As I mentioned in a tweet last Friday, details have recently emerged regarding yet more internal strife within the School Nutrition Association (SNA), the organization which represents 55,000 school food professionals.
Last fall, the New York Times Sunday Magazine ran a story shedding light on the SNA’s recent decision to fire its lobbyist of three decades, Marshall Matz of the OFW law firm, in favor of the D.C. lobbying firm Barnes & Thornburg. According to the Times story, Matz was well liked by many members and his dismissal took the lobbying world by surprise. But SNA’s current board apparently felt Matz was too close to the White House to adequately represent the organization’s goals, many of which run counter to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) as well as the objectives of SNA’s food industry sponsors, who fund half of SNA’s operating budget.
Since Matz’s ouster, the SNA’s legislative agenda and tactics have changed dramatically. According to Open Secrets.org, the SNA’s lobbying expenditures have more than doubled, from around $150,000 spent in 2013 to over $400,000 spent in 2014. And, once a supporter of the HHFKA, the SNA is now seeking to roll back that law’s key nutritional standards. In doing so, the SNA has alienated many respected former allies such as the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, the Children’s Defense Fund and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The SNA has also found support among House Republicans and openly squared off against the White House — even refusing to allow former White House chef Sam Kass to attend its annual conference last year – thus making school food a far more partisan issue than it has been in the past.
Now three sources — The Hagstrom Report, Politico Pro and Food Chemical News (all paywall protected) — report that the SNA not only ousted its former lobbyist but also sought, unsuccessfully, to have Matz and his law partner Roger Szemraj disbarred. Food Chemical News reports:
SNA last July filed an ethics complaint with the Office of Bar Counsel in the District of Columbia against OFW Law and attorneys Matz and Roger Szemraj. They were reportedly accused of improper communication with USDA officials and conflict of interest.
No further information on the exact nature of the ethics complaint is available. According to Helena Bottemiller Evich’s story in Politico Pro, however, it is known that USDA “Undersecretary for Food and Nutrition Kevin Concannon filed a statement to help Matz and Szemraj defend themselves against the complaint,” as did some members of the SNA.
The unsuccessful attempt to disbar Matz and Szemraj has caused “outrage” among at least two former SNA presidents, according to Politico Pro:
In a recent email to friends, former SNA President Jane Wynn wrote that the organization accused Matz and Szemraj of violating “SNA’s confidence by talking to USDA” and noted “an unspecified conflict of interest.”
“I am filled with deep emotion today,” Wynn wrote. “I find myself not believing what I know to be true. … Indeed, SNA was the leader in child nutrition, a position I do not believe we can claim today,” added Wynn, who used to oversee school meals in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for one of the largest school districts in the country. “I was, and continue to be, shocked that SNA would go further and attempt to have Marshall and Roger disbarred.”
In an interview, Wynn, who filed a statement on behalf of Matz in the proceedings, said she didn’t have knowledge of any other allegations and called the action against OFW “appalling.”
Janey Thornton, who served as deputy undersecretary at the Food and Nutrition Service before stepping down in January and previously as president of SNA, said she also was taken aback by the ethics charges, which she doesn’t think the rank-and-file members of the association know about.
“They will be appalled, when and if this gets out to membership,” Thornton said. “It just keeps getting crazier,” she said.
This rift occurs in an organization which is already divided over school nutrition standards.
Last May, nineteen past SNA presidents took the extraordinary step of breaking with the association’s leadership by writing an open letter to Congress urging it to stay the course on healthier school food. And in October, I and fellow advocate Nancy Huehnergarth created an open letter to allow rank-and-file SNA members who also disagree with their leadership to express their views publicly. Within 24 hours of our release of this letter, however, the SNA’s leadership sent an “urgent message” to all 55,000 of its members pressuring them not to sign. Nonetheless, 86 courageous men and women did sign the letter, which they submitted to their Board in February.
I continue to believe that the majority of SNA members want to put the needs of kids first, but those members are not being well served by their current leadership. An organization once regarded as a highly respected voice on child nutrition is now seen – rightly or wrongly – as being captive to the processed food industry. Here’s a damning graphic released just yesterday by the Union of Concerned Scientists, and you can read that group’s blog post condemning SNA’s legislative agenda here:
If you’re a current or former SNA member who believes SNA’s current leadership is on the wrong track, another version of the open letter is currently circulating. Please consider signing it and sharing it with your colleagues. Thank you.
Do You Love The Lunch Tray? ♥♥♥ Then “like” The Lunch Tray! Join almost 10,000 TLT fans by liking TLT’s Facebook page, join 5,600 TLT followers on Twitter, or get your “Lunch” delivered right to your email inbox by subscribing to my posts. You can download my FREE 40-page guide to “Getting Junk Food Out of Your Child’s Classroom” and be sure to check out my free rhyming video for kids about processed food, “Mr. Zee’s Apple Factory!“
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2015 Bettina Elias Siegel
JoAnne says
Where do you get the information about what the membership wants? …your say ” I continue to believe that the majority of SNA members want to put the needs of kids first, but those members are not being well served by their current leadership.”
When I take the numbers from two different letters and/or petitions you have mentioned, I get a number that is less than 100. If there are 55,000 members, I don’t think that 100 is a majority. I do not argue for one minute that there is not a difference of opinion on this – there is. Some people are at polar opposites of other people in their thoughts on this. While these voice that are speaking are strong voices; I just cannot get these numbers to work out to the “majority”.
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Let me clarify, JoAnne. Ever since it changed its strategy and agenda, SNA has been on the receiving end of some extremely negative publicity for allegedly caring about its corporate donors’ interests versus the needs of kids.
Unlike many school food advocates, however, I have never believed that to be the case, at least not for the rank-and-file membership. See my post, “School Food Professionals Versus Kids: How Did It Come to This?” where I wrote,
“Many of my fellow food advocates have pointed to the fact that the SNA takes a significant amount of money from corporate “patrons” like ConAgra and PepsiCo, and they therefore allege that SNA’s entire effort is being directed by Big Food…. But just because some of SNA’s goals align with Big Food’s doesn’t mean there aren’t other reasons why SNA is asking for these changes. And these other reasons are entirely logical and legitimate — if you look at running a school food program solely as a business.”
In other words, as more fully discussed in that post, I do understand that some schools are struggling with the HHFKA. But in seeking to overturn nonpartisan, fully supported scientific nutrition standards — instead of throwing its weight behind more funding, more training, etc. — the SNA is failing the very kids it’s supposed to be serving. And because SNA takes 50% of its funding from Big Food, and because Big Food has a stake in rolling back standards, SNA has at the very least created the impression in the minds of outside observers that it has been bought and paid for.
In this regard, I feel it is not representing the majority of its members and has done them a great disservice. Do you disagree?
Linn L says
Thank you for the update. My question: Where does the next generation of professionals look to build careers?
Pat says
Has the time come for us to break away from SNA and create our own professional organization? One that accepts NO external funding whatsoever. We will fund our wonderful programs and conferences exclusively from members dues. Dues may seem a little high but in reality they could probably be as little as, say, $1500 per member per year (probably higher at first until we get our membership numbers up). But just think how righteous we could then be! And if Bettina says there is a majority supporting us we should soon have a larger organization than SNA. Plus we could make up our own professional standards and not be so darned sciencey and conservative. We could also have dues paying associate members, people like Bettina who are not credentialed professionals but who know how they think other people should behave and are not afraid to tell them so. Dues for associate members could probably even be a lot higher because they would be mostly lawyers and other affluent people., some with trust funds even. BREAK AWAY FROM SNA!!! That has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
Bettina Elias Siegel says
Your nasty sarcasm isn’t appreciated, Pat, nor is it in compliance with my posted comments policy. But whatever – I’m feeling generous today and posting it anyway. However, if you choose to comment here again, the policy stands. Make your point in a pleasant manner or not at all.