The Executive Director of the Texas Animal Health Commission, Dr. Hillman,  emailed FARFA to complain about "misinformation", and FARFA responded.  Dr. Hillman sent a copy of his email to several state legislator's aids.  Because he chose to involve elected representatives, the discussion is a matter of public concern.  Dr. Hillman has so far refused to respond to FARFA's questions about his agency's intentions.

Dr. Hillman's original email  (12/11/06)

Judith,

We have read with interest the information you or your colleagues provided
to the Herald Democrat relative to the Dodd City town hall meeting on NAIS,
 planned for Monday, December 11, 2006.  This announcement contains just  the latest piece of misinformation to be attributed to your group.

You have been very vocal against persons or organizations that you perceive to have provided misinformation about NAIS to the public.  Yet you persist
in providing misleading or false information in articles and in advertisements for meetings hosted by your alliance.  Without doubt you know that USDA has clearly communicated that NAIS is voluntary.  Likewise, you know that the rules for implementation of components of NAIS in Texas that had been proposed by TAHC are no longer being considered.  As an astute attorney, you know full well that TAHC would have to develop a new proposed rule if the agency wanted to require participation in NAIS.  Such a proposal has not been developed and is not planned.  We ask that you cease the use of incorrect, misleading or false information about the TAHC or NAIS in your efforts to further your alliance.

Sincerely,
Bob Hillman

FARFA's response to Dr. Hillman (12/12/06) 

Dr. Hillman,

Since you did not attach the article, I have to assume that it was based on the press release that we sent to the newspapers before the USDA released its latest documents.  Obviously, I can only write based on the information available at that point in time.  Rest assured, I spoke at length about the latest documents from the USDA at the Dodd City meeting last night.

Since you state that the TAHC does not plan to propose regulations to make
NAIS mandatory in Texas, are you prepared to state your public support for
 a bill to limit the agency's authority?  So long as the TAHC retains authority to implement NAIS on a mandatory basis whenever it chooses, there is no real protection against the use of that authority in the future.  As both an attorney and an informed citizen, I am well aware that government agencies tend to use whatever authority they are given.

As I documented for the Commissioners, the Extension Service, working under a grant from TAHC, informed people through its website, newsletters,
and public announcements that premises registration was mandatory.  I have been told by multiple individuals that they enrolled because they were told that it was mandatory, or that their child could not participate in 4-H if they did not, or that they would be unable to use sales barns in the future if they did not.  Your own staff noted a significant increase in the number of registrations sent in the week before July 1, indicating that many people registered because they believed it was mandatory.  Have you taken any action to inform these people that NAIS is voluntary and provide them with the opportunity to withdraw from the program?  If not, then calling it a voluntary program is a distortion of the word.

The TAHC is eligible to receive up to $1.2 million in funds from the USDA for FY2007, subject to a 20% cost share.  The work plan must include an explanation of how the agency's plan "will support the timelines for full implementation of NAIS as outlined in the draft strategic plan."  Moreover, part of the funds will be withheld unless TAHC achieves the "projected results."  The USDA's announcement of funding explicitly approves of such actions as data mining and requiring people to register under NAIS in order to participate in existing disease control programs.  These are not tactics that most individuals would consider "voluntary."    Are you prepared to publicly support a bill that would prevent these and other types of coercive means from being used in Texas in order to reach full implementation?

I look forward to your response to my questions.  If you have any other examples of what you believe is misinformation provided by FARFA, please share them with me so that I can address them.

Sincerely,
Judith McGeary

Dr. Hillman's second email to FARFA (12/14/06)

Judith,

I provided the name of the paper and the date of publication.  [Editorial note: If you'll look at his email above, you will not that he did not provide the date of publication.]  The material was an announcement for the meeting at which you were to be featured.  There would have been ample time after the USDA announcements for your organization to have provided updated material for the announcement.

I will not enter into a debate with you via e-mail, but I do want to express  my appreciation for your willingness to correct misinformation provided by  FARFA.  However, I just reviewed the information on your FARFA website. I must point out that your home page and a number of the linked materials are replete with incorrect, misleading or false information.  Clearly there has been sufficient time since the withdrawal of TAHC proposed rules and the late October announcements by USDA for you to have corrected the information on your website.

My intent in communicating with you was to urge you to not use incorrect, misleading or false information in your efforts to further your alliance.

After reviewing your web site, I must strongly reiterate this request.

Bob Hillman

FARFA's response to Dr. Hillman's second email (12/15/06)

 Dr. Hillman,

I find it interesting that you are willing to accuse me in an email of
spreading misinformation, based in large part on what you claim the TAHC
is or is not planning and considering.  Yet, in the same email, you are
unwilling to respond to questions about the TAHC’s position.  When and in
what format can we expect a response to our questions?

You testified to the Texas Legislature in 2005 that the TAHC would keep
the NAIS voluntary until the federal government required that it become
mandatory.  Yet the TAHC proposed regulations to make premises
registration mandatory 18 months ahead of the federal schedule.

While the Commissioners voted to table the proposed regulations until May,
you then scheduled a special meeting in March to adopt the regulations.
You now claim that the proposed regulations were “withdrawn,” yet the TAHC
announced only that they had been placed on “hold,” and would not be
considered until the winter or spring of 2007.  While the proposed
regulations lapsed by operation of law, the TAHC has never formally stated
that it will not consider mandatory regulations again in 2007.  Again, I
ask whether the TAHC is prepared to support legislation that would limit
its authority to a voluntary program, so that the public could trust that
we will not face mandatory regulations in the future.

The information on our website was correct at the time it was written.
The USDA released its latest document just three weeks ago, on November
22, the day before Thanksgiving.  You are correct that our website needs
to be updated to address the USDA’s latest documents, and we will do so as
soon as possible.  Unlike TAHC, however, we do not receive tax dollars to
pay for staff and equipment, and changes take time.

It also takes time to analyze and investigate the claims made by USDA to
determine the true impact on the public.  For example, you state that “the
USDA has clearly communicated that NAIS is voluntary,” but that is not
completely true.  The USDA’s October announcement merely removed a
reference that threatened federal regulations, without changing the
substance of the program or the stated goal of 100% participation by 2009.
 In its November 22nd release, USDA simply states that “NAIS is voluntary
at the Federal level.”  But, at the exact same time, USDA expressly
acknowledges that states can make NAIS mandatory: “States, however, may
choose to direct implementation of the NAIS within their jurisdiction
according to their own dictates.” (Announcement, 11/22/06, p.4).

Further, states such as Texas will have to reach “performance goals” to be
eligible for the full amount of federal funds, creating incentives for
state agencies to use coercive measures in order to reach those goals.
USDA has expressly approved of coercive tactics such as data mining and
requiring enrollment in the federal database in order to comply with
existing state programs.  So informing the public about the USDA’s latest
announcement requires more work than merely repeating the headlines.  We
will continue to inform the public of the full story rather than just
soundbites and partial truths.

Since you are so concerned about correcting misinformation, I respectfully
suggest you direct your staff to do so.  For several months, people and
entities working under grants from the TAHC informed the public that
premises registration was in fact mandatory.  The result was that an
unknown number of people registered their property under false pretenses.
I informed the TAHC of the issue in March and again in May, over six
months ago.  Again, have you taken action to correct this misinformation
by informing registrants that NAIS is voluntary and providing them with
the opportunity to withdraw from the program?

Our website will be updated as soon as possible to reflect the full impact
of the USDA’s recent announcements.  Aside from the issue of updating the
website, I ask again that you be specific if you choose to accuse us of
spreading incorrect information, so that we can either correct the problem
or explain the basis for our statements.  The fact that we disagree with
the agency’s unsubstantiated and unenforceable claims about its intentions
does not constitute misinformation.

Judith McGeary