How the checkoff program works

[ocm]

OCM,

Give me an exampe of misappropriation of checkoff funds since you are so concerned about who gets the contract or is this just something else for the industry blamers to bench about?



~SH~

Please note that I have not accused anybody of misapproprations. What actually happened is that a major checkoff contract was bid on by two different organizations. One was the NCBA and the other wasn't. NCBA's bid was $850,000 higher than the other. Yet they were awarded the contract.

Sometimes there is justification for awarding a contract to other than the lowest bidder. When I was in procurement working with government contracts (taxpayer money) I could buy from other than the lowest bidder, but had to provide written justification. That justification was available for public scrutiny.

In the case of our checkoff money there seems to be no such requirement. I'm just asking for a little sunshine on the process. This is a normal corruption preventive process for when tax money is being spent. Checkoff funds are tax money (Scalia), so why not require the normal governmental competitive bid process?

 

[mrj]

OCM,

Give me an exampe of misappropriation of checkoff funds since you are so concerned about who gets the contract or is this just something else for the industry blamers to bench about?



~SH~

Please note that I have not accused anybody of misapproprations. What actually happened is that a major checkoff contract was bid on by two different organizations. One was the NCBA and the other wasn't. NCBA's bid was $850,000 higher than the other. Yet they were awarded the contract.

Sometimes there is justification for awarding a contract to other than the lowest bidder. When I was in procurement working with government contracts (taxpayer money) I could buy from other than the lowest bidder, but had to provide written justification. That justification was available for public scrutiny.

In the case of our checkoff money there seems to be no such requirement. I'm just asking for a little sunshine on the process. This is a normal corruption preventive process for when tax money is being spent. Checkoff funds are tax money (Scalia), so why not require the normal governmental competitive bid process?

ocm, did you call or email [email protected] to ask about that situation?

Old Timer did so, and he has been very silent AFTER finding the reasons for awarding the contract to the FEDERATION OF STATE BEEF COUNCILS division of NCBA (entirely different organization than the POLICY/DUES PAYER producer division of NCBA), as compared with his shouting the evils of the situation prior to finding the facts about it.

Never mind that those contracts have no profit allowed, but are cost recovery only to the group doing the work. Never mind that the members of the committee making that decision are from many different cattle organizations, not just NCBA. Never mind that they had valid reasons for accepting the contract they did. It apparently is much more fun for some to criticize anything about the Beef Checkoff than to check the facts before spouting off against it or NCBA.

BTW, what organization can you name that has as much "sunshine" on ALL its processes and procedures and contracts, as does the Beef Checkoff, including CBB, and the Federation of State Beef Councils, as well as the NCBA Policy/Dues division?

MRJ

 

[ocm]

OCM,

Give me an exampe of misappropriation of checkoff funds since you are so concerned about who gets the contract or is this just something else for the industry blamers to bench about?



~SH~

Please note that I have not accused anybody of misapproprations. What actually happened is that a major checkoff contract was bid on by two different organizations. One was the NCBA and the other wasn't. NCBA's bid was $850,000 higher than the other. Yet they were awarded the contract.

Sometimes there is justification for awarding a contract to other than the lowest bidder. When I was in procurement working with government contracts (taxpayer money) I could buy from other than the lowest bidder, but had to provide written justification. That justification was available for public scrutiny.

In the case of our checkoff money there seems to be no such requirement. I'm just asking for a little sunshine on the process. This is a normal corruption preventive process for when tax money is being spent. Checkoff funds are tax money (Scalia), so why not require the normal governmental competitive bid process?

ocm, did you call or email [email protected] to ask about that situation?

Old Timer did so, and he has been very silent AFTER finding the reasons for awarding the contract to the FEDERATION OF STATE BEEF COUNCILS division of NCBA (entirely different organization than the POLICY/DUES PAYER producer division of NCBA), as compared with his shouting the evils of the situation prior to finding the facts about it.

Never mind that those contracts have no profit allowed, but are cost recovery only to the group doing the work. Never mind that the members of the committee making that decision are from many different cattle organizations, not just NCBA. Never mind that they had valid reasons for accepting the contract they did. It apparently is much more fun for some to criticize anything about the Beef Checkoff than to check the facts before spouting off against it or NCBA.

BTW, what organization can you name that has as much "sunshine" on ALL its processes and procedures and contracts, as does the Beef Checkoff, including CBB, and the Federation of State Beef Councils, as well as the NCBA Policy/Dues division?

MRJ

The process needs to be formal.

I notice you are once again touting the "non-profit" aspect of the situation. If contractors must not profit from the contracts what motivation do they have to do them? Two different organizations can do the same things with very different "expenses". That's why competition in the bidding process is necessary--even for "non-profit."

By the way, I understand checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your reaction to that?

 

[Anonymous]

Please note that I have not accused anybody of misapproprations. What actually happened is that a major checkoff contract was bid on by two different organizations. One was the NCBA and the other wasn't. NCBA's bid was $850,000 higher than the other. Yet they were awarded the contract.

Sometimes there is justification for awarding a contract to other than the lowest bidder. When I was in procurement working with government contracts (taxpayer money) I could buy from other than the lowest bidder, but had to provide written justification. That justification was available for public scrutiny.

In the case of our checkoff money there seems to be no such requirement. I'm just asking for a little sunshine on the process. This is a normal corruption preventive process for when tax money is being spent. Checkoff funds are tax money (Scalia), so why not require the normal governmental competitive bid process?

ocm, did you call or email [email protected] to ask about that situation?

Old Timer did so, and he has been very silent AFTER finding the reasons for awarding the contract to the FEDERATION OF STATE BEEF COUNCILS division of NCBA (entirely different organization than the POLICY/DUES PAYER producer division of NCBA), as compared with his shouting the evils of the situation prior to finding the facts about it.

Never mind that those contracts have no profit allowed, but are cost recovery only to the group doing the work. Never mind that the members of the committee making that decision are from many different cattle organizations, not just NCBA. Never mind that they had valid reasons for accepting the contract they did. It apparently is much more fun for some to criticize anything about the Beef Checkoff than to check the facts before spouting off against it or NCBA.

BTW, what organization can you name that has as much "sunshine" on ALL its processes and procedures and contracts, as does the Beef Checkoff, including CBB, and the Federation of State Beef Councils, as well as the NCBA Policy/Dues division?

MRJ

The process needs to be formal.

I notice you are once again touting the "non-profit" aspect of the situation. If contractors must not profit from the contracts what motivation do they have to do them? Two different organizations can do the same things with very different "expenses". That's why competition in the bidding process is necessary--even for "non-profit."

By the way, I understand checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your reaction to that?

MRJ- I also found that the checkoff is quite outdated-- Maybe that is the reason for the call to change it...It was put in law almost 20 years ago- which is why it is in the law that they can only contract with livestock groups that were prior to 1987--there are many new and progressive organizations that because of that are not allowed to participate- just the same old 2 or 3 bidders on contracts.....Also the law was written back before imported cattle and beef were of the concern they are now- and before it was ruled government speach (a tax)--which are also reasons for the cry to relook at the checkoff makeup and rules... But I think the major reason still goes back to the political change in the cattle world--When the checkoff was organized their was only one major cattle organization (NCBA)- and they lined it up so they control it---But now their are 2 major organizations and NCBA may soon be the smaller player- definitely will be as to cattlemen members......

 

[Jason]

I doubt any "legal" fund could apply for any funds from check off dollars, not just R-calf.

 

[mrj]

ocm, did you call or email [email protected] to ask about that situation?

Old Timer did so, and he has been very silent AFTER finding the reasons for awarding the contract to the FEDERATION OF STATE BEEF COUNCILS division of NCBA (entirely different organization than the POLICY/DUES PAYER producer division of NCBA), as compared with his shouting the evils of the situation prior to finding the facts about it.

Never mind that those contracts have no profit allowed, but are cost recovery only to the group doing the work. Never mind that the members of the committee making that decision are from many different cattle organizations, not just NCBA. Never mind that they had valid reasons for accepting the contract they did. It apparently is much more fun for some to criticize anything about the Beef Checkoff than to check the facts before spouting off against it or NCBA.

BTW, what organization can you name that has as much "sunshine" on ALL its processes and procedures and contracts, as does the Beef Checkoff, including CBB, and the Federation of State Beef Councils, as well as the NCBA Policy/Dues division?

MRJ

The process needs to be formal.

I notice you are once again touting the "non-profit" aspect of the situation. If contractors must not profit from the contracts what motivation do they have to do them? Two different organizations can do the same things with very different "expenses". That's why competition in the bidding process is necessary--even for "non-profit."

By the way, I understand checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your reaction to that?

MRJ- I also found that the checkoff is quite outdated-- Maybe that is the reason for the call to change it...It was put in law almost 20 years ago- which is why it is in the law that they can only contract with livestock groups that were prior to 1987--there are many new and progressive organizations that because of that are not allowed to participate- just the same old 2 or 3 bidders on contracts.....Also the law was written back before imported cattle and beef were of the concern they are now- and before it was ruled government speach (a tax)--which are also reasons for the cry to relook at the checkoff makeup and rules... But I think the major reason still goes back to the political change in the cattle world--When the checkoff was organized their was only one major cattle organization (NCBA)- and they lined it up so they control it---But now their are 2 major organizations and NCBA may soon be the smaller player- definitely will be as to cattlemen members......

OT, your claim that "NCBA lined it up so they control it" falls pretty short of reality.

IF they were trying to do that, why was it made so inclusive of other organizations? Why was NCBA treated no differently in the mix of organizations than any other? Why is there rotation of organizations in leadership? You are off the mark..........again!

One valid and obvious reason for few "players" for the contracts is the fact that it was structured so NO organization could make money off the checkoff contracts.

MRJ

 

[Anonymous]

The process needs to be formal.

I notice you are once again touting the "non-profit" aspect of the situation. If contractors must not profit from the contracts what motivation do they have to do them? Two different organizations can do the same things with very different "expenses". That's why competition in the bidding process is necessary--even for "non-profit."

By the way, I understand checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your reaction to that?

MRJ- I also found that the checkoff is quite outdated-- Maybe that is the reason for the call to change it...It was put in law almost 20 years ago- which is why it is in the law that they can only contract with livestock groups that were prior to 1987--there are many new and progressive organizations that because of that are not allowed to participate- just the same old 2 or 3 bidders on contracts.....Also the law was written back before imported cattle and beef were of the concern they are now- and before it was ruled government speach (a tax)--which are also reasons for the cry to relook at the checkoff makeup and rules... But I think the major reason still goes back to the political change in the cattle world--When the checkoff was organized their was only one major cattle organization (NCBA)- and they lined it up so they control it---But now their are 2 major organizations and NCBA may soon be the smaller player- definitely will be as to cattlemen members......

OT, your claim that "NCBA lined it up so they control it" falls pretty short of reality.

IF they were trying to do that, why was it made so inclusive of other organizations? Why was NCBA treated no differently in the mix of organizations than any other? Why is there rotation of organizations in leadership? You are off the mark..........again!

One valid and obvious reason for few "players" for the contracts is the fact that it was structured so NO organization could make money off the checkoff contracts.

MRJ

MRJ- Dig out the checkoff Charter and see what the committees makeups have to be- also look up who can and cannot contract- especially the part about being formed prior to 1987....Monte Reese sent me about 2 bibles full of info, some of which I am still digesting- but NCBA definitely has only about 1 or 2 MINOR groups bidding against them for contracts, mainly because it appears the others do not qualify under the 1987 law......I never even heard of the National Livestock Producers Assn (NLPA) before reading the bid proposals.....

Better yet -- Call him and find out-- I've called him a couple times because I wanted to know the truth and not what you have been posting for ages.....

Why is NCBA so scared of a vote- or a look at bringing the checkoff into the 21st Century-- or just remove the conflicting interest allegations? .......Same old NCBA-- good old boys club wants to keep the old status quo.....

 

[ocm]

MRJ- Dig out the checkoff Charter and see what the committees makeups have to be- also look up who can and cannot contract- especially the part about being formed prior to 1987....Monte Reese sent me about 2 bibles full of info, some of which I am still digesting- but NCBA definitely has only about 1 or 2 MINOR groups bidding against them for contracts, mainly because it appears the others do not qualify under the 1987 law......

Better yet -- Call him and find out-- I've called him a couple times because I wanted to know the truth and not what you have been posting for ages.....

Why is NCBA so scared of a vote- or a look at bringing the checkoff into the 21st Century.......Same old NCBA-- good old boys want to keep the old status quo.....

This is the kind of sunshine I was talking about. What would happen if everybody knew that this was the justification for lack of competitive bids.

I want to bring this to the attention of my Senator.

 

[rancher]

Why is NCBA so scared of a vote- or a look at bringing the checkoff into the 21st Century-- or just remove the conflicting interest allegations? .......Same old NCBA-- good old boys club wants to keep the old status quo.....

This brings up a question, if the Check-off is government speech, then can we still get a percentage of producers to vote it out? Maybe we should get a percentage of taxpayers and vote out the income tax.

 

[mrj]

Please note that I have not accused anybody of misapproprations. What actually happened is that a major checkoff contract was bid on by two different organizations. One was the NCBA and the other wasn't. NCBA's bid was $850,000 higher than the other. Yet they were awarded the contract.

Sometimes there is justification for awarding a contract to other than the lowest bidder. When I was in procurement working with government contracts (taxpayer money) I could buy from other than the lowest bidder, but had to provide written justification. That justification was available for public scrutiny.

In the case of our checkoff money there seems to be no such requirement. I'm just asking for a little sunshine on the process. This is a normal corruption preventive process for when tax money is being spent. Checkoff funds are tax money (Scalia), so why not require the normal governmental competitive bid process?

ocm, did you call or email [email protected] to ask about that situation?

Old Timer did so, and he has been very silent AFTER finding the reasons for awarding the contract to the FEDERATION OF STATE BEEF COUNCILS division of NCBA (entirely different organization than the POLICY/DUES PAYER producer division of NCBA), as compared with his shouting the evils of the situation prior to finding the facts about it.

Never mind that those contracts have no profit allowed, but are cost recovery only to the group doing the work. Never mind that the members of the committee making that decision are from many different cattle organizations, not just NCBA. Never mind that they had valid reasons for accepting the contract they did. It apparently is much more fun for some to criticize anything about the Beef Checkoff than to check the facts before spouting off against it or NCBA.

BTW, what organization can you name that has as much "sunshine" on ALL its processes and procedures and contracts, as does the Beef Checkoff, including CBB, and the Federation of State Beef Councils, as well as the NCBA Policy/Dues division?

MRJ

The process needs to be formal.

I notice you are once again touting the "non-profit" aspect of the situation. If contractors must not profit from the contracts what motivation do they have to do them? Two different organizations can do the same things with very different "expenses". That's why competition in the bidding process is necessary--even for "non-profit."

By the way, I understand checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS. I've seen it with my own eyes. Your reaction to that?

ocm, re. "non-profit" contracts: it appears to me you fail to differentiate between the two divisions of NCBA. You do understand, don't you, that the Federation of State Beef Councils is NOT the dues payer membership organization side of NDBA and that their finances are separate? If that is not agreed upon and understood, it is pretty difficult to discuss anything about NCBA and/or the Beef Checkoff, IMO.

Also, do you believe it impossible that the Federation of State Beef Councils division of NCBA is incapable of being "motivated" to carry out cost recovery only contracts by the fact that it has the good of the cattle/beef industry uppermost in its agenda?

BTW, I have NOT seen where "checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS". What are you talking about? On the other hand, NAIS is fact. Does it need "promotion"? However, NAIS affects ALL cattle producers......so maybe checkoff funding should be used to make sure NAIS is the best it can be for cattle producers. And that is my opinion, and NOT anything from either of the two divisions of NCBA!

MRJ

MRJ

 

[ocm]

BTW, I have NOT seen where "checkoff funds have been used to promote NAIS". What are you talking about?

Stay tuned. I'm getting a little ahead of the breaking news.

 

[ocm]

On the other hand, NAIS is fact. Does it need "promotion"?

For two years I have challenged anyone to show me enabling legislation for NAIS. No one has yet done so.

It has not been authorized by Congress. NEVER. Anybody "promoting" it is in essence lobbying.

Can YOU quote me any enabling legislation?

No, it's not a part of the Homeland Security Act.

 

[ocm]

ocm, re. "non-profit" contracts: it appears to me you fail to differentiate between the two divisions of NCBA. You do understand, don't you, that the Federation of State Beef Councils is NOT the dues payer membership organization side of NDBA and that their finances are separate? If that is not agreed upon and understood, it is pretty difficult to discuss anything about NCBA and/or the Beef Checkoff, IMO.

I understand this quite well. It is my understanding that BOTH divisions are non-profit.

I was around enough cost plus government contracts to be aware that it is very easy to put "extras" into the cost side. Competition is a very good way to prevent that. Supposedly you promote free enterprise. What's wrong with competition for the checkoff contracts. Why is there a system that allows virtually no competition. Adam Smith said that lack of competition brings about poor management.