9/20/99 Tom Bullock reminds us that Ocean Spray represents values like honesty and integrity.

In the September edition of The Scoop, a publication written primarily for in-house employees of Ocean Spray, sent to grower/owners, and occasionally shared with the press, he steps onto the slippery slope of the issue of free speech vs. company loyalty and tries to discourage debate on "the Internet". He wants employees to confine their debate about critical business issues to "department and facility meetings, in CEO Mailbox and during Office Hours." I doubt if such an admonition would be made if outside debate was  going on only in the donut shop.

He expresses the wish that employees "take every opportunity to enhance our reputation with others" and notes accurately that Ocean Spray's reputation and value are related. However, if morale is low at company headquarters, the answer isn't as simple as the sense of insecurity employees feel. And if grower/owners are angry, it isn't, as Bullock suggests, just because the price per barrel is "short of expectations."

Not long ago employees watched as their friends and colleagues were fired. Some probably wonder what criteria spared them and left their associates unemployed. Now they are being led by a CEO who was supposedly forced into early retirement , but he still is "in charge." He is advising them as how they can best enhance the reputation of the company, yet he may be the person most responsible for that reputation's decline.There are only a few CEOs who are so associated with their companies that their reputation has an impact on sales. For example, Bill Gates is Microsoft. Tom Bullock is not Ocean Spray. However, as the true story of the cranberry crisis receives more mass media attention, he will become associated in the public mind with Ocean Spray. This can only hurt the reputation of Ocean Spray.

Bullock likens the internal debates to family squabbles gone bad and "spilling onto the street," making the argument that negative publicity adversely effects the reputation of Ocean Spray, and ultimately downgrades the overall value of the company. The value of Ocean Spray, if indeed it has been diminished, has been diminished by decisions made by Tom Bullock and his management team. Demonstrating to the public that decisive action has been taken to remove the cause of the problems can only help the company image.

Tom Bullock, whose leadership has been largely discredited, just participated in the recruitment and hiring of Dean Mefford as interim COO, the second in command. Apparently Bullock will also be involved in hiring his own successor. Yet he expresses concern as to what Ocean Spray's bankers and potential suitors will think. Does he believe that bankers and large companies interested in acquiring part of Ocean Spray, who are responsible for their shareholder's money, don't already know the real situation at Ocean Spray? Does he think they don't already read "the Internet?"

If the board of Directors has thoroughly investigated Dean Mefford's background, especially his tenure at Viskase, why not appoint him as interim CEO? Tom Bullock wants what is best for Ocean Spray. What is best for the company at this point is for him to step down as soon as possible.