MRJ: "I wish I could better articlate just how the current firewall works. It is my understanding that it has NEVER been breached, and that both sides in this situation agree on that point.
It is apparent that the real reason for this fight is that some groups just do not want anyone who does not support their narrow views to have anything to do with the checkoff.
Unfortunately, it would disenfranchise an awful lot of cattle producers, the members of NCBA, from being able to work to protect their interests in Washington, DC, and force us to support issues favored by R-CALF, NFU, and others."
I think you have done an excellent job of explaining how the beef checkoff works and you've done it repeatedly and to those who refuse to face facts.
If they haven't already, perhaps both beef checkoff critics and proponents need to meet at the table to re-evaluate the current checkoff firewalls to assure that beef checkoff dollars are not being spent to support any political agenda and the firewalls are working as they should. Just as the SDSGA should have assured everyone that brand fees were not being spent to support R-CALF's agenda but rather were being spent solely on the brand program as they should. I use that as an example of how I would see this issue if the opposite situation were true.
Let me give you an example of a potetial "perceptual conflict of interest" situation as I see it. If a double duty trip was being made to Washington DC which included both beef promotion and lobbying against the GIPSA rules and this trip were paid for by checkoff dollars, I believe this would constitute a "conflict of interest" much like if brand fees were paying to promote the GIPSA rules. NCBA lobbyists should not receive any beef checkoff dollars when promoting political agendas (not saying they are). If this situation were an accurate example, this trip should be paid for by NCBA dues and the checkoff work should be voluntary to avoid any potential "conflict of interest". That's just how I see it in order to protect the integrity of the beef checkoff. Not saying that this "conflict" situation is happening because I don't know. Just saying this is how I believe the firewall rules should be set up if they are not already set up that way.
I have personally found myself in potential "conflict of interest" situations with my former job and learned that how I saw things was not neccessarily how others saw them and I tried to learn from it.
I realize that some fools would suggest that beef promotion and research only benefits the packers out of one side of their mouth then support "M"COOL out of the other side of their mouth as if one benefitted packers and the other benefitted producers. There is nothing that can be done for that level of ignorance but the majority of producers have a better level of understanding than that.
I know how difficult it is to see hard working honest folks working for the best interests of beef promotion, research, and education under a constant microscope of suspicion but I also know how "perception" (suspicion) becomes "reality". Being right is not always the same as being seen as being right. If that was not the case, R-CALF would not still have the following they have with a 0 & 9 loss record in court and such a blatant disregard for the factors that truly affect cattle prices.
I agree with you that the fight is driven primarily by those who do not want NCBA to have anything to do with the beef checkoff even with rock solid firewalls in place much the same way some did not like the SDSGA running the brand program. Perception becomes reality. The only way to overcome that is for all the cards to be laid on the table for public scrutiny. Perhaps as important as having a rock solid firewalls is the ability to assure the masses of the integrity of those firewalls.
I'm sorry but I did not understand your final statement above MRJ. What would disenfranchise NCBA members from being able to protect their interests in Washington DC and force them to support issues favored by R-CALF and others??
Beef promotion, research, and education would still occur as would lobbying against "socialistic cattle marketing ventures" through empty GIPSA rules. The two would just be kept at arms length from eachother. NCBA would still fight for their interests in Washington and fight against R-CALF's "BSE fear mongering" to stop imports, GIPSA rules that would socialize the cattle markets, Packer blaming legislation that would add expense to beef processing and fabrication and result in lower cattle prices, etc. etc. Those lobbying efforts would be paid for by membership dues.
When everyone is paying in to a program, they all deserve a voice in how those funds are being spent. I believe it's more important to protect the integrity of the beef checkoff with audits and critical reviews than to see it die a slow death based on perceptions that are not addressed.
It's unfortunate that the world operates as it does and that some producers are forced to benefit from beef research, promotion, and education against their will. It's just as unfortunate that some producers that oppose foreign trade are forced to receive higher prices for their cattle than they would if there was no trade. Bottom line, that's how it is.
With that said, I have not been privy to all the facts on how the beef checkoff currently operates so my views on this topic should be viewed accordingly.
~SH~