USDA again flexed its muscles on a commodity checkoff plan, finding no misuse of funds but recommending that more attention be paid to relationships between the checkoff board and its major contractor.  The law governing checkoff programs is explicit on how the respective checkoff board and its contractors work with one another.  A major issue is how too close a relationship between the board and a lobbying organization can violate the law.

This time it was the National Pork Board and its primary contractor, the National Pork Producers Council.  USDA's office of inspector general found no misuse or loss of pork checkoff funds after a year-long audit requested by the board but nevertheless recommended that the relationship between the two organizations be more closely scrutinized and honored by the board and the NPPC.

That brought a sharp retort from pork officials.  "Producer leaders of the National Pork Board and NPPC have denounced the call for unnecessary administrative duplication when there is no misuse of funds to warrant such action," the groups said in a statement.

"Suggested recommendations by the OIG report would take additional pork producer checkoff money out of meaningful programs to fund unneeded duplicative administration," said NPPC President John McNutt, Iowa City, IA.  "The suggested OIG changes would reduce the effectiveness and efficiency of the current pork checkoff program.  That's wasteful and just not good business in the eyes of pork producers."

McNutt went on to say the system used involves checks and balances.  "Producer delegates from 44 state associations define the policy direction and elect NPPC's board of the directors.  Hundreds of individual producers serving on nearly 30 committees work with NPPC's board of directors to set program direction.  Our professional staff develops and implements producer-requested programs."

He added that the 15-member National Pork Board is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.  Producer oversight "is working," he added.  "That was proven when OIG found no misuse or loss of pork checkoff funds during its year-long audit.  Why should OIG be allowed to tamper with a program that has successfully helped pork producers of all sizes for 12 years?"

Pork officials say the additional oversight could costs $2-3 million a year.  One problem the audit found is that the board, with a staff of two, is under-staffed and relies too much on the NPPC to handle its responsibilities.

The board should work with USDA to "accomplish appropriate separation" from NPPC, including more staff and checks on accountability.