Hon. Celia R. Gould, Director of the Idaho Department of Agriculture will be the speaker at the annual “Salute to Agriculture” breakfast on November 14th at the 141st Annual Convention of the National Grange in Reno, NV. Ms Gould was appointed Director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture by Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter and assumed her post on January 2, 2007.

In addition to serving as the Idaho State Department of Agriculture Director, Director Gould is an owner/operator of the third generation GlennDale Ranches of Buhl, ID. The family run operation produces commodities such as wheat, corn, hay, Black Angus and Angus-Wagyu cattle. Celia and her husband Bruce Newcomb also have a beef operation in the Declo, ID area.

Director Gould served sixteen years as a state legislator representing the western half of Twin Falls County. During her tenure, she was a Member of the House of Representatives Agricultural Affairs, Education, and Revenue and Taxation Committees and served as Chairman of the Judiciary, Rules and Administration Committee. Highlights of Director Gould’s legislative career include establishing the Department of Juvenile Corrections and sponsoring the progressive Drug Courts legislation.

Director Gould is a graduate of Buhl High School and has her BA in Political Science from Boise State University. Currently, she is working on her Master’s of Public Administration degree.

Director Gould also serves as a member of the Buhl Chamber of Commerce, the College of Southern Idaho Foundation Board and the Boise State University College of Social Sciences and Public Affairs Advisory Board.

National Grange joined over 25 organizations representing millions of taxpayers, writing to President Bush and Members of Congress in opposition to proposals that would increase the existing 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal excise tax on gasoline.

The coalition expressed opposition to one legislative plan promoted by Representative James Oberstar, which would temporarily increase the federal gas tax by 5 cents per gallon to fund bridge repair around the country. The concerned group stated that this “temporary” tax increase would turn into a permanent one. In 1990 a “temporary” gas tax increase of 5 cents per gallon never went away as promised, and several years later lawmakers “repurposed” a 4.3 cent-per-gallon hike when the budget seemed headed toward a surplus.

Proponents of a federal gas tax increase insist that few would even notice the change in their fuel bills. In reality, a 5 cent-per-gallon jump would represent a steep 27 percent tax hike over the current rate and cost American motorists an estimated $25 billion over the next three years. Combined with state gas taxes, many motorists would pay over $7.50 in taxes for the average fill-up. This is a substantial burden on families trying to make ends meet and only makes gas prices harder to swallow. Given high energy costs, now is the time to give taxpayers a lighter – not a heavier – gas tax burden.

The Coalition also rejected the notion that there isn’t enough money available for infrastructure upkeep. Both the federal and state governments have made record levels of transportation money available. The 2005 Highway Bill increased related funding by 42 percent, to a record $286.5 billion. It also contained 6,500 earmarks totaling 9 percent of the bill’s cost. The Fiscal Year 2008 Transportation, Housing & Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill contained 1,434 earmarks worth over $2.2 billion. This is money that should have been directed to real need-based priorities determined by transportation experts.

The letter concluded that instead of resorting so readily to tax hikes, Congress and the Executive Branch should conduct a review to determine which transportation projects are really worth funding and which are unnecessary.

National Grange and the National Waterways Alliance wrote to President Bush asking him to sign H.R. 1495 into law. This legislation re-establishes America’s crucial waterways infrastructure that has been taken for granted for far too long. The bill authorizes $21 billion for navigation and flood control projects, as well as, environmental protection. National Grange assured the President that Senate and House Conference Committees have studied this vital piece of legislation with diligence and with the understanding that America’s waterways can no longer afford to be ignored.

Reliable, well-maintained water resources infrastructure is fundamental and crucial to America’s economic and environmental well-being. Our citizens rely on dependable ports and waterways, life-saving flood control - in the wake of catastrophic storms, the need for investment in flood protection and dam safety is paramount - abundant water supplies, shore protection, water recreation, environmental restoration, and hydropower production to maintain their standard of living, including their jobs.

A diverse group of more than 110 organizations wrote to House and Senate Leadership and several Committees concerning opposition to the creation of additional National Heritage Areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against government abuse of property rights. The “bridge to nowhere” and other wasteful programs triggered angry protests against the practice of earmarking. National Heritage Areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one. They are preservation zones where land use and property rights can be restricted. They give the National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many with histories of hostility toward property rights) substantial influence by giving them the authority to create land use “management plans” and then the authority to disburse federal money to local governments to promote their plans.

As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on heritage areas states: “[National Heritage Areas] encourage local governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the heritage areas’ plans, which may allow the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could restrict owners’ use of their property.”

The coalition believes zoning and land use policies are best left to local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens they represent. National Heritage Areas corrupt the principle of representative government and this inherently local function by giving un-elected, unaccountable special interests the authority to develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance their efforts. Once established, National Heritage Aareas become permanent units of the National Park Service, and as such, are permanent drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAO, “sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting federal funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received funding reauthorization from the Congress.”

Members of the Energy Market Oversight Coalition urged members of the U. S. Senate and Congress to support greater transparency and accountability in the unregulated over-the-counter energy commodity markets, or “dark markets.” Excessive speculation and alleged manipulation in such markets have held American consumers and small businesses hostage to unprecedented price volatility and uncertainty. Behavior in these markets has direct and profound impacts on consumers of traded commodities, including crude oil, motor vehicle fuels, and vital heating fuels including natural gas, home heating oil and propane. While well functioning and transparent commodity exchanges play an important economic role, as “dark markets” continue to become the trading platform of choice for energy profiteers, they distort the economy and exploit the energy consumer.

In recent months, both the House and Senate have conducted hearings on energy market activity that have put to rest the notion that energy commodity markets are too big and too complex to be manipulated. In hearings held by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and the House Agriculture Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management, Members of Congress shed light on the severe lack of federal oversight of these “dark markets.” Most notably, Congress highlighted the flagrant attempt at price manipulation carried out by Amaranth Advisors LLC in 2006.

The letter stated that Congress must: Fully fund the CFTC to the amount requested, $116 million; Pass legislation to eliminate the “Enron Loophole” allowing trading on exchanges free from any federal oversight or regulation; Include small business and consumer representation on all CFTC advisory committees; Carefully review future nominations to the CFTC; And finally, continue to hold energy market players and regulators accountable, and encourage rigorous enforcement and oversight of all commodity markets.

By Leroy Watson, National Grange Legislative Director

September is the month when the seasons change from Summer to Autumn. Other traditional rituals of transition in September include harvest time on the farm, returning to school and, in the Grange, the chance to focus on our policy development responsibilities to set our directions for the upcoming year. One of the basic precepts of the Grange is its adherence to grassroots policy development. Policy statements on legislative issues that are made by the National or State Granges usually begin with a local resolution originally written and adopted in a Subordinate Grange meeting. Changes in the governance structure and/or program direction of the National and State Granges, including amendments to National and State Grange By-Laws and Constitutions are also traditionally presented to State and National Grange delegates using the resolution format. We anticipate receiving more than 200 separate policy resolutions from our State Granges this year for consideration by the National Grange grassroots delegates from across the nation at the 141 st Annual Convention of the National Grange in Reno, NV, November 13-17.

It is therefore important that Grange members understand the correct procedure for writing resolutions. The following guidelines can help your Grange write and adopt successful Grange resolutions.

The author of a Grange resolution should understand that a resolution is a form of communication between the author and the reader of the resolution that should be persuasive and convincing. It is a statement of policy or position on an issue. Each resolution should have a clear and concise title. Each resolution should address only one issue. The author should keep in mind that the goal of the resolution is to inform and educate the reader so that the reader can feel confident about making a decision about whether or not to support or oppose the action proposed in the resolution. To accomplish this, a successful resolution must do two things: 1) Identify and explain to the reader the problem that needs to be addressed (the WHEREAS portion) and 2) propose a solution to the reader that will address the problem as identified (the RESOLVED portion).

Experienced Grange resolution authors also understand that the Grange resolution process is a collective and deliberative decision making process. They know that the responsibility of education and persuasion rests on the author of the resolution, not the reader of the resolution. Therefore clarity, brevity and honesty in writing resolutions are the allies of persuasion while hyperbole, inflammatory remarks, and lengthy pontification are the enemies of persuasion.

The first portion of a resolution identifies and states the problem that needs to be addressed. The problem should be presented in factual terms using clear and concise language that doesn't require the reader to have to refer to any outside materials to understand what the problem is. Opinions are not expressed in this portion of the resolution. Each fact should be listed as a separate sentence or paragraph that begins with the word WHEREAS and is followed by a semi-colon. The final WHEREAS ends with a semi-colon followed by "therefore be it."

The RESOLVED portion of the resolution explains the action that is being proposed to address the problem identified in the WHEREAS portion of the resolution. If there is more than one solution, link them together in separate RESOLVED clauses with the phrase "and be it further RESOLVED." RESOLVED clauses in a Grange resolution should “stand on their own.” This means that when properly written, the RESOLVED clauses in a Grange resolution should clearly restate the problem in summary form and explain the action that the author believes is necessary to address that problem, without having to refer back to the WHEREAS statements or any other outside materials.