By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor DALLAS, Texas — Nearly three months ago, the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) asked the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate and audit the national soybean checkoff, collected and managed by the United Soybean Board (USB).
The ASA’s allegations of misspending and abuse of trust were several and serious, and included not only the USB but also USB-created organizations QUALISOY, the Soy Nutrition Institute and the U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC). In December, USB leaders gave brief statements on how the checkoff money is spent and noted the USDA has oversight of the organization, promising to comply with any investigation the USDA deems necessary.
When contacted for follow-up remarks, the USB has not responded. A statement co-signed by 10 past chairs of the USB, sent to soybean farmers and media outlets during the annual Commodity Classic last week, explained the USDA has imposed a “virtual gag order” on the USB.
At the Classic in Dallas on Feb. 27, new USB Chair Chuck Myers confirmed the USDA must authorize discussion of specific allegations. He reiterated the USB’s willingness to go along with any review by the USDA or OIG.
“We have pledged from the very start … to cooperate with any audit or investigation,” he told Farm World.
He noted this matter is taking time and resources to handle, but that at the USB’s recent budget meeting efforts were “focused totally” on what the USB will do for farmers in 2010.
During a Classic learning session on Feb. 26, hosted by the USB, it let growers know the ways checkoff money is being used to develop markets for their soybeans. Fresh on the heels of the ASA’s request, some may have seen this 90-minute presentation as a defense of checkoff spending.
But Don Borgman, a Missouri farmer and John Deere tractor salesman, said remarks and slides for his talk about soy-based equipment parts came from a presentation he did two years ago.
Richard Galloway of Galloway and Associates, who talked about developing healthy soy-oil traits, said he started working with the USB in 1998 and has seen no changes in how it has handled development and promotion of its farmers’ soybeans since December. Rick Stern, USB production chair and a New Jersey farmer, explained projects in the USB’s and QUALISOY’s trait enhancement “pipeline” have been in development for far longer than three months.
More questions As past chairs of the USB, the 10 farmers who put their names on the aforementioned statement said they know how the checkoff works “and, just as important, how the checkoff is not allowed to work.”
Referencing the “gag order,” they added, “Right now you’ve only heard ASA’s side of the story and unless farmers like us speak up, that’s all you’ll hear.”
The statement points out the checkoff’s accomplishments in increasing soybean exports and creating demand for the bean in the marketplace. It notes the USB has operated “well within” salary cap guidelines – adding that the ASA was once a checkoff contractor with two employees working in the USB office.
As for use of checkoff funds “for prohibited purposes” – such as a 2004 speech in which the ASA alleged the USB chair at the time gave a policy-oriented speech (the ASA handles lobbying and policy efforts and by law, the USB cannot) – the 10 past chairs stated: “At the end of his speech he clearly indicated that he was taking off his USB hat and speaking as a farmer, giving some brief personal thoughts.”
The ASA alleged the USB didn’t take corrective action with a matter of concern within the USSEC; the 10 replied “it is important to note that the industry-wide board of USSEC includes equal representation of ASA and USB leaders.”
As for the charge of conflict of interest between the USB and its accounting contractor: “USB contracts with an association management firm for domestic programs, a role that ASA previously held until growing concerns about strategic direction, accountability and transparency dictated a change.”
The past chairs also addressed allegations that the USB engages excessively in self-promotion and preservation.
They stated “ASA may be confusing marketing with self-promotion” and countered “it’s short-sighted to say that keeping a finger on the pulse of soybean farmers is not smart business when you are investing checkoff dollars on their behalf.”
These 10 questioned the ASA’s timing, motives and handling of its request. A request for referendum to renew the soybean checkoff is coming up this year, they state; they also wondered why the ASA engaged in “an integrated public relations campaign” to notify press of the investigation request, rather than wait until the USDA had completed its review.
They question where funds have come from to finance the ASA’s legal and PR effort – if they are being diverted from the organization’s lobbying work in Washington, D.C. They have heard there may have been secrecy within the ranks of the ASA itself during a vote in St. Louis, Mo., in December, on the USDA request.
“How will ASA undo the damage already done to the credibility of the soybean checkoff if the audit turns up nothing?” the statement asks.
Farm World will attempt to follow up on this story by speaking with the ASA, for its March 11 issue.
Source of statement The statement was distributed by an e-mail address tied to the U.S. Soybean Federation, a new lobbying organization formed in December 2008 of state soybean associations in Minnesota, Missouri and Mississippi, led by the Minnesota Soybean Growers Assoc. and registered as a nonprofit in that state.
Richard Borgsmiller of Illinois, who was USB chair in 2002 and who co-signed the statement, confirmed it is genuine and was put together by the 10 past chairs who attended this year’s Commodity Classic.
The past chair referenced in allegations about the policy speech in 2004, Chris Davis, was not at the Classic, so he was not one of the 10.
Borgsmiller said an OIG investigation/audit should not surprise the USB, since he and others always figured there would be one “somewhere down the road” because it involves a mandatory collection of money. But, he said, “ASA was running amok, as far as putting out these allegations … and there wasn’t any avenue for retort.
“The farmers in the field didn’t hear another side of it, and there is always another side,” Borgsmiller said of the statement. |
