• - Editor.Dorothy M. Boll
Palmer, Alaska Advertising.Harriet Z. BqII
Published once a week at Palmer, Alaska, for the tnuska Valley
Farmers’ Cooperating Association for the purpose of giving news of the „
Associations work, probloius and accomplishments.
SUBSCRIPTION RATR £1.75 per year £l.00 for six months 100 a copy
WHERE ARE CO-OPS HEADED?
The following article taken from the Co-op Digest offers a little food
for thought and is hereby passed on to readers of the Valley Settler.
It is written by F.J.Fitzpatrick, Supervisor, Cooperative activities
Branch, Department of Industries and Labour in Cenada.
I'any Cooperatives have made fair progress, during the past several years
of good times—but have made little or no provision for the future,when
money may not be so plentiful. . :
The great weakness of too many cooperatives is lack of working capital,
with the result, much■borrowed money is used, oome of the borrowed
money is from members, but much of it is from ordinary lending institu
tions. Surely the members of cooperatives cannot hope to control their
own business unless.they are prepared to make some sacrifice for-the
financing of that business.
Some producer cooperatives are dependent on the barlks for the money to
purchase the produce of the members, the money be.ing paid back to‘the
banks when the product handled has been sold".
D producer cooperative is set up by producers for the purpose of hand
ling the produce of that,particular group and yet in its operations, the
members expect to receive as much cash on delivery as though fcheir pro
duce was being sold outright to.a private buyer.
hhEce do these producer members expect the management to ,get the money
from, unless they themselves are prepared to furnish the working capital
required in the business, ^-s. how operated, too many of. this type of
cooperative are not really owned by the producers at all, and with a
tightening of credit, the producers might find to their worrow that they
were not in control, and that they did not own their own business, be
cause they had not supplied the capital for the operation of their
cooperative. _ ,
Of course, they left their dividends in their cooperative, because they
couldn’t get them out, but they had already received the full market
price for their produce, and no doubt, a better price than their produce
would have brought had there been no cooperative in the field to regu
late the price paid by other buyers.
Producers believe that cooperatives are a great protection to them,
whether they are producing one type of produce or another. There is
ample proof that producers are getting a better deal today because of
their cooperatives. It is therefore reasonable to expect that these
same producers should be willing to-pay at least a little for their in
surance and should make sure that the burden of financing should not be
left to the Bord and management, who have plenty to do, without carrying
a load of financial worry.
One fairly large cooperative did a very large business in 1948, -and op
erated;. almost entirely on borrowed money. Their members required the
cooperative to advance full value of the product, or nearly the full
value. The co-op ran out of credit and was not able to take all the
product available. They were entirely at the mercy of the institution
granting credit to them. The members boast about their cooperative, and
the fine job it is doing and has done for that particular group of pro
ducers. It is a fact that the fine job has been done by tha Bank, the
F.anager, and the Board of Directors, and not by the members who claim to
be cooperators,
^j'other large cooperative in another field of production did not have so
good a line of credit, nor as capable management and direction, and did
_Cont. on., page 3 __