ANNUAL REPORT - Nebr€¦ · The Council presented each of the inductees with a framed certificate com-memorating their induction into the Hall of Fame. In addition, a plaque outlining

COOPERATION IN NEBRASKAOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE NEBRASKA COOPERATIVE COUNCIL

Volume 44, No. 3 September 2005

WHAT'S INSIDE...

ANNUAL REPORT

This issue of Cooperation in Nebraska is a special edition that combines the Annual Report with the September news-letter. This is the seventh year we have combined these two publications, which allows us to become more efficient as wework to maximize your dues dollars.

President’s Message ............................... 2

NCC Cooperative Hall of Fame ............... 4

CDL Hazmat Endorsements ................... 4

Member Input Meetings ........................... 5

FFA Cooperative Speaking Competition .5

Financial Summaries ............................ 6-7

Education Programs ............................ 8-9

CCPRO Formed ......................................9

Legislative/Regulatory Issues ......... 10-14

NCC Political Action Committee ............. 14

Fund For Excellence ..............................14

UNL Cooperative Education ..................15

Subdistrict Meetings CALENDAR OFUPCOMING EVENTS...

October 2005 - Co-op Month7 *KRVN/KNEB/KTIC Radio Report

21 *KRVN/KNEB/KTIC Radio Report

November 20054 *KRVN/KNEB/KTIC Radio Report

18 NCC Annual Meeting - Kearney

Holiday Inn


December 20051 CCPRO Meeting - Kearney


13 Director/Manager Workshop - Sidney

14 Director/Manager Workshop - Kearney

15 Director/Manager Workshop - York


This year’s Subdistrict meetings were held in Bridgeport on August 15,Lexington on August 16, and York on August 18. A total of 190 attended the

meetings.The Council’s Subdistrict meetings provide

local management teams with the opportunityto review the activities of the past year and,more importantly, to hear the Council’s plansfor the upcoming year. Much of the work of theCouncil takes place well in advance of whenthe general public is informed of an issue.These three Subdistrict meetings allow ourmembers to learn about issues and activitiesthat the Council will be working on throughoutthe course of the year.

Reportswere given byBoard mem-bers, PoliticalAction Com-mittee mem-

bers, and Fund For Excellence Committeemembers, in addition to the President’s report byCouncil President Bob Andersen. We want tothank all those who provided reports at themeetings. Grassroots involvement is importantfor our organization and having committeemembers present reports gives you their per-spective on the issues the Council is working on.

In addition to the reports, another feature ofthe meetings was the opportunity to hear fromthe 2005/06 NCC Education Foundation Scholar-ship winners. It is always a pleasure to hear fromthe scholarship winners and learn of their collegeactivities and future plans. The enthusiasm and energy that these young peoplebring to the meetings is always a highlight of the evening.

Our special thanks to Terry Bentley and FCE Credit Union for providing therefreshments during registration at each of the Subdistrict meetings.

*Broadcast times are:KRVN: 2:17pm CentralKNEB: 1:15 pm MountainKTIC: 2:17pm Central

Scholarship winner Nicholas Kepler of

Dalton addressing the Subdistrict

meeting at Bridgeport.

Scholarship winner Krystal Large of

Wauneta addressing the York

meeting.

Cooperation in Nebraska ... September 2005Page 2

NEBRASKA COOPERATIVECOUNCIL MISSION STATEMENT

“To defend, protect and enhance

the agricultural cooperative move-

ment through pro-active programs

in education, legislation, govern-

ment affairs, communication, and

regulatory issues."

THE COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES:# Voluntary and Open Membership# Democratic Member Control# Member Economic Participation# Autonomy and Independence# Education, Training and Information# Cooperation among Cooperatives# Concern for Community

NEBRASKA COOPERATIVE COUNCILAddress ................................... 134 S 13th St.,Ste 503................................................... Lincoln, NE 68508-1901Office Hours ..................... 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CDTTelephone ............................................. (402) 475-6555Fax Number .......................................... (402) 475-4538E-mail Address .............................. [email protected] ................................................ www.nebr.coop

BOARD OFFICERSBoard Chairperson ................... Dale Piper, Elmwood - District IIVice Chairperson ................... Ed Foster, Gothenburg - District ISecretary ................................. Bill Schuster, Aurora - District II

BOARD DIRECTORSJim Chism, Imperial ...................................... District IJerrell Dolesh, Battle Creek ....................... District IISteve Erdman, Scottsbluff .......................... District ITom Hansen, Edison .................................... District IRon Velder, Dorchester .............................. District IIMike Maranell, Omaha ............. Participating Member

STAFFRobert C. Andersen, President ..... [email protected] Woeppel, Educ./Program Director [email protected]

Glenda Gaston, Office Mgr/AA ...... [email protected]

Deb Mazour, Program Coord/AA .. [email protected]

President’s MessageI encourage you to

review this year’sAnnual Report. This isthe time of year when Iseem to have analmost impulsive needto do a little reflect-ing... to take a look

back and think about the good andbad things and disappointments... andto the year ahead and its challenges.It was both a challenging and reward-ing year for your cooperative tradeassociation. As you review the AnnualReport, it expounds upon many of thelegislative, regulatory, and educationalprograms of last year. The mostimportant thing about a trade associa-tion is that it exists to serve itsmembership; those who excel atserving their members do best and arepositioned to serve for the long term.

In August, we completed our seriesof Subdistrict meetings across thestate. These meetings were veryproductive and insightful. Membershipmeetings should be a “two-way street”in that Council representatives shouldshare their view on both the prioryear’s programs and the upcomingyear’s programs, but, more impor-tantly, that the members share theirperspectives. I realize that oftenpeople are reluctant to speak up infront of a group of people and prefer tovoice their views in private ahead of orafter the meeting. I was pleased withthe questions that I received bothbefore and after the meetings frommembers.

As I concluded these meetings, Icould not help but be reminded of thededicated and capable people state-wide that we have within Nebraskacooperative management teams. Somuch has been achieved, yet, somuch remains to be done. The long-term survivability of cooperatives willrequire that we reaffirm our efforts andservice. We cannot afford to be casualobservers but must be active partici-pants. I am reminded of the quote byEdward Everett Hale, who said: “I amonly one, but I am one. I can’t doeverything, but I can do something.What I can do, I ought to do. And whatI ought to do, by the grace of God, Iwill do.”

In reality, that quote serves toremind us that our inherent responsi-bility is ongoing and long term.Cooperatives are “difference makers”and cooperatives require collectivevision, commitment, and energy as weattempt to improve the economic well-being of our producer owners-mem-bers.

In closing, allow me to share myappreciation to everyone who hasgiven graciously of their time andenergy this past year to make thisanother successful year. Your Ne-braska Cooperative Council will striveto be a valued stakeholder in thefulfillment of the cooperative missionand to the membership. Help us, helpyou.

In the cooperative spirit, I remain....

Robert C. Andersen

“I am grateful for all my problems. As each of themwas overcome, I became stronger and more able tomeet those yet to come. I grew in all my difficulties.”

~J.C. Penney (1875-1971)Founder, JC Penney Co., Inc.

Cooperation in Nebraska ... September 2005 Page 3

2004/2005 Board of Directors

DISTRICT I

Ed Foster, Vice ChairAll Points Co-op

Gothenburg

DISTRICT II

Jerrell Dolesh

Battle Creek Farmers Co-op

Battle Creek

Steve Erdman

Panhandle Co-op Assn.

Scottsbluff

PARTICIPATING MEMBER

Mike Maranell

AGP

Omaha

Dale Piper, Chair

Midwest Farmers Co-op

Elmwood

Bill Schuster, SecretaryAurora Co-op Elevator Co.

Aurora

Tom HansenAg Valley Co-op

Edison

2004/2005 Council Committees

LEGISLATIVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Robert Andersen ............ Nebraska Cooperative Council (Co-chair)

Ed Foster ........................ All Points Co-op, Gothenburg (Co-chair)

Jim Chism ....................... Frenchman Valley Farmers Co-op, ImperialTom Hansen ................... Ag Valley Co-op, Edison

Virgil Harms .................... Co-Bank, OmahaMax Larsen .................... Southeast Nebraska Co-op Co., BeatriceRich Richey .................... Husker Co-op, ColumbusBill Schuster .................... Aurora Co-op Elevator Co.

Bruce Younglove ............ CHS Inc., LincolnDale Piper ........................ Midwest Farmers Co-op, Elmwood (ex-officio)

EDUCATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Steve Erdman ................. Panhandle Co-op Assn., Scottsbluff (Chair)

Jim Chism ........................ Frenchman Valley Farmers Co-op, ImperialTod Clark ........................ CHS-LOL, ScottsbluffTom Connelly ................. Country Partners Co-op, Spalding

Tom Houser ................... CoBank, OmahaHarold Hummel .............. Farmers Co-op Co., WaverlyEric Johnson .................. Central Valley Ag Co-op, O’NeillHarold Printz ................... Farmers Elevator Co., Kimball

Steve Wright ................... United Farmers Co-op, ShelbyDale Piper ....................... Midwest Farmers Co-op, Elmwood (ex-officio)

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE

Ed Foster ........................ All Points Co-op, Gothenburg (Chair)

David Briggs ................... WESTCO, AllianceTodd Christensen ........... Agri Co-op, HoldregeDoug Derscheid ............. Central Valley Ag Co-op, O’Neill

Bruce Favinger ............... Heartland Co-op, HastingsGeorge Hohwieler .......... Aurora Co-op Elevator Co.Ron Hunter ..................... Ag Valley Co-op, EdisonGreg Sabata ................... Frontier Co-op Co., Brainard

Ron Velder ...................... Farmers Cooperative, DorchesterBrian Williams ................. Farmers/Ranchers Co-op, AinsworthDale Piper ....................... Midwest Farmers Co-op, Elmwood (ex-officio)

FUND FOR EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE

Steve Erdman ................. Panhandle Co-op Assn., Scottsbluff (Chair)

Jerrell Dolesh .................. Battle Creek Farmers Co-opDarwin Franzen ............. Cooperative Supply Inc., Dodge

Wade Mulari .................... Co-op Mutual Insurance Co., OmahaRandy Robeson .............. Frontier Co-op Co., BrainardDale Piper ........................ Midwest Farmers Co-op, Elmwood (ex-officio)

HALL OF FAME COMMITTEE

Ron Hunt, HildrethAl Kalkwarf, DorchesterTed Kessner, Lincoln

Jim Chism

Frenchman Valley

Farmers Co-op

Imperial

Ron VelderFarmers Cooperative

Dorchester

Jim Miller, HardyTerry Rowe, SmithfieldDale Piper, Elmwood (ex-officio)


2004/2005 Nebraska Cooperative CouncilCooperative Hall of Fame

Induction Ceremony

Visit our website at

wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.nebr.nebr.nebr.nebr.nebr.coop.coop.coop.coop.coop

Thomas Clark

St. EdwardBerdean Kohtz

Hampton

Theodore Kessner

Lincoln

The Nebraska Cooperative Council Hall of Fame welcomed three new peopleinto membership at the Annual Meeting of the Nebraska Cooperative Council heldon November 22, 2004, in Kearney. The three were officially inducted into theHall at the luncheon held in conjunction with the Council’s Annual Meeting.

The 2004 inductees included Thomas Clark of St. Edward, TheodoreKessner of Lincoln, and Berdean Kohtz of Hampton. They join the five previousgroups to comprise a true “Who’s Who” of early cooperative leaders in Nebraska.

Tom Clark farms in the St. Edward area and served on the board of his localcooperative for many years, including two stints as board chair. He also wasinstrumental in forming two swine cooperatives.

Ted Kessner has been recognized as one of the icons of cooperative law. Tedcompleted a distinguished 44-year legal career when he retired from practice inJuly of 2004.

Berdean Kohtz managed the cooperative in Hampton for over 15 years.During that time he strived to find ways to add value to his patrons’ grain cropsthrough innovative practices. His goal was to return as much money as possibleto the farmer owners of the cooperative.

The Council presented each of the inductees with a framed certificate com-memorating their induction into the Hall of Fame. In addition, a plaqueoutlining each of the inductees’ accomplishments will be permanently displayedat the Council’s office in Lincoln.

We want to congratulate these three individuals for their induction into the Hallof Fame and thank them for their dedicated efforts to foster growth in the coop-erative community.

CDL HazmatEndorsements

COOPERATION IN NEBRASKAis the official publication of the Nebraska Cooperative Council,printed quarterly at Lincoln, Nebraska.

Robert C. Andersen, PresidentEd Woeppel, Editor

Glenda Hinz, Production Editor

Nebraska Cooperative Council134 S. 13th St., Ste. 503, Lincoln, NE 68508-1901

Volume 44, No. 3 September 2005

In January we provided you withinformation on the new regulations forhazmat endorsements for CommercialDrivers Licenses (CDLs) that wereimplemented by the Department ofTransportation. The new requirementsrequire drivers applying for a CDL witha hazmat endorsement to complete abackground check and be finger-printed. When originally announced,the only location utilized for thefingerprinting was in Omaha.

Because of the hardship this placedon cooperatives, particularly thefurther you get from Omaha, weaggressively sought help from theGovernor’s office, our congressionalrepresentatives, and the NebraskaDepartment of Motor Vehicles toencourage the establishment of moresites for the fingerprinting.

Through this process we learned inearly March that cooperatives innorthern and western Nebraska couldutilize sites in our neighboring statesfor completing the fingerprintingrequirement. In South Dakota sites areavailable in Sioux Falls and RapidCity. In Wyoming sites are available inCasper and Rock Springs, and inColorado sites are in Denver andColorado Springs.

In addition to these sites, therewere six county sheriffs who agreed toprovide fingerprinting services. Sincethis original action, many additionalsites have been added statewide. Ifyou need an updated list of sites,please contact the Council office.


State FFA CooperativeSpeaking Competition

The Nebraska Cooperative Councilonce again provided sponsorship forthe State FFA Cooperative Speakingcompetition. According to FFA offi-cials, the Council has provided supportto the Nebraska FFA Association eachand every year since 1951, making theCouncil the longest, continuoussponsor of the FFA organization. We

are proud of this long-term relationship with the FFA andhave every intention of continuing to work with the FFAin the future.

This year’s Cooperative Speaking Competition tookplace in conjunction with the 77th Annual State FFAConvention which was held on March 31 and April 1 inLincoln. A total of 65 students participated in the 12district events, with 14 qualifying for the state competi-tion.

Contestants in the Cooperative Speaking Competitionare judged on a six- to eight-minute prepared speech ona topic dealing with cooperatives and their benefits tolocal, state, and national economies. The contestencourages young people to gain an understanding ofcooperatives and at the same time to develop speakingand communications skills.

Judges for the semifinals of this year’s competitionwere Lefty Gabriel of Shelby, Gail Hall of Lexington, TedKessner, and Ed Woeppel both of Lincoln. Judges forthe finals were Jerry Johnson of Wahoo and Darrell Markof Lincoln.

Emily Estes of Stuart took home top honors in the2005 competition and received a trophy, first placemedal, and a check for $100 from the Council. In secondplace was Taylor Yaw of Imperial, who received a goldmedal and check for $50 from the Council. Third placewent to Megan Crawford of Syracuse. Megan receiveda gold medal and a check for $25 from the Council.Other gold metal winners were Stacy Olson of West Holtand Amanda Peterson of Waverly.

Receiving Silver medals were: Bryant Borchers ofCentennial, Kaitlin Effle of Verdigre, Dexter Haskell ofLyons-Decatur, Justin Hathaway of Leigh-Clarkson,Laura Marciel of Boone Central, and Marcella Rhoads ofSuperior.

Receiving Bronze medals were Lianne Boggs ofVerdigre, Becky Grimm of Sioux County, and MattHerrington of St. Paul.

Congratulations to all these students, who throughtheir own efforts are preparing themselves to be theleaders of tomorrow.

Member Input MeetingsThe Nebraska Cooperative Council conducted two

member input meetings this year, one at North Platte onMarch 3 and another at York on March 4. A total of 29cooperatives were invited to attend one of the two meetings.

The purpose of these two meetings was to allow themembership to provide input into the activities of theCouncil and to help establish the Council’s priorities in thefuture. In essence, the Council is able to undertake long-range planning with grassroots member input. The agendafocused on:

A. An assessment of the Council’s present education,legislative, and regulatory programs. What are thestrengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats? Whatprograms are the most important to your operations? To thecooperative system as a whole in Nebraska?

B. Budgetary, as the redeployment of cooperative assetscontinues, how do we finance the delivery of neededassociation services?

C. A review of the multi-state discussions between theIowa Institute for Cooperatives and the Nebraska Coopera-tive Council regarding director education programs andpotential multi-state opportunities.

D. Should the Council continue its involvement in “indus-try specific” programs? If the Council isn’t involved, will theindustry specific groups position themselves to do so?

Mike Turner, who facilitated both meetings, prepared asummary of the input gathered at both meetings. Keyfindings were:

# Three (3) primary areas of emphasis for the Councilwere identified:

1. Legislative work (35.3%)2. Regulatory work (26.9%)3. Education programs (23.9%)

# The three (3) core activities of the Council (legislative,regulatory, and education) need to continue. Cutting back inthese three areas would negatively affect the Council’sability to meet its mission. None of those participating in themeetings wanted to see these three core areas reduced oreliminated.

# The participants were strongly opposed to the Councilnarrowing its programs to “only cooperative specific” issuesand moving away from “industry specific” issues.

# “Free riders” (non-members) will benefit from Councilefforts; however, the Council must still move forward inserving the cooperatives of the state.

# Members encouraged the Council to shift to greateruse of email for publications and correspondence to reducecosts.

# As the redeployment of cooperative assets continues,dues will have to be adjusted to allow for the continuance ofthe three core areas of legislative, regulatory, and educationprograms.

The input that was provided by meeting participants wasgreatly appreciated by the Council’s Board of Directors andstaff. This meeting reaffirms the value of long-term planningby the Board and staff and will be continued on an every-other-year basis in the future.


The financial statements presented herein were excerpted from the completeAudited Financial Statements provided to the Council's Board of Directors.

Nebraska Cooperative Council

Financial Statements

Financial statements are available for members bycontacting the Council office at 402/475-6555.



2004/2005 Education ProgramsThis winter’s Council educational programs drew in 340

local directors, managers, and employees of cooperatives.The programs this year included the Director/ManagerWorkshop, Director Certification Program, Graduate DirectorSeminar, Board Officer Training, and Cooperatives ForTomorrow.

Sixty-five (65%) percent of our members sent representa-tives to at least one of our educational programs, and asyou might guess, many cooperatives had representation atseveral programs. This speaks well for the cooperativesystem and indicates an interest in investing in the continu-ing education of local directors and management.

Director/Manager WorkshopCo-sponsors for the program include the Council,

CoBank, and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Institute ofAgriculture and Natural Resources. Supporting sponsors forthe program were AGP, CHS Inc., and Land O’Lakes.

The “High Cost of Doing Nothing” was the theme of thisyear’s workshops. The focus for the daylong program was:

# Demographic trends affecting agriculture# Where should directors and managers look for

bottom-line improvements?# Can cooperative boards implement unpopular

changes?# The importance of follow-through and direct communi-

cation to membership# Current cooperative topicsDr. Mike Turner, retired UNL Ag Economics Professor;

Tom Houser, Vice President of Commercial AgribusinessBanking, CoBank; and Council staff Ed Woeppel served asfacilitators for the program.

Director Certification ProgramThe 2005 DCP programs were scheduled for January 5-6

at North Platte and January 25-26 at York. Due to inclementweather, we were forced to cancel the North Platte datesand just hold one session this year. Instructors for theprogram included: Dr. Darrell Mark, UNL, Phases 1and 4;

Council Attorney Rocky Weber, Crosby Guenzel LLP,Phase 1; Dr. Roger Ginder, Iowa State University, and VirgilHarms, CoBank, Phases 2 and 3; and Byron Ulery, retiredco-op manager from Beloit, KS, Phase 4.

CoBank and UNL supply personnel time for travel,instruction, and material development. CoBank also spon-sors the “Analyzing a Cooperative Business” bookletutilized in Phase 3.

Graduate Director Seminar 1The GDS1 on “Advanced Financial Management” was

offered this year in North Platte on January 24 and York onJanuary 27. GDS1 covers the complexities involved incooperative financial management, highlighting those areaswhich are most often misunderstood. Techniques coveredin the workshop can be directly applied to participants’future business needs. Through case study problems inmany instances, participants arrive at workable solutions forspecific situations. Facilitating the program were Dr. RogerGinder, Dr. Darrell Mark, and Virgil Harms.

Co-sponsors include the Council, CoBank, and UNL-IANR.

Board Officer TrainingThis year’s Board Officer Training was held in Lincoln at

the Cornhusker Hotel on February 15. The morning sessionconsisted of an open forum discussion of issues facingcooperatives today. This free-ranging discussion wasfacilitated by Rocky Weber, attorney with the CrosbyGuenzel law firm, and Darrell Mark, UNL Ag Economist. Asalways, this discussion touched on a variety of topics, andthe nature of the program allowed participants to askquestions of Rocky and Darrell that pertained to theircooperatives.

The afternoon session focused on “Questions LocalDirectors Should be Asking.” Harry Fehrenbacher, Chairmanof the Board of Effingham Equity Cooperative in Effingham,Illinois, and the last Board Chairman of Farmland Industries,facilitated the afternoon session. Because of the unique

Mike Turner and Tom Houser lead discussion during the Director/

Manager Workshop.

Attorney Rocky Weber and UNL Ag Economist Darrell Mark answering

questions at the Board Officer Training program.


experiences that Harry has had as a board member, he wasable to discuss the importance of local board membersbeing engaged in their duty as a board member. Harrydiscussed the demise of Farmland and the factors that ledto the demise. In addition, he shared a perspective of howthings worked for his local cooperative which has been verysuccessful over the years.

Cooperatives For TomorrowThe Cooperatives For Tomorrow program was a new

offering for the Council this year. The program was de-signed to allow our members to hear from national andregional cooperative leaders who they otherwise may nothave the opportunity to hear from. The concept is thatperhaps we can learn from others who have faced some ofthe same issues we are facing in the supply and marketingcooperatives of Nebraska.

We cooperated with the University of Nebraska on thisprogram and were able to utilize the Fund For Excellence tohelp offset the costs for bringing in nationally knownspeakers. This concept allowed us to develop the programat an affordable cost for local directors.

Throughout the day the program focused on vision andstrategic thinking and planning. The intent was to allow thevarious cooperative leaders to share their vision andstrategic positioning with our members to help stimulatecreative solutions to problems faced by our cooperatives.

The program was held in Lincoln on February 16 at theCornhusker Hotel. The program was kicked off by DennisMullen, CEO of Birds Eye Foods, a vegetable cooperative.Mr. Mullen provided an excellent presentation that talkedabout the need to create and communicate the vision foryour company. Through examples of actual experiences,Mullen explained the importance of all of the members of anorganization understanding the vision of the company.

The program then shifted to a presentation by MikeFraser and Michael Tedder from ISG Inc. in Overland Park,Kansas. This presentation focused on strategic thinking andplanning. Fraser and Tedder worked through the process ofhelping people to think strategically and then develop a planto strategically position the company for future growth.

During the luncheon the group had the opportunity to hearfrom Robert Egerton, manager of CoBank’s CommercialAgribusiness Division in Denver. Egerton provided hisinsights into the future of agriculture and the need for localcooperatives to be able to adjust to meet the demands offuture customers.

The final portion of the day’s program was a paneldiscussion titled “Visions for the Future.” On the panel wereRandy McGinnis, COO for the 10 Midwestern states ofDairy Farmers of America; Don Wiseman, retired coopera-tive manager; and Robert Egerton. During this discussioneach panel member provided his thoughts on the future ofagricultural cooperatives. The group also responded toquestions from the audience to conclude the session.

CCPRO, which stands for the Cooperative Communica-tions and Public Relations Organization, was officiallyformed at a meeting of cooperative representatives onMarch 1, 2005. The mission of this organization is toimprove the skills of ag cooperative communicationsprofessionals through educating and networking to providea unified message for our cooperative workforce andmembers.

Over the years the Council has heard from many localcooperative leaders that communications with membersand member education were areas that needed to beenhanced because cooperatives have changed so much inrecent years. To address this concern, the Council hosteda meeting in September 2004 to determine the need andinterest of forming such an organization. At that meetingthe clear consensus was that a networking group of thiskind would indeed be beneficial for individuals charged withcommunications and education within their local coopera-tives.

The initial officer team for CCPRO was elected at theMarch 1 meeting and includes: President, Tom Hermance,Human Resources Manager, Farmers Cooperative,Dorchester; Vice President, Gary Lewien, CommunicationDirector, United Farmers Cooperative, Shelby; Secretary/Treasurer, Cyndi Weiss, Customer Service Director,Frenchman Valley Cooperative, Imperial; and Communica-tions Director, Brett Faber, Director of Communications,Aurora Cooperative Elevator Co.

This group will be providing the leadership over the nextyear to establish the programs and procedures to make thisa group that will truly be beneficial for local cooperativeemployees. Certainly they are to be recognized for taking aleadership role in this important task.

In addition to establishing the guidelines and officers forthe new organization, those in attendance had the opportu-nity to take part in a communications workshop presentedby Alan Kohtz of KoSource. Alan provided ideas andexamples on how members could develop and improveinternal communication processes with cooperatives.During this presentation members were also given theopportunity to share some of their own ideas or examplesof things they have done to be more effective in communi-cating internally.

The group plans to meet quarterly for the coming year.As dates and locations are set, we will make sure that allcooperatives are invited to attend. We want to assure youthat even if your cooperative was not able to attend eitherof the first two meetings, you are still more than welcometo join the group. A networking group only becomesstronger when more people are involved, so we want toencourage you to be proactive in solving some of ourcommunications problems by joining this organization.

CCPRO Organization Formed


Legislative/Regulatory Issues

Cooperative Specific PrioritiesThe following areas directly affect andimpact all cooperatives, whether they besupply/marketing, electrical, farm credit,dairy, telephone, or other. These issues areunique to cooperatives and require constantmonitoring.

Securities...The Council continues towork to ensure that cooperative equitiesare not classified as securities andsubject to full registration. The exemptionfrom full registration of certificates ofinvestment has been maintained, but thenotice filing requirements continue.

Mandatory Equity Redemption... TheCouncil’s position has been that decisionsregarding equity redemption shouldremain in the hands of the Cooperative’sBoard of Directors. In the past fewyears, there has been the advancementin several surrounding states to allowmembers or stockholders of a coopera-tive to demand immediate payment ofequities, or to prohibit the practice ofsetting aside any such members’earnings to a surplus fund. The Councilis opposed to both provisions.

Patronage Dividends...The Council willcontinue to oppose any efforts to subject

cooperative patronage dividends/per unitretainings to “double taxation” at both theproducer and local levels for the purposeof computing state income taxes.

Interest on Members’ Equity... TheCouncil continues to oppose legislationmandating cooperatives to pay annualinterest to member stockholders on theirmembers’ equity.

Transportation Cooperatives... TheCouncil will continue to oppose effortswhich would discriminate against coopera-tive transports.

Farm Credit System...The Council willcontinue to closely monitor legislation toensure that commercial lending interests donot attach/amend legislation which wouldprohibit or restrict the ability of the FarmCredit System to adequately serveagriculture and cooperatives.

Telephone Cooperatives and RuralElectric Cooperatives...The Council willcontinue to closely monitor legislation toensure that Telephone Cooperatives andRural Electric Cooperatives are allowed theopportunity to adequately serve theirmembers.

Below is a summary of major legislative and regulatory issues that we have monitored this past year. We normallymonitor 75-100 bills/issues that are before the Legislature or regulatory agencies each year. Many times bills or regula-tions appear, on the surface, to have little to do with cooperatives. However, they can impact us in varying ways.

GRAINLB 439 . . . One of the major

successes of the Council during thislegislative session was the passage ofLB 439. LB 439 dealt with allowing thecommon practice of direct deliverygrain storage programs to continue.While this practice has been commonin the industry for many years,proposed Public Service Commission(PSC) regulations would have ruledthe practice illegal.

One of the fundamental issues thathad to be resolved was the PSCstance that USDA policies would notallow for direct delivery grain storageprograms due to grain substitutionissues. To resolve this issue, theCouncil undertook a “fly-in” to Wash-ington, DC, to meet face to face withUSDA officials. We were able to meetwith John Johnson, Deputy Adminis-trator for Farm Programs, and BartFarrish, Deputy Administrator forCommodity Operations.

As a result of this meeting, wereceived clarification from USDAofficials that the USDA position is that

federally licensed or approved eleva-tors are not prohibited from substitut-ing grain. This clarification effectivelyforced the Nebraska PSC to changeits stance on direct delivery storageprograms.

Seeking this clarification was costlyin monetary terms as well astime expended. However,receiving this clarificationallowed us to moveforward with LB 439.Due to the unexpectedlegal and travel costs,the Council estab-lished a fund for resolving this issue.Voluntary contributions by thosecooperatives most affected by thisissue helped greatly offset theseunexpected costs.

In order to be assured that we couldresolve this issue, the Council and theNebraska Grain & Feed Associationworked with Senator Bob Kremer ofAurora to draft a bill to specificallyallow direct delivery grain storageprograms to continue in Nebraska (LB439).

During the hearing on LB 439, theentire grain industry testified insupport of the bill, and the PSCtestified in a neutral position. Duringtestimony, PSC representativesindicated that since the proposedregulations had been changed, therewas no need to enact LB 439.

We maintained that LB 439 wasneeded to assure that in the future,direct delivery grain storage programscould not be changed through theregulatory process, but instead couldonly be changed by legislation.

LB 439 was passed by the Legisla-ture with the emergency clause onApril 1, 2005, with a 48-0-1 vote. Thebill was signed by Governor Heinemanon April 7, 2005, effectively becominglaw on April 8.Status: Signed by GovernorCouncil Position: Support

LB 52 . . . was passed by theLegislature and signed by the Gover-nor on March 9. As passed, it con-tained the original legislative intent ofLB 222 in that it allows that the PSCmay waive the currently requiredfingerprinting and criminal historybackground check if the licensee hasalready undergone a backgroundcheck for purposes of obtaining aliquor license and has received thatlicense. In essence, while the lan-guage is permissive, for all practicalpurposes, LB 52 removes the “dualfingerprinting” for cooperatives thathave convenience stores. LB 222 wasintroduced by Senator Deb Fischer ofValentine on behalf of the Council.Status: Signed by GovernorCouncil Position: Support

LB 492 . . . was introduced bySenator Kremer at the request of thePSC in response to legal issuesraised during the insolvency ofRichland Grain.

LB 492 adds a new provision to theWarehouse Act which declares thatgrain physically deposited is grain instorage unless title is passed upon


(cont. on page 12)

deposit pursuant to contract or pricedscale ticket. The new section furtherdeclares that upon the PSC’s closureof a warehouse and taking title tograin, a first priority lien in all graininventories present in the warehouseexists in favor of valid storers,owners, and depositors of grain.Statutory notice is given of thepreference of such lien over any lienor security interest of warehousecreditors.

Remaining provisions of the billrequire notification of the PSC uponthe commencement of any action inreplivin to assert ownership of grainwithin a warehouse. The bill providesthat the Commission’s closure of awarehouse and taking title to grainserves as a stay upon any third partyaction or proceedings to take title tograin inventories of the closed ware-house. The stay applies to all actionsactually commenced or which couldhave been commenced prior to theCommission’s action.Status: Signed by GovernorCouncil Position: Neutral

LB 79 - RAILROAD CROSSINGSLB 79 was introduced by Senator

Baker and, as originally introduced,would close any public railroadcrossing without gates, signals, alarmbells, or warning personnel locatedwithin 1/4 mile of a public railroad withgates, signals, alarm bells, or warningpersonnel unless it is the only railroadcrossing which provides access toproperty. It was advanced to GeneralFile with a TransportationCommittee amendmentwhich would allow aprocess for an interestedparty to object to an actiontaken if a written request issubmitted to the Depart-ment of Roads by aprofessionalengineer licensed topractice in Nebraska. Both LB 79 andthe committee amendment remainpending before the full Legislature.Status: General FileCouncil Position: Oppose

ETHANOL AND ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

LB 90 . . . was introduced andprioritized by Senator Wehrbein. As

originally introduced it would haveraised the excise tax on corn andgrain sorghum from 3/4¢/bu and cwtrespectively, to 1.25¢/bu or cwt fromOctober 1, 2005, through October 1,2010. This increased revenue wasproposed to provide funding for theEthanol Production Incentive Cash(EPIC) Fund that the State of Ne-braska is already committed to forfuture years. LB 90 as amended andpassed contains the following provi-sions:

# Raises the EPIC excise tax oncorn and sorghum from 3/4¢/buor cwt to 7/8¢/bu or cwt fromOctober 1, 2005, to October 1,2010. (The total checkoff thatneeds to be collected will be 1-1/8¢/bu or cwt. This includes theEPIC excise tax of 7/8¢ and theCommodity Checkoff of 1/4¢/buor cwt.)

# Raises the state’s annualGeneral Fund transfer to theEPIC Fund from $1.5 million to$2.5 million for 2005/06 and2006/07 and 2008/09-2011/12. In2007/08 the transfer would be$5.5 million.

LB 90 also contains provisions forrural economic development, including:# Creation of the Building Entrepre-

neurial Communities Act whichwould establish a grant fund tobe used by two or more commu-nities to support economicallydepressed rural areas. Grantswould be limited to $75,000/community. A total of $250,000would be available for grants.

# Create the Agricultural Opportuni-ties and Value-Added Partner-ships Act which would providecompetitive grants of up to$75,000 to organizations inter-ested in value-added opportuni-ties. Cooperatives would beeligible for these grants. Up to $1million per year will be availablefor value-added grants.

# Increases the net worth limita-tions for Nebraska InvestmentFinance Authority borrowers from$300,000 to $500,000 for agricul-tural enterprises.

Status: Signed by GovernorCouncil Position: Monitor

LB 325 . . . as introduced bySenator Raikes would eliminate theEthanol Board. The bill was heard bythe Revenue Committee and wasadvanced to General File. The Rev-enue Committee believes that elimi-nating the Ethanol Board would resultin savings of $375,000 annually whichcould be redirected to ethanol produc-tion incentives. It should be noted thatSenators Connealy and Preister, bothsupporters of the Ethanol Board, weregone on the day of the hearing.Status: General FileCouncil Position: Monitor

LB 404 - LIVESTOCK INCOME TAXCREDIT

LB 404 would provide state incometax credits for individuals who update,modernize, or expand livestockfacilities. The credits allowed would beequal to 10% of the first $500,000 thatwas invested to construct, modernize,or expand livestock facilities. Partner-ships, corporations, LLCs, and jointventures all would be eligible under theAct. The Council testified in support ofLB 404.Status: KilledCouncil Position: Support

LB 102 - STORM WATERMANAGEMENT AREAS

LB 102 wasintroduced bythe NaturalResourcesCommittee andSenatorsBeutler andPreister andwould allow villages, cities, counties,and NRDs to create storm watermanagement programs. Funding forsuch programs would come fromlandowners in the storm water man-agement area and would be based onthe amount of impervious surface ofthe landowner.

Cooperatives would be affected bythe amount of paved area that theyhave in a storm water managementprogram. C-Store or service stations,along with paved parking lots at officeareas and warehouse facilities, wouldbe used to calculate the tax assess-ment to pay for the program.


Legislative/Regulatory Issues (cont. from page 11)

Initially, three cities in Nebraska(South Sioux City, Lincoln, andOmaha) were required by EPA toaddress this issue. This year, 13 morecities have been identified by EPA toaddress this issue. Examples wouldbe Scottsbluff, Kearney, Grand Island,Norfolk, and Columbus.Status: Held in CommitteeCouncil Position: Oppose

EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION ANDGROWTH ACT

LB 312 . . . is the new centerpiecefor Nebraska’s economic growthincentives; the bill makes majorchanges to the Employment andInvestment Growth Act (LB 775 -1987).

The effective date of this legislationis January 1, 2006. Key provisionsinclude the following:

1. Require wages equal to at least60% of the state’s average weeklywage for purposes of attainment andjob tax credits;

2. Grant larger wage credits forbetter-paying new jobs;

3. Index investment thresholds inthe future to changes in the producerprice index;

4. Retain an investment-only tierand create a jobs-only tier;

5. Allow job credits to be takenagainst the withholding of new employ-ees;

6. Expand the definition oftaxpayer to eliminate the necessitythat at least 90% of the owners besubject to income tax;

7. Allow teleworkers to count asjobs at the project if the telework isinterrelated to the project;

8. Allow the Tax Commissioner tosanction taxpayers for failing torespond to information requestspromptly, including deeming anapplication withdrawn;

9. Delay large refunds of localsales taxes to meet budgeting require-ments of cities; and

10. Require disclosure of project-specific credits earned and used for 2-year periods.

Under LB 312 there are five (5) tiersof benefits. While broadening theavenues for tax credits, LB 312 alsorequires additional reporting relating to

the amount of tax credits and thetaxpayers receiving the credits.

In addition to the tiers, several othercomponents of economic developmenthave been included in LB 321. One ofparticular interest to the businesscommunity and cooperatives is theprovision which exempts manufactur-ing machinery, equipment and relatedservices from sales tax. The measurewould define “manufacturing machin-ery and equipment” very broadly toinclude: (1) equipment for transportingraw materials or components likeassembly lines or mill rolls; (2) moldsand dies for forming cast or injectedproducts or its packaging material; (3)machinery to maintain the integrity ofthe product or environmental condi-tions, such as climate control or cleanroom equipment; (4) testing equipmentfor quality control; (5) computers thatcontrol a manufacturing process; (6)machinery used to produce power orenergy, such as steam turbines; (7)catalysts, solvents, and other solu-tions even if they do not become partof the finished product; and (8) repairor replacement parts purchased forrepairing or maintaining manufacturingmachinery, such as refractory brick.Equipment would not need to comeinto contact with the product to qualifyfor the exemption.

LB 312 also includes the creation ofthe Nebraska Advantage RuralDevelopment Act. This changes theEmployment Expansion and Invest-ment Act (LB 270 - 1987 and LB 608 -2003) to allow businesses in countieswith less than 15,000 residents toclaim credits by creating as few astwo jobs and investing $125,000.Because of the low thresholds for jobscreated and investment, many morebusinesses in counties of less than15,000 will now be able to participatein the credits under LB 312.

It is important, however, to point outhow LB 312 affects agriculturalcooperatives in total. First, in late1999 and early 2000, the NebraskaDepartment of Revenue issued aDepartment Ruling that Section 521(exempt) cooperatives were noteligible under the Employment andInvestment Growth Act (LB775-1987);however, non-exempt ag cooperativeswere eligible. Under LB 312, Subchap-ter 521 cooperatives (exempt) and

non-exempt cooperatives are notexcluded from eligibility under theNebraska Advantage Act. The Councilhas worked closely with SenatorLandis, Governor Heineman, and theRevenue Committee to make sure thatSection 521 “exempt” cooperativesare eligible under provisions of LB312. However, late in the session, welearned of an unfortunate develop-ment; namely, that in 2003, via AM2005 to LB 608, Section 521 exemptag cooperatives had been removedfrom eligibility by an Enrollment andReview Amendment to the Employ-ment Expansion & InvestmentIncentive Act (LB 270-1987). Thus,under the Nebraska Advantage RuralDevelopment Act provisions, Section521 ag cooperatives are not eligible,but non-exempt cooperatives continueto be eligible. We are in the process ofseeking corrective action at this timeand will work with legislation in thecoming session to rectify this issue.

The legislation also containsprovisions for providing tax credits forresearch and development activities,and the creation of a Small BusinessRural Micro-Enterprise Tax CreditProgram which targets tax incentivesat businesses with five or feweremployees.Status: Signed by GovernorCouncil Position: Support

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT(FLSA)

Last November, when we con-ducted our “fly-in” with U.S. Depart-ment of Labor (DOL) officials, it wasagreed that both DOL staff and ourlegal counsel would search courtrecords to determine how to reach acompromise that was acceptable toDOL and local cooperatives in regardsto the FLSA. Due to the amount oftime that legal counsel spent on thegrain issues this legislative session, wewere not able to get this accomplishedas quickly as we would have liked.

Attorney Rocky Weber has com-pleted his research and developed ajob description for a custom applicatorthat “may be” acceptable to DOLofficials. The challenge has been todetermine what could be considered“minor and incidental” in regards to acustom applicator being considered


within the definition of a farm workerduring the application season.

A conference call was held withRocky Weber and a number of localmanagers in June. The primarypurpose of the call was to discuss thedraft job description that Rockydeveloped. During the call, Rockyindicated that the draft job descriptionwas more restrictive than what hewould have preferred but it was donethat way to have a chance of gainingthe DOL’s approval.

The managers on the call werelukewarm to a more restrictive jobdescription. The group consensuswas that the proposed job descriptionas written would not solve the problemfor cooperatives. In addition, concernwas expressed that if we do adopt amore restrictive job description, futureDOL audits of cooperatives that arenot using the more restrictive versioncould be more damaging for thosecooperatives.

During the call it was agreed thatwe needed to seek further clarificationfrom the DOL before we finalize aposition on the more restrictive jobdescription. Rocky has submitted aletter to the DOL seeking clarificationon the “farm exception” and how thatcan be applied from a practicalperspective.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION -GRAIN REGULATIONS

The issue of developing regulationsfor direct delivery grain storageprograms changed dramatically withthe passage of LB 439 this pastlegislative session. LB 439 wasactually introduced to resolve theconflict created by the proposedPublic Service Commission (PSC)regulations to implement LB 735 whichpassed in 2003.

As a stakeholder, the Council willbe involved in developing the regula-tions to implement LB 439. PSC staffhas begun this process and as detailsbecome available, we will provideupdates to our members.

ANHYDROUS AMMONIA TANKSThe Fertilizer Institute (TFI), along

with eight member companies, appliedto the U.S. Department of Transporta-tion (DOT) for an exemption toauthorize the continued use of nurse

tanks without the required AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers(ASME) identification plates. Theexemption was approved by the DOTon January 10, 2005. Under existingDOT regulations, if an NH3 nurse tankis missing its ASME identificationplate, it is out of compliance with theDOT. It has been estimated, nation-ally, that 30% of all NH3 nurse tanktrailers do not have “readable” ASMEtank identification plates. If a tankplate is not readable, that NH3 traileris out of compliance with the DOT.

Under the TFI exemption, a methodis provided for facilities with nursetanks without the ASME identificationplate to (1) perform an externalinspection test; (2) conduct a hydro-static inspection test; and (3) conducta thickness test. A registered inspec-tor must perform these inspectiontests, which may be a companyemployee who meets the requirementsof the DOT regulations. The tankexemption must be renewed every twoyears and re-inspected every fiveyears and marked with the exemptionnumber and a unique companyidentification number.

Pursuant to the above, retailershave four (4) choices: A) Removefrom service those tanks in question;B) Do nothing and face being cited byenforcement authorities; C) PursueTFI Nurse Tank Indemnification PlateExemption; or D) Receive “PartyStatus” from the DOT directly. How-ever, it should be noted that theMinnesota has implemented a pro-gram which allows retailers whoseNH3 nurse tanks are missing anidentification plate to have another “redata” plate attached and have an RStamp Certified Person re-inspect thetank. Iowa appears to be moving inthat direction as well.

Based on a survey of Nebraskalocals that the Council undertook, theNebraska State Fire Marshal has notbeen issuing “corrective orders” formissing ASME identification plates ornon-readable plates (at the presenttime). Naturally, this could change inthe future.

We have initiated contact with theState Fire Marshal’s office andindicated our support for a stateprogram similar to that in Minnesota.We will continue to maintain contact

with the State Fire Marshal’s office toadvocate for a manageable system ofdealing with missing identificationplates on NH3 tanks.

ANTITRUST MODERNIZATIONCOMMISSION

The Antitrust Modernization Com-mission (AMC) was created byCongress to review antitrust laws inthe U.S. and to report its recommen-dations to Congress and the Presidentby Spring 2007. The Commission hasannounced its review will include theCapper-Volstead Act among otheragricultural statutes.

In conducting its study, the AMCwill attempt to determine whetherimmunities and exemptions should beeliminated if not justified by thebenefits they provide or if they shouldotherwise be time limited. In additionto the Capper-Volstead Act, the non-profit agricultural cooperatives exemp-tion is included among the immunitiesand exemptions the Commission willstudy.

The National Council for FarmerCooperatives (NCFC), of which theCouncil is a member, has developed aposition paper outlining the importanceof farmer-owned cooperatives and theneed for cooperatives to continue inthe future. In addition, NCFC willprovide testimony at a hearing theCommission will hold in November.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OFCOMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORMSTATE LAWS

The National Conference of Com-missioners on Uniform State Laws(NCCUSL) is an association of 300attorneys from across the UnitedStates dedicated to promoting unifor-mity among various state laws. Theydraft model state laws and promotetheir adoption by their respective statelegislatures. They have been workingon drafting a uniform cooperativemodel act in relation to the “newventure cooperative.” NCCUSL’s goalis to have a final draft version readyfor the states’ consideration by the fallof 2006.

We need to carefully evaluate theadvantages and disadvantages of anytype of new venture cooperative lawand be assured that it is a “win-win”

(cont. on page 14)


NCC-PACThe NCC-PAC was established in

1999 with the main objective being toenhance access to our electedrepresentatives from both the rural andurban areas of the state. The NCC-PAC is restricted to state legislativeand state constitutional amendmentelections which are deemed to have adirect impact on the Council’s mem-bers.

The NCC-PAC is governed by an11-member committee which is solelyresponsible for the method of solicita-tion and the amount of expendituresfor particular candidates. One of theactivities of the committee is tointerview both urban and rural candi-dates to determine how contributionsshould be distributed. During the PACinterviews with “urban” legislativecandidates, part of the process isdevoted to educating them on what aco-op is. Through these interviews,the committee establishes ties withthe candidates and, more importantly,has the opportunity to inform thecandidates of cooperative issues.

In 2006, the Primary Election will beheld in May and the General Electionin November. In 2006, the constitu-tionally mandated term limits go intoeffect. Of the 24 senators up forelection, 20 will be ineligible to seekre-election due to term limits. TheNCC-PAC will spend 2-3 days duringJuly 2006 interviewing legislativecandidates across the state at severallocations. In this time of change, theNCC-PAC will become even moreimportant as we attempt to inform thecandidates and new senators aboutcooperative issues.

We want to thank the cooperativesthat provided voluntary contributionsduring the 2004/2005 fiscal year.

FFE ProjectsThe Council’s Fund For Excellence was created to assure a continued working

arrangement with the University of Nebraska. The leadership of the Councilbelieves that it is imperative to have an independent third party source to provideeducational and research programs for farmer-owned cooperatives.

The agreement that we have with the University calls for the Council, throughthe FFE, to provide funding for educational research programs. In 2004/05, theFFE Coordinating Committee took action to fund the following projects:

1. University of Nebraska Cooperative Analytical Simulation Tool NUCAST v. 2.0. This proposal funded Version 2 of the NUCAST software that wascreated in 2004. Version 1 enables users to compare qualified vs. non-qualifiedallocations. Version 2 would incorporate additional features to enable users toproject the impact of changes in unallocated equity and cash allocations paid inprimarily non-qualified plans. ($6,500 was allocated for this project). The pro-gramming for this software is complete, and the entire program is being tested toensure quality control. The release is targeted for early winter of 2005.

2. Cooperatives For Tomorrow Workshop. This proposal funded a workshopthat focused on creating vision and strategic plans for a cooperative. The intentwas to bring in national speakers which local board members don’t normally hearfrom. This workshop was hosted in conjunction with the Council. ($5,500) Amore complete review of this program is included in the education section.

FFE Funding for 2005/06We received three proposals for the 2005/06 funding cycle. These proposals

were reviewed by the entire FFE Committee.The FFE Coordinating Committee took action to provide the following funding

for 2005/06:# An Overview of the Financial Health of Grain and Farm Supply Coop-

eratives in Nebraska - submitted by Iowa State University ($7,848 over twoyears: $3,875 in the first year and $3,973 in the second). The proposal wouldprovide financial benchmarks and analysis of financial trends in Nebraska’scooperatives. In addition to the project, Iowa State will provide personnel for aneducational presentation for Nebraska cooperative directors explaining theresults of the study.

#NCC/UNL Director/Manager Workshops Video Enhancement - submittedby NCC/UNL ($3,000). Would provide funding to create a video of Midwest regioncooperative managers to be used in this year’s Director/Manager Workshop. Thepurpose of the video tape is to provide a platform for candid discussion about theeffects of the rapid consolidation that has taken place in cooperatives.

situation for our traditional supply and marketing cooperatives and producerswanting to create a new venture cooperative. As we evaluate the action of theNCCUSL, these things need to be kept in mind:

# The law should supplement, not replace, existing cooperative law.# The law should not adversely affect federal cooperative law with regards to

existing tax, securities, and antitrust governance of cooperatives.# The voting and economic value should be in the hands of the producers as

opposed to investors.# The law should be a “model law” and not a uniform law; if a uniform law, the

NCCUSL will seek to promote adoption by the state legislatures versus having itas a sample law for use by the states.

Legislative/Regulatory Issues (cont. from page 13)


Cooperative Education Staffing at UNLThe Council has maintained a long

history of working with the Universityof Nebraska to develop and deliverhigh quality educational programs forlocal cooperative directors. Since1964 we have worked together on ayearly basis in these endeavors.

When Mike Turner announced hisretirement from the University, theCouncil’s Fund For Excellence wasestablished to ensure that Universitysupport would be provided in thefuture. With the hiring of Darrell Markto fill the Turner position, we thoughtwe were set in this area of education.However, in late October 2004,Council staff met with Dick Clark, UNLInterim Department Head of the AgEconomics Department, and ElbertDickey, Dean of Extension for theUniversity, to discuss “CooperativeProgramming.” At that time, welearned that Dr. Darrell Mark’s profes-sional assignment at UNL was beingchanged, and the net effect was thatthe “Cooperative Education” positionat UNL was being vacated. We alsolearned that Darrell would not beinvolved in facilitating the 2004Director/Manager Workshop programsor providing that independent third-party perspective for cooperatives inthe future. Clark indicated that theUniversity would contract with MikeTurner to facilitate these programs for2005/06.

In order to involve and generateinput from the membership statewide,the Council convened a specialmeeting on February 21, 2005, withDrs. John Owens, Vice Chancellor ofthe IANR; Elbert Dickey; Dick Clark;and Alan Baquet, Associate ViceChancellor of the IANR. Councilrepresentatives at the very importantmeeting included the Council’s Boardof Directors, Fund For ExcellenceCommittee, and Educational AdvisoryCommittee (see page 3).

Owens advised the group that theUniversity had experienced severebudget cuts over the past four years.He also described another majorconcern which is undergraduateenrollment. He indicated that the AgCollege is in the midst of an eight-yeardecline. If this trend is not reversed,

Owens indicated that the budget forthe Ag College would become evenmore restricted.

Dickey then discussed Extensionfunding. He indicated that USDArequirements dictate that 25% of hisfunding be utilized for multi-stateprojects. That requirement lends itselfwell to working with other land grantinstitutions to provide Council educa-tion programs. Dickey also indicatedthat within Extension, he has abacklog of 44 positions, so refillingany position at this time will bedifficult.

Dickey then laid out the University’splan for meeting the Council’s educa-tional needs. In the short term (2-3years), the University will work withMike Turner, Roger Ginder, and DarrellMark to facilitate Council educationprograms. In the case of Turner, theUniversity will contract with him towork on Council programs. Ginder willcontinue to work with the Council onthe Director Certification Program andGraduate Director Seminars.

Since the February meeting,Council staff has researched possiblesolutions to the UNL staffing issue.Council staff developed a white paperdiscussing the pros and cons ofvarious staffing approaches which wasused during an April 15 Board/FFEconference call at which time theBoard finalized its recommendation. Aletter was sent to John Owens

expressing our desire to see theUniversity hire a Ph.D. candidate forthe “Cooperative Education” position inthe Ag Economics Department.

On April 15, staff also held ameeting with the Iowa Institute forCooperatives, Iowa StateUniversity,and CoBank officials to update themon the situation and to discuss long-term plans for this position.

On May 6, Council staff met withAlan Baquet who became the AgEconomics Department Head on July1. Staff provided Baquet with thebackground on the Council/Universitypartnership over the years and theimportance this partnership has hadon cooperatives across the state.

We discussed the “cooperative”position, and Alan indicated that hewas charged with two (2) missions ashe takes over as department head

1. Reverse undergraduate enroll-ment trends

2. Make sure ag economicsresearch and extension is connectedto Nebraska’s citizens.

Certainly, number two fits wellwithin the NCC-UNL partnership. Wewill continue our efforts to ensure thatthis important position is filled. It isregrettable that the process is aselongated as it is. However, we willcontinue to work with Universityofficials to assure that the “coopera-tive education” position at UNL isfilled.

One November night, basketball legend Michael Jordan and Ifound ourselves alone, and he told me about being cut as a sopho-more from his high school basketball team in Wilmington, NC. “Theday the cut list was going up, a friend and I went to the gym tolook together,” Jordan recalled. “If your name was on the list, youmade the team. His name was there, and mine wasn’t. I wentthrough the day numb. After school, I hurried home, closed thedoor to my room and cried so hard. It was all I wanted—to play onthat team.”

At the end of the regular season, Jordan asked the coach if hecould ride along on the bus with the team to the district tourna-ment. “I just wanted to watch the others,” he explained. The coachagreed. But only if Jordan would carry the players’s uniforms. “Sothat’s what I did,” said Jordan. “I walked into the building carry-ing the uniforms for the players.” After a pause, he added, “It’sprobably good that it happened. It made me know what disappoint-ment felt like. And I knew that I didn’t want that feeling everagain.” ~Bob Greene in his book Hang Time

Documents

ANNUAL REPORT - Nebr€¦ · The Council presented each of the inductees with a framed certificate com-memorating their induction into the Hall of Fame. In addition, a plaque outlining