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

So What Now With The NCBA-CBB Feud?

Soapweed

Well-known member
“Embarrassing” Describes CBB-NCBA Feud

Aug 6, 2010 2:58 PM, Troy Marshall



I’ve literally received hundreds of emails from producers looking for insight into the rift between the executive committee of the Cattlemen’s Beef Board (CBB) and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA). It’s about a three-hour conversation if one wants to discuss all the behind-the-scenes interactions that led up to this mess. Suffice it to say that it should never have unfolded as it has and there’s plenty of blame to go around. If I had to describe this situation in one word, I’d choose “embarrassing,” with “maddening” coming in a close second.

If you’re like me, you need a scorecard to keep track of all the players because the checkoff structure has always been cumbersome and confusing. After having it explained to me six or seven times, I’m still not sure I truly understand it, but here’s my shot.

It’s a complicated web and with all the political intrigue involved, it’s difficult to summarize. But, while driving through the pastures this week, an analogy came to me that, while not perfect, does characterize the situation well.

First, we have the overall CBB; then there’s the CBB executive committee, the CBB operating committee, qualified state beef councils and the Federation of Beef Councils. One also needs to include USDA – which actually has the majority of the power – as well.

Now, imagine a 10-year married couple contemplating divorce. One spouse wants to try to save the relationship and move forward (NCBA), while the other spouse isn’t interested in reconciling and definitely wants out (CBB executive committee).

Then there are the children who don’t want to choose sides and are committed to keeping the family together because they’re confident it’s the best thing for the family in the long run. The kids are the Federation of State Beef Councils, while the family is the overall U.S. beef industry.

The overall CBB is one set of in-laws – the set of in-laws who see the value in the relationship, and realize that while families often have difficult times, the marriage is worth saving. Meanwhile, the other set of in-laws is represented by the outside organizations that have been, and continue to be, adamantly opposed to NCBA. This set of in-laws opposed the marriage from the start and have done everything possible to destroy it; these in-laws have the ear of the spouse pushing for divorce.

If you can picture that social situation in your mind, then you have a pretty good idea of the dynamics that have created this mess. It also explains all the actions that have resulted in the past few weeks.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well- just like in real life often when one member of a marriage is a repeated abuser, steals the kids lunch money to go partying, has lost the respect of all the kids-and no one any longer trusts them-- the best answer here is a D I V O R C E...

CBB should be a stand alone entity-wedded to no one....Especially not to a special interest group that represents only 1 of every 32 checkoff taxpayers- and one that has for years been fraudulently misusing those checkoff payers tax dollars...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OT: "......and one that has for years been fraudulently misusing those checkoff payers tax dollars..."

Give me one example of legitimate misuse of checkoff dollars OT. I'll bet you can't.

You just sunk your teeth into another NCBA blaming conspiracy theory because that's what you blamers do best.


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, Troy missed a few of the 'players' behind the scenes....R-CALF and Farmers Union members of state Beef Councils and CBB and it's various committees. They PERSIST in attempts to "stop NCBA".

First was the fraudulent 'get out the vote' to seduce cattle producers to call for an election to end the beef checkoff which failed when USDA discovered cheating by getting people to sign up for prizes...then used their signatures on petitions.

Next was the court case to end the beef checkoff which the Supreme Court tossed out.

Now we have more lies and innuendo claiming yet again that bookkeeping errors are "misuse of checkoff funds" and "breach of the firewall" between NCBA Dues/Policy div. and the beef checkoff. Didn't happen!

Accounts have to be approved by the CBB before NCBA is paid for the work they do as a contractor. If an expense cannot be verified, it isn't paid and NCBA loses that money. Any project brought in under budget is adjusted so the budgeted checkoff money is used on other APPROVED projects.

Plus a bogus claim that USDA demanded the CBB set up a proposed new Federation of State Beef Councils structure under CBB auspices to remove it from NCBA offices. That, according to USDA did not come from them! And USDA oficials also said they did not dictate that the Federation be "separated from NCBA". Clearly, USDA knows that the Federation and NCBA already ARE separate organizations, simply share some office space, staff, and meeting sites, fully separated for accounting purpose as well as separation of voting on Federation business which is ONLY by Federation members (who are appointed by state Beef Councils and are representatives from ALL cattle organizations in the state, plus the Livestock Marketing Assoc. in SD).

This attack on NCBA strongly smells of SOME members of CBB determining to grow their staff and structures, begun when they moved out of the NCBA offices. Now their overhead is budgeted at the top of the 5% cap allowed for it under the law. That seems excessive in that it takes money away from programs, and has gone up from the usual 2-3%+/- overhead cost prior to moving out of offices space shared with NCBA a few years ago.

It would also be interesting to see the uncorrected audits of CBB and all it's entities and contractors besides NCBA now that we have seen the uncorrected audit of NCBA projects.

mrj
 

Texan

Well-known member
mrj said:
Now we have more lies and innuendo claiming yet again that bookkeeping errors are "misuse of checkoff funds" and "breach of the firewall" between NCBA Dues/Policy div. and the beef checkoff. Didn't happen!
Hardly a "bookkeeping error" when the NCBA CEO uses checkoff money to take his family on vacation:

In other instances, money went toward the travel expenses of the wife of the association’s chief executive, Forrest L. Roberts, who accompanied her husband to industry meetings in New Zealand and Texas. The couple also took their 3-year-old daughter on the Texas trip, and marketing funds helped cover her expenses as well.

I sure hope that NCBA isn't just going to circle the wagons and pretend that this isn't a serious issue that needs looking into and correcting. Unfortunately, that's the perception that you give, mrj.

If NCBA wants to spend their own member's money paying travel expenses for the wife and kiddo, I don't really care. But, spending checkoff money on that isn't right. And trying to sweep it under the rug and explain it as "bookkeeping errors" insults the intelligence of everyone.
 

mrj

Well-known member
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?

The truth and facts of this matter are going to be very different than the sensationalism, particularly of some in the most notorious media. And id DO mean the New York Times! That writer was at the meeting and fell far short of the facts in his 'reporting'.

I believe it is not a good thing for ANY spouse to travel on checkoff dollars, with the exception of being if they are in the same car and share the driving to a meeting.

However, IF it is common practice for CBB to pay for travel for members (and there are MANY who are NOT members of NCBA) expenses AS WELL AS to pay spouse expenses, AND if it is because the spouses are expected to, and have, contributed materially to those meetings, then why is it wrong for them to pay in the same situation simply because the staffer or volunteer is a member of NCBA?

And IF this has been done previously, why didn't anyone complain or question the practice? I certainly would have. Just as I question giving VOLUNTEER leadership roles to those who do not accept unless they get their expenses paid, even if they can afford it themselves.

I do understand and approve the idea that paying volunteers' travel costs (and it never covers the real costs!) makes it possible for those who can well serve the industry, but could not afford to do it without some help with expenses, just don't appreciate those who NEVER do anything without getting expenses paid when they could.

mrj
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
mrj said:
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?

The truth and facts of this matter are going to be very different than the sensationalism, particularly of some in the most notorious media. And id DO mean the New York Times! That writer was at the meeting and fell far short of the facts in his 'reporting'.

I believe it is not a good thing for ANY spouse to travel on checkoff dollars, with the exception of being if they are in the same car and share the driving to a meeting.

However, IF it is common practice for CBB to pay for travel for members (and there are MANY who are NOT members of NCBA) expenses AS WELL AS to pay spouse expenses, AND if it is because the spouses are expected to, and have, contributed materially to those meetings, then why is it wrong for them to pay in the same situation simply because the staffer or volunteer is a member of NCBA?

And IF this has been done previously, why didn't anyone complain or question the practice? I certainly would have. Just as I question giving VOLUNTEER leadership roles to those who do not accept unless they get their expenses paid, even if they can afford it themselves.

I do understand and approve the idea that paying volunteers' travel costs (and it never covers the real costs!) makes it possible for those who can well serve the industry, but could not afford to do it without some help with expenses, just don't appreciate those who NEVER do anything without getting expenses paid when they could.

mrj


I will ask you the same question, what is your justification for sugar coating this action ?
good luck
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
~SH~ said:
OT: "......and one that has for years been fraudulently misusing those checkoff payers tax dollars..."

Give me one example of legitimate misuse of checkoff dollars OT. I'll bet you can't.

You just sunk your teeth into another NCBA blaming conspiracy theory because that's what you blamers do best.


~SH~


legitimate misuse .....................your definition please ?
good luck
 

Tommy

Well-known member
This doesn't have anything to do with the checkoff, but I thought it was interesting that the NCBA, AMI, and NMA were a no show.


Is It Because They Have the Truth to Hide?



NCBA, AMI, NMA Decline Opportunity for Public Debate



Billings, Mont. – Monday, Aug. 9, 2010, has come and gone – to the detriment of independent U.S. cattle producers who had hoped to learn more about the state of competition in the U.S. cattle industry by attending or listening in via the Internet to a forum on that subject featuring representatives of R-CALF USA, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), the American Meat Institute (AMI) and the National Meat Association (NMA).



Last month, KSDZ radio in Gordon, Neb., invited these four groups to participate in an open, public debate in light of the new competition rule proposed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) that would establish measures to benefit cattle farmers and ranchers and make the U.S. cattle market more transparent and competitive.



GIPSA and the U.S. Department of Justice (Justice) are hosting the last of a series of competition workshops on Aug. 27 in Fort Collins , Colo. The proposed competition rule has been hotly contested by NCBA, AMI and NMA, as well as the National Pork Producers Council – all of which more represent the interests of the multinational meatpackers and not the interests of the actual producers on the ground.



When asked his view on the refusal of NCBA, AMI and NMA to participate in the debate scheduled for Aug. 9 , KSDZ Radio Owner/Manager Jim Lambley had this to say: “Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, was the only one willing to debate the hard questions to be asked by beef cattle producers. I would think the membership of the three refusing meat industry leaders would be ashamed of the organizations they pay dearly to represent them.”


Lambley said his radio station covers the largest cattle-producing county in Nebraska and the second largest cattle-producing county in the nation.



“The facts speak for themselves,” he continued. “NCBA, AMI and NMA obviously were afraid to step into the Round Pen with the TRUTH. On the other hand, R-CALF USA was more than willing. That fact alone tells all of us who really is working honestly for independent U.S. cattle producers.”


“The new GIPSA rule is the first meaningful effort in decades to require accountability on the part of packers and transparency in the marketplace – essential steps for restoring competition,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “It is a disservice to all Rural Americans when the leaders who are opposing these important new rules refuse to justify their positions in an open forum. Obviously they have something to hide and they know their position cannot withstand the critical analysis that would occur in a public debate.”
 

Tommy

Well-known member
mj...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?

If the CBB was a stand alone entity and completly seperate from the NCBA there would not be those kinds of bookkeeping errors to begin with, if they are bookkeeping errors as you say mj.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tommy said:
mj...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?

If the CBB was a stand alone entity and completly seperate from the NCBA there would not be those kinds of bookkeeping errors to begin with, if they are bookkeeping errors as you say mj.

When there are tax dollars involved- and there is even a perception of impropriety- the means for that perception should be removed.....
Marc Racicot- former Governor of Montana

And NCBA has shown more than a perception of impropriety over the years- with identical type trips and using taxpayer CBB money for NCBA promotional purposes.....

I think the USDA should call on the Justice Dept to do a complete and total 5 year forensic/criminal audit....And then after the findings are released I'm positive it will be very evident that the Beef Checkoff should stand alone and be tied to no political lobbying group....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bullard: “The facts speak for themselves,” he continued. “NCBA, AMI and NMA obviously were afraid to step into the Round Pen with the TRUTH. On the other hand, R-CALF USA was more than willing. That fact alone tells all of us who really is working honestly for independent U.S. cattle producers.”

Bullard claiming to represent truth and honesty is like listening to Saddam claim victory after the gulf war.

When your record in a court of law is 0 & 9, you are not on the side of truth and honesty.


~SH~
 

mrj

Well-known member
Well, of course you "are positive....", OT. When did you ever give NCBA anything but abuse? All your "perception of impropriety..." and even more false allegations of misdeeds has been carefully and forcefully fed to 'the faithful' by R-CALF since before their existence, so it is little surprise that those who listen only to the 'saints' at the top of that group are so certain they are correct

WHEN there is proof of misdeeds, and this preliminary audit is certainly NOT, I will consider that there needs to be accounting for any verified abuse by NCBA. Not until.

Of course, you also denigrate USDA except when you THINK they may be 'in the pocket of R-CALF on an issue, so you are unlikely to believe the fact that USDA has ALWAYS scrutinized checkoff funds and how they are spent.

Tommy, here are some FACTS re. the 'workings' of the beef checkoff: any contract for beef checkoff projects is determined by groups of cattle producers, often beginning with a CattleWomens local group on their own dollar, gaining such success that many produers became convinced that it should go state and national, so was brought to the attention of first state Beef Councils, then the CBB.

Others began at 'cow colleges', or came from cattlemens groups seeing a need and carrying it forward. Budgets are determined, and projects are proposed. They must pass the scrutiny of the CBB Operating Committee, THEN are awarded to various contractors.

NCBA is the major contractor, mainly due to the expertise they have been able to assemble and put at the disposal of the beef checkoff. If others had done the same and had the better record of successfully achieving the goals stated in projects, doubtless, the Operating Committee would award more projects to other contractors! The major reason that hasn't happened is that NO ONE may profit from those contracts.

Finally, the CBB operates under the contraints of the Act and Order (the law creating it) and must stick with a 5% cap on overhead costs. This was done to avoid some pitfalls of previous checkoffs of other ag commodities. I recall at the time the fears of some of the bad deals that befell other groups and determination that there be no 'empire building' with beef producer dollars.

Personally, I think it highly proper that the largest national cattle producer organization, focused only on cattle, lead the way. I also belong to Farm Bureau and believe they generally are on the right track. The limitations there, and prime reason for focusing our family efforts on NCBA and its predecessor groups was that the emphasis of NCBA is only on cattle producers and what is best for us. If we raised grain crops, we might have done differently.

Those who claim NCBA is controlled by packers are off in lala land. There are some cattle producers who believe that working with packers on issues mututally agreeable is beneficial to us! Those of us with that belief happen to prevail when NCBA chooses to do that. If you don't like it, there are organizations where you will be happier. That does not make either of us wrong!!!! EXCEPT when you try to force us to conform to your choices. Isn't it the 'American Way' to run our business as we choose?

Tommy, re your comment on NCBA being a "no show" at that so called "open public debate" on the competition rule proposal, have you been to some such meetings staged by R-CALf and similar groups? I have and some have been very close to mob scenes, with shouting down ideas they didn't like, thinly veiled, if that, of bodily harm to some stating things they didn't like.......you get the picture, I hope. Mr. Bullard is a charismatic person quite able to foment such emotional reactions among his supporters while remaining quite 'above it all' himself. That is NOT productive public debate, tho has become quite useful to some populist, activist and political groups. Some of us were raised to be ladies and gentlemen and conduct ourselves properly so that true public DEBATE may be productive and HONEST.

My opinion, this is simply yet another in a long line of attempts at ending the beef checkoff for the purpose of stopping NCBA.

NEWS FLASH: NCBA isn't going to disappear, whether the beef checkoff remains or is killed! It will continue to be a group of dedicated, concientious suppliers of cattle, with members focused on producing the highest quality age verified, traceable beef available in the USA.

mrj
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mrj said:
Well, of course you "are positive....", OT. When did you ever give NCBA anything but abuse? All your "perception of impropriety..." and even more false allegations of misdeeds has been carefully and forcefully fed to 'the faithful' by R-CALF since before their existence, so it is little surprise that those who listen only to the 'saints' at the top of that group are so certain they are correct

WHEN there is proof of misdeeds, and this preliminary audit is certainly NOT, I will consider that there needs to be accounting for any verified abuse by NCBA. Not until.

So Maxine- you as an NCBA member would support a full forensic audit of CBB funds and NCBA's use of CBB tax funds covering the past 5 years?

If we want to get to the bottom of this- that is what everyone should be calling for...It is the only way to get back the trust that so many have lost with the NCBA over their years of alledged misuse- and now current findings of almost $100,000 misuse with less than 1% of the spending audited...


Of course, you also denigrate USDA except when you THINK they may be 'in the pocket of R-CALF on an issue, so you are unlikely to believe the fact that USDA has ALWAYS scrutinized checkoff funds and how they are spent.

Tommy, here are some FACTS re. the 'workings' of the beef checkoff: any contract for beef checkoff projects is determined by groups of cattle producers, often beginning with a CattleWomens local group on their own dollar, gaining such success that many produers became convinced that it should go state and national, so was brought to the attention of first state Beef Councils, then the CBB.

Others began at 'cow colleges', or came from cattlemens groups seeing a need and carrying it forward. Budgets are determined, and projects are proposed. They must pass the scrutiny of the CBB Operating Committee, THEN are awarded to various contractors.

NCBA is the major contractor, mainly due to the expertise they have been able to assemble and put at the disposal of the beef checkoff. If others had done the same and had the better record of successfully achieving the goals stated in projects, doubtless, the Operating Committee would award more projects to other contractors! The major reason that hasn't happened is that NO ONE may profit from those contracts.

Finally, the CBB operates under the contraints of the Act and Order (the law creating it) and must stick with a 5% cap on overhead costs. This was done to avoid some pitfalls of previous checkoffs of other ag commodities. I recall at the time the fears of some of the bad deals that befell other groups and determination that there be no 'empire building' with beef producer dollars.

Personally, I think it highly proper that the largest national cattle producer organization, focused only on cattle, lead the way. I also belong to Farm Bureau and believe they generally are on the right track. The limitations there, and prime reason for focusing our family efforts on NCBA and its predecessor groups was that the emphasis of NCBA is only on cattle producers and what is best for us. If we raised grain crops, we might have done differently.

And Farm Bureau has came out that they even believe that the CBB should be a stand alone organization- tied to no lobbying group like NCBA... I'm not going to argue which group represents more cattlemen- but the fact is that NCBA only represents 1 out of every 32 Beef Checkoff tax paying taxpayers, which tells me there are a lot that do not agree with NCBA's lobbying direction....These folks (like me) shouldn't be forced to pay our tax to support a lobbying group that we disagree with....

Those who claim NCBA is controlled by packers are off in lala land. There are some cattle producers who believe that working with packers on issues mututally agreeable is beneficial to us! Those of us with that belief happen to prevail when NCBA chooses to do that. If you don't like it, there are organizations where you will be happier. That does not make either of us wrong!!!! EXCEPT when you try to force us to conform to your choices. Isn't it the 'American Way' to run our business as we choose?

Tommy, re your comment on NCBA being a "no show" at that so called "open public debate" on the competition rule proposal, have you been to some such meetings staged by R-CALf and similar groups? I have and some have been very close to mob scenes, with shouting down ideas they didn't like, thinly veiled, if that, of bodily harm to some stating things they didn't like.......you get the picture, I hope. Mr. Bullard is a charismatic person quite able to foment such emotional reactions among his supporters while remaining quite 'above it all' himself. That is NOT productive public debate, tho has become quite useful to some populist, activist and political groups. Some of us were raised to be ladies and gentlemen and conduct ourselves properly so that true public DEBATE may be productive and HONEST.

My opinion, this is simply yet another in a long line of attempts at ending the beef checkoff for the purpose of stopping NCBA.

If NCBA can't stand on its own two feet without its hands in the CBB taxpayers dollar- it shouldn't exist...

NEWS FLASH: NCBA isn't going to disappear, whether the beef checkoff remains or is killed! It will continue to be a group of dedicated, concientious suppliers of cattle, with members focused on producing the highest quality age verified, traceable beef available in the USA.

mrj

NCBA may not disappear- but the CBB Beef Checkoff will never be allowed to expand and work for the US cattleman as long as NCBA has their hands in it....Other countries have expanded theres- and doing much more promotion- but NCBA's involvement will keep that from happening...NO one will vote for a checkoff raise until NCBA is totally out of the picture....

NCBA has a choice- get out- and let the Checkoff grow and work for the cattlemen they claim they represent -- or keep their hands in the checkoff "cookie Jar" - and let the Checkoff keep staggering along....
 

mrj

Well-known member
OT, I would absolutely support an audit....and wouldn't it be great if those claiming "abuse" and worse! would back their mouth with the money to pay for such an audit? Further, will YOU admit that you were WRONG, when proven so in this instance??? Will R-CALF and friends write and publish an apology?

Do you ALWAYS insist that CLAIMS of wrong-doing are the final verdict and PROOF of such???

Do you understand that NCBA cannot "use" any money, and that CBB always must APPROVE the expenditures of checkoff money?

Do you recognize that the money has NOT been said by any authority to be mis-used? Only that there are ERRORS and uncertainty of what is meant by some codes for posting expenses? And in a FEW cases, which were re-imbursed, of innacurate designation of costs for spouse and family travel? What will you have to say if it turns out that CBB itself has approved costs for THEIR spouses to travel with them???

If, as you say, NCBA represents "only 1 out of 32 Beef Checkoff paying" cattle producers, then how many of that group is "represented" by R-CALF, or any one other organzation large enough to have members on the state beef councils and CBB????

(IMO, taxes are levied by governments for benefit of all citizens, or IN SOME CASES, for a few SELECT citizens such as welfare, or to benefit sportsmen) fees are set by groups assessing THEMSELVES for the benefit of all, such as the beef checkoff.)

Where is the proof that NCBA makes ANY profit from checkoff contracts. How is it possible to support lobbying without profit from contracts?

Checkoff spending is totally separate from "lobbying groups" because checkoff dollars DO NOT support NCBA Dues/Policy division. Any such spending was an error, and has been, or will be, repaid. Do not forget, there have also been errors made where spending properly for checkoff was erroneously paid by the Dues/Policy division, too.

Why would you insist that the beef checkoff lose one of, very possibly THE best, contractor it has because some people and organizations with a strong history of hating NCBA have promoted the MYTH that NCBA uses checkoff money for lobbying????

There are plenty of cattle producers who know and understand that their organization, NCBA is NOT guilty as charged. Why should we, who were largely responsible for building the beef checkoff, abandon it now and leave it to the not so tender mercies of those who fought against it when we worked to achieve the mandatory checkoff.

I am not unaware that AFBF was one of those groups who either wanted to control ithe beef checkoff or to keep it voluntary before the law was passed.

Farmers Union is another that fought against the beef checkoff.

Some of the auction markets, at least in SD, were among those who fought it, or who reluctantly agreed to not fight it, stating "when cattle prices fall, we will know who to blame".....totally ignoring facts of marketing in their zeal to have a 'whipping boy', the beef checkoff, to blame for any drop in cattle prices. Then they helped to found R-CALF and have participated in several efforts to end the beef checkoff. Not much success to be proud of in that history!!!

mrj
 

Texan

Well-known member
mrj said:
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?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Thanks Randy. Anyone for raising the Checkoff now? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Ya know what? The Checkoff IS like a "tax". It is something the politicians can steal and spend at will!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Texan: "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."

Texan,

If the misuses of checkoff dollars you have just posted above are true, then there is definitely a need for corrections or a good explanation. I can understand trips being paid for with checkoff dollars if those trips are directly related to beef research, education, and promotion and are tied directly to those projects and scrutinized accordingly but many times I have seen these situations abused. I am certainly not going to join the "where there is smoke there is arson" mentality of the R-CALF conspiracy theorists and sink my teeth into claims of checkoff impropriety without a thorough investigation and not without hearing the other side of the story. This country, whether some like OT like it or not, still judges men based on THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE which seems to be a real hard concept for most R-CALFers to wrap their brains around. It also might explain their 0 & 9 record in court.


OT: "These folks (like me) shouldn't be forced to pay our tax to support a lobbying group that we disagree with...."

I agree "IF" you are actually supporting a lobbying group you disagree with. MRJ has told you a million times that the checkoff dues cannot be spent for lobbying. Until you can prove that checkoff dollars have been spent for LOBBYING, then you got nothing in your hands but a hollowed out horse turd.

NCBA's ties with the beef checkoff parallels with the SD Stockgrowers Association FORMERLY running the brand program. Although I disagree/disagreed with many of the market manipulation conspiracy theories of the SD Stockgrowers Association, I had no problems with the SD Stockgrowers Association running the brand board as long as brand fees went ONLY towards running the brand program. This would include time and office space AT A RATE AGREED TO BE FAIR BY IT'S MEMBERS. Brand fees should only be used to run the brand program and all that it encompasses. Surplus money from good years should have been banked for lean years. With that said, if I had known that brand fees were being spent on baseless lawsuits against packers, or trying to stop Canadian cattle based on BSE "fear mongering" tactics potentially destructive to our own industry, or all the other "flavor of the month" conspiracy theories that blamers can drum up, I would be furious. So....both situations, former and present, should assume a PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE stand until facts prove otherwise. I would be a hypocrite to take opposite positions on the two issues. I still trust my fellow man until I have been given good reason not to.

The above checkoff related allegations of impropriety certainly deserve to be looked into and policies defining "impropriety" set in place. If these improprieties prove to be abusive, then corrective actions need to be taken. I fully support the investigation and complete audit as it will gain as much confidence as distrust depending on the outcome. Let the chips fall.

OT, you seriously need to consider the concept of "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENSE" or you are going to walk through life being chased by a cloud of circle flies desiring to feed off the egg on your face.


~SH~
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cattlemen Shocked and Appalled - Considering Litigation



Source: Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM) - August 20, 2010



Lincoln, Nebraska: The Organization for Competitive Markets is actively exploring litigation as the best option for addressing the recently disclosed misappropriation of beef checkoff funds by NCBA. During a routine compliance review of NCBA, ordered by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board, strong evidence of mishandling of checkoff funds was uncovered. A one percent sampling by the accounting firm Clifton Gunderson found a disturbing level of misuse of the checkoff funds.



OCM Board members were angered by these findings. Members of the organization have long viewed NCBA as an instrument of meat packers rather than the advocate for the interests of beef cattle producers it purports to be. At its regularly scheduled OCM board meeting on August 19th, the vote was unanimous to actively pursue litigation to ensure a detailed and comprehensive audit of the entire fourteen years NCBA has been a contractor for the cattlemen’s checkoff.



OCM President, Randy Stevenson said; “The law requires that all cattle producers pay the checkoff, regardless of how they feel about the NCBA or their use of these funds. By government mandate, checkoff funds are to be used to promote beef and not the interests of meat packers. Now we find that NCBA has not only failed in its fiduciary responsibility but has betrayed the trust of cattlemen who fund the program. We want a thorough investigation and complete audit, and every misappropriated dollar returned to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board.”



competitivemarkets.com
 
Top