D2—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, August 15,1981
NEDCO
My names is James Beaver,
Bellefonte, Pennsylvania. I am
representing the Northeast Dairy
Cooperative Federation, Inc
(NEDCO), 428 South Warren
Street, Syracuse, New York.
NEDCO is a federation of 54
Cooperatives, with 3,000 producer
members located in Pennsylvania,
New York, and New Jersey. Ap
proximately one-third of the
producer-members are residents
of Pennsylvania.
In the opinion of NEDCO, House
Bill 767 serves little purpose, and is
not needed.
Specifically, NEDCO objects to
changing the requirement for
approval of a marketing order
from a majority to a two-thirds
majority by number. We feel that
if a majority of those voting ap
prove an order, this is sufficient
indication of the need and the ..
acceptance of the provisions
contained therein.
Furthermore, the requirement
for majority approval by number
and majority by volume gives
added assurance of the ac
ceptance. This double requirement
safeguards the industry from the
possibility of having a program
voted into effect by small
producers that are not
representative. There is no
requirement for measuring ap
proval by volume under the two
thirds proposal. This, too, is a
shortcoming of the Bill.
NEDCO also unequivocally
opposes the provision of House Bill
767, that eliminates bloc voting for
coopertaives and substitutes in
dividual voting. Bloc voting by
Cooperatives is an important and
integral part of any marketing
order program.
Producers unite together m a
cooperative to gam strength and
support, and in fact to speak as
one. This, bloc voting ac
complishes. Through the election
of a board of directors, the
cooperative members have
delegated their authority to act on
their behalf in all cooperative
matters. If they become
dissatisfied with the board action,
members can be removed by not
being re-elected.
Actually, this is a form ot
representative voting such as we
have in our state and federal
governments, where' our elected
representatives cast our vote for
us. Only in very unusual situations
(constitutional amendments) is
the general populace allowed to
vote. Their voice is heard in the
election of those who will represent
them.
A farmer who joins a
cooperative association, transfers
to the cooperative responsibility
for marketing produce. Farmers
commit all of their production to
the cooperative, and the
cooperative is committed to fin
ding the best available market for
all of the milk its members
produce.
Smce marketing orders and
programs are an important tool
which cooperatives use in
marketing members’ milk, it is
reasonable that the cooperative be
able to vote on behalf of its entire
membership on proposed
marketing programs.
History under Federal Order #2,
shows that if cooperatives were not
voting in bloc, it would be very
difficult, if not impossible, to get
changes made in orders.
Relatively few individual ballots
are filed, and those that are filed,
come from those who are opposed,
and wish to block passage. As in
many referendums and elections,
those that are against the program
Ag speaks out on pros and cons
are the ones that vote.
The proposal in House Bill 767, to
shorten the period between
referendums to determine whether
or not two-thirds of those voting
still desire a marketing program
from five years to three years, is
also opposed by NEDCO. An ob
vious reason to object is the cost of
more frequent referendums. This
is an expensive procedure for all
involved, and without an over
powering need, is a useless ex
penditure of money.
In addition, a penod of three
years is not long to determine if a
program is, or is not, going to be
successful. This could easily result
m the determination that a
program is unsuccessful, when,
and if allowed to operate for five
years, the results might well have
been quite different.
For the above reasons, NEDCO
opposes the passage of House Bill
767. Passage would result in
harming the industry, than it
would m improving marketing
conditions.
My name is Guy Donaldson. I
own and operate a 140 acre fruit
farm near Fairfield in Adams
County. I am a member of the
Pennsylvania Farmers’
Association and serve as president
of the Pennsylvania Agricultural
Cooperative Marketing
Association. I also am a member of
Mountain Orchard Cooperative,
Incorporated and Knouse Foods. I
am immediate past chairman of
the Pennsylvania Apple Marketing
Board and serve on the Board of
Trustees of the International Apple
Institute.
I appreciate the opportunity to
share my thoughts on House Bill
767 as a farmer, a cooperative
member, and as president of the
Pennsylvania Agricultural
Cooperative Marketing
Association.
I would like to address the
section of House Bill 767 that
proposes to eliminate modified
bloc voting by cooperative
associations. If we examine
reasons cooperatives are formed
and why farmers use their
cooperatives, I believe it will be
evident that cooperatives should
also have the right to represent
members in referendums.
I would like to use PACMA as an
example. I believe that most
cooperatives qualifying under
current law-to bloc vote for their
members would be similar in
nature and structure.
PACMA maintains a mem
bership of 718 farmers. Agriculture
commodities served by PACMA
include fruit, cattle, vegetable,
poultry, and swine. The
geographic area covered by the
cooperative includes Pennsylvania
and parts of Maryland. PACMA is
an affiliate of the Pennsylvania
Farmers’ Association. We employ
five staff specialists who serve as
advisors to the cooperative board
and handle the day to day business
of the association.
The cooperative is controlled by
a ten man Board of Directors who
represent both a cross section of
members, geographically and by
commodity. Each director
represents approximately 72
cooperative members and is
elected to a three year term of
office. The one man one vote
principle of representative
government is used to elect
directors.
As president of PACMA, I have
had many occasions to talk with
cooperative members about the
reasons for forming and joining
PACMA.
‘Block Vote’ Bill
PACMA
Farmers join cooperatives
because it provides them with the
method and means to influence
factors that they could not in
fluence as individuals. By utilizing
a representative form of govern
ment, members can work together
to achieve mutual goals. These
goals can include such things as
receiving a higher price for
products sold, obtaining a lower
price for supplies needed, or in
fluencing the outcome of a
referendum. Members realize that
in order to achieve this influence,
they must voluntarily give up
individual control and work
together through their cooperative
structure.
Farmers join cooperatives
because as an individual they may
not have the time or be willing to
devote the tune necessary to keep
informed on all the factors that
should be involved in making a
decision. Instead, a member
depends on his elected director to
make the decisions that are in the
best interests of the cooperative
members.
We, on the PACMA board make
great efforts to be in tune with
member needs, and make'
decisions we believe to be in their
best interest. Again, members
voluntarily give up individual
control and choose to rely on the
cooperative structure to represent
them in the best way possible.
To be eligible to bloc vote under
provisions of the Pennsylvania
Agricultural Marketing Act of
1968, a cooperative must meet the
requirements of the Capper
Volstead Act. The act states that a
cooperative must be operated for
the mutual benefit of its members
insofar as they are producers of
agricultural products.
When considering the
requirements that cooperatives
must adhere to in order to be
eligible to bloc vote for its mem
bers, and the representative form
of self government that is in
corporated in cooperative struc
ture, there can be no question that
cooperatives are controlled by and
act in the best interests of mem
bers
The Pennsylvania Agricultural
Marketing Act of 1968 contains a
method by which a cooperative
member is notified of his right and
given the opportunity to vote as an
individual. I believe that when a
cooperative member decides not to
exercise this right, he is asking his
elected Board of Directors to cast
the vote in his best interest and use
the pooled votes of all the
cooperative members to influence
the outcome of the referendum. I
believe it is the right and obligation
of a cooperative to cast the votes of
its members, if the member does
not exercise his right to vote as an
individual.
For this reason I, as a farmer, a
cooperative member and as
President of the Pennsylvania
Agricultural Cooperative
Marketing association, ask you to
oppose House Hill 767 and retain
the right of democratically con
trolled cooperatives to exercise
modified bloc votmg on state
referendums.
PFA Dairy Council
My name is Mervm Myers. I
operate a 58 cow, 250 acre dairy
farm near Littlestown in Adams
County. My milk is marketed
through Inter-State Milk
Producers’ Cooperative. I serve on
the Dairy Action Committee of the
Pennsylvania Farmers’
Association and a president ot the
Adams County Farmers’
Association.
I appreciate the opportunity to
comment on House Bill 767. My
statement is being made on behalf
of the more than 23,000 farm
families who are members of the
Pennsylvania Farmers’
Association. My comments are
based on current policy of the
organization.
PFA is composed of fifty-four
county farmers’ associations.
Pohcy of PFA originates in these
county units. It then passes
through the pohcy development
process and is voted on by county
delegates at PFA’s annual
meeting. Several of the many
policies adopted by delegates m
November of 1980 deal with the
provisions of House Bill 767.
If passed, House Bill 767 would
change the requirements
necessary to put a marketing
program into effect. The law
currently states that a majority by
number and a majority of volume
of those voting is needed to pass a
referendum. House Bill 767
proposes that only a two-thirds
majority by number of those
voting be needed. No mention is
made of volume.
PFA policy states “that the
program shall be approved or
amended by a majority of the
eligible producers voting in a
referendum, and these must
represent 50 percent or more of the
production of those voting.”
We are concerned that the in
crease m numbers needed to pass a
referendum and the elimination of
the volume requirement could
create a situation where the best
interests of the full-time producer
were not represented. It is the full
time producer with a large in
vestment and long term com
mitment who will benefit the most
or be hurt the most by promotion,
research, market development, or
information programs. The
volume requirement insures that a
marketing program must have the
approval of the large full-time
producer.
If passed, House Bill 767 would
eliminate modified bloc votmg by
cooperatives. The law now allows a
cooperative to bloc vote for its
members provided that they are
given notice of their right to vote as
an individual and choose not to
exercise that right.
PFA policy supports the current
law and the concept ot modified
bloc voting by cooperatives. Our
policy states “that the referendum
shall be conducted according to
either of the following two
methods:
Referendum of individual
producers; or
Bloc voting be permitted
provided: the policy making body
has issued a certified resolution
permitting bloc votmg for its
members; individual members of
a cooperative are mailed an in
dividual ballot for the purpose of
casting his or her vote; The votes
cast by individual members ot the
cooperative are deducted from the
bloc vote case by the members’
cooperative; it be stated on the
ballot that if the individual
member of the cooperative does
not vote, his vote will be bloc voted
by his cooperative.”
The Pennsyvarua Agricultural
Marketing Act says that a
cooperative must meet provisions
of the Capper Volstead Act in order
to bloc vote. The Capper Volstead
Act requires that cooperatives
have a representative form of self
government. We believe that this
form of government insures far
mer control and allows adequate
representation of the farmer as an
individual in his cooperatives.
Therefore, if a member is notified
of his right to vote and chooses not
to exercise that right,, his
of
cooperative should have the right
to cast the vote in its member’s
best interest.
For the reasons I have outlined,
the Pennsylvania Farmers’
Association is opposed to .the
passage of House BilT 767. We
believe the Pennsylvania
Agricultural Marketing Act ot
1968, as it stands, is m the best
interests of our 23,376 farm family
members, and should not be
changed.
PFU
The Pennsylvania Farmers
Union fully supports House Bill 767
and encourages your favorable
consideration.
Our position on this bill has a
basis in policy adopted at our 1981
State Convention. The statement
adopted by delegates reads:
“We recommend that the
Pennsylvania Cooperative Law be
amended to prohibit any form of
block voting.”
It is clear that members of the
Pennsylvania Farmers Union and
the farming commodity at large
are strongly opposed to the
practice of block voting. They feel
there should be no infringement
whatever on their right to cast a
vote m a commodity promotion
referendum.
On a more fundamental basis,
farmers should have the right not
to cast a vote. The continued
existence of block voting as
provided currently in the com
modity marketing act denies the
farmer this right as well.
House Bill 767 also will raise the
percentage of the vote required for
passage from 50 percent to a 2/3
majority. Farmers Union supports
this amendment since a
referendum passed under
provision of the commodity act
would be absolutely mandatory for
all producers of the commodity in
Pennsylvania. A full mandatory,
and perhaps costly, program
should at least receive the support
of 2/3 of those voting.
We urge you to report HB 767
from this committee (Agriculture
and Rural Affairs) without
amendment for consideration by
the full House of Representatives.
Passage of this bill would further
the purposes of democracy m
Pennsylvania’s farming com
munity.
Jack Philson, Chairman
PFU President
I am Carl L. Kauhnan, Ad
ministrative Director ot the
Pennsylvania Farmers Union,
Suite 608, 212 Locust Street,
Harrisburg.
We are pleased to have the op
portunity to address this com
mittee on House Bill 767. I’d like to
thank the Pennsylvania House
Agriculture Committee and
Chairman Gneco tor their con
tinuing efforts to strengthen the
posture ot agriculture in the
Commonwealth.
The Farmers Umon is an
organization dedicated to the
survival ot the family farm
structure. Recommendations
presented here are the views of our
members, taken directly
from policy statements drafted
annually by our county
organizations.
Abraham Lincoln said it best
when he stated: “If government
strays from democratic principles,
it is to that extent that government
becomes less democratic.”
Current law permitting bloc voting
by cooperatives does just that—
strays from the basic democratic
principles ot all Pennsylvania
<TurntoPageD4)