PRODUCER EDUCATION IN THE LEGAL ARENA:THE PROPOSED GIPSA RULE CHANGESShannon Mirus, J.D., LL.M.

Jefferson D. Miller, Ph.D.

University of Arkansas

www.NationalAgLawCenter.org

The Proposed GIPSA Rule Changes

Proposed rule from GIPSA Includes significant changes for livestock and

poultry

Why address this topic? Great deal of perceived risk for producers Large number of inquiries Covered in ag press Politically contentious

Program Objectives

Provide a better understanding of what GIPSA is and what it does

Provide a better understanding of the notice and comment rulemaking process and how producers can participate

Provide a better understanding of the proposed GIPSA rule

Provide unbiased information

Planning the Workshops

Proposed rule published on June 22, 2010 Comment period extended to November 22,

2010 August, 2010 - Decision to address this topic Goal to have all workshops wrapped up by Nov. 1 Planned 3 workshops and 1 webinar originally

Fayetteville, AR Russellville, AR Nashville, AR

Chosen because of geography of state and concentration of producers

Key Considerations

Having support of key members of community Key producers

Not having opposition from integrators Location & Dates

Easy access Neutral sites Avoid community events if possible, all in

the evening Utilized local extension agents

Publicizing Workshops

Local word of mouth Connecting with producers Local meetings

Integrators Included in newsletter to growers

Newspapers Some growers sent the information to local papers

Emails & Listservs Collected email information for producer groups

around the country to help publicize the webinar

Workshop Content

Who we are And who we aren’t

What is GIPSA What are regulations What is the notice and comment process Substance of rules Question & Answer

Workshop Delivery

Keep workshops to 2 hours Multiple presenters to break up the

session Wait until the end to take questions

Provided paper and pens for writing questions down during the workshop

Moderated question & answer session Several producers had individual

questions afterwards We stayed as long as producers still had

questions

Additional Workshops

Success of first two workshops resulted in invitations to present in other locations Ruston, LA

Louisiana Farm Bureau & Dept of Agriculture & Forestry Poteau, OK

Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service & OSU Booneville, AR

USDA Dale Bumpers Small Farm Research Station Inviting organization was responsible for:

Securing location Publicizing event

Additional Workshops

Publicity Louisiana

Direct mailing from Commissioner of Agriculture Support from state Farm Bureau

Oklahoma Organized by Extension Promoted locally and regionally by Extension

Booneville, AR Smallest turnout Hosted because they had received inquiries locally Word of mouth & friends

Evaluation Methods

Survey developed using principles from Dillman

16 Questions 1-7 about the content of the workshop and

materials 8-9 how participants learned about the

workshop 10-13 about their role in ag & production

area 14-16 age, gender & county

Mostly scale or multiple choice questions Some open ended questions

Evaluations

Implemented during 3rd workshop Imperfect information Data from 4 workshops + webinar

Distributed at the end of the workshops, after Q&A session Webinar: Online survey, link provided after

Q&A Analysis

Frequencies Percentages

Evaluation Results

Just the numbers

381 in attendance at 5 workshops

225 responses from all 5 workshops

Response rate of 59%

Evaluation Question #1

I have a better understanding of what GIPSA is and what it does.

Stro

ngly A

gree

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neutra

l

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Stro

ngly D

isagr

ee

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

42.67%51.11%

4.44%1.33%

0.44%

Evaluation Question #2

I have a better understanding of the notice and comment rulemaking process.

Strongly Agree Some

what Agree

NeutralSome-what

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00% 43.56%

48.00%

7.11%

0.78% 0.00%

Evaluation Question #3

I have a better understanding of how I can participate in the notice and comment rulemaking process.

Stro

ngly A

gree

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neutra

l

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Stro

ngly D

isagr

ee

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00% 55.11%

37.33%

7.11%0.44%

0.00%

Evaluation Question #4

I have a better understanding of the proposed GIPSA rules.

Stro

ngly A

gree

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neutra

l

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Stro

ngly D

isagr

ee

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

37.05%

52.23%

7.59%

2.68%0.45%

Evaluation Question #5

I am more likely to submit a comment expressing my option on the proposed GIPSA rules.

Stro

ngly A

gree

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neutra

l

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Stro

ngly D

isagr

ee

0.00%5.00%

10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%

43.95%

26.01%26.91%

2.69%0.45%

Evaluation Question #6

I feel that the material was presented without bias for or against the rules.

Stro

ngly A

gree

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neutra

l

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Stro

ngly D

isagr

ee

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%80.89%

15.56%

3.56%0.00%

0.00%

Evaluation Question #7

I feel that the materials provided helped further my understanding of the proposed GIPSA rules.

Stro

ngly A

gree

Som

ewha

t Agr

ee

Neutra

l

Som

ewha

t Disa

gree

Stro

ngly D

isagr

ee

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00% 51.56%

41.78%

4.89%0.89%

0.44%

Sources of Pre-Workshop Publicity

Source Frequency Percentage

University Cooperative Extension Service/Agent

41 29.3%

Family & Friends 40 28.6%

Agriculture Special Interest Groups (Farm Bureau, Women in Ag, NASDA)

23 16.4%

Dept of Ag & Forestry 22 15.7%

Commodity Groups (Cattle Assn, NPPC, Poultry Federation, Cattlemen’s)

6 4.3%

National Ag Law Center

4 2.9%

Integrator 3 2.1%

GIPSA 1 0.7%

Media Used to Learn About the GIPSA Workshops

Type of Media Frequency Percentage

Newspaper 40 26.7%

E-mail 32 21.3%

Direct Mail 29 19.3%

Public Meeting 12 8.0%

Organizational Web Sites

12 8.0%

Newsletter 11 7.3%

Radio News 4 2.7%

Word of Mouth/Telephone

3 2.0%

Facebook 3 2.0%

Twitter 1 0.7%

Other 3 2.0%

Conclusions

Conclusions

Objectives were met Remaining unbiased was our #1 goal

80%+ felt we presented unbiased information Most felt they learned about:

GIPSA Notice & Comment Rulemaking Substance of the proposed rule

Conclusions

Producers will participate in workshops that provide information on complex topics State wide workshops are successful with

75 participants These were regional workshops averaging

76.2 participants We were sought out in several cases to

present in other locations Demand for information was nationwide

Lessons Learned

Plan to evaluate from the beginning

Follow up surveys for further research Did you actually submit a comment? Why or why not?

Survey questions are more likely answered if options are presented

Lessons Learned

Important to indentify key community leaders and get them on board Credibility Word of mouth

When maintaining a position in the middle, be prepared for fire from both sides. Credibility of the Center hinged upon

remaining neutral and unbiased

Questions?

Shannon Mirus, J.D., LL.M.

smirus@uark.edu

Jefferson D. Miller, Ph.D.

jdmiller@uark.edu

Thank You!