State auditor responds to brand inspector editorial
Dear Editor,
This is to follow up on my conversation today regarding your recent editorial on the Nebraska Brand Committee. A recent audit of the agency found that 43 out of 45 "full time" brand inspectors worked less than a full time work schedule in violation of state law.
As journalists, you have an obligation to report the truth.
You write:
The audit finding is "a result of eastern bureaucratic bean counters who wouldn't know the difference betweeen a heifer and a horsefly…"
The truth:
The report was prepared by a highly experienced auditor who lives in Sidney, Nebraska who is very familiar with the duties of the Nebraska Brand Committee.
You write:
"we're sure most of them (brand inspectors) fulfill those duties admirably -- putting in far more than 40 hours during peak seasons."
The truth:
Yes, some inspectors did work more than 40 hours per week during the peak season. But even when you count all those overtime hours, the agency's "full-time" inspectors still came up over 10,000 hours short of full time work effort. One inspector had the equivalent of 17 weeks of NO WORK and he earned full retirement, health care, vacation leave and other state employee benefits during that time.
You Write:
"Lost somewhere in the argument is the fact that the Nebraska Brand Committee is a self-supporting cash fund agency, paying inspectors from fees collected for brand recordings, brand inspections, and registered feedlots and dairies."
The truth:
The agency is funded by fees passed on to the consumers of beef products. This fact was not "lost" but was reported up-front in my press release on the subject. Cash funded agencies of government should operate efficiently and in accordance with state law.
You write:
…the Legislature, if that's what it takes, should change the law so brand inspectors can get back to work."
The truth:
Brand inspectors never stopped. What's needed now is a restructuring of the agency so that it's personnel resources match the work load. Seasonal fluctuations in work load are not unique to this agency and there are management techniques that can be readily used to address the problem.
Conclusions:
Your editorial is a weak defense of continued inefficiency in state government. My exposure of it is passed off as an attempt to further my political ambitions. If you would prefer not to know of instances when my office uncovers waste, fraud, and abuse, please let me know. In the interim, I hope you will be mindful of your obligation to your readers to report the truth.
Finally, you should be aware that the Nebraska Brand Committee wrote to the Legislature on September 24, 2007 to inform them that the agency will now, "follow the State Auditor's recommendation in requiring all full-time brand inspectors to work forty hours each week or 2,080 hours annually."
Sincerely,
Mike Foley
State Auditor