After pursuing Raw milk champ former state rep Sarah Anderson steps up to lead turkey growers, a reader in Southern Minnesota who works in the ag sector contacted us to ask if the dual appointment of the Plymouth Republican as Executive Director of the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association and the Minnesota Turkey Research and Promotion Council constituted a conflict of interest.
He was recalling findings in a report by the Office of the Legislative Auditor in 2014. The OLA's report was published while Anderson served in the Minnesota House.
Bluestem Prairie posted about the March 2014 Evaluation Report "Agricultural Commodity Councils" in Minnesota Legislative Auditor finds minimal oversight of agricultural commodity councils
Our article included OLA's executive summary, which cited issues at the two turkey groups:
The Area I Potato and Turkey council boards have potential conflicts of interest. The 15 board members of the Turkey Council are also members of the 18-person board for the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, a related organization. Although both groups represent turkey growers, they are separate organizations with distinct purposes. As a result, the board members have a conflict of interest: they are expected to serve the interests of the Turkey Council and the interests of the Turkey Growers Association. These dual roles are especially noteworthy since, in 2012, the Turkey Council contracted for services from the Turkey Growers Association worth almost $330,000, or 36 percent, of the council’s total expenditures. We recommend the Legislature amend statutes to address council board conflicts of interest.
That issue seems to be resolved with composition of the new boards. There's no overlap in board memberships. The Turkey Growers Association board membership is available here, while the Minnesota Turkey Research and Promotion Council board membership is posted here on the group's website.
In the groups' 2018 990 reports to the IRS, embedded in Raw milk champ former state rep Sarah Anderson steps up to lead turkey growers, only one person served on both boards of directors: Chris Huisinga. (Ag Week profile here).
The turkey groups do seem to have addressed this issue.
The longer document pointed out another issue (page 44)
As discussed in Chapter 1, growers associations are voluntary, member-based organizations that represent the interests of agricultural producers. They do not receive revenue from checkoff fees; instead, their revenue is based on member dues. We found that:
- Many of the councils have a close relationship with their related growers association.
Several councils have significant financial, managerial, and operational relationships with their corresponding growers associations.[emphasis added] For example, the Corn Council paid $4.9 million to the Minnesota Corn Growers Association in 2012 for handling council funds, accounting, general and project management, and communications. Five councils—Barley, Corn, Soybean, Turkey, and Wheat—share staff with their corresponding growers association.
As the OLA report noted earlier:
...in 2012, the Turkey Council contracted for services from the Turkey Growers Association worth almost $330,000, or 36 percent, of the council’s total expenditures.
How much does the Council pay/grant to the Turkey Growers Association lately? The most recent annual report posted by the Turkey Growers is for 2017-2018; the document doesn't include revenue and spending. The most recent annual report, also for 2017-2018, posted by the Minnesota Turkey Research and Promotion Council, also does not include a budget.
According to the Council's 2018 990 filing, roughly the same time period, the Council paid the Turkey Growers Association $298,420 under Section B, Independent Contractors. Under the same section, the National Turkey Federation received $252,493. The Council brought in $765,732 in Turkey Assessments (presumably those turkey commodity check-offs).
In the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association 2018 990, it's not clear where that contract comes in as revenue.
The two organizations also share an address. Can a single executive director run two organizations with "significant financial, managerial, and operational relationships"?
While the boards have become independent, those relationships appear to remain, as close as we can determine. It's not much of a firewall.
Will Anderson follow the path of the last executive director and register to lobby her former colleagues at the state legislature? Anderson starts her new job on April 6, according to Brownfield Ag News, so we'll have to wait until then.
Related post: Raw milk champ former state rep Sarah Anderson steps up to lead turkey growers
Screengrab: Sarah Anderson. From video archive produced by the Minnesota House Information Services.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments