click image to zoom
I’m sure everyone knows what the ‘controversy’ is by now. It’s been in all the papers as they used to say when there were papers. Today, in a world where communication is dominated by the internet and anybody with a laptop can issue a manifesto of any kind, the discussion about the firewall that’s supposed to stand between the NCBA and CBB has gone viral. Fanning the firewall flames into something akin to the Arizona wildfires this spring were accusations about financial improprieties.
The controversy has had a bit of an ebb and flow to it. Seems like every time the fire starts to go out, someone tosses fuel on what I thought were dying embers. A few weeks ago an angry Jon Wooster, president of USCA, issued a strongly worded editorial demanding that the problems be examined by a higher authority. Although I don’t think USDA Secretary Vilsack is quite ready to take on the cattle industries various political facets, he certainly has the ability to end the controversy immediately.
Capping off a relatively peaceful Summer Conference, Bill Donald, NCBA’s president, told the audience during closing remarks that he wasn’t going to ‘put up with that crap anymore.’ Obviously tired of the ongoing controversy and the time it was taking away from the duties and responsibilities of both the NCBA and CBB during one of the most critical times in recent beef industry history, he tossed a big gauntlet.
“Can we either shut up or step out back and settle this thing ‘mano a mano?”
OK, I said that. He didn’t. But it was the core of the message. ‘Let’s put on our big boy hats and gitterdone!’ We don’t need a gunfight at OK Corral, just some plain talk and a handshake at the end. So I asked Bill a few questions and here is how he responded.
Q. It has been a hard year for the relationship between the NCBA and CBB. There have been lots of accusations and rumors of financial misdealings that some would take to a more serious level. Now the USCA and R-CALF want to make a federal case out of it. Let’s start with the personnel issues. One of the fallouts of the clash was the resignations of CBB’s top two officers a few weeks ago. NCBA was accused of engineering the resignations. What really happened?
A. A State Beef Council contacted us regarding potential unethical behavior against the Federation of State Beef Councils and NCBA by people in the industry. We immediately consulted with our attorney. About the same time we had been contacted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) about their audit of the beef checkoff, they gave us the parameters of the audit. They described it as a “performance audit,” which is more detailed than a financial audit. They are looking into every aspect of the checkoff and the work done for it. They told us a performance audit will study the work that has been done to insure it meets the direction of the Beef Promotion Research Act and Order and that the work was done in a proper and ethical fashion.
OIG’s mentioning the word “ethical” made us review many things, including the information from the State Beef Council. After consulting with legal counsel, we determined that everything we had on that issue should be shared with OIG. We did that and then thought it would be appropriate to also share it with the Executive Committee of the Beef Board. We did that. I will tell you that these were not easy decisions. They put people’s lives and livelihoods on the line. Our take was that if we didn’t take the information to the governing authoritative bodies, we would be accused of and probably guilty of supporting the accused unethical behavior. NCBA did not “engineer” any of this. We were stuck between a rock and a hard spot and chose to do what we thought was right.
I might add that some groups accused NCBA of driving Mr. Ramey and Mr. Jones out of office. I take extreme exception to that remark. It is so disrespectful to two men who have worked very hard to do what they thought was best for the Checkoff. The decisions those two men made did not come easily. I am certain they deliberated long and hard with their family’s consultation. They did what they thought was best for all concerned. It should not be taken lightly. I know them both. They are thoughtful men who did what they believed to be the right thing and I think we should all respect that.
Q. You made an admission and made a bold statement during your closing remarks at the Summer Conference. First, you noted that the last 12 months of disruptive relations between the Cattlemen's Beef Board and NCBA "have been a pretty rocky time." Then you said this about the continued attacks from other organizations: “We’re not putting up with this crap, anymore.”
Indeed, what started as a spat between two close friends blew up into an industry wide controversy with USCA, R-CALF and others weighing in with some inflammatory statements. How do you propose to put it to a rest?
A. Neither NCBA nor I have the capability of putting this to rest alone. It will take all parties’ willing participation in a higher level of communication. One key to getting resolution to these issues is communication -- open and honest communication. There has been a lack of communication. NCBA is certainly as guilty as any other group on that front. We all get busy doing the jobs we know need done and somewhere in the mix, industry wide communication gets lost.
USCA and NFU have proposed organizing an industry-wide meeting to discuss checkoff issues. That has the potential to benefit communication and we are willing to meet anywhere, anytime to help move this to a higher plane. Another component necessary to move these discussions to a higher plane is for all parties to get the facts straight before they fire off a news release. There have been false accusations made against NCBA and there have been pleas to the Secretary of Agriculture for an investigation. The fact is that there has been no fraud committed and the OIG, the highest investigative body in all of USDA is in the midst of an audit of the entire checkoff. Common sense would tell you Secretary Vilsack would not begin a new lower level investigation under those conditions.
Q. Let me ask the most basic question about the controversy: What is the proper relationship between NCBA and CBB and has it always been honored?
A. The relationship between NCBA and CBB is multifaceted. CBB has the responsibility of oversight of all checkoff dollars. We respect that as a necessary and valuable role. The structure of the Beef Promotion Operating Committee, as defined in the Act and Order, requires that the Federation and the CBB each fill 10 of the 20 seat committee. That requires a partnership approach.
The history of the NCBA and CBB partnership is one of accomplishment. Producer leaders and the staff of both organizations along with the Federation of State Beef Councils worked together to stop the decline in beef demand. We worked together to manage one of the biggest crisis to ever hit the U.S. cattle industry when BSE came to the United States in 2003. We worked together to improve consumer attitudes about the nutritional benefits of beef. We worked together to develop new and innovative beef products. Finally, NCBA and CBB have worked in a partnership with the Meat Export Federation to increase U.S. beef exports.
While that partnership approach may have diminished over time, there was a renewed partnership attitude at the recent Summer Conference. Throughout the hallways, staff meetings, committee meetings, Executive Committee meetings and Board meetings the atmosphere was one of cooperation and partnership. Everyone there was focused on how to best serve the producers in the most effective, efficient ways possible. The current leaders from both organizations are committed to that partnership.
Q. The CBB elected new leadership during the Summer Conference with the top two slots filled by unanimous vote. What will NCBA do to develop a more compatible working relationship with Wesley Grau and Weldon Wynn?
A. The leadership of the two outfits began meeting together several months ago to lead the relationship to a better place. Through those meetings we have developed a high level of mutual trust and admiration. With that strong foundation, we can address any issue in a forthright, open and effective manner. While there are some that have attempted to drive a wedge between NCBA and CBB, the current leadership will not allow that to happen. We are committed to giving the producers the most effective and efficient program possible. That requires the partnership attitude I referenced earlier and we are all committed to it.
Q. When I interviewed USCA President Jon Wooster about his concerns, he talked about the leadership of NCBA and CCB and the revolving door that many of the executives of those two groups seemed to pass through. Is sharing management people a good idea or has it helped foster the idea that the two organizations are to close?
A. There is something missing in Mr. Wooster’s concern about that. What is missing is that there are leaders in our industry who are absolutely committed to doing anything and everything they can to lead this industry in a positive direction. Quality leadership is required on both the policy and the checkoff levels. The fact that a leader has served in one capacity should not preclude them from serving in the other.
In the U.S. government, there is an inherent check and balance between the legislative and executive branch. That doesn’t mean, however, that a legislator is precluded from serving as president. I believe this is a similar scenario. It is my hope that those who have been pursuing an agenda to divide and separate will reevaluate their agenda. There is so much more for this industry to gain by working together in an inclusive fashion with a spirit of cooperation than by dividing up into little groups and throwing rocks at each other.
Q. As the primary contractor, NCBA is certainly aware of the diminishing dollars supplied by the checkoff. I’ve interviewed a lot of CBB members and they’re all concerned about the problem but optimistic about the outcome of a more precisely targeted dollar. What is NCBA doing to assure that the buck is a dollar well-spent?
A. There are two components here, effectiveness and efficiency. NCBA is working diligently on both. We are doing more work in house to get better utilization from the staff. The NCBA staff is extremely talented and knowledgeable on the subject of increasing demand for beef. By utilizing them more and subcontracting less, we believe we can give the producers a better bang for their buck. It sometimes gets lost in the debate, but the main rationale for the merger of 1996 was to increase efficiencies. Pre-merger, there were over 200 employees, now there are 120. We are doing more with less.
Q. Thousands of people read Cattlenetwork. What would you like to say to them?
A. I pledge to do all I can to make the checkoff work as well as possible now and to improve it for the future. I also pledge, however, to not let false accusations go unchallenged. Contrary to allegations made by some groups, there have been no fraudulent expenditures of checkoff dollars by NCBA.
The CEO of the CBB said, “The financial firewall is intact and functioning properly.” The chief legal counsel for the CBB reported that the firewall has not been breached. That is not to say NCBA hasn’t made mistakes, because we have. I acknowledge that. But they were just that, mistakes. There was never any intentional miscoding or misappropriation of funds.
We at NCBA understand the importance of accountability. Producer support for the program is fundamental to its success. We are truly sorry for the mistakes and any negative impact they may have on producer support. It is time to put the past behind us and work to improve the checkoff for the future. Our goal is 100 percent accuracy and accountability and we expect the same from other groups.
Chuck Jolley is a free lance writer, based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Vance Publishing.
I’m sure everyone knows what the ‘controversy’ is by now. It’s been in all the papers as they used to say when there were papers. Today, in a world where communication is dominated by the internet and anybody with a laptop can issue a manifesto of any kind, the discussion about the firewall that’s supposed to stand between the NCBA and CBB has gone viral. Fanning the firewall flames into something akin to the Arizona wildfires this spring were accusations about financial improprieties.
Comments (8) Leave a comment