A four-page press release dated Dec. 10 detailing the ASA’s concerns encompasses “serious allegations of abuse, wasteful spending and mismanagement” regarding the use of checkoff funds. It also alleges violations of salary and administrative caps, such as putting employees on contractors’ books and misclassifying expenses to stay within allowed spending limits.

Another allegation is that checkoff funds were used for prohibited purposes, namely to influence legislation or government action/policy. The ASA stated this involves not only the USB, but also USB-created organizations such as QUALISOY, the Soy Nutrition Institute and USSEC.

The ASA cited, for example, a 2004 Washington, D.C., speech by the USB chairman that focused on ag and trade policy positions, and called the speech’s content “inappropriate” to the USB’s statutory purpose.

These organizations the USB has created, the ASA alleges, have cost millions in checkoff funds and “have among their objectives attracting non-checkoff funding from industry to be used to influence government policy and actions.” The ASA further stated this “appears to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the statutory prohibition under which USB is supposed to operate.”

In addition, the ASA alleges the USB and/or USSEC fired or dismissed whistleblowers who brought to their attention supposed wrongdoings – such as “an improper employee relationship … receiving direction to break overseas laws and American regulations … the awarding of no-bid contracts … a hostile work environment, wasteful or fraudulent feeding trials, mismanagement and more.”
Abuse of authority is another allegation, specifically that the USB staff and directors used their position to silence criticism from state checkoff organizations, by threatening “over-rigorous compliance audits of state activities.” Too, the ASA stated the accountant the USB hired to oversee some financial activity is actually an employee of USB’s largest contractor.

Finally, the ASA alleges the USB has overspent on self-promotion and self-preservation through producer communications and surveys, believing it “is high and disproportionate in relation to spending on actual demand-building activities for U.S. soybeans (e.g., domestic and international marketing activities) or production research spending to increase soybean yields and disease resistance.”