Ohio Liberty Council

Transcript (first hour): Issue 2 Town Hall, held 10/19/09 on the OSU Campus

Dave Grabaskas, OSU Young Americans for Liberty: I’d like to welcome you all here and thank you for taking the time out of your day to get educated on the issues and doing your responsibilities as citizens of this Republic. And I’d like to talk a little bit about our sponsors for tonight’s event. First, I am Dave Grabaskas from Young Americans for Liberty, the Ohio State University Chapter. We are a national organization at colleges and high schools who promote limited government and individual responsibility and your civil rights. And one of your biggest civil rights is freedom of speech. We like sponsoring debates like this so everyone can get a fair share in the argument. Another sponsor tonight is the Ohio Liberty Council. It is a coalition of over 30 conservative groups across Ohio, including Young American’s for Liberty, the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the local 912 groups and Cincinnati Tea Party, the Buckeye Firearms Association and many more. It is a group focused on networking these Tea Parties together and getting them working towards a common goal. The first Ohio Liberty Council event… I know many of you may have attended… was the Tea Party down at the Statehouse on August 1st. Over 8,000 people attended that event. And then there was another rally in Cincinnati, the “Voice of America” Rally, where 18,000 people attended. They also coordinated a March on Washington D.C. on September 12th. There’s a…they have a table… the Ohio Liberty Council has a table set up outside there’s plenty of “Don’t tread on me” merchandise and other information about the group out there. Another sponsor is the Ohio Freedom Alliance. They’re a group that promotes freedom and constitutional limited government and also state sovereignty through political action and education. The Central Ohio 912 Project is a project focused on returning America to the point it was on September 12th 2001 and the feeling Americans had on that day as they came together in spite of political differences. As always, events like this are not cheap to host. So we are accepting donations for events like this… even if it’s a dollar we appreciate anything you can contribute to the event. Also, many of you received a survey on your way in. To help us plan events like this in the future… if you could fill out that survey and put it in the containers on the way out… we’d really appreciate it. And now to introduce our moderator for tonight’s event. Warren Edstrom. Warren Edstrom is the founder of the Knox County 912 project and a member of the Ohio Liberty Council. Warren is retired from 41 years in the telecommunication industry where he held positions in sales and sales engineering. He was also the V.P. of engineering and operations in two IP start-up companies. Currently, Warren lives in Danville, Ohio with his wife and three children. Warren will be outlining the rules and schedule for this evening.

Warren Edstrom: Good evening. A couple a… a couple rules before we get started. Questions have been submitted on the Ohio Liberty Council website and the names have been taken for the people that have written those questions down and we’ll be calling on you. What we’re going to do is we’re going to pick cards in order and you’ll come up to the microphone and ask the panelists the question. Ok? The panelists have 3 minutes to answer a question. The people [that] are asking questions… you can ask a follow-up question if you need to. You have two minutes to answer the follow-up question. Ok? If someone asks a question with a yes or no request. You have to answer yes or no.  You’ve got three minutes to explain your answer. There can also be a follow-up question in that arena also. If we have time — and we probably won’t because normally these things go on –if we have time I’m going to allow the panelists to ask each other one question. One person can ask any other one person one question if we have time, if we don’t run over. Ok? Before we get started I’d like to introduce the panel. We have Natalie Kee from the Ohio ACT Coalition. We have Dr. Leah Dorman. She’s the Director of Food Programs for the Ohio State… for the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. Time Wight, farmer. Tim is that a…what size is the farm?

Tim Wightman: Wightman… it’s Wightman.

Warren Edstrom: Pardon. Wightman? Ok?

Tim Wightman: Yea

Warren Edstrom:What size is the farm?

Tim Wightman: 20 acres.

Warren Edstrom: Ok. And Keith Stimpert. Senior V.P. for the Public Policy for the Ohio Farm Bureau. Margaret Anne Ruhl, District 90 Representative for the State of Ohio and a sponsor of Issue 2. And Maurice Thompson, attorney. Before we get started I would like to try to help frame the debate. It seems to me that we have three different issues here. We have an issue of food safety. An issue of … of possible animal abuse or whatever you want to call it. And we have a possibility here that some of this stuff is being done out of fear from outside… outside folks coming into the state. So, I am going to give each one of you three minutes to address that issue. Why are you for or why are you against Issue 2. Natalie we’ll start with you.

Natalie Kee: I am with the Ohio ACT Coalition. It’s a coalition of groups here in Ohio that got together to oppose Issue 2. And we are opposed to Issue 2 because we think that it’s going to corrupt Ohio’s Constitution by giving a board of political cronies and special interest unchecked power and a blank check. We’re opposed because it creates new layers of unchecked unaccountable bureaucracy over Ohio’s farmers. And because it’s going to risk your family’s health for corporate greed because factory farming interests are likely to have a majority representation on the Livestock Board. We think that Issue 2 corrupts Ohio’s Constitution because there are already appropriate venues to discuss livestock regulation like the Department of Agriculture and the State legislature. Issue 2 eliminates democracy by taking away any public input from the rule making process. There is nothing in the ballot issue language that says that the public has to be able to comment on any of the rules and regulations that Livestock Care Standards Board may create. Issue 2 creates unchecked and unaccountable bureaucracy over farmers because it creates a new board that will have unchecked power to create rules that could smother small farmers with burdensome regulations. Issue 2 allows big business to control what family farmers do on their property. If Issue 2 passes it creates an appointed Board that can radically shift livestock policy in any direction requiring all farmers to comply with burdensome rules. An example being the Livestock Care Standards Board could decide that all animals need to be treated with antibiotics, which could effectively eliminate our organic livestock farming friends. And we think that Issue 2 risks your family’s health for corporate greed because factory farming interests are likely to have a majority representation on this Board. Large factory farms have thousands of animals in close proximity and they are breeding grounds for disease that make our families sick. Currently there is over two hundred factory farms in Ohio. Issue 2 will likely put the interest of these farms over the health of your families. And the proponents of Issue 2 represent the largest industrial farming interests in the State and are likely to have a majority representation on the Board. And Issue 2 will give Corporate Agribusiness a blank check for making regulations that put profit before consumer safety. So again, this Issue we do not support because it corrupts Ohio’s constitution, it creates new layers of unchecked and unaccountable bureaucracy, and it risks your family’s health for corporate greed.

Warren Edstrom: Ok. Thank you. Dr. Dorman.

Dr. Leah Dorman: We do need a Livestock Care Standards Board. We really need to define a process to address issues related to the livestock care and well being and currently that process does not exist. We need to bring Ohio experts together. Ohioans making common sense decisions for Ohioans. We need to maintain the viability of Ohio agriculture. Agriculture is Ohio’s number one industry, valued at 93 billion dollars. It is one in seven jobs. We are number two in the table egg industry. We’re number four in veal and number nine nationally in hog production. These are jobs. We also need to assure that Ohio’s families have a safe local food supply. I recently had the opportunity just last week to hear Dr. Tom McGinn and Dr. Tom McGinn is the Chief Veterinarian for the Department of Homeland Security. And he was talking about foreign fuel and foreign food and I am going to quote him… he said… especially and this is in regards to foreign food… “Unique dependence, our unique dependence creates new risk management challenges”. He went on to say that in 1970 we had four percent of our food came from foreign countries. In 2007 nineteen percent of our food came from foreign countries. If the animals rights movement continues to drive animal agriculture out of Ohio… this not only sets us up for potential economic crisis, but it also sets us up for potential food safety and food security crisis. We are not going to stop eating meat, milk and eggs. Most of us will not. And therefore that… those products need to come from somewhere. I’d like them to come from Ohio. We need to pass Ohio Issue 2.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you. Mr. Wightman

Tim Wightman: As a biological soil consultant, a producer that is held responsible by the clientele that I serve, and a long time consumer advocate, I do not feel that Issue 2 is necessary. I understand why Issue 2 is proposed given the argument made against the perceived alternative offered by its proponents. I also understand why the Humane Society asked Ohio Producers and their representative organizations to begin to talk about profitable alternatives that advance the understanding of the animals we eat and our role in the food web and our environment. I do not understand, though, how the supporters of the constitutional amendment fail to see that the answers to the concerns raised already exist in Ohio. No, not through a constitutional amendment. The answer exists with every producer that looks at their next meal in the eye and offers that same animal to their clientele. I have come to understand that with those with whom I represent tonight… producers and consumers alike. That a person never knows their limit until they exceed it. And we have exceeded animal concentrations in many cases to the limits of the natural process we depend upon for our existence. Limits have been exceeded in our air, water and soil and all species related to this activity have been affected by this theory of efficiency. I have come to understand that the history of proposals like Issue 2… are a preservation effort to solidify current production practices… not gain a better understanding of why we exploit nearly everything we implement to feed ourselves. Thank you.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you. Mr. Stimpert.

Keith Stimpert: Good evening everyone and thanks to the sponsors tonight for pulling this forum together. I think it will be an interesting discussion and help you make an informed decision as you head to the ballot a box … on November 3rd. Farmers care for their livestock. Always have. Those images we have of farmers working late a night during calving time or during lambing. To watch the power in their buildings or in their barn during a big storm. All that still happens today. Pork producers, egg producers all have quality assurance programs that have elements of animal welfare in them. All of that is happening. Here in the State of Ohio we’ve not been asleep at the wheel. Twenty years ago, many of the farm organizations in this state helped organize the Ohio Farm Animal Care Commission. And that group sought to seek a higher standard, a better awareness of animal care in the state of Ohio. But, the world is changing. The world is changing. Folks, citizens of Ohio are further removed from the farm and we’re seeing all kinds of images, we’re seeing… hearing all kinds of different claims about livestock care and other factors relative to the farm today. And I think it is very important for us to address this issue of animal care in the State in a more forthright and comprehensive approach that gives confidence that validates the trust, the social contract, if you will, that we have with consumers, speaking on behalf of farmers today. So, we have that aspect. Ok? The idea that we need to reach out to farmers and reach out to consumers and help them know that the livestock on our farms today are well cared for. Second factor. We have been visited by out-of-state activists groups who are saying they’d like to bring some of their agenda to the state of Ohio. Well, it’s a free country and that’s all well and good (bell rings) but let’s have that discussion… that (the bell) still means one minute right? But, let’s have that discussion… largely their concerns at this point are about confinement practices on some of our larger farms. Let’s have that discussion. Let’s have all the discussion on all the practices. But let’s do it in a comprehensive way that considers all factors out there and… and I think we’ll be well served in that regard. All we’re talking about is animal care and all we are talking about is the organization of a thirteen member board of knowledgeable Ohioans to set forth the standards of care for livestock and poultry in this state.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you. Ms. Ruhl.

Rep. Margaret Anne Ruhl: Thank you for the opportunity to come here and speak before you. It is my honor and privilege to be in support of this bill. Representative Allen Sayre and myself were joint sponsors of House Bill Joint… House Bill Resolution Number 2 which is not the one that actually passed. The one that actually passed in the Senate Joint Resolution Number 6 which is sponsored by Senator Gibbs and Senator Wilson. They were joint resolutions by bi-partisan passage, through both houses, the House and Senate and then signed by the Governor. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board was mentioned earlier. It consists of 13 bi-partisan members who will determine and enforce guidelines for the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio. In order to protect food safety and locally produced food for the State of Ohio. We also recognize that Ohio agriculture community believes the best regulation for animal care will be achieved when all interested parties join together to develop a frame work that is both effective and practical. Practical for customers and for farmers. The Board is the right approach to reach the right goal. The Board will establish uniform state guidelines for animal care that will be consistent in all eighty eight counties. It is important to remember that several other Boards are represented in the Constitution, including the State Board of Education, and the Ohio Ballot Board. Adding the Livestock Care Standards Board will insure animal care and safe and affordable food supply. Simply put, voting Yes on Issue 2 means commitment to protecting Ohio’s farms and the quality of food for all of Ohioans. So I am here… I am here in support of Issue 2. Thank you.

Warren Edstrom: Mr. Thompson I understand that you are not… what should I say… you are not on either side of this Issue … you are here to deal with legal issues. Is that correct?

Maurice Thompson: Not personal legal issues… as far as (unintelligible)… I am the Director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law [which] is a public interest law firm at the Buckeye Institute. We protect Ohioans from State and Local Government. So we have an interest in this Issue. However, we’re not… neither the Buckeye Institute nor the 1851 Center nor I express an opinion on whether you should or should not vote for this Issue. Instead what I would like to do is give you a set of criteria in which you may better decide whether you should vote for or against this issue. And like a typical jerk lawyer I’m gonna answer your question, “Is it necessary” with a series of questions of my own. I suppose that there are multiple prongs by which we can judge the necessity of the regulation. First off is it politically necessary? Are we looking at a situtation where we are confronted with choosing between socialism on one hand and or communism on the other hand? The argument from the 1930’s was that somehow Franklin Delanor Roosevelt’s new deal, which was very socialist, protected us from turning the country to communism. I don’t know whether that’s true or not. I sometimes doubt it. But, is that the choice here or is that a false choice? Can we choose between freedom instead and socialism? Or freedom instead and communism? Secondly, is Issue 2 constitutionally necessary? Well that would depend what the purpose of a Constitution is, correct? Ohio’s preamble indicates that we the people of the State of Ohio grateful to Almighty God for our freedom to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution. Does the animal care standards board advance the blessings of freedom? That’s a question for you to answer. Does it advance common welfare? Again, a question for you to answer. Further our Constitution is _________. What that means is that we recognize the reasons individuals and governments form Constitutions is to protect life, liberty and property. Does Issue 2 protect life, liberty and property, so that it should become part of the State Constitution? Again, that’s a question I pose to you. Three is Issue 2 economically necessary? Is animal welfare a public good that would not be provided in the absence of government regulation? Do consumers not demand that their producers already engage in animal welfare? Or do they not care? If they don’t care, should government be mandating it? Is there an externality that requires government regulation? In other words are the costs of a lack of animal welfare imposed on people other than producers and consumers? Again, I ask you whether that’s true or instead whether there are private preferences. Finally, another series of economic criteria play an important role and again just some tools you can use to analyze very quickly. Individual choice vs. political decision making. Political decision making can sometimes be subjected to intense lobbying and special interest favors while individual decision making can be defused but can effectuate individual’s preferences. Do we want an agricultural community that embraces special interest and lobbying or do we want a agricultural community that reflects individual preferences, even if sometimes we disagree with those preferences? And finally I would not Frederic Bastiat’s observation that there is a fine line between profit and plunder. What that means is that sometimes when profit is easier than plunder, producers and consumers will pursue profitable ends. But, when plunder becomes easier than profit through government regulation, sometimes just like water flows to the point of least resistance, producers and consumers will choose to utilize government regulations for a market advantage where they can’t secure that market advantage on their own against their competitors. So those are just some ideas and some tools that I think you should use and employ in determining whether you believe Issue 2 is necessary.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you. The first questioner is Jim Hoover. The second one is Paul Shad. Number three is Patrick Quinn.

Jim Hoover: The first question is for Dr. Dorman. It’s actually a couple of parts to this question. Do we expect the standard of living for these animals… is there a need for that to change over time? And then the second part to that question is…well first if you could just answer that first one then I get to the other…

Dr. Leah Dorman: Ok. So your question is do you expect… do we expect the standard of living to change over time for the… for livestock and poultry in the state of Ohio? Well, let me begin to answer that question by saying first of all whenever you’re talking about specific production practices there’s always give and take. There’s… you take the good, you take the bad. There’s always cost, there’s always benefits. And even research has shown that there is no production practice that is better than another. Quite honestly it really boils down to management. How is a farm managed? That’s really what it boils down to and that it the most important thing is how it’s managed. Some producers… I’ve seen some wonderful small farms. I’ve seen some wonderful large farms. It’s not about large and small. It’s all about management.

Jim Hoover: Ok. I don’t know if I specified, but that was a Yes or No question.

Dr. Leah Dorman: Do I expect the standard of living to change over time? You’re kind of asking me to foresee the future and that’s hard for me to answer. I simply don’t know. Quite possibly.

Jim Hoover: Ok. And the next question is. If this Board comes up with a standard that’s acceptable… everyone agrees upon. Why should that not be an acceptable standard in fifty years or one hundred years later? And with that being the case why is it necessary to have a Board permanently in place? As opposed to let’s get a task force together to figure out what the standards should be and then disband once we have accomplished that.

Dr. Leah Dorman: So your question is should the Board set the standards?

Jim Hoover: The question is why can’t they just set up a task force to establish the standard, which is not a living and breathing standard…

Dr. Leah Dorman: I understand your question now.

Jim Hoover: As opposed to having a permanent government Board bureaucracy in place forever.

Dr. Leah Dorman: The issue right now is that no one really has the authority to set those standards… there is no authority… there’s no decision making body to do that and so this Board will actually do just that. Begin to set those standards.

Keith Stimpert: Are we allowed to answer it or what?

Warren Edstrom: I’ll give you one minute.

Keith Stimpert: I just want to talk about this changing aspect. One of the things that’s changing is the way society looks at animals. You know there was a time in this country 1850 or before in which you wouldn’t have an animal in the house. Ok? And today we have pets in the house and we spend thousands of dollars for leg surgery and so on and so forth. In other words… this social contract… we do… social contract is always changing and so you know our attitudes as a society — towards the animals in society — is always changing. The other thing is we’re always learning more and more about practices and what we want to do on the farm today so you know the standard of living as you used… that’s an interesting phrase to use in relation to animals but I share with you that yeah I see it definitely changing and defiantly improving as we move forward.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you.

Paul Shad: This is to the Congressman… or Congresswoman. What persuaded you to induldge in the effort to get an amendment to the Constitution? What makes you…What makes you think we need something like this? I mean isn’t there enough government now? And we have… like we have the Humane Society and other people that looks out for the interests. I just see it as more bureaucracy and I don’t trust government to really look out for the small guy. It’s the big interests. I mean who’s lobbying you to do this or why do you see a need of it?

Rep. Margaret Anne Ruhl: The reason I am on board with this and why we did… we’re going with the constitutional amendment is we feel that agriculture is our number one industry and we want to protect that. We did not want to see it go away, as some of our manufacturing has done. We want to protect it and the constitutional amendment is the highest law in Ohio and we want to do everything we can to protect it. As far as lobbying me… there has not been anyone that has actually lobbied me. I have talked to many individuals, that’s true. I have talked on both sides. But, I felt that this was the way to go. We wanted the people to decide whether or not we wanted to keep agriculture as our number one industry. So therefore we are going to the people with this ballot issue and we are making it our number one priority because we want to keep agriculture as number one.

Maurice Thompson: May I respond to that comment?

Warren Edstrom: If this gentleman wants you to you can.

Paul Shad: Yes, go ahead.

Maurice Thompson: I don’t think the government should decide what the number one industry of a particular state or city is. I think that the people should decide. If people decide through supply and demand… if the industry produces a product that the people desire they will purchase that product. It the product is undesirable they do not purchase that product. We’ve seen empirical evidence for far too long. We’ve propped up the auto industry in this state with billions and billions of taxpayer dollars because we have decided… our government has decided that the auto industry should be preeminent in Ohio. Well, who knows where that billions of dollars could have gone and how they could have been invested if they weren’t forcibly taken and extracted from Ohio taxpayers and consumers and could have been used for consumption or investment in new industries within the State. By that rationale we should still be protecting the blacksmith industry so that we can make more horseshoes. Well, horseshoes have become obsolete. My father is a small farmer. My family farms. I wanna take over the farm someday but not if I need the government protecting me in order to do it. If I can’t produce something that people want then I shouldn’t be producing it.

Warren Edstrom: Justin Ristmiller and Jennifer Hiles.

Patrick Quinn: My question is simple. First of all I don’t see the need in having yet another government entity to create a black hole of tax money and if we really want to save the farms and have agriculture as our number one business why can’t we just get rid of the property taxes so the farmers don’t have to sell off their farms which is a result most of the farms being gone anyway. So why can’t we get rid of property tax? Margaret you’re the best one to answer that since you are in the legislature.

Rep. Margaret Anne Ruhl: I won’t totally disagree with you. I am working to try to lessen taxes on the people in the State of Ohio. I believe that we are over taxed. I am not going to disagree with you on that portion. Property tax is definitely being looked at as getting rid of it.

Justin Ristmiller: In my opinion this ballot or this Issue is clearly against… combating a California style issue. The standards they passed last year. So my question to Mr. Thompson is, there is already choice in the grocery store there is free range chicken eggs and there is organic chicken eggs and what this ballot would do is take away an economical choice for consumers to afford. So if you want to protect choice why would you want to combat something that would protect choice in the grocery stores. Is the choice not already there? And the consumer is already choosing what they want to purchase. The choice is there.

Maurice Thompson: I agree. Could you please clarify your question? I am not sure that I… I want to make sure that I answer correctly. Can you ask it in a different way for me?

Justin Ristmiller: I guess my question is… in my opinion this is clearly combative against animal rights groups coming in to the State and establishing regulations. I think we all may be able to agree on that. Maybe not. My argument is if you want to preserve choice wouldn’t this be an issue that can preserve choice because nothing is saying that organic farms or small farms can’t still compete in the niche markets for those who can afford it.

Maurice Thompson: Sure, I agree with you. It… the lesser of two evils… if we have a lesser of two evils choice here… if that’s empirically true — that we are choosing between what the Humane Society wants or got in California and what Farm Bureau and others want here in Ohio. The lesser of two evils is clearly the latter … what Farm Bureau is trying to do. So if you put a gun to my head and make me choose, I would probably choose that option. I don’t know whether that is an adequate choice and sometimes believing in freedom and believing that people should be able to pursue whatever end is peaceful as long as it doesn’t harm another makes you Mister Irrelevant. What that means is that sometimes you are arguing that no government regulation is necessary in order to have the most choice possible. People can choose organic products. People can choose non-organic products. People can choose to buy products from farmers who take certain kinds of care of their animals or farmers who abuse their animals. And it’s my belief and empirical evidence throughout human civilization has demonstrated that people’s choices are inherently efficient and that they are based upon their preferences… they are based upon the price points. And we’re likely to see those choices flourish in a market without regulation. So I don’t know that I disagree with you… whatever preserves the maximum… but choice is not the end… you’ve got to remember that individual liberty is the end that government is designed to preserve … and choice is a means of getting there.

Justin Ristmiller: Ok. A follow-up question for Mr. Wightman.

Warren Edstrom: One minute.

Justin Ristmiller: Mr. Wightman, can your twenty acre farm feed the world and if it can’t where is it going to come from? Farms like yours… can your farm economically feed the world and if not… if it can’t feed Ohio where is that food going to come from?

Warren Edstrom: Now are you asking [about] his farm specific or small farms?

Justin Ristmiller: Small farms in general.

Tim Wightman: My twenty acre farm currently provides close to 175 families just with milk. That’s it. But I am a member of a cooperative. We don’t have dues it’s just a cooperative. We like to call it that. That actually supply food to close to seven, eight hundred families. They buy very little in the store. The reason why they buy very little in the store, because of your first question is there is no choices in the store. You have four companies that control the beef. You have two companies that control the grain and all the products that go into the other four companies that control your food. So you grew up in an age where you saw Supermarkets. I grew up in an age where there weren’t supermarkets. We had butchers. We had dry good stores. I can remember them because I grew up in a very small community. But you grew up in an age where supermarkets… had all these choices. You have 15 different kinds of CoCo Puffs. They’re made by two companies. So the choice is relative and that’s something we really have to look at.

Warren Edstrom: Dave Hudose and Carrie Mihalick

Jennifer Hiles: First I’d like to say thank you for coming. We appreciate you coming tonight and answering all our questions. My question would be for Keith to start with and I’d like to have Maurice to follow-up if that’s alright. (To Keith) I had the opportunity to talk a little bit about this in Marysville and I hope you’ll share with the audience a little bit of what your answer was for me. I used to raise a lot of my own food when I lived in the country… gardens… canning…chickens… eggs… my own steer…my own hogs… very much enjoyed doing that. One of the benefits I felt was being able to control what they ate, what went into their bodies…did we want antibiotics or not? And we were concerned about those issues. One of my concerns with this Board is how will that affect people like I was? Or possibly the Amish community or people who want to raise food for their own purposes and maybe even share that… we shared some of our eggs and things with family members. What do you foresee from this Board as far as regulation for individuals wanting to just feed their own families?

Keith Stimpert: Ok. Essentially should the voters of Ohio pass Issue 3 on November 3rd, all it would do is place into the Constitution the Board… the creation of the Board of 13 people. Call for the Governor to appoint 10 of them and explain its relationship to the General Assembly and its relationship to the Ohio Department of Agriculture. That’s the sum total. What has to happen… we’ll have to pass implementing legislation and I’ll share with you that’s another opportunity for public input. Far from being an unchecked Board. This group through the implementing legislation… we’re going to have to talk about at what size farm does this apply? And… and will it… how… what degrees will it be voluntary? What degrees will be mandatory? What levels of educational programs might we have? How will farmers comply in some way along the way. I could see it in a very progressive type of program that could indeed… probably a bad word for this audience but anyway…I could see it… I mean it in a very positive approach to say that it could make Ohio a leader in humane animal care such that our products could even be in greater demand relative to the issue of livestock care. So I… you were asking about the issue of small and large… that’ll have to be determined in the implementing legislation.

Jennifer Hiles: But, but you cannot say Yes or No whether or not they would regulate those individual people who want to raise food for themselves? You cannot say for sure whether or not they would regulate?

Keith Stimpert: The answer is that will be determined in the implementing legislation.

Jennifer Hiles: If they choose to enforce regulations upon private citizens wanting to simply feed their own family do you Maurice see that as a violation of the constitutional rights of free citizens in our country?

Maurice Thompson: I do. In fact I see the current regulatory scheme as a violation of constitutional rights. Currently, revised code 3717 requires that if you would like to distribute food to your neighbors whether it’s as a cooperative or otherwise that you need to have a government permission slip. You need to be registered as a retail food establishment or a food service operation. Good luck getting that done. You need to be tied into the city sewer line. You need to pass all the Health Department and the Department of Ag. inspections. If it’s going to be anywhere near your home you need to pay onerous fees. You need to take classes. You need to be able to answer all kinds of questions upon a Health Department inspector showing up at your home and asking those questions. Questions most of which do not pertain to the distribution of food as you may choose to do it. So I view the current regulatory scheme as excluding people from structuring their private behavior in a way that is perfectly safe, but infringes upon individual rights. I cannot… I can’t fathom that an additional government board would cause any roll back of that scheme however, I am not qualified to say whether or not that in fact is true.  Perhaps  the government board would cut into 3717 or chapter nine and we would somehow end up with less regulation than what we currently have. I am skeptical of that possibility but there is a right to privacy and that includes what you put into your body and there are many Amish and other religious cooperatives and small distributions operating in Ohio without licenses that the Department of Agriculture believes should be licensed and sometimes those people end up with armed police in their living rooms.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you. Earl Shad and Dwight Bocher and Laura Robinson.

Carrie Mihalick: My question is for Keith. As a Mom, I want to know if I vote Yes for Issue 2 will my children enjoy the same freedom that I have had to raise their animals the way that they see fit? Yes or No?

Keith Stimpert: Yes.

Carrie Mihalick: So you believe that regulations that will be started by the Board… started rolling by the Board … will not impose further controls on how my children raise their animals?

Keith Stimpert: Yeah I think, as I say, that some levels of small production will be exempted. I think we’re looking at commercial type levels of production. It’s to be decided. It really is. Animal care — and to a degree — is not as we’re saying here large size versus… large farm versus small farm issue. You have organizations in this country who are very interested in ending livestock production in the country. Flat out. I’ll tell you that. So today it may go to confinement facilities which happen to affect our larger operations, but eventually it could also be that maybe we don’t need a hardened floor in that twenty cow dairy. And that’s a concern for some organizations in this country. So what we’re saying is there is just a whole list of concerns by many and we’re saying the more comprehensive and positive way is to bring together a board to deal with the issue. Looking at all the science. Being flexible in that it can constantly meet — rather than being inflexible — it’s actually flexible from the standpoint that we are not going to put into law certain practices and outlaw certain others. Ok? We’re going to have a Board that would continue to examine this as I say to confirm the social contract that we have in producing food today.

Carrie Mihalick: Ok. So if my children will have the same freedom… can you also guarantee that a person who is sympathetic to HSUS will not end up on the Board in the future. They are appointed by the Governor, several of them. Let’s say one of the HSUS people befriends the Governor. Can you guarantee that person won’t be on the Board?

Keith Stimpert: Well… I will share with you that a local Humane Society representative… not to be distinct… you got to make the distinction between the Humane Society of the United States and the fine network of local dog and cat shelters and animal shelters that we have. There is very little connection between those two bodies. Ok? A local Humane Society representative will be on the Board. Ok? And appointed by the Governor. Now, along the way there are two consumer representatives… you know… would one of them possibly be a member of the Humane Society of the United States? I do not know.

Earl Shad: Good evening and thank you. I’m Earl Shad and my concern is my freedom and liberty which is guaranteed under the Constitution under section eight. I feel this is a violation to that. And I believe that government governs better when it’s smaller and I think this is a move to that direction.  I would caution you that we have lost from, what, fourteen million farmers in the 1940s. By the way I was living at that time. And now we are down to one and a half million. And I would just invite you to take a look at the Soviet farm situation and it has been eluded to here… we’re the number one industry in the State of Ohio. With so few people and such a tremendous investment to get into farming that I don’t… I just feel to vote yes is just an intrusion on the rights of property.

Warren Edstrom: Earl, do you have a question for the panel?

Earl Shad: I’d like to ask Mr. Thompson then to elude to the intrusion on private property. If he feels this is such. That’s the question. Thank you.

Maurice Thompson: Unfortunately based on the language that we have in front of us. That’s somewhat of a hard… harder question to answer than I would like it to be. The purpose of the Livestock Care Standards Board purports to be to maintain food safety and to encourage locally grown and raised food. Whenever you are discussing safety regulations, you’re necessarily discussing infringements on your liberty. And …people… usually the two are mutually exclusive. When somebody says something is for public health or public safety, hold on to your wallet. Because those are quickly becoming the two most dangerous phrases in the English language. Public health and public safety can justify us doing jumping jacks every morning to the Battle Hymn of the Republic and being stuck in a rubber room all day… if taken to their logical extensions. Although they are not taken to the logical extensions here. What the regulation of public safety usually means is that you will have less choices. One analogy may be the American Medical Association and different medical boards. One of the reasons that health costs are higher in this country is that we have a protectionist racket whereby we need to go to so many years of medical school… so many years of training… invest so much in order to be a Doctor. A lot of people think that’s a great thing, but there’s also the unauthorized practice of medicine which means that you can’t do x, y and z that are really simple tasks unless you’re a doctor. What that does is it makes it more expensive to get treatment for those kinds of things than it would otherwise be. When we talk about safety regulation… we can compare medical regulation to say the choices for cars. All medical care is expensive because the government and medical boards mandate a certain minimal level of standards. What that means is that many of the poor can’t afford treatment. However, most poor can afford a cheap car. In the car industry we have Yugos on the bottom end, so people can at least have some kind of car. So safety regulation has the effect of requiring everybody to own a Mercedes Benz. Because it’s the only car that’s high enough quality… that’s safe enough. So your freedom is in peril when you are deprived of the choice to buy anything but a Mercedes Benz. You can’t buy that lower end Yugo… you can’t buy that lower end Volkswagon… your only option via government edict is the Mercedes Benz and that’s one fear you have to worry about with food regulation… will the safety regulations drive up… maybe things are going to be… I don’t want to say too safe… but maybe the requirements are going to be as such that it prices the poor out of the market for certain kinds of food. That’s an economic risk.

Warren Edstrom: Thank you Mr. Thompson.

Dwight Bocher: Dwight Bocher and thank you for the opportunity. My question will be directed to Natalie. Ohio being one of twenty some states in the United States that have the ballot initiative. Anyone that can come in and get enough signatures, can get anything on the ballot. HSUS driving their initiatives by emotion are very hard to contend with. Why would you want to turn over letting them set the rules for our livestock care as compared to turning that over to thirteen people in the State of Ohio that know what they are doing?

Natalie Kee: I don’t know that it’s necessarily an issue of turning it over to HSUS and what you call their emotional… you know… the emotional way in which they try to get signatures for a ballot initiative. I think it more has to do with… is the Constitution a proper place for something like this thirteen member Board? And the answer from our perspective is no. It’s a constitutional power grab by agribusiness to control what they can and can not do in perpetuity.

Dwight Bocher: I would have to say. I understand where you are coming from there. But, the legislature in the State of Ohio and Governor felt because of the size and the importance to the consumers in the State of Ohio that was why it deserved a position on the Constitution. Because HSUS has already bulldozed over seven states prior to us. They have been known to come back in the back door and get changes made after they’ve had concessions already made. That they will find more difficult to do if we have this as a Constitutional amendment. That really is one of the big reasons for considering the constitutional amendment plus our general assembly feels that’s where it should be. So… thank you very much.

Natalie Kee: Can I?

Warren Estrom: Representative Ruhl is there anything in Issue 2 that prevents HSUS from coming into the State next year and balloting a constitutional amendment?

Rep. Margaret Anne Ruhl: There is nothing.

Warren Estrom: Thank you.

Laura Robinson: I guess I would like to hear more about this Board that is being created. We’ve got nothing but vague titles like “family farmer”. What constitutes a “family farmer”? And why should all the farmers here that are scared of this Board… what reason do they have to trust that these thirteen people are going to represent them? And why are only three of them on the Board? I mean why aren’t they going to be represented? What protections are there for these people? I guess I’d like to know more about the people who are going to be on the Board. Why can’t we get specific names?

Warren Edstrom: Who are you asking the question?

Laura Robinson: The Farm Bureau, I guess. I suppose.

Keith Stimpert: About 80% of our Boards and Commissions in the State of Ohio are appointed by the Governor. A few other aspects of how they are named. You know… basically we’re going to follow that pattern of having the Governor name ten of these people, with the Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture serving as Chairman. And then two other family farmers appointed by… one by the Speaker of the House and one by the President of the Senate and that will make the thirteen people. It’s compromised of farmers, veterinarians, a food safety expert, the Dean or someone from a college of Agriculture. So… it’s a diverse group and it’s meant to assure that all voices are heard and that we are moving forward in a comprehensive and forthright approach, relative to the area of animal care. So… you know… the people will be named and terms of office will be set out in the implementing legislation. Likely to be three years. Likely to be staggered. Such that you have a continuity of the Board Members through different Governors, if you will. So, I could tell you what I think will come in the implementing legislation but a lot of that gets decided there.

Warren Edstrom: Madeline Lichs. Beth Poollen.

Rep. Margaret Anne Ruhl: Excuse me. Excuse me. Can I make one other comment?

Warren Edstrom: You have one minute.

Rep. Margaret Anne Ruhl: Also on this you have… it mentions that you have a veterinarian on there, but that doesn’t mean that that veterinarian is not a family farmer too. In my district I have several veterinarians that are family farmers. That could easily get appointed on there too. So there could be a variety of people appointed to this Board that would have more than one occupation.

Questioner: Thank you very much. I want to direct my first question to Dr. Dorman. And you eluded to a potential problem between imported food and food safety and nineteen percent, I think you said, of the U.S. food is coming from the imports. Can you relate Issue 2 in more detail to this particular issue?

Dr. Leah Dorman: Yes, Issue 2 basically is… again… the creation of a Livestock Care Standards Board. It is so that Ohio farms stay in business. Ok? We want Ohio food to be kept here in Ohio. We’re going to eat meat, milk and eggs. I don’t know about you folks but I enjoy meat, milk and eggs and some of you may not and that’s perfectly acceptable. But, if we do not produce those here in Ohio. If… if animal rights activists come in and no longer allow us to produce animals the way that we currently produce them. There is a risk that we are going to have to bring in that meat, milk and eggs from someplace else. Now that may be Indiana. That may be Michigan. That may be China. That may be Mexico. And do I have some concerns about importing more and more food and does that set us up for potential food safety and food security risks? It could.

Questioner: A follow-up related question. Keith mentions this “social contract” that we keep changing. In your mind and as we look at this changing social contract. Help me better understand why this Issue 2 is not an animal rights issue rather than animal welfare issue as it’s stated.

Keith Stimpert: Well I think we understand that we all operate in the world today with the body politic making decisions about what we can and can not do. Over the long term realm here what we are saying is folks put a lot of faith and confidence in the farmers today. The most trusted voice in animal care today in this country is the farmer. So we want to maintain that social contract. The confidence that validate that trust, if you will, in how we carry out our work. Folks are further and further removed and so they need to have some way of knowing, particularly when under attack by those who don’t have the best interest of our farms at heart. That indeed a body has come together to think through the evolving aspects of livestock care in the State of Ohio. So.

Dr. Leah Dorman: Can I add something?

Warren Edstrom: Sure

Dr. Leah Dorman: Farmers do the right thing for the right reason, in the right way. Unfortunately, they are just not very good at telling you about it. And I married one. I’m the wife of a small farmer myself. They’re just not very good at standing up and speaking out and telling what they do. Because you know they go to the barn everyday and they feed those livestock or that poultry because that’s what they do. And they care about those animals.

Questioner: Thank you.

Warren Edstrom: Is Beth Poollen here? And Robert Runk and Calvin Culley.

Transcript (second hour) Issue 2 town hall, held 10-19-09 on the OSU campus

Questioner, Bob Runk: I want everybody to know that I’m proud to be part of this republic and it’s great to see this democratic process and that I’m allowed to speak freely and be a part of it. I want clarity on what has been brought up already. From what you’ve said is we’re supposed to vote on a board, give them power, then worry about what rules and regulations will result. Yes, there will be public debate, I’ve heard that too, but how effective is public debate when we’re setting up a board… that historically, in our political system… is subject to special interest lobbying boards. If nobody feels comfortable with that yes or no question… I guess it’s not a yes or no question, but if nobody’s comfortable… I guess I defer it to the farm bureau.

Stimpert: You, know the board is trying to be representative of all of Ohio, from the special interest aspect… I share with you that I’ve been in this business for over 30 years and I have never seen across the state of Ohio… in rural Ohio… the kind of support that I am seeing for this particular issue from small and large farmers. They get it. They understand that if we’re going to move forward in livestock production in this state we have a choice between who’s going to be the voice, who’s going to be the regulator and we’re saying, as Mr Thompson has said here, that the best choice is to create this board of knowledgeable Ohioans. Now one of the things we have to do as citizens is to engage the process. Politics is a contact sport. Government needs to be involved. People need to be involved and that’s what I hope would happen as we take ownership in the state of Ohio of the issue of livestock care and that’s what it’s about. We’re not going to get to go back and just relax, we’ve got to take ownership of this particular issue for the good of our economy and the good of our farmers and for the good of consumers in this state. That’s what we believe and that’s what we’re going to work to accomplish in the years ahead.

Questioner, Bob Runk: Thanks, I agree and thank you for bringing up the fact that we have to stay engaged and I encourage everybody to talk to everybody they know. There are grassroots groups that are forming. Become a part of those grassroots groups and be ready to monitor the board if it passes and be ready to raise the flag when you see something wrong and I challenge the farm bureau to be there for us when that does occur. Now real quickly, if you said, and you did say that the public trusts farmers more than any group. Why can’t there be at least 7 farmers on the board?

Stimpert: Well, I tried for that. I wanted 7 farmers and there actually could be 7 farmers. There could be the 3 family farmers that are named. There are 2 that represent statewide farmer organizations, so that’s up to 5, but those don’t have to be farmers, they could also be veterinarians. The veterinarians could be farmers. The veterinarians beat us up because we didn’t put enough veterinarians on it, ummm, so, you know there could be 7 farmers on this board, no doubt about it. To a degree the consumer representatives could have some relationship to a farmer in some way, so the vets, as the representative said, there could be enough cross purposes relative to the folks and what they are backgrounded from…..what their backgrounds are.

Ruhl: If I may add on the public opinion, I think the voters have shown across the state of Ohio that if you have town meetings, which most representatives do, umm, we do listen, we do listen to the public and we do try to have those hearings and as the Farm Bureau has mentioned, when these rules and regulations start coming out, you’ll have your opportunity to voice your opinion and just like you have in the health care issue from the federal government and right on down.

[Laughter]

Thompson: In some ways the ambiguity of the board is reminiscent of what we recently experienced with the TARP and the bail-outs and the patriot act. The mentality that the government has to do something now and we’ll iron out the details later has often worked out to the disadvantage of those who want to be left alone by their government, so there’s reason for concern.

Edstrom: Thank you, Wayne Lovely, Calvin Pauley, Erin Smith, Steve Marcus, Kirt Peterson

Questioner: Good evening. There’s a previous attendee that came up talking about all the emotion that would be invoked by the HSUS next year. They came into town and tried to push their weight around and everything, but with this issue 2 I see the exact same thing happening. I suppose if I were a member of one of these out of state activist groups that would come into town I would probably drop a pamphlet just like the one I see here… speaking about how my new initiatives would insure Ohioans would safe local grown food, etc. and go down the list, so my question is mostly for the proponents of issue 2 on the panel here today. Wouldn’t issue 2 in fact establish exactly what it’s trying to prevent? That’s essentially establishing a set of standards that are set up by a board of bureaucrats rather than the local farmers themselves, who I would assume are more knowledgeable with the day to day activities of running their farms.

Stimpert: Well, I guess we don’t get that choice, because we’re told that… remember I started talking about Ohio farmers care for their livestock and I talked about Pork Quality Assurance Plus and Egg Quality Assurance and the Farm Animal Care Commission, all of which are free efforts by farmers of the state of Ohio to be good at their jobs, to care for their livestock, but we are told by representatives of the Humane Society of the United States that that’s not good enough… that we’ve got to regulate and in fact they want to bring one specific regulation involving 3 species. They want to deal with a confinement issue, which is an important issue and one we ought to talk about… ok, and here I’m talking about gestation stalls for swine… ok, if you didn’t know and veal crates or stalls and cages for laying hens. That’s specifically what HSUS would like to do away with. Very important question… ok… and we ought to talk about that, but in it there are a number of factors in setting forth the standards that we have. There are issues of livestock disease. There are issues of animal mortality and morbidity, food affordability, food availability, all of those other factors need to be considered as we set the standards that will guide the livestock industry in the state of Ohio and I for one do not believe that in the long run, small or large, does the HSUS have the best interest of Ohio farmers at heart and so I’m saying… we’re saying… the coalition of farmers across this state are saying, let’s put together a comprehensive board that will look at this issue thoroughly, consider animal well-being and do the right thing for farmer and consumer.

Questioner: I have 2 closely related questions for Representative Ruhl and if possible I would like Ms. Kee to comment as well. My first question is this… by making this a constitutional amendment, is your aim to preempt Ohio’s administrative procedure act? Yes or No.

Ruhl: Yes.

Questioner: Your aim is to preempt this administrative procedure act. For those of you who don’t know what this act is, this is the act that gives Ohio citizens basic rights in voicing their opinions about exactly this sort of legislation. What representative Ruhl wants to do is to preempt the application of this totally democratic law that was passed by the state of Ohio. This is a very perverse thing that she is trying to do. My second question for you is if not by making legislative initiatives by voters unconstitutional… which you claim this doesn’t do…how do you think this board is going to stop the HSUS. Is it just by preempting the Ohio administrative procedure act, or is there something else that you have in mind?

Ruhl: It will not stop HSUS. I mentioned that earlier. They can still put a petition on, they can still have their ballot issue next year.

Questioner: So you’re claiming that there will be no attempt by Farm Bureau to claim that such a voter initiative would be unconstitutional? You’re aware that the original language for this proposition was clearly that this board would have exclusive authority and also that it would preempt the Ohio bill of rights… that part of the Ohio bill of rights… I can show it… I have it right here with me in my hand… would preempt that part of the Ohio bill of rights that gave voters the right to initiate precisely this sort of initiative. I think Ms. Kee can talk about both of these.

Kee: Great question. Like I said, you know we do believe that this is an attempt to put agribusiness into the constitution into perpetuity and give them all this unchecked and unaccountable power and we keep hearing said, that… well this is being done this way because the state legislature thought agriculture is important enough to do this. Well, I would answer that with another question, which is, if this is such an important issue and if agriculture is so important and this ballot initiative is so important why was it only given one day in the state house, 2 committee hearings and voted out in the same afternoon?

Edstrom: (to Stimpert) Yes, one minute and then Mr Thompson, I’m going to ask you, because you’re a lawyer, what your understanding is on the legalities of this issue. Go ahead.

Stimpert: I just wanted to talk about what is going to happen here is that the…to the implementing legislation… the board, the legislature will give rule making instruction under the auspices of the Ohio Department of Agriculture to develop these rules, so the administrative contract and so on was talked about is not preempted… that’s going to be exactly the process and those rules will offer testimony and will offer input as well and they will then set forth the rule. This unchecked power thing… you may disagree with the existence of the board and you may be concerned about the expansion of government and I understand that, but let me say to you that there are a number of checks and balances in this and yes, we did pursue an exclusive power to this body, but the legislature took that out. Representative Ruhl and her colleagues took that out…could I just continue to help explain what it’s about… we were seeking exclusive authority here, but the legislature, representative Ruhl and her colleagues said to us, you know, you’re going to create a fourth branch of government. It’s going to be accountable to know one, so the checks and balances in this include that the governor appoints these various people… to be named and that’s a normal aspect of government, number one. Number two, these people will be appointed with the advice and consent of the senate. That is also an opportunity for public input. Once the legislation is written it will have certain aspects of legislative intent and JCARR (the Joint Committee on Agency Rule and Review) a legislative body will review what is put forth in rule, another opportunity for comment and ultimately, as it says in the resolution and as it says in the ballot language, the authority of this board is subject to the authority of the general assembly. The next time around, I want to go through what we hope to accomplish relative to HSUS and what they might bring to town in 2010 or beyond.

Thompsom: Here’s the process as I understand it for initiating statutes. Typically, and how it may differ here… the example I’m probably most familiar with would be the state smoking ban, which was an initiated statute, on the ballot, approved by the voters and once it’s approved… once something that’s just one page is approved by the voters, it then goes over to the general assembly, who creates a statute or a series of statutes… in the case of the smoking ban as well, it was about a one page ballot, it became about a twelve page statute with a number of provisions that… you know, loosely aligned with the ballot language… sometimes a little bit different than the ballot language… a little bit beyond what’s in the ballot language, but it doesn’t end there… once the general assembly promulgates and statute it then goes to… in this case to the department of agriculture who would pass implementing rules and regulations that are more specific and often times… it’s a tree. In other words, you have the ballot here, the legislature grows it and the department of agriculture will grow it a little bit more with rules and regulations… in the smoking ban’s case the rules and regulations are about 25 to 30 pages and do include requirements that weren’t in the ballot language… aren’t in the statute… the Ohio uniform safety code… the rules that the department of agriculture has promulgated there are about 116 pages. I think, just to help clarify the legal question, when the department of agriculture…

Edstrom: Times up Mr. Thompson.

Questioner: Thank you for this opportunity, I’m sorry I did not understand the format that we were going to be asking questions of you folks who are kind enough to be here tonight, so I just want to make a couple of statements. To identify myself, I’m a small business man. I’ve been in business in Ohio for many years and I’m a small farmer. I understand regulation and I understand dictatorial boards appointed by politicians. If anybody thinks that 3 farmers are going to be what’s on that board that’s a pipe dream, because there might be 3 farmers, but who knows what their desires are going to be and the rest of those people on that board are political appointees and it’s anybody bar the door, because it’s not going to run the way we’d like to think it’s going to run. I want to talk about the cost of regulation for just a moment…

Edstrom: Sir, do you have a question for the panelists?

Questioner: There was some mention of the cost of regulating and there is some mention, Dr Dorman, about losing business to other countries. The most regulated farms in our recent history are in Russia… a total failure. They had to start importing all kinds of food from our farmers and many others. If you think regulation isn’t going to increase the cost of farming in Ohio, you’re missing the boat. It’s going to raise it a lot…probably 3 times what it is now… based on other things…

Edstrom: Sir, do you have a question for the panel? Please? Do you have a question for the panel?

Questioner: I really didn’t come here with questions. I came to listen and learn.

Edstrom: Your time’s up.

Questioner: Thank you very much.

Edstrom: Jim Ragano, Jim Green and Karen Pettijam, Heidi Ferg and also somebody with the name Ariah.

Questioner: Thanks for coming to answer our questions. Mr Keith Stimpert, you were at our Tiffim town hall candidates night last Wednesday. The issue of cost… start-up… has been played down and was played down by you and I would like you to give me a more accurate figure if you have it. I have an OBM figure. Your figure was $100,000 to $150,000 or $160,000. OBM has opened it up with $176,000 and that’s without any laws, regulations or anything. We’ve put this cart before the horse again. Could you explain that and how that’s not going to grow anymore, when we are already broke as a state?

Stimpert: I understand the fiscal situation in the state of Ohio… there’s a two tier answer to the costs. The first is the board it’s self and yes, I think I could probably run the board a little bit better than the OBM suggests it can, but here… the number…you know… I said $100,000 to $150,000 for the board. This is not a board that would take state retirement, nor would these board members receive a salary. They’ll get a per diem and expense money for coming to the meetings, but you will need some administrative help, so that’s where OBMs biggest cost comes from… is for a manager… if you will… of the program and administrative help… a secretary or something like that. Uh, so, $150,000, $172,000 in year one and $165,000…

Questioner: $176,703

Stimpert: There you go.

Questioner: That’s the total, for start-up.

Stimpert: Ok, we’re off a few thousand. I got ya.

Questioner: What’s the year after you put all the rules and regulations.

Stimpert: I’ll continue here. Now the second, so that’s the cost of the board. The other aspect is the cost of compliance, right? So that’s the part where we have to think through… at what level will we apply these standards. Will it be, say, a 200 animal unit, will it be at some other level? Will it start at animal one? These are all things for public debate and public discussion during the implementing legislation, but along the way, what levels of education, are we going to have farm visits? All those kinds of things have to be decided. Don’t know, don’t know what the answer is to that, but it will happen through the public process and through implementing legislation.. and that could be several hundred thousand dollars… and so we’re looking at…because we think the public good is being served here… that that would be from the general revenue fund, but I will share with you…you might find this surprising, but the farmers that I talk to are open to the idea of addition of fees for this particular program and helping to support it, so, I just share that with you. That’s what people have told me as we’ve talked to them.

Questioner: All I can say is that we know government bureaucracy does not go backwards. It does not get smaller and it’s going to get a lot larger.

Questioner: I want to thank you for letting me ask this question. I’m looking for something positive that we can do and, so the question goes to Natalie, Tim or Maurice, I guess. Given the likelihood that the HSUS won’t be satisfied with the standards this board comes up with…my understanding is that they want everyone to be vegetarian. Um, what would be something else that we could do if we vote no on this that might stop them from destroying Ohio agriculture?

Thompson: My solution to your problem is pretty simple it’s to support freedom, it’s to propagate for the government to leave people alone to the extent possible. Under that world view you are the board and all of us are the board, all the people in this room are the board, all the people out there are the board. All of the farmers in the state of Ohio are the board, because all of them get to choose how to take care of their animals. [applause] It’s true, I’ve been harsh on the regulation that the board would engender, but it’s true that if you’re weighing Farm Bureau against the HSUS, it’s not much of a contest, Farm Bureau has been a friend of property rights and a friend of the right to bear arms for a long time and like many groups, the Humane Society, the American Cancer Society, they parade under these beneficent names and often propagate policies that are highly depravation-al of individual rights and individual liberties… the rights to choose in order to elliptically obtain what they purport to be their goal. So, I think it’s important that all citizens to be keenly aware of the threat of front groups with these beneficent names and begin to embrace freedom… realize that sometimes… you know… some people will vote for republicans because they think that the democrats are worse and they say that the republicans are terrible, but the democrats are more terrible. Some people may vote for this board and say that this board is terrible, but the other result is more terrible. My positive advice is that we need to start changing the culture, we need to change the mind-set into one that embraces liberty and rejects both terrible solutions and instead, advocate for freedom.

Questioner: Do either Tim or Natalie have any comments?

Kee: I mean, I would just say that I can’t speak for the Humane Society. I’m not one of their representatives, but to go along with what he said, you know, if you don’t like what they’re proposing, vote, vote against it, for it, I mean exercise your constitutional right.

Wightman: And the only thing that I would add to put a different light on this whole discussion is… HSUS came into Ohio and asked for the sky. They said we want you to ban such and such and such and concerned producer groups said the sky was falling and this is now what we have. I think what is true is in the middle. At some point we will have to stop and ask ourselves, how are we producing our food, how are we taking care of our soil, how are we guaranteeing that we have good health, because right now we don’t and if you tie all this together and we don’t have enough time in the time left, the health debate in Washington directly relates to where we are at and how we feed ourselves, so if we don’t start looking at this, we’re always going to be endlessly trying to create boards to figure out how we can do it better, when in fact we need to look at a whole other situation, So the middle is where we need to be.

Edstrom: Ralph Anderson and Danielle Tim and Jason Mihalick

Questioner: Hi, this question is for Dr.Leah Dorman. Are you familiar with the PU commission report on industrial farm production? Putting meat on the table? My question is that factory farms have been stated to be unsustainable and too high a risk for public health and a risk for public safety for a number of reasons, so are we looking to ever ban industrial farm production practices or are we going to maintain these methods in spite of the disaster it causes to public health and environmental sustainability as well as cruelty to animals?

Dorman: I think the first question is am I familiar with the PU commission report. The answer is, yes, I am familiar… can’t say that I have it memorized, but I have looked at that before. You mentioned the term factory farm and if I can ask you a question, can you define that for me?

Questioner: Yes, confined animals in concentrated methods. They’re confined in gustation crates, battery cages and veal crates. No longer free range, no longer allowed outside the barn.

Dorman: And the other term that you used was sustainable, or maybe it was unsustainable. Can you define that for me?

Questioner: It means that we are depleting our soil quality as well as causing significant erosion, pollution of our water. We have the second worst water quality in the nation in Ohio and the third worst air quality in certain areas, so I mean we have problems with exercising sustainability and viable methods of farm production currently.

Dorman: And part of the reason I asked about sustainability and some of you probably have seen the articles recently in the newspaper and on the radio is that we currently have one billion people that are food insecure in this world. We do and that’s very, very sad, and unfortunately I don’t believe that going back to the way we were farming the way we did in the 30s the 40s and the 50s is going to feed more people. I believe it’s going to feed less people. That certainly is a concern long term… sustainable. What does sustainable mean? I think sustainable means to me… to me, to be able to feed the masses… to be able to feed the people and I think that is an important piece. I understand your concerns with confinement. I think Mr. Stimpert has very well addressed that. I think that is something that this board needs to be created to address those kinds issues and to discuss those types of issues. Bring the people to the table and figure out what is best for Ohio.

Questioner: Right, well, you seem to be more concerned about whether or not you have milk, eggs and meat, as opposed to safe drinking water and air, which all of us need and if you want to talk about efficiency, then it’s more efficient to eat plants than to eat animals and feed more people in that respect. [audience mumbling] It’s true.

Thompson: If there’s time… can I chime in on that one? I think that if you don’t like factory farms, however you define that term, your solution is to simply not purchase products produced by factory farms. [applause] That’s the beauty of a free society is that you can choose to purchase from factory farms or from organic only farms, but other people who perhaps can’t afford the luxury of purchasing from organic farms… that can be more expensive in their costs… will purchase other things. Societal preferences eventually show themselves and if more people think like you, water quality and air quality will improve, but the most barbaristic thing you can do is to impose your will upon others through the use of government force by advocating for banning factory farms. That’s savage and cavemanish.

Wightman: Can I chime in just for 10 seconds?

Edstrom: Ten seconds.

Wightman: There are 6.8 billion people in the world, we currently grow 8 billion people’s worth of food and 1 billion go hungry everyday. Where’s that other 2 billion’s food sitting?

Edstrom: Thank you. If the commentator might be allowed to make a statement. Sometimes people go hungry because distribution’s not there, I know in the soviet union they were growing crops all over the place, but they couldn’t distribute it because the system collapsed. So, I don’t know if it’s valid or not, but you be the judge.

Questioner: Let’s say it gets passed, down the road, some farmers can’t afford to implement these things. Will they be in a deal where they can have their farms taken away, fined, will it be a Kafkaesque [from the Free Dictionary: Evoking the nightmarish atmosphere depicted in the fiction of the novelist Franz Kafka. In Der Prozess/The Trial (1925) and Der Schloss/The Castle (1926), the protagonist experiences a mounting sense of powerlessness and anxiety in the face of a menacing and omniscient bureaucracy.] nightmare for them, or let’s say your board gets passed and some poor farmers can’t do what you demand they do. What’s the up-shot? Are the farms taken away? What?

Edstrom: I think he’s asking what the recourse is.

Thompson: That’s a really great question. I can begin to address it, I think, revised code 3717 provides if you don’t have the right kind of license it’s a criminal offense. It’s a third degree misdemeanor, punishable by fines up to $1000 a day… jail time… each offense can be a separate legal offense which can put you in prison for 60 days. Say you run a co-op with out a license or distribute food without a license, you could spend a considerable amount of time in prison or lose everything and I think Friedrich Hayek taught us a lot about how simple economic regulations can devolve into totalitarianism if we’re not careful and that’s precisely how something that seems beneficent and to protect public health or safety… at first… well how are you going to enforce it. How will they enforce the healthcare mandate… well… if you don’t pay maybe they put it on your taxes… if you don’t pay then… they eventually arrest you… right… they come to your house… they probably take you to prison… if you resist then you get shot or tasered. Ultimately, economic regulations, in order to be enforced and to work have to devolve into some greater level of totalitarianism. That happened with the Manna Storehouse case that was mentioned earlier. That’s what could happen with health insurance and that is what happens with most licensing laws. It’s not uncommon in a Chiropractor’s offices or whomever, often find themselves at the end of a point of a gun.

Questioner: How much will this increase the price of food in Ohio?

Stimpert: I think the price of food and I agree with his choice comment that… you know… if you want to buy free range… if you want to buy directly from a farmer or something like that… you should do that, but a lot of people can’t afford $3 eggs or $4 gallon of milk and I think that’s an important aspect, so when we look at this question of food affordability… I will share with you that there are some studies out there that say if we do not put in place the appropriate regulations and deal with this in an intelligent way. Egg prices for example could increase 20 to 43%.

Edstrom: Jeff Firg, John Holly, Jason Mihalick

Questioner Jason Mihalick: I’ve got a question that’s constitutional. I’d like to hear Farm Bureau answer it and Maurice answer it. First of all to Farm Bureau… was there a farmers freedom act considered to help protect the individual farmer from HSUS rather than going for a board?

Stimpert: Yea, we looked at the idea of some kind of farmers freedom act. I know that there are some that are out there relative to hunters… generally… as a ultimate defense against if you will… unfair regulation and it’s not working in other states, so we abandoned that idea and we went directly with this particular idea.

Questioner Jason Mihalick: Ok, why would this work as opposed to that? I mean if you look at the constitution of the united states you would think that a farmers freedom act would protect the farmer, the individual rights of the farmer, so why would the board be able to do that as opposed to the constitution.

Stimpert: I guess were understanding that society is made up with a lot of diverse interests and we’re saying we ought to pull together all those folks reflective of the state of Ohio and we ought to try to think through this particular question…I don’t think we get the chance to say… you know… this is the way it’s going to be in the society that we have today, so it’s just an admission of where we think we are today.

Questioner Jason Mihalick: Ok, Maurice, I’m curious, is livestock private property?

Thompson: Livestock is considered a tangible good which is considered property… so it is protected as a property right under the constitution… now you referenced the federal constitution and I’m afraid you’re talking about being protective of rights you may be talking about the original version rather than the redacted version we use today, so the state constitution… contains… is more vibrant than the federal constitution… it’s more protective of property rights. We saw the horrible emanate domain case, Kelo, but a year later we get the opposite result in Ohio, if there were a Humane Society style regulation I can tell you that I would certainly protect farmers rights to use their property as they see fit. A fundamental right that is above and beyond any infringement from the common welfare and there are 2 provisions, Ohio’s section 1 article 1 of the Ohio constitution enshrines the fundamental right to use and acquire and protect and defend property and then section 19 of the Ohio constitution also says that private property shall be held inviolate. I believe he’s established a fundamental right to do the things that we’re talking about farmers doing here. The question is how does the judge weigh the infringement from the police power which gets unfortunately too technical.

Questioner Jason Mihalick: So it what your saying is it sounds like we have in place what we need right now depending how a judge would weigh in on it to enforce and protect against the HSUS with our current constitutional rights?

Thompson: Yes, depending how a judge would weigh in on it.

Edstrom: Jim Green, Michelle Greg and Dedra East

Questioner: Thank you for allowing us to be here to voice our opinions..I’m kind of on the fence concerning this issue and one thing that worries me is the the law of unintended consequences. Ok, this going to be a government board and it’s already been mentioned that it could be influenced by special interests or lobbyists and, Mr. Thompson, I appreciate a number of your comments concerning personal liberties issues, but what concerns me is even if this whole thing doesn’t go totally awry concerning this board. Could they be influenced to require excessive inoculations for my animals…things that would be cost prohibitive. I mean I’ve heard a number of things say hey, well we’re not going to outlaw this, so you can’t do this but we are going make you do so many things that basically we are going to make it cost prohibitive for you to enjoy a particular activity. So, Dr Dorman, could you… Ok who has more access to information concerning lobbyists, because I know there’s a number of inoculations that I…when I talk to my Vet…because I do my own inoculations for my animals. They say… here… are you sure you don’t want Potomac Fever and this one and that one and I’m going, “no”, because I make the decisions because I know the environment where my horses are. I know the sort of conditions. Like I don’t worry about rabies, because I don’t have stray critters around.

Dorman: That’s still going to remain something between you and certainly your veterinarian if that’s a prescribed medication. I don’t foresee that changing with the Livestock Care Standards Board.

Questioner: I also heard mention that the small farms would possible be exempt from some of the regulations from the board, but at the same time you also mentioned that once the board is created it has to go back to the legislature in order to be able to be given the authority to do anything, so really… that’s kind of up in the air as far as whether or not small farms would be exempt.

Stimpert: No you’re right, it is up in the air. One of the things we’ve just got to think through, at what level do we want to apply this. You know it could be voluntary at a certain level and mandatory at another. It could be voluntary throughout. We could phase it in over the years and I don’t mean that in a delaying tactic. I mean that in terms of a strategic plan to properly get the program implemented… you know… those kinds of questions need to be decided. We’re simply voting on should we put forth a 13 member panel to set forth the standards of care for livestock and poultry in the state of Ohio. That’s what we’re voting on and it’s that basic of a question. So, it’s kind of where we are.

Questioner: Yeah, I still worry about those laws of unintended consequences. The wheels come off the wagon occasionally.

Stimpert: I hear ya.

Edstrom: Joann Snyder, Sarah Alexander and Jim Hiles

Questioner: Good evening. My name is Joann Snyder and I just wanted to introduce myself. I’m a senior at the Ohio State University, majoring in agricultural business and applied economics. I’ve had several agriculture industries and I’m extremely passionate about this issue and agriculture as a whole. My question to Natalie, Tim and Maurice is do you consume milk and eggs and meat products? Just a head nod is good.

Kee: I absolutely do.

Questioner: Ok. do you enjoy the right to consume those products?

Kee: Yes I do.

Questioner: Do you enjoy spending less than 12% of your income on those products?

Wightman: No. Our family actually spends close to 24% of our income on our food, but we also don’t spend anything on healthcare.

Questioner: Ok, I want to know why you’re opposed. Do you want to prevent me from having a future in Ohio agriculture, as well as my friends?

Kee: Do you want to know personally or the group I’m representing?

Edstrom: I’ll allow the question as long as we don’t get into a debate here.

Questioner: It’s debate.

Edstrom: It’s debate, but it’s questions first.

Kee: I just want to be clear on the question you are asking. Are you asking me personally why I’m opposed or why the group I’m representing is opposed?

Questioner: I would like to hear from the group you represent as well as yourself please.

Kee: Ok, well as I said before, the group I represent, Ohio Act, is opposed, because it’s a power grab for the state constitution, it’s putting business interests into the constitution for perpetuity. There’s also concerns about families health because of corporate greed and there are concerns about the idea of unchecked and unaccountable bureaucracy. Personally, why I’m opposed? Personally, I’m opposed because I was in the statehouse when this issue went through. I was a lobbyist previously and I represented the Ohio Farmers Union and as a lobbyist in the statehouse and the Ohio Farmers Union is opposed to this issue, coincidentally, but I was there and the process just… it disappointed me. I’m a firm believer in political process and this issue was given one hearing in the house agriculture committee, one hearing in the senate agriculture committee and it was voted out the very same day. If this is such an important issue, the legislature sure didn’t spend very much time on it.

Wightman: In answer to your question do I want you to blow all your college education and not have a job in agriculture business… we’re always going to have to have agribusiness, but the problem is… by my viewpoint… and I’ve been in agriculture all my life… is the fact that we need to consider agriculture, not just agribusiness and given the massive amount of money… $134 billion a year spent on advertising to tell you that these products are good for you and a lot of this campus was built by agricultural dollars tends to askew where you think your future may lie and college, I would hope, I never got to go, ’cause I was too busy working and I’m not holding that against you, but you’ve got to step back and look at where things are going, because if you don’t you may never really understand where you are. You don’t want to get to be my age and all of a sudden you’re facing some things and you have no options for your daughter who may want to do things different than the way things are. And I would hope college still teaches critical thought and I’m very concerned that it has lost that ability.

Thompson: Real quick, you asked why I’m opposed. I’m not actually opposed. I feel like it’s important for me to note that.

Questioner: First of all I think I have to say that I like meat. Cheese is my favorite food, so I guess that qualifies me more so than say some other people in some folks minds. First, isn’t the argument of having a regulatory board to save us from potential future regulations kind of the same thing as suspending free market principles to save the free market? And specifically, without using scare tactics of HSUS or vegans taking over our state, do you believe that the voters should be prevented from voting up or down potential future ballot initiatives and regulatory laws? And if the voters did make a mistake and put forth some sort of ballot… put forth some sort of law that had unintended consequences, isn’t it just as easy to repeal that? Much in the way as Jarod’s law was repealed, because of the cost of compliance with that regulation?

Stimpert: I would just say on the behalf of the Farm Bureau and the Ohioans for Livestock Care, what we’re trying to suggest to you is that you have choices ahead. We are trying to provide you with an alternative to other aspects of… you know… if you will… out of state organizations and so on and so I just want to say it’s an alternative for you to think about. It’s one that I think is positive and proactive and one that can serve… as I say… consumers and farmers very, very well.

Questioner Jim Hiles: My question is real quick. My concern with the language… and this question’s for you Maurice. My concern is with the vagueness of the ballot initiative. Do you foresee in this a way for this board to create and implement law, kind of circumventing our legislative system? By good intentions, I mean we all know the road to Ann Arbor is paved with good intentions.

Thompson: I agree about Ann Arbor. I don’t think that the legislative system will be circumvented. I think the process is kind of how I described it. The ballot issue is passed, the general assembly makes a bunch of laws. Some of those will be unanticipated by what’s on this piece of paper [ballot issue] so that is a cause for concern and then some of the Ohio administrative regulations will be unanticipated by what’s in the statue and if there is no revised code, 119 rule making. What that means is that the authority to make policies and implement policies, and enforce policies isn’t defined by any bright line rule that the agency has to follow. Instead it can be ad hoc [the Free Dictionary adj. Improvised and often impromptu], potentially arbitrary and capricious, so that’s another cause for concern. The general assembly is fully engaged in the process, but of course… just because the general assembly is engaged in the process doesn’t mean that your liberties are in any way safeguarded, as we know. The ballot language does come back to them and they pass the statute. You don’t circumvent the general assembly you just roll the dice and take your chances with the general assembly. If you’re a gambling man, good luck.

Edstrom: This will be our last question.

Questioner: My name is Sara Alexander and I grew up in Sidney Ohio and my family’s been in Ohio since before Ohio was a state and I have a question for Representative Ruhl. For full disclosure, I do work for a non-profit that promotes small to medium sized independent farmers and works for competitive markets for those farmers so that they can get a fair price. My question for you… is you’ve stated that this regulation… if issue 2 passes it would do nothing to stop HSUS from coming in and proposing their own ballot initiative. Justice O’Connor of the supreme court has said that this is an inappropriate use of the constitution. Could not the general assembly or the department of agriculture take up these sorts of regulations without creating a new board in the constitution in the state of Ohio?

Ruhl: As I stated earlier though, we feel that agriculture is our number one industry and we wanted to protect it with the highest law that there was available, so that’s why we went with a constitutional amendment… and for the vote of the people.