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

CBB Executive committee makes motion

dosen't matter

New member
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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 ... :(

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



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
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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 [email protected] or at agcomm, 21673 Lago Drive, Delavan, IL 61734.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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; [email protected]


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.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
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.
 

mrj

Well-known member
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
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
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.
 

mrj

Well-known member
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
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
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!
 

dosen't matter

New member
MRJ I am a member of the CBB and also served on our state beef council. I would like to remind all that the CBB is responsible for all the dollars and allows each state to manage there own as they see fit, but the CBB over sees all that they do and gives approval. Each state exists at the pleasure of the CBB and as such the CBB has the responsibility to guarantee to the USDA that the funds are being used in accordance to the act and order. In the end the states do not have the entire right to do as they want. If a state gets out of order or is found to be allowing funds to be used out of compliance it is the duty of the CBB to dissolve that beef council and appoint or establish a new one. I don't think that this has ever happened but the CBB watches closely what is done in each state. We now may be faced with a very different situation.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
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.


Could you explain above quote? I don't care what kind of audit or when it was done takes away that money was going to pay for things that we were promised they would never do. It was caught and was wrong.
 

nenmrancher

Well-known member
I have about decieded that it might be time to put a bullet in the checkoffs head and put the whole program out of commission before it causes any more problems. When it started it did a lot of good, now its just one more thing that everyone wants to argue over when there are much more important issues that need to addressed. My state beef council is pushing hard for industry to support going from $1 to $2 assesments. Unless something changes I do believe that I will oppose any effort to change it unless this whole mess either is fixed or the governing of the check-off is changed to keep out the whole RCALF/NCBA crapfest.

Personally I think that BOTH RCALF & NCBA should be banned from recieving ANY funds whats so ever from the checkoff. Anymore both of those two groups have nothing to do with the promotion of beef, they are both political groups that deal with nothing but political problems, most of the problems are of their own making, if you ask me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I have mixed feelings on the checkoff as it now stands. I have absolutely no doubts about the benefits of beef research, promotion, and education. I believe the value of the checkoff far exceeds the expense.

With that said, my problem with the beef checkoff is that everyone benefits including those who want to tear the program apart based on their philisophical differences with how the industry should work. That's not a good situation.

I do not believe anyone should be forced to benefit from beef research, promotion, and education against their will.

Based on that, I would much rather see a system where producers who have a vested interest in a branded beef program raise their promotion fees to $5 per head and promote their own products and benefit from that promotion without dragging along the blaming segment of the industry.

The end of the checkoff as we know it might be a good thing. The quicker that progressive forward thinking cattle producers in this industry who realize the value of beef research, promotion, and education can seperate themselves from the packer blaming market manipulation conspiracy theorists the better.

I want to see two industries that have nothing to do with eachother. A value based industry that has a vested interest in all segments of the industry and works together to mutually benefit from beef research, promotion, and education and a seperate blaming segment that files lawsuits against other segments of the industry and blames themselves into oblivion.

I believe progressive forward thinking producers need to enter into contractual arrangements with packers to process cattle for a set rate and the cattle producers sell the beef out the other end. Nobody to blame in that situation.

Vertical integration? You bet! Bottom up integration rather than top down integration.

The alternative? Blamers blaming and filing lawsuits against other segments of the industry. That's some alternative!


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
'doesn't matter', sorry to overlook this thread and fail to answer your point re. 'control' over the checkoff, particularly the Federation of State Beef Councils.

I agree that the CBB (or actually USDA isn't it?) 'controls' the beef checkoff to the degree that money and actions must be within the law. I'm not so sure of the statement "each state exists AT THE PLEASURE OF the CBB". CBB also must follow the law creating the beef checkoff. USDA has oversight to ASSURE all entities are abiding by that law.

I see a danger in CBB exerting total control over the state BIC's and their Federation, however.

It isn't clear what you mean by "a state gets out of order", but the determination of just what that means could be a problem if a rogue group takes control of the CBB and starts interpreting the Act and Order creating the beef checkoff to serve their own aenda.

'ranch hand', IF and WHEN it is determined that there is any truth to the accusations of yourself and others of actual mis-use of checkoff funds, there will be something to act upon.

Do you know anything about the complexity of the bookkeeping system designed to ASSURE COMPLIANCE and proper use of checkoff dollars? There are over 8000 codes and staff account for their time down to 15 minute segments, assigned to the numerous projects they may work on. A minor slip on the keyboard, or a tired person listing their numbers can cause errors. Those errors are caught and corrected. When it isn't possible to correctly validate costs, NCBA has 'eaten' the erring cost with payment withheld when it can't be validated.

Re. charges of spouse/family travel, that is, and has previously been, in the salary agreement of CEO's, and Roberts already stated it was an error and has paid the proper amount. The board has established that there is value to the organization in having the spouse of the CEO informed and involved at least somewhat in the association work, if willing and able.

'nenmrancher', for the record: it is in the checkoff law that contracts MUST be awarded to existing national cattle producer organizations. The fact that most have gone to NCBA are for several reasons, expertise of staff in the cattle and beef areas, it is truly a national organization of cattle producers and feeders, it has a good track record, and maybe most important, others do not want the COST RECOVERY ONLY basis for funding.

OT, as usual, your hatred of NCBA is clouding any common sense you might have. Bt that isn't unusual. Ones "perception" can fail when bombarded with innuendo and 'information' that simply is not true.

You insinuate that NCBA has been cheating the checkoff for years and that is simply not true, as validated by USDA audits. And there have been many 'watchdogs' in your favored organizations watching the books for years.

You and others who perpetrate these lies prey on the ignorance of checkoff rules by the cattle producers who CHOOSE not to belong to ANY organization and who CHOOSE not to find out for themselves the FACTS of what the checkoff actually does.

OT, your claim of numbers of cattle producers NOT members of NCBA is flawed, in that it clearly IS the largest national organization of cattle producers, and omit that there are large numbers of cattle producers choosing not to join ANY dues payer organization. That is their CHOICE to not have anyone representing them. What right do you or any other group have in claiming them as 'your own'?

BTW, in SD there is an organization claiming to "represent cattlemen who don't join organizations"....they can let the SD Livestock Marketing Organization represent them on the SD BIC....but they can't vote in the SDLMA meetings!!! Next, we will have to find seats on SD BIC for our cattle feed dealers assoc., then the livestock truckers group, I suppose.
It's rather like 'Nanny Government' taking care of those who won't take care of themselves!

Anyone can learn all about the beef checkoff at www.beefboard.org and www.mybeefcheckoff.org, if you want the facts of what checkoff does.
 

Latest posts

Top