I'm not sure which thread it was on that OT posted claims that NCBA was "raking in" millions of checkoff dollars, but HE WAS ABSOLUTELY WRONG!
Monte Reese stated "NO Beef Checkoff dollars whatsoever go to the Policy/Dues division of NCBA. NCBA does NOT receive a percentage of ANY contract with ANY ad agency or ANY other Checkoff contractor."
Reese further stated: "The implementation authorization requests approved for NCBA by the Operating Committe of the CBB, and USDA oversight, cover ACTUAL COSTS ONLY. They include certain indirect costs such as staff time and overhead incurred by staff managing checkoff projects. NCBA is required to keep detailed records to DOCUMENT such costs. CBB hires independent auditors to conduct an annual contract compliance audit to assure that ONLY actual checkoff project costs are reimbursed with Checkoff dollars. Those same rules apply to all organizations, currently six of them other than NCBA, conducting checkoff projects at the national level."
BTW, the only "LA PR firm" (disparagingly mentioned by OT) ever used for Checkoff originated the "Beef, It's What's For Dinner" campaign. Who wants to argue over the success of that one????
Many anti-NCBA groups are eligible to do contract work, but few ever apply. Could it be because of the "no profit" nature of the contracts? Or maybe because of the intense scrutiny of the financial records of the organizations receiving the contracts by independent auditors and "outsiders ???
Sure, NCBA probably has more employees than would be needed if it were not for the fact that the Federation division manages some checkoff programs, just as would be the fact for the various organizations other than NCBA contracting with the CBB to do contractual work. There are employees who work for the Federation division, and others who work for the Policy/Dues division, and some who work for both. Those employees account for their time in 15 minute increments according to what they are working on, and there is NO overlap allowed.
The cattle producers who volunteer their time serving on the Beef Promotion Operating Committee of the CBB review EVERY proposal presented to them approve or deny proposals based on the merits for building beef demand as well as on budget constraints. It is very likely any reasonably competent person observing a working meeting of the Operating Committee soon understands that it is NOT a rubber stamp process by any stretch of the imagination. There are 6 to 8 different organizations other than NCBA bringing proposals to the Operating Committee that are approved. Those members of the many organizations represented on the Operating Committee (BTW, NCBA members do NOT dominate the committee) deserve sincere thanks for their work rather than accusations of mis-use of the money or failures to choose the best projects, certainly when no supporting facts are presented.
Also, NCBA nor any other contractor gets ANY money up front. Costs are reimbursed ONLY after completion of the contracted work and verification that all is according to contract stipulations before receiving reimbursement for approved costs.
OT, do you understand that the Federation division of NCBA actually is the national organization of the State Beef Councils, and is NOT the Policy/Dues/Membership division of NCBA........and that the two are effectively separate organizations with strict firewalls and accounting systems to assure that separation between Policy and Program (Checkoff/CBB) systems? The offices and staffs of the two sides of NCBA, and the CBB are combined for economy, coordination of efforts, and ability to address cattle and beef industry questions such as about beef safety, nutrient info, and BSE (naming only a few) with a unified voice. Your claims that NCBA profits from the checkoff sound as though you either do not know the facts of that separation, or choose not to believe them. Which is it?
I believe OT owes the members of the Operating Committee and NCBA an apology for giving out such gross mis-information about them.
MRJ
Monte Reese stated "NO Beef Checkoff dollars whatsoever go to the Policy/Dues division of NCBA. NCBA does NOT receive a percentage of ANY contract with ANY ad agency or ANY other Checkoff contractor."
Reese further stated: "The implementation authorization requests approved for NCBA by the Operating Committe of the CBB, and USDA oversight, cover ACTUAL COSTS ONLY. They include certain indirect costs such as staff time and overhead incurred by staff managing checkoff projects. NCBA is required to keep detailed records to DOCUMENT such costs. CBB hires independent auditors to conduct an annual contract compliance audit to assure that ONLY actual checkoff project costs are reimbursed with Checkoff dollars. Those same rules apply to all organizations, currently six of them other than NCBA, conducting checkoff projects at the national level."
BTW, the only "LA PR firm" (disparagingly mentioned by OT) ever used for Checkoff originated the "Beef, It's What's For Dinner" campaign. Who wants to argue over the success of that one????
Many anti-NCBA groups are eligible to do contract work, but few ever apply. Could it be because of the "no profit" nature of the contracts? Or maybe because of the intense scrutiny of the financial records of the organizations receiving the contracts by independent auditors and "outsiders ???
Sure, NCBA probably has more employees than would be needed if it were not for the fact that the Federation division manages some checkoff programs, just as would be the fact for the various organizations other than NCBA contracting with the CBB to do contractual work. There are employees who work for the Federation division, and others who work for the Policy/Dues division, and some who work for both. Those employees account for their time in 15 minute increments according to what they are working on, and there is NO overlap allowed.
The cattle producers who volunteer their time serving on the Beef Promotion Operating Committee of the CBB review EVERY proposal presented to them approve or deny proposals based on the merits for building beef demand as well as on budget constraints. It is very likely any reasonably competent person observing a working meeting of the Operating Committee soon understands that it is NOT a rubber stamp process by any stretch of the imagination. There are 6 to 8 different organizations other than NCBA bringing proposals to the Operating Committee that are approved. Those members of the many organizations represented on the Operating Committee (BTW, NCBA members do NOT dominate the committee) deserve sincere thanks for their work rather than accusations of mis-use of the money or failures to choose the best projects, certainly when no supporting facts are presented.
Also, NCBA nor any other contractor gets ANY money up front. Costs are reimbursed ONLY after completion of the contracted work and verification that all is according to contract stipulations before receiving reimbursement for approved costs.
OT, do you understand that the Federation division of NCBA actually is the national organization of the State Beef Councils, and is NOT the Policy/Dues/Membership division of NCBA........and that the two are effectively separate organizations with strict firewalls and accounting systems to assure that separation between Policy and Program (Checkoff/CBB) systems? The offices and staffs of the two sides of NCBA, and the CBB are combined for economy, coordination of efforts, and ability to address cattle and beef industry questions such as about beef safety, nutrient info, and BSE (naming only a few) with a unified voice. Your claims that NCBA profits from the checkoff sound as though you either do not know the facts of that separation, or choose not to believe them. Which is it?
I believe OT owes the members of the Operating Committee and NCBA an apology for giving out such gross mis-information about them.
MRJ