United States

Department of

Agriculture

Agricultural

Cooperative

Co-op Involvement

in Public Policy

Setiice

Cooperative

Information

Report 42
Abstract

Cooperative Involvement in Public Policy

Donald A. Frederick

Agricultural Cooperative Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Farmer cooperatives are more effective in securing favorable

government decisions when they have an active, structured public policy program. Members play important roles in shaping and

implementing that program.

A cooperative should develop a written set of policy resolutions

and a regular procedure for revising those resolutions. The public policy program should include a plan to implement the resolutions through personal contacts with policymakers and coordinated efforts with other cooperatives and interest groups

through coalitions and trade associations. The cooperative always

strives to act with an abundance of credibility and patience so policymakers will trust, and even seek out, its advice.

Keywords= Cooperative, policy, legislative, administrative, member, communication

Cooperative Information Report 42

May 1993
Preface

Every day elected and appointed government officials make

public policy decisions that have an impact on the way cooperatives and their members do business. Yet most cooperatives

have little or nothing in the way of plans to influence those decisions.

This report focuses on how a cooperative can develop a program to make members’ voices heard in the public policy arena.

The suggestions were developed from numerous interviews with

representatives of cooperatives that have effective public policy

programs, and trade association officials. It doesn’t advocate or

even discuss issues and positions; rather it presents a framework

for cooperative members and leaders to use to identify issues,

set policy objectives, and implement those objectives.

The report describes the roles members, directors, managers,

staff, and outside advisers can play in the policy process. Its

purpose is to encourage cooperatives to develop public policy

programs as a tool to improve the environment in which they

provide services to their members.
Contents

. . . Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III

What Is “Public Policy?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*.........*.............................. 2

Who Are the Policymakers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*............................. 2

Getting Started . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Written Policy Resolutions ....................................................... 5

What Makes an Effective Policy Statement? .................. 5

Who Identifies Possible Issues To Be Addressed? ......... 6

Resolutions Committee ................................................... 8

Membership Ratification ............................................... 12

Implementing the Policy Resolutions .................................... 14

Member Education / Communication ............................ 15

Direct Contact with Policymakers .................................. 17

Testifying at Formal Hearings ........................................ 21

Fundraiser Question ...................................................... 23

Indirect Political Action .................................................. 24

Don’t Forget the Staff .................................................... 24

Value of Coalitions ......................................................... 25

Trade Associations ........................................................ 25

Grassroots Response ................................................... 26

Twin Towers of Success - Credibility and Patience.. .. 27

Determining Success .................................................... 28
Highlights

Cooperatives that develop long-term public policy programs

to complement their long-term business plan have the greatest chance of achieving their overall objectives. Cooperatives

with no public policy program forfeit the opportunity to influence government decisionmaking to competitors and other

interests that do.

Most cooperatives become active in public policy only after an

adverse proposal or decision. However, a key director or employee can start a program if that person is sensitive to member

concerns and is willing to do the work.

The foundation of a policy program is a set of written policy resolutions. The policies anticipate problems and opportunities, and

guide cooperative leaders in attempting to influence policy decisions. Members, managers, staff, advisers, and directors are all

good sources of ideas for policies. A resolutions committee is

a good vehicle for sifting through suggestions and developing

a draft package of resolutions for the membership. Members

should have the option to modify or reject proposed policies,

and to enact alternative policies if they so choose.

Member education and communication can develop a commitment for the policy program and prompt a grassroots effort

in support of a policy initiative. Direct contacts with policymakers at cooperative functions and in other settings are the

key to influencing decisions. Financial support for elected officials who agree with cooperative positions is a part of a complete program.

Cooperatives should also look beyond the basic citizen/policymaker relationship. Civic involvement, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns, enhances the political process and the cooperative’s public image. Contacts with staff

members who serve officials can be as useful as those with the

. . .

III
official. Coalitions and trade associations increase visibility and

influence. A grassroots outpouring of support from members

can be the most effective vehicle for influencing policy.

While there is no straightforward way to measure success of a

public policy program, cooperatives that strive for credibility and

show patience usually develop the best long-term relations with

policymakers. Such cooperatives become decisionmakers’ contacts for advice and responses on various issues.

iv
Cooperative Involvement

in Public Policy

Farmers live in a business world and a political world. In the business world, no one gives

you a fair price just because you deserve it.

You must have market power to obtain the

price you deserve. Likewise, in the political

world no one gives you a fair law just because

you deserve it. You must have political power

to get and protect the laws you deserve.

Attributed to F. R. (Fran) Wilcox,

California Fruit Growers Exchange (Sunkist).

I

n the early days of our republic, America was an agrarian

society. The farmers’ voice was the voice of the people. In

1922, the year the Capper-Volstead Act became law, the farmers’ voice was still strong. Thirty-two million Americans lived on

farms, roughly 30 percent of our population. In 1990, our 4.8

million rural farm residents counted for less than 2 percent of

our total population.l If farmers and their cooperatives want a

favorable public policy now, they really have to work for one.

As most federated and large centralized cooperatives

already have a public policy program, this report is aimed primarily at smaller cooperatives who may have little or no organized activity in this area. To some local cooperative leaders the

suggestions may seem to be too ambitious. But experience has

shown that cooperatives maximize their chances of being successful when they develop both a long-range business plan (perhaps 5 years) and a long-range public policy plan designed to

help achieve the goals of the business plan. While some situations

l U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricuhral Statistics, various issues,

1962-90.
arise quickly and call for an immediate decision on how to

respond, the more a cooperative can anticipate problems, the

better job it usually does of managing them.

This report is based on the programs of cooperatives that

have been effective in making the collective voice of their members heard on Federal, State, and local policy issues. It focuses on

how cooperative members identify issues they wish to influence, set objectives, and develop action plans to achieve those

objectives. Special emphasis is placed on the role of the member. Experience shows that it is the members and the association and its staff, working together, that make the most effective team for achieving results.

WHAT IS “PUBLIC POLICY?”

While there is no single definition of public policy, for purposes of this paper it will be defined as both government actions

intended to affect the lives of its citizens and the conscious decision of the government not to act where it has the authority to

act. The public policy process is the systematic determination

of when and how the government will act. Chaotic as the process

may sometimes appear, decisions by legislative bodies and

administrative agencies are made according to rules. These rules

usually provide ample opportunity for citizen input. Citizens

who take advantage of those opportunities are the ones who

most often receive the policies they want.

WHO ARE THE POLICYMAKERS?

Most public officials affecting policies for cooperatives fit

into one of two general classifications. The first is elected legislators. City council members, county supervisors, State representatives, and Members of Congress fall into this category. They

draft and pass laws that set the general rules for policy. They

stand for election on a regular basis and can be replaced by their

constituents.

Other public officials influencing cooperatives’ policies are

primarily appointed administrators. Zoning officials, environ2
mental compliance inspectors, revenue agents, and the Secretary

of Agriculture are part of this group. These officials interpret

and apply the law to specific situations.

Some parallels can be drawn between the way policy is

developed in the public and private sectors. Legislators are somewhat like directors as they are democratically elected and set

general policy. Administrators are like management as they are

appointed and make decisions that implement policy

In the public sector, a few high-ranking elected officials

play a major role in both setting and administering policy. This

group includes mayors, governors, and the President and VicePresident of the United States. These persons usually are the

ones authorized to appoint other administrators. They work

with their “team” to develop and propose legislation and to

influence the legislative process. They frequently have the authority to veto legislation they don’t want to see enacted (although

a large majority of the legislators can usually override a veto).

They fill the role of the chief executive officer of a cooperative,

but are responsible to their entire constituency, not just a board

of directors.

Judges are another important group of policymakers. Their

role in the policy process is to decide disputes over what the

law actually says. Often these disputes are between private citizens and the administrative agencies. As this aspect of policy is

set through litigation essentially outside the normal political

process, it won’t be covered in this report. But a key question

in setting policy that must always be considered is, “Will it stand

up in court?”

GElTING STARTED

Having emphasized the importance of the members to an

effective public policy program, it would be nice to report that

such programs often rise on a groundswell of member enthusiasm for such service from their cooperative. Unfortunately, that

just isn’t the case. Too many members don’t recognize the importance of a favorable public policy to the success of their coop3
erative, feel overwhelmed by the political process, or believe

the process is tainted and should be avoided to escape personal contamination.

Farmers by nature react cautiously to any suggestion of

change. And having their cooperative move from a passive to

an active role in the public policy process can be perceived as a

big change. To be successful, proponents must be sensitive to

member concerns and conduct themselves accordingly.

Cooperatives with sound policy programs almost always

received their initial spark from one or more enlightened leaders. A strong board president and/or manager recognized the

impact public policy had on the cooperative and made it a personal priority to educate directors and other members about the

policy process. Sometimes, this education was assisted by a critical issue or detrimental government decision that “woke up”

the membership. Other times, the leadership laid the ground

work for such activity and gradually brought the membership

along.

A good way to begin a public policy program is to have

the directors and key staff members meet to compile a list of the

ways government seems to intrude on their management of the

cooperative. The initial focus is on negatives because it is usually

easier for people to identify policies they perceive as treating

them unfairly than to visualize how a policy could be modified

to create an opportunity. A subsequent meeting might focus on

policy changes that will promote the cooperative’s business

objectives.

Once a consensus develops that the list of problems is fairly

comprehensive, the items listed might be prioritized in terms of the

relative level of impact. No cooperative should seek to solve all the

world’s problems. Attempts to influence policy use resources

(funds, management time, support staff) just as does a packaging, processing or distribution activity Priorities have to be established just as in other areas of member service.

Next, a cut-off line could be drawn so that effort can be

focused on those problems most in need of attention. This is a

4
continuation of the prioritizing process. It limits association

objectives to high-priority items.

Finally, the group might discuss how government programs

might be changed to minimize their negative effect or even

become beneficial to the cooperative.

One temptation to be resisted, especially by smaller cooperatives, is to focus all efforts on the glitzy, national issues that

are discussed on network news shows. This is especially crucial

when the political trend is for the Federal Government to decentralize responsibility in areas of rising importance - environmental compliance, water quality and availability, food safety

- and the States and localities are filling the void with new regulatory initiatives sometimes funded by fees on the regulated.

The resulting list of desirable solutions can be the first draft

of the initial set of public policy objectives for the cooperative.

WRITTEN POLICY RESOLUTIONS

A set of written guidelines adopted by members has proven

to be the most effective way to identify public policy issues the

cooperative should seek to influence. These guidelines are often

called policy statements or resolutions. Regardless of the size

of the cooperative, the complexity of its operations, or the number and variety of issues and forums it wishes to influence, written policy statements are the foundation of a fruitful public policy program.

What Makes an Effective Policy Statement?

First, an effective policy accurately reflects the objectives

of the membership. Second, the policy should be concise enough

to bind association representatives to the position of the members, yet flexible enough that when those representatives are in

difficult negotiating sessions - whether with U.S. Senators or the

local board of zoning appeals - compromises can be worked

out.

Writing effective policy statements is virtually an art form.

Every written document, from a laundry ticket to the U.S.

5
Constitution, is subject to personal interpretation. The drafters

of a cooperative’s public policy resolutions should be those members and advisers best able to phrase ideas clearly and precisely

Who Identifies Possible Issues To Be Addressed?

In the description of how a cooperative might start a public

policy program, the board and management hold a joint meeting to explore possible issues to consider. Once the policy program is established, anyone with a stake in the success of the

cooperative can be a good source of ideas for policies.

Members The role of the cooperative is to improve the quality

of life of its members. Members should be encouraged to be

alert for both opportunities and problems and to bring

potential issues to the leadership’s attention. Cooperatives that

ask members to identify issues find that being receptive to

member suggestions builds member loyalty. This keeps the

leadership in tune with member concerns so the management

devotes its efforts to matters that are important to the

members.

Management Managers and other employees have continuous

contact with the operation of the business and thus have a

special perspective on government programs that aid or

inhibit the firm’s efforts. Managers also often have access to

sources of information about the industry environment that

aren’t readily available to - or of any particular interest to -

producers, such as trade publications, professional

associations, suppliers, and customers.

Field Staff While all employees can provide useful input on

policy matters, field representatives have proven especially

helpful in this regard. Cooperatives with persons who

regularly visit member farms or businesses should train these

employees to encourage members to talk about problems and

opportunities the members see, and to relay those ideas to top

6
management. Many people with valid concerns and good

ideas simply don’t feel comfortable expressing their thoughts

in a group setting. But they may be willing to talk one-on-one

with a staff person in a private setting.

Field representatives also observe what’s happening among

the members on a regular basis and develop insights of their

own. Management should encourage field staff to come forward

with their thoughts as they can often spot potential and festering problems in time to develop a plan of action before a crisis

occurs.

Outside Directors and Advisers If the association has one or

more outside directors, those persons can be useful in spotting

issues in their areas of expertise. In the absence of an

appropriate outside director, professional advisers can fulfill

this role. Such persons can be especially helpful in dealing

with technical fields such as insurance, environmental

compliance, finance and credit, and legal issues.

Farmer Directors Farmer directors have the unique

perspective of being exposed to both on-farm experiences and

corporate inside information. They should include identifying

policy issues of importance to the cooperative as an element in

their duty to oversee the general viability of the organization.

When an issue arises that isn’t covered by a policy statement

and can’t wait until the next membership meeting, the board of

directors has the duty to provide guidance to management. This

has occasionally led directors to resist a comprehensive package

of policies as an infringement on their flexibility to manage the

affairs of the cooperative as they see fit. Experience indicates,

however, that directors shouldn’t monopolize the process of developing policy positions. Member involvement has produced better

policies and stronger grassroots support for those policies and

the cooperative.
The Resolutions Committee

Cooperatives with successful public policy programs usually

make effective use of a resolutions committee. The resolutions committee serves as a clearinghouse of ideas. It gathers and organizes

suggested policies, endorses or rejects the suggestions, amends

suggested wording as necessary, and reports policies it approves to

the membership for final adoption or rejection.

The board president usually appoints the chairperson and

other members of the resolutions committee. Someone is also

designated to keep an accurate record of each action taken by

the committee and the exact wording of each resolution as

approved by the committee. This assignment often goes to a

clerical professional such as a secretary or the cooperative manager’s administrative assistant.

Commiffee Membership The resolutions committee is usually

primarily a membership committee, not a board committee. It

may be chaired by a director and one or more other directors

may be members, but a majority of the committee is often

composed of some of the more astute members who aren’t on

the board. This has been found to offer several advantages.

First, it gives members confidence that the association isn’t

dominated by the board and/or management. Second, it gives

the board president the opportunity to give a voice to

geographic areas, young farmers, and other interests within

the cooperative that may not be represented on the board.

Third, it can be used as a training exercise for prospective new

directors. Service on this committee can expose them to the

issues confronting the cooperative and give the organization a

chance to observe them in a group decisionmaking situation

and assess their likely effectiveness as board members.

Experience also indicates some people should not be

assigned to this committee. One is the crusader, the single issue

advocate. Often, this person’s position is a distinct minority

view within the association. Crusaders may unduly prolong

meetings by talking at great length about the issue of concern.

8
Sometimes, the group endorses a questionable position just to

placate the crusader and move on to other matters.

Another type of person best avoided is the ideologue, who

views any issue as less important than a political or business

philosophy. The public policy process, even within the cooperative, is frequently an exercise in the art of compromise. The

member who’ll fight endlessly over the proper philosophical

approach to every issue can be a disruptive factor.

Proven Procedures One procedure that helps build member

confidence in the system is to require that all policy suggestions

come from members. Some proposals may originate with staff,

outside advisers, or government officials, but they can all be

funneled to the committee through a member.

Some cooperatives have member committees to monitor

different areas of concern. The member chairperson of the committee can communicate the committee’s recommendations to

the resolutions committee. If a member can’t be found to propose a policy, chances are the policy isn’t in the best interests of

the membership.

Another proven procedure is to require that all proposed

policies be submitted to a designated official of the cooperative

well before the committee meets. Sufficient time should be allotted to have all proposals reproduced and distributed to the committee members a few days before the meeting. This gives the

committee members time to review proposals, contact the sponsor and ask questions for clarification, and seek the advice of

others on how to deal with the different ideas raised. Some cooperatives follow this procedure strictly and require sponsors of

proposals that don’t meet the deadline to hold them until next

year or take them personally to the membership meeting for

adoption. Others are more flexible, usually expressing displeasure

at receiving a last-minute proposal but dealing with it anyway.

The last-minute resolution is certainly difficult to handle.

The proponent has time to organize a presentation, the committee members must react without having time to think through

the policy’s possible repercussions.

9
The resolutions committee of associations that accept late

proposals often view them skeptically and reject any that are

controversial or not clearly understood. While this occasionally means a good policy is temporarily deferred, most cooperatives find this is preferable to endorsing a policy that wasn’t

properly reviewed and then finding it generates a divisive floor

battle during the membership’s annual meeting, or is adopted

and then leads to unforeseen problems for the cooperative.

The resolutions committee usually meets only once each

year, just before the membership’s annual meeting. Many cooperatives, conscious of the need to encourage member involvement and to dispel any perception that the leadership is hiding

something from the members, open the resolutions committee

meeting to all members. This has worked well, so long as the

chairperson limits participation in discussion by persons not on

the committee to responding to questions and making comments

to clarify points under discussion.

The Sifting Process The biggest responsibility of the

resolutions committee is the so-called sifting process,

determining which proposals to approve and which to reject.

Fortunately, most proposals are noncontroversial. They

originate from persons who have the best interests of the

association at heart and realistic expectations of what can be

accomplished. However, the committee has a duty not to

routinely rubber-stamp every proposal brought to it. It

should only approve resolutions it understands and the

majority clearly believes are in the best interest of the

association.

The committee should never approve a questionable resolution on the assumption (or hope) that the membership will

reject it or, if enacted, the leadership will choose not to implement

it. This may place an unfair burden on the board and on management in particular. The leadership often has to prioritize policies because it doesn’t have the resources to push all of them at

once. This chore becomes more difficult if even one member is

vigorously calling for a concerted effort on behalf of a less impor1 0
tant, or even undesirable, policy.

An important element of the sifting process is to anticipate the consequences of adopting a policy and having it implemented. Sometimes a policy which, at first glance, appears to be

in the best interests of the cooperative may, upon closer examination, pose problems that should be avoided.

For example, several members of a cooperative dealing in

animal products were having trouble

proposed a policy calling for eradicati

with a wild predator

.on of the bothersome

and

anileast

foremal. While this policy would have been popular with at

some portion of the membership, the resolutions committee

saw that it would also have alienated environmental and animal rights groups. After a brisk discussion, the committee voted

to reject the proposed policy. It made the difficult decision on

the basis that it was more in the best interest of the association to

avoid a confrontation with these groups than to support the

members’ proposal.

In another example, dairy producers convinced their State’s

milk control commission to raise the price handlers had to pay

in-State producers of milk above market levels. The producers

failed to foresee that processors would arrange for out-of-State

milk to be shipped into the State at less total cost to them than

local milk. Cooperative leaders, unable to stop the flow of milk

from out-of-State and unable to reverse the price increase rapidly enough to protect their members, resorted to under-the-table

rebates to processors to make sales. This, in turn, led to a protracted lawsuit by members against the cooperative, its directors, and the handlers. All could have been avoided if the producers had thought through the consequences of their push for

high mandatory minimum prices. See Knuth v. Erie-Crawford

Dairy Cooperative Ass’n, 463 F.2d 470 (3rd Cir. 1972).

Review of Existing Policies While this discussion has focused

on development of new policies, cooperatives should also

review existing policies on a regular basis. The chairperson of

the resolutions committee should make sure all committee

members have a copy of the existing resolutions well before

11
the meeting so they have time to consider possible

modifications. The chairperson might also meet with the

manager and board president to look for policies that are

outdated or appropriate for change.

Many cooperatives require the resolutions committee to

review policies that have not been given formal consideration

for a specific number of years, often 5 years. The committee recommends to the membership that such policies be reaffirmed,

amended, or deleted. While some view discarding old policies

the same way they view discarding old slippers, something to be

avoided at virtually any cost, it is a good idea to delete policies

that have outlived their usefulness. This mandatory review procedure provides a vehicle to keep the policies current and management’s attention focused on the issues that really need to be

addressed.

In summary, the job of the resolutions committee is to develop a set of policy resolutions that reflect positions that are in the

best interest of the membership as a whole, not a vocal or emotional member or minority and not a particular segment of the

association, such as the directors and/or the largest producers.

If the committee performs its role well, it sets a solid foundation

for the entire public policy program of the cooperative.

Membership Ratification

Cooperative leaders are sometimes tempted to keep things

simple and handle policy matters themselves. Good leaders will

be ever mindful of the basic principle that a cooperative is controlled by its members. Final approval of the policy resolutions

should rest with the membership.

Ideally, the resolutions committee meets several weeks

before the members’ annual meeting so policy resolutions can be

distributed to the members for their careful review before they

arrive at the annual meeting. However, this is usually unrealistic.

It can be difficult to get the resolutions committee members to

come to a special meeting and it’s an administrative burden for

the staff to do a mass mailing of the resolutions.

Thus, the resolutions committee frequently meets at the

12
beginning of the annual meeting. When the committee adjourns,

the staff should prepare a report for the membership containing the recommendations of the resolutions committee, showing clearly whether each recommendation is a reaffirmation of an

existing policy, deletion of an existing policy, amendment to an

existing policy, or a proposed new policy. The report should be

made available to members attending the annual meeting as

promptly as possible. Consideration of the resolutions should

be at a scheduled time during the annual meeting.

Objectives of the resolution adoption process should be

twofold, to enact the best possible resolutions and to build within members a positive attitude toward both the cooperative and its

policies. Often the most important factor in determining how successful the association is in meeting those objectives is the skill

of the presiding officer in controlling the discussion.

The presiding officer should be familiar with parliamentary procedure and insist that it be followed. Experience indicates it is usually best to have the board president chair the meeting and to have the chairperson of the resolutions committee

move the adoption of each resolution committee recommendation on an individual basis. A recording secretary, perhaps the

same person who performed that duty at the resolutions committee meeting, should be appointed to keep an accurate record

of all happenings.

If the resolutions committee has met its primary responsibility of drafting resolutions that accurately reflect the desires of

the membership as a whole, member votes can move at a fairly

brisk pace. However, it is important that members have the

opportunity to question committee spokesperson(s) about any

resolution; to offer amendments to committee proposals; and, at

the conclusion of the votes on committee proposals, to offer other

policy proposals from the floor.

The skill of the person running the meeting to control discussion and action becomes critical when a resolutions committee proposal is challenged and when new policies are offered

from the floor. The presiding officer must be able to exercise

good judgment in assessing the merits of the proposal and the

13
degree of support it has among the members. Hopefully, he or

she will be aware in advance of floor proposals and be ready to

handle them in an appropriate manner.

An effective presiding officer uses the inherent authority

of the chair judiciously. Discussion of a sensible alternative with

widespread support might continue for a reasonable time. A

less meritorious proposal with limited support can be dealt with

more expeditiously.

Nothing chills membership enthusiasm for the resolutions

review like a long, rambling speech by a member, no matter how

laudable the speaker’s intention might be. Perhaps the best tool

available to the presiding officer to keep the meeting running

smoothly is a rule, adopted by the membership, limiting any

one member’s right to speak on any one issue to a relatively

short time. Two- or three-minute limits are not unreasonable.

Then the rule should be enforced, with the understanding that

the presiding officer may grant a limited extension to someone

making a particularly important point about a valid membership concern.

Once the annual meeting is over, the secretary should see

that the changes are combined with continuing policies in an

organized fashion to produce a single, cogent document that

expresses the official public policy positions of the cooperative.

IMPLEMENTING THE POLICY RESOLUTIONS

Drafting, evaluating, and enacting public policy resolutions is of limited value unless everyone in the cooperative structure is committed to achieving the stated objectives. This section of the report looks at strategies used by cooperatives that

have been active and influential in forming public policy.

These strategies weren’t automatically successful. They

worked because the cooperatives that used them were willing to

invest the time and effort to make them work.

The strategies must be used in a coordinated fashion to

craft desired results. While the following discussion attempts

to classify various elements of an effective policy program, sub14
stantial overlap occurs because implementing any one element

requires use of some of the other elements.

Member Education / Communication

As discussed earlier, members may be reluctant to become

involved in the public policy process. Once involved, their participation must be continually supported. Thus, a first priority in

establishing an effective public policy program is effective member education and communication. This can build member understanding and interest in the public policy program, inform members about issues of concern, and turn out grassroots response

when direct member involvement is needed to implement a policy position.

Both written and personal contacts are important. The cornerstone of the education and communications effort is a regular (usually monthly) newsletter from the leadership to the members informing them of association developments. Each

newsletter should report on public policy activities. This provides a regular source of information to the members and reinforces other actions to convince them of the importance of this

cooperative activity.

Board meetings and the annual membership meeting

should include a public affairs report. Directors and members

should be encouraged to ask questions of the person making

the presentation. This brings director and member concerns into

the open and builds familiarity and confidence in the public policy activity.

When circumstances warrant, leaders of cooperatives with

successful policy programs schedule member briefings to discuss

public policy issues. Some cooperatives schedule these sessions on

a regular, periodic basis to keep members continually informed

about, and involved in, the policy process. Others only call such

meetings when a crisis arrives. Some do both.

Successful planning meetings have common traits. Sessions

are usually held in the evening, after members have met most of

their farm and off-farm job responsibilities. Generally, coopera15
tive staff explains issues identified as important, and ample time

is provided for comments and questions from the membership.

One rule of thumb is to limit invitations to any one session $

so no more than 50 persons are likely to attend. This seems to

be about the maximum number of participants that allows members to ask questions and comment without making the meeting

last so long it loses its impact.

Another proven guideline is to schedule enough meetings

so all invitees can drive to a site in less than 1 hour. Many members

have other important demands on their time that make them reluctant to spend too much time in transit to any meeting.

Cooperatives with a large number of members and/or

members spread over a large geographic area often conduct local

or district meetings. Members are frequently asked to attend a

specific meeting, usually the one closest to their home. But they

are free to come to another session if for any reason the one nearest to them isn’t convenient.

If a cooperative really wants to stimulate attendance, serve

a good, free meal. People appreciate this amenity and it makes

them feel the cooperative is providing something pleasant and

useful for their time and effort, so they turn out.

Some thought should also go into the timing of the meetings. Avoid busy times for members, such as harvest. If possible,

it often helps to time meetings after an important event such as

a major industry meeting or a regular public occurrence; for

example, a crop report. This gives the session a current focus

and the prospect of an update becomes another incentive for

members to attend.

A side benefit of special meetings to discuss current issues

is their potential to attract new members. One cooperative executive reported that he frequently invites potential members to

this type of meeting to expose them to the leadership the association plays in resolving policy problems. He estimates that if he

signs up one new member a meeting, it pays for the meeting.
.

Direct Contacts with Policymakers

Personal contact is the most effective way to secure a commitment of support for a policy the cooperative wants. One of

the hardest things for an elected official to do is look a constituent

in the eye, especially a constituent considered to be a friend, and

say he or she can’t support the position of the constituent.

While the discretion of administrative officials is constrained

by the scope of the statutes they implement, they often have

some decisionmaking authority Cooperatives should also take

steps to get to know key administrators and educate them about

the cooperative and its objectives.

A Register of “Who Knows Whom” In building a public policy

program, an important early step is identifying those persons

within the organization who have personal contacts with

policymakers that might be used to benefit the membership as

a whole. Cooperative leaders who have taken the time to ask

are often surprised to discover how many members are

service club colleagues, high school and college friends,

business acquaintances, and even relatives of important

policymakers in the community and sometimes at the State

and Federal levels as well.

A key to learning of these relationships is asking in the

appropriate way. Many people are intimidated by large groups

and won’t want to speak up on anything, let alone personal relationships. This issue is better raised in a small, local meeting or

during a one-on-one conversation.

Also, to just ask “Do you know any politicians?” may turn

off the respondent or not jog his or her memory enough to elicit a complete answer. The questioner should have a list of the

policymaking bodies the cooperative works with and a real problem in mind. Then the issue can be raised, such as: “Joe, we’re

having a tough time getting the road in front of our farm supply

store resurfaced. Do you know anyone on the county board of

supervisors we might ask for some help?”

Once the subject of knowing public policymakers is on the

17
table, then the questioner can run through the other public bodies on the cooperative’s list.

As contacts are discovered, they should be collected in a

central file. When a particular public official needs to be contacted, the file can be checked. If any member or members know

the official personally, they can be asked to help the coopera- ,

tive in one of two ways. If the leadership has confidence in the

ability of the member to communicate the cooperative’s concerns to the official, that member can be asked to convey the

cooperative’s views directly. Otherwise, the member can be asked

to contact the official and request that he or she meet with the

appropriate cooperative spokesperson to discuss the matter. This

can be a big help not only in gaining access to an official but

also in securing the full attention of the official during the meeting.

Speaking invitations An excellent way to familiarize

policymakers with the cooperative and the membership to

policymakers is to invite government officials to speak at

cooperative functions. This gives the official visibility and an

opportunity to solicit grassroots support for programs he or

she advocates. It gives the cooperative the chance to educate

the official on how the services of the cooperative benefit the

community and to establish name and face recognition that

may increase the value of contacts at a later date.

Here are a few tips that can increase the goodwill value of

the visit:

l Most people like to hear a policymaker express views that

coincide with their own. Unless a cooperative has a tolerant

membership, invitations should be limited to persons who will

say things members want to hear. There are valid reasons for

inviting policymakers to speak who don’t share the views of the

membership: to expose the members to ideas they should hear,

or to educate the speaker to the wisdom of the views of the members. But the usual result is a disgruntled membership asking

why it was asked to waste its time listening to someone with

opposite views.
l Be ready to be flexible on scheduling. If the visiting official is scheduled to speak at lunch but arrives at 10 a.m. and

wants to speak right away, be accommodating if at all possible.

Many elected and appointed officials have busy schedules that

change quickly for reasons that really are beyond their control.

If the cooperative can help them out of a bind one day, they may

be more willing to go the extra mile to help get the cooperative

out of a bind another time.

Occasionally, a public official will have to cancel on short

notice. In many instances, they will offer to make a member of

their staff available to fill the void. The importance of staff contacts

will be discussed later. For now, let’s just say the cooperative

should welcome the staff member and treat that person with the

same respect it would have shown the invited official.

l Use the public official to reinforce your educational efforts

on the need for active involvement in the public policy process.

Most public officials believe in the public policy process and

will gladly include some comments in their remarks about the

importance of working with policymakers. These comments,

coming from a public official, will often carry more weight than

the same comments from a cooperative official.

l Consider establishing some form of award program, to

tie the cooperative to the most important policy figures it seeks

to influence. Being designated an award recipient makes it more,

difficult for many people to turn down an invitation to speak

(some cooperatives may have made the presentation of the award

contingent on agreeing to speak). And a nice plaque commemorating the award might well be hung in the recipient’s office

putting the cooperative’s name in constant view of the policymaker and everyone who visits the office.

l If the official’s schedule permits, give him or her time to

meet the members. This is especially important if your guest is an

elected official. Often the leadership will want to discuss important issues with the official while they have a captive audience.

Try to schedule a large enough block of time with the official to

both discuss those issues in a quiet setting and provide the opportunity for some handshaking and small talk with the members.

19
If the function is held at or near a cooperative facility, a

tour can be included. This will impress the visiting official with

the people (voting constituents) of the cooperative. And it will

give members and employees a good feeling about the cooperative because the cooperative brought them into personal contact

with someone important.

If a speaking invitation isn’t practical, a special visit to the

cooperative can also be beneficial. While it doesn’t have the impact

of direct contact with the membership, it does give leadership the

opportunity to show the official how the cooperative benefits the

community and to talk about issues in a controlled setting.

Once the visit is over, send a prompt and thoughtful thankyou letter to the guest. Even if the visit didn’t go well, let the

official know the cooperative appreciated the guest taking time

from his or her busy schedule and that the cooperative looks

forward to working with the official in the future. This is the

chance to make the last impression of the contact on the policymaker an upbeat and positive one, smoothing further access

when it’s needed.

Visiting a Policymaker A successful call on a legislative or

administrative official is like any other business conference;

careful preparation is essential to accomplishing your goals.

One important planning decision is determining who’ll represent the cooperative. The representative group should be limited

to persons who’ll add something to the meeting. Someone who can

speak articulately about the cooperative and an expert on the

issue under consideration should be included. Both roles may, of

course, be fulfilled by the same individual.

If the person being visited is an elected official, one or more

constituents should be included if possible. A “Who Knows

Whom” register can be useful in identifying the best possible

constituents to ask to attend.

Once the attendees are identified, the leadership should

decide what points will be raised and who’ll explain them.

During this process the planners should keep in mind that last

minute scheduling requirements of the official being visited may

20
necessitate that the meeting be brief, perhaps shorter than originally planned or than they would like. A succinct presentation

should be planned, one that permits the official to ask questions

if time permits.

Major points should be outlined in a written briefing paper

that can be left with the official. Preferably, the paper will be

limited to one page. If a long paper has been prepared, highlights should be presented on the cover page. This helps the official refresh his or her memory about the cooperative’s position

when the issue comes up for decision. The paper can also be

copied and distributed to other policymakers, by both the cooperative and the official visited, thereby increasing the exposure

of the cooperative and its policy position.

Spokespersons should be individuals who can be trusted to

stick to the points and not confuse the issue with a volley of personal opinions. Questions should be answered by the person

best able to respond unless the official requests the views of a

particular individual.

All cooperative representatives should be able to handle a

question they don’t know how to answer. That means not trying

to make up an answer, but rather stating they don’t know but

will make every effort to find the answer and respond as soon as

possible.

Everyone should be courteous and respectful throughout

the meeting, even if the attendees aren’t pleased with the official’s

reaction to their comments. And after the meeting, one or more

of the attendees should write and thank the official for taking

time to discuss their views. Each visit should be considered part

of a long-term program to improve the public policy environment for the cooperative. That can mean accepting disappointments gracefully to maximize the chances of winning other victories down the road.

Testifying at Formal Hearings

As the cooperative’s interest and expertise in various issues

becomes recognized, it may be invited to present formal testi21
mony at a public hearing. Both legislative and administrative

bodies use hearings as a means of gathering information and

testing the level of support for various policy proposals.

i

Most hearings allow for submission of a written statement

for inclusion in the hearing record, an oral statement by the witness, and an opportunity for the persons conducting the hearing

to ask questions if they so choose. As soon as the request to

appear is received, the cooperative should find out if there are

any limits on the length of the written statement or the oral presentation and plan its presentations accordingly.

As for oral testimony, experienced witnesses plan for a short

presentation even if the body conducting the hearing doesn’t

request one in advance. Hearing schedules, like other aspects of the

policy process, have a tendency to be compressed by other

demands for time. While the cooperative witness may have been

told he or she would have up to 15 minutes to talk, as the witness gets ready to begin the presentation the person chairing the

hearing is likely to say, “Ms. Smith, we are running a little behind

schedule. We’ll include your entire written statement in the record.

Would you summarize your main points in 2 or 3 minutes please.”

The prepared witness calmly responds “Yes, Mr. (Madam)

Chairman” and presents the summary prepared in anticipation

of just such a request.

The same careful planning should go into selecting who’ll

testify and what points to cover, as in preparing for visiting a

decisionmaker. Particular attention should be focused on selecting the witness. Because the appearance, including the question

and answer period, is public the person selected should be both

a good speaker and able to respond to questions with reasoned

and concise answers.

While an appearance at a hearing can advance a public policy program, the benefits aren’t always what they might seem

to be. Cooperatives that testify on a regular basis have found

their testimony may have little impact on the outcome of the

issue under consideration. Much more is often accomplished

during personal meetings with key officials. Taking part in hearings can supplement the personal contacts, but shouldn’t be con22
sidered as a substitute for those contacts.

Hearing appearances can, however, have a positive impact

on the perception of the public policy program within the cooperative. They are a sign that the cooperative has status in the policy arena and that the resources devoted to the policy process

are bringing results. That perception can be enhanced by a prominent story on each appearance in the cooperative newsletter and

a report on the testimony in public policy briefings to the directors and members. Most hearings permit, or even encourage, taking pictures. Shots of the cooperative spokesperson giving testimony or shaking hands with officials before or after the hearing

can be displayed in newsletters and at member meetings.

Public officials, particularly elected officials, appreciate having themselves mentioned to the people in a positive light. Copies

of complimentary articles and pictures that include public officials

should be forwarded to the officials so they know the cooperative

is publicizing their involvement with the cooperative.

Fundraiser Question

Probably the most delicate issue in planning a public policy program is dealing with the need of elected officials to raise

money to finance election campaigns.

Direct contributions of a business’s funds to persons running for office are generally prohibited by law. However, individuals with an interest in a company or industry can provide a

limited amount of personal funds to a combined pool of money

for making contributions on behalf of that company or industry. Several cooperatives and cooperative trade associations have

such a Political Action Committee (PAC) fund.

Overall responsibility for administering the PAC is usually vested in a public affairs committee composed of cooperative

members. This committee usually helps raise funds and sets limits on contributions to individual candidates. It also plays a role

in deciding who will receive contributions. Sometimes it merely establishes guidelines for management and in other instances

it prepares the list of recipients.

23
While the PAC can be an important part of a public policy

program, drawbacks may make it impractical for many local

cooperatives to form a PAC. If a local cooperative is part of a

federated system or a State or national cooperative trade association, it can participate in campaign financing through the

larger organization’s PAC.

Indirect Political Action

Far less controversial is the participation by a cooperative

in so-called apolitical or indirect political action. This involves

nonpartisan efforts to get cooperative members and other citizens

to exercise their political rights, particularly the right to vote.

Many cooperatives lend their good name as well as financial

and personnel support for voter registration and get-out-thevote efforts. These activities increase public awareness of the

cooperative and enhance its image as a solid corporate citizen in

the community.

Don’t Forget the Staff

Legislators and administrative officials must frequently

deal with vastly different issues in rapid-fire succession. It is

impossible for them to be experts in the subtleties of all the issues

to the degree of persons focusing on a single issue. Therefore,

they rely on staff members and advisers with expertise in specific

fields to give them direction.

Two types of staff members are usually targeted for special attention, senior advisers to officials of particular importance to the cooperative and staff persons assigned to issues of

special significance. Cooperative leaders should get to know

these people on an individual basis. As with public officials,

efforts should be made to identify members with personal relationships with staff who can facilitate initial contacts.

In some ways, working with staff is easier than working

with officials. Staff is often easier to contact. And staff members frequently have a knowledge of the issue that permits a more thorough discussion of the nuances involved. While some people
complain that staff members have too much influence over public policy, perceptive cooperatives recognize the value of good

relations with staff and consider time spent with key staff to be as

valuable as time spent with the policymakers.

Value of Coalitions

As the demographical information used to introduce this

report shows, rural residents simply don’t have the raw political

power to set public policy agendas. One way to increase the

likelihood of securing favorable policy is to work with other

groups, or coalitions, of people to secure common goals.

Coalitions are effective and necessary at all levels of policy

At the national level, producer and consumer groups may

sharply disagree on some policy issues. However, they work

together to fashion the Food Stamp and School Lunch Programs.

These programs help farmers sell product and poorer citizens

benefit from improved diets. Effective leaders in the public policy arena know that the system works best when they “agree to

disagree” when their interests are at odds and “cooperate” when

their interests coincide.

Trade Associations

There’s a well-worn cliche that if you can see it, touch it, or

smell it, there’s a trade association to promote it. Trade associations

are formalized coalitions of citizens that usually share common

positions on public policy issues.

Numerous trade associations serve agricultural producers

and their cooperatives.* One of the services provided by various

trade associations is to present their members’ views to the legislators and administrators who make public policy. This gives

* For a description of national associations serving cooperatives, general

farm organizations and State cooperative councils, see Oqanizations

Serving Coopemtives, Cooperative Information Report 1, Section 5, published by Agricultural Cooperative Service, USDA. Addresses and telephone numbers are provided. This report is updated periodically to

keep the information current.

25
members a ready vehicle to convey their views on virtually any

issue of importance.

Some cooperatives pay their dues and limit their involvement to an occasional comment about something the association does.

Cooperatives that want to promote favorable public policy

take an active role in trade associations. Members and employees serve on association committees and take their turns being

committee chairpersons and association officers.

Active participation benefits the cooperative membership

in several ways. The cooperative often learns of potential policy

problems and opportunities early enough to develop a reasoned

response to the situation. Cooperative leaders can learn from

other cooperatives how various situations are being approached.

The cooperative can have a voice in setting industry policy objectives and programs. And cooperatives can hire professional staff

on a collective basis to implement their policy programs.

Trade associations require an investment in both financial

resources (to pay dues and travel expenses of people attending

meetings) and staff and member time. But they often prove to be

a cost-effective way to shape public policy.

Grassroots Response

While an effective public policy initiative may seem to

require a substantial investment of resources in developing an

internal program, molding coalitions, and supporting trade associations, at times this investment still isn’t enough to accomplish the cooperative’s objectives. The association must stimulate

direct membership involvement, often referred to as a grassroots effort.

As members tend to have limited patience for calls for

action, use of total grassroots campaigns should be limited. More

than one a year tests the members’ dedication.

The highest level of reponse is usually triggered by presenting members with a pre-printed, pre-addressed, pre-stamped

postcard they simply sign and drop in the mailbox. From the
volume of mail received, the policymaker gets an indication of

the numbers of supporters for a position.

A much lower level of support can be more effective when

it consists of individually written letters drafted by the members expressing support, in their own words, for the cooperative’s position. This shows a real concern by the member for the

issue under consideration.

Twin Towers of Success - Credibility and Patience

The foundations of a successful public policy program are

credibility and patience.

Credibility means being a reliable source of accurate, dependable information about issues under review. It means more than

providing information that supports your position that you think

(hope) is correct. It means doing your homework before calling on

policymakers so you are sure of your facts.

It also means being able to identify, articulate, and analyze

the arguments on the other side of the issue. No one likes to be

blindsided. It can be very embarrassing for a public official to

endorse the cooperative’s position only to learn later of substantial, well-reasoned opposition.

Spokespersons for successful public policy programs inform

policymakers of the opposition as well as the support for their

positions so the official can make a defensible stand. This can

sometimes mean not getting all of the short-run support hoped for

on a given issue. But a public policy program should be viewed

as a long-term undertaking. And every credible presentation

made to an official builds that official’s confidence in the cooperative, which translates into easier access and greater attention

to the cooperative’s views on each subsequent issue under review.

Patience means not expecting total victory on an issue or

implementation of a cooperative’s entire program every year.

Policymaking is the art of compromise. Some proposals will be

truly noncontroversial and may be promptly implemented as

prepared by the cooperative. But others may generate substantial

opposition, based sometimes on reason and sometimes on mis27
conceptions. Even if all of the logical arguments favor the cooperative position, adroit advocates take what they can get at any

one time, express appreciation for the support received, and

regroup to seek a little more at the next appropriate opportunity.

Determining Success

One of the frustrating aspects of a public policy program is

the difficulty in measuring its success in concrete, bottom-line

terms. Often efforts result in only partial victories, or no victory

at all. And sometimes a victory is achieved only after the use of

such intense pressure and requesting so many favors that it cripples the effectiveness of the cooperative to attain future policy

objectives. While the expressed intent of the program is to generate cost-effective, positive results in public policy, assessing

success or failure on a quarterly or even fiscal year basis can be

risky and fruitless. Only a long-range assessment, often using

subjective criteria, will show the impact of the program on the

quality of life of the members.

Public policy professionals often measure the success of a

program using a test only somewhat related to wins and losses.

Much of the material in this report has focused on attempting

to get the attention of policymakers so they will listen to your

positions. Perhaps a public policy program has reached a commendable level of success when policymakers begin coming to

the cooperative and soliciting the cooperative’s views of policy

proposals.

Calls don’t have to come from the White House or the

Governor’s mansion. If a cooperative has been active in local

affairs and the city manager or county supervisors begin soliciting its views, then a desirable level of credibility has probably

been established and sufficient patience exhibited.

Now the cooperative is in a position to mold public policy

from the inside out and have its thoughts incorporated in official

positions before they become official. This won’t negate the need

for continued hard work or ensure success in every effort. But it

will give the cooperative a valuable start in maximizing the return

to the members of their investment in the public policy process.