Op-Ed

The Rules of The Game Can Change

by Doanne Andresen

3/11/01 -- The rules of the game can change and in fact they are about to in 18 months. An amendment is about to be submitted to the USDA that will change the structure of the CMC so that it supposedly more fairly represents growers. This amendment is the product of an amendment subcommittee that has been meeting since last Spring. The subcommittee members were appointed by Rob Hiller, the Chairman of the CMC.

I believe that growers need to be involved in writing this amendment. This is our opportunity to restructure the committee so that it really represents the growing committee.

What can growers do?

They could take off work and fly to Baltimore on March 21 to participate in the process.
They could ask Rob Hiller to reschedule the meeting in a grower area so that growers can attend.
They can call our e-mail Dave Farimond to ask who the subcommittee members are so that they can speak to them about the issues.
They could also ask Dave Farimond or a subcommittee member for a copy of the draft of the amendment that was being discussed in Wisconsin.
They could let this committee finish writing the amendment and then complain at the hearings if they don’t think it works for growers. But that may be too late. The USDA believes that this committee represents you.

I am attempting to present some of the facts here in the following section to help you understand the importance of grower involvement. I am no longer on the subcommittee and Rob Hiller has said that he will not reinstate me. You need to be involved yourself.

In addition to voting on a volume control regulation, the Cranberry Marketing Committee also discussed at the Wisconsin Meeting the proposed amendments that they will recommend. One of these amendments involves restructuring the Committee so that it will more fairly represent the growers.

I was on the amendment subcommittee that met in Providence for a day. There were unresolved issues so that amendment was not finalized.

I understand that the discussion continued in Wisconsin on March 5, 2001. I was not there but I do believe that no agreement was reached on this particular amendment.

I have been told that it was slated for further discussion at the Baltimore meeting on March 21. I would like to suggest that this amendment be mailed to growers for their comment. It is important that the growers feel that they are represented by this committee. Their input on this amendment is necessary.

929.20.1 Redistricting

The committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may reestablish districts within the production area and reapportion the membership among the districts.

My Comment:

Redistricting as been debated at length by this committee. Should Wisconsin and MA have more votes because they have more berries? Should New Jersey have less, or be combined with MA?

I think that a redistricting issue should not be decided by a vote of 7-2 of the committee. This can leave one district very vulnerable to losing representation as almost happened to NJ.

One of the issues involved is the nomination process.

929.22 Nominations

(4) (I) Nominations of qualified independent producer member nominees shall be made through a call for nominations sent to all eligible growers residing within each of the marketing order districts. The call for such nominations shall be by such means as recommended by the committee and approved by the Secretary.

My Comment:

All growers should be involved in this process. I suggest a more specific statement such as: "The call for such nominations shall be by mail, telephone, fax, or other electronic means to every eligible grower.

(4) (V) When voting for independent producer member nominees, each eligible grower shall be entitled to cast one vote on behalf of themselves.

My Comment:

A clarification of the term eligible grower is required. Does eligible grower mean one vote per person in the growing business or one vote per business. Some growers have several bogs listed as separate businesses with the CMC.

4. (d) No more than two independent producer members affiliated with the same independent handler can serve on the committee at the same time.

My comment:

Is this fair to the growers? If the growers want to elect someone in WI that also happens to sell to the same Handler as the member representing MA and the member representing MA., who is told not to run? Which set of growers from which district lose the grower rep that they selected?

Question: If you sell to Ocean Spray and an independent handler, are you ineligible to be a grower rep?

Shouldn’t we be limiting the number of producer/handlers that can sit on the CMC at the same time?

929.32 Procedure

(b) The committee may vote by mail, telephone, fax, telegraph, or other electronic means.

My Comment:

Does this mean that decisions will be made in the future without the necessity of holding a public meeting? And without public notice? Only assembled meetings need to be publicly announced if this law is passed as written.

These are some of the issues addressed by this amendment subcommittee. The number of reps on the Cranberry Marketing Committee and whether or not they should be handlers is also an issue. I believe that growers need to be fully informed about the amendments that will be recommended. If you want the Cranberry Marketing Committee to represent you, this amendment is the one that is changing the structure of the committee. You need to ask questions about it and be involved with the decision-making process.

Home