by Amanda Rink, Editor
March 8, 2025 – The Wright County chapter of the Iowa Farm Bureau hosted a town hall meeting featuring Senator Dennis Guth and representatives Shannon Latham and Mark Thompson. The event was moderated by local farmer and Farm Bureau board member Ethan Lambert. The event drew a large crowd who were eager to have their voices heard.
Throughout the meeting, tensions flared over transgender rights, school vouchers, and library funding, while common ground was found on issues like nursing home support, recorder fees, human trafficking legislation, and providing feminine hygiene products to schools.
Grain Indemnity Fund – The discussion opened with Ethan Lambert pressing lawmakers on why the House version of the Grain Indemnity Fund bill covers only 70% of deferred payment contracts, while the Senate version offers full coverage.
Lambert expressed support for the Senate version and asked, “Why is the House where they’re at, and what can we do to get to where the Senate is?”
He then explained as to how the deferred payment system helps farmers:
“We’d obviously like it to be covered completely. That’s a tool that I use personally. In October, our grain was far lower than it was through the January report. So we use that pay later price later to make more money and to allow us to be sustainable and we prefer to have all the tools we can to live a profitable life.”
Latham admitted she wasn’t certain why the House set the 70% cap, sharing that some lawmakers opposed deferred contracts entirely.
Senator Dennis Guth emphasized that the fund is entirely farmer-funded, not taxpayer-funded, and stated, “We don’t continually collect all these funds. If we get $5 million we quit collecting it.”
Education Funding and Library Restrictions – Education was another major point of debate. The state, at the writing of this article and at the time of the town hall, has not yet set a number for school funding. Latham expressed her disappointment in the 2% school funding increase proposal, stating that she had pushed for 3.8%.
Franklin County resident Joslyn Stock directly challenged Latham, Thompson, and Guth with two pointed questions: What evidence do you have that public schools in your district are failing to educate all students? What evidence do you have that private schools are more successful?
Representative Thompson and Latham agreed with one another and stated that private schools are ultimately held accountable by parents, who would decide to take their children out of the private school if they are shown to be unsuccessful.
Stock and other attendees pushed back, questioning why taxpayer dollars should fund private schools that are not required to serve all students.
The trio of lawmakers defended the Education Savings Account (ESA) program, saying that “money follows the student.” Another resident countered, saying, “Public money is taxpayer money. It should go to public schools.”
Stock also raised concerns about House File 284, which would penalize Iowa public libraries that are members of advocacy organizations, such as the Iowa Library Association, with less funding. Representative Latham clarified “I don’t have a position on this bill” while Senator Guth defended his efforts to restrict obscene materials in libraries.
“We’re not trying to limit materials for adults,” Guth stated of his stance on his recent legislation.
Civil Rights Code – One of the more emotionally charged moments of the meeting occurred when a resident, a former police officer, questioned whether concerns about trans people in bathrooms were based on fact or fearmongering. She suggested the legislation was a “red herring” to more important things.
Representative Latham defended the legislation: “The problem is, when do you become trans? Hypothetically, you could have a teenage male who says, ‘Oh, I feel like a girl today’ and get access into the girls’ bathroom.”
Representative Thompson did as well: “Frankly, it was a lot about protecting our girls and our and our ladies.”
Several attendees pushed back, questioning the actual number of reported incidents and accusing lawmakers of targeting marginalized groups.
Senator Guth stated: “What we’d really like to see is getting rid of the entire Civil Rights Code and going back to ‘all people are created equal’. Every time we carve something out where somebody gets special rights, everybody else has less rights.”
Healthcare and Nursing Homes – Resident Jane Turner raised concerns about nursing home funding, noting that her mother’s care costs $9,000 per month.
She also highlighted CNA training costs, which can reach $3,000 for just two months of education along with the issue of travel nurses being used more so than full-time local nurses in our area.
Representative Latham acknowledged the issue, stating that a bill to regulate travel nurse costs died last year, but she remains open to revisiting it. Representative Thompson added that he has been in discussions with the Humboldt hospital which sees a need to add video monitoring in nursing homes.
Recorder Fees and County Revenue – Wright County Recorder Denise Baker spoke about proposed legislation affecting county recorder fees, urging Thompson, Latham, and Guth to support Senate File 371 and House File 633, backed by the Iowa County Recorders Association. She, along with two other area Recorders, emphasized that fees haven’t increased in 40 years.
Human Trafficking Legislation – Representative Mark Thompson passionately addressed human and labor trafficking, calling for the creation of a large task force to tackle the issues, regardless of cost. “This county has been in documentaries for its high level of labor trafficking,” Thompson stated of Wright County.
Representative Thompson introduced two house files, 463 and 669, one dedicated to creating and maintaining a human trafficking task force and the other expunging criminal records for trafficking victims who committed crimes while being trafficked. This was a topic much of the crowd was able to agree on.
Conservation, Eminent Domain, and Land Use Debates – One of the more contentious discussions involved a Senate Joint Resolution which would have repealed the constitutional amendment creating the Iowa Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation Trust Fund. Wright County Conservation Director Eric Rector challenged Senator Guth, questioning why he would support a bill that went against the 2010 vote of the people that established the fund.
The bill did not make it past funnel week and it is ‘dead.’ Rector also brought up the 500,000 acres of Iowa farmland that has been lost to urban sprawl in the past eight years, which he feels poses a bigger threat to agriculture than conservationists purchasing land.
“This argument that buying land for conservation hurts farmers doesn’t hold up,” they said. “The average farmland suitability rating for DNR ground is 32 CSR. Do you really expect a young farmer to succeed on land with a 32 CSR rating?”
The conversation then shifted to eminent domain, with some residents supporting South Dakota’s recent ban on carbon dioxide pipelines and pushing for similar protections in Iowa.
EPA Regulations and Chemical Labeling – Senator Guth also addressed concerns over chemical labeling and liability for pesticide manufacturers. He acknowledged concerns about rising cancer rates in Iowa but stated that holding chemical companies legally liable under current laws is problematic.
“The EPA determines what can be put on a label,” Guth explained. “Right now, they say companies cannot put on the label that a product is a carcinogen unless their studies show it. I don’t agree with that—I believe some of these chemicals are carcinogens—but I also believe in the rule of law.”
Wright County Conservation Director Eric Rector pushed back again, pointing out the contradiction in Guth’s stance:
“You’re limiting prosecution for chemical companies but at the same time, you support forcing vaccine manufacturers to waive their exemption from prosecution. Why the double standard?”
“I have no desire to give chemical companies a pass,” Guth said.
Other Notable Discussions – Denise Endriss of Wright County questioned who is paying for menstrual products now required in public schools and brought up support for limiting food stamp purchases to healthy foods. “I now work with processing Medicaid claims, and I look at X-rays all day, and your people who are on Medicaid tend to be on Food Stamps.”
She argued that recipients buy junk food, create cavities, and then rely on Medicaid for dental care. “My tax money is paying for these people who are buying the stuff with food stamps and getting the treatment with Medicaid.”
Moderator Ethan Lambert stressed that Food Stamps and Medicaid are funded at a federal level.
Although it was not made clear how the products would be paid for during the town hall, schools will be reimbursed for the full cost of purchasing menstrual products for the first three years of the program. In the 2028-29 academic year, the schools will then use school foundation aid for purchasing. Much of the crowd expressed support for the program.
The Wright County Monitor only asked one question of the politicians which was “what are you doing to lower the cost of living in Iowa?”
Representative Latham answered: “We’ve done numerous tax cuts.” In a separate statement, she added: “We’ve been very supportive of rural broadband. I think that that is a great equalizer to supporting some of these small businesses.”
Representative Thompson shared his thoughts that Iowans can better support themselves if they go into business for themselves. He shared of local community colleges offering job training for in-demand positions, like HVAC and welding. Thompson stated: “Bringing in more small businesses in these communities and making them welcome here, and getting people into that environment.”
Final Thoughts – The town hall covered a range of contentious and practical issues, from education to human trafficking. The topics discussed in this article reflect the statements made by residents during the public meeting and have not been independently verified by The Wright County Monitor. The views expressed are those of the individuals who participated in the discussion.
It is unclear when the next town hall meeting will be held but feedback from attendees suggested that the next meeting should be more formal with questions fielded beforehand.
While some discussions grew heated, legislators expressed appreciation for public input.
As Representative Latham put it, “It’s great to see a big turnout here today. We need to hear from you.”
