A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 4.1-03 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to beef commission member appointments; and to amend and reenact section 4.1-03-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to applicants for membership on the beef commission.
SB2346 would revise how members are appointed to the North Dakota Beef Commission, with a particular focus on the three at-large seats. The bill keeps the commission’s overall structure the same—three beef producers, one cattle feeder, one dairy producer, one public livestock market representative, and three at-large representatives—but adds a formal application process for at-large applicants and sets a March 1 to May 1 application window in years when those terms expire.
The bill also updates eligibility rules for commission membership. It requires members to be U.S. citizens and North Dakota residents, to have been actively engaged in the relevant segment of the cattle industry for at least five years, and, except for the public livestock market representative, to be participating producers. The bill defines “actively engaged” as having an ownership interest in a sufficiently significant operation and directly controlling that operation. In addition, it requires the commission to publicly notice at-large vacancies through county newspapers and on its website, including application instructions, deadlines, and term length.
If enacted, SB2346 would amend section 4.1-03-02 of the North Dakota Century Code and create a new section in chapter 4.1-03 governing notice and applications for at-large Beef Commission seats. The practical effect would be to make the appointment process more transparent and standardized, while preserving the governor’s appointment authority and the industry-based nomination structure for the producer, feeder, dairy, and livestock market seats. The bill would affect prospective at-large applicants, the Beef Commission, and the agricultural organizations that currently submit nomination lists.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn on February 5, 2025. Based on the text alone, the measure appears administrative and procedural rather than controversial, suggesting a neutral-to-supportive policy purpose centered on clarifying appointments and public notice. Because there is no recorded debate in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or endorsement to characterize beyond the bill’s withdrawal.
The main potential point of contention is the added application and notice process for at-large representatives, which could be viewed either as improving transparency or as adding procedural requirements to a commission appointment process that previously appears to have been less formal. Another possible issue is the bill’s tightening of eligibility language—especially the five-year active-engagement requirement and the definition of “actively engaged”—which could narrow who qualifies to serve. No specific objections or supporters are identified in the provided materials.