE Myron Williams, Vice Chairman, SD NCBA
Jay O’Brien, TX NCBA Ann Bruntz, NE NCBA
Dave Bateman, IL NCBA Clifford Dance, MS

Mike Brooks, OK David Dick, MO NCBA

Mike Cline, IA NCBA Scott George, WY

Jack Cowley, CA Larry Jones, KS NCBA
Lisa Hefner, OK NCBA Sid Sumner, FL NCBA
Jim Little, ID NCBA Mike Vache, OK NCBA

Charles Miller, KY Leo Vermadahl, TX NCBA

Gary Sharp, SD NCBA Jim Wilson, OR NCBA

OK, Super Sleuth, how many of those people are members of the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA, and how many are members of the Dues/Policy division of NCBA? There is a difference, and no real connection between the two other than sharing office space and staff. Staff, BTW, account for their time in 15 minute increments and are paid according to whichever division the work is for. I know that some of those people listed are on the Federation of State Beef Councils division representing Farm Bureau, Dairy orgs., and other state cattle organizations, NOT the Dues/Policy division.Tell us the entire story here, not just what serves your goal of divisiveness.

Suppose I may as well confess and spill the beans as to why NCBA manages to filch all those contracts from other aspiring contractors......and do not forget, the contracts are to the Federation of State Beef Councils NOT the Dues/Policy division of NCBA......psssssst, Oldtimer, are you getting this?????? Those contracts are on a strict COST RECOVERY ONLY basis. Few groups will do such work without any hope of making some money. NCBA will. It is that simple and honest!

MRJ
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
Suppose I may as well confess and spill the beans as to why NCBA manages to filch all those contracts from other aspiring contractors......and do not forget, the contracts are to the Federation of State Beef Councils NOT the Dues/Policy division of NCBA......psssssst, Oldtimer, are you getting this?????? Those contracts are on a strict COST RECOVERY ONLY basis. Few groups will do such work without any hope of making some money. NCBA will. It is that simple and honest!

MRJ

But how come their strict COST OF RECOVERY ONLY basis on one project was 860,000 $$$$$$$$$4 more than the competing bid? hmmmmm
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
Are salaries part of that cost recovery?

I am on the Village Board (non profit entity) and also on the fire department (another non-profit entity). I abstain from voting when the fire department asks for funds because otherwise is a conflict of interest.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Sandhusker said:
I wonder how many of these folks are NCBA members or members of the other organizations that received funds.

I would like to see that done, Sandhusker, because I personally over many years have met large numbers of directors who are NOT members of the Dues/Policy division of NCBA, and I believe it would be an eye-opener for nay-sayers to realize how many other organizations have a lot of power in the Beef Checkoff systems.

I never see you acknowledge that the NCBA label includes many who are NOT dues paying members of the Dues/Policy organization, but who ARE members of the many beef and dairy related organizations making up the Federation of State Beef Councils.

I believe it is irrelevant whether or not organizations receiving contractual funds from the CBB are also serving on CBB or the Federation of State Beef Councils because there is no financial gain possible to contracting organizations due to the cost recovery only basis of the contracts. Some of you "aginners" have claimed cash gains somehow can be "built in" to the contracts. I would challenge you to do that and get it by all the audits and scrutinizing eyes these contracts must pass!

MRJ
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
rancher said:
Suppose I may as well confess and spill the beans as to why NCBA manages to filch all those contracts from other aspiring contractors......and do not forget, the contracts are to the Federation of State Beef Councils NOT the Dues/Policy division of NCBA......psssssst, Oldtimer, are you getting this?????? Those contracts are on a strict COST RECOVERY ONLY basis. Few groups will do such work without any hope of making some money. NCBA will. It is that simple and honest!

MRJ

But how come their strict COST OF RECOVERY ONLY basis on one project was 860,000 $$$$$$$$$4 more than the competing bid? hmmmmm

Until someone will tell me exactly what that contract is, there is no information to show it is anything other than either a misunderstanding, or a fictitious accusation. I would certainly like to check it out, but the information given in the accusations on this web site does not fit with any contract known about in the CBB office. With all the work needed to improve the position of beef in the consumers eyes, I certainly do not want any money, let alone $850,000.00 wasted in the manner claimed.

MRJ
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
18,486
Reaction score
0
Location
Nebraska
MRJ said:
Sandhusker said:
I wonder how many of these folks are NCBA members or members of the other organizations that received funds.

I would like to see that done, Sandhusker, because I personally over many years have met large numbers of directors who are NOT members of the Dues/Policy division of NCBA, and I believe it would be an eye-opener for nay-sayers to realize how many other organizations have a lot of power in the Beef Checkoff systems.

I never see you acknowledge that the NCBA label includes many who are NOT dues paying members of the Dues/Policy organization, but who ARE members of the many beef and dairy related organizations making up the Federation of State Beef Councils.

I believe it is irrelevant whether or not organizations receiving contractual funds from the CBB are also serving on CBB or the Federation of State Beef Councils because there is no financial gain possible to contracting organizations due to the cost recovery only basis of the contracts. Some of you "aginners" have claimed cash gains somehow can be "built in" to the contracts. I would challenge you to do that and get it by all the audits and scrutinizing eyes these contracts must pass!

MRJ

It's a conflict of interest, MRJ. Makes no difference if it's simply salaries, sharing of overhead, etc...
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
~SH~ said:
OT,

WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POINT THIS TIME?????

Unless you can show where checkoff dollars were misused, who gets what is totally irrelevant.

I suppose you would have rather given the checkoff dollars to R-CULT's lawyers huh?


~SH~

Isn't the fact that checkoff money cannot be used for lobbying "and other projects to benefit ranchers" one of the major complaints of anti-checkoff groups, such as LMA/OCM, and friends?
 

rancher

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,059
Reaction score
0
MRJ said:
rancher said:
This is all I could find before I got bored.

Alan Svajgr, Chairman, NE Myron Williams, Vice Chairman, SD NCBA
Jay O’Brien, TX NCBA Ann Bruntz, NE NCBA
Dave Bateman, IL NCBA Clifford Dance, MS

Mike Brooks, OK David Dick, MO NCBA

Mike Cline, IA NCBA Scott George, WY

Jack Cowley, CA Larry Jones, KS NCBA
Lisa Hefner, OK NCBA Sid Sumner, FL NCBA
Jim Little, ID NCBA Mike Vache, OK NCBA

Charles Miller, KY Leo Vermadahl, TX NCBA

Gary Sharp, SD NCBA Jim Wilson, OR NCBA

OK, Super Sleuth, how many of those people are members of the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA, and how many are members of the Dues/Policy division of NCBA? There is a difference, and no real connection between the two other than sharing office space and staff. Staff, BTW, account for their time in 15 minute increments and are paid according to whichever division the work is for. I know that some of those people listed are on the Federation of State Beef Councils division representing Farm Bureau, Dairy orgs., and other state cattle organizations, NOT the Dues/Policy division.Tell us the entire story here, not just what serves your goal of divisiveness.

Suppose I may as well confess and spill the beans as to why NCBA manages to filch all those contracts from other aspiring contractors......and do not forget, the contracts are to the Federation of State Beef Councils NOT the Dues/Policy division of NCBA......psssssst, Oldtimer, are you getting this?????? Those contracts are on a strict COST RECOVERY ONLY basis. Few groups will do such work without any hope of making some money. NCBA will. It is that simple and honest!

MRJ

Are they members or not of NCBA? Maybe you need to prove me wrong.
 

mrj

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 21, 2005
Messages
4,530
Reaction score
1
Location
SD
Econ101 said:
OT, It would be nice if there were some USA beef proposals in there to round out the pot (I still do not discount the value of good Canadian beef). Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken as these are the substitutes that some on this board have said checkoff dollars are needed to compete against?

Just asking.

Checkoff money cannot be used "against pork and chicken" directly. What has been done is to research the nutritional values and compare them in ads. One that I recall pointed out how to get the nutrients in three ounces of beef, a person would have to eat something like 11 chicken breasts! And the fat values were quite comparable, while people have been lead to believe the beef has far more calories from fat that does poultry. That information has been given to media, health care professionals and consumers via checkoff projects as well as through advertising.

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
OT, It would be nice if there were some USA beef proposals in there to round out the pot (I still do not discount the value of good Canadian beef). Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken as these are the substitutes that some on this board have said checkoff dollars are needed to compete against?

Just asking.

Checkoff money cannot be used "against pork and chicken" directly. What has been done is to research the nutritional values and compare them in ads. One that I recall pointed out how to get the nutrients in three ounces of beef, a person would have to eat something like 11 chicken breasts! And the fat values were quite comparable, while people have been lead to believe the beef has far more calories from fat that does poultry. That information has been given to media, health care professionals and consumers via checkoff projects as well as through advertising.

MRJ

That kind of stuff has been researched to death. Those figures are just sales gimmicks. Eat a well balanced diet. That is just "pork" for some "researcher".
 

S.S.A.P.

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
863
Reaction score
1
Location
Saskatchewan
Econ101:.... Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken ....

US or Canada, I don't think we need to start a pithing match between the beef, pork or chicken industries !! The vegan groups would be jumping with joy.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
7,060
Reaction score
0
Location
TX
S.S.A.P. said:
Econ101:.... Are any of these campaigns directed against pork and chicken ....

US or Canada, I don't think we need to start a pithing match between the beef, pork or chicken industries !! The vegan groups would be jumping with joy.

What good is checkoff money if you can't use it to advertise against your competition?
 

agman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver, CO
Oldtimer said:
In trying to run down more info on this alledged NCBA awarded bid that was $850,000 over a lesser bid I came up with the following info from the CBB....Still getting no real details on who the other bidder was or what the contract was for....

The interesting point is that NCBA ended up with contract awards totalling $43 million of the $49.4 million budget--- which I figure is about 87% of the budget....
---------------------------------------------------------

Proposals and contracts for checkoff funded programs during fiscal year 2006 were considered at a meeting of the Beef Promotion Operating Committee held in Rapid City, South Dakota on September 21-22. The 1985 law requires the Cattlemen's Beef Board (CBB) to contract with existing, national, not-for-profit, beef industry governed organizations to conduct programs intended to build beef demand and established the Operating Committee as the entity responsible for deciding which proposals and contractors to fund subject to approval by USDA.


The Beef Promotion Operating Committee is made up of 20 producers, each of whom pays the checkoff. It includes 10 elected members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and 10 elected members of the boards of directors of qualified state beef councils.



· The total amount of CBB checkoff dollars in the Fiscal 2006 budget available to fund proposals was $49.4 million.



· Six beef industry organizations submitted 56 proposals to the Operating Committee to conduct national checkoff programs in the coming year. I’ve attached a list of those proposals. They totaled $52.4 million, as follows:



o National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) submitted 35 proposals for a total of $45.8 million in funding.

o U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) submitted 12 proposals for $5.1 million.

o National Livestock Producers Association (NLPA) submitted three proposals for $664,550.

o American National CattleWomen (ANCW) submitted two proposals for $350,900.

o Meat Importers Council of America (MICA) submitted three proposals for $346,200.

o American Veal Association (AVA) submitted one proposal for $52,300.



· After receiving the proposals several days prior to the meeting, listening to presentations from each of the organizations represented and asking questions, members of the Operating Committee spent several hours discussing the merits of the proposals and then worked to prioritize them for funding, as the budget certainly could not accommodate all of them. USDA representatives also were at the meeting to hear presentations and ask questions, since the Operating Committee’s recommendations must be reviewed and approved by USDA, as well.



· The Operating Committee approved at least one proposal from all six organizations. Approved proposals totaled about $49.4 million, as follows:



o 28 proposals from NCBA totaling $43 million in funding.

o 12 proposals from USMEF totaling $5.1 million.

o One proposal from NLPA totaling $350,000.

o Two proposals from ANCW totaling $360,900 (the Operating Committee added $10,000 to one proposal).

o Three proposals from MICA totaling $346,200.

o One proposal from AVA totaling $52,300.



· The Operating Committee also turned down seven proposals from NCBA totaling $1.845 million and two proposals from NLPA totaling $264,550. Finally, the Operating Committee reduced funding on two approved NCBA proposals by $876,000 and on one approved NLPA proposal by $50,000.

· Members of the Operating Committee are:

Alan Svajgr, Chairman, NE Myron Williams, Vice Chairman, SD

Jay O’Brien, TX Ann Bruntz, NE

Dave Bateman, IL Clifford Dance, MS

Mike Brooks, OK David Dick, MO

Mike Cline, IA Scott George, WY

Jack Cowley, CA Larry Jones, KS

Lisa Hefner, OK Sid Sumner, FL

Jim Little, ID Mike Vache, OK

Charles Miller, KY Leo Vermadahl, TX

Gary Sharp, SD Jim Wilson, OR



All were in attendance.

If only you were as interested in the percent of funding for R-Calf that has beef wasted on fallacious law suits. Talk about misuse of funds and being taken for a ride-donate to R-Calf.
 

Latest posts

Top