Today 9/12/2006 10:16:00 AM
Jolley: The Checkoff – Two Decades Of Sleeping At The Financial Switch
Beef industry leaders met in Kansas City this summer to take a fresh look at the Beef Checkoff program. The 17-member industry-wide Beef Checkoff Task Force established their mission this way: “to review, study and recommend enhancements to the Beef Act and Order for the purpose of strengthening the Checkoff for the common good of the beef industry.”
Noble charge.
One of the four points that came out of their meetings immediately stirred controversy. Although the decision to suggest an adjustment in the checkoff rate was long overdue, the size of their request was like a captive bolt to the forehead of an unsuspecting industry. Staggering to cattlemen everywhere.
To quote the NCBA, the task force voted “To assure strong demand-building initiatives for the beef industry in the future and to offset twenty years of inflation, adjust the per head checkoff rate to $2.00. The 50-50 split between State Beef Councils and Beef Board would remain the same. The industry will need to approve any checkoff rate change through a referendum.”
To be sure, not everyone voted for the 100% increase. Organizations represented on the Task Force were American Farm Bureau Federation, American Veal Association, American Meat Institute, Livestock Marketing Association, Meat Importers Council of America, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (Livestock Marketing Council), National Livestock Producers Association, National Meat Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Farmers Union and R-CALF USA. State representatives came from California, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, Tennessee and Texas.
Voting against the increase were R-CALF USA; Livestock Marketing Association; National Livestock Producers Association; and National Farmers Union.
The vote was 11-4 but it’s more interesting looking at where each of the groups were sitting on the issue. Those groups most directly affected said no. Those with less of an iron in the fire said yes. Like some of my congress-watching friends say, “It’s always easy to spend someone else’s money.”
The NCBA, maybe with tongue in cheek, acknowledged the less than unanimous vote by noting “The four recommendations were passed by at least a super-majority (two-thirds) of the Task Force. Not all were supported unanimously.”
Jim Hanna, R-CALF’s representative said his group voted no but has never been opposed to the Checkoff. “The Checkoff has been around more than 20 years without any modifications,” he said. “Producers want to feel that they have a say in how the Checkoff is administered, and they want to feel like there are folks running the program who truly have producer interests at heart.”
Sounds like most of R-CALF’s membership doesn’t think the program is being run by people “who truly have producer interests at heart.” Maybe the same can be said about the memberships of LMA, NLPA and NFU.
And therein is the problem – the very sharp division between the producer side and the processor side. Does this mean a red meat civil war? A pitched battle between organizations that should be holding hands? Snipers taking aim at each other from corner offices and feed lots coast-to-coast?
The need to fund marketing programs “To assure strong demand-building initiatives for the beef industry in the future and to offset twenty years of inflation” is unquestionable. Asking for an immediate adjustment in the per head checkoff rate to $2.00 after two decades of ignoring the effects of inflation is a very questionable effort to paper over past mistakes. Was anyone watching out for the fiduciary interests of the program since 1986?
Probably not.
The battle begins.