Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Farmers to decide if soy checkoff goes to a vote

By ANN HINCH
Assistant Editor

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a couple of months, American soybean producers will decide if they want to request a referendum on keeping the national soybean checkoff intact.

Last week, the USDA reminded soy farmers this is the year to consider a referendum. The checkoff was established by vote in 1994 and regulations state every five years, growers must be given the opportunity to request another referendum. According to Richard Borgsmiller, a former United Soybean Board (USB) chair from 2002, no referenda have been held since the original 15 years ago.

Starting May 4, producers may obtain a request form by mail, fax or in person from any Farm Service Agency county office. Forms may also be obtained via the Internet at www.ams.usda.gov/ls marketingprograms during the same time period.

Growers have until May 29 to turn in the form at their local FSA office, or June 5 to be received, if returned by mail (but postmarked no later than May 29).

Borgsmiller, a soybean grower in Murphysboro, Ill., emphasized the process is to gauge farmers’ wishes to put the checkoff to a vote.
It will take more than 58,000 requests – or at least 10 percent of the nation’s nearly 600,000 soybean producers – to trigger a referendum, according to the USDA.

The USDA secretary may, however, call for a referendum anytime he or she deems necessary, Borgsmiller explained.

He is familiar with the process, as a member and former head of the USB, the national organization that administers half the checkoff money collected each year (the other half goes back to the states where the soybean farms are located). He said the referendum is not automatic and must be requested, because conducting a vote costs money.

“You might be spending a lot on a moot point, if there’s no concerns,” he said.

Of course, in 1999 and 2004 there wasn’t a potential audit into the USB’s checkoff-spending practices pending from the USDA and its Office of Inspector General (OIG). This was requested by unanimous vote of directors of the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) in December 2008.

Recently, several former chairs of the USB raised the question of the validity of the ASA vote, saying there were new directors seated at the same time who were not involved in the discussion or vote. ASA Vice President Alan Kemper, who grows soybeans in Lafayette, Ind., confirmed the vote was taken in a closed-door session of outgoing 2007-08 officers (some of whom are still on the board) in St. Louis, Mo.

He said the eight new directors were not yet seated then, and they would not have had the historical familiarity or “wisdom” with the issue to discuss and vote on it. ASA President Johnny Dodson of Halls, Tenn. – who is new to his office but has spent eight years on the board – agreed it was the old board’s responsibility to ask the USDA for an audit.

Dodson said it was not “fair or appropriate” for the new directors coming on board to “be thrown into this decision,” partly because they would not yet have known the internal workings of the ASA processes.

During the Commodity Classic two weeks ago, Borgsmiller said ASA delegates from across the United States voted “overwhelmingly” to show support for keeping the checkoff going.

“The delegate body, which is made up of more people (than just ASA directors), essentially changed the tone” of feeling toward the checkoff, he said.

Without being asked, volunteering the information and in a separate conversation, Kemper also told Farm World about this 138-delegate poll.

“It doesn’t mean anything more than the (ASA) officers do, too,” he said of supporting the checkoff.

He said the ASA could have excluded from the vote delegates who were also USB directors, on conflict of interest; it did not. Dodson said, in fact, the ASA changed its annual officer election cycle in 2007 to coincide with USB’s – December instead of July – so that directors and officers from the two would have an entire year each time to work together, rather than having to get to know new people every six months.

“The two organizations have got to find a way to work together,” Dodson said, adding if the OIG conducts an audit, “ultimately, when the investigation is complete and the conclusions are submitted, the checkoff will be stronger because farmers will have faith in their national checkoff program.”

As for the St. Louis vote, Kemper said each director was given a copy of the petition and time to ask questions. He said it was put to a vote and nobody objected – which made it unanimous. Though the USB was meeting in the same building at the time, he said the ASA did not notify the USB chair until the next morning – only hours before publicizing it – because of attorney-client privilege in the closed meeting.

“Since that time, people have been putting out comments (about what supposedly happened), but that’s what happened,” Kemper said.

An unanswered question is how the ASA will handle the new U.S. Soybean Federation (USSF). It was created in December as a rival lobbying organization, by some of the same people who belong to the ASA.

“I have talked with a number of the Federation members, as ASA president, trying to resolve their concerns and issues,” Dodson said.

If the USSF becomes viable, there will come a time when the ASA must deal with the situation, since ASA bylaws state none of its directors may be part of another national soybean lobbying group.

3/11/2009