By CELESTE BAUMGARTNER

Ohio Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In June USDA Secretary Sonny Purdue announced he is moving the agency’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) from Washington, D.C., to the Kansas City area.

The dust kicked up over that decision doesn’t look as if it will settle soon, as a range of government, science, and agricultural representatives, as well as USDA employees, are unhappy. ERS is a federal statistical agency, and NIFA manages a $1.7 billion portfolio of scientific grants,

The National Farmers Union (NFU) has been one vocal opponent of the move, calling the relocation “misguided” and “detrimental” to family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. Its concerns echoed those of other objectors.

“We don’t feel the proposal adequately addresses how USDA will improve the agencies’ effectiveness in serving family farmers and ranchers,” said Aaron Shier, an NFU government relations representative. “There is no strong evidence of planning or study that preceded the decision to make the move.”

The administration said one reason for the move is that the two agencies will be closer to stakeholders and customers in Kansas City, but it isn’t clear what that means, Shier said. ERS and NIFA regularly engage with other federal agencies in and out of USDA in Washington, D.C., but the move would have them farther away from those stakeholders.

“Another reason the administration gave for the move had to do with staffing; the issues of wanting to move to attract and retain qualified staff, according to USDA,” Shier said. “But it is not at all clear that there was a problem with that in the first place.”

The process of the relocation has caused high staff attrition. Many experienced and knowledgeable employees have left the agencies, he said, which is reducing capacity and morale and may set the ERS and NIFA back for years.

While USDA said the move would save money, the Agricultural and Applied Economics Assoc. challenged the agency’s cost-benefit analysis. It released a cost-benefit report showing how the USDA’s ignored certain vital features, Shier said. Also, the recent release of the USDA Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report raises some questions about whether the move is legal. It questions whether USDA has the budgetary authority to make the move.

That report also prompted a joint statement from the U.S. House Agriculture Subcommittee on Nutrition, Oversight, and Department Operations Chair Marcia L. Fudge (D-Ohio), and Biotechnology, Horticulture, and Research Chair Stacey Plaskett (D-U.S. Virgin Islands).

“The report from USDA’s OIG is just the latest in a long line of red flags surrounding this relocation. We are alarmed that USDA continues to proceed with this move without consulting Congress or – according to the OIG – following the necessary legal requirements,” they wrote.

“Couple that with White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney’s comments (on August 2 at a GOP fundraiser) on relocations as a mechanism for staff reduction, and this whole exercise is a naked and shameless attempt to force dedicated civil servants out of their livelihoods.”

(Mulvaney’s referenced comments about the USDA move included, in part: “It’s nearly impossible to fire a federal worker … By simply saying to people, ‘You know what, we’re going to take you outside the bubble, outside the Beltway, outside this liberal haven of Washington, D.C., and move you out in the real part of the country,' and they quit – what a wonderful way to sort of streamline government, and do what we haven’t been able to do for a long time.”)

But the OIG report also determined USDA has the legal authority to carry out the relocation, another component of the OIG’s review.

“It does appear that USDA will manage to pull this off despite the objections and the recent OIG report,” Shier said.”Nothing I have witnessed from the administration’s approach to dealing with this suggests that there will be a reconsideration.”

Some welcome the move. In a YouTube video on June 13 by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, he said he was pleased with the relocation.

 “There is no better place in the country for these offices to be located than the Kansas City area,” he said. “Many other USDA agencies are located in the area and regularly partner and work closely with stakeholders. The vital research conducted at ERS and NIFA will fit in well with the other agencies located in the Kansas City animal health corridor.”

In another aspect of the controversy, also on June 13, USDA sent reassignment letters giving workers until 11:59 p.m. on July 15 to respond. Those who declined or who did not respond would lose their jobs, the letter warned.

Initially, the employees were not unionized, but joined the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) when they realized they needed help in this struggle, according to a report by AFGE. David Verardo, president of AFGE Local 3403, said the union’s position has always been that this is an ill-conceived and unnecessary move.

On August 9, AFGE reached an agreement with the USDA. The deal made provisions to mitigate some of the impacts of the forced relocation of the employees, he said.

Under the agreement signed by both parties, employees who consent to relocate to Kansas City will receive incentive payments equal to one month’s salary. This incentive is to help compensate for the loss of income incurred by employees moving from the higher-wage D.C. area.

Also, employees who agree to relocate will be allowed to work remotely through at least Dec. 30, with the possibility for extensions. The agency initially told employees they must relocate by Sept. 30.

Multiple attempts by Farm World this month to contact these legislators’ offices for additional comment were not successful.