DOCSLIB.ORG

Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives USDA Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: United States Department of Agriculture The Story of the Capper- Rural Business- Volstead Act Cooperative Service Cooperative Information Report 59 Abstract The Capper-Volstead Act provides a limited exemption from antitrust liability for agricultural producers who market the products they produce on a cooperative basis. Without Capper-Volstead, farmers who agree among themselves on the pric es they'll accept for their products and other terms of trade would risk being held in violation of antitrust law. Even with the exemption, agricultural producers are not free to unduly enhance the prices they charge, consolidate with or collaborate in anticompetitive conduct with nonproducers, or engage in conduct with no legitimate business purpose that is intended to reduce competition. Keywords: cooperative, antitrust, Capper-Volstead Act, law ________________________________________ Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: The Story of the Capper-Volstead Act Donald A. Frederick Program Leader Law, Policy & Governance Rural Business-Cooperative Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Information Report 59 September 2002 RBS publications and information are available on the Internet. The RBS w eb site is: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs Preface Antitrust law poses a special challenge to agricultural marketing associations. Certain conduct by independent business people-- agreeing on prices, terms of sale, and whom to sell to--violates the Sherman Act and other antitrust statutes. And these are the very types of collaborative activities that agricultural producers conduct through their marketing cooperatives. Since 1922, the Capper-Volstead Act has provided a limited antitrust exemption for agricultural marketing associations. Producers, through qualifying associations, can agree on prices and other terms of sale, select the extent of their joint marketing activity, agree on common marketing practices with other cooperatives, and achieve substantial market share and influence. But Capper-Volstead is not a total antitrust exemption. So cooperative managers, directors, and advisers must understand courses of conduct that may expose their organization to antitrust risk. These include collaborating and/or combining with firms other than C apper- Volstead cooperatives and engaging in activity with little or no discernable purpose other than to limit or eliminate competition. This report focuses on the dev elopment and evolution of antitrust law as it applies to agricultural marketing cooperatives. It places as much emphasis on how an d why the rules evolved as it does on the rules themselves. It attempts to tell a story rather than provide clear and simple signposts for making business decisions. While some readers m ay find this frustrating, it is done for a purpose. There are no easy answers to most questions involving possible antitrust liability. Antitrust disputes are fact intensive and their resolution can be very subjective. Litigation can involve numerous issues and take many years to resolve. Involvement of a legal counsel who understands both cooperatives and antitrus t issues is crucial to limiting legal exposure in this area. ________________________ This report does not represent official policy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Justice, or any other Government agency. This publication is presented only to provide information to persons interested in the antitrust status of agricultural producers and their cooperative marketing associations. i Contents Page CHAPTER 1. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ..................2 The Railroads: The E arly Years .........................2 The Farmers Move West ..............................5 Railroad Growth, Conduct, and Regulation ................7 Corporations and Trus ts ..............................14 Development of the Corporate Structure ..............14 Horizontal Coordination ............................15 Vertical Coordination ..............................17 Cooperatives Emerge ................................19 CHAPTER 2. THE SHERMAN ACT ........................22 Legislative History ..................................23 Provisions .........................................28 Judicial Interpretation ................................30 Literal Meaning Decisions ..........................33 Business Reacts, Roosevelt Responds ...............34 Rule of Reason ..................................36 Rule of P er Se Illeg ality ............................40 Price Fixing ..............................43 Trade Territory Allocation ....................48 Group Boycotts, Refusals to Deal .............50 ii Page CHAPTER 3. SHERMAN TO CAPPER-VOLSTEAD, 1890-1922 ........................................59 Cooperative G rowth .................................59 Cream eries and Cheese Plants .....................60 Fluid Milk .......................................61 California Fruit Growers Exchange ...................62 California Associated Raisin Company ................63 Early State Antitrust Laws ............................67 Early Cooperative Incorporation Laws ...................71 Congress Responds to Standard Oil and American Tobacco . 72 Federal Trade Commission Act ......................72 Clayton Act .....................................73 Section 6 of the Clayton Act ........................73 Legislative History .........................75 Judicial Interpretation .......................83 CHAPTER 4. THE CAPPER-VOLSTEAD ACT ...............88 General Overview ...................................88 Rationale for Capper-Volstead .........................91 Legislative History ..................................92 Building Momentum ...............................92 House Consideration, 66th Congress .................95 Senate Consideration, 66th Congress ...............101 Regrouping for a Second Campaign .................108 House Consideration, 67th Congress ................109 Senate Consideration, 67th Congress, and Enactment ..113 iii Page CHAPTER 5. OTHER ANTITRUST LAWS ..................131 Naval Stores Amendments Fail .......................131 Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 ....................133 Fisherman's Collective Marketing Act ..................142 Robinson Patman Act ...............................145 State Barriers Eliminated ............................147 CHAPTER 6. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAW TO FARMER COOPERATIVES .......................153 Early Court Interpretation ............................154 United States v. Borden ..........................155 Mary land & Virgin ia Milk Producers Ass'n ............162 Who Can Participate in a Capper-Volstead Cooperative? ...167 Person ........................................167 Member .......................................170 Members Must be Producers ......................172 Producer ......................................176 National Broiler Marketing Association ........176 De Minimis Rule for Ancillary Members ........185 Is Big Necessarily Bad? ..........................186 Integrated Entities ........................187 Processing Subsidiaries ....................189 Protected Producer Conduct .........................191 Any B usiness Structure Permissible .................191 Joint Marketing .................................192 Bargaining and Price Setting .......................194 Marketing Service Associations ....................202 iv Page Association Collaboration .........................203 Complex Cooperative Structures .............203 Cooperation Among Cooperatives ............210 Necessary C ontract and Agreeme nts ................217 Statutory Limitations .............................218 Mutual Benefit as Producers ................218 One Member/One Vote or 8 Percent Limit on Dividends .....................219 Majority of Product Handled Must Be Member Product .......................220 Unprotected Conduct ...............................221 Collaborating with Non-producers ...................222 Consolidating with Non-cooperative Firms ............224 Predatory Conduct ..............................231 Cooperative Monopolization ..........................243 Early Decisions Accept Cooperative Monopolies .......244 United S tates v. G rinnell ..........................246 Milk Industry Transformation .......................249 Mid-Am Fires the First Shot .......................253 Justice Department Action ........................254 Related Private Litigation .........................260 Fairdale Farm s v. Yan kee Milk ...............260 Kinnett Dairies v. Dairymen, Inc. .............264 GVC C annery v. California Tomato Growers ....269 United States v. Dairymen, Inc., Revisited ............270 Midwest Milk Revisited ...........................272 Kinnett Dairies v. DI Revisited ......................277 Section 2 of Capper-Volstead ........................277 USDA Enforcement ..............................278 Limits on USDA Jurisdiction .......................282 v Page CHAPTER 7. ODDS AND ENDS .........................285 Cooperatives, Em ployees and Members ................285 Cooperatives and C ontractors ........................286 Director, Employee, and Adviser Liability ................288 Supply Control ....................................289 Cooperative or Union? ..............................292 Capper Volstead and Exporting .......................297 Unprotected Cooperatives ...........................299 State Antitrust Enforcement ..........................310 Disruptive State Regulation ..........................311
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES in OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements F
    HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES IN OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By WILLIAM TAFT RICHIE, B. S., M. S. The Ohio State University 1958 Approved by: Adviser Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to all the people who have helped to make this manuscript possible. A special word of appre­ ciation goes to Dr. George P. Henning, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, for his guidance and supervision. I also wish to thank Dr. Ralph W. Sherman and Dr. Virgil R. Wertz for their suggestions and assistance. My wife, Sadie, has been a source of inestimable help and encouragement at all times. To her I am indebted for the typing of this manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1 Purpose and Scope of Study.............. Previous Studies........ 6 Source of Data ..................... 8 II. ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS OF COOPERATIVES................................ 10 III. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIONS.............. lk- IV. DEVELOPMENT OF FARMER COOPERATIVES IN OHIO.. 21 Ohio Farmers Late in Organizing Cooperatives............................. 22 Farm Organizations............ 26 Number, Membership and Volume of Business................................. 39 V. DAIRY COOPERATIVES............... 57 Early Developments.......... 57 Some Factors Affecting Development and Growth................................... 61 Background Information of Some of the Associations Operating in Ohio Milksheds. 67 Ohio Milk Producers Federation.......... 82 Statistics and Trends in Dairy Coopera­ tives.................................... 82 VI. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE COOPERATIVES............ 89 Development of Fruit Cooperatives in Ohio..................................... 90 Development of Vegetable Cooperatives.... 92 Statistics and Trends...................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 105 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 105 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 144 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1998 No. 11 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I object Herger Markey Redmond The Reverend Ronald F. Christian, Hill Martinez Regula to the vote on the ground that a Hinojosa Mascara Reyes Director, Lutheran Social Services of quorum is not present and make the Hobson Matsui Riley Fairfax, VA, offered the following pray- point of order that a quorum is not Hoekstra McCarthy (MO) Rivers er: present. Holden McCarthy (NY) Rodriguez Almighty God, Your glory is made Hooley McCollum Roemer The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum Horn McCrery Rogan known in the heavens, and the fir- is not present. Hostettler McGovern Rogers mament declares Your handiwork. The Sergeant at Arms will notify ab- Houghton McHale Rohrabacher Hoyer McHugh Ros-Lehtinen With the signs of Your creative good- sent Members. ness all about us, we must acknowledge Hulshof McInnis Rothman The vote was taken by electronic de- Hutchinson McIntosh Roukema Your presence in our world, through vice, and there wereÐyeas 353, nays 43, Inglis McIntyre Roybal-Allard Your people, and within us all. answered ``present'' 1, not voting 33, as Istook McKeon Royce So, therefore, we pray for Your Jackson (IL) McKinney Ryun follows: mercy when our ways are stubborn or Jackson-Lee Meehan Sabo [Roll No. 14] (TX) Meek (FL) Salmon uncompromising and not at all akin to Jefferson Meeks (NY) Sanchez Your desires.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
    Case: 15-14160 Date Filed: 03/04/2019 Page: 1 of 74 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-14160 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS, 6:14-cv-06012-GAP-TBS QUALITY AUTO PAINTING CENTER OF ROSELLE, INC., Traded as Prestige Auto Body, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE FARM GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ No. 15-14162 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS, 6:14-cv-06013-GAP-TBS ULTIMATE COLLISION REPAIR, INC., Case: 15-14160 Date Filed: 03/04/2019 Page: 2 of 74 Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM INDEMNITY COMPANY, STATE FARM GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ No. 15-14178 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS, 6:14-cv-06018-GAP-TBS CAMPBELL COUNTY AUTO BODY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ No. 15-14179 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS, 2 Case: 15-14160 Date Filed: 03/04/2019 Page: 3 of 74 6:14-cv-06019-GAP-TBS LEE PAPPAS BODY SHOP, INC., DAVID C. BROSIUS, d.b.a. Martins Auto Body Works, Inc., ART WALKER AUTO SERVICES, INC., WHITEFORD COLLISION AND REFINISHING, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, et al, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ No. 15-14180 ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS, 6:15-cv-06022-GAP-TBS CONCORD AUTO BODY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, et al, 3 Case: 15-14160 Date Filed: 03/04/2019 Page: 4 of 74 Defendants-Appellees.
    [Show full text]
  • Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly?
    COVER STORIES Antitrust , Vol. 33, No. 2, Spring 2019. © 2019 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. Buyer Power: Is Monopsony the New Monopoly? BY DEBBIE FEINSTEIN AND ALBERT TENG OR A NUMBER OF YEARS, exists—or only when it can also be shown to harm consumer commentators have debated whether the United welfare; (2) historical case law on monopsony; (3) recent States has a monopoly problem. But as part of the cases involving monopsony issues; and (4) counseling con - recent conversation over the direction of antitrust siderations for monopsony issues. It remains to be seen law and the continued appropriateness of the con - whether we will see significantly increased enforcement Fsumer welfare standard, the debate has turned to whether the against buyer-side agreements and mergers that affect buyer antitrust agencies are paying enough attention to monopsony power and whether such enforcement will be successful, but issues. 1 A concept that appears more in textbooks than in case what is clear is that the antitrust enforcement agencies will be law has suddenly become mainstream and practitioners exploring the depth and reach of these theories and clients should be aware of developments when they counsel clients must be prepared for investigations and enforcement actions on issues involving supply-side concerns. implicating these issues. This topic is not going anywhere any time soon.
    [Show full text]
  • A Day in the Life of Cooperative America
    A DAY IN THE LIFE OF COOPERATIVE AMERICA A Project of the National Co-op Month Committee COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES Cooperatives follow seven internationally recognized principles as adopted in 1995 by the International Cooperative Alliance. The National Cooperative Business Association lists these as: 1. Voluntary and Open Membership Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. 2. Democratic Member Control Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives, members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are organized in a democratic manner. 3. Member Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. They usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing the cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. 4. Autonomy and Independence Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Cooperative Enterprise As an Antimonopoly Strategy
    ART 1 - COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:02 PM Articles Cooperative Enterprise as an Antimonopoly Strategy Sandeep Vaheesan* & Nathan Schneider† ABSTRACT After decades of neglect, antitrust is once again a topic of public debate. Proponents of reviving antitrust have called for abandoning the narrow consumer welfare objective and embracing a broader set of objectives. One essential element that has been overlooked thus far is the ownership structure of the firm itself. The dominant model of investor- owned business and associated philosophy of shareholder wealth maximization exacerbate the pernicious effects of market power. In contrast, cooperative ownership models can mitigate the effects of monopoly and oligopoly, as well as advance the interests of consumers, workers, small business owners, and citizens. The promotion of fair competition among large firms should be paired with support for democratic cooperation within firms. Antitrust law has had a complicated history and relationship with cooperative enterprise. Corporations threatened by cooperatives have used the antitrust laws to frustrate the growth of these alternative businesses. To *Legal Director, Open Markets Institute. †Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of Colorado Boulder. The authors thank Lauren Bridges, Michelle Meagher, Sanjukta Paul, and Ganesh Sitaraman for thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this Article. 1 ART 1 - COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:02 PM 2 PENN STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:1 insulate cooperatives from the antitrust threat, Congress has enacted exemptions to protect cooperative entities, notably a general immunity for farm cooperatives in the 1922 Capper-Volstead Act. As part of an agenda to tame corporate monopoly, all three branches of the federal government and the states should revisit these ideas and seek to protect and enable the cooperative model across the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Autographs – Auction November 8, 2018 at 1:30Pm 1
    Autographs – Auction November 8, 2018 at 1:30pm 1 (AMERICAN REVOLUTION.) CHARLES LEE. Brief Letter Signed, as Secretary 1 to the Board of Treasury, to Commissioner of the Continental Loan Office for the State of Massachusetts Bay Nathaniel Appleton, sending "the Resolution of the Congress for the Renewal of lost or destroyed Certificates, and a form of the Bond required to be taken on every such Occasion" [not present]. ½ page, tall 4to; moderate toning at edges and horizontal folds. Philadelphia, 16 June 1780 [300/400] Charles Lee (1758-1815) held the post of Secretary to the Board of Treasury during 1780 before beginning law practice in Virginia; he served as U.S. Attorney General, 1795-1801. From the Collection of William Wheeler III. (AMERICAN REVOLUTION.) WILLIAM WILLIAMS. 2 Autograph Document Signed, "Wm Williams Treas'r," ordering Mr. David Lathrop to pay £5.16.6 to John Clark. 4x7½ inches; ink cancellation through signature, minor scattered staining, folds, docketing on verso. Lebanon, 20 May 1782 [200/300] William Williams (1731-1811) was a signer from CT who twice paid for expeditions of the Continental Army out of his own pocket; he was a selectman, and, between 1752 and 1796, both town clerk and town treasurer of Lebanon. (AMERICAN REVOLUTION--AMERICAN SOLDIERS.) Group of 8 items 3 Signed, or Signed and Inscribed. Format and condition vary. Vp, 1774-1805 [800/1,200] Henry Knox. Document Signed, "HKnox," selling his sloop Quick Lime to Edward Thillman. 2 pages, tall 4to, with integral blank. Np, 24 May 1805 * John Chester (2). ALsS, as Supervisor of the Revenue, to Collector White, sending [revenue] stamps and home distillery certificates [not present].
    [Show full text]
  • June Auction
    CONFEDERATE GENERAL BRADLEY T. JOHNSON’S LIFE INSURANCE POLICY * 305 A fascinating 1 page 5 x 8" ADS, New York, July 8, 1867 on the Letterhead of the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Policy, and bearing the blind seal of the company. Issued soon after the close of the Civil War, the Hand -written, custom made CONFEDERATE SOLDIER’S PASS * 314 policy for $5000 has some rather unusual * 307 MAGNUS SONG SHEET. 5” x 8”. Hand- wording, probably in keeping with the CHARLESTON S.C. A 3 1/2 “ x 6 1/2 “ * 310 colored. “Mother, dearest, I am coming”. terms of Johnson’s Parole, and reads as fol- partly printed Confederate officers pass, is- LOT OF THREE MAGNUS SONG Fine. $40 - up lows:” Policy No. 4032 assuring $5000 sued on April 26 of 1862, allowing a Cap- SHEETS. 5” x 8”. All hand-colored. “Tak- on the life of Bradley T. Johnson:” Permis- tain Mason Morfit to travel to Richmond, ing Up Quarters”, Some light foxing at ex- sion is hereby given to the assured to re- Va., signed by the Mayor of Charleston and treme left. Fine. “Who will Care For Mickey side in any part of the State of North Caro- Captain Morfit. Expected folds and minor Now?”, Fine. “Home Without A Mother” lina distant not less than 100 miles from the soiling, otherwise very good. $100- up Small edge chink at top margin. Fine. seacoast, and to travel to & from such parts $120 - up of the State of North Carolina and any State or States North of the Southern Boundary of Virginia”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fusion of Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian Thought in the Republican Party of the 1920S
    © Copyright by Dan Ballentyne 2014 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED This work is dedicated to my grandfather, Raymond E. Hough, who support and nurturing from an early age made this work possible. Also to my wife, Patricia, whose love and support got me to the finish line. ii REPUBLICANISM RECAST: THE FUSION OF HAMILTONIAN AND JEFFERSONIAN THOUGHT IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF THE 1920S BY Dan Ballentyne The current paradigm of dividing American political history into early and modern periods and organized based on "liberal" and "conservative" parties does not adequately explain the complexity of American politics and American political ideology. This structure has resulted of creating an artificial separation between the two periods and the reading backward of modern definitions of liberal and conservative back on the past. Doing so often results in obscuring means and ends as well as the true nature of political ideology in American history. Instead of two primary ideologies in American history, there are three: Hamiltonianism, Jeffersonianism, and Progressivism. The first two originated in the debates of the Early Republic and were the primary political division of the nineteenth century. Progressivism arose to deal with the new social problems resulting from industrialization and challenged the political and social order established resulting from the Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian debate. By 1920, Progressivism had become a major force in American politics, most recently in the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson. In the light of this new political movement, that sought to use state power not to promote business, but to regulate it and provide social relief, conservative Hamiltonian Republicans increasingly began using Jeffersonian ideas and rhetoric in opposition to Progressive policy initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Practices in the 21St Century
    A1457 Cooperatives: Principles and practices in the 21st century Kimberly A. Zeuli and Robert Cropp ABOUT THE COVER IMAGE: The “twin pines” is a familiar symbol for cooperatives in the United States.The Cooperative League of the USA, which eventually became the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), adopted it as their logo in 1922.The pine tree is an ancient symbol of endurance and immor- tality.The two pines represent mutual cooperation—people helping people. C OOPERATIVES: q Publication notes ii C ont Chapter 1 1 An introduction to cooperatives Chapter 2 5 ents Historical development of cooperatives throughout the world Chapter 3 15 Cooperative history, trends, and laws in the United States Chapter 4 27 Cooperative classification Chapter 5 39 Alternative business models in the United States Chapter 6 49 Cooperative roles, responsibilities, and communication Chapter 7 59 Cooperative financial management Chapter 8 69 Procedures for organizing a cooperative Chapter 9 77 A summary of cooperative benefits and limitations Notes 81 Glossary 85 Cooperative resources 89 PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES IN THE 21ST CENTURY i Kimberly Zeuli and Robert Cropp, Assistant Publication notes Professor and Professor Emeritus in the This publication is the fourth and most extensive Department of Agricultural and Applied revision of the Marvin A. Schaars’ text, Cooperatives, Economics, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Principles and Practices, University of Wisconsin are responsible for all of the editing and most Extension—Madison, Publication A1457, July 1980. of the revised text. The following individuals What has come to be known simply as “the also contributed to various chapters: Schaars book,” was originally written in 1936 by David Erickson, Director of Member Relations, Chris L.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrating the Impact of Senator Birch Bayh a Lasting Legacy on the Constitution and Beyond
    Celebrating the Impact of Senator Birch Bayh A Lasting Legacy on the Constitution and Beyond Wednesday October 16, 2019 3:30 p.m. – 4 p.m., Check-in 4 p.m. – 6:30 p.m., Program CLE COURSE MATERIALS Table of Contents 1. Speaker Biographies (view in document) 2. CLE Materials Panel 1: Women’s Rights Panel 3: Senator Bayh’s Enduring Legacy and Example as a Public Servant National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2012) Title IX at 40: Working to Ensure Gender in Clymer, Adam. N.Y. Times. Birch Bayh, 91, Dies; Senator Education. (View in document) Drove Title IX and 2 Amendment (View in document) Neale, Thomas H. Congressional Research Service, 2018. 79 Fordham L. Rev. A Modern Father of Our The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Contemporary Constitution: An Interview with Former Senator Birch Ratification Issues. (View in document) Bayh. (View in document) th Panel 2: Amending the Constitution: 25 Pamphlet on Impact of the Bayh-Dole Act. th Amendment, 26 Amendment, and the Electoral (View in document) College 25th Amendment Text. (View in document) 26th Amendment Text and Brief Explanation. (View in document) Goldstein, Joel K. 86 Fordham L. Rev. 1137, 2017. The Bipartisan Bayh Amendment (View in document) Amar, Akhil Reed; Amar, Vikram David. How to Achieve Direct National Election of the President Without Amending the Constitution. (View in document) Feerick, John D. 79 Fordham L. Rev. 907. Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty- Fifth Amendment. (View in document) Wegman, Jesse. N.Y. Times Birch Bayh and the Quest for a More Perfect Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Social Studies
    Minnesota Department of Education May 15, 2004, 9:45 p.m. Minnesota Academic Standards in History and Social Studies HISTORY AND SOCIAL STUDIES If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be . .I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. - Thomas Jefferson Public education in Minnesota must help students gain the knowledge and skills that are necessary to, in Jefferson’s view, protect and maintain freedom. The Social Studies Standards on the following pages attempt to do just this by specifying the particular knowledge and skills that Minnesota students will be required to learn in the disciplines of U.S. History, World History, Geography, Economics and Civics as required by Minnesota statutes. These standards are written with the recognition that additional academic disciplines, Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology, have strong traditions of instruction in Minnesota schools. Schools may choose to continue teaching in these academic disciplines as local traditions, interest, and school priorities dictate. 1 Minnesota Department of Education May 15, 2004, 9:45 p.m. Minnesota Academic Standards in History and Social Studies HISTORY What is History? The study of History (Minnesota, U.S., and World) helps students to see how people in other times and places have grappled with the fundamental questions of truth, justice, and personal responsibility, to understand that ideas have real consequences, and to realize that events are shaped both by ideas and the actions of individuals.
    [Show full text]