713
locations to be combined nationwide
Jerry Hagstrom
Washington, D.C., Correspondent
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Agriculture Department wants to
close 30.3 percent or 713 of the 2,351 Farm Service Agency county offices in
the country.
That includes 12 of the 35 FSA offices in Idaho, six of the 32 offices
in California, four of the 25 offices in Oregon and one of the 26 offices in
Washington.
The county offices, which were created in the 1930s, certify farmers for farm
programs and pay farm subsidies and disaster payments.
The USDA did not make a public announcement of the plan, called FSA Tomorrow,
but on Sept. 23 Farm Service Agency Administrator Jim Little wrote FSA
employees that the closure of offices would result in better service to
farmers and that FSA would encourage farmers to file their paperwork online.
“Consolidation into 1,650 offices will result in better staffed, trained and
equipped offices,” he wrote.
The same day, the USDA sent Congress a state-by-state chart of the closures.
The chart indicated that twice as many county offices in each state as would
be closed – 1,307 county offices total – would be subject to “review”
before the decisions on the 713 are reached.
The chart said 24 offices in Idaho, seven in California, five in Oregon and
one in Washington would be subject to review. The chart did not say which
offices in each state would be reviewed. Little told the Capital Press that
state executive directors would make those decisions.
Little did not provide a timeline for the closures. He also did not mention
any plans for a reduction in federal employment but in August the FSA sent
employees a memo that it was planning to cut 850 positions below its
authorization for fiscal year 2005 and offering buyouts to 214 permanent
employees and 321 county employees.
Little resigned the same day, saying he had to work on the USDA effort to
provide relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Senate Budget Committee
ranking member Kent Conrad, D-N.D., called on President Bush to make a quick,
strong appointment to replace Little.
“It is important that we have strong, farmer friendly leadership at FSA,”
Conrad said. “We must fill the void quickly so there is no disruption in the
critical services FSA provides to our agriculture communities.”
David Senter, a Washington lobbyist for the National Association of
Farmer-Elected Committees, said his group is “disappointed” in the plan.
“We are very disappointed in this plan that is being put forward,” Senter
said. “Once again USDA has spent a lot of money and a lot of time on a plan
that is not going to succeed. They need to involve the customers, the farm
groups. The county committees need to be involved in figuring out how to
decide what offices can be closed.”
Senter estimated that 50 to 100 offices in areas that have urbanized could be
closed without disruption. Senter said local officials are likely to protest
the plan because it will remove federal jobs from small towns and also because
farmers’ visits generate other economic activity.
Senter said that renting larger offices in more urban areas will cost more.
“It is not an argument of dollars and cents, someone coming up with a plan
to eliminate the infrastructure,” Senter said.
Senter also questioned whether National Resources Conservation Service
offices, which are often co-located with the FSA offices, will be closed or
kept open. There has long been tension and competition between those two
agencies. Senter said the committees support the concept of single service
centers for farmers.
During the Clinton administration, Senter said, 400 county offices were closed
during the time Mike Espy was agriculture secretary. But when Dan Glickman,
Espy’s successor, suggested closing another 500 offices, there was such a
protest that the USDA agreed that no office would be closed unless both
senators and the House member from the area agreed to the closure.
Senter said the opposition to the new USDA plan is likely to be strengthened
by the need for recipients of hurricane-related disaster payments to reach
their local FSA offices. USDA officials, he said, “got together behind
closed doors and made up secret plans that they rolled out.”
The South and the Midwest, where counties are smaller and the number of
offices is greater, would be subject to the highest number of consolidations.
USDA officials did not appear to take political considerations into account
when they decided how many offices to close in each state.
Major closures are also planned in other Midwestern states: 26 of the 93
Illinois offices; 36 of the 80 Indiana offices; 12 of the 51 Michigan offices;
31 of the 98 Missouri offices; 26 of the 73 Ohio offices; 23 of the 81
Nebraska offices; 6 of the 52 North Dakota offices; and 14 of the 59 South
Dakota offices.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Source: http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=67&SubSectionID=792&ArticleID=20197