Letter from John Decas3/9/01 -- In this environment of economic crisis, the anxiety of cranberry growers has resulted in a severe loss of confidence in the future of our industry and a harsh analysis of who is to blame and how we need to fix the problem. As a result, several voices have emerged urging growers to work collectively to accept any number of strategies to empower themselves in a manner that will result in greater returns. In their desperation, there are those who will believe anything that is said and will follow any radical idea that, in most cases, is nothing more than a pipe dream. It is a process where emotion overcomes common sense, scapegoats are held in contempt, and charges are made that are nothing more than myths. When lies or misinformation are repeated enough times they, at best, create confusion, and, at worst, are believed. The purpose of this letter is to present facts that have thus far been ignored, and to correct some of the myths that have resulted in a surge of reaction that includes name-calling and silly threats. I have yet to read in the press or on the Stressline a clear and accurate account of what has happened prior to and at the CMC meeting held in Wisconsin. The following is my attempt to provide readers with facts and information that have not penetrated the shrill hostility we are presently witnessing.
A buy-back subcommittee chaired by Ed Jesse was formed to try to find some way of achieving buy-back by crafting a regulation that would achieve this by somehow combining allotment and withholding. The USDA said to put it in written form and they would consider it. The subcommittee met in Providence about a week later and was told once again by the USDA that buy-back under an allotment program was not acceptable. The committee then decided against the tactic of combining allotment and withholding, and chose not to submit such a plan in writing. The dilemma now was how to find a way to implement a volume regulation while also providing a way for handlers to fill any shortfall created by the volume regulation (see #2). They exceeded their mandate by making recommendations to the CMC on issues such as fresh fruit exemptions and marketable quantity. That wouldn’t have been all bad had they at least attempted to craft a written proposal to the USDA on buy-back as instructed by the CMC. Agreed, it was a long shot, but that was understood by the USDA and the CMC when it was decided to have the subcommittee at least make the effort. How can this quartet allow the notion to prevail that a secret, behind closed doors meeting occurred to screw the growers for the benefit of the handlers? Indeed, how can they (Linda Rinta, Doanne Andresen and Gary Jensen) be making those charges themselves, when they knew and endorsed such a meeting? Why didn’t Gary Jensen so inform the TeePee group? Why didn’t Ed Jesse make this part of his report to the CMC? Why do Linda Rinta and Doanne Andresen continue to characterize this meeting as a conspiracy? Again, this meeting was conducted in order to find a way to give the CMC a buy-back capability, and every damn member of the subcommittee knew it from Day One.
In conclusion, let me tell you one more thing that is not being reported or talked about by those who are talking the most. The Independent handlers told the CMC that they support the 32% allotment conditionally upon completion of the "buy-back" deals and the conclusion of a formal marketing agreement as outlined above. If these things cannot be completed within about ten days, Independents will likely withdraw their support of a volume regulation and urge the Secretary to reject the CMC proposal. None of the existing controversy would have happened if the buyback subcommittee had acted in accordance with their mandate, and if some of the subcommittee members did not urge their followers to take the hard line of "our way or no way". These folks have every right to their position, but so don’t others and I. They think they’re right, as do we. I was a critic of Ocean Spray long before it became fashionable. I would, however, be a fool not to work with them on anything that is good for the industry. I hate marketing orders, but Ocean Spray has made long-term concessions that are good for the industry and I am therefore willing to make a 32% sacrifice this year. Should I trust them to conclude our effort to finalize the compromise as described earlier? I believe that they are acting in good faith or I would not be writing this letter at this time. In any case, we will know for sure very soon. Finally, I am ready to look any of you in they eye and answer any questions you may have. I will attend any meeting, if invited, for this purpose. If the name-calling and insults continue, then those conducting themselves in such a manner will be responsible for holding back an industry that is badly in need of a united effort to get back on track. I am hopeful that this letter provides you with useful information that others have deliberately withheld for their own reasons. Talk about back room stuff.
|