When the Nevada Board of Agriculture held their December Board meeting we raised the issue, during the opening public comment period, that Nevada Farm Bureau had some issues with the pre-filed legislation that was submitted by the Nevada Department of Agriculture. The legislative proposal at question is SB 54, which seeks to change Nevada law (NRS 561.055) spelling out the areas of representation for members on the Nevada Board of Agriculture.
Part of the concern centered on the lack of advanced discussions (or warning) that the Department was bringing forward this type of a proposal. While bringing forward the comment of concern during the public comment period at the start of the meeting, it became obvious that the majority of the members of the Board of Agriculture weren’t aware of the bill being introduced.
As the meeting continued, the legislation was included in a report provided to the Board, but because of the construction of the meeting agenda and not having an opportunity for the Board to take action the matter provided limited conversation, but no definite course for the Board to do anything about.
Nevada Farm Bureau greatly appreciates the actions of the Board of Agriculture chair in calling for a special board meeting (scheduled for January 19) to provide the Board to discuss the legislation as well as to serve as a platform, in advance of the start of the legislative session, for public input regarding the proposal.
The details included within SB 54 calls for re-classification of the present criteria in NRS 561.055.
Current law provides for three seats for producers “actively engaged” in range/semi-range cattle production. SB 54 as written reduces the number to two members and changes the “cattle” to “livestock.”
In the next line the current seat designated for a sheep producer who is actively engaged in range or semi-range operations is totally deleted. It is assumed that the sheep and cattle producers fit into the “livestock” category and having two of someone from either of these sectors is good enough.
Taking the four seats (3 cattle and 1 sheep) and turning the combined total into a two slot proposal, then creates two new positions for non-agricultural producer slots. For these “new” designations – it is proposed that one member would be someone who is working in the field of supplemental nutrition distribution and one member would be someone who is actively engaged in food manufacturing or animal processing.
Beyond the surprise factor for learning about SB 54 through the Legislature’s website and the listing of introduced bills that included such a major change; there’s a very basic question of who’s in charge of what?
State law (NRS 561.105) identifies the duties; rules and regulations of the Board of Agriculture and states that the Board “must” be informed on of “the entire” field of legislation and administration charged to the Department of Agriculture. The Board is supposed to report to the Governor and the Legislature on the matters that are deemed to be relevant to the Department.
The Board is directed (with a “Shall”) to advise and make recommendations to the Governor or the Legislature relating to the policies of the State concerning livestock and agriculture. The matter of SB 54 was not included in any of the discussions by the Board of Agriculture prior to being introduced.
In addition they are to establish (again using the “Shall” command) the policy of the Department.
Finally, letter “e” of the five bullet set of duties states that the Board – “Shall adopt such regulations as it deems necessary for the operation of the Department and for carrying out the provisions of laws and programs administered by the Department.”
Sitting through quarterly reports and being told what the Department has decided they are going to do is something that will need to change, at least in the view of what Nevada Farm Bureau policy says.
That Farm Bureau policy position includes this perspective:
“Nevada Farm Bureau supports that the Nevada Board of Agriculture be maintained as a policy-setting entity.
The Board of Agriculture should also maintain strong connection with Nevada agricultural organizations, providing Nevada agricultural producers with the opportunity to give input and influence into services or programs which are needed to benefit farmers and ranchers.”
“Policy-setting” in Farm Bureau’s interpretation goes beyond deciding what color shirts that Department of Agriculture persons wear as part of the uniform and actually takes the form of setting the course for programs, regulations and operations. In the not so distant past, the Board of Agriculture would direct whether regulation processes should be started and authorized workshops and hearings to be held.
With only a few exceptions, the Board of Agriculture is now briefed through reports that they receive on a quarterly basis what regulation proposals are being worked on by the Department and possibly the decisions that have already been made. Without having an agenda that provides for a “Possible Action Item” notation there’s no toe-hold for anything to take place beyond asking some questions.
Where there are possible questions of authority for who is responsible for deciding in regard to regulations, based on language covered in separate sections of statute, clarification might be necessary to re-establish the understanding that the Board of Agriculture are the deciders for “such regulations as it deems necessary for the operation of the Department and for carrying out the provisions of laws and programs administered by the Department.”
Further, the Board of Agriculture needs to step forward in the process of initiating regulations and interaction with the agricultural producers who are most of the time paying for the services and programs that they need.
One example along this line of reasoning is the brand program. Nevada Farm Bureau policy supports a livestock producers’ advisory committee to be formed to develop recommendations regarding brand policy to the Board of Agriculture. Other areas and matters of importance should also be covered with similar approaches for engagement of those who are impacted.
Taking the necessary steps to re-establish the authority of the Board of Agriculture is not going to be a single action. It will require the Board of Agriculture standing up for their appropriate authority, corrections to some laws to clarify that authority and the Nevada agricultural sector interacting with the Board to bring about necessary improvements.
Based on our understanding of the clear meaning of what the statute NRS 561.105 says, the Board of Agriculture should have been in the very front of determining whether the Department of Agriculture should be submitting changes to who would be on the Board of Agriculture…not finding out about it after the bill had been introduced and it appeared on the pre-filed legislative list.
By Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau