The Work Of Keeping The Department of Agriculture A Department
By: Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President
Nevada Farm Bureau voting delegates in 2010 adopted an organizational policy position that they wanted the Department of Agriculture to be maintained as a Department and that the Board of Agriculture should continue as a policy setting board, providing direction to the Department. This will be a top priority for the coming legislative session and has been a major work project since shortly after Election Day in November. At that time we learned of the possible plan to consolidate Nevada’s Department of Agriculture into another agency or possibly break elements of the current Department up and put them into various other agencies.
While others may see the proposal for re-organization in a different light our perspective has been that the idea for consolidation is based on Governor Sandoval’s intent to minimize the overhead of government agencies and get agency management costs down to the smallest possible amount. Having seen the probable budget sheet (although not official) proposal for the Department of Agriculture, proposing the elimination of the positions of Director and several other “administrative” type jobs, the concepts we have been working from seem to fit together.
The recent reports of the Department’s employees having significant dissatisfaction and poor morale have not contributed to a stronger position of making the case for continuing forward would be best dealt with by doing more of the same. As was the case when the College of Agriculture was recommended for curtailment, we are not going to be defending the status quo here either.
Nevada’s Department of Agriculture performs many necessary regulatory functions to make agricultural commerce possible. These activities involve a wide range of responsibilities to provide for interstate and international trade. The work of the Department also provides necessary property and business protection to keep the plants and animals agricultural producers depend on for their livelihood protected from theft, diseases and injurious pests.
The bulk of the money coming in to run Department of Ag activities come from user fees or contracts for services. Having made this point, we need to note that some of the budget does come from the state’s general fund with these resources used for a portion of the administration activities outlined for elimination. A portion of other general fund dollars are used to carry out several program of work including some which involve public health related activities. All in all a complete loss of general fund dollars would be a serious set-back and necessitate a complete restructuring of current programs and services – but, would have very little gain in filling what is expected to be the state’s general fund shortfall.
In pursuing the stated objectives of our organizational policy, we are still interested in having a meaningful working relationship with the Sandoval Administration. We will not be demagogues extending our arguments beyond substantiated basis of cost effectiveness and organizational responsiveness to the needs of agricultural producers who are picking up the tab for services provided. The past experience of the Department of Agriculture being a Division within the Department of Business and Industry resulted in no savings but greater bureaucracy and less efficiency.
Although it is not our intent to engage in the personnel matters that need attention, we do believe that it would be in everyone’s best interests for the Board of Agriculture to address the Governor’s desire to have an administrative officer in charge of the Department with whom the Governor has confidence. This is not unlike the circumstances when Governor Jim Gibbons was coming into office and resulting at that time with a change in the Director. Establishing a confrontational relationship between the Department of Agriculture and the Governor’s office would be a serious mistake and present a reason for agricultural producers to wonder why their representatives on the Board of Agriculture have not conducted their duties more appropriately.
Nevada Farm Bureau voting delegates in 2010 adopted an organizational policy position that they wanted the Department of Agriculture to be maintained as a Department and that the Board of Agriculture should continue as a policy setting board, providing direction to the Department. This will be a top priority for the coming legislative session and has been a major work project since shortly after Election Day in November. At that time we learned of the possible plan to consolidate Nevada’s Department of Agriculture into another agency or possibly break elements of the current Department up and put them into various other agencies.
While others may see the proposal for re-organization in a different light our perspective has been that the idea for consolidation is based on Governor Sandoval’s intent to minimize the overhead of government agencies and get agency management costs down to the smallest possible amount. Having seen the probable budget sheet (although not official) proposal for the Department of Agriculture, proposing the elimination of the positions of Director and several other “administrative” type jobs, the concepts we have been working from seem to fit together.
The recent reports of the Department’s employees having significant dissatisfaction and poor morale have not contributed to a stronger position of making the case for continuing forward would be best dealt with by doing more of the same. As was the case when the College of Agriculture was recommended for curtailment, we are not going to be defending the status quo here either.
Nevada’s Department of Agriculture performs many necessary regulatory functions to make agricultural commerce possible. These activities involve a wide range of responsibilities to provide for interstate and international trade. The work of the Department also provides necessary property and business protection to keep the plants and animals agricultural producers depend on for their livelihood protected from theft, diseases and injurious pests.
The bulk of the money coming in to run Department of Ag activities come from user fees or contracts for services. Having made this point, we need to note that some of the budget does come from the state’s general fund with these resources used for a portion of the administration activities outlined for elimination. A portion of other general fund dollars are used to carry out several program of work including some which involve public health related activities. All in all a complete loss of general fund dollars would be a serious set-back and necessitate a complete restructuring of current programs and services – but, would have very little gain in filling what is expected to be the state’s general fund shortfall.
In pursuing the stated objectives of our organizational policy, we are still interested in having a meaningful working relationship with the Sandoval Administration. We will not be demagogues extending our arguments beyond substantiated basis of cost effectiveness and organizational responsiveness to the needs of agricultural producers who are picking up the tab for services provided. The past experience of the Department of Agriculture being a Division within the Department of Business and Industry resulted in no savings but greater bureaucracy and less efficiency.
Although it is not our intent to engage in the personnel matters that need attention, we do believe that it would be in everyone’s best interests for the Board of Agriculture to address the Governor’s desire to have an administrative officer in charge of the Department with whom the Governor has confidence. This is not unlike the circumstances when Governor Jim Gibbons was coming into office and resulting at that time with a change in the Director. Establishing a confrontational relationship between the Department of Agriculture and the Governor’s office would be a serious mistake and present a reason for agricultural producers to wonder why their representatives on the Board of Agriculture have not conducted their duties more appropriately.
Posted by Doug Busselman at 1/2/2011 3:22 PM 
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Department of Agriculture
Categories: Agriculture
Tags: Nevada Department of Agriculture
Comments