Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Eligibility And Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates eligibility, forestry definitions and nonprofit access in AFPIFF plan
Summary
Board members pressed for clearer statutory alignment and explicit language on forestry infrastructure, nonprofit and startup eligibility, and whether workforce training counts as technical assistance; members sought AG review and promised revisions before a June 17 vote.
Board members used the May 27 session to press for clearer definitions and statutory alignment in the draft organizational plan, focusing on who will be eligible for AFPIFF funds and how the board will document conflicts of interest.
Christa West, representing the forest-products seat, warned the draft packet risks excluding key parts of the forest sector if the plan’s page 8 wording is not corrected. "If you look on page eight of the operational plan that was sent in the packet, that's not how it's worded... it's not clear that forestry infrastructure would be included," she said, urging the board to use statutory definitions where possible.
Senator Hickman flagged oversight responsibilities written into statute and urged the board to recognize duties beyond a purely "advisory" label. "We're an advisory board by title. Um, but we actually have an oversight and evaluation role that is written into statute," he said, noting paragraphs that require reporting to the commissioner and evaluation of program contractors.
Members also debated whether nonprofit organizations that operate market-facing businesses should be eligible and whether workforce training should be treated as a separate allowable activity or as part of technical assistance. Caroline Prior and others urged that inclusivity goals in the law — which call for prioritizing historically marginalized, underrepresented and underserved communities — be reflected in RFA scoring and implementation. The meeting quoted the statute’s purpose language to highlight that dual goal: "the goal of this program is to strengthen the state's agricultural food and forage products economy ... with a priority of making resulting efforts more inclusive and of increasing investments in historically marginalized, underrepresented and underserved communities."
Board members asked staff to circulate revised wording, to confirm statutory definitions (including a suggested cross-check against Title 12 definitions for forest products), and to ensure the Attorney General reviews the plan for consistency with 320A/320C. The revised draft will be posted for additional comment before the June 17 adoption vote.
