Facing the Issue

Supporters of Issue 2 kick off the campaign by introducing the faces that will communicate the message

Published on: October 20, 2009

At a carefully orchestrated rally at the Ohio 4-H center, the proponents of Issue 2 gathered to introduce their plan last week. Consensus and bipartisanship ruled the day. Gov. Ted Strickland led things off saying "Issue 2 is an issue we can all agree on. Urban and rural, Republican and Democrat, labor and business, we are all standing in support of Ohio 's family farm industry."

Republican Sen. George Voinovich followed up the governor's comments with his own video-taped words of support. "I applaud this bi-partisan initiative," Voinovich said. "A Livestock Care Standards board will ensure that the most knowledgeable local experts will set the standards for Ohio . Passage will ensure Ohio 's national position as a leader in animal care."

House Speaker Armand Budish, D-Beechwood, noted that he was "a city boy without a single farmer in his district, but I am the perfect advocate for this issue." He urged support for the measure from anyone who likes to eat wholesome locally grown-food and people who care about Ohio 's job economy as well as farmers and those who raise livestock.

Then Sen. Keith Faber, R-Celina, came to the podium and addressed the bi-partisan effort in the Ohio legislature to pass the resolution creating Issue 2.  It says something when we can all come together to support this proposal because at the end of the day it is important to have good locally grown food and at the end of day it is about science and not speculation."

Then the stars of the show were introduced. The three faces of the campaign whose wholesome, youthful and televisible faces are being counted on to carry the message. Jessica Sigodi is a mother of two from Rocky River . She appears in an advertisement as a grocery store shopper supports the measure because she who wants safe affordable food local for her family. Mark Thomas the well-known dairy farmer who chose ethanol to power his funny car dragster will be seen later this month speaking from the heart about the value of local production. Brenda Hastings. The mother of three who works side by side with her husband to operate a 600-cow dairy near Burton , made the biggest impact. Brenda is already appearing on televised ads. And media pundits I know tell me her message and appearance are right on target.

Alan Melamed, the communication specialist from Cleveland who is spearheading the strategy behind the campaign spoke confidently. "One thing we have accomplished already," he said "is to scare HSUS out in 2009. It is hard for them to oppose a board to do exactly what they claim to do."

That said, he predicts HSUS will be ready to fight in 2010. "It's their first defeat. They will be back next summer for real kicking. But we have set it up; the issue is about keeping the decision here in Ohio . I think we will be ready for them. This is step one in what is not just a battle but a war."

Post Tags:

Comments:
Add Comment
  1. T. Jones says:

    Brenda Hastings,
    We agree with and support the premise of issue 2 but not as a constitutional amendment.
    The same objective to thwart PETA and HSUS could have been accomplished by including the key words "agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” in section 900 of the Ohio Revised Code. This we do support.

    Our problem with this constitutional amendment is the excessive power it places in the hands of a 13-member group of non-elected bureaucrats. This constitutional amendment places in the Board's hands the power to mandate whatever they choose, and it is the Department of Ag that will implement and enforce those decisions of the Board. (see the text of proposed amendment at http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/IssueProcBallotBd/BallotBoard.aspx#Issues). The text of the amendment includes “consider factors that include, but are not limited to,” which gives the Board authority far beyond the scope of its stated purpose. In the text "agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being” is the part that will thwart HSUS and their cronies. “Biosecurity,” “disease prevention,” “animal morbidity and mortality data,” “food safety practices,” and “the protection of local, affordable food supplies” are already covered in Ohio Revised Code.

    Issue 2 is an expansion of State Government that creates unchecked power and new layers of unaccountable bureaucracy over our livestock farmers.

    What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure? If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?

    The text of issue 2 shows just how rushed the process was and how little thought went into doing the job right. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is not even an imperfect solution. It is not a solution at all. The correct solution is to add the proper language into Ohio Revised Code, a process that would require both the House and Senate to debate and agree on language and the Governor to sign the bill into law.

    We are being told that this Board will protect farms from animal rights groups, but what will protect the farmers from the Board, a panel of bureaucrats without accountability?

    After reading the proposed resolution, we have several questions regarding Issue 2.

    Why did the Ohio Farmers Union decide to oppose issue 2 in their August meeting?

    Will we need a license or permit to own and raise livestock in this state?

    Will special training and classes be required to obtain the right to raise livestock?

    Will someone come to our farm to ensure that we follow the guidelines set forth by this Board, without search warrants or probable cause?

    Will we be criminals, and subject to fines/prison if we disagree with the standards set by the Board and fail to comply?

    Will these board members be paid? If so, who decides their salary?

    How will the actions of this board be funded: by taxpayers or farmers?

    How will Board decrees be enforced?

    How long will the terms of appointees be? Indefinite or limited?

    Why is this Board given “excusive authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state” instead of the farmer?

    Why are the members of this Board appointed (10 by Governor) and not voted into their position by the farmers themselves?

    What appeal process will be available for those who wish to challenge the standards set by this Board? Will that appeal require a fee also?

    Why o

Please provide the answer to the following question:

 =