State Ballot Issues

[Mott the Hoople]

We have three State Ballot issues in my home state (Ohio) in the upcoming election.

I am undecided on one and have decided on two issues.

Ballot Issue #1 is constitutional ammendment to the State constitution to create $200 million in bonds to award veterans who have served in the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq with a bonus to show the States appreciation for their sacrifice. Though I find this a worthy cause I have two problems with it. The first is that the money will not be spent from the general revenue fund. It will be borrowed. The second is that I do not believe that it is appropriate to ammend the state constitution for this purpose.

Issue#2 is a constitutional ammendment to create a State Board to set standards for live stock management. I'm completely opposed to this for several reasons. First, this is a complete misuse of the State constitution. The State Constitution is supposed to be a clearly stated body of fundamental principles. It's not supposed to be covered with post it notes. This is essentially an attempt by those in the agriculture industry to do an end around the State Constitution by ammending it so that the proposed ammendment would do an end around the legislative process and thus avoid judicial review for it's constitutionality. This Board would contain to much detial and specificity to be part of the State Constitution. Another reason I oppose this is because of the specificity required. The devil is in the details and this proposed constitutional ammendment does not spell out what these details are. That would be a given had this idea gone through the ugly and brutal legislative process and judicial review. Another reason I oppose this is because the board will not be funded through the general revenue fund. So it would in fact create a new government beauracracy which has not been funded. Where would this funding come from? The composition of this group also bothers me. It heavily favors family farmers on the board. Though family farmers have much to gain or loose from laws concerning livestock management the States food supply is just to important to place it into the grasp of any one interest group, including family farmers. That brings up another reason I oppose this. Instead of a legislative body promulgating law that is answerable to the voters and accountable to our courts we will have a board of political appointies (13 board members, 12 appointed by the Governor, 1 by the Speaker of the house and 1 by the president of the senate), the potential for political partisanship and corruption outside the jurisdictions of the legislature and the courts frightens me. This is the part of the bill I don't think the agricutural industry has thought through. Though they are hedging the ammendment to favor family farmers the board members will still be political appointees of politicians who are beholding to their campaign donors and who do you think they care more about, family farmers or Wall Street? This could end being a fiasco where Corporate interest could dominate the board and thus our food supply. That thought scares the hell out of me.

Issue #3. Ammends the State Constitution to Permit casinos in 5 Ohio Metro areas. OH HELL NO! This is a complete and total abuse our State Constitituion. For many of the same reasons listed above. Managing Casinos and their revenue stream is not an appropriate function for our State Constitution. Again, this is an attempt by gamblers and mobsters to game our legal system by bipassing the legistlative and judicial process to promote a vice that would harm many persons to enrich a very few. This is not only impermissable it's down right immoral.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Do they have initiatives in your state Mott? They might just be using constitutional amendments because initiatives aren't allowed. And the state constitution doesn't cry when it's amended, I promise you.

 

[Damocles]

Do they have initiatives in your state Mott? They might just be using constitutional amendments because initiatives aren't allowed. And the state constitution doesn't cry when it's amended, I promise you.

They are all Amendments in our state, the Initiative is simply given by the State government, while the proposition is given by the people through petition (or vice/versa I can't remember which...)

 

[Cypress]

what exactly would be the function of the board? Livestock management is a pretty broad and nebulus word. Livestock management can cover a lot of issues, from economic, to environmental.

Personally, I have a lot of experience working with State boards and commissions. And as general rule, I like the concept of Boards. Primarily because it's an entity comprised of citizens who aren't directly answerable to the Governor or to a bueracratic agency in the state capital. In other words, the decisions are made outside the boundaries of the Governor's Executive Appointees at a State Agency. In my experience, it allows for more local control on decision-making, and more freedom from the Governor's political appointees who run the Executive agencies. It's a more democratic (small d) form of state and local government. Board members, in many cases, aren't paid a salary. Like I said, they are prominent citizens or citizens with a particular expertise that they bring to a board. They're basically volunteers. Although, some State Boards draw a salary. It just depends. But, I don't see them as any more beholden to the Governor than a political appointee who runs an executive State agency. In fact, I think they are less beholden to political pressure from the state capitol and the governor.

Obviously, I no direct knowledge of your proposed board or its function. Just wanted to chip in with my experience.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

what exactly would be the function of the board? Livestock management is a pretty broad and nebulus word. Livestock management can cover a lot of issues, from economic, to environmental.

That's part of my point. They dont' spell that out and as I said "The devil is in the details"

Personally, I have a lot of experience working with State boards and commissions. And as general rule, I like the concept of Boards. Primarily because it's an entity comprised of citizens who aren't directly answerable to the Governor or to a bueracratic agency in the state capital. In other words, the decisions are made outside the boundaries of the Governor's Executive Appointees at a State Agency. In my experience, it allows for more local control on decision-making, and more freedom from the Governor's political appointees who run the Executive agencies. It's a more democratic (small d) form of state and local government. Board members, in many cases, aren't paid a salary. Like I said, they are prominent citizens or citizens with a particular expertise that they bring to a board. They're basically volunteers. Although, some State Boards draw a salary. It just depends. But, I don't see them as any more beholden to the Governor than a political appointee who runs an executive State agency. In fact, I think they are less beholden to political pressure from the state capitol and the governor.

I don't oppose the board per se. I oppose ammending the State Constitution to create these boards outside of the legislative process or judicial review. If the Ag Industry wants this board they they can lobby the legislature to create one and, in the process, spell out all the details involved.

Obviously, I no direct knowledge of your proposed board or its function. Just wanted to chip in with my experience.

You see that's the problem, the only detail that is spelled out is the creation of the board, the composition of the 13 board members and who appoints them. Nothing else is spelled out. Scary huh?

 

[Cypress]

That's part of my point. They dont' spell that out and as I said "The devil is in the details"

I don't oppose the board per se. I oppose ammending the State Constitution to create these boards outside of the legislative process or judicial review. If the Ag Industry wants this board they they can lobby the legislature to create one and, in the process, spell out all the details involved.


You see that's the problem, the only detail that is spelled out is the creation of the board, the composition of the 13 board members and who appoints them. Nothing else is spelled out. Scary huh?

Yeah, that's a problem if the function and authority of the Board isn't clearly spelled out. I don't understand why it has to be an amendment to a state constitution, but obviously some fancy lawyers must have looked at this, so it's totally beyond my comprehension.

The good thing about Boards, from what I've experienced, is that they are appointed to multi-year terms. So, in general, they can't be fired at will by the Governor on a whim. Like an appointee at an Executive Agency can. And since they serve fixed appointments, they will ultimately be comprised of appointees from two or more Adminstrations - so there's a mix of appointments and interests represented. That's kind of a good thing, because you want these dudes and gals to look at things from the long term perspective


the thing that seems weird, is if, as you say, all the board positions come from corporate agribusiness or ranchers. If that's correct, that seems kind of lame. A Board, by law, should be set up to represent all the interests of the state or community that is affected by livestock operations. That would, or should, include university scientists with expertise in animal management, county government representatives, environmental representatives, community representation, and of course representation for ranchers and agribusiness.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, that's a problem if the function and authority of the Board isn't clearly spelled out. I don't understand why it has to be an amendment to a state constitution, but obviously some fancy lawyers must have looked at this, so it's totally beyond my comprehension.

The good thing about Boards, from what I've experienced, is that they are appointed to multi-year terms. So, in general, they can't be fired at will by the Governor on a whim. Like an appointee at an Executive Agency can. And since they serve fixed appointments, they will ultimately be comprised of appointees from two or more Adminstrations - so there's a mix of appointments and interests represented. That's kind of a good thing, because you want these dudes and gals to look at things from the long term perspective


the thing that seems weird, is if, as you say, all the board positions come from corporate agribusiness or ranchers. If that's correct, that seems kind of lame. A Board, by law, should be set up to represent all the interests of the state or community that is affected by livestock operations. That would, or should, include university scientists with expertise in animal management, county government representatives, environmental representatives, community representation, and of course representation for ranchers and agribusiness.

The board does. Actually it has no corporate member but is heavily weighted in favor of family farmers. Of the 13 appointees. 1 would be a food safety experts, 2 would be vets, 1 would be Dean of a State College Ag Dept, 2 would be consumer advocates and 7 would be family farmers. Clearly, family farmers are over represented on this board.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, that's a problem if the function and authority of the Board isn't clearly spelled out. I don't understand why it has to be an amendment to a state constitution, but obviously some fancy lawyers must have looked at this, so it's totally beyond my comprehension.

The good thing about Boards, from what I've experienced, is that they are appointed to multi-year terms. So, in general, they can't be fired at will by the Governor on a whim. Like an appointee at an Executive Agency can. And since they serve fixed appointments, they will ultimately be comprised of appointees from two or more Adminstrations - so there's a mix of appointments and interests represented. That's kind of a good thing, because you want these dudes and gals to look at things from the long term perspective


the thing that seems weird, is if, as you say, all the board positions come from corporate agribusiness or ranchers. If that's correct, that seems kind of lame. A Board, by law, should be set up to represent all the interests of the state or community that is affected by livestock operations. That would, or should, include university scientists with expertise in animal management, county government representatives, environmental representatives, community representation, and of course representation for ranchers and agribusiness.

The primary motivation for this board is fear mongering. They have been using the fear tactic that PETA like organization will target the State for livestock management legislation which would be unduly burdensome on farmer. The proposed constitutional ammendment is a poorly thought out knee jerk reaction.

 

[Cypress]

The board does. Actually it has no corporate member but is heavily weighted in favor of family farmers. Of the 13 appointees. 1 would be a food safety experts, 2 would be vets, 1 would be Dean of a State College Ag Dept, 2 would be consumer advocates and 7 would be family farmers. Clearly, family farmers are over represented on this board.

Yeah, that's a stacked board. Fuck that. Livestock management and food safety affects everyone. I wouldn't want a board that was 80% weighted to some ranchers.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yeah, that's a stacked board. Fuck that. Livestock management and food safety affects everyone. I wouldn't want a board that was 80% weighted to some ranchers.

Or written into stone in the State constitution in such away that it's not answerable to either the legislature or the judiciary.