Producer Education in the Legal Arena: The Proposed GIPSA Rule Changes

1. Producer Education in the Legal Arena:The Proposed GIPSA Rule Changes Shannon Mirus, J.D., LL.M. Jefferson D. Miller, Ph.D. University of Arkansas

2. www.NationalAgLawCenter.org

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Evaluation Results

15. Just the numbers • 381 in attendance at 5 workshops • 225 responses from all 5 workshops • Response rate of 59%

16. Evaluation Question #1 • I have a better understanding of what GIPSA is and what it does.

17. Evaluation Question #2 • I have a better understanding of the notice and comment rulemaking process.

18. Evaluation Question #3 • I have a better understanding of how I can participate in the notice and comment rulemaking process.

19. Evaluation Question #4 • I have a better understanding of the proposed GIPSA rules.

20. Evaluation Question #5 • I am more likely to submit a comment expressing my option on the proposed GIPSA rules.

21. Evaluation Question #6 • I feel that the material was presented without bias for or against the rules.

22. Evaluation Question #7 • I feel that the materials provided helped further my understanding of the proposed GIPSA rules.

23. Sources of Pre-Workshop Publicity

24. Media Used to Learn About the GIPSA Workshops

25. Conclusions

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Questions?

31. Thank You! Shannon Mirus, J.D., LL.M. smirus@uark.edu Jefferson D.Miller, Ph.D. jdmiller@uark.edu