FARMERS’ THANKSGIVING, is it?

Re-reporting, editing by Carolyn Bennett

Redress after a long train of government abuses

Ten years past PIGFORD, et al. v. GLICKMAN, Secretary, the United States Department of Agriculture — the appellate court said in 2000 that the ultimate question before the court was whether the district court had abused its discretion by approving a consent decree — “the principal provisions of which are an indisputably fair and reasonable resolution of the class complaint” by farmers. The court upheld the lower court, “It is clear that no abuse of discretion occurred.”

In its ruling, the court reviewed the issues.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indirectly administers programs that provide credit and other benefits to farmers.

The United States Department of Agriculture’ credit and benefit programs are federally funded, but the decisions to approve or deny applications for credit or benefits are made at the county level by a committee of three to five members elected by local farmers and ranchers.

In addition to acting on credit and benefit applications, the county committee appoints a county executive to assist farmers in completing their applications and to recommend to the county committee which applications should be approved.

United States Department of Agriculture has promulgated a number of regulations governing how these officials are to administer the credit and benefit programs, but the evidence before the district court shows that United States Department of Agriculture has exercised little oversight regarding how applications historically have been processed at the county level.

For years, African-American farmers, who have been significantly underrepresented on the county committees, have complained that county officials have exercised their power in a racially discriminatory manner, resulting in delayed processing or denial of applications for credit and benefits by African-American farmers not experienced by white farmers who are similarly situated.

Such discriminatory treatment is prohibited by statute and by regulation.

In December 1996, the Secretary of Agriculture appointed a Civil Rights Action Team to investigate allegations of racial discrimination in the administration of USDA credit and benefit programs, and, in February 1997, the USDA Inspector General reported that USDA had a backlog of discrimination complaints in need of immediate attention.  

The President and the Secretary thereafter sought appropriations to carry out the recommendations to improve USDA’s civil rights efforts.

On August 28, 1997, three African-American farmers filed suit on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated African-American farmers alleging racial discrimination in the administration of USDA programs and further harm from the allegedly surreptitious dismantling of USDA’s Office of Civil Rights in 1983, which together were alleged to violate —

The Fifth Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act;  
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d;  and
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, prohibiting discrimination in consumer credit.

Following amendments to the complaint, the district court granted class certification in October 1998. At that time, most of the farmers’ ECOA claims were arguably barred by a two-year statute of limitations.

Responding to petitions from class members, Congress enacted, and the President signed in November 1998, an amendment to retroactively extend the limitations period for persons who had filed administrative complaints between January 1, 1981, and July 1, 1997, for acts of discrimination occurring between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996.  

A second class action, Brewington v. Glickman, Civ. No. 98-1693, filed in July 1998 and making similar allegations covering a different time period, was consolidated with Pigford for purposes of settlement, and a new class was certified.

As the February 1999 trial date drew near, the parties' negotiations shifted from individual claims to a global settlement, id., and with the assistance of a court-appointed mediator, the parties developed and agreed to a consent decree that contemplated a two-track dispute resolution mechanism to determine whether individual class members had been the victims of discrimination and, if so, the amount of monetary relief to which they were entitled.…

The ultimate question before the court is whether the district court abused its discretion by approving a consent decree, the principal provisions of which are an indisputably fair and reasonable resolution of the class complaint, containing one paragraph that assigns to the class a risk it would have borne in any event and another paragraph that limits the mode of enforcing the decree in the event of default.

To ask the question is to answer it. Because it is clear that no abuse of discretion occurred we do not reach the government’s alternative argument concerning whether it would be equitable for this court to vacate the decree in light of the number of claims that have been resolved in reliance on the decree.

The appellate court affirmed the order of approval of the district court.

Farmers’ Thanksgiving
TEN YEARS ON
Yesterday’s news reports announced the U.S. Senate’s unanimous approval of “$4.55 billion to settle longstanding claims that the government discriminated against black farmers in making loans and mismanaged trust accounts for American Indians.” Included in the legislation are $3.4 billion for the American Indian trust account holders and $1.15 billion for a class of black farmers. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the full measure after the Thanksgiving recess.

Free Speech Radio News led by saying, “Many black farmers will eat a little easier this Thanksgiving. After ten years of waiting, they will be receiving settlement money owed to them for years of racial discrimination by the United States Department of Agriculture. Quoting the National Black Farmers Association president, the report said an estimated 80,000 farmers are due to receive compensation.

“‘We just don’t trust the government at this point,’” John Boyd said, but the settlement buries “‘an old hatchet’” and begins building trust where there has been “‘real distrust between the black farmers and the USDA.’”

The U.S. Congress and Presidents “had long stalled on paying out the money but President Obama and his Agriculture Secretary urged Congress to act. Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma agreed to drop his objection after the Senate promised it would not add to the deficit.”


Sources and notes

PIGFORD v. GLICKMAN: Timothy C. PIGFORD, et al., Appellees, Leonard C. Cooper, Appellant, v. Dan GLICKMAN, Secretary, The United States Department of Agriculture, Appellee; Nos. 99-5222, 99-5223; Argued February 28, 2000 - March 31, 2000. Before:  SENTELLE, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges

David M. Schnorrenberg argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs were Richard T. Seymour, Teresa A. Ferrante, Stephon J. Bowens, Marcus Jimison, J. Michael Klise and Matthew C. Hans. Julie Nepveu and Julie L. Gantz entered appearances

Alexander J. Pires, Jr. argued the cause for appellees Freddie Jones, et al. With him on the brief was Phillip L. Fraas

Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee Dan Glickman, Secretary, The United States Department of Agriculture. With him on the brief were David W. Ogden, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Marleigh Dover, Special Counsel, and Wilma A. Lewis, U.S. Attorney

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1082671.html

“Settlement for Black Farmers and Indians” (Avery Fellow), Courthouse News Service, November 22, 2010, http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/11/22/32028.htm

Free Speech Radio News, Newscast for Monday, November 22, 2010, Newscast Monday November 22, 2010, http://fsrn.org/audio/newscast-monday-november-22-2010/7806


U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
‘PEOPLE’S DEPARTMENT’

The sixteenth president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, on May 15, 1862, established the independent Department of Agriculture to be headed by a Commissioner without Cabinet status. President Lincoln called the department the ‘people’s department.’

In the 1880s, varied advocacy groups lobbied for Cabinet representation. Business interests sought a Department of Commerce and Industry. Farmers sought to raise the Department of Agriculture to Cabinet rank. The U. S. House of Representatives and Senate passed bills in 1887 giving Cabinet status to the Department of Agriculture and Labor. The bill was killed in conference committee after farm interests objected to the addition of labor. Two years later, on February 9, 1889, President Grover Cleveland signed a bill into law elevating the Department of Agriculture to Cabinet level.

The Hatch Act in 1887 provided for the federal funding of agricultural experiment stations in each state. The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 then funded cooperative extension services in each state to teach agriculture, home economics, and related subjects to the public. With these and similar provisions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reached out to every county of every state.

During the Great Depression, farming remained a common way of life for millions of Americans. The Department of Agriculture was crucial to providing concerned persons with the assistance that they needed to make it through this difficult period, helping to ensure that food continued to be produced and distributed to those who needed it, assisting with loans for small landowners, and contributing to the education of the rural youth.

Allegations have been made throughout the history of the USDA that the agency discriminated against African-American farmers and denied them loans and access to other programs well into the 1990s. The effect of this discrimination was the near total elimination of African-American farmers in the United States. In 1999, the USDA settled a class action lawsuit (Pigford v. Glickman) alleging discrimination against African-American farmers.

Today the United States Department of Agriculture (informally the Agriculture Department or USDA) is the United States federal executive department responsible for developing and executing U.S. federal government policy on farming, agriculture, and food. Its aims are “to meet the needs of farmers and ranchers, promote agricultural trade and production, work to assure food safety, protect natural resources, foster rural communities and end hunger in the United States and abroad.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture


____________________________________________

Bennett's books available in New York State independent bookstores: Lift Bridge Bookshop: www.liftbridgebooks.com [Brockport, NY]; Sundance Books: http://www.sundancebooks.com/main.html [Geneseo, NY]; The Book Den, Ltd.: BookDenLtd@frontiernet.net [Danville, NY]; Talking Leaves Books-Elmwood: talking.leaves.elmwood@gmail.com [Buffalo, NY]; Book House of Stuyvesant Plaza: http://www.bhny.com/ [Albany, NY]; Mood Makers Books: www.moodmakersbooks.com [City of Rochester, NY]; Dog Ears Bookstore and Literary Arts Center: www.enlightenthedog.org/ [Buffalo, NY]; Burlingham Books – ‘Your Local Chapter’: http://burlinghambooks.com/ [Perry, NY 14530]; The Bookworm: http://www.eabookworm.com/ [East Aurora, NY]; LONGS’ Cards and Books: http://longscardsandbooks.com/ [Penn Yan, NY]