From Insight to Influence, Part 2 – Class 55 at the State Capitol, and Beyond

From Insight to Influence, Part 2 – Class 55 at the State Capitol, and Beyond
By: Jeremy Wagner, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer, County of San Mateo

We arrived early at the State Capitol, dressed in business formal, moving together through security in a way that felt oddly familiar; another threshold we were crossing. The rhythm of the week had shifted. At UC Davis and during our visits to local community organizations, we had reflected on, questioned, and explored influence through presence, trust, and care. At the Capitol, those ideas would meet the structures, pressures, and realities of public policy.

I carried with me a set of assumptions about that world. I had long viewed politics and lobbying as a space defined largely by competing special interests, where influence is transactional and often driven by agendas that don’t fully align with the public good. Even in my own work, I tended to see advocacy as reactive- a need to respond to short-sighted proposals and mitigate risk to important regulatory programs.

What I had begun to reconsider at Davis was whether influence, when grounded in trust and intention, could look different. The question now was whether that perspective would hold in a setting where decisions carry broader consequences, and where competing priorities are not theoretical, but immediate and consequential.

Representing Constituents: Influence in Public Office
Our morning session brought a rapid succession of eminently qualified speakers, each offering a distinct perspective shaped by their role, their district, and their experience. Chris Micheli, founding partner of Snodgrass & Micheli, grounded us in the realities of the legislative process. From his perspective, those of us working in agriculture are central to policymaking. We’re the subject matter experts. The storytellers. The “real people” providing information that can shape far-reaching decisions.

His message was direct: work ethic matters, but reputation matters more. The right person in the right room can influence hundreds of bills, affecting thousands- even millions- of lives. Influence in this context requires preparation, understanding how the system works, and the ability to communicate effectively. Our stories, he emphasized, are powerful tools for building credibility and trust with policymakers.

From there, we met with a diverse group of State legislators: Dr. Jasmeet Bains, James Gallagher, David Tangipa, Shannon Grove, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Juan Alanis, Melissa Hurtado, and Anna Caballero. Taken together, their perspectives revealed both common ground and meaningful differences.

A consistent theme was service. Dr. Bains highlighted the difference between seeking office and seeking to serve, emphasizing the importance of deep commitment to becoming the expert in the room. Others echoed this sentiment in different ways. Whether coordinating wildfire recovery, as Assemblymember Gallagher described, or navigating generational challenges and data-driven decisions, as Assemblymember Tangipa shared, credibility was tied to both competence and intent.

The value of relationships surfaced repeatedly. Assemblymember Alanis spoke about the importance of connection, particularly in a political environment where influence often depends on persuading peers rather than directing them. Senator Hurtado emphasized patience and persistence, reminding us that meaningful change rarely happens on the first attempt. Senator Caballero described politics as a contact sport, demanding both conviction and a willingness to engage directly, while always seeing others as human.

Differences in approach were clear. Some emphasized boldness and urgency; others highlighted the importance of building long-term relationships. Across regions and political perspectives, each legislator navigated distinct pressures and expectations.

What developed for me during this discussion was a broader recognition: that nearly everyone in this space sees themselves as playing defense. Each group is responding to perceived risks, working to protect what they value, and interpreting competing perspectives through that same lens. The result is a system that can feel fragmented and reactive, even when participants are acting in good faith.

That realization complicated my earlier assumptions. It’s easy to attribute dysfunction to individuals or institutions. It’s more difficult to acknowledge how structure, incentives and competing priorities shape outcomes (even when intentions are sound.)

Leadership Within Government
Our next session shifted focus from elected office to executive leadership, with Karen Ross, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Her remarks resonated with experience. Issues facing agriculture—food security, water, and climate—are complex and interconnected. There are no simple answers, and acknowledging that complexity is essential. Humility, she said, is a prerequisite for effective leadership.

Her practical guidance felt immediately applicable: show up, ask questions, understand perspectives. Know your goals, but remain open to how you achieve them. One point stood out: consider who is not at the table. Bringing new voices into a room is not always easy; collaboration can be slow and frustrating. Yet those missing perspectives often hold the key to durable solutions.

Her framework for decision-making was equally grounded. “Ask yourself,” she said, “Whose perspective do you trust? Have you listened to all sides? Can you stand behind your decision tomorrow when questioned about it?” Throughout, Secretary Ross emphasized the importance of sincerity. People recognize genuine interest; they respond to it. Lasting influence is more about connection than dictated direction.

“I was deeply moved by the honesty and generosity of California Secretary of Agriculture Karen Ross and our state leaders, whose reflections challenged us to reconnect with our own passions and purpose as leaders.”
 — Kelly Damewood, CEO, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF)

Playing the Long Game
In the afternoon, Jack Gualco (20) and Tricia Geringer (43) offered a perspective shaped by years of policy engagement. Their central idea: people respond to those who demonstrate genuine care. Over time, care becomes credibility.

Representing an organization that has advocated for farmers for more than a century, they emphasized that influence is built over time. Relationships, once established, become the foundation for future work. Term limits mean that lobbyists must constantly rebuild relationships, highlighting the importance of sustained investment.

Tricia and Jack advised us never to stop learning and to deliberately build our expertise. Working across differences is not always intuitive but can produce meaningful outcomes. Using concrete examples from their own work, they demonstrated that progress often comes from embracing unexpected partnerships.

Their perspective prompted a more personal reflection. During discussions about California’s regulatory environment, I felt a degree of tension. Hearing frustration directed toward “the regulatory regime” felt personal at times, given my role in enforcing agricultural laws. It raised a question I continue to wrestle with: when efforts are made to limit or reshape regulatory authority, are they driven by a long-term vision for improvement, or by more immediate interests?

I don’t have a definitive answer. What I took from the conversation, however, was a clearer understanding that influence in this space is not simply about advancing a position or defending against others. It requires engaging with people who see the system differently, understanding the pressures they face, and finding ways to move forward despite those differences.

Influence at the Local Level
The final session brought the focus closer to home. Charlotte Mitchell (51) and David Ogilvie (52) spoke about influence in local contexts, where decisions are immediate and personal.

Since joining the California Agricultural Leadership Program, I’ve made a deliberate effort to say yes to opportunities that stretch me: presenting to other agencies, stepping into more public roles, and taking on challenging projects that would have felt inconceivable just months ago. That growth has been valuable, but it has also made clear that saying yes to everything is not sustainable.[KL1] 

Their message reframed that experience. Opportunities are abundant, but not all should be pursued. Effectiveness depends on being intentional; choosing where to invest time and energy in ways that align with your values and allow for meaningful contribution.

They emphasized a disciplined approach: take time to learn before trying to lead, ask thoughtful questions, and recognize that influence is built through presence and day-to-day interactions that establish trust.

One piece of advice stood out: do not feel the need to speak first. Listen. Observe. When you do contribute, aim to add value. Over time, credibility grows.

Reflection
What struck me most was how differently influence looks in practice from its textbook definition. It’s less about a single persuasive moment and more about consistency over time. Less about having the right answer and more about asking the right questions. Less about position and more about relationships.

The concepts we explored at UC Davis, and at Mercy Pedalers, Loaves & Fishes, and Quinn Cottages, were present throughout the day, in more complex forms. They were shaped by competing interests, constrained timelines, and the realities of public service. Influence in Sacramento was the next step in translating presence, care, and intentional engagement into policy and leadership practice.

Closing Scene
The day concluded with the Agricultural & Government Leaders Reception, bringing Class 55 together with agricultural and government leaders in a more informal setting. Conversations unfolded more naturally. The pace slowed. It was a fitting reminder that much of what we think of as influence happens outside formal meetings. It develops between conversations, through shared experiences, and over time.

Credibility, Feedback, and the Discipline of Leadership
On the final day of the seminar, our focus turned inward with Dr. White, who had been guiding us throughout the week in examining our own credibility; how we’re perceived, how we strengthen (or undermine) it, and how to intentionally build it over time.

He outlined a framework for credibility built on four dimensions: competence, character, consistency, and care. Competence includes asking the right questions and acknowledging what you do not know. Character is reflected in how you recognize and value others. Consistency requires being the same person in every room. And care is demonstrated through attention to detail: remembering names, asking thoughtful follow-ups, and taking genuine interest in others.

Credibility, he emphasized, is built through patterns, not moments. It can also be eroded quickly by deflecting feedback, over-promising, or remaining silent when it matters. Class 55 began creating our own plans to increase our credibility in our personal and professional lives. I learned that my own credibility would benefit significantly from building stronger relationships with those I regulate, and that I need to be more targeted about the things I say “yes” to; overcommitment leads to a lack of consistency over the long term.

The discussion then turned to feedback, with a focus on a structured approach known as SBI: Situation, Behavior, Impact. The framework is deceptively simple: describe the situation clearly, articulate the observable behavior, and explain the impact of that behavior.

Effective SBI feedback requires specificity, clarity, and timeliness. There are countless biases and triggers that can prevent our feedback from landing as intended; SBI is designed to maximize how “hearable” it is. Done well, it reinforces positive behaviors, illuminate blind spots, and strengthen trust and connection.

Practicing SBI demanded reflection and intention. It’s easy to generalize or soften observations to avoid discomfort, but the real value emerges when feedback is precise and delivered thoughtfully. I found this energizing: giving and receiving feedback in this way is a crucial skill, and one that builds credibility through attention, honesty, and care.

It was a fitting conclusion. Dr. White reminded us that leadership, in addition to navigating systems and influencing outcomes, also depends on the consistency and discipline with which we engage with others.

Closing Thought
At the beginning of this seminar, I viewed traditional influence strategies with skepticism. Many felt transactional, or even contrived. Over the week, that perspective shifted as I realized: there is space for each of us to develop an approach to influence that feels genuine, grounded in curiosity, respect, and a willingness to engage.

For me, the path to greater influence begins with connection. Not as a means to an end, but as something valuable in its own right. By investing in relationships and showing up with interest and intention, influence becomes a natural byproduct rather than the goal.

I have already resolved to put this into practice by spending more time with local agricultural groups in my community, asking questions, and listening closely to the challenges they face. Where it leads is still unfolding, but I’m excited to begin.

Class 55 extends its sincere appreciation to the speakers, public servants, and agricultural leaders who generously shared their time and perspective with us at the State Capitol and throughout Sacramento. We are especially grateful to Chris Micheli; Assemblymembers Jasmeet Bains, James Gallagher, David Tangipa, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, and Juan Alanis; Senators Shannon Grove, Melissa Hurtado, and Anna Caballero; and Karen Ross for their candor, accessibility, and willingness to engage with our class.

We also thank Jack Gualco and Tricia Geringer for sharing their long-view perspective on advocacy, and Charlotte Mitchell and David Ogilvie for grounding our discussions in the realities of local leadership.

Finally, we are grateful to the California Agricultural Leadership Program educational team for designing a seminar that allowed us to move from theory to practice, and for creating the space to engage thoughtfully with the people and institutions shaping California agriculture.