In hundreds of small rural communities across America local Farm Bureaus represent the interests of the local agricultural community – or at least are supposed to. Here in Lake County our branch of the Farm Bureau has struggled to consistently be a fair-minded representative of the farming community in recent times, starting about two years ago when they backed Gary Lewis for supervisor rather than supporting local walnut grower Denise Rushing. Their decision seems to be based mainly on the fact that the majority of Farm Bureau directors are conservative Republicans like Lewis, and they let their own personal partisan political beliefs trump the overwhelming amount of data that showed Rushing was a better candidate for ag and would win in a landslide-as she did.

Fast-forward to 2008, and we see the Farm Bureau backing another conservative Republican for supervisor, Jim Comstock. Being a like-minded, born-and-raised Lake County rancher Comstock was a shoe-in for the Farm Bureau endorsement, but he didn't get it – at first. Too many directors had doubts about Comstock's commitment to ag when he was trying to get prime ag land around Middletown rezoned into shops and houses, and he got the thumbs down from them. But the partisans prevailed by voting again at a later date when certain key directors were known to be unable to attend, and Jim got his endorsement in this embarrassing and unprecedented do-over.

On the big issues the local Farm Bureau wanders off course again, by supporting ballot measures that are deceptive or misrepresented to Farm Bureau members, as they did earlier this year with Propositions 98 and 99. Both of these propositions dealt with the issue of eminent domain, but 98 (which was backed by the Lake County and state Farm Bureaus), included a ban on rent control, which was NEVER mentioned in ANY Farm Bureau publication or other information source. Instead they made false claims about Proposition 99, which won easily. The question is: Why did the Farm Bureau feel the need to shill for landlords at the expense of renters, and why couldn't they tell their members the truth?

This November we see the same thing again, with the state and local Farm Bureaus coming out against Proposition 2, which is about the humane treatment of farm animals. But reading the Farm Bureau propaganda you wouldn't think that's what the proposition was about, as according to them Proposition 2 was a referendum on egg ranches – period! Did they EVER mention it was about the humane treatment of animals? No. Instead we heard EVERY outright lie being put out there by the egg industry, with no other info to balance it or show ANY aspect of the argument in favor of it. Proposition 2 is leading by a wide margin in the polls and is certain to pass, in spite of the misinformation campaign put out with the help of the Lake County Farm Bureau.

Then there is the issue of development. What DID executive director Chuck March privately tell our county supervisors about a development in North Lakeport that required a rezone of ag land? Word coming back from the BOS is that March said the Farm Bureau wouldn't object to this development and rezone (in a radical departure from Farm Bureau policy); what REALLY happened Chuck? Also on the question list is why was it that after the directors told March to draft a letter to voice their opposition to the rezone March did nothing for months, and after being scolded for the tardiness he came up with a letter so useless it was scrapped and another one had to be drafted by a board member?

Another issue where the local Farm Bureau has shown a too-narrow view of reality is on the subject of GMOs, and the recently passed ban on them in Lake County. When the plan was first proposed earlier this year the first people outside of the BOS to know about it were the leaders of the local Farm Bureau, who were asked by the ordinance's sponsors if they would like to help draft the law or have any inputs into the process, which they declined to do. Chuck March instantly made the call not to attempt to improve the ordinance, which he probably should have let the directors weigh-in on before any decision was reached, and one wonders if they even were informed the offer had been made.

Now that the ordinance has passed the Farm Bureau is demanding to be in included on an advisory committee which is supposed to fine-tune it, in spite of the fact that they have a formal policy of not doing ANY negotiations on regulations of GMOs – they are against ALL local regulation. On top of that they have taken $1,000 from GMO industry leader Monsanto, which makes one wonder if they speak for corporate giants or local growers on GMO issues? How can one negotiate with a group that has a policy of no compromise and is on the industry's payroll?

It's time local Farm Bureau members demand a more consistent and transparent leadership that puts them first and isn't simply a front group for whatever ag industry corporation stuffs money in their pockets. We need objective information from the farm Bureau, not deceptive propaganda that makes them (and us!) look like shills and liars. We also need a Farm Bureau board that isn't so short-sighted that it lets partisan politics stand in the way of good decision making, as it has in the past.

Philip Murphy lives in Finley.

{mos_sb_discuss:4}