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

Jo Ann

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Location
Montgomery, Al
Thursday, March 9, 2006 · Last updated 3:36 p.m. PT

Ex-Agriculture Dept. official off hook

By LIBBy QUAID
AP FOOD AND FARM WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The Agriculture Department has decided not to take action against a former agency official who blocked investigations into predatory pricing in the nation's $120 billion livestock trade.

Gross mismanagement, not criminal conduct, by JoAnn Waterfield is to blame for several years of obstruction, department Inspector General Phyllis Fong told the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday.

"I'm not sure what further action could be taken," said Fong, who released an audit on the problems in January. "What we found I guess we would best characterize as tremendous mismanagement."

There was "no indication of criminal conduct," Fong added.

The department is making big changes in response to the report, said James E. Link, the new administrator of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

"We have already begun making the fundamental changes in the culture of the organization," Link told senators, describing a series of steps he has taken.

Employees were frustrated with management and felt they couldn't do their jobs, Link has said. He's created a private Web site for employees to confide in him.

Senators were wary of his pledges. Different government investigators have been calling for changes at GIPSA since 1997.

"I hope you'll understand if I'm a little skeptical," Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, the panel's senior Democrat, told Link. "We've heard promises before. USDA has a long history ... of never following through."

The latest audit said Waterfield stopped complaints from being filed or prosecuted. She pressured employees to create an appearance of strong enforcement by logging day-to-day activity - sending letters or making phone calls - as investigations, according to the audit.

Waterfield, who quit abruptly before the audit was released, did not return a call from The Associated Press. She spent about 14 years at the Agriculture Department, the last five as deputy administrator for the Packers and Stockyards Program, part of GIPSA.

That program oversees a $120 billion industry and is supposed to investigate practices that inhibit competition, unfairness and deception in the livestock, meatpacking and poultry trade.

Lawmakers asked if Waterfield's superiors knew about the obstruction. The inspector general said they did not. "We have no evidence there was tremendous involvement of the ranks above her in any kind of sense," Fong said.

Harkin, who requested the audit, asked why department lawyers failed to notice or alert higher-ups that competition investigations were not being referred to them.

Mary Hobbie, the department's assistant general counsel on trade practices, pointed out that other types of cases, financial and trade investigations, have been pursued.

But it is competition, not finances or trade practices, that concerns Congress most. Many lawmakers are alarmed about the level of consolidation among meatpackers.

"If our local ranchers can only market to huge meatpackers who appear to be coordinating prices with each other, there's definitely something wrong," said Sen. Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.

Four companies control more than 80 percent of the market, said Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.
*********************************************************
Phyllis DID say there was no indication of criminal conduct but she also said that she wasn't looking for criminal conduct because that wasn't the scope of her investigation.
 
USDA Comes Under Fire For Blocking Livestock Market Probes



WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The integrity and competence of the U.S. Department of Agriculture were called into question Thursday by U.S. senators concerned with the USDA's failure for several years to investigate anti-competitive cases in the livestock and meat packing sectors.



"It is totally unacceptable of our government to conduct business in this way," Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said at a Thursday hearing. He threatened to call USDA officials back up to Capitol Hill again if improvements aren't made.



The Senate committee called the Thursday hearing to demand answers from the USDA over a recent Inspector General report charging that officials had blocked investigations into anti-competitive activities in livestock and poultry markets.



The Inspector General report laid much of the blame on JoAnn Waterfield, who resigned her post as a USDA Deputy Administrator in December, but Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he also held higher-ranking officials accountable.



"I just wonder how Ms. Waterfield got by with not doing anything all this time or covering things up," Harkin told reporters. "What level did this go to? I don't know."



USDA's Inspector General Phyllis Fong said at the Thursday hearing that her office's investigation stayed within the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, or GIPSA, a USDA agency.



It was Waterfield, as head of GIPSA's Packers and Stockyards Programs division, that decided whether investigations could be completed and referred to USDA's General Counsel lawyers, who then may turn them over for further action by the Justice Department.



Since November 2002, Waterfield's senior-level review panel referred only three cases to USDA's General Counsel lawyers, none of which were further passed on to the Justice Department, according to USDA's Inspector General.



Fong said she was unsure if any further action should be taken in regards to Waterfield's action and the investigation showed "no indication of criminal conduct."



Instead, Fong said, the obstruction of anti-competitive investigations was likely a result of "terrible mismanagement."



Back in 2003 Harkin went over Waterfield's head and complained to then-USDA Secretary Ann Veneman with concerns that anti-competitive investigations were not being completed by USDA's GIPSA.



Bill Hawks, a USDA Under Secretary at the time, responded to Harkin's concerns in two 2003 letters, telling him that USDA had "added economic and legal expertise to improve its ability to investigate prohibited anti-competitive behavior in the livestock, meatpacking and poultry industries."



Hawks also assured Harkin that GIPSA was investigating more than a thousand cases.



But USDA's Inspector General said many of those investigations were bogus because GIPSA officials, under order of Waterfield, began calling routine activities such as correspondence or onsite reviews "investigations."



GIPSA Administrator James Link, who also testified Thursday at the Senate hearing, vowed that he was working quickly to initiate reforms at the agency, but Chambliss demanded assurances.



Chambliss told Link to give the Senate committee results from a complete GIPSA agency-wide review in 30 days, and in 90 days provide proof that improvements were being made.
 
If the USDA can put someone so obviously corrupt or incompetent in such a position as Secretary of GIPSA and then not hold them accountable, what good is the USDA? Without accountability, they are just running a sham organization that allows agribusiness to cheat farmers/ranchers.

The responsibility of carrying out the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards act rests squarely on the Secretary of Agriculture. It is that office that delegated the authority to GIPSA. The Secretary of Agriculture reports directly to the President of the United States, as it is a cabinet position. There are numerous overlapping positions at the USDA that are implicated in a fraud this big. To claim that only one person is involved in this fraud is an attempt to create a scapegoat that takes all the blame and does not fix the problem. There has to be a complete overhaul in the USDA with Bill Hawk's old position included in that overhaul.

It seems the fox has been in the henhouse for quite some time and no one with responsibility for guarding that henhouse was doing their job. I think at the very least a refund of the "security" guard pay and benefits should be asked for. It will still not outweigh the economic loss of farmers and ranchers who have suffered economic loss because of this incompetence.
 
Gross mismanagement, not criminal conduct, by JoAnn Waterfield is to blame for several years of obstruction, department Inspector General Phyllis Fong told the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday.


I'm still waiting to see which high paying job or political appointment is offered JoAnn...Some connection out their in the Corporate World will take care of her well... :(
 
Gross mismanagement, not criminal conduct, by JoAnn Waterfield is to blame for several years of obstruction, department Inspector General Phyllis Fong told the Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday.

"I'm not sure what further action could be taken," said Fong, who released an audit on the problems in January. "What we found I guess we would best characterize as tremendous mismanagement."

I guess lying to Congress is not an offense these days. We either have a lot of lying to Congress going on with JoAnn et al or we have Congressmen with oversight responsibilities who are incompetent or a combination of both. Either way, John Tyson et al are smiling, and Agman along with them.

I think we shoud demand that the political contributions filtered into the politicos be returned to the farmers/ranchers where it really came from.

Abramhoff money was returned. Why not?
 
I stole this from SarpySams website...I, like he did, thought this was fitting for this situation....

"If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means...would bring terrible retribution."
Louis Dembitz Brandeis
 
Phyllis DID say there was no indication of criminal conduct but she also said that she wasn't looking for criminal conduct because that wasn't the scope of her investigation.

Where's the CRIMINAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ??????????? Had to be some BIG Payoffs to the underworld!
 
PORKER said:
Phyllis DID say there was no indication of criminal conduct but she also said that she wasn't looking for criminal conduct because that wasn't the scope of her investigation.

Where's the CRIMINAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ??????????? Had to be some BIG Payoffs to the underworld!

MRJ et al are blocking them so as to not tarnish the reputation of the NCBA and its former leaders. Boy am I glad I was not catholic when the priest abuse scandals hit.
 
Econ101 said:
PORKER said:
Phyllis DID say there was no indication of criminal conduct but she also said that she wasn't looking for criminal conduct because that wasn't the scope of her investigation.

Where's the CRIMINAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ??????????? Had to be some BIG Payoffs to the underworld!

MRJ et al are blocking them so as to not tarnish the reputation of the NCBA and its former leaders. Boy am I glad I was not catholic when the priest abuse scandals hit.

Econ, you sure do seem fixated on sex crimes. What is YOUR problem?

Maybe you should take care of yourself rather than making unfounded accusations with NO scrap of evidence to support your claims, as usual.

Where do you get any right to claim I'm blocking anything? I have no power to do that as I'm sure you well know, since you claim to know what I think about things. I'm truly surprised you give me enough credit to be able to block anything, since you also tell me (and the rest of the world) that I'm stupid. Guess you learned all about those phone taps and are using them on my phone and computer???? You are disgusting.

MRJ
 
MRJ said:
Econ101 said:
PORKER said:
Phyllis DID say there was no indication of criminal conduct but she also said that she wasn't looking for criminal conduct because that wasn't the scope of her investigation.

Where's the CRIMINAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATION ??????????? Had to be some BIG Payoffs to the underworld!

MRJ et al are blocking them so as to not tarnish the reputation of the NCBA and its former leaders. Boy am I glad I was not catholic when the priest abuse scandals hit.

Econ, you sure do seem fixated on sex crimes. What is YOUR problem?

Maybe you should take care of yourself rather than making unfounded accusations with NO scrap of evidence to support your claims, as usual.

Where do you get any right to claim I'm blocking anything? I have no power to do that as I'm sure you well know, since you claim to know what I think about things. I'm truly surprised you give me enough credit to be able to block anything, since you also tell me (and the rest of the world) that I'm stupid. Guess you learned all about those phone taps and are using them on my phone and computer???? You are disgusting.

MRJ

MRJ, in all the cases I cite as examples or analogies, there were people along the way that should have stopped the crimes from happening. When we think that the organizations we belong to, the churches, or even family, are infallable, we (I say this collectively because it is not directed at you personally) have a tendency to not look for the problem and try to correct it, but rely on the reputation and dismiss what is happening. It is just much easier to do than to face the reality. I think that is where you are. These crimes have more to do with those attributes than any sexual part of the examples.

I don't think the people around Auswitch that were forced to go and see what they were doing in the concentration camps could have been deluded enough to believe what happened there. I find as someone who will not speak out against the shortcomings of GIPSA that have been documented in favor for your little alliegences to your favorite organizations to be just as unbelievable.

When you dismiss what other people are claiming, you are effectively blocking them from getting justice. I applaud your hesitation to judgement but abhor your lack of making sure the crimes have not actually been committed. You have done that time and time again on this board with no "proof". It is time for you to wake up. The OIG report was proof that investigations were not being done. Do you just want lightning to come down and strike or something? You happen to live in a little reality that you don't want disturbed.

There, are you happy that was not a "sexual" analogy? In all of the analogies I have used, I do not say the injustices are on the same level of "badness". They are just examples. Hopefully enough some of these examples will sink in but you have proven time and time again that you have a real hard time processing anything but packer propaganda on your own.

As far as your phone being tapped, you will have to go ask the Bush administration. I doubt you will get an answer, however.
 
When you dismiss what other people are claiming, you are effectively blocking them from getting justice. I applaud your hesitation to judgement but abhor your lack of making sure the crimes have not actually been committed.

WERE WAITING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for TEN YEARS +
 

Latest posts

Back
Top