PDS:PublicComment

National Organic Standards Board

Policy Development Subcommittee

Proposal: NOSB Meeting Public Comment Procedures

July 30, 2012

I. Introduction

Public input and transparency are central to the effective functioning of the 

NOSB. The proposed amendments to the Policy and Procedures Manual are 

intended to improve the ability of the NOSB to receive public comment.

II. Background

The six NOSB subcommittees meet using teleconference calls on a regular, 

typically twice a month basis, sharing information received from the public, 

actively seeking further information and data as they review an ever increasing 

range of complex substantive issues and develop recommendations. Twice a 

year the full NOSB physically meets together at a location within the U.S. These 

public meetings take place at different geographic locations in order to ensure 

that those who cannot travel long distances for reason of cost or time are more 

likely to have their voices heard, and assumes that more regional members of 

the public will attend in person, and also that regional differences in agriculture 

will thus be better understood by the Board as it develops recommendations to 

forward to the NOP.

For anyone involved in public policy it is well understood that input through public 

comment at open public meetings provides both challenges and opportunities. 

There is a delicate balance between letting everyone speak for as long as they 

want to, while allowing time for everyone present to be heard, and then time for 

their comments to be digested by those who listen and pose questions. In 

addition the public needs to feel confident that their views have been heard and 

taken into consideration before decisions are voted on. Well run and effective 

public meetings require clear rules and leadership. Over the last five years there 

has been an increasing interest by the public to attend the semi-annual meetings 

in order to provide public comment, and increasing mutual desire by the public 

and the Board to clarify and improve procedures for taking public comment. 

Thus, in October – November, 2011 the NOSB sought public input to clarify 

policy and procedures for receiving public comment specifically with reference to 

public meetings.

III. Relevant Areas of the Rule

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) establishes the National Organic 

Standards Board at Section 2119 (7 U.S.C. 6518), “(a) The Secretary shall 

establish a National Organic Standards Board (in accordance with the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2et seq.) [hereafter referred to as the 

“Board”] to assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in 

organic production and to advise the Secretary on any other aspects of the 

implementation of this title.”
PDS:PublicComment

The Policy Procedures Manual (PPM), Section VI “Policy for Public Comment at 

NOSB Meetings” lays out the process and the time designations of public 

comment and further provides for, “Other suggestions that would be appreciated 

by NOSB members”.

IV. Discussion

It is clear that many members of the public are frustrated by the procedures for 

public comment at the national meetings and they seek clarification and a desire 

for greater confidence that the Board members have heard what they have to 

say, and have seriously considered their input. Comments also requested 

flexibility with public involvement.

Following are some of the issues raised:

Length of time to speak 

With an increased interest in public comment at meetings, there are typically 

many more speakers for the time allotted. While ten (10) minutes is too long to 

permit, it is clear that for many even five (5) minutes is a short time to speak 

given the complexity of issues and range of topics covered in one meeting. 

Requiring three (3) minutes as a time limit forces speakers to be concise and 

prioritize topics covered in verbal presentation. In addition speakers need to be 

reminded that they can also submit an expanded written version of their 

comments during the meeting. 

One commenter stated, “The length of time is not as important as that the 

designation of a time be regarded as a commitment.”

While it may be that speakers have travelled long distances, incurring expense 

and taking time to speak for only three minutes, it is also true that attending the 

meeting allows face-to-face exchange of data, information and policy concerns 

throughout the week.

Several organizations requested that the length of time be set at five (5) minutes 

and decreased to three (3) minutes if there were too many presenters for time 

period allotted, with flexibility being provided by the Chair.

Time allotted on agenda for public comment

There is widespread concern that there is not sufficient time on the week’s 

agenda for public comment. While this is probably a normal perception by the 

public for any national board, it is nonetheless an important issue to address. In 

past years, public comment extended into evening hours and the Board may 

wish to seriously consider returning to this option.

One commenter suggested extending total time allotted for public comment by 

one hour.
PDS:PublicComment

Another stated, “We may reach a point when comments need to be prioritized, 

either on a first come first served, or randomized basis in order to ensure equity 

and diverse public input”.

Another comment suggested maintaining a waiting list for public comment.

Board questions to public speakers

There is a perception that Board members are not listening to the speakers 

because they do not ask many questions. And it is a perception that not all 

Board members are knowledgeable on the subject at hand because they do not 

ask questions. Thus it would seem counter-productive to consider “limiting Board 

questions” as a way to allow more public input, and none of the comments 

received suggested limiting Board questions.

Two organizations wanted it to be clear that Board question time was not 

considered part of the three (3) minutes of public comment, while being sure that 

Board members ask questions to clarify issues under consideration.

Board members should be encouraged by the Chair to ask questions that are 

relevant and required to assist the Board in reaching decisions on substantive 

issues, and to be active listeners. Further, there needs to be far greater public 

understanding of the inordinate number of hours every week that individual 

Board members in fact spend reviewing TRs, public input, committee meetings, 

e-mail exchanges and phone calls.

Public comment impact on Board decisions.

There is a perception that the Board does not take the time to adequately review 

and apply public input prior to making their decision. In order to address this very 

real concern the Board should always have time to recess following a public 

comment period prior to making a public decision on an agenda item.

Use of proxy speakers

There is a mix of public perception on use of proxy speakers. One organization 

suggested continued use of proxy presentations, but stated that the information 

could also be achieved through written testimony. Three other comments 

suggested refined limitations to monitor implementation. 

There is a public perception that those who turn up and speak at the meeting will 

have a more direct impact on the immediate decisions of the Board. However 

there is the counter argument that the proxy is not in fact the originator of the 

input and cannot really answer any Board question, and such information could 

simply be provided in writing prior to the meeting. Eliminating proxy speakers will 

allow more time for those who are present in person.

Use of electronic participation in lieu of physical presence
PDS:PublicComment

This is not an easy issue to address. On the one hand, attending the meeting is 

expensive and time consuming, limiting those who may attend, and there are a 

number of electronic means for communicating, such as via skype, or conference 

speaker phone, constant tweet inputs or other social networking tools, or by 

having a room full of people at a distant location with a TV type satellite 

connection. Any one of these or a combination could allow for increased input 

during the hours allotted to public comment. 

Indeed one might envisage a national meeting where committee members are 

scattered at various regional geographical locations nationwide using TV 

“classroom” connections, a teaching tool which university and other teachers 

have been using for years to teach at diverse locations simultaneously. All input 

would thus be essentially electronic. This would be an improvement over the 

faceless nature of the phone conference calls, but would be complex to set in 

place and would increase participation, which would in turn require more time 

allotment.

Conversely interested members of the public can submit public comment in 

writing, and public meetings rotate geographically around the US, allowing for 

greater regional participation over time. Further, there are already many people

who physically attend and not enough time to allow everyone to comment on 

everything that they would like to comment on. 

Based on comments reviewed and experience, the use of electronic 

communication is not recommended presently.

V. Recommendations 

Amend SECTION VI of the PPM, entitled NOSB Policy for Public Comment at 

NOSB Meetings, as follows:

NOSB Policy for Public Comment at NOSB Meetings: 

1. All persons wishing to comment at NOSB meetings during public comment 

periods must sign-up in advance per the instructions in the Federal Register 

Notice for the meeting.

2. All presenters are encouraged to submit public comment in writing according 

to the Federal Register Notice. Advance submissions allow NOSB members the 

opportunity to read comments in advance electronically, and decreases the need 

for paper copies to be distributed during the meeting. 

3. Persons will be called upon to speak according to a posted schedule. However 

speakers should allow for some flexibility, and also note that persons called upon 

who are absent from the room could potentially miss their opportunity for public 

comment. 
PDS:PublicComment

4. Time allotment for public comment per person will be four (4) minutes, with the 

options of reducing to a minimum of three (3) and extending to a maximum of five

(5) minutes at the discretion of NOP working closely with the NOSB Chair in 

advance of the meeting.

5. Persons must give their names and affiliations for the record at the beginning 

of their public comment. 

6. Proxy speakers are not permitted.

7. Public comment requests may be scheduled by major topics under 

consideration.

8. Individuals providing public comment will refrain from any personal attacks and 

from remarks that otherwise impugn the character of any individual. 

9. The NOSB will attempt to accommodate all persons requesting public 

comment time, however, persons requesting time after the closing date in the 

Meeting Notice, or during last minute sign-up at the meeting, will be placed on a 

waiting list and will be considered at the discretion of the NOP working closely 

with the NOSB Chair depending on availability of time.

10. Members of the public are asked to define clearly and succinctly the issues 

they wish to present before the Board. This will give NOSB members a 

comprehensible understanding of the speaker’s concerns. 

VI. Subcommittee Vote

Moved: Colehour Bondera Second: C. Rueben Walker

Yes 7 No 0 Abstain 0 Absent 1 Recuse 0