From Dakota News Now:
The South Dakota Farmers Union opposes the proposed merger by Governor Kristi Noem of the state Agriculture Department with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
President Doug Sombke told WNAX in Yankton, the organization is now working with lawmakers to write a bill that would put the State Agriculture Secretary position on the ballot rather than Governor Noem appointing the position.
Pointing out the last time that was proposed:
Senate Bill 194
Title: provide for the election of the secretary of agriculture.
Sponsors: Senators Kloucek, Hoerth, Jerstad, Katus, Maher, and Schmidt and Representatives Ahlers, Bradford, Elliott, Feinstein, Halverson, Miles, Street, and Van Normanand..
02/01/2007 Agriculture and Natural Resources Deferred to 41st legislative day, Passed, YEAS 8, NAYS 1. S.J. 349
That idea was a dumb one in 2007. And it’s still a dumb idea in 2021.
Ag producers aren’t looking for a politician in that office, which is what they’ll get if it becomes an elected position. They want a thoughtful steward of the office, and they have the opportunity to vet them when those officials are confirmed by the Senate.
Enough said.
Farmer’s Union just wants to be able to raise money for that race. It would be a revenue stream for them, and job security for political staff.
Just saw this come across my desk. Wow. Why in the world would you want to politicize the Ag Secretary position? I would think that the Farmers Union had better things to focus its time and money on. Guess not. I know they’re a bit butt-hurt on the combining of DENR and AG departments, which is a legitimate gripe, but a ballot measure campaign to elect the Sec. of Ag? I would hope that their membership would say enough is enough and rein in some of this wacky stuff and get them back to their core values and mission.
So, the union wants to democratize and leverage-raid the treasury?
Regardless .. seems strangely familiar.
Assumption:
If it’s not the state’s job to help create new economies and markets, it should maintain a $0 balance.
My hip shot for example: local food producers want to bring in technology to focus on weather tolerant year round food production, a long term, but solid investment, second in efficacy only perhaps to clean water.
Do we have any farmers and ranchers in the audience who don’t mind having polluted water for their livestock and crops?
For instance, would you want to water your corn with water extruded through compressed paint pellet byproduct from the tank painting operation in Belle Fourche? How is THAT conservative?
How is the state’s current structure doing to keep the water clean for livestock and crops while developing resilient, strong systems for SD food production? Is it working?
Now, back to our example – SD macro agriculture surrenders to a tried adage – the train will come and bring more supplies. Don’t fight the Winter, just survive. Entrenched systems and skittish leaders may not seek the expenditure on the development of alternative food systems willingly or easily.
In 2021, however, the boundaries of “survivable” have extended to Mars, and we benefit from that effort with an inventory of technology that could be used to bolster SD’s self-sufficiency with proper management and investments. Does our leadership – regardless of its structure – realize this? Are they taking action to network, seed investments, train resources, and prepare to capitalize on the opportunities, or are we simply content to buy more snowblowers and wait for the train? What if the train doesn’t come? A person can survive a month without food, a week without water, and a few precious minutes in subzero temperatures.
If the impetus, for example, of the farmer union community is “[denial of state investment in local food systems]”, since the state doesn’t maintain a balance sheet of $0 cash, then a naturally sought remedy for the unionized community would be to create leverage to seek the funding for their economy/market. Since the state readily supports the development of other areas of economic interest, and given that the public sector has a responsibility to non-exceptionalism, the exclusion of the initiatives of one group and not another breaks a social contract and possibly some legal contracts.
By the state holding cash, it retains and wields influence over market entrance and outcomes.
So, why would there be a problem with achieving the outcome of thriving markets, economic opportunity, self sufficiency, and a winner’s pride regardless of whether appointments or elections put in place the right visionary leadership to get the job done?
I have provided a contrived, but interesting and somewhat relevant example. That said, I would be interested in hearing or reading more about the perceived merits from both sides of this issue.
There might be a less thoughtful and less effective advocate in the state than Doug Sombke but I’d have to think about who that would be.
I think it’s worth noting that .. investment in local survival (essential) systems could be thought-of as a valid way to spend the pandemic dollars.
Plus, local food is delicious .. think hot evening outside dinnertime on the farm in Early September eating on veggies from the garden.
It’s very simple to market .. because it has tremendous value.
That is all.
Did we not elect Governor Noem to be the governor? Let her do what she sees as good for South Dakota. Instead of being manipulated by special interest groups, who are only in it for themselves.
The SDFU has had an unhealthy hatred for Noem for a long time.
As if the SDDP needs another state-wide race for which to recruit candidates and raise money. They can’t even fund legislative races.
According to wiki, ag secretaries are elected in 12 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Texas. Wonder how that’s worked out.
If people are worried about getting an ultra liberal winning Gov and controlling the newly formed department, making it an elected position could fast track that mightily. We don’t want someone running for this position promising all sorts of things to the Sioux Falls electorate that would hurt at, and having the votes to win. Leave this as an appointed position that has historically been filled with input from all ag groups.
***hurt agriculture
One thing is certain in all South Dakota elections is a valid Federally Approved photo ID will be needed in order to vote.
Get rid of that requirement and all sorts of parties will be able to win elections here with any kind of candidate.
You know what is a good idea? Giving the commissioner of public lands more responsibility. That is an important office.
Its lean and would serve people perfect.