United States

Rural Development

Administration

Cooperative

Services

Service Report 42

Agricultural

Bargaining:

In a Competitive

World

Proceedings:

38th National and Pacific Coast

Bargaining Cooperative Conference

December 2-4, 1993

Portland. OR
NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL

BARGAINING AND MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS

PRESIDENT

Tom Butler

Michigan Processing

Apple Growers (MACMA)

P. 0. Box 30960

Lansing, MI 48909

VICE PRESIDENT

Vernon DeLong

Agricultural Bargaining Council

744 Main Street, Suite 1

Presque Isle, ME 04769

TREASURER

Ronald A. Schuler, President

California Canning

Peach Association

P.O. Box 7001

Lafayette, CA 94549

SECRETARY

Adin Hester, Manager

Olive Growers Council of California

121 E. Main Street, Suite 8

Visalia, CA 93291

OTHER DIRECTORS

William Ferriera

Apricot Producers of California

064 Woodland Avenue, Suite E

Modesto, CA 95351

Vaughn Koligan

Raisin Bargaining Association

3425 N. First, Suite 209

Fresno, CA 93726

Ken Lindauer

Prune Bargaining Association

335 Teegarden Avenue, No. B

Yuba City, CA 95991-4525

John Welty

California Tomato Growers Association

P. 0. Box 7398

Stockton, CA 95267-0398

ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Andrew A. Jermolowicz

USDA/ RDA-Cooperative Services

Ag Box 3252

Washington, DC 20250-3252
Preface

These proceedings are published by USDA’s Rural Development

Admininstration-Cooperative Services at the request of the bargaining andmarketing cooperatives. This 38th National Bargaining Conference was combined with the Pacific Coast Bargaining Conference Dec. 2-4, 1993 at Portland,

OR.

Proceedings include speeches delivered at the conference and related

information. Opinions expressed reflect views of participants. The proceedings

should not be viewed as representing the policies of the United States

Department of Agriculture. Use of commercial names does not constitute

endorsement.

Copies of the proceedings may be obtained from RDA-Cooperative

Services, Ag Box 3255, Washington, DC 20250-3255.

Price: Domestic $5; Foreign: $5.50.

Service Report 42

July 1994
Contents

Where Bargaining Associations Fit

Dr. Mahlon Lang, Center for Cooperatives

University of California-Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Director Responsibilities

Chuck Swank, CPA-Grove, Mueller, Hall, & Swank, P. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Donald K. Franklin, Attorney, Franklin & Bersin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

What Does the Future Portend for Bargaining Associations?

Dr. Randall Torgerson, Asst. Administrator,

USDA/RDA-Cooperative Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Price Discovery and Field Price Determination

John Welty, California Tomato Growers Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Attendance Roster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Where Bargaining Associations Fit

Mahlon G. Lang

Editor’s Note: Mahlon G. Lang is the director of the

Center for Cooperatives at the University of CalzforniaDavis. This presentation was used to set up a workshop

with participants at the National Bargaining Conference

in Portland, OR, Dec. 2, 1993. As such, it does not

reflect extensive discussion or conclusions by workshop

participants.

You’re good. Thanks in large part to American

farmers, the United States has the world’s best food

system. Not everybody knows that. And, to complicate matters, farmers, who produce the basic

food commodities, are increasingly isolated---economically, politically, and socially.

Economically, producers are challenged by

industry concentration, global competition, vertical

integration, and continued downward pressure on

commodity prices. Politically, agricultural producers continue to account for an increasingly smaller

percentage of the total U.S. population.

In California, the leading agricultural State,

producers account for about one-fourth of 1 percent of the State’s population. Socially, producers

are isolated because few people even know them,

let alone know enough about agriculture to develop an informed opinion regarding public issues

affecting it.

This makes it important that we learn to tell

your story. It isn’t enough to be good, right, or useful. Increasingly, as growers and marketers of agricultural products, you will be called on to demonstrate your value to the public, consumers,

taxpayers, and any group that shapes the future of

agriculture, cooperatives, or bargaining associations.

Growers must learn to show how they, on

their farms and through their cooperatives, contribute to the creation and maintenance of the

world’s finest food system. A first step in telling

your story is to learn for yourself why ours is a

superior food system and what you do to make it

that way. Discover your value to the food-consuming public. That’s who the food system exists to

serve.

Producers need to recognize that they are not

evaluated in terms of how hard they work, how

much they risk, how uncertain their livelihood, or

how good they are. And this probably makes sense.

Instead, we are, and should be evaluated in terms

of how much we contribute to the food system.

This workshop is designed to help us take the first

steps in learning how to tell our story

For these reasons, the questions “What is a

good cooperative? N and “What is a good bargaining

association? “ cannot be separated from “What is a

good food sys tern? V

What is a food system?-A food system

(Figure 1) includes all agricultural supply, food

production, food processing, further processing,

distribution, and retailing, plus all the intermediate

steps between the supplier and the consumer.

The tasks of coordinating agricultural supplies, production, processing, distribution, and

retailing are complex. Coordination must provide

for market signals (prices and other terms of trade)

that create incentives to produce food, keep inventories, process food, distribute food, and reward

those who do so.

What is a good food system?-Some will

question my claim that ours is the world’s best
Figure 1. The Food System

( D;.,.,;,. >

(FURT;,R PRO~SS~NG)

PROCESSING

1 t

FIRST HANDLER I

1 t

PRODUCER

AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY

COORDINATION

AT EACH LEVEL

IN THE SYSTEM

. PRODUCT

. TIME

. FORM

. QUALITY

l LOCATION

2
food system. It is not perfect by any measure.

Measuring the performance of any food system is

what is meant by a “good” food system. In this

case, it is defined as “good” if it provides an abundant, stable supply of safe, nutritious, high-quality

food and does so at a reasonable price.

In these terms, ours is an excellent food system. It rewards participants for responding to an

enormous range of consumer preferences. These

include highly processed, nationally branded, consistent-quality products, “natural” and “organic”

foods, as well as a host of intermediate products. It

total income.

How do marketing institutions improve food

system performance?-Growers, as well as nonfarm food system participants, do much more than

produce raw agricultural products. Besides assessing final consumer preferences, the food industry

must match food production with consumer

demands in terms of time, form, quantity, and location at many intermediate steps along the line from

production supplier to final consumer.

The system must provide incentives

(rewards/profits) to all participants in ways that

keep them in long-term production while avoiding

overproduction. Inadequate rewards for production and marketing activities destabilize the food

system just as excessive rewards do. Market information, marketing incentives, and market discipline are all required to avoid either extreme and to

make our food system work as well as it does.

What do bargaining associations contribute?-Members are most likely to think of

operating cooperatives and bargaining associations

as a way to increase their income--and they do so.

But to survive, these organizations, as all other

marketing businesses, can succeed in the long term

only by adding value or cutting costs in the market.

Bargaining associations bring unique

strengths to the market. They specialize in providing information about pricing and other terms of

trade at the producer/first-handler market. Various

studies (Iskow & Sexton, Garoyan & Thor, Lang)

have shown how bargaining associations can

improve vertical coordination by stabilizing supply, creating handling efficiencies, enhancing price

stability, and improving other facets of market

information.

Operating cooperatives, bargaining associations, and investor-owned-firms (IOFs) vary greatly in terms of how they enhance food system performance. They simply bring different strengths to

the marketplace.

Contributions of Marketing Institutions

Leaders representing each kind of marketing

organization recognize the need for market discipline, market information, market sensitivity, and a

system of rewards that keeps them all in balance.

In asking where bargaining associations fit, it may

be worth asking if some institutions are better

designed than others to play some of these roles.

Each kind of marketing institution-operating

cooperatives, bargaining associations, and IOFsmakes a unique contribution to the performance of

the U.S. food system.

. Operating cooperatives feature grower

ownership at both the production and the marketing levels.

. Bargaining associations may, more than

other organizations, provide detailed information

on pricing and other terms of trade.

. IOFs are largely driven by the need to

return earnings gained by responding to consumers’ market preferences.

. Given these basic differences (see Figure 2),

to what degree are the following statements valid:

- Grower-owners of operating cooperatives have more market discipline than others

because they have equity positions both as producers and handlers.

- In the course of negotiating for their

members, bargaining associations develop substantial market information to match supply and

demand.

- Investor-owned firms, because of their

stockholders’ interest in yield and appreciation, are

3
Figure 2. The Comparative Advantages of

Various Food Marketing Organizations

Bargaining

Association

Operating

Cooperative

Investor

Owned

Firm

Market Information Best

Market Discipline ?

Consumer

Responsiveness ?

?

Best

?

?

?
m

FIGURE% THE STRUCTURE OF AN

AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY

ADVERTISING DISTRIBUTION FURTHER PROCESSINQ -

----_A----

.-_-_------

~RST HANDLERS

PROCESSORS

A+B =lOO%

PRODUCTION

bB+C+D=iOO’
most concerned with the consumer market preferences.

None of these generalizations apply absolutely or exclusively to any one type of marketing

organization. However, if they have any validity,

two things are probably true. First, each kind of

marketing organization contributes to the performance of the U.S. food system. Second, because the

marketing task varies by agricultural commodity,

the role of operating cooperatives, bargaining associations, and IOFs is bound to vary by commodity

subsector.

For these reasons, such considerations should

be kept in mind during industry-wide strategic

planning. Such a process would, in the interest of

food system performance, ask:

l Where do IOFs fit?

l Where do operating cooperatives fit?

. Where do bargaining associations fit?

Answers will vary by subsector and, if the

analysts are honest with themselves, will be driven

by a real concern about the long-term performance

of the food system and, consequently, the longterm survival of those who make our food system

as good as it is.

Arcthor’s Note: Workshop participants broke into

four groups to discuss the design of their commodity subsectors. In doing so, they used Figure 3, The

Structure of an Agricultural Commodity Subsector.

All four working groups found roles, not only for

bargaining associations, but also for operating

cooperatives and IOFs. After group reports, it was

pointed out that participants had just engaged in

industry-wide strategic planning for their commodi ty. The workshop exercise appeared to be

effective in providing participants with a broader

view of the food system and their place in it. This

was the intent.

References

1. Garoyan & Thor, Observations on the Impact of

Agricultural Bargaining Cooperatives, Studies of

the Organization and Control of the U.S. Food system, NC Project 117, Monograph 4, September

1978, Agricultural Cooperatives and the Public

Interest, Proceedings of a North Central Regional

Research Committee 117 Sponsored Workshop, St.

Louis, MO, June 6-8,1977.

2. Iskow & Sexton, Bargaining Associations in

Grower-Processor Markets for Fruits & Vegetables,

USDA/ACS RR 104, March 1992.

3. Lang, Mahlon G., Collective Bargaining Between

Producers and Handlers of Fruits and Vegetables

for Processing: Setting Laws, Alternative Rules,

and Selected Consequences, Unpublished Ph.D.

thesis, Michigan State University, 1977.
Director Responsibilities

Chuck Swank, CPA

Grove, Mueller, Hall, b Swank, PC.

Financial responsibility also applies to directors. They must understand the cooperative’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. Part of those

bylaws usually refer to financial responsibility of

the organization.

The board hires the manager, lets that person

manage, provides adequate compensation, and

periodically appraises the performance. Managers,

not the directors or members, are on the front line

of the day-to-day operations. The manager must

report to the board on the operation of the cooperative.

The relationship between the board and the

manager is a strong one that requires mutual trust.

But, you also need written responsibility guidelines

for that manager. That comes in the form of policies

and/or reports required for board meetings. One is

a financial report. You need to understand it and be

concerned about what you get from a financial

report.

You need to have a basic understanding of

financial statements and know what questions to

ask. The person who sits there and looks at a financial statement or a report that shows the operations

and says, “Well, nobody is asking any questions, so

it must be okay,” may be misled. In fact, three or

four others may be in the same boat, but are too

embarrassed to admit it.

This is absolutely the wrong attitude.

Question your manager and your auditor. It’s not

the auditor’s responsibility to be your financial

director. That’s why you hired a manager who can

be another source of information if you don’t get a

satisfactory answer from your independent audit.

You will review periodic financial reports.

Management should prepare a budget to guide you

through the next year or accounting period,

although some organizations run longer than 1

year in their budget process.

That’s the guidance that tells the manager

what can be done. This is where the salary costs are

going. These are our operating costs. If that manager significantly deviates from the budget, the board

needs to know why. If revenues are lower, what

actions are we taking? If revenues are significantly

higher, here is what I recommend. The board

should challenge that budget prior to the beginning of the period to which it applies. It does no

good to suddenly look at a budget 6 months after

the year has begun. It needs to be prepared,

reviewed, and adopted prior to the beginning of

the next fiscal year. Then, monitor it and make sure

it is being followed.

The board must hire an independent auditor

as required in most organization bylaws. The board

may delegate that task to management, although I

don’t totally agree with that practice. Find an auditor at reasonable cost and take care of the task. That

should not be a board-delegated responsibility. Yes,

you can ask the manager to solicit an auditor, but

the board hires that person. The auditor is responsible to the directors, particularly if a problem

develops with management.

The Wall Street Journal and other financial

publications discuss management responsibilities

of the board and the independent auditor. If there

is something askew in the company, how does it

get communicated to the stockholder or potential

stockholder? This area keeps attorneys in business

forever. It’s a serious issue because auditors are, in

fact, working for the board of directors to review

the financial operations of the company. We don’t

expect everyone to be financial accountants, but

7
directors should ask the questions and make sure

the examination is being accomplished.

Corporate Insurance

Corporate insurance is another area for the

board to examine. How is the association being

protected or not protected? The board should

understand any contract the association selects.

They may delegate the responsibility for negotiating the contract to management, but the board

should understand the contract, what the provisions are doing to the organization, what they

mean, their cost, and what exactly it has agreed to

do, or not to do.

Financial statements or operating reports tell

how the cooperative is progressing, like a financial

report card. The budget we prepared and adopted

is a big history lesson. We can’t change much of

what’s there, so if that financial statement is slow

in coming, it’s of decreasing value. There are

important reasons why publicly held companies

are required to file their financial statements in 90

days. As that information gets older and if the

trend continues, the damage may be beyond,repair

by the time it is discovered. So, if you’re not getting

current financial information, demand it and

review it on a timely basis.

What are you going to review? A balance

sheet is a snapshot in time. Balance sheets can really be prepared at month’s end as well. A balance

sheet reflects the historical cost of your assets and

liabilities.

The greatest deviation is in those assets.

Assets come in two categories: long-term (non-current) or concurrent. Cash is a good current asset

and fairly easy to measure. Receivables get many

people in trouble. Your organization may not have

a major problem, but with some agricultural cooperatives uncollected receivables are a problem.

Receivables don’t spend well and are harder

to collect as they age. The further you get away

from payment for what you provided, the more the

person who purchased the service or commodity

from you says, “Well, it wasn’t really worth that

anyway,” or, “Aren’t you willing to negotiate?” You

should be concerned about the quality and age of

those receivables because they indicate how management is performing. Are those receivables collectible? Are they being collected on a timely basis?

Credit policy is extremely important.

Inventory is the next,asset you find on most

balance sheets. If your organization is an agricultural cooperative, obviously it produces some kind

of foodstuff. If you’re a retailer, it’s something you

purchased for resale. The problem arises in the

product that’s not saleable. If you can’t get the

value you show on that balance sheet, you have a

problem. How saleable is inventory that has been

sitting in the back of the warehouse for 6 years?

Does anybody really want it? How often does the

inventory turn? How well is it moving? What

items are not moving? Directors need to ask their

managers these questions.

Just looking at a statistic that says inventory

turned x times during the year is not the total

answer. If 20 percent of the inventory is 6 years old,

you have a problem. If it’s not moving, it’s not

doing anybody any good and it’s not convertible to

cash, the one element that makes the operation

work.

Non-current assets are normally fixed assets

such’as facilities and plants. They are shown at cost

and have nothing to do with their current value.

Directors, other than for insurance purposes, need

to know the current value for ongoing operations.

It’s not going to change anything. But, if you want

to sell or insure that facility, you need to know its

current value.

The liability side tells what you owe people.

It’s your debt, payroll, and accounts. It tells your

long-term debt. The concern on the liability side is

not what’s there, but what’s not there. The director

needs to look at that and say, “Is everything there?”

An age-old problem for organizations is

deferred compensation. You may have told the

manager that upon retirement the board will continue paying 50 percent of the manager’s salary for

the next 20 years. How are we going to pay for it?

If it isn’t on the balance sheet, it should be. You

have either contractually or otherwise obligated

your members to this liability for 20 years from the

manager’s retirement date. Accounting principles

8
say you have to charge current activity over the

person’s active working life.

All that accrued vacation you owe employees

is another item that might be on the balance sheet

in case you have to pay them if they quit tomorrow.

An accounting regulation that has been out for 6 or

8 years says accrued vacations must be shown.

If you take the assets and subtract all the liabilities, the result is the net worth. Remember,

we’re talking about a cost-base balance sheet.

Hopefully, it shows a positive number. If so, it

means your organization apparently has some net

assets. We’re assuming they were all reasonably

valued, that the receivables could be collected, and

that the inventory was saleable. We are also assuming you don’t have an idle building shown for

more than it’s worth. Problems like that can distort

net worth. Neither is it the value you probably

would get if you liquidated the assets and liabilities, nor is it intended to be.

The operating statements talk about how well

the cooperative performed over the time period

we’re measuring: a year, quarter, month, or multiyears. Have we achieved the revenues we put in

that budget? If not, why not? What was wrong

with our budget process? If we’re selling a product,

why aren’t our sales where they are supposed to

be? Why wasn’t the price we received placed in the

budget? On the other side, how well do expenses

match sales? Most expenses are fizted such as payroll and the cost of operations. If the revenues

decline, it’s not automatic that the expense number

also declines. Eventually, we have more expenses

than revenue. Again, question the current financial

report and say, “This organization seems to be losing ground.” You can only falter for so long. Then

you’re in trouble.

Looking at these financial statements, you

should be concerned about working capital-current assets such as cash, inventory, and receivables-which permits you to pay your bills on a

current basis. If you have no current assets on that

balance sheet, can’t convert even what you show to

something liquid, or can’t borrow on your operating line, you’ll have trouble repaying those current

liabilities. So that working capital number-how

far your current assets exceed your current liability

or current ratio-is very important to you as a

director.

Looking ahead, learn to use that independent

auditor you’ve hired. The auditor should come to

the board meeting after the annual audit is completed. Don’t hesitate to ask questions. You may

want to go one step further and ask management to

leave the room so directors can ask the auditors

candid questions. It’s a common practice. Publicly

held companies are required to have only outside

board members on their audit committees and

nobody from management. There is a reason for

that.

You can ask the auditor about the systems of

internal control. How do we process accounting

information in this organization? Does it have adequate safeguards? Are you comfortable with the

way we do things? You should get a management

letter from the auditor that points out things the

organization can do more efficiently and more

effectively. They see a lot of accounting systems

and can be helpful.
Director Responsibilities

Don Franklin, Attorney

Franklin b Bersin

What does the term “fiduciary responsibility”

mean? How do you learn to recognize it when you

see it? There are really three aspects to fiduciary

responsibility-loyalty, obedience, and “due care.”

Loyalty

Loyalty is usually the most obvious. The first

thing you think about regarding breached fiduciary

responsibility to the corporation is conflict of interest. Essentially, it means taking advantage of your

position, conflicts of interest, self-serving policies,

or “looking out for old number one.” I have seen

instances over the years when a cooperative adopted a certain policy and then changed it. The accusation was made that it was an inside job with the

board, that they basically were looking out for

themselves.

Let’s face it, the people who most frequently

rise to the top of the pile on the board are usually

the biggest growers in the organization. They have

the most money in it; they have the most to lose;

and they usually have the financial resources and

the time to serve on the board.

Who has the time to attend all these meetings?

Who has the time and money to fly to Washington,

DC, all the time? It takes a whole day to get there

and a whole day to get back. It may be somebody

who is independently wealthy and has people running the farm operation. Those are usually your

larger growers. As a result, the smaller members

take pot shots at the directors.

Obedience

The second aspect of fiduciary responsibility

is obedience. Obedience basically means doing

your job in accordance with the cooperative’s articles and bylaws, the State laws, or any kind of law

for that matter.

But, the most obvious is obedience to the State

statute that governs your organization. You will be

amazed at how many times it comes up when we

get involved with new cooperatives. They say their

bylaws and articles are out-of-date and want them

reviewed. When we ask to see their articles of

incorporation, frequently we discover nobody has

seen these important corporate documents for 40

years.

How can your directors know if they’re running the organization right unless they know what

the articles and bylaws say? When did you last look

at them? I spend lots of time with policy manuals

and goal statements. Do you spend much time with

them? All too often, directors look at them once and

never go back and review them. When you and

other veterans retire from the board, a whole group

of new directors is elected and nobody trains them

about what the paperwork means. But, if, in fact,

you authorize some action as a board member that

conflicts with the articles, bylaws, or your State

incorporation statute, then you have violated the

aspect of “obedience” and have thereby breached

your fiduciary responsibility.

When you get home, contact the attorney who

represents your organization and say, “An attorney

at this conference told us we should each have a

copy of the State law under which we are organized.”

Watch him shudder. Why? He may say it’s

really complicated; you won’t understand it; it has

been amended; and it has many different parts. Get

him to put all the parts together for you. He may
be thinking, “If you’ve got the law, you don’t need

to call me.”

Nevertheless, one of the tools you need as a

director is a copy of your own State co-op statute.

It would be good for you to see the operating

rules-the “building code” as it were for your organization-so you’ll know whether you’re straying

off course.

Obedience also means complying with a contract. If your organization has a contract and you as

a board member say, “Nuts to them, let’s just

breach it,” that’s a violation of this element of obedience and therefore a breach of fiduciary responsibility.

Due Care

The last aspect of fiduciary responsibility is

“due care.” Here, director personalities come into

play. These personalities can range from one end of

the spectrum to the other-the troublemaker, the

silent director, the fence sitter, the absent or tardy

one, the director who wants to be manager, the

gabby one, and the prudent one.

Troublemakers love to agitate. They are not

happy unless they are always stirring the pot. A

client asked me to referee a dispute with a new

younger board member who liked to stir things up.

He would attend board meetings and bring his

own agenda. He would have newspaper clippings

that he wanted to talk about. He never worked

within the system; never was obedient to the body,

and never worked as a team member.

How about the silent director? How many

times in a meeting have you seen old Ralph sitting

there for 3 l/2 hours, saying nothing. How can you

not contribute anything one way or another? This

director does not fulfill his responsibility on the

board. The purpose of the board meeting is to hear

what everybody has to say-share all of your information, knowledge, and expertise. You may come

in thinking you want to do X and by the time

somebody gets through talking, you say, “I never

thought of it that way.“ That’s the idea, the

strength, and the diversity of the board.

Fence sitters wait to see which way the wind

is blowing. They are not doing their job. You need

somebody who can stand on his or her own two

feet, think for themselves, and be willing to stand

alone.

Regarding the absent or tardy one, in the

United States I think we suffer from a general disregard for punctuality. But, I’m irked by the one

who doesn’t come to board meetings or skips two

months in a row, shows up at the third one, and

starts to ask questions. He wouldn’t have had to

ask them if he had been at the last two meetings.

Another irritant is the person who constantly

comes in 20 minutes late and leaves early. Many

bylaws have a provision that if you miss so many

consecutive meetings, the board can terminate you.

I think that’s a wise idea.

You’ve seen the director who wants to be

manager. Frequently, it is the board chairman. You

may have a weak manager or one not doing the

job, or you may have a manager who is doing the

job, but for one reason or another there is a personality conflict. So, the director, who has a personality conflict with the manager, in effect says: “You

may be the manager, but we really own this place.”

There is constant tension. The director runs his

own agenda and soon there is no relationship at all

and no teamwork between the manager and the

board, or at least not with this board member.

You can count on the gabby one, who-even

though you were in executive session-will tell all

the first time he gets out the door. This person has

no wisdom about keeping quiet, goes into the

plant, and starts talking to the plant manager about

a planned plant closing in 3 days that nobody is

supposed to know about. This director starts talking about confidential things in earshot of somebody else. In effect, it starts a whole forest fire and

you wonder, “How in the world did that get out?”

This director also goes home and tells everything. I understand how difficult it is to avoid this,

particularly if you have a strong marriage and

share everything as husband and wife. There are

times when you just have to keep it inside.

Perhaps it’s a pending merger or sale, hiring

or firing somebody, or your organization is about

to announce something. The director who talks

openly about it breaches the confidentiality of the

board.

11
Finally, there is the prudent one who is everything that the others aren’t. This director exercises

general supervision over the corporation’s affairs.

There is a fine difference between directors supervising and trying to be manager. Directors are not

managers. Directors set policies, goals, monitor

performance, and-if the performance is not

there-do something about it. They don’t run the

organization unless you are temporarily without a

manager. I know of several cooperatives like this in

that state right now.

In a case like this, everybody looks at the

board chairman and says, “You’re the designated

manager for the interim until we can get somebody.” Suddenly, here’s Phil sitting at the desk

with the phones and wondering, “Now what do I

do?“

Generally, that is the exception. The important

thing to remember is that directors and boards are

not supposed to manage the organization. Rather,

they set policy and let the manager operate it. If

you’re not willing to do this, you may have the

wrong person as the manager.

The prudent director investigates and audits

the corporation’s decisions. You have to be careful.

You can’t be a lone ranger in how you investigate

and audit corporation decisions. You have to work

within the board and discuss things.

Prudent directors bring their business experience and common sense to the board. As a footnote, when you‘re electing people to serve, look at

the needs of the board. They differ from one organization to another. It’s nice to have someone on

the board with legal, accounting, and insurance

experience and representation from various different geographical areas. Those people should bring

to the table the gifts that got them there in the first

place. Otherwise, they are of no value.

The prudent director pursues the warning

signs if something is wrong. Generally, there is a

tendency to let officers of the board worry about

conditions. The secretary or treasurer might tend to

say, “I’ll let the chairman worry about it.” If you’re

the chairman, hopefully you’re more awake than

the rest of them. When you see a warning sign of

something wrong, don’t just sit back and let the

manager worry about it. To do so violates your

fiduciary responsibility.

If you see a problem, it’s always easy to do

something about it. Insist on regular and frequent

board meetings. The person who doesn’t like to

attend meetings shouldn’t be a director. Directors

and meetings go hand in hand. The person who

comes into the meeting saying “I hope we can get

this one done early” doesn’t really help the process.

The person who likes to cancel meetings all the

time or push them back 2-3 months doesn’t have

his hands on the wheel.

Insist on meaningful board meetings with full

disclosure of operating results. This takes the most

guts. I understand the tension between how much

to tell or not tell board members and the time it

takes a manager to prepare for board meetings.

When you get to the board meeting, there may

be a thick packet of materials for the directors. It

would have been nicer to see the material more

than 15 minutes before the meeting starts. How can

you have any meaningful discussion about something that you have had no opportunity to digest?

The operating information is already a week old

before you get it. The manager should provide you

with advance notice of this material so you can

digest it. If you don’t understand something, ask

for a clarification.

If you are not getting full disclosure and sense

the manager is not telling you something, find out

what’s missing. It may be that the rest -doesn’t

make any difference and that’s why the manager

didn’t tell you.

Often, there are things going on under the surface. You’d better push your manager to find out.

In any event, the prudent director insists on meaningful board meetings with full disclosure of operating results and reports of director and committee

meetings. If a subcommittee is conducting a special

project, it’s important for a couple of reasons for

directors to make them accountable.

First, you’d like to know if this subcommittee is off

track and doesn’t know it. Second, it’s important

for the whole organization to be tied together. You

need to be equipped and know what’s going on in

the organization. You’re the public relations person

for your organization on the front line, the one

12
growers see. They figure if you don’t know,

nobody knows. It’s important that you be fully

equipped to provide bits and pieces of information.

The good news in all of this is that in 23 years

of practicing law and representing 50-60 cooperatives, I have yet to see a single instance where

directors were sued personally for breaching their

fiduciary responsibility. Why? The fact is that a disgruntled member is usually interested in money

and it usually is not necessary to pursue individual

directors to recover damages. The cooperative, or

its insurance company, is usually a sufficient “deep

pocket.”

However, it is important to remember that

there are a variety of State and Federal laws which

grant to the State or Federal government either a

civil or criminal cause of action against directors,

officers, or controlling parties of the cooperative.

The government is usually not concerned about

pursuing the deep pocket. They are usually concerned about making a point. So, do not assume

that just because private lawsuits in this area are

rare, that you are in the clear.

Regardless, shouldn’t the driving force in all

of this be your desire to be a good director? If so,

then attending the meetings, arriving on time,

being prepared, reading the advance materials, and

participating in the discussion will take you a long

way towards carrying out your fiduciary responsibility.

13
What Does the Future Portend

for Cooperative Bargaining Associations?

Randall E. Torgerson, Asst. Administrator

Rural Development Adminis tra tion-Coopera five Services

For the past 15 years, we have been hearing

that markets for farm products are becoming more

global. Recent passage of the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) suggests lower trade

barriers will ease the steps toward freer trade in the

North American hemisphere.

Because the U. S. represents one of the world’s

largest and most open markets, every country

seeks ready access to it. And now we have better

access to theirs.

Recognizing the nature of these new trade

relationships is important in developing successful

strategies for placing U.S. farm produce and manufactured products on shelves and in institutional

and ingredient markets here at home as well as

abroad.

Scanner data available from retail checkout

counters is a significant technological change having an impact on the food system. Availability of

this data is literally revolutionizing the flow of

information, as well as inventory management and

decision strategies in the food industry.

With events of this magnitude-both policy

and technology driven-we need to sit back and

look at the emerging “big picture.” What types of

institutional changes are happening and what are

the implications for cooperative bargaining associations?

Fewer Public Farm Advisory Services

Budget cutbacks in many public institutions

are affecting the availability and coverage of traditional farm management advisory services through

Extension and other sources. A California growers’

organization was recently lamenting the fact that

Extension farm advisors’ days appeared to be numbered due to budget cutbacks.

Questions were being asked whether this will

become a void that marketing cooperatives and

bargaining associations should fill as an extra service to members. Field staff members for many

California cooperatives to a certain extent already

act as defacto crop advisors. A logical progression

may be to upgrade the education and training level

of these positions to include a professional advisory role.

There are many examples of farm enterprise

services being offered by cooperatives to grower or

producer members on the basis of need for scientifically trained advice and counsel. A number of

farm supply cooperatives have been in the vanguard of these services. They generally apply to

agronomic services such as farm chemical and fertilizer applications, disease and pest control,

recordkeeping, and other aspects of production.

With more stringent controls over pesticide

use, and water and soil testing, it is anticipated that

the opportunity will exist for cooperative organizations to expand these services to members as part

of their bundle of activities.

Michigan Agricultural Cooperative Marketing

Association (MACMA), for example, has initiated a

Regulatory Compliance Assistance Program

(RCAP) that provides literature and manuals to

members regarding State and Federal worker laws

and related programs.

A key decision by boards of directors concerns

their willingness to hire professional advisors.

Furthermore, they must decide if these are general

membership services to be paid by dues, activioties

covered by user-fees, or financed by some other

14
income sources. If on a self-sustaining basis, would

members be willing to pay for them?

Information, Market Intelligence Systems

Knowing the transfer prices of products as

they move through the food system is critically

important to growers as well as other market channel participants, yet like farm advisory services,

market information for specialty crops is becoming

harder and harder to get.

A number of states have dropped market

news reporting for certain crops. Similarly, a number of firms no longer cooperate in reporting inventory data. They conduct their own detailed crop

estimate plan each year, but hold this data as proprietary information and feel it is better than State

estimates.

Some staff members are even sent to foreign

countries such as Spain or Turkey to conduct crop

estimates there. The issue of information availability has been raised at past conferences and continues to be discussed within the industry.

We once had a system in which it was relatively easy to collect price information, but hard to disseminate. Today, we have difficulty collecting such

information, but can easily disseminate it. In short,

there are changing incentives for providing data vs.

consuming it. Inventory management in vertically

controlled systems is the name of the game.

Should cooperatives adopt policies requiring

mandatory reporting of prices? How do cooperative bargaining associations and other commodity

associations access needed information? Should

they be in the forefront of developing measures

that provide an improved information base

through State and Federal marketing orders or by

other means?

If identity-preserved marketing grows as a

percent of total, how does this affect making valid

price comparisons?

Value-Added Opportunities

In most fruit and vegetable crop production

areas, it is desirable to have at least 50 percent of a

crop handled by a dominant marketing cooperative. Not only does this give growers direct access

to final product markets through an organization

they own and control, but it also, if correctly run

and structured, permits them to achieve critical

mass for improving member returns through

value-added processing.

Opportunities to participate in value-added

activities must be constantly evaluated. Sometimes

opportunities present themselves unexpectedly,

such as a plant closure or sale‘of plants or other

assets.

A classic example was the sale of the Stokley

plant to pear and other fruit growersnow known as

Pacific Coast Producers-when they were faced

with a plant closure in the early 1970s. This suggests an opportunity for more ownership and control in markets becoming increasingly characterized by larger and fewer players. A sound

feasibility analysis should be conducted as a basis

for any acquisition.

It is interesting to note that a number of cooperatives, or their subsidiaries, were bidders for

Birds Eye, but were outbid by Dean Foods. In the

food processing business there always seem to be

active bidders for assets that have been well maintained and are in good position. Why? Because the

food industry ranks second only to pharmaceuticals in sector profitability.

Joint Promotion Opportunities

A look at the array of organizations initiated

by growers indicates some distinctive types,

including general farm organizations, commodity

associations, and cooperative businesses. A major

function of commodity associations is to support

research and promotion activities. State and national efforts are frequently involved.

In many sectors, cooperative bargaining associations have a dual role as negotiators of price and

other contract terms and as major promoters of

advertising and research efforts for their products.

Some cooperative bargaining associations

struggle with the appropriate mix of time and

effort devoted to these activities. For example, State

Farm Bureau associations in a number of states

15
manage statewide commodity promotion programs

whether for soybeans, corn, and/or specialty crops.

Other single-line bargaining associations have

become embroiled in disputes over generic versus

brand name advertising and promotion. Raisins are

an example.

A new opportunity for the industry is in joint

research, advertising, and promotion programs

across commodity lines. One of the best historical

examples is the joint advertising of beer and cheese

and wine and cheese. Others are dried fruits and

nuts used in the baking industry and fruits in

yogurt and ice cream. The number of combinations

that make sense based on compatible and complementary products is limited only to your imagination.

Crossing National Boundaries

Given the recent passage of NAFTA, what

types of institutional effects will happen to our

respective commodity sectors and how they should

be organized? No matter what the language, culture, or national boundary, growers are similarly

situated structurally with the same levels of powerlessness, conservative orientation, and incentive to

organize for more marketing influence.

If market barriers are reduced and products

flow more freely across North America and, potentially, Central and South America, we have to look

at organizational opportunities that are in growers’

best interests. North American conferences of bargaining associations have been held for many years

in crops such as tomatoes, potatoes, asparagus, and

cherries. As a result, organizational leaders know

each other personally and share information on

crop conditions and marketing developments.

This type of strategy and cross-fertilization of

ideas is constructive and necessary from a grower

perspective. All have an interest in orderly marketing conditions for their crops.

Marketing cooperatives offer examples of

expanding memberships across national boundaries:National Grape/Welch Foods has grape

grower members in Ontario, Ocean Spray

Cranberries has members in Nova Scotia and

British Columbia; Blue Anchor has members in

Mexico.

Marketing agencies-in-common also provide a

mechanism for cooperatives to maintain their individual identities while working across national

boundaries.

One opportunity facing farm leaders is to

examine market institutions in each country such

as marketing boards, marketing orders, and bargaining cooperative laws and see how they might

be changed to encourage closer collaboration

among grower interests so that producers in each

country benefit from coordinated action in the marketplace rather than destructive undercutting of

each other’s markets.

Industrial Waste Disposal

Reports persist of growing environmental

concerns among growers, processors and rural

communities. One of the more sensitive areas concerns brine used in processing olives. Lindsay

Olive Growers was adversely affected by this problem and reports are that Obertti operations are also

of concern. This problem in the processing industry

may have a cooperative solution.

Just as rural electric cooperatives were established with initial Federal support and encouragement in the 193Os, we may be approaching an era

when industrial waste disposal has to be addressed

in a similar programmatic fashion.

Professor Tom Sporleder of Ohio State

University has done some initial work in this area

that should receive wider attention. Cooperative

solutions to utilities’ needs in rural areas have been

found to work well. Application of the cooperative

idea to the waste disposal problem may represent a

new horizon.

National Bargaining Legislation

This conference has discussed possibilities of

amending the Agricultural Fair Practices Act or

developing new self-standing bargaining legislation for a number of years. As time passes and

grower numbers decline, getting improved legislation becomes increasingly difficult.

16
Bargaining leaders need to reach agreement

on a strategy that will produce results. California

Attorney Gerald Marcus several years ago drafted

a series of amendments that deserve careful attention and support for a proactive initiative.

The future for cooperative bargaining associations is bright if proactive steps are taken in adapting to a rapidly changing marketplace. We have

talked about member services, trade issues, market

intelligence, technical services, and assistance from

public agencies, value-added marketing opportunities, joint promotion activities, cooperation across

national boundaries, waste disposal problems, and

legislative strategy. While not an exhaustive list, it

is designed to stimulate thinking about new programs and directions in your individual associations.

It’s initially important for cooperative bargaining associations to focus on their core functions and not become so broad based that they

become all things to all people and ultimately lose

their bargaining orientation. There are also signs of

innovative thinking and new programs that are

keeping associations on the cutting edge.

17
Price Discovery and Field

Price Determination

John Welty

California Toma to Growers Association

The motivation that led to this presentation

was based on the desire to provide an objective

basis upon which to bargain for price. It is my

premise that the knowledge necessary to broaden

my perspective and bring clarity and focus to the

task of price discovery is largely available, in the

body of information that is represented herenamely the members of the National Bargaining

Committee.

This effort is by no means complete but represents a starting point upon which we can build.

This is intended to provide an outline to price discovery for agricultural bargaining associations that

is open to full review and comment. Each and

every aspect of price discovery outlined here

deserves our utmost attention and study. I would,

therefore, like to ask the National Bargaining

Committee for its continued support in these

efforts.

It appeared that the best starting point in the

quest for a better understanding of the price discovery methodologies used by agricultural bargaining associations was to survey current practices. Tom Butler, national bargaining committee

president, and Randy Torgerson and Don

Frederick, USDA’s Rural Development

Administration-Cooperative Services (formerly

Agricultural Cooperative Service), felt that this

effort was suitable to being sponsored by the commi ttee.

Each bargaining association was asked to submit information on methods used to establish

prices, including the details of their pricing provisions. Eighty requests were sent out to a variety of

bargaining cooperatives and 15 responses were

received. The responses represent perhaps the

strongest and most active bargaining associations-most of them represented at this conference.

The large majority of bargaining cooperatives

adhere to the traditional approach of price discovery, that of establishing prices and terms of trade

that can be justified by the economics of supply,

demand, and market conditions.’ While everyone

would agree that supply and demand play a

prominent role in the determination of price, a closer look is warranted.

I. Supply

In the context of price discovery, it is essential

that a broad definition of supply be utilized-one

that encompasses all aspects of providing raw

material and processed products to the market.

This will include growing the crop, delivering to

the first point of processing, processing, packaging,

remanufacturing, and transporting the finished

goods to market. The relationship is not necessarily

linear in that a product may go to market in an

industrial or value-added form.

A. Production

1. Grower Perspective

Certainly, the most common use of the

term “production” relates to the growing of the

raw product for sale. Cost of production plays a

prominent role in determining an acceptable price.

1 Bunje, Ralph B. 1980. Cocymatizx Fam hrpir~ir~g arrd Price

Ncgotiatiorls USDA-ESCS Cooperative lnformntion Report

No. 26

18
It is essential that there be a thorough understanding of the fixed, variable, and opportunity costs

facing growers.

While fixed and variable costs may be well

understood, opportunity costs present some difficulty in the agricultural setting. What exactly are

the grower’s alternatives to the crop in question?

Not only must we ask what alternative crop is

available but we must also look at alternatives outside crop production. This latter alternative is complicated by the fact that capital assets flow very

slowly into and out of agriculture.

The most essential aspect of grower production rests with yields. Yields drive a grower’s

break-even price, therefore establishing a support

level for pricing. Yields in relation to costs determine costs per unit and are a primary component

of grower profitability.

Commerce. Once again, product categories and finished product quality specifications are of particular interest.

It is of interest to know the country of origin

and the port of entry. Knowing the country of origin allows closer scrutiny of that country’s production history, patterns, limitations, and opportunities.

These days the topic of imports and exports

has become synonymous with barriers to trade,

and it is no different in our case. However, a broader approach is needed. Namely, from the perspective of domestic processors, barriers to competition

exist in the form of market niches developed

through specific varieties and/or advertising. More

traditional barriers may also exist in the form of

production and export subsidies.

C. Carryover

2. Processor Perspective

The size of the crop is not determined solely by its weight as it crosses the scale. Case yields

represent the ultimate measure of industry production. Case yields are influenced by the quality of

the crop as well as the processing technologies and

efficiencies employed by the processor.

Also of critical importance to the concept of

production is an understanding of the quality of

the finished product since product specifications

lead to its market value. Production also needs to

be viewed on a product category basis to give a

proper perspective to a processor’s product supply

picture.

3. Total Production

In its most basic form, production, therefore, can be defined as the total number of raw tons

adjusted for quality.

Increasing emphasis is being put on carryover stocks as a determinant of price. The value of

timely, accurate, and comprehensive data cannot be

overlooked. If such data is available, product category and quality are of fundamental importance.

Carryover stocks need to be carefully defined

because, depending on where in the marketing

chain they are measured, significantly different

results may be obtained. If stocks are measured in

the processors’ warehouse, then the results have a

greater potential for accuracy because the information is held in relatively few hands. On the other

hand, if the data is also being collected for stocks

held in distribution centers, the information is less

centralized, is sensitive, and therefore less comprehensive. Now we are seeing attempts at quantifying the amount of stocks throughout the distribution system that have not been consumed. This

lends itself to high speculation and asks the question, “What are normal and desirable carryover

levels?”

B. Imports

II. Demand

The second major component of production

is imports into the United States market. On its

face, this information is straightforward and readily available through the U.S. Department of

The definition of demand often used in our

industries is based on the theory that all processed

products are eventually consumed. It follows,

19
therefore, that demand is the same as takeaway

and takeaway is simply the calculation of raw

product production plus imports plus carrying-in

less exports and carrying-out. This may have some

simplistic validity given the discussion above, but

it is absolutely critical that production and carryovers be known with a high degree of certainty or

else the analysis will be unreliable.

A. Consumption

Once the total amount of product removed

from the market is calculated, it is possible to

determine per capita consumption. It is also important to know product category and whether the

product was consumed at the retail, food service,

or industrial level.

B. Exports

Data is available through the U.S.

Department of Commerce and, again, the details

with regard to category quality and destination are

important. Of particular interest may be the difference between the commodity items and those that

are considered value added. While commodity

items are considerably more price sensitive,

exports will vary depending solely (within a given

quality specification) on the price, whereas valueadded products are more price tolerant and tend to

hold their markets during price changes.

C. Farm Gate

Unique to crops whose price is determined

through a bargaining association is the relationship

between the price and the quantity demanded by

processors. When processors want greater quantities of raw product, the price increases; when they

want less, the price generally weakens. Farm gate

demand represents our primary market.

III. Market Conditions

A. Processed Products

The first thought that comes to mind, and

one that is certainly perpetuated by processors

when discussing market conditions, is the volume

and sales price of the finished product.

Sales price is a central factor in understanding market conditions as it provides us with the

pulse of the industry. One may go as far to say that

the market “knows all.” The implications are the

same, the price in a perfectly competitive world is

the level at which fully informed buyers and sellers

are willing to do business. Price in this scenario

performs its rationing function of matching supply

with demand. Some speculate, therefore, that market price can give an accurate picture of carryovers

and demand. As we are painfully aware, we do not

live in a perfect world. Besides, when was the last

time that two processors agreed on anything much

less a reading of the current market. Add to this

uncertainty the processor’s need to project into the

future and develop pack plans.

Of course processors only make one-half of

the’finished products market. The “trade” comprised of many buyers uses its own greatly diversified strategies when it interacts in the market. In

the big picture this market makes up one parameter that bargaining associations must consider during price discovery.

B. Farm Gates

The more immediate market that bargaining

associations need to consider in assessing market

condition is the processing sector they supply. This

is best accomplished by looking at the structure,

conduct, and performance of our respective industries.

1. Structure

The structure refers to the number, size,

and concentration of firms in an industry.

Concentration describes the amount of the market

controlled by the largest firms. The higher the con20
centration the greater the potential impact of a firm

or group of firms on price.*

Structure also includes ownership control

and managerial and technological assets. A question for consideration: How do national brands

impact concentration?

2. Conduct

Unfair Trade Practice legislation was

enacted to address conduct issues that arose in our

industries as processors reacted to the formation of

bargaining associations. Processors continue, albeit

in a much more subtle fashion, to discourage membership and hold bargaining associations’ power in

check. Growers are not truly free to join in a cooperative effort to market their crops without fear of

reprisal of losing market advantage. I would urge

the national bargaining committee to support a

study in this critical area.

3. Performance

Performance is a measure of an industry’s

competitiveness, profitability, and efficiencies. All

of these items should be of vital concern to bargaining associations.

IV. Summary

This brief look at the elements involved in

price discovery does not do justice to the complexities encountered when they are allowed to interact.

A. Relationship

Some relationships are better understood and

clearly recognized as playing an important role in

price discovery. One is the relationship between

stocks and the size of the crop. When we have large

carryovers and are headed for a large crop, we

know the result will be lower prices. Conversely,

small carryovers and a short crop move price

upwards.

Another relationship to consider is the

matching of carryover by category and market with

consumption. Are carryovers in categories and

markets that expressed high demand or did processors pack product for poorly performing markets?

Another set of relationships spin off of the

“discovered” price and therefore influence its

development. The value of unsolved inventories

will be influenced by the new price. Also, there

exists a trigger price threshold wherein imports

will be attracted into the domestic market.

B. Risk and Uncertainty

What do business people do when they face

uncertainty? Well, it’s my experience that they

make a set of assumptions based on what they

expect to happen and then make decisions.

Expectations play a very big role in our industries.

It’s like a double exposure: Which image is real?

The market makes decisions on expectations and

adjusts in relation to whether their expectations

have been fulfilled.

This makes our job of allocating risks

through the price system that much more challenging.

* Knutson, Ronald D. Agricultural and Food Policy

Printice-Hall, Inc. 1983.

21
ATTENDANCE ROSTER

Pacific Coast and National Bargaining

Cooperative Conference

December 2-4,1993

Speakers:

Will Aitchison

P.O. Box 83068

Portland, OR 97283-0068

Phone: 503)621-3019

Kirby Brumfield

10003 SW 60th

Portland, OR 97219

Phone: 503) 246-7072

Donald K. Franklin

Franklin & Bersin

3005 One Union Square

600 University Street

Seattle, WA 98101-3111

Phone: 206) 583-0155

Dr. Mahlon Lang

Center for Cooperatives

University of California, Davis

Davis, CA 95616

Phone: 916) 752-2408

Chuck Swank

Grove, Mueller, Hall, & Swank, P.C.

P.O. Box 2122

Salem, OR 97308

Phone: 503) 581-7788

Dr. Randall Torgerson

USDA/RDA-Cooperative Services

AG Box 3250

Washington, DC 20250-3250

Phone: 202) 720-7558

Delegates:

AGRICULTURAL BARGAINING CENTER

744 Main St.

Presque Isle, ME. 04769

Phone: (207) 764-3380

Beverly Delong

Veron Delong

AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

P.O. Box 1712

Sacramento, CA 95812-1712

Phone: (916) 443-4887

Barry Ross

Karen Barrett Ross

APRICOT PRODUCERS OF CALIFORNIA

1064 Woodland Ave., Ste. E

Modesto, CA 95351

Phone: (209) 524-0801

Eleanor Bays

Gene Bays

Bill Ferreira

Connie Ferreira

CALIFORNIA CANNING PEACH ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 7001

Lafayette, CA 94549

Phone: (510)284-9171

Rich Hudgins

Steve Scheuber

Ron Schuler

CALIFORNIA FREESTONE PEACH

ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 7001

Lafayette, CA 94549

Phone: (510)284-9171

Donna Noeller

Mike Noeller

22
CALIFORNIA PEAR GROWERS

1600 Sacramento Inn Way, Ste. 229

Sacramento, CA 95815

Phone: (916) 924-0530

Marc Faye

Gerda Faye

Stan Hildreth

Bill Johnson

Susie Johnson

Jean-Mari Peltier

CALIFORNIA TOMATO GROWERS

ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 7398

Stockton, CA 95267-0398

Phone: (209) 478-1761

Dick Goldman

Ramona Goldman

Jo Anne Hancock

Denise Sagara

Steve Sagara

John Welt

CENTRAL WASHINGTON FARM

CROPS ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 202

Yakima, WA 98907

Phone: (509) 575-0155

Dick LaFramboise

Mary LaFramboise

Tillie Hoersch

Vie Hoersch

Nelda Larsen

Wayne Larsen

FREMONT PICKLE AND TOMATO

GROWERS ASSOCIATION

1781 CR 161

Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449

Phone: (419) 665-2119

HANSON, BRIDGETT, MARCUS,

VLAHOS, & RUDY

333 Market St., Ste. 2300

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: (415) 777-3200

William J. Bush

Gerald D. Marcus

Stephen B. Peck

HAZELNUT GROWERS BARGAINING

ASSOCIATION

8101 SW Nyberg Rd. #201

Tualatin, OR 97062

Phone: (503) 692-5932

Kelly Klein

Michael Klein

Don Christensen

Laura Christensen

Larry Christenson

Lois Christenson

Bert Coleman

Gerda Coleman

Richard Holzmeyer

Colin Kohlmeyer

Judy Kohlmeyer

Milo Lemert

Victoria Lemert

Al Mansfield

She-She Mansfield

Jenene Marnach

Jim Marnach

Arlene Olson

Keith Olson

Edwin Pardey

Pat Pardey

Charlotte Skurdahl

Elmer Skurdahl

Don Youngblood

Jeanne Youngblood

Milburn Ziegler

Velma Ziegler

Paul Blausey

Sandy Blausey

Daryl Knipp

23
MACMA

P.O. Box 30960

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone: (517) 323-7000

Randy G. Harmson

Will Pugsley

Jerry L. Campbell

Richard L. Walsworth

MACMA Michigan Processing Apple Growers

P.O. Box 30960

Lansing, MI 48909

Phone: (517) 323-7000

Tom Butler

Dawn Mess&

Allan Overhiser

MALHEUR POTATO BARGAINING

ASSOCIATION

Box 665

Vale, OR 97918

Phone: (503) 473-3122

Jack Pressley

Melinda Pressley

Nikki Holmes

Robert Holmes

MICHIGAN ASPARAGUS ADVISORY BOARD

Okemos, MI 48864

Phone: (517) 347-2530

Jan Trommater

Mark Trommater

Harry A. Foster

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF FARMER

COOPERATIVES

50 F Street NW, Ste. 900

Washington, DC 20001

Phone: (202) 626-8700

Leslie Mead

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

One Nationwide Plaza

Columbus, OH 43215

Phone: (202) 626-8700

Harold W. Weihl

Mary Weihl

NEW YORK FARM BUREAU MARKETING

CO-OP APPLE DIV.

17 East Bank St.

Albion, NY 14411

Phone: (716) 589-6209

Ted Furber

NORTHWEST RED RASPBERRY GROWERS

ASSOCIATION

1750 S. Burlington Blvd.

Burlington, WA 98223

Phone: (206) 757-3931

Lee Roy Kirk

Pat GoodJanet Good

Peter T. Sword

OLIVE GROWERS COUNCIL

121 E. Main St., Ste. 8

Visalia, CA 93291

Phone: (209) 734-1710

Adin A. Hester

Pat Akin

ONTARIO VEGETABLE GROWERS

MARKETING BOARD

435 Consortium Court

London, Ontario N6E 2S8

Canada

Phone: (519) 681-1875

John Mumford

Leonard Harwood

Walter Brown

Keith Stran

Sandra Strang

24
PRUNE BARGAINING ASSOCIATION

335 Teegarden Ave.

Yuba City, CA 95993

Phone: (916) 674-5636

Dorothy Lindauer

Ken Lindauer

Bruce Newcomb

Greg Thompson

RAISIN BARGAINING ASSOCIATION

3425 North First St., Ste. 209

Fresno, CA 93276

Phone: (209) 221-1925

Judy Albrecht

Wayne Albrecht

Jill Andreas

Jim Andreas

Dwayne Cardoza

Janet Cardoza

K.K. Cholakian

Seta Cholakian

Carolyn Engleman

Norman Engleman

San Esraelian

Gilbert Garabedian

Rena Garabedian

Ellie Garabedian

Richard Garabedian

Glen Goto

Bob Kaprelian

Esther Kalebjian

John Kalebjian

Miriam Kaprelian

Girard Kasparian

Linda Kister

Steve Kister

Laraine Lauritzen

Monte Lauritzen

Patty Lehman

Steve Lehman

Corkey Lindsey

Betty Lindsey

Connie Nikssarian

Ed Nikssarian

Kim Schutz

Monte Schutz

Frank L. Silva

Janice Silva

Louis Spate

Rosalie Spate

Steve Spate

Tracy Spate

Carilyn Weber

Don Weber

Kim Weber

Mike Weber

Mary Ann Koligian

Vaughn Koligian

Denis Salwasser

Dorothy Salwasser

WASHINTON OREGON ASPARAGUS

GROWERS ASSOCIATION

2810 W. Clearwater Dr., Ste. 202

Kennewick, WA 99336

Phone: (509) 783-3094

Mike Harker

Tom Bergevin

WASHINGTON-OREGON CANNING

PEAR ASSOCIATION

P.O. Box 344

Yakima, WA 98907

Phone: (509) 452-8515

Dick McFarland

Lucille McFarland

25
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Development Administration

Cooperative Services

Ag Box 3200

Washington, D.C. 20250-3200

RDA Cooperative Services provides research, management, and educational assistance

to cooperatives to strengthen the economic position of farmers and other rural residents.

It works directly with cooperative leaders and Federal and State agencies to improve

organization, leadership, and operation of cooperatives and to give guidance to further

development.

Cooperative Services (1 ) helps farmers and other rural residents develop cooperatives

to obtain supplies and services at lower cost and to get better prices for products they

sell; (2) advises rural residents on developing existing resources through cooperative

action to enhance rural living; (3) helps cooperatives improve services and operating

efficiency; (4) informs members, directors, employees, and the public on how

cooperatives work and benefit their members and their communities; and (5)

encourages international cooperative programs.

Cooperative Services publishes research and educational materials and issues Farmer

Cooperatives magazine. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases

apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact the USDA Office of Communications at (202) 720-7808 (TDD).

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C. 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202) 720-l 127 (TDD). USDA

is an equal employment opportunity employer.

-r

i