NCBA Paying OFF CBB

[Tommy]

mj...Tommy, there is a difference between errors in assigning expenses and fraudulent uses of checkoff funds!

mj I was replying to Scott when he asked.... give me an example of where the beef checkoff has not been used as it was intended.

I the auditors report stated...These charges are to maintain the existence of NCBA.
The NCBA was using the checkoff dollars to keep from using their own money. You will believe the NCBA does no wrong mj. But when a 1% audit of just over two years turns up $217,000 dollars of misuse of checkoff dollars I would believe there is a lot wrong with the system and a full and complete audit going back ten years or so is called for.

Another example...

• A senior staff member expensed travel costs totaling $3,592 related to his spouse's travel to New Zealand for the Five Nations Beef Conference and his spouse and child's travel to San Antonio, Texas to the overhead cost pool. As these expenses relate to the spouse and child, the expenses
should be recorded to the Policy Division. Checkoff funds cannot be used
for spouse's travel per the Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) guidelines.
(February 24, 2010)

 

[Anonymous]

The NCBA was using the checkoff dollars to keep from using their own money. You will believe the NCBA does no wrong mj. But when a 1% audit of just over two years turns up $217,000 dollars of misuse of checkoff dollars I would believe there is a lot wrong with the system and a full and complete audit going back ten years or so is called for.

Yep-- and when even the very conservative Farm Bureau agrees with the call to change the power structure of the CBB (now NCBA controlled) and remove much of NCBA's cookie jar access to Beef Checkoff monies-- you know there must be a big stinky bear sh*tting in the woods somewhere....

And most cattle producer Checkoff taxpayers are asking for is an indepth audit of NCBA's use of their money over the past 10 years....

Maxine- if they haven't misused those dollars as you continue to believe/proclaim- then you and every NCBA member should be screaming for the same....

 

[Anonymous]

Here is a form letter that has been being sent to USDA Secretary Vilsack- and the Congressional delegations by hundreds/thousands of Beef Checkoff payers...

And I would hope that everyone paying into the Checkoff- no matter their political affiliation- or the cattle organization affiliation- would be sending in too --- and requesting a complete audit of where our beef tax dollar goes- and just exactly what for- and who it is paying....

My name is ________________ and I am a cattle producer required to pay into the beef checkoff program. I am angry (and/or outraged) that USDA has decided to sweep NCBA's misuse of $217,000 of my beef checkoff dollars under the rug. The NCBA has been caught cheating and USDA must take immediate action to suspend NCBA's contract with the beef checkoff program and conduct a full investigation into how my beef checkoff dollars have been spent during the past 10 years...

 

[Tommy]

Cattle group (NCBA) again in unflattering light



A column by Alan Guebert

It wouldn't be a new year without the big players in the $80 million-a-year beef checkoff – Cattlemen's Beef Board, Federation of Qualified State Beef Councils and National Cattlemen's Beef Association – squaring off over checkoff money, programs and control.

Members of this trinity gather Feb. 2 in Denver for the annual Cows and Cowboys Convention. (Its official name is longer and less descriptive.)

The backdrop will be two documents that, again, place the checkoff's biggest contractor, NCBA, in an unflattering light.

The first is a detailed resolution of last summer's "compliance review" of CBB checkoff contracts with NCBA that revealed enormous amounts of questionable spending.

In a Jan. 7 letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Tom Ramey, the CBB's boss, reported $216,944 of checkoff spending – including $140,390 by NCBA and $67,645 by the federation, which also hires the NCBA for checkoff work – will be "reimbursed" to the CBB.

The simplest explanation for this repayment is because the review uncovered systemic problems in NCBA's handling of checkoff money. For example, the 23-page resolution document reveals that:

♦NCBA charged the checkoff $7,666 for legal work on NCBA trademarks and other items "to maintain (NCBA's) existence"

♦NCBA billed the checkoff $15,922 in credit card charges that lacked "sufficient information"

♦The Federation and NCBA charged the checkoff $59,598 and $28,082, respectively, for a "senior staff member's time and expenses not approved" by the checkoff and

♦NCBA spent $6,919 in checkoff money to cover fees to a charity golf event sponsored by – believe it or not – NCBA.

The second controversial document is a four-page draft of the Federation's "Charter of Principles." (The Federation is the overarching structure of state cattle groups which, by law, control 50 percent of all checkoff funds. Most spend much of the money with NCBA, also the CBB's chief contractor.)

While the draft begins with the heady declaration that the Charter will serve as a "framework for appropriate independence in Federation decision-making," it then guts that very idea by bringing its hired camel into the tent.

In an item listed as "6. Senior Executive," the draft explains that "NCBA's chief executive officer shall appoint a senior management executive who shall report to the NCBA chief executive officer and serve as the point person for Federation activities."

So who's running the Federation – its state members or NCBA? Need it be pointed out – again – that 32 out of 33 U.S. cattle producers voluntarily choose not to be NCBA members?

Why then is NCBA essentially controlling 50 percent of all checkoff cash through its "management" ties to the Federation?

NCBA critics like the Billings, Mont.-based R-CALF say these latest revelations point to the need to reform the 25-year-old checkoff. Why, it asks, does the NCBA enjoy a virtual lock on $50 million or so of checkoff contracts per year when questions over its management of checkoff programs surface anytime anyone looks?


Sounds to me like the fox is guarding the hen house....

 

[mrj]

Gueberts hatred of NCBA, various ag checkoff groups and other successful farm organizations is legendary.

Why would anyone be surprised at yet another smear?

What "revelations"? NCBA is NOT a secret organization! Unlike R-CALF, board members are elected BY THE MEMBERS for specified periods of time. Members may see the minutes of meetings.

The Federation board members 'run' the Federation Division, not a "senior management exec.", and it might just be enlightening to check into the duties of said executive. It seems quite safe to assume following directions from his Federation Div. board members would be a priority, judging by the way things happen for other NCBA entities.

Re. the tired old claims of "32 out of 33 US cattle producers...." no one forces any cattle producer to join any organization. NCBA remains the cattle producer controlled organization with the most members from across the USA. Further, under USDA criteria, anyone with over $1,000.00 in sales yearly qualifies as a 'farmer'.....and the smallest, those who cannot support their farming 'business', let alone a family, are the people USDA is most focused on "helping" under the Obama administration. Those folks, wonderful as they may be individually, have different needs than do professional ranchers whose major effort is working to raise cattle profitably.

OT, it is no secret that Farm Bureau (I am a member and generally approve their actions except for the 'flaw') wanted to control the Beef Checkoff from the beginning. However, the flaw with them is that their beef producer segment is not the only commodity group in that organization. They serve most commodity groups and grain growers seem to me to dominate. IF any organization were to "control" the beef checkoff, I would far prefer it be CATTLE/BEEF PRODUCERS, not a group supplying the feed we buy, and there is no doubt that NCBA is the largest organization of professional cattle producers.

I am not willing to overlook any REAL misuse of checkoff funds, and until such abuse is PROVEN, will continue to point out that this report SHOWS that the existing system of checks and balances (insisted upon by NCBA members to protect the checkoff from misuse) truly does work.

There may need to be changes to make the system easier for staff to navigate to properly get expenses properly directed, but this whole exercise has cost more in time, good will, and probably even checkoff dollars, than the amount NCBA has paid back.

What you anti-NCBA activists demand is not a true audit, but a witch hunt with the foregone conclusion of guilt as the starting point. THAT is dishonest, un-like what NCBA has done!

mrj

 

[Tommy]

mj...I am not willing to overlook any REAL misuse of checkoff funds, and until such abuse is PROVEN, will continue to point out that this report SHOWS that the existing system of checks and balances (insisted upon by NCBA members to protect the checkoff from misuse) truly does work.

What kind of abuse or misuse of checkoff dollars will make you want a change in the way things are done mj? If a 1% audit of just over 2 years turns up $217,000 of misuse and abuse does not change your mind then nothing will. What if they had done a 100% audit of the same time period? How many checkoff dollars would have been found to have been misused or abused?

 

[Beefman]

Sounds to me like the fox is guarding the hen house....

It would be time well spent to step inside the hen house, and conduct your own investigation.

I'm a member of the ND Stockman's Assn. Just got the new issue of the ND Stockman's magazine this week. Inside was a copy of the 2010 North Dakota Beef Commission Annual Report for fiscal year 7/1/09 thru 6/30/10. The ND report is nothing fancy, just a 4 page detailed insert listing the accomplishments of the ND Beef Commission. The report lists a balance coming into the year of $440K, net in-state revenue of $607K, expenditures of $744K, and a balance on 6/30/10 of $303K. So what did the state of ND get for this? A nutritional conference. Classroom education, partnerships in retail, advertising, foreign marketing, foodservice marketing, issues management, influencing those in the medical and nutritional community, public relations, communications with producers. Research and innovation. Retail marketing. Considerable leg work comes from grass roots volunteers – the report lists 18 officers (volunteers) from the beef industry, and 3 staff. I'd guess the staff is paid. There's probably many more than 18 that volunteer their time and efforts for beef promotion in ND. Looks like a heckuva bargain to me. Most any other industry, dollar figures like this would only cover a fraction of the salaries.

Yes, mistakes have, and will continue to be made. That's not front page news, and no reason for you to hitch your wagon with those that like to pop champagne corks anytime they feel NCBA has stubbed their toe. Why throw your friends and neighbors under the bus? It's a huge job keeping everyone headed in the same direction. Grass roots producers get involved because they are passionate about the cause – the ND mission statement is pretty straight forward……"to increase demand and profitability for the beef industry". As MRJ pointed out, NCBA is involved on a cost recovery basis only. Dismantling the system will not put money in anyone's pocket.

Go check out that hen house for yourself. You might benefit from the trip. Might be an Old Goat around here that would benefit too.

 

[Tommy]

Beefman...Yes, mistakes have, and will continue to be made.


So in your words the end justifies the means i guesss??

 

[Beefman]

Beefman...Yes, mistakes have, and will continue to be made.


So in your words the end justifies the means i guesss??

Do me a favor, and carry out your thought. What do you mean when you ask if the end justifies the means?

 

[Tommy]

Beefman...What do you mean when you ask if the end justifies the means?

What I mean by that Beefman is that you seem to think that if good comes out of it then it is ok to look over the abuse and misuse of the checkoff dollars that every producer pays.

By doing just a 1% audit of just over two years $217,000 of misuse and abuse (you say mistakes) was found. That to me is a lot of money whether it was an abuse or a mistake. I ask again what would they have found if it was a full 100% audit??

 

[mrj]

Tommy, are you refusing to accept the decision of those the volunteers serving on the CBB and the USDA staff who believe that there were MISTAKES in qualifications for checkoff spending and ERRORS in assigning codes for expenses, NOT intentional abuses and misuses of funds?

mrj

 

[Beefman]

Beefman...What do you mean when you ask if the end justifies the means?

What I mean by that Beefman is that you seem to think that if good comes out of it then it is ok to look over the abuse and misuse of the checkoff dollars that every producer pays.

By doing just a 1% audit of just over two years $217,000 of misuse and abuse (you say mistakes) was found. That to me is a lot of money whether it was an abuse or a mistake. I ask again what would they have found if it was a full 100% audit??

This is over.
According to this story, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/USDA-AMS-Sticking-With-Beef-Checkoff-Agreement/2011-01-21/Article_Latest_News.aspx?oid=1301476&fid=CN-LATEST_NEWS_, USDA AMS doesn't think there's abuse.

Since the key word here is audits, let's complete an audit on your latest post.

: you seem to think that if good comes out of it then it is ok to look over the abuse and misuse of the checkoff dollars that every producer pays.

Where did I say that? It has been acknowledged mistakes have been made. Doesn't mean the mistakes are acceptable. The $217K mistake sure wasn't.

By doing just a 1% audit of just over two years $217,000 of misuse and abuse (you say mistakes) was found.

I'll accept ANY proof source you can come up with which states "a 1% audit of just over two years = $217K of misuse and abuse was found". Please bring it. Good luck.

: That to me is a lot of money whether it was an abuse or a mistake.

I totally agree. Very good point.

: I ask again what would they have found if it was a full 100% audit??

Who knows? Speculating on audits is a futile exercise.

 

[Mike]

Tommy, are you refusing to accept the decision of those the volunteers serving on the CBB and the USDA staff who believe that there were MISTAKES in qualifications for checkoff spending and ERRORS in assigning codes for expenses, NOT intentional abuses and misuses of funds?

mrj

Maybe that's the problem. Volunteers can't be held accountable.

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

[/quote]


And this was only on the 5% of the NCBA/CBB $ transactions looked at by the auditors in the compliance review....

...[/quote]

So was it 1% or 5%?

OR was it an audit of 2008,2009 and the first 5 months of 2010?

 

[Texan]

I've seen enough to make me think we need a more extensive audit. And I could hardly be called anti-NCBA or a disciple of Bill Bullard.

Surely we can all agree that it's not right for Checkoff dollars to pay for vacations and tours for NCBA officers and their wives?

And why the hell should my Checkoff dollars pay for five and six hundred dollar meals for NCBA "senior staff members" through their overhead cost pool?

Trying to blow smoke up my ash and tell me that those are simply 'bookkeeping errors' or 'mistakes' pisses me off even more.

 

[mrj]

Texan, Where did you see that about the "vacations and tours...." and "five or six hundred dollar meals" for NCBA staffers? Was that per each person, or for a group of how many???

It is pretty rare for anyone attending beef checkoff meetings to escape working and contributing expertise or knowledge to further goals of the committees.

One thing I do know about wives of NCBA leaders is that some have worked darn hard for the Beef Checkoff and been invaluable advisors to Joint committees.

Those committees are comprised of CBB members who do receive travel expenses, Federation members who may receive travel expenses, AND sometimes NCBA members .who are volunteers and receive NO compensation with checkoff money.

Anyone having evidence to back such claims should follow up with them. NO ONE wants beef checkoff money used improperly! Probably NCBA most of all.

mrj

 

[Texan]

Texan, Where did you see that about the "vacations and tours...." and "five or six hundred dollar meals" for NCBA staffers? Was that per each person, or for a group of how many???

How the heck can you keep defending NCBA on this issue when you obviously haven't even familiarized yourself with the audit? Because if you had, you would know where that came from about the tours, meals, etc.

Just to refresh your memory, we had this discussion last summer - guess you missed the end of it. So I'll just post my response to you from the last time. It includes the link to the Texas Cattle Feeders site that has details of the audit along with the NCBA response.

I'll highlight and emphasize a question at the end of it since there were never any takers. Maybe you can help me understand...

Texan, what is your justification for saying NCBA "is trying to sweep it under the rug"?

Why do you believe there cannot be bookkepping errors? Do you know that there are over 8000 different codes for expenses? Have you, or anyone for that matter, never made a legitimate bookkeeping error?

Actually, I was referring to your posts when I mentioned sweeping it under the rug and trying to explain it as bookkeeping errors. Because that seems to me to be what you're doing. You can't just admit that they were wrong to charge some of the things they charged to the checkoff?

I don't care what NCBA does with the dues money they get from members. That's their business - not mine. But I sure as hell care about what NCBA does with MY Checkoff money.

For example, it might be okay with you if three NCBA employees attend the NCBA Charity Golf Tournament and charge for that time. But, it's NOT okay with me that they charge it to the Checkoff.

It might be okay with you if NCBA pays for an NCBA officer and his wife to attend tours while in Hawaii. But, it's NOT okay with me that they charge half of that to the Checkoff.

It might be okay with you if NCBA pays $584 for a "senior staff member's" meal. But, it's not okay with me if part of that is charged to the Checkoff via the overhead cost pool.

Maybe you think it's okay that NCBA pays for the travel for family members. But, when they charge some of it to the Checkoff, and then excuse it by saying that there's no written policy telling them that it's just not right to charge it to the Checkoff, I have to wonder why the hell they need a written policy to tell them when something is unethical?

Maybe it's okay with you that it's customary for NCBA officers to pay for half of their travel with Checkoff money. Since I seriously doubt that half of their travel is related to the Checkoff, it's not okay with me. The excuse - "that's the way we've always done it" - makes me think we need to look a little deeper.

Maybe you don't mind NCBA spending $687 for a "senior staff member's" meal while in California. But, it's not okay with me if part of that is charged to the Checkoff through the overhead cost pool.

Those are just a few examples of these "mistakes." Anybody that wants to see what the auditors found that bothered them - along with the NCBA response - can just go to the following link:

http://www.tcfa.org/Newsletter/cbb_aup_response_2010-07-29.pdf

Just a warning, though - if you're an NCBA member, you just might be embarrassed by what you find. Seriously...why the hell should it take the Checkoff money from 10 freakin' loads of yearlings just to buy one meal for a "senior staff member?" Can anybody answer that?

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=477651#477651

 

[mrj]

T., like some, I want REAL abuses, where and IF they exist, ended!

I have read much of the material from the CBB website re. this audit, granted it wasn't a minute search for detail.

It is not incorrect to state that there have been errors due to the complex system of coding.

Do you know whether or not those employees had duties for the checkoff at that tournament? If there is none, it is not correct to pay for them.

Do you know the reasoning for that $584.00 meal charge? Was it incorrectly assigned, or was there a checkoff duty or event included? I do NOT agree with such a costly meal, IF THAT IS FACTUAL.

Same for family members' travel costs, and other 'exesses' you mention.

Your word simply is not enough for me to accept your claims, because I do not know you, or the veracity of your word.

You seem unwilling to accept that there can be legitimate, innocent errors in the coding and assignment of costs. I understand how and why those codes were developed. I know that staff changes, largely because many are young people beginning their careers or still in college, and by the very nature of changing staffers such errors can and do happen.

Every problem can be turned into a positive for the cattle/beef business.

There ARE people and organizations who want to end the connection between NCBA, who were the leaders in the successes of beef checkoff to date, no matter what it takes, simply because they do not want NCBA to remain a viable organization.

Both NCBA and the beef checkoff provide valuable service to the entire cattle/beef industry, for the benefit of cattle producers.

If the beef checkoff comes under control of those who have tried to use the checkoff to cripple NCBA (as in the fraudulent attempt to get a producer referendum a few years ago), and who have tried, with some successes, to use the checkoff in ways not allowed under the law, the beef checkoff will not serve cattle producers like my family dependent upon our cattle for a living, nearly as well as does NCBA.

If those leading the CBB and the committees which actually control the actions of the Beef Checkoff (BTW, that is also CBB, not NCBA) fail to follow the letter of the law, I will no longer support the checkoff.

If USDA starts micro-managing the checkoff (contrary to their mandated duty to oversee it) to assure COMPLIANCE with the law, I no longer will support the Beef Check off.

 

[Texan]

Your word simply is not enough for me to accept your claims, because I do not know you, or the veracity of your word.

Still don't wanna look at the link and see it for yourself, huh? Here it is again for you to ignore. :lol:

http://www.tcfa.org/Newsletter/cbb_aup_response_2010-07-29.pdf

 

[Texan]

Hey, mrj - I just had another thought. The next time you guys at NCBA are skimming money from the Checkoff, instead of wasting it on tours in Hawaii, eating $600 meals in California, paying staff to go to golf tournaments, sending wives on vacation, etc, etc, etc...

Why don't y'all take a few bucks and send your new president to the freakin' barbershop? :lol: