Proposed policy resolutions approved by delegates at the county annual meeting

View the resolutions below that were approved at the county annual and submitted to the state policy development committee to be considered at the Michigan Farm Bureau annual meeting. 

Contact the county office for information about the Policy Development process

000-Policy Number is UnknownWe suggest implementing term limits for district directors. It is suggested that directors may run again, but they need to take a two year break before re-applying for those positions. We further suggest the state board of directors assemble a committee to submit a plan of implementation. The initiative to push for service and term limits at county levels were strongly pushed by the state as a way to keep new members involved. County board member service and program service like Washington Legislative Seminar limits have been enacted by MFB, and as a way to uniformly apply rules and standards of conduct, we believe the state board should follow this standard of their own direction. If this policy cannot be accepted at the board level, it is further suggested that all County FB, MFB and AFB remove term limits from all programs and service.
000-Policy Number is UnknownWe recommend counties being given the ability to add dues or fees for designated projects. This was a method counties were allowed to do formerly and we feel it is a needed tool for counties to have this ability again.
000-Policy Number is UnknownAs state term limits have created a massive turnover in elected officials, it has become increasingly difficult to discern who should be given Farm Bureau support. With so many new people running, it becomes more important that we can assess the potential elected officials. We ask that when review material is sent to the counties, by MFB, there is a better narrative about candidates and issues that allows a more complete viewpoint. Explanation: Often times, candidates with a voting record are noted as being "against" FB policy when they may have supported 80% of it, but due to specificity of our policy book, they are shown as not supporting an issue at all. We need a better explanation of why these candidates with voting records were given that yes/no determination. There's often more to the story, and we aren't giving staff the ability to transmit that information to the counties when they need it.
061-ElectionsAPOL Standards may no longer be relevant under new rules. While we may prefer those standards, it does not allow staff much room to work with elected officials. Instead, we recommend focusing on other goals that are the focus of APOL instead of saying we only support mathematical formula that does not create "gerrymandered" regions that make unusual splits of geography or local municipalities.
546-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' AuthorityWe support work to create a standard level for the Great Lakes. Significantly rising water levels have created problems with eroding dikes and water front, and damaging water front areas, and historically low levels have created large problems with shipping and industries relating to water travel. We encourage a Great Lakes coalition to establish a more constant water level (specific foot level or range) for the Great Lakes and efforts to plan for future drainage, shipping and waterway maintenance.