By Dave Lieber

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Somebody has to watch The Watchdog, too.

A big thank you to reader Mike Kelly, who owns a small cattle and horse ranch in Central Texas.

In a March 17 column on the proposed animal registration system under consideration by state and federal governments, I interviewed and then quoted Matt Brockman, an executive at the Fort Worth-based Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, making positive comments about the proposed program.

Kelly later wrote me, "I had to laugh at his statement." He added that it was easy for Brockman to speak positively "when you are a member of an association that is paid to advocate this program."

Acting on Kelly's tip, I sought public records from the Texas Animal Health Commission, which is charged with implementing the ID program.

Sure enough, Brockman's cattle raisers association, which represents 13,000 Texas ranchers, has a $190,000 contract with that state agency to help spread information about the program.

Is it my fault for not knowing and sharing this important piece of information with readers? Or is it Brockman's fault for not disclosing it?

I take my share of the blame. I owe it to readers to present information from experts that are objective. If experts are paid by an agency they are commenting on, that matters.

Truth is, I didn't think to ask.

Truth is, Brockman didn't volunteer either.

But Kelly, a watchdog who helps operate a Web site called texasanimalhealthcommissionwatch.com that keeps a close eye on the state agency, knew because he had done his homework.

An ethics expert I consulted this week believes a watchdog columnist has a responsibility to share all pertinent information with readers.

Tom Mayo, director of the Cary M. Maguire Center for Ethics and Public Responsibility at Southern Methodist University, told me: "I think readers have a right to expect to have financial interests or possible conflicts of interest disclosed. Whether it's his obligation to disclose or yours to ask, I don't know."

Mayo added, "Medical education sponsors are required to ask speakers, 'Do you have a financial interest in matters that you are speaking of?' It's absolutely routine across the board. You just can't count on people disclosing without asking them."

Brockman, executive vice president of the cattle raisers association, was quoted in my column as saying: "I don't think anyone needs to read too much into this or overreact at this point" about the proposed animal ID program. He added, "We have to bear in mind that there are some devastating animal diseases around the globe that we have to be prepared for."

His words balanced comments offered by others who portrayed the proposed program in a harsher light.

His association's contract calls for the cattle raisers to help spread information about the state's voluntary program in which animal and livestock owners are asked to register their premises with the state. The contract helps pay for the creation of brochures disseminated to association members, staff salaries to work on the project, the cost of hosting informational meetings across the state and costs associated with registering association members in the program.

In a telephone interview this week, Brockman confirmed the contract and said his association has sought reimbursement of $21,000 of the $190,000 so far. The contract expires in August.

The contract comprises a small part of the association's $6 million annual operating budget, he said.

"This contract isn't something that is making us money or subsidizing something in the organization," he said. "It's going directly to this project and nowhere else. ... We get reimbursed after we perform the service. It's not like this is money going into the association coffers."

Brockman stressed that his association doesn't approve of a mandatory animal ID program, only a voluntary one.

Asked why he didn't disclose the contract, he answered: "Had this come up in conversation, I would have been glad to tell you everything I told you now. It's not that I was trying to hide anything."

Sarah Legvold, a Keller horse owner featured in the original column as a staunch opponent of the program, told me this week: "There's definitely a conflict of interest there when the cattle raisers association is advocating a certain position and they're being paid to advocate it by the agency wanting to push it through. Thank goodness we've got people like Mike Kelly finding this out."

David E. Hooper, executive director of the Texas Thoroughbred Association, also quoted in the original column, said: "I'd say the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association has a conflict of interest. They've got a vested interest in seeing this program come about."

Hooper, a former journalist, told me: "As a journalist, in order to be fair to your readership, you need to be able to divulge all the information that you can possibly develop so the readers can have a full understanding of issues. And if there are conflicts, there needs to be an awareness of those, too."

Consider the matter corrected.

To view the original article click below :
Ft. Worth Star-Telegarm March 17, 2006 " Horse owner cries foul over registry"