Conflicts of Interest: USDA and Equity Commission?

For about ten years I was an appointed member of the Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists. During some of that time, I was either the appointee to attend or a voted upon Member at Large of the Association of Marriage and Family Regulatory Boards. 

In both of those arenas, MFT was important. In both of those, public protection was crucially important.

At the same time, I was a member (still am) of the Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Expansion of the discipline is important here. 

Are they related? Certainly. Are they in different domains? Absolutely. 

Ethical standards and conflicts of interest were terribly important to us. Such matters were linked to a successful practice in marriage and family therapy, or losing the license to practice marriage and family therapy. 

That brings me to the USDA and its Equity Commission. The Equity Commission was established by the authority of the President of the US in his Executive Order relative to equity. 

The Justice for Black Farmers Group has argued in many places and on various occasions that this commission is unnecessary and costly. The $10M to underwrite it comes from section 1006 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Section 1005 was explicitly designed to provide debt cancellation for socially disadantaged farmers and ranchers until the white farmer lawsuits starting rolling out, now about 12 or 13 of them. Section 1006 was designed to provide administrative support for these farmers and to provide debt cancellation as well. 

We have argued that we have enough commissions and reports. To name a few, the 1982 US Commission on Civil Rights, the Civil Rights Action Team Report of 1997, the Jackson Lewis Report of 2011, the D. J. Miller Report of 1999, and one of my favorites the OIG Report on the Office of Civil Rights, released in September, 2021. They all say the same thing: the USDA has a history of malfeasance in dealing with Black farmers and advantaging white farmers. 

The latest investigative report by Francis etal, "How the Government Helped White Farmers Steal Black Farmland," was just released last week in the New Republic. 

But these are only tangentially the point. 

The point is conflicts of interest. 

This USDA document defines conflict and interest and an apparent conflict of interest. Here is the definition of the appearance of a conflict of interest: "A situation in which it could reasonably be concluded that an employee's private interest is in conflict with the employee's Government duties and responsibilities, even though there may not actually be such a conflict." 

Here is the definition of a conflict of interest: "A situation in which a Federal employee's private interest conflicts with the full, fair, and impartial performance of Government duties and responsibilities. In other words, a situation in which a Federal employee's private interest, usually of an economic nature, conflicts with his or her Government duties and responsibilities. Conflict-of-interest statutes are contained in Chapter 11, Sections 202-209 and 216 of Title 18 U.S. Code."

The Equity Commission and the subcommittee on Agriculture have 28 members total. Of those 28 members, 8 of them and their organizations have received substantial funding from the USDA. Last year, the USDA released a list of 20 groups,  "Cooperative Agreement Organizations," and none of these groups had to apply for any funding. There is no indication of accountability and transparency in these groups and the $75M that they received. What we know is that none of the groups that signed on to our letter of criticism of the USDA and Tom Vilsack received any of those dollars. 

It is true that within the Equity Commission's FAQ, that having received funding is not within and of itself a conflict of interest, according to the USDA. It goes on to add this sentence, however: "All Equity Commission members who are ultimately appointed must comply with ethics requirements and mitigate any conflicts of interest."

Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.  I give you a nice chunk of change, upwards of $2.5M, then I appoint you, or rather I pursue you, to serve on an Equity Commission that is designed to create equity within services and programs of an entity that is well known for discriminating against minority farmers, and I want you to help me. I've helped you, so now I want you to help me. 

BTW, the helper here is Secretary Thomas Vilsack who has a horrendous record of civil rights at the USDA. How do I know, you ask? Just look at this brutal piece of investigative reporting by Rosenberg and Stucki from 2019. The title speaks for itself, but within the article are five myths of the Vilsack administration. I know several of the folks interviewed. I would trust them with my life. 

So, is there a conflict of interest if my organization received several million dollars via a Cooperative Agreement, one in which I did not have to apply for the funding, and serving on the Equity Commission? Maybe not legally, but I think it smells mighty fishy. Mighty fishy. Awfully fishy.