Old Timer, you do amaze me with your persistence in believing things that simply are not true!
I thought I made it clear previously that the assertions claiming NCBA has two thirds of members on some committees which, if I recall correctly you said came from the LMA website, was in error.
It appears they neglected to mention that one third of the members are from CBB, one third from NCBA Dues division, and one third from NCBA Federation division. Some people may not understand that the NCBA Federation division actually is the national coalition of all the state Beef Councils and is NOT part of the Dues division of NCBA. It is financially and structually separate from the dues division.
I question whether you mis-understood your friend the "old NCBA member" or whether he mis-informed you, innocently or otherwise, it doesn't matter. Some of what you report he said doesn't jibe with the law. Since I have no way of knowing specifically what he meant by what he said, I can only state the fact that CBB members must be nominated by the cattle organizations in each state and that USDA only confirms the nominee from the state, under most circumstances. I do know that once in SD, politics got in the way of that and a Democrat USDA secretary overruled the cattle organizations to name one of 'their' party as a CBB director from SD. I have no knowledge of that happening in other states. Anyway, the proper procedure, as spelled out in the Checkoff law would make it impossible for USDA to put someone on the board that the state cattle producers did not endorse, IF THE LAW IS FOLLOWED.
That law also makes it impossible to use checkoff funds for anything except what is named in the law, promotion, education, and research involving beef. The contracts, being on a cost recovery basis only, prevents a contracting organization from using the funds for lobbying, or to give to candidates.
Your assertion that your friend told you it was set up so that NCBA would have control "to prevent greenies or Peta people from gaining control " via some sort of liberal USDA secretary appointing them to the CBB and that you agreed it would be a good idea except that "its never been made clear to the public, or people paying the checkoff, either by CBB or NCBA" doesn't hold water. You would be hard pressed to find a more closely scrutinized program. There are independent audits as well as people who are searching dilligently for anything to discredit the Checkoff programs and CBB and NCBA. The 'dirt' simply DOES NOT EXIST!
You say "it may have been a good idea, but you can't run a multi-million tax dollar operation from behind closed doors". Where on earth did you get that idea? The Beef Checkoff is clearly a transparent operation. Again, look at all the scrutiny and the audits.
You claim that "there is an illusion, impression, or perception of impropriety, and even if nothing is wrong the checkoff should change because of those perceptions". Isn't it ridiculous to trash an exceptionally valuable self-help program to accomodate 'perceptions' that have NO basis in fact?
You made an assertion that NCBA somehow caused some of the signatures on the LMA petition for a referendum to be thrown out. You didn't tell us how that could be accomplished when USDA gave the petitions to an independent auditing firm for validation. I believe the rules were quite clear as to who was considered a cattle producer eligible to sign petitions. LMA was scolded numerous times for fraudulent solicitations of signatures, and that fact was reflected in the number of ineligible signatures and multiple signatures on the petitions. NCBA, if they had been so foolish as to have been so inclined, did not need to influence the count. LMA caused the failure by their own illegal tactics.
What do you offer as any least shred of factuality of your claims that "the checkoff appears as tho in some parts of the nation its very randomly collected, if at all"?
It seems obvious that you are searching for 'dirt' on the checkoff out of your anger over the fact that you "don't like the direction the checkoff (or NCBA or CBB) took in the late '90's". I don't recall that you ever said exactly what you believe is wrong, or what that 'change' is. Would you please share that information with us?
I would rather have spent my time posting information on some of the wonderful research that is going to show the world more health benefits from eating beef than we would have dreamed possible just a few years ago.
MRJ
I thought I made it clear previously that the assertions claiming NCBA has two thirds of members on some committees which, if I recall correctly you said came from the LMA website, was in error.
It appears they neglected to mention that one third of the members are from CBB, one third from NCBA Dues division, and one third from NCBA Federation division. Some people may not understand that the NCBA Federation division actually is the national coalition of all the state Beef Councils and is NOT part of the Dues division of NCBA. It is financially and structually separate from the dues division.
I question whether you mis-understood your friend the "old NCBA member" or whether he mis-informed you, innocently or otherwise, it doesn't matter. Some of what you report he said doesn't jibe with the law. Since I have no way of knowing specifically what he meant by what he said, I can only state the fact that CBB members must be nominated by the cattle organizations in each state and that USDA only confirms the nominee from the state, under most circumstances. I do know that once in SD, politics got in the way of that and a Democrat USDA secretary overruled the cattle organizations to name one of 'their' party as a CBB director from SD. I have no knowledge of that happening in other states. Anyway, the proper procedure, as spelled out in the Checkoff law would make it impossible for USDA to put someone on the board that the state cattle producers did not endorse, IF THE LAW IS FOLLOWED.
That law also makes it impossible to use checkoff funds for anything except what is named in the law, promotion, education, and research involving beef. The contracts, being on a cost recovery basis only, prevents a contracting organization from using the funds for lobbying, or to give to candidates.
Your assertion that your friend told you it was set up so that NCBA would have control "to prevent greenies or Peta people from gaining control " via some sort of liberal USDA secretary appointing them to the CBB and that you agreed it would be a good idea except that "its never been made clear to the public, or people paying the checkoff, either by CBB or NCBA" doesn't hold water. You would be hard pressed to find a more closely scrutinized program. There are independent audits as well as people who are searching dilligently for anything to discredit the Checkoff programs and CBB and NCBA. The 'dirt' simply DOES NOT EXIST!
You say "it may have been a good idea, but you can't run a multi-million tax dollar operation from behind closed doors". Where on earth did you get that idea? The Beef Checkoff is clearly a transparent operation. Again, look at all the scrutiny and the audits.
You claim that "there is an illusion, impression, or perception of impropriety, and even if nothing is wrong the checkoff should change because of those perceptions". Isn't it ridiculous to trash an exceptionally valuable self-help program to accomodate 'perceptions' that have NO basis in fact?
You made an assertion that NCBA somehow caused some of the signatures on the LMA petition for a referendum to be thrown out. You didn't tell us how that could be accomplished when USDA gave the petitions to an independent auditing firm for validation. I believe the rules were quite clear as to who was considered a cattle producer eligible to sign petitions. LMA was scolded numerous times for fraudulent solicitations of signatures, and that fact was reflected in the number of ineligible signatures and multiple signatures on the petitions. NCBA, if they had been so foolish as to have been so inclined, did not need to influence the count. LMA caused the failure by their own illegal tactics.
What do you offer as any least shred of factuality of your claims that "the checkoff appears as tho in some parts of the nation its very randomly collected, if at all"?
It seems obvious that you are searching for 'dirt' on the checkoff out of your anger over the fact that you "don't like the direction the checkoff (or NCBA or CBB) took in the late '90's". I don't recall that you ever said exactly what you believe is wrong, or what that 'change' is. Would you please share that information with us?
I would rather have spent my time posting information on some of the wonderful research that is going to show the world more health benefits from eating beef than we would have dreamed possible just a few years ago.
MRJ
