OIG: Checkoff audit finds no evidence of wrongdoing

[Big Muddy rancher]

OIG: Checkoff audit finds no evidence of wrongdoing

Greg Henderson, Editor, Associate Publisher, Drovers CattleNetwork | Updated: 04/03/2013



A recently completed audit of the beef checkoff has determined that the $52 million program is operating according to law and USDA regulations.

"The Office of Inspector General (OIG) determined that the relationship between the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (beef board) and other industry-related organizations, including the beef board's primary contractor, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), complied with legislation," the report stated.

Specifically addressing allegations that beef checkoff funds may have been misused, the authors of the report said, "We found no evidence to support that the board's activities… did not comply with legislation, and AMS guidelines and policies. Funds were collected, distributed and expended in accordance with the legislation."

Following the release of the OIG report, the Cattlemen's Beef Board issued the following statement: "We are proud to receive this validation of the effectiveness of our systems and processes to safeguard producer and importer investments into the Beef Checkoff Program. The bottom line: producers and importers can be assured by the OIG report and the Beef Board's mission of continual improvement that our checkoff dollars are being invested appropriately and effectively."

Although the report reaffirmed the checkoff is being managed properly, it also included recommendations for USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service. The OIG recommended AMS "Develop and implement standard operating procedures for management reviews, specific to the beef board, that include procedures for reviewing the overall process of collecting, distributing, and expending of assessment funds, and for reviews of the entire beef board contractor expenditure verification process."

Further, the OIG recommended that the "Beef Board require detailed estimates of project implementation costs, such as salaries, benefits, all applied overhead expenses, and other expenses, before it authorizes projects."

 

[Mike]

What was the time frame of this investigation?

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

What was the time frame of this investigation?

As near as I can tell R-calf was waiting for it last year but it is complete and just released. :?

 

[leanin' H]

Another link to an opinion about the recently completed report about the checkoff audit.

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/two-views-oig-s-checkoff-audit

 

[Faster horses]

Another link to an opinion about the recently completed report about the checkoff audit.

http://beefmagazine.com/blog/two-views-oig-s-checkoff-audit

One would hope that would settle the controversy once and for all.
But I doubt it.

I'm glad the auditors found nothing wrong. All those rumors did no one any good.

 

[mytwocents]

I can't believe there are no opposing comments to this OIG report, but then since this report took so long to get done I'm sure the outrage has died down and it was released during the time most ranchers are busy calving and too exhausted to give a rip.

But I will gladly beat this dead horse once more……So back in 2010 (while doing a routine compliance review of NCBA) the Cattlemen's Beef Board's own TREASURER (Robert Fountain Jr.) came across misuse of checkoff dollars - which prompted further investigation/an independent accounting firm's audit. (on LESS than 1% of all possible expenditures in 2008, 2009, and five months in 2010) The CBB's own treasurer who would obviously know more than anyone, believed there was misuse, but now the OIG claims there was none. Why doesn't that surprise me?

There's no arguing that checkoff dollars were used to pay for NON-checkoff related expenses - so to me that is "misuse." http://www.tcfa.org/Newsletter/cbb_aup_response_2010-07-29.pdf

Repeatedly you can read NCBA's RESPONSE:
"We acknowledge that there were mistakes made in processing this invoice. These mistakes will be corrected. We anticipate this will result in a credit to the checkoff division of approximately $ ______ ."

NCBA also explained and attempted to clear up some of the discrepancies with varied excuses. They agreed to repay the Cattlemen's Beef Board $217,000 (or was it $305,000 ?) to clear up the "spending discrepancies and accounting errors" that occurred. That's a lot of money to be in error of – (especially when it's not even a 100% audit) but since they claim it was accidental they act as if it should automatically be excusable.

No matter how many excuses some make such as: the complex system of "8000 different codes" for expenses, book-keeping errors, accounting discrepancies, etc. we cattle producers who fund the checkoff deserve better. Without us there would be no checkoff. Maybe the suits and ties at NCBA (that eat $584 dollar meals and charge it to us) need to keep that in mind. If some employees at NCBA are too incompetent to properly do their jobs then they need to be replaced. Yet, some were told by supervisors to bill non-checkoff expenditures to the check-off. To me, that would be an indication of these billing decisions coming from the top. Or are the supervisors incompetent too?

The definition of "misuse" of checkoff dollars to NCBA and the OIG and to some of us are obviously two different things. I don't care for my checkoff to pay for an NCBA sponsored charity golf tournament, tours with spouse in Hawaii, senior staff members' meals for $584 and $687, employees attending Country-of-origin labeling meetings paid for by our checkoff, staff bringing their spouses on trips with them, etc. Also, when checkoff dollars are used towards NCBA policy/lobbying it IS misuse. No matter if it was billed incorrectly or not is not an excuse! If I robbed a bank and got caught and told the police officer that I didn't know it was against the law to rob a bank do you think he would just let me go because of my excuse of lack of knowledge? No - and I would still be a thief – whether prosecuted or set free. NCBA is still a thief. They just got away with it – by using their excuse; which can be summed up as: basically being too incompetent to manage our check off accurately.

I don't need a report from the OIG telling me that "wrong is right." I can distinguish right from wrong on my own. And yet there are still those :dunce: out there that want to increase our checkoff - to give NCBA more of our money to mismanage!

 

[Big Muddy rancher]

I'm sure the OIG was thinking"Boy, now is a good time to release this report. Nobody will notice because they are to busy calving out west" :roll:

Would you have believed the report if JG Wentworth had wrote it himself. :lol: :lol:

 

[mytwocents]

I meant folks being too busy calving to post opposition about it in this blog.

Since you and I don't share the same views, yet both pay into the checkoff it's all the more reason to have a checkoff that is directable and refundable. You can direct yours to pay for charity golf tournaments and tours in Hawaii or whatever, if you have no objections to those types of expenditures. I would direct mine toward more worthy pursuits. That way we would both have a voice in how our checkoff dollars are spent. A periodic vote on the checkoff wouldn't hurt either (by ALL ranchers - not just the ones that are NCBA members) That way there would be more accountability in the system.

 

[gcreekrch]

Don't get me wrong, I have difficulty in the manner some of our Canadian checkoff dollars are spent, but.....

Would R-Quack use their dollars to hire thugs to physically force US beef down consumers throats?

 

[leanin' H]

Take any ten ranchers and put them in a room. See if you can get total agreement on any subject! It rarely, if ever will happen. By nature ranchers are independent, hard heads who enjoy going thier own way. You want to allow everyone an equal voice as to how and where to spend the checkoff dollars? That would not be fisable at all. Divided, we will be easy pickings for the anti-meat crowd. I have a voice on how the money is spent. Isnt that enough, even if there may be things i'd spend the money on that are different that how you'd spend it? The system isnt perfect. But this audit says there is not wrong doing or the crooked practices that a small group claimed there was! If you dislike the checkoff program, get involved more and do something about it. :wink:

 

[Soapweed]

The money per head spent on the Beef Check-Off is a piddly drop in the bucket. It is bound to do some good, and if it does any good at all, it is well worth what we spend on it. I fully appreciate the hard efforts of the ranchers who volunteer their time and resources to make the Check-Off funds give us about a five dollar return for every dollar we spend on the program. Hats off to them. :cboy: :tiphat:

 

[Faster horses]

The money per head spent on the Beef Check-Off is a piddly drop in the bucket. It is bound to do some good, and if it does any good at all, it is well worth what we spend on it. I fully appreciate the hard efforts of the ranchers who volunteer their time and resources to make the Check-Off funds give us about a five dollar return for every dollar we spend on the program. Hats off to them. :cboy: :tiphat:

:agree:

 

[mytwocents]

Don't get me wrong, I have difficulty in the manner some of our Canadian checkoff dollars are spent, but.....

Would R-Quack use their dollars to hire thugs to physically force US beef down consumers throats?

R-Calf doesn't get checkoff dollars to use towards anything. Maybe you mean if they WERE able to contract checkoff funded projects....(but seriously....we both know they wouldn't do something like that. Ha! Funny picturing that though!) I believe that the beef checkoff contracting authority should be expanded to include other groups, besides the checkoff's main contractor: NCBA. More competition doesn't hurt at all and would be beneficial to ranchers. Since NCBA claims they do such a wonderful job they should have nothing to fear by more competition for checkoff funded projects, right? I'd love to see the United States Cattlemens' Association getting contracts. I would trust them to get more bang for my bucks and represent my best interests more-so than NCBA does.

 

[mytwocents]

Take any ten ranchers and put them in a room. See if you can get total agreement on any subject! It rarely, if ever will happen. By nature ranchers are independent, hard heads who enjoy going thier own way.

You want to allow everyone an equal voice as to how and where to spend the checkoff dollars? That would not be fisable at all.

Divided, we will be easy pickings for the anti-meat crowd. I have a voice on how the money is spent. Isnt that enough, even if there may be things i'd spend the money on that are different that how you'd spend it? The system isnt perfect. But this audit says there is not wrong doing or the crooked practices that a small group claimed there was! If you dislike the checkoff program, get involved more and do something about it. :wink:

That is so true. We also have some whose naiveté keeps them living in a fantasy land where they don't believe corruption ever exists and everything is sunshine and rainbows - with blind loyalty to an organization that is NOT our grandpa's NCA anymore.

Absolutely! I don't see why it wouldn't be feasible.

I don't think all that felt there was wrong-doing are a small group at all. I would bet the small group are those that claim there was no wrong-doing.

I agree - one should get involved and do something to improve things - such as joining USCA! :wink:

 

[mytwocents]

The money per head spent on the Beef Check-Off is a piddly drop in the bucket. It is bound to do some good, and if it does any good at all, it is well worth what we spend on it. I fully appreciate the hard efforts of the ranchers who volunteer their time and resources to make the Check-Off funds give us about a five dollar return for every dollar we spend on the program. Hats off to them. :cboy: :tiphat:

I read some where that without periodic votes on the checkoff it is like having an employee you can never fire, regardless of how poorly he performs. I think one would love to work for you since money is obviously not an issue and as long as one is bound to do SOME good or ANY good at all, heck they'd never get fired! With such little expectations and a lax attitude you'd be a great boss to have! One could screw off 90% of the time, but as long as they did some good, or any good at all the other 10% of the time, they'd still have job security. :wink:

I agree. I also appreciate the efforts of ranchers volunteering their time and resources towards working at doing good things with the checkoff. I have no beef with them. I just want a separation between NCBA and the Federation of State Beef Councils and also to expand beef checkoff contracting authority so that other organizations would be eligible to submit authorization requests and contract with the Beef Promotion Operating Committee to conduct checkoff-funded programs and projects. Is that too much to ask? If so, why and what is wrong with that?

 

[Soapweed]

The money per head spent on the Beef Check-Off is a piddly drop in the bucket. It is bound to do some good, and if it does any good at all, it is well worth what we spend on it. I fully appreciate the hard efforts of the ranchers who volunteer their time and resources to make the Check-Off funds give us about a five dollar return for every dollar we spend on the program. Hats off to them. :cboy: :tiphat:

I read some where that without periodic votes on the checkoff it is like having an employee you can never fire, regardless of how poorly he performs. I think one would love to work for you since money is obviously not an issue and as long as one is bound to do SOME good or ANY good at all, heck they'd never get fired! With such little expectations and a lax attitude you'd be a great boss to have! One could screw off 90% of the time, but as long as they did some good, or any good at all the other 10% of the time, they'd still have job security. :wink:

I agree. I also appreciate the efforts of ranchers volunteering their time and resources towards working at doing good things with the checkoff. I have no beef with them. I just want a separation between NCBA and the Federation of State Beef Councils and also to expand beef checkoff contracting authority so that other organizations would be eligible to submit authorization requests and contract with the Beef Promotion Operating Committee to conduct checkoff-funded programs and projects. Is that too much to ask? If so, why and what is wrong with that?

As an employer, I am much more interested in results than in how "busy" an employee looks. Through the years, people that have worked for me excel in different areas. If they like to fence, I let them fence. If they are "cowboys" I try to give them riding jobs. If they are mechanical or welders, they can accompolish jobs along that line. It has been my experience that best results can be obtained by telling the basic goal and give the person the liberty to do it to the best of their ability without checking over their shoulder. Sometimes this works very well, and sometimes it doesn't. Then basic adjustments need to be made.

I have also discovered that sometimes it is in the best interest of both the ranch and myself to contract out jobs. This includes putting in new windmills, tanks, some of our haying, carpentry, and even repairing fence. Let someone who is a professional do certain jobs that they are very good at. With contract labor, much red tape and governmental snoopervision is done away with, and I don't have to pay Obamacare insurance. Then if it rains or snows, it's not my problem. I don't have to come up with "busy work" to justify the wages being paid to an employee.

My feelings about the Beef Check-Off are very similar. As long as they are doing a good job, and my return on investment is over five dollars for every dollar spent, it is a very worthwhile expenditure from my standpoint. Being a longtime observer of humanity in action, it is also realized that some people will complain about anything. They will cut off their nose to spite their face, and they would gripe if they were hung with a new rope.

 

[Mike]

If return on investment is $5 for every $1 spent, they should raise the checkoff to $100 per head.

 

[mytwocents]

The money per head spent on the Beef Check-Off is a piddly drop in the bucket. It is bound to do some good, and if it does any good at all, it is well worth what we spend on it. I fully appreciate the hard efforts of the ranchers who volunteer their time and resources to make the Check-Off funds give us about a five dollar return for every dollar we spend on the program. Hats off to them. :cboy: :tiphat:

I read some where that without periodic votes on the checkoff it is like having an employee you can never fire, regardless of how poorly he performs. I think one would love to work for you since money is obviously not an issue and as long as one is bound to do SOME good or ANY good at all, heck they'd never get fired! With such little expectations and a lax attitude you'd be a great boss to have! One could screw off 90% of the time, but as long as they did some good, or any good at all the other 10% of the time, they'd still have job security. :wink:

I agree. I also appreciate the efforts of ranchers volunteering their time and resources towards working at doing good things with the checkoff. I have no beef with them. I just want a separation between NCBA and the Federation of State Beef Councils and also to expand beef checkoff contracting authority so that other organizations would be eligible to submit authorization requests and contract with the Beef Promotion Operating Committee to conduct checkoff-funded programs and projects. Is that too much to ask? If so, why and what is wrong with that?

As an employer, I am much more interested in results than in how "busy" an employee looks. Through the years, people that have worked for me excel in different areas. If they like to fence, I let them fence. If they are "cowboys" I try to give them riding jobs. If they are mechanical or welders, they can accompolish jobs along that line. It has been my experience that best results can be obtained by telling the basic goal and give the person the liberty to do it to the best of their ability without checking over their shoulder. Sometimes this works very well, and sometimes it doesn't. Then basic adjustments need to be made.

I have also discovered that sometimes it is in the best interest of both the ranch and myself to contract out jobs. This includes putting in new windmills, tanks, some of our haying, carpentry, and even repairing fence. Let someone who is a professional do certain jobs that they are very good at. With contract labor, much red tape and governmental snoopervision is done away with, and I don't have to pay Obamacare insurance. Then if it rains or snows, it's not my problem. I don't have to come up with "busy work" to justify the wages being paid to an employee.

My feelings about the Beef Check-Off are very similar. As long as they are doing a good job, and my return on investment is over five dollars for every dollar spent, it is a very worthwhile expenditure from my standpoint. Being a longtime observer of humanity in action, it is also realized that some people will complain about anything. They will cut off their nose to spite their face, and they would gripe if they were hung with a new rope.

I agree, at times it's best to turn one loose and let them go to work without checking over their shoulder when they are competent and trustworthy. Then there are also times when one needs to check over their shoulder and supervise more closely; especially if mistakes have repeatedly been made and/or trust has been broken…. And at times there also comes a point when one must fire…. and re-hire someone else more suitable to get the job done properly.

I've never been accused of being much of a complainer, but I guess when the subject of NCBA comes up it's just so easy to do. I would never cut my nose to spite my face and I guess if I were hung with a new rope I wouldn't be able to gripe at all…. cause I'd be dead…. Duh! :wink:

 

[mytwocents]

If return on investment is $5 for every $1 spent, they should raise the checkoff to $100 per head.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
I'd like to see actual proof of that return on investment that they keep telling us we're getting. Where can the proof be found... soapweed? In a survey done by NCBA? In an "independent" audit paid for by NCBA? :roll:

 

[Faster horses]

Excuse me guys, but did you read the name of this thead?