010553 NPPC Offers “Facts of Pork Checkoff Referendum”May 20, 2001Des Moines, IA - “Activists who worked to end the pork checkoff continue to try to distort the facts and use empty rhetoric in an attempt to deliberately confuse and mislead pork producers about the checkoff referendum,” said Barb Determan, President of the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC). “We want to set the record straight so that pork producers have the facts and understand exactly how they are being led astray by the activists.” In a meeting called by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on January 5, 2000, the USDA told NPPC, the National Pork Board and the Campaign for Family Farms (CFF) that through USDA's own validation process of the petition signatures, not enough had been collected to call for a referendum. In fact, the petition drive was 15% short of the required signatures. Still, then-Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman went against the Pork Act, the law that binds the pork checkoff, and ordered a referendum. In papers filed in the Federal Court in Michigan, CFF conceded that Secretary Glickman never explicitly made a “finding that 15% of the nation's pork producers had signed the petition...” Federal Judge Richard Enslen ruled through a temporary restraining order on January 19, 2001, that the Secretary did not have the authority to call for the referendum. “Allowing the Secretary to violate the Pork Act by usurping more authority than he was given by Congress does not serve the public. Likewise, allowing the Secretary to terminate a program relied on by many, when the process used to arrive at termination is allegedly flawed, is not in the public interest. The entire process leading to the termination of the Pork Checkoff Program was arguably flawed. It is in the public's interest that a court examine the proceedings and their result.” “As pork producers, we have more questions about how this whole situation was handled than we can get answers for,” said Determan, a pork producer from Early, Iowa. “The flaws in the process don't just stop with illegally calling for the referendum, they continue with USDA's own Office of Inspector General (OIG).” On January 5, 2001, NPPC presented evidence to OIG of voting and ballot irregularities. Just three business days later, the OIG put forth what they considered a full report on the concerns brought forth by pork producers. “How can taking three days to evaluate USDA's own data of missing ballots be considered a complete investigation? That is less of an audit and more of a hopeful opinion. As a point of reference, it took OIG 17 weeks to conduct an audit of NPPC's use of checkoff funds. That was the same audit that found 'no misuse or loss of checkoff funds' in 1999,” said Determan. Voting irregularities, based on USDA data, show nearly 4,000 unaccounted for ballots that were reported cast in the referendum but were never counted because they can't be found. Furthermore, the return rate of absentee ballots by counties ranges from 12% to 100%, begging the question of why such a large difference in returns of ballots. Finally, USDA reported the spoiled or invalid ballots: Indiana at 16.81%, Nebraska 12.11%, Iowa 6.76%, Minnesota 5.36%, Missouri 5.45% and Illinois 3.98%. Even the rate of spoiled ballots in Florida's general election of 2000 was only 2.86%. In a news conference May 14, 2001, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman said, “The advice of our lawyers was that we were probably going to lose that case and that the referendum would be thrown out in its entirety. So the choice to be made then was whether or not to enter into settlement discussions.” Veneman went on to explain, “The problem was that the legal flaws with the way the referendum was conducted appeared to be very difficult and insurmountable. And therefore rather than lose the entire case in court and go back to the old system, with the settlement there was the opportunity to get something for everyone so to speak. We were advised by our legal team that this was a fair settlement, that is was a good opportunity to give something to everyone when our likelihood of success on the merits (of the referendum process), I was advised, was not very good.” Determan said, “I find it interesting at best, that CFF actually filed their cross claim legal action against the government on March 14, 2001, but waited until Secretary Veneman was in Iowa in May to turn it into a media blitz. As pork producers we will not just stand by any longer while CFF, with their own agenda, demolishes all we have worked to build. In 1968, a group of producers launched the first pork checkoff program because they knew working together was the best way to accomplish the most for everyone. In 2001 we are adhering to the settlement on the pork checkoff as agreed to by USDA, independent pork producers, Michigan Pork Producers Association and NPPC.” Determan concluded, “As a pork producer, I am not going to let lies, half-truths and misinformation cloud the pork checkoff any more. The checkoff program has a proven track record and will move forward through the help of pork producers. What is the track record of CFF?”
E-mail: sflanagan@sprintmail.com |
