OldDog/NewTricks
Well-known member
Today 10/13/2006 9:53:00 AM
Jolley: Five More Minutes With The Beef Checkoff Task Force
In the past two weeks, I’ve taken a close editorial look at two of the Beef Task Force’s four suggestions: doubling the checkoff dollars and making the checkoff program more inclusive.
This week, I’ll explore a third suggestion developed to clarify the procedure to petition for a referendum. It was written this way by the task force:
“The beef referendum process be revised to provide producers the opportunity to petition every five years for a referendum on continuing the Checkoff. Ten percent of beef producers signing the petition at county offices will trigger the USDA to conduct a vote within a year. This is similar to the Soybean referendum model.”
I asked several Tasj Force members, including Jamie Willrett and Scott VanderWal, two gentlemen who co-chaired the Checkoff Task Force, to talk about the referendum process, how it works and what might change if the suggestion is adopted.
Here are the questions exactly as presented with replies from Tracy Brunner, Willrett and VanderWal:
What constitutes a beef producer in this context and how many people actually meet that definition today?
Tracy Brunner defined the term ‘beef producer’ this way: “In the past, USDA has determined ‘beef producer’ to mean any person or entity who sold one or more head of cattle in any given year. The taskforce did not delve into specifics on ‘Beef Producer Criteria’ but expected Industry to give USDA direction for a workable validation of legitimate producer status, should a referendum be triggered. “
He said, “The taskforce did discuss the fact that in past criteria no distinction was made for age or otherwise. For example, a junior 4-H project holder could carry the same voting weight of a large ranch entity, but no specific recommendation was developed.”
Co-chairs Jamie Willrett and Scott VanderWal, responding together said, “The Task Force is not recommending any change in the way a producer is currently defined in the Beef Promotion and Research Act, which is:
The term ``producer'' means any person who owns or acquires ownership of cattle, except that a person shall not be considered to be a producer if the person's only share in the proceeds of a sale of cattle or beef is a sales commission, handling fee, or other service fee
Congress could obviously change this definition if and when it considers amendments to the Act, but the Task Force is not calling for any such changes at this time.”
Willrett and VanderWal pointed out that “The last time a petition effort was undertaken, USDA set the threshold target for signatures at 106,000. This would constitute 10 percent of an estimated 1.06 million cattle producers that meet USDA’s definition. Opinions may differ on whether this is an appropriate figure. But since these were the data used for the most recent petition effort, it is the best estimate we have available.”
The USDA will be directed to conduct a vote within a year of a petition with a sufficient number of signatures but what do you consider to be a reasonable time frame in which the signatures must be gathered and are there other permissible ways to gather those signatures other than at county offices?
Tracy Brunner replied, “The soybean checkoff referendum process was felt to be a workable and equitable alternative to the current petition process.”
Expanding on Brunner’s statement, Willrett and VanderWal said, “During the most recent petition effort, USDA required the signatures to be gathered during a consecutive 12-month window. The Task Force isn’t recommending a particular number of months that a petition effort should be limited to. But anyone that is serious about calling for a referendum would want to gather signatures within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, they’ll run into problems with the validity and verification of signatures - whether those that signed early in the process are still eligible cattle producers – those kinds of issues.”
The two co-chairs went on to say, “Gathering signatures at county offices is actually aimed at avoiding a lot of those same problems. It gives USDA the ability to verify the identity and eligibility of the producer right on the spot. So if signatures are gathered in this manner and the 10 percent threshold is reached, we can be fairly certain that the signatures are legitimate and that the referendum will be held.
The Task Force is not really opposed to using such things as mail or the Internet, but right now those methods lack the kind of controls and security necessary to verify identity and cattle ownership. Using the county offices may not be a perfect solution, but it protects the interests of both checkoff opponents and supporters, by ensuring that only legitimate cattle producers are determining the fate of the checkoff. That was clearly the intent of Congress when they created the program.”
What’s the process for verifying the signatures and what organization should be charged with the project?
Brunner, noting that it wasn’t a prime concern during the deliberations, said, “Again, that was not deeply studied by the taskforce. USDA, ideally with input and guidance from industry, would have the final say.”
More detail came from Willrett and VanderWal who said, “USDA has been responsible for verifying signatures, and the Task Force is not recommending any change in that area. But it’s important to note that the Task Force is recommending that a referendum be mandatory if the 10 percent signature threshold is reached.
Currently, there’s a lot room for the Secretary of Agriculture’s discretion on whether to actually call for a vote. We’re recommending changes that would firm up the process, so that anyone starting a petition drive knows exactly what they need to do in order for a vote take place. We’re trying to eliminate some of the uncertainty and confusion that has drawn complaints in the past and this is a model that will clarify and simplify the process.”
To further clarify the Task Force’s referendum suggestion, Brunner added, “The taskforce did not spend a great deal of resources on trying to re-write the checkoff law. We felt we were charged with, and given respect to function as a ‘Think Tank’, recommending macro-direction for enhancements in the industry self-help program.
“We did not believe we were asked to re-write the law, only study the current law, its strengths and weaknesses, and recommend ways for industry to make it better,” he said. “In regard to an improved referendum process, the US Soybean checkoff was believed to be a good model for our Beef Checkoff to follow.”
Perhaps underlining the real impact of the Task Force’s efforts, Brunner concluded his statements by saying, “Beef producers now have the responsibility to review the information we gathered and heard. Most importantly they have the opportunity to either individually or collectively, through their chosen trade organizations, to influence the direction of our future checkoff program.”
Jolley: Five More Minutes With The Beef Checkoff Task Force
In the past two weeks, I’ve taken a close editorial look at two of the Beef Task Force’s four suggestions: doubling the checkoff dollars and making the checkoff program more inclusive.
This week, I’ll explore a third suggestion developed to clarify the procedure to petition for a referendum. It was written this way by the task force:
“The beef referendum process be revised to provide producers the opportunity to petition every five years for a referendum on continuing the Checkoff. Ten percent of beef producers signing the petition at county offices will trigger the USDA to conduct a vote within a year. This is similar to the Soybean referendum model.”
I asked several Tasj Force members, including Jamie Willrett and Scott VanderWal, two gentlemen who co-chaired the Checkoff Task Force, to talk about the referendum process, how it works and what might change if the suggestion is adopted.
Here are the questions exactly as presented with replies from Tracy Brunner, Willrett and VanderWal:
What constitutes a beef producer in this context and how many people actually meet that definition today?
Tracy Brunner defined the term ‘beef producer’ this way: “In the past, USDA has determined ‘beef producer’ to mean any person or entity who sold one or more head of cattle in any given year. The taskforce did not delve into specifics on ‘Beef Producer Criteria’ but expected Industry to give USDA direction for a workable validation of legitimate producer status, should a referendum be triggered. “
He said, “The taskforce did discuss the fact that in past criteria no distinction was made for age or otherwise. For example, a junior 4-H project holder could carry the same voting weight of a large ranch entity, but no specific recommendation was developed.”
Co-chairs Jamie Willrett and Scott VanderWal, responding together said, “The Task Force is not recommending any change in the way a producer is currently defined in the Beef Promotion and Research Act, which is:
The term ``producer'' means any person who owns or acquires ownership of cattle, except that a person shall not be considered to be a producer if the person's only share in the proceeds of a sale of cattle or beef is a sales commission, handling fee, or other service fee
Congress could obviously change this definition if and when it considers amendments to the Act, but the Task Force is not calling for any such changes at this time.”
Willrett and VanderWal pointed out that “The last time a petition effort was undertaken, USDA set the threshold target for signatures at 106,000. This would constitute 10 percent of an estimated 1.06 million cattle producers that meet USDA’s definition. Opinions may differ on whether this is an appropriate figure. But since these were the data used for the most recent petition effort, it is the best estimate we have available.”
The USDA will be directed to conduct a vote within a year of a petition with a sufficient number of signatures but what do you consider to be a reasonable time frame in which the signatures must be gathered and are there other permissible ways to gather those signatures other than at county offices?
Tracy Brunner replied, “The soybean checkoff referendum process was felt to be a workable and equitable alternative to the current petition process.”
Expanding on Brunner’s statement, Willrett and VanderWal said, “During the most recent petition effort, USDA required the signatures to be gathered during a consecutive 12-month window. The Task Force isn’t recommending a particular number of months that a petition effort should be limited to. But anyone that is serious about calling for a referendum would want to gather signatures within a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, they’ll run into problems with the validity and verification of signatures - whether those that signed early in the process are still eligible cattle producers – those kinds of issues.”
The two co-chairs went on to say, “Gathering signatures at county offices is actually aimed at avoiding a lot of those same problems. It gives USDA the ability to verify the identity and eligibility of the producer right on the spot. So if signatures are gathered in this manner and the 10 percent threshold is reached, we can be fairly certain that the signatures are legitimate and that the referendum will be held.
The Task Force is not really opposed to using such things as mail or the Internet, but right now those methods lack the kind of controls and security necessary to verify identity and cattle ownership. Using the county offices may not be a perfect solution, but it protects the interests of both checkoff opponents and supporters, by ensuring that only legitimate cattle producers are determining the fate of the checkoff. That was clearly the intent of Congress when they created the program.”
What’s the process for verifying the signatures and what organization should be charged with the project?
Brunner, noting that it wasn’t a prime concern during the deliberations, said, “Again, that was not deeply studied by the taskforce. USDA, ideally with input and guidance from industry, would have the final say.”
More detail came from Willrett and VanderWal who said, “USDA has been responsible for verifying signatures, and the Task Force is not recommending any change in that area. But it’s important to note that the Task Force is recommending that a referendum be mandatory if the 10 percent signature threshold is reached.
Currently, there’s a lot room for the Secretary of Agriculture’s discretion on whether to actually call for a vote. We’re recommending changes that would firm up the process, so that anyone starting a petition drive knows exactly what they need to do in order for a vote take place. We’re trying to eliminate some of the uncertainty and confusion that has drawn complaints in the past and this is a model that will clarify and simplify the process.”
To further clarify the Task Force’s referendum suggestion, Brunner added, “The taskforce did not spend a great deal of resources on trying to re-write the checkoff law. We felt we were charged with, and given respect to function as a ‘Think Tank’, recommending macro-direction for enhancements in the industry self-help program.
“We did not believe we were asked to re-write the law, only study the current law, its strengths and weaknesses, and recommend ways for industry to make it better,” he said. “In regard to an improved referendum process, the US Soybean checkoff was believed to be a good model for our Beef Checkoff to follow.”
Perhaps underlining the real impact of the Task Force’s efforts, Brunner concluded his statements by saying, “Beef producers now have the responsibility to review the information we gathered and heard. Most importantly they have the opportunity to either individually or collectively, through their chosen trade organizations, to influence the direction of our future checkoff program.”