Pigford II Website

Per an FSA notice, the website for Pigford II claims is blackfarmercase.com. 
It has two bolded statements:

: No payments can be made to any claimants under the Settlement until all claims have been determined. That means that it could be 2-3 years before successful claimants receive any payments.  Please be patient.

Please note: You do not need to pay money to any individual, farm advocacy group, or law firm to participate in the Settlement.  

Pigford II Is Signed, And Breitbart Digs Away

I've been slow recently in following the Pigford II story.  Briefly, yesterday Obama signed the legislation.  It passed the House despite some speeches against it by Michelle Bachmann and Steve King. And it seems that Mr. Breitbart is promising revelations, including allegations that more than 50 percent of Pigford claims are fraudulent.

I'd comment today simply that any discussion needs to distinguish between Pigford I and Pigford II claims, A and B claims, claims which were filed and claims which were approved.

Pigford II Passes Senate

As reported by the Post here.  Also includes money to settle the long lasting lawsuit over BIA's handling of Indian trust funds.  I must say, given the way ASCS/FSA and BIA pass information on payments for land owned by BIA Indians, I've never been surprised at how screwed up the accounts got.  Some historian will write an interesting book on the subject because it's a place where Native American society and the market-oriented, individualistic society of the European settlers interfaces, interfaces poorly.

Keepseagle Site

Here's the site for Keepseagle settlement. 

Pigsford, Keepseagle, and BP Oil Spill

I'm late in commenting on the resolution of the Keepseagle lawsuit (which roughly follows the Pigsford lawsuit, but with Native Americans as the aggrieved party). An agreement was signed last week. 

I haven't followed it in enough detail to know the answers on the issues of class action and funding.

• if I recall,  for Pigsford, the initial lawsuit didn't pass the threshold to achieve class action status.  If I remember, Congress had to pass legislation allowing the suit to be treated as a class action. Apparently Keepseagle didn't have that problem.
• also my memory says there was some reason the Pigsford settlements (the first one) had to be funded by Congress instead of using the existing Department of Justice fund. The Keepseagle ageement is using the DOJ fund, which means claimants won't have to depend on Congress to act.

The Post had a piece on the Keepseagle complainants.  No one in my position can talk about discrimination.  I did note, however, one of the complainants couldn't get a farm loan at 4 percent from FSA but was able to get an 8 percent loan from a bank.  This ties to something I may have written before: the original intent of the farm loan program was to help those for whom help wasn't available through normal commercial channels.  That is, if the local banker would make you a loan, then you should go there and not to the government.  Whether or not that theory is still in effect I don't know.  And it's quite possible it might be the policy on paper, but the reality is the well-connected are able to get FSA loans regardless.  And the situation may well vary from county to county and state to state.

Pigford and Rep. Steve King

Rep. Steve King issues a press release alleging massive fraud in the Pigford settlement. Chris Clayton at DTN calls it a red herring.  [Updated: another article describing both a press conference and some USDA reaction.]

Though I've voiced some qualms about Pigford (see the "Pigford" tab), I think Chris has the  better argument. I note in this post that Boyd talked of 20,000 farmers each in Alabama and Mississippi. I do think Chris errs in his apparent assumption that both husband and wife are eligible to file individual claims because I don't think they could file separate loan applications.

The bottom line to me is that Mr. Boyd has inflated the number of potential claimants and is fostering the false impression that every claimant will receive money.  Neither is true. Neither exaggerating the numbers of one's interest group and the benefits they might derive from proposed legislation is unknown inside the Beltway--if we believed the American Farm Bureau Federation we'd have many more farmers than the census reveals. I'm sure Rep. King wouldn't accuse them of fraud.

Based on the claims reviewed and rejected from the first Pigford settlement (which Mr. Clayton discusses in some detail), it seems there's a reasonable process to weed out claims which don't meet the evidentiary standards.

Clayton Weighs in on the Emanuel Disaster Program, and Pigford

Chris Clayton relates the possible disaster program to make Lincoln happy to the failure to appropriate funds for the Pigford II case.

Shirley Sherrod's Speech, Book to Follow?

I have to apologize to Shirley Sherrod.  From the video bit, I thought she wasn't the best story teller.  But reading the transcript of the full speech (well, almost the full speech--I guess the transcriber got bored when she started on the Rural Development programs) she's pretty good.  I think she's a bit younger than I, so I remember some--the sheriff she mentions who fined everyone coming through the county.

Not great--she says growing up she wanted to leave the farm, get away, go north and get herself a Northern husband.  But she ended up marrying someone in the civil rights movement.

About now there should be a handful of journalists contacting her and offering to write her memoirs.

There are some things she describes which fit into the Pigford case.  I may incorporate them into a future post.
[Updated--she and her husband apparently won the biggest award under Pigford--I say apparently because the release here isn't quite as explicit as I'd like.]
[Update 2--her husband, Charles Sherrod, has a short bio here.]

Keepseagle and Pigford

Here's a piece on the Keepseagle class action suit, which follows in the footsteps of Pigford. Unwittingly, the author may reveal some of the Catch-22 qualities of the FSA loan program.  The farmer given the most attention in the piece cites the discrimination he encountered.  He's described as saying: "After the regional office denied him a loan at 4 percent interest, Porter said he received an 8 percent interest loan through a private bank. He purchased the acres he lives on now, but he said the high interest has put a strain on his finances."

Now FSA's lords  in Congress have laid down commandments to FSA bureaucrats, and to the Farmer's Home Administration bureaucrats before 1994, which go something like this:

• thou shall lend to the new farmers, to the historically disadvantaged, and to the needy
• thou shall never compete with private enterprise, so thou shalt not lend to someone who can receive a loan from local banks
• thou shall not lose money on bad loans
• honor the maxim, late money is worse than no money.

Now, in theory, if the local banker is prejudiced and the FSA bureaucrat is not, there are opportunities to make good loans.  Of course the FSA bureaucrat isn't usually some stranger, she's someone from the locality, or at least the state, so if the banker is prejudiced it increases the chances the bureaucrat is also prejudiced.

Or maybe the local banker runs out of money to loan.  In that case FSA bureaucrat could, in theory, step in. The only problem is the running out of money is likely to occur late in the lending season, so the FSA bureaucrat's loan is likely to be late.

Now suppose both FSA and the bank have money to loan, and neither is prejudiced.  So Jane Doe goes to the bank and gets an offer of a loan at 8 percent.  She goes to FSA  but since she has a loan offer from the local bank, FSA turns her down. Or, as in Porter's case, FSA turns him down, thinking it's likely the local banker will approve the loan. That could be the case, or it may be discriminatory intent.  It certainly feels like discrimination to the loan applicants.

Pigford Update

The Pigford money has been having a hard time making it through Congress because it's attached to legislation the Reps and Dems are fighting over.  But there was a switch to a plan B which may help, described here.

But this quote from John Boyd puzzles me:

"Boyd also called on southern Republican senators to "do the right thing for the black farmers" who are their constituents and vote for it. He noted that Mississippi and Alabama each has about 20,000 black farmers who would get settlements."

I don't see anything in this which supports his figures, though he may be thinking of people who would/have applied and not the "black principal operator"  ERS uses.  Mr. Boyd should also note that (20,000 + 20,000) * $50,000 = $2,000,000,000, which is more than is available and more than is agreed to in the recent negotiations.

Column on Pigford Claims

Interesting column in the High Plains Journal, with which I agree:

If the Ag Census data is correct, it still seems difficult to understand how the number of people filing Pigford claims could be more than double the number of black farmers in the U.S. Unfortunately, few people at USDA are willing to even discuss this topic for fear of appearing racist.
In the interest of transparency, it would seem helpful to have USDA provide the names and more information about who has or will be receiving payments under the Pigford cases. Adding more "sunlight" to this issue might help close another heart-wrenching chapter in farm loan history.

Unfortunately the "table" of payment data she refers to does not appear.

Discrimination Claims

AP has a story on a proposal to resolve claims of discrimination filed by Hispanics and women.

The Obama administration on Tuesday offered $1.3 billion to settle complaints from female and Latino farmers who say they faced discrimination from the Agriculture Department.
The proposal comes as Congress is poised to approve a $1.25 billion settlement with African-American farmers in a similar discrimination case. The agency also is negotiating with Native American farmers over another lawsuit.

The NY Times has a story on the Pigford claims.

Pigford Now

Vilsack has a statement, which says nothing much. The bottom line is, the agreement between the claimants and the government expired on March 31, 2010, but the reality is the claimants really have no choice.  They have to wait and see whether Congress will come up with the additional money. And then whether they can qualify for anything under new rules. Meanwhile, FSA will kick everything to DOJ, according to this notice.

Pigford Agreement

See here for the text of the statement from USDA and Justice.  I'm not clear how the process will work, whether it differs from the prior one. Congress still needs to appropriate $1.15 billion in addition to the $100 million already done.

NY Times and Pigford

The Times weighs in on the second go-round of the Pigford case.  Some day I'll muster some energy to write more about it, but today I'm exhausted from shoveling snow.

Pigford and the Indian Case

Not much more than this in the ABC post.

A federal judge has approved settlement talks in a decade-old discrimination lawsuit filed by American Indians against the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Pigford and the Women

From a Government Executive post:

two key House members introduced legislation Thursday to establish a $4.6 billion compensation fund for female farmers who have been denied loans since 1981.

The article discusses Pigford and the other discrimination cases filed against FSA and USDA.  But there's no substantive discussion of the basis for the amount or any indication of what lawyers are involved.  (In the Pigford case there were allegations of misconduct by some of the lawyers.)

Updated:  See the press release on De Lauro's site for more details.  I refuse to use my dwindling brain cells to analyze the differences between De Lauro's process and Pigford but it looks as if it's the two track process again: one track for people who credibly claim to have applied for a loan, another track for people who can prove discrimination.  The first track gets $5,000 instead of the $50,000 for Pigford; the second gets an adjustable $109,000. 

One white male chauvinist legalistic remark:  there's no provision to prevent double-dipping by a black female  farmer (or, in the event, a Hispanic female or a Native American female farmer).

Hispanic Farmers and FSA

An NPR story today on alleged discrimination in providing farm loans.

A note--I don't know anything about it.  However, I do remember visiting with farmers in the early 90's who complained that their loan applications weren't approved timely--this was in the context of proposals USDA should streamline its processes.[Updated: I should also note while Reagan killed the EEO office, it was later revived, although GAO has consistently pointed out its ills.]

Another EEO Review at USDA

According to this announcement (they're hiring a firm to do a review).

Meanwhile the Hispanic farmers lawsuit is raised again:

There is still a law suit that dates back years ago with thousands of claims from Hispanic farmers saying they were discriminated against. A similar case was settled for African American farmers, resulting in $2.5 billion. Hispanic farmers want to know where's their money and what's wrong with their case. However, because of logistics and the fact that the case was not certified as a class-action lawsuit there are too many separate claims and Vilsack said it's not so easy.
“If it were up to me, I could,” said Vilsack. “But I need direction from congress, either to set the process up or give me money and say go figure the process out. I don't have either one of these right now.”

 

Comments on EEO Data Collection Submitted

I may have failed to note USDA was requesting comments on a data collection of race/ethnicity/sex data. The notice was originally published on May 13, 2009, as FR Doc E911109, then amended in a notice published June 19 as E9-14444. Comments are still open until July 31, and you can see the documents and file comments at http://www.regulations.gov/

Anyhow I finally got my comments composed and submitted and here's the text. You get the advantage of some working links--the regulations.gov site doesn't recognize links.


"My comments are based on my past service in ASCS and FSA, with an early connection to the Service Center Information Management System (SCIMS). Since my retirement in 1997 I've been aware of the Pigford case and some of the GAO reports in this area.

I understand the June 19, 2009 amendment to the original request for comments to constitute a backing off from a specific process of data collection, which is good, but I'm still confused on some points.

I'd think the request for comments could have been improved by:

1. citing the relevant governing documents issued by OMB. Based on my limited research, the OMB guidance issued on October 30, 1997 for the 2000 Census, that was to apply to other Federal programs by January 1, 2003, seems to be still the latest. (This is the change separating "Hispanic" as ethnic, rather than racial and permitting multi-racial categories.)
   
2. mentioning the SCIMS database now being operated by FSA. It was originally intended to provide common producer/customer/employee data for the service center agencies. I'm not clear on the extent to which this intention has been achieved, but my interpretation of paragraphs 177-179 of handbook 1-CM is that the system already collects personal identity information according to the OMB guidance. Because the FR notice doesn't specifically mention SCIMS, it's not clear to me whether the planned information collection supersedes SCIMS, is part of SCIMS, or what. As published and corrected, the data collection doesn't really make sense--it mentions only collecting race/ethnicity/sex data but I assume it's tied to an individual, meaning the person's name and address must also be collected.
   

Specifically in response to the four points:

1 Is the collection necessary for performance of USDA functions? Given the criticism directed at USDA (Pigford, etc.): I'd agree USDA needs to be able to point to valid statistics on race, ethnicity, etc. But given that SCIMS currently collects some data for many of the universe of respondents, it's difficult to know whether this collection would represent an improvement over current practice.

2 Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of methodology and assumptions used: Given the modifications in the June 19 notice, it's hard to evaluate the proposal. If the idea is that the business process already has the individual's name and address, so the collection is limited to race/ethnicity and sex, most individuals could respond in a few seconds, not 2 minutes. Even individuals who might need to decide whether to reply as multi-racial are not likely to increase the burden greatly. 2 minutes might be reasonable for a collection of name, address, plus race/ethnicity and sex, but you don't describe your collection that way.

I don't know how you came up with 14 million respondents--that's way above any estimate of producers and landowners I've seen. There should be a large degree of overlap between the three agencies, FSA, NRCS, and RD.

3 Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected: The notice does not specify what information is to be collected . I assume the collection will follow the OMB guidance, but assumptions should be spelled out.

Given the suspicions of USDA among minority farmers I think it's important to increase public confidence in the data collected. I'd suggest running comparisons of the USDA data against Census data--for example, in areas with a high percentage of minority inhabitants, do rural zip codes show comparable percentages--does FSA have 10 percent Hispanics while Census has 25 percent? I'd also have OIG look specifically at existing data and have the FSA county office reviewers do spot checks.

You might also consider an annual mailing of the customer statement to everyone for whom FSA/NRCS/RD have data. That's the sort of thing Social Security Administration does, and it would give producers an opportunity to review their race/ethnicity/sex data.

4 Minimizing the burden of collection. Inasmuch as SCIMS has been operational for some time, I'd suggest a careful review of its operation would be instructive. What do USDA service center offices think of the process? What do those customers who use e-Authentication and the USDA e-gov process think? Should the data collected be shown on the USDA customer statement?

Whatever is going on behind the screen of the computer, I think it is most important that employees in the service center and those using the Internet application feel there's a seamless application for recording the data for a new customer. In other words, I'd drop any idea of a separate collection just for race/ethnicity/sex. Incorporate it in a standard process for registering new customers which can bridge into individual agency processes for their own programs.

Additional comments:

The new team at USDA might consider elevating the SCIMS function (or a revised and improved customer relationship) to the departmental level to provide greater visibility and clout. And, given the mandates in the 2008 Farm Bill for dealings with producers, USDA might investigate customer relationship management software. Finally, given the subsidies given to crop insurance companies, I'm not sure why they aren't included in the data collection. Surely it's a question whether there is outreach to minority farmers in this area.


Bill Harshaw
2420 Cloudcroft Sq.
Reston, VA 20191
bharshaw@hotmail.com"