As reported by Journal reporter Larry Dreiling, U.S. Wheat Associates is attempting to come to a consensus on how to merge the three national Wheat organizations. If the state Wheat commissions within USW agree on a proposal, we will present it to the National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) and the Wheat Export Education Committee for their consideration.

Unlike Dreiling's conclusions about USW's efforts at a compromise in order to effect a merger, I am optimistic.

There are 19 state Wheat commissions that belong to USW, and they all operate differently, largely due to differences in state rules and regulations. With these differences it isn't surprising that negotiations and compromise are necessary.

For instance, through changes in Kansas law, the governor no longer appoints Kansas Wheat commissioners. We are elected. But in some states, the Wheat commissioners operate at the pleasure of the governor. Other states have input into the election process but are still regulated heavily by state government.

Because of these differences, and others, earlier this year three states opposed the "WICC III" proposal to consolidate the three national organizations into one. They were concerned that the proposal ran contrary to direction from their state officials. One basic provision of the WICC III proposal--the manner in which votes would be taken within the organization--was especially problematic.

Some people want to blame those states for stopping a national consolidation, but I believe that casting aspersions is counterproductive.

Although the Kansas and Idaho Wheat commissions voted in favor of the WICC III consolidation, we knew that it would be impossible to speak with one voice through one organization unless we found a compromise. We asked those states what they would need for an effective merger, and we arrived at an important resolution that, I believe, is fair.

"When a member has an association and a commission, each member's association and commission shall agree on the allocation of the member's weighed votes, including any full funding bonus, between the two directors, and shall notify the corporation of their agreed allocation. If the association and the commission fail to agree on the allocation before the first meeting of the board of directors in the fiscal year, the member's weighted votes shall be allocated proportionate to the relative financial contribution of the association or commission from which each are named to the fulfillment of the member assessment. The foregoing allocation applies only in the case of weighted votes."

The last sentence of this resolution is especially important, because the majority of votes taken within the new organization will be on a 50/50 basis, with fewer using a weighted vote. This proposal is very similar to NAWG procedures, where votes are treated equally between states but an opportunity for a weighted vote exists.

The USW vote on the above resolution was unanimous. Other compromise resolutions, proposing relatively minor changes, were also not contentious.

Reflecting on USW's action, NAWG president Sherman Reese summed it up very well, observing that the "critical point of distinction is the allocation of weighted votes. If we can come to agreement on this issue, the consolidation riddle can be solved."

Kansas Wheat organizations know that Wheat producers are better off when we speak in a strong unified voice. That is why, despite some growing pains, we have the new cooperative agreement between the Kansas Association of Wheat Growers and Kansas Wheat Commission. Although we probably have many changes and challenges to overcome in the future, we have come a long way on the state level. Our expectations are just as high for the national organizations.

The Kansas Wheat organizations decided that, if the national groups merge, our state will stipulate that 50 percent of our vote will reflect the grower organization and 50 percent will represent the commission side. But we also realize the plight of other states. Kansas believes in the individual rights of each state, and we believe that each state should decide how their votes will be counted.

Perhaps someday all state Wheat organizations will have the same rights that we enjoy in Kansas. Until that time, we need to look for ways to keep the Wheat states together on one page. My only hope, in the meantime, is that everyone remembers what a democracy is all about. If they do they will recognize, as the Kansas Wheat organizations do, that individual states should determine their own fate--hopefully, within a vibrant and unified new Wheat organization.

--Ron Suppes, Dighton, Kan., U.S. Wheat Associates Board of Directors

Date: 8/24/05