54th ANNUAL MEETING
Tan-Tar-A Resort – Salon A
Osage Beach, Missouri
December 3, 2002
The 54th Annual Meeting of the Missouri Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts was called to order by President Eli Mast at 1:30 p.m. at Tan-Tar-A Resort, Osage Beach, Missouri.
Roll Call and establishment of a quorum, 69 districts present.
The minutes from the 53rd Annual Meeting held November 27, 2001 were approved as mailed. Motion was made by Livingston County, seconded by Carroll County. Motion carried.
A treasurer report was given. The report covered the period of November 1, 2001 to October 31, 2002. A motion was made by Putnam County, seconded by Cole County to approve the treasurer report as presented. Motion carried.
Eli Mast gave a President Report. He challenged everyone to be looking for new leaders. He stated the best example of what we can accomplish if we all work together is the approval of the $500,000 increase in the District Assistance. The Branson Regional Meeting is the first time a state was entirely responsible for a regional meeting. It was very successful. NACD was successful in the approval of the largest Farm Bill ever. Due to term limits, we have several new legislators and will need to educate them on who we are and what soil and water conservation districts do so they are ready to help us when we need them at sales tax renewal time. One change effective in January is that MASWCD will be responsible for collecting the NACD quota. Districts need to work with their partners to make sure conservation programs are locally led. Districts need to be involved when called upon.
NACD REPORT: Gene Schmidt, NACD North Central Regional Chair, stated NACD educates Congress just as local SWCD’s educate their state legislators so that when they make decisions on conservation and natural resources issues, they are the best decisions using the information and background to the best interest of everybody. NACD provides a continual communication and education program. There have been no dollars allocated yet to let local districts implement the new Farm Bill programs. NACED is currently working with the administration to get these funds released. The 2002 Farm Bill is the largest emphasis on conservation since the dust bowl.
NRCS REPORT: Roger Hansen reported NRCS is prohibited from lobbying, however, it is nice to have someone like NACD who will fight for conservation and technical assistance. In the 2002 Farm Bill authorized increased funding for all programs, however, appropriations got hung up in the election. The budget bills have not passed yet. When they are passed we will know ho much funding is a reality. There is a provision for SWCD’s to convene local working groups to discuss resource problems, technical solutions and funding needed. Technical Service Providers are to help meet the accelerated workload. In FY-2003 staff will be busy implementing the Farm Bill and state cost-share. Roger also reported another thing that may happen which also happened about 7 years ago and caused great frustration is office streamlining or office closings. He stated he has just heard rumors, no directive yet to prepare a list. He stated last time districts felt as though they were not part of the decision. This time he wants districts know when he knows. He stated we are all here to help producers solve problems on the land.
COMMISSION REPORT: Elizabeth Brown reported cost-share continues to be strong. She re-emphasized approval of the $500,000 as a good accomplishment for the districts. She stated the Commission has approved changing supervisor boundaries in a couple of districts recently. The soil survey for Missouri was finally completed. She also reported on the approval of wells in the SALT AgNPS and DSP-3 practices.
Judy Stinson gave a report on the Envirothon and some financial information for the 2005 Canon Envirothon to be hosted by Missouri. She reviewed the goals and objectives of the Envirothon program and reviewed projected expenses and income for the 2005 national competition.
02-01 was withdrawn by St. Louis County.
02-02 from Monroe County concerning cost-share on critical areas addressing feed lots. Monroe County moved to present the resolution as printed. This was seconded by Audrain County. Monroe County explained the purpose of this resolution. The vote on the resolution passed with 62 votes in favor and 0 votes opposing.
02-03 from Livingston County concerning using ¼ of the geographical cost-share allocation for local programs. Livingston County moved to present the resolution as printed. This was seconded by Daviess County. Livingston County explained the purpose of this resolution. The vote on the resolution passed with 38 votes in favor and 20 votes opposing.
02-04 from Boone County concerning the four-year limitation and maximum of 80 acres on the DSP-2 practice. Boone County moved to present the resolution as printed. This was seconded by Clark County. Boone County explained the purpose of this resolution. The vote on the resolution passed with 37 votes in favor and 21 votes opposing.
02-05 from Boone County concerning the four-year limitation on the DSP-3 practice. Boone County moved to present the resolution as printed. This was seconded by Putnam County. Boone County explained the purpose of this resolution. Cole County expressed comments opposing the resolution. The vote on the resolution failed with 2 votes in favor and the rest opposing.
02-01 from Christian County concerning only allowing emergency resolutions from the floor. Christian County moved to present the by-law amendment as printed. This was seconded by Monroe County. Christian County explained the purpose of this by-law amendment. Gasconade County expressed comments opposing the by-law amendment. The vote on the by-law amendment failed with 13 votes in favor and 53 votes opposing.
02-02 from Cole County concerning an election process for Area Directors. Cole County moved to present the by-law amendment as printed. This was seconded by Audrain County. Cole County explained the purpose of this by-law amendment. Taney County expressed concern with the nominating committee statement and the single ballot vote. Vernon County expressed concerns as well. Cole County remarked the purpose for the wording as submitted. Taney County again expressed concern with the wording. Perry County spoke against as well. Clark County and Macon County submitted comments as well concerning the nominating committee wording. Eli Mast suggested the wording could be changed that may be agreeable to everyone. Scotland County expressed supporting comments. Monroe County also expressed supporting comments. Cole County offered an amendment as follows, change the words (Board of Directors to Area Director) to state, "A Nominating Committee shall be appointed by the Area Director . . . " This amendment was seconded by Henry County. The vote on the amendment passed with only 5 opposing votes and the rest in favor. Livingston County offered an amendment to delete the wording (with the winner being elected as Area Director, second place being the Area 1st Alternate and third place being the Area 2nd Alternate) to state, "The vote will be by ballot. A quorum is necessary . . . " This was seconded by Taney County. The vote on the amendment passed with only 5 opposing votes and the rest in favor. Cole County called for the question. The vote to end discussion and vote passed with no opposition. The vote on the by-law amendment as amended passed with 55 votes in favor and 6 votes opposing.
Steve Oetting gave a report on the actions taken on the resolutions passed at the 2001 Annual Meeting. Gasconade County expressed concern that they would like for the Commission to respond back to the submitting county as well as MASWCD on actions taken on the resolutions forwarded to them.
Eli Mast discussed the need for the MASWCD policy to be revised and condensed. The current policy statement is more a list of goals instead of a true policy. The policy needs to be re-worded into a true policy format saying what is supported and why so it can be used by the districts and MASWCD with the Commission and the Legislature. A policy should be a position statement of the issues that affect the situation of the MASWCD. A motion was made by Clinton County to appoint a committee to rework the policy into the proper format. This was seconded by Henry County. The vote on the call to end debate and vote passed with 44 votes in favor and 0 opposing votes. The vote on the motion passed with no opposing votes. Eli asked that anyone who wants to be on the committee to let he or Peggy know. The committee will try to have a draft copy ready for the Area Meetings next summer.
The new Area Directors were inducted. Area 2—Tom Lambert, Area 4—Steve Oetting, Area 6—Kathryn Braden, Area 8—Steve Huber.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 p.m. The reorganization meeting is Wednesday morning at 6:30 a.m. in Room 61.
Peggy Lemons, Executive Secretary
Eli Mast, President