Search Site   
Views & Opinions

GMO technology allows for better environmental practices

Letter to the Editor

Despite ‘Back to the Future,’ roads are required in 2015

Capital Comments

Cattlemen, Public Lands Council like WOTUS rule delay

Guest Opinion

Corn growers, U.S. Grains Council support Trans-Pacific Partnership text

Guest Opinion

Agricultural life fits veterans and veterans fit for farm life

Guest Opinion

Crop insurance program is under fire from two fronts

Policy Pennings

More nutritional information doesn’t lead to better habits

Hoosier Ag Today

Minnesota-based co-op proposing changes to rules

Farm and Food File
Views & Opinions

Minnesota-based co-op proposing changes to rules

Farm and Food File

Farm and Food File 


In the world of agricultural cooperatives there’s none bigger than Minnesota-based CHS Inc. According to USDA data, the energy, grain, food and farm supply giant did $42.9 billion in business in its fiscal year 2014. That makes the mighty CHS bigger than Deere & Co., DuPont, and Tyson Foods, and far bigger than the No. 2 ag co-op, Dairy Farmers of America, with its almost-puny-by-comparison $17.9 billion in sales.

CHS’s power, however, will be challenged at the co-op’s annual meeting Dec. 4 when members vote on changes to its articles and bylaws. The changes, argue CHS bosses, are needed to keep the co-op growing and "to reinforce CHS’s commitment to its member cooperatives, agricultural producers and cooperative business structure."

In short, CHS management believes its 20th century business structure needs some 21st century tweaking. Many of its "member cooperatives," however, disagree. "This feels more like a corporate takeover," says Rugby, ND coop manager Steve Dockter, who sees the proposed changes moving power from CHS’s 1,100 member "locals" – an essential tenet of cooperative structure – to CHS.

"It boils down to who’s the boss? We are; we own them."

He’s right; local CHS co-ops own what they call the "mother ship," CHS, Inc., an overarching regional cooperative that stitches the locals’ into a single, coherent business structure. For CHS, that’s 625,000 farmers and ranchers in 25 states.

Like most ag-centered co-ops, however, CHS’s very size and its changing customer base – a dwindling number of "voting" farmer and rancher "members" and a growing number of "non-voting" consumer customers – is a big driver behind the proposed changes in the co-op’s rules.

For CHS to remain true to its heritage, it explains, CHS, Inc. needs to update bylaws to ensure locals "operate on a cooperative basis or be an organization primarily owned and controlled by a member cooperative, as determined by the CHS Board of Directors."

That "as determined by the CHS Board of Directors" part sticks in the craw of co-op members like Mark Watne, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union.

"The locals are the owners here," he says. "If anyone has a problem with non-members voting at the local level, the locals can address that, CHS doesn’t need the power to do it."

Like many, Watne wonders if CHS managers understand just what their proposed changes to the co-op’s bylaws mean. "Most of these folks came from corporations and their ideas have the feel of ‘corporate’ bylaws. Maybe they don’t appreciate just how deep in most members’ bones is the idea of local control."

That principle cooperative element is embodied in the Capper-Volstead Act, the 1922 law that is the Magna Carta of the U.S. ag co-op movement because it allowed ag producers to organize and collectively approach the market as either buyers or sellers without violating federal antitrust law.

One of its namesake authors, Minnesota Congressman Andrew Volstead, had another law named after him, The Volstead Act, that wasn’t as successful: in 1919 it ushered in Prohibition.

If Watne is right, CHS managers and the co-op’s board of producer-directors will get a new appreciation of that deeply held belief Dec. 4 because another proposal to be voted on that day has the co-op dropping any reference to Capper-Volstead. The reason, claims CHS, is that "Given the nature of CHS business, we do not benefit from potential protections offered under Capper-Volstead."

Maybe not, says co-op manager Docktor, but removal of any reference to this underpinning law is akin to changing the Ten Commandments. "It basically lays the groundwork for a reversal of roles and I don’t think people want that."

What members want today and what CHS managers think they need for tomorrow can be the same thing, Dockter explained. "But the one thing everyone needs to know now is ‘Who’s the boss?’ We know: It’s us."


The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with comments for Alan Guebert may write to him in care of this publication.