Letter from John Decas

3/9/01 -- 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.

1. Buy-Back Subcommittee – At the first CMC meeting held in Washington on February 5, the USDA declared once again that handlers could not legally buy back regulated berries under an allotment program. This meant that the CMC could not impose a volume regulation that protected handlers who held no surplus as allowed under the withholding option. The committee realized that unless all handlers had reasonable access to fruit that a consensus for a volume regulation would be unachievable.

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.

2. Secret Meetings – When the subcommittee decided not to proceed in crafting a buy-back plan, an Ocean Spray member of the committee announced that the Ocean Spray CEO had written to the Independent handlers an offer "…to find a way to provide for a supply of fruit for all handlers…" in the event of a volume regulation. At that time I, along with other handlers present, had not yet read the letter but indicated to the subcommittee that we would be pleased to meet with Ocean Spray to work on such an arrangement. Linda Rinta, Doanne Andresen, Ed Jesse and Gary Jensen, among others, were members of this subcommittee. They all knew a meeting was imminent. They wanted that meeting to succeed so that the buy-back problem could be resolved.

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.

3. Compromise – Here are the facts about the compromise that has been vilified as a "sell-out". It is claimed that the 32% allotment was part of the compromise. NOT TRUE.

1. When Ocean Spray met with the Independents (Northland was invited), we discussed what we thought the percentage should be. We could not agree. Ocean Spray was at 35% and the Independents wanted 25%, which was Ocean Spray’s original publicly stated position. The 32% was decided upon at the CMC meeting in Wisconsin in plain view of everyone. I stated at the CMC meeting that I was willing to compromise at 30%. I personally would not have voted for more than 30%, but I will work with that number if I must. I feel that 32% is more reasonable and sensible than 46%. There is no chance in hell that the USDA would accept 46%. Are the radicals saying that they prefer nothing rather than 32%?
2. There was a compromise agreed upon at the meeting. It was fully disclosed at the CMC meeting, but no one has reported it either in the press or on the Stressline. The points agreed upon are in the best interest of the industry. The first compromise issue was that Ocean Spray agreed that they would not redistribute unused allotment to their growers as they did last year. This was a significant concession because it was a commitment that will result in Ocean Spray assuming a greater part of the volume regulation than otherwise required. I call on Northland to make the same commitment.

Secondly, it was agreed that Ocean Spray and the Independents would craft a marketing agreement designed to instill discipline in our industry by placing proportionate responsibility of berry disposal on each handler in future years when a volume regulation may be required.

This is the sort of proposal that I talked about at grower meetings in Massachusetts and Wisconsin and handed out hundreds of copies of how such a proposal could be achieved. I believe that if we can conclude this agreement in principle as a formal agreement that we will have succeeded in a significant and positive achievement for our industry.

How many of you who have read the media articles and op-eds on the Stressline even know that these two important agreements are what the compromise was all about? You have been deceived into believing that the compromise was simply the 32% allotment figure enacted by the CMC.

1. Price Fixing – The charges of price fixing, legal transgressions, etc. come only

from people who are acting in an irresponsible manner. Prices were not discussed at any meeting that I attended. It has been stated publicly that buy-back prices should be fair in relation to the market. A formula for determining how this can be achieved was in the letter from Mr. Hawthorne that was announced at the subcommittee meeting (another thing they didn’t tell you). Ocean Spray has not, will not, and should not talk to Independents collectively regarding price, particularly without the USDA present.

What will happen is that Ocean Spray will negotiate separate deals with any Independent wishing to purchase "buy-back" berries. Each case is different, and similar negotiations take place every year. There were lawyers at the joint meeting to ensure everyone understood the legal limits of what could and could not be discussed. If anyone wants to embarrass himself or herself by trying to make an anti-trust case out of all of this, be my guest.

5. 5 Million Barrel Marketable Quantity. The 5 million barrel marketable quantity is really 4.7 million barrels as it relates to process berries. The remaining 300,000 barrels represent fresh fruit that does not contribute to the surplus. Those who insist on a 4,000,000 barrel marketable quantity might consider making up the difference. Northland could lead the way in this regard. They certainly have enough berries in inventory. There is no other way in reality to get it done.

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.

Home