AMERICAN SOD PRODUCERS 

ASSOCIATION 

1984 

MIDWINTER CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

FEBRUARY 21-24, 1984 

RIVERIA HILTON, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

empty table cell

Page

1

3

12

19

21

28

30

32

35

36

"The Decade Ahead" 

Steven W. Dobson, Bank of America NT&SA

"Recent Legal Developments of Interest to the Sod Industry"  

William A. Harding, Nelson & Harding

"Keep Yourself Legal: Personnel Management"  

William A. Harding, Nelson & Harding

"Construction Outlook for 1984" 

Dailey R. Mayo, MHISCO, F. W. Dodge Division

"Preparing a Business Plan - A Guide for the Emerging Company"  

Dennis R. Marx, Ernst & Whinney

"The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program: Kentucky  

Bluegrass Evaluations" 
Jack Murray, USDA, ARS, Beltsville Agricultural Research  
Center

"Control of Common Bermudagrass in Southern Turfgrasses"  

Ray Dickens, Auburn University

"Turfgrass Diseases - Recent Developments" 

Dr. Richard W. Smiley, Cornell University

"Warm Season Grasses in the Southwest" 

Victor A. Gibeault, University of California - Riverside

"Computers - What Can They Do for You?"  

Moderator: William L. Campbell, Fairlawn Sod Nursery  
H. B. Michelson, Michelson Farms 
Ike Thomas, Thomas Brothers Grass Company

THE DECADE AHEAD
Steven W. Dobson 

Vice President and Senior Economist 

Economics-Policy Research 

Bank of America NT&SA 

San Francisco, California 94137

Five characteristics of the economy that emerged in the 1970s are likely to 
persist in the 1980s. These include: a slowing trend rate of growth; an ex- 
panding government sector; a susceptibility to erratic growth arising from 
abrupt changes in monetary and fiscal policies and external shocks; sectoral 
differences in growth performance; rapid change.
Real economic growth averaged 4 percent per year in the 1950s and 1960s, but 
fell to an average of 3 percent in the 1970s and only 1 percent over the period 
1980-83. The slowdown in the 1970s reflected a dramatic drop in productivity 
growth from 2.6 percent in the period 1948-67 to about 0.5 percent in 1973-80. 
The effect was partly offset by a doubling in the growth of the labor force 
caused by the maturing ”baby boom” and increased female labor force participa- 
tion.
Labor force growth will slow in the future, from 2.7 percent per year in the 
second half of the 1970s to 1.5 percent by the second half of the 1980s and 
0.9 percent in the 1990s. Productivity growth will rise, but not enough to 
offset the negative effect on growth. As a result, the economy's trend rate 
of growth will decline further, from 3.8 percent in the 1960s and 3.2 percent 
in the 1970s to around 2.5 - 2.7 percent in the 1980s.
That implies intensified business competition, slower growth of profits, and 
increased strains over income distribution. The strains will be compounded as 
the aging population imposes a greater tax burden on taxpayers.
While the Reagan Administration has manged to slow the growth of government, 
and may manage to hold growth down for a few more years, the real question is 
whether that constitutes a permanent change. Defense, entitlement programs 
(Social Security and the like), and interest on the federal debt together 
account for 85 percent of total federal government spending. The defense 
buildup will continue and there is no serious effort to attack the runaway 
growth of entitlement programs.
Because the benefits of each government spending program are concentrated 
on a few — the recipients — while the costs of each program are diffused 
across many — the taxpayers — there is an inherent bias favoring increased 
government spending and making it almost impossible to eliminate or reduce 
any program once it has started. This constitutional weakness, combined with 
an entitlements mentality, implies continued expansion in the government sec- 
tor. That in turn implies an ever-rising tax burden.
While overall economic growth will slow, there will still be important differ- 
ences , creating relative windows of opportunity. The Southern-Western regions 
will out-perform the Norther-Eastern regions. There is a long-run movement of 

population and business to the Sunbelt, creating stronger growth and stronger 
markets there. The Southern —Western states are also less sensitive to busi­
ness cycle volatility, reflecting less dependence on the cyclically sensi­
tive and volatile heavy manufacturing industries.
Differences will persist across industries. The service sectors will out­
perform the manufacturing sectors simply because the economy is becoming more 
service-oriented. During the 1950s, the service sector accounted for 52 per­
cent of all new jobs while the manufacturing, mining, and construction sectors 
accounted for 22 percent of new jobs. Over the next twenty years, these sec­
tors will account for 70 and 8 percent, respectively, of new jobs.
Foreign trade will continue to grow. Growth in export markets will be strongest 
in the non-industrial, non-European countries — Latin America and Asia.
The increased volatiliy that affected the economy in the 1970s in part reflected 
an unusual series of shocks. But we have always had business cycles, and there 
is every reason to expect them in the future. Moreover, the increased inter­
locking of the world economies makes us more sensitive to fluctuations in 
foreign economies.
The single most important factor affecting the demand for housing in the long 
run is the rate of household formation, which depends on the growth of popu­
lation, its age structure, and marriage and divorce rates. The primary group 
forming independent households is traditionally in the 20-35 age bracket. 
Growth of this age group surged to a 3-5 percent annual rate in the 1970s as 
the "baby boom" matured. But growth in this group has fallen to 1.8 percent 
since 1980, will reach zero in 1986 and then average -1.1 percent until around 
1995.
The negative effect on the rate of household formation and housing demand may 
be partly offset by other factors tending to raise household formation. Given 
the size of the population, the number of households is increased if the 
average household size falls. Over the last two decades, a trend to later 
marriage and more divorces reduced the average household size and swelled the 
number of separate households. The number of married couple households fell 
from 75 percent in 1960 to 60 percent now. If these trends do no change, 
they will help to sustain the rate of household formation and housing demand 
even though basic demographic trends will be working to reduce it. Starts will 
average 1.7 - 1.8 million units between 1982 and 1995, close to the level of 
the 1970s.

AMERICAN SOD PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION  

1984 Midwinter Conference 

RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS OF INTEREST  

TO THE SOD INDUSTRY

BY 

WILLIAM A. HARDING 
NELSON & HARDING  
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

I. 

State Agricultural Labor Relations Acts

A. 

B. 

Recent statutory changes - Arizona
1. 

The Arizona Agricultural Employment Relations 
Board was to terminate on July 1,  1982, and
the statute as a whole was to expire on 
January 1, 1983. However, the Board has been 
continued and is scheduled to terminate under 
Arizona Sunset Law on July 1,  1992. The
statutes are to expire on January 1,  1993.
1982 Ariz. Sess. Laws, Ch. 195, 
§ 3,
effective July 24, 
1982, retroactively
effective July 1, 1982.

Recent court decisions - California
1. Agricultural Labor Relations Board v. Kern 

County Superior Court, 196 Cal. Rptr. 920 
(Ct. App., December 9,  1983). The United
Farm Workers of America filed a charge with 
the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) 
against the employer alleging that it had 
refused to rehire unfair labor practice 
strikers who had unconditionally offered to 
return to work. The ALRB issued a complaint 
based on the union's allegations and sought 
injunctive relief in Kern County Superior 
Court. The Superior Court entered a 
preliminary injunction order which required 
the employer to rehire the strikers and 
terminate all agricultural workers hired 
after the strike, until all strikers had been 
reinstated. The employer appealed the 
preliminary injunction order. When the 
employer refused to comply with the court's 
order, the union initiated contempt 
proceedings against the employer. The court 
found that a mandatory injunction issued by a 
superior court pursuant to Labor Code 
§ 1160.4 is automatically stayed pending 
appeal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedures 

2. 

3. 

The ALRB had concluded that

§ 916. The court noted that under federal 
procedure rules, these injunctions are not 
stayed on appeal and although the 
Agricultural Labor Relations Act is similar 
to federal labor law, and the statute 
governing petition to superior court for 
temporary relief or restraining order is 
virtually identical to federal statute, 
actions by the ALRB are subject to 
California's procedural law.
Triple E Produce Corp. v. Agricultural Labor 
Relations Board, 196 Cal. Rptr. 518 (Cal., 
November 21,  1983). The United Farm Workers
of America was certified by the Agricultural 
Labor Relations Board as the exclusive 
collective bargaining representative of the 
employees of Triple E Produce Corp. The 
employer challenged the validity of the 
certification based on alleged threats made 
by union organizers during the representation 
election. 
statements made by union organizers to 
employees who were waiting in their cars for 
work to begin on the day before and on the 
day of the election would be viewed by the 
employees as campaign propaganda, which the 
union could not effectuate. The California 
Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the 
ALRB's finding. The Court relying on 
applicable NLRB and ALRB precedents as well 
as the uncontradicted statements by the 
employees describing the nature and the 
content of the threats made to them and the 
implication that the union would have known 
how the employees voted and would exercise 
some control over job allocation sustained 
the employer's objections to the election. 
The union was also ordered to be discertified 
as exclusive bargaining representative by the 
ALRB.
High and Mighty Farms v. Agricultural Labor 
Relations Board, 195 Cal. Rptr. 792 (Ct. 
1983). The UFW was
App. , October 19, 
certified as exclusive bargaining agent for 
the High and Mighty Farms' employees by the 
ALRB. The employer objected to the election. 
One of the objections was that the Board 
agent abused his discretion by failing to 
dismiss the certification petition because 
employees currently employed in the last 
payroll period, prior to the filing of the 
certification petition, did not represent 50% 
of the employer's peak employment for the 

4. 

current year. The court reversed the ALRB 
and held that for purposes of determining the 
peak period of employment, California workers 
temporarily working in Arizona should have 
been included. These workers would be 
affected by a collective bargaining agreement 
and according to the court should not be 
deprived of the right to participate in the 
bargaining agent selection. The court also 
rejected the ALRB's formula for determining 
if the statutory "50% of peak" requirement is 
met. The defect noted in the decision was 
that the average figure produced by totaling 
the number of workers each day and dividing 
by the number of days in the payroll period 
bears no significant relationship to the 
number of workers actually employed and 
entitled to vote. The court therefore 
annulled the election. The court also 
ordered the decision to be applied 
prospectively in order to maintain stability 
in the agricultural labor field. Thus, this 
decision does not affect those elections 
previously confirmed.
Rivcom Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations 
Board, 195 Cal. Rptr. 651 (Cal., October 17, 
1983). Rivcom Corp., its parent Riverbend 
Farms, Inc., and Triple M. Farms, Inc. 
appealed an ALRB decision finding Rivcom and 
Riverbend had as new operators of the farm 
sought to avoid unionization by replacing the 
recently union-affiliated employees of the 
farm’s previous owner with non-union workers, 
and had evicted the resident employees from 
the labor camp housing in violation of 
subdivision (a) and (c) of Section 1153, 
which correspond respectively to Section 
8(a)(1) and 
(3) of the National Labor
Relations Act. The employers, in addition, 
appealed the finding by the Board of a 
refusal to bargain with the bargaining 
representative of the predecessor employees. 
The Court affirmed the Board's decision 
finding the employers' challenges lacked 
merit. The following facts were found to 
support the Board's findings as to the unfair 
labor practice charges. The successor knew 
of the union election victory when he agreed 
to farm the ranch. After taking over, he 
quickly evicted all unionized employees. He 
allowed none of them to apply for work, nor 
did he ever inquire about their 
qualifications. He was determined that none

would be rehired, although they represented a 
labor pool with extensive experience in the 
operation. He avoided the former employees' 
efforts for reinstatement. His replacement 
personnel, all new to the ranch, had no union 
affiliation. In the dissenting opinion, the 
justice pointed to testimony of the president 
of the successor employer which demonstrated 
the employers' "legitimate and substantial 
business" justification for replacing the 
employees of the "unprofitable" predecessor 
grower. The dissenting justice found no 
evidence to support a finding that the 
employers' actions were prompted by any 
anti-union motives. The Board's finding that 
the growers were "successor" employers was 
affirmed by the court. The growers contended 
that "continuity of the work force" is an 
essential element of successorship. Since 
the growers hired no prior employees, they 
argued, they cannot  to be 
found to be
successors. However, the 
court found
"continuity of the work force" will be
discriminatory
presumed when there  is  a 
refusal to hire the predecessor's workers. 
The growers also contended that they were not 
the statutory employer of the workers, since 
they lacked control over the wages and hours 
of the Triple M (intermediate supplier) 
workers. The Court found the Act expressly 
excludes both a "farm labor contractor" and 
"any [other] person supplying agricultural 
workers to an employer" from the statutory 
definition of "agricultural employers" 
subject to the provisions of the Act. The 
legislative history of the Act clearly 
indicated to the Court that the ALRA drafters 
sought to bypass the intermediate suppliers 
of labor and put direct responsibility for 
unlawful interference with employees' 
organizational rights on the growers. 
Finally, the Board's remedial order including 
a broad cease-and-desist provision, awards of 
reinstatement, back-pay, and "make-whole" 
reparations for the growers' refusal to 
bargain with the union was not altered by the 
Court.
Laflin and Laflin v. Agricultural Labor 
Relations Board, 195 Cal. Rptr. 711 (Ct. 
App. , October 12, 
The employer
appealed the final order of the ALRB 
determining that the employer committed an 
unfair labor practice by partially failing to

1983). 

5. 

comply with ALRB's pre-petition employee list 
regulation and requiring the employer to take 
specified affirmative action. The Court 
found substantial evidence to support the 
unfair labor practice charge. 
An
agricultural employer according to the Act is 
to supply the Board with a pre-petition 
employee list with a "current street address" 
for each employee when a labor organization 
has filed a notice of intent to organize the 
agricultural employer's employees. However, 
the "remedial" order of the Board was found 
by the Court to be "so disproportionate to 
the conduct involved in the unfair labor 
practice and the resulting interference with 
employee rights that the order can only be 
characterized as punitive rather than 
remedial." Therefore, the remedial order of 
the Board was annulled and remanded to the 
Board for formulation of a proper order.
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ,  29 U.S.C.  § 201 et
seq. (1976)
A. Recent court decisions

II. 

1. 

2. 

Lopez v. Bruegel, 563 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. Tex. 
1983). Four families of migrant workers 
brought an action against a farmer under the 
FLSA. The migrant workers worked on the 
farmer's land for one week and were furnished 
to the farmer by a farm labor contractor. 
The workers were never paid for the work they 
performed, even though the farmer paid the 
contractor $3,700. The court found the 
migrant workers were not "employed" by the 
farmer within the meaning of the provisions 
of the FLSA. Furthermore, the farmer did not 
violate the FLSA by failing to pay the 
workers the minimum wage since the farmer is 
entitled to the 500-man-day exemption from 
the minimum wage requirements under the Act.
Donovan v. Freezo Bros., Inc.,  678 F.2d 1166
(3d Cir. 1982). The employer appealed from a 
permanent injunction directing it to pay 
overtime wages to its employees under the 
FLSA. The employer contends that employees 
in its mushroom composting operation are 
exempt from the FLSA's overtime pay 
requirements because they fall within the 
statutory exemption for employees employed in 
agriculture. The court affirmed the lower 
court's determination that preparation of 

III. 

IV. 

mushroom compost is not an agriculture 
activity since it is not: (1) cultivation or 
tillage of soil; (2) production, cultivation 
or tillage of the soil; or (3) a practice 
incident to farming. The employer was 
directed to pay $67,363.01 in back wages and 
interest to its employees.

National Labor Relations Act
A. Recent court decision: NLRB v. Hudson Farms, 681 
F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1982). The company refused to 
bargain with the Teamsters Union which had been 
certified as the bargaining representative of the 
company's truck drivers and yard workers. The 
company argued that the Board's bargaining order 
should be denied enforcement by the Court because 
the truck drivers and yard workers are 
"agricultural laborers" who are exempt from the 
Act's coverage. The employees transport poultry 
from the independent contractor growers, which 
raise the chickens to market weight, to the 
company's processing plant. The Court relying on 
two earlier cases involving similar workers found 
them to be "employees" and not "agricultural 
laborers" under the Act.

Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act
A. 

B. 

Recent statutory change: 
Migrant and Seasonal
Agricultural Protection Act, Pub. L. 97-470, 29
U.S.C. 1801 et seq. (MSPA), was signed into law on 
January 14, 1983, to improve federal protection of 
migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. This 
new law replaces the Farm Labor Contractor 
Registration Act of 1963, as amended (FLCRA), 
which was repealed on April 14, 1983.
Recent court decisions
1. 

Lopez v. Bruegel, 563 F. Supp. 316 (N.D. Tex. 
1983). Four families of migrant workers 
brought an action against a farmer under the 
FLCRA. The migrant workers worked on the 
farmer's land for one week and were furnished 
to the farmer by a farm labor contractor. 
The workers were never paid for the work they 
performed, even though the farmer paid the 
contractor $3,700. The Court found the 
migrant workers were employed in agricultural 
employment under the FLCRA. The farmer was 
found to have intentionally violated the 
provisions of the FLCRA in failing to "obtain 
from the contractor and maintain records 

containing information" concerning the 
migrant workers’ total wages, withholding 
from wages, net earnings, hours employed, 
total hours worked, number of units of work 
performed on a piece rate basis, or rate per 
unit. The workers unable to prove actual 
damages for out-of-pocket expenses argued for 
maximum statutory damages of $500 for each 
violation of the FLCRA, amounting to a total 
liability of $9,500 for the farmer. The 
Court awarded each worker the sum of $200 as 
fair and equitable compensation for the 
farmer’s violation of the FLCRA. Thus, the 
farmer's total liability to the workers was 
$3,800.
Alvarez v. Longboy, 697 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir. 
1983). Migrant farm workers and their union 
brought an action under the FLCRA against a 
farm labor contractor who furnished workers 
to strike-bound growers in order to replace 
the migrant farm workers who were striking. 
The workers claimed that the farm labor 
contractor had violated the Act by failing to 
give the replacement workers written notice 
of the strike. The Court found that the 
striking workers had a right to have such a 
written notice given to the replacement 
workers under the Act. However, the workers' 
argument for a $500 award per worker instead 
of $150 was rejected, the Court finding that 
even though the recovery of $15 0 by each 
worker was small, the total judgment of over 
$13,000 was sufficient to encourage future 
compliance by the contractor. The Court 
remanded the awarding of $7,500 in costs and 
attorney fees since the only relevant 
permissible reason for awarding fees in this 
case would be because the contractor had 
acted in bad faith in forcing extensive 
litigation to obtain relief for a clear 
violation of the Act. The fact that the 
violation was "intentional" was insufficient 
in itself to establish bad faith in defending 
this suit.
Rodriguez v. Bennett, 540 F. Supp. (D. P. R. 
1982). Workers fired by employer brought an 
action under the FLCRA. The employer 
contended that the Act applied to 
agricultural workers who are hired on a 
seasonal and other temporary basis only. 
However, the Court disagreed finding the 
statute to be clear that a migrant worker is 

2. 

3. 

4. 

either one whose primary employment is in 
agriculture, as that term is defined in the 
FLSA, or one who performs agricultural work 
on a temporary basis or seasonal basis. Thus 
a "migrant" worker under the FLCRA does not 
have to perform agricultural work on a 
temporary or seasonal basis to be under its 
provisions.
Marshall v. Marrero, 536 F. Supp. 517  (E.D.
Pa. 1982). The Secretary of Labor brought an 
action pursuant to the FLCRA seeking a 
judicial determination that the independent 
contractor was subject to the Act. The 
independent contractors' employees who 
removed spent compost from mushroom housebeds 
were found by the Court to be involved in 
"agricultural activities" under the FLSA, 
since their work was incident to the farming 
operations required in the production of 
mushrooms. Furthermore, even though the 
contractor's employees were employed 
throughout the year, and thus did not move 
from place to place seeking employment they 
were still "migrant workers" under the FLCRA. 
"Migrant workers" under the FLCRA include 
workers primarily employed in agriculture or 
workers who perform agriculture labor on a 
seasonal basis.
State Wage and Hour Laws
A. Recent statutory changes

1. 

2. 

Arkansas -- The minimum wage law was amended 
to exclude under definition of employee "any 
individual employed by an [agricultural] 
employer who do not use more than (500) five 
hundred man-days of agricultural labor in any 
calendar quarter of the preceding calendar 
year." Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-320(g)(6), as 
amended by 1983 Ark. Acts No. 698, Section 1. 
(Amendment in brackets.)
Maryland -- Overtime pay of "one and one-half 
times the employee's usual hourly wage for 
any time worked in excess of 60 hours during 
any work week" is to be paid to "any employee 
engaged in agriculture who is exempted by the 
overtime provisions of the Federal Fair Labor 
Standards Act." Md. Ann. Code, Art. 100, 
§ 83(3)(j), as amended by 1983 Md. Laws, 
Ch 211.

V. 

3. 

4. 

Minnesota -- The state's Fair Labor Standards
Act was amended to exclude "two or less 
specified individuals employed at any given 
time in agriculture on a farming unit or 
operation who are paid on a salary basis;" 
The Legislature also excluded "any individual 
employed in agriculture on a farming unit 
operation who is paid on a salaried basis an 
amount in excess of what the individual will 
be paid if the individual worked 48 hours at 
the state minimum wage plus 17 hours at one 
and one-half times the state minimum wage per 
week;" Minn. Stat. § 177.237(1) and (la), 
1983 Minn. Laws, Chapter 60.
New York -- The minimum wage rate for
agricultural employees has been raised to 
$2.75 an hour, effective February 5, 1984,
and to $3.35 an hour, beginning July 1, 1984. 
N.Y. Labor Law Art. 19-A Section 673, as 
amended by 1983 N.Y. Laws, C. 972, § 2.

KEEP YOURSELF LEGAL

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

BY BILL HARDING (NELSON AND HARDING)

Better machinery and new production methods are re- 
viewed in each issue of Turf News, as sod producers continue 
their quest to provide better and more efficient services to 
their customers. Unfortuntely, the concern for the customer 
all too often overshadows an equally important company 
need—good personnel management. It is certainly true that 
even with the development of more and more sophisticated 
machinery and production methods, the human element will 
exist in American business for some time to come.

Sod producers should be just as concerned about per- 
sonnel management as they are about management of sod 
production. All too often, personnel systems are established 
on a piecemeal basis as problems arise rather than in an 
organized fashion with definite goals and procedures in 
mind. As a consequence, it is little wonder that the phrase 
“there’s no reason for it, it’s just always been that way” 
describes very adequately the personnel system in more than 
one company around the country.
Part I. 

Pre-employment Personnel Procedures

Numerous pre-employment procedures are now governed 
by equal employment opportunity regulations, and com- 
panies which are subject to EEOC (15 or more employees) 
jurisdiction and companies which serve as government 
contractors should pay particular attention to the area of 
pre-employment regulation. Government regulations and 
court decisions prohibit the failure to hire individuals due to 
race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or because the 
individual in question is between 40 to 70 years of age. Sod 
producers subject to the jurisdiction of the EEOC may be 
subjected to a charge of unlawful employment discrimina- 
tion and be placed in a positon of having to justify 
employment decisions on a logical basis in order to prove 
that no discrimination was involved.

Sod producers which serve as contractors for the govern- 
ment may also be subjected to stringent inspections of 
employment practices in order to maintain their status as a 
government contractor. The contract between the company 
and the government agency will generally set forth in some 
detail the pre-employment procedures expected of the 
contracting company. Companies which contract with 
federal and state agencies may find themselves subjected to 
periodic “compliance inspections.” In the field of pre- 
employment personnel procedures, these compliance in- 
spections will focus on many of the same questions that 
would be asked by the EEOC should a charge of employment 
discrimination be filed.

Basically, the question in both instances focuses around 
whether the employment selection procedure is based upon 
non-job-related inquiries. According to the government’s 
theory, employers should only be concerned about qualifica- 
tions necessary to perform the job in question. If a company 
seeks information and bases decisions upon non-job-related, 
factors, employment discrimination may be present.

On* August 25, 1978, the EEOC, the Department of 
Justice, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Pro- 
grams and the United States Civil Service Commission 

jointly issued Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection 
Procedures. Basically, the guidelines established a “rule of 
thumb” for determining whether a particular pre-employ- 
ment inquiry has an “adverse” impact on minorities. If an 
adverse impact is determined to exist, the EEOC will require 
the sod producer in question to justify the business necessity 
for the individual components of the selection process. In 
determining the existence of an adverse impact, the EEOC 
will seek to determine whether the selection rate for any 
minority group is less than 4/5 of the rate for the highest 
group selected. If so, adverse impact will be determined to 
exist and further analysis will take place. This calculation is 
not required to be made more than once a year, nor with 
respect to groups whose composition of the work force is less 
than two percent. If no adverse impact is determined to exist, 
the EEOC will not review the individual components of any 
selection process.

Perhaps the most significant change brought about by the 
guidelines is with respect to recordkeeping requirements. 
The guidelines still prohibit an employer from utilizing 
information disclosing race or sex in making an employment 
decision. However, the employer is still obligated to keep 
that information either through a visual observation or by 
some other means. As result of the new guidelines, many 
employers are now utilizing both an application blank and a 
pre-employment information form. The pre-employment 
information form accompanying this article contains all of 
the necessary recordkeeping requirements. In addition, the 
application blank which accompanies this article relates 
only to job-related questions necessary to consider the 
person for potential employment. Questions relating to 
specific mechanical, mental, or physical abilities may be 
prepared for individual job classifications on a separate 
piece of paper and passed out to job applicants based upon 
the job which is being sought.

In addition, it must be remembered that pre-employment 
inquiries which may result in a disproportionate disqualifi- 
cation of minority group applicants must also be discarded. 
For example, the requirement of a high school education as 
a condition of employment may riot always be valid. If the 
requirement disqualifies minorities at a substantially higher 
rate than non-minorities and if the company does not have 
evidence that a high school education is a significant pre- 
dictor of adequate job performance, the requirement is illegal.
Using this same theory, the EEOC has concluded that a 
blanket prohibition against hiring individuals based upon 
height and weight restrictions also constitutes a violation of 
the federal statute since such regulations screen out a 
disporportionate number of Spanish-Americans, Asian- 
Americans and women. Of course, if the employer can prove 
that height and weight restrictions are a bona fide occupa- 
tional requirement, the restriction is legal. In sum, hiring 
requirements and pre-employment inquiries must be job 
related.

Pre-employment testing is also an area which is governed 
by stringent EEOC regulations. Sod producers should be 
careful to insure that any pre-employment tests have been

“validated” in accordance with EEOC guidelines. Validation 
is a very technical and complex process requiring the use of 
trained industrial psychologists and a sufficient employee 
sample for each job category to be statistically significant. 
Numerous companies which have attempted to “validate” 
pre-employment tests have been unsuccessful after the 
attempted “validations” were declared improper by federal 
courts. As a consequence, many companies around the 
country have dispensed with pre-employment testing rather 
than undergo the expenses and time involved in “validating” 
pre-employment tests. Any sod producer desiring to utilize 
pre-employment tests should carefully review the Uniform 
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, referred to 
above.

Many companies also make a habit of running credit 
checks on job applicants with little or no regard for the 
recently-enacted Consumer Credit Protection Act. The 
Consumer Credit Protection Act requires the prospective 
employer to inform the job applicant that such a credit check 
may be made. After a credit check is made, the job applicant 
has the right to a copy of the report and the right to dispute 
the accuracy of the report.

In light of this federal statute, many credit reporting 
agencies will not provide a credit report unless the pro- 
spective employer provides a Consumer Credit Information 
Release Form signed by the job applicant.

In recruiting job applicants, companies must be careful 
not to specify factors which are not job related as being 
criteria for employment. For example, a sod producer which 
advertises that it is only looking for “young” field workers or 
“female” receptionists or “male” accountants may well find 
itself under investigation by the EEOC or the Wage and 
Hour Division of the Department of Labor. Newspaper ads 
may not be listed under columns entitled “Help Wanted— 
Male” and “Help Wanted—Female” unless the job in ques- 
tion actually requires employees of a certain sex (i.e., a 
Playboy Club Bunny). Government contractors are also 
required to insure that employment agencies refer job appli- 
cants on a non-discriminatory basis.

It is obvious from the requirements listed above that the 
job of an employer has become much more complicated in 
seeking out, interviewing and hiring employees. However, it 
must also be admitted that many of the procedures required 
by government regulation should be found in a good 
personnel system in any event. If it may be acknowledged 
that “round pegs don’t fit into square holes,” companies 
should not have much difficulty in seeing that restricting pre- 
employment inquiries to job-related questions is an exercise 
in good management practice. In any event, companies 
which have not paid much attention to their personnel 
system as it relates to pre-employment inquiries will now 
find that the area is replete with government regulation 
requiring carefully drafted procedures and even more care- 
fully drafted personnel forms.

Because of space we had to reduce this form. The original is on two 
sheets 8 1/2" x 11". 

KEEP YOURSELF  LEGAL

BY BILL HARDING 
ASPA LEGAL COUNSEL
PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Part II.* 

The Probationary Period

After the pre-employment inquiries have been exhaust- 
ed and the decision to employ an applicant has been made, a 
different set of company procedures come into play. At this 
point the relationship between the company and the job ap- 
plicant has taken a significant change in the eyes of the law. 
The applicant is now an employee and, as such, comes un- 
der the umbrella of numerous federal and state statutes and 
regulations dealing with the employer-employee relation- 
ship. For example, minimum wage regulations, overtime 
regulations, deductions for workmen’s compensation and 
unemployment compensation payments now enter the pic- 
ture.

In addition, the employee in certain circumstances may 
subject the company to liability for actions of the employee 
in the performance of his or her duties. In light of these fac- 
tors, few companies are willing to accept such responsibili- 
ties and obligations for a new employee without some sort 
of “trial run.” Thus, a probationary period allowing the 
company an opportunity to review the way in which a new 
employee fits into company procedures and meets company 
requirements is a common personnel practice. Unfortunate- 
ly, it is very easy to become so busy in servicing company 
customers that probationary period policies are ignored. As 
a consequence, in many companies the probationary period 
merely coincides with the waiting period necessary before 
the new employee is eligible for company insurance cover- 
age.

A probationary period should serve as a good barome- 
ter in measuring the performance of new employees and 
allow the company to screen out employees who do not meet 
company standards. The employee must obviously be al- 
lowed an adequate amount of time to become familiar with 
company procedures and regulations, and a 90 day proba- 
tionary period is thus quite common. All new employees 
should be given an adequate orientation session to acquaint 
them with company operations. In some situations, on-the- 
job training is necessary in order to acquaint the employee 
with particular machines, processes, or job duties. All 
employers should seriously consider using a written orienta- 
tion and training checklist for some obvious reasons.

First, the possibility that all new employees will be giv- 
en a full orientation is greatly improved by the use of a writ- 
ten checklist. Second, it may be extremely important for a 
company to be able to prove that all company employees 
were given the same orientation and/or training. For exam- 
ple, a minority group employee discharged during a proba- 
tionary period may claim discrimination because non-mi- 
nority employees were given more extensive orientation and 
training than minority employees, thus giving the non-mi- 
nority employees an advantage in adjusting to company 
procedures and regulations. A written orientation and train- 
ing checklist for each employee would be of great assistance 
to the company in preparing a defense to such a charge of 

discrimination. The orientation checklist summarized at 
the end of the article is an example of a form which re- 
quires the supervisor to cover each particular area. A space 
is to be provided for the employee’s signature to further 
verify that all items on the orientation checklist have been 
covered as well as for future reference.

Many of the items on the orientation checklist involve 
company rules and regulations and fringe benefits. Due to 
the bulk of this type of information, many companies use 
employee “handbooks” containing detailed information 
about company work rules, general regulations, and fringe 
benefits. Such handbooks range anywhere from a one-page 
document in long-hand to a multi-page professionally print- 
ed document including pictures. In either instance, this in- 
formation should be given to the new employee on the first 
day of the job and all of the information contained in such a 
“handbook” should be carefully explained. In addition, a 
signed and dated receipt should be obtained from each em- 
ployee with regard to the company work rules.

This receipt can be extremely important in the event the 
company discharges an employee for violation of company 
rules and regulations and is thereafter sued by the dis- 
charged employee on the basis of alleged discrimination. In 
these situations, many employees deny ever having notice of 
the company work rule serving as the basis for the termina- 
tion. A signed and dated receipt kept in the personnel file 
for each employee can be of substantial assistance to the 
company in preparing its defense in situations such as these. 
The receipt need not be extremely formal and need only in- 
dicate that: 1) the employee has received the company rules 
and regulations, 2) the employee has read and understands 
the company work rules and regulations, and 3) the em- 
ployee intends to abide by the company rules and regula- 
tions. Obviously, changes in company rules and regulations 
must be communicated to employees and additional em- 
ployee receipts should be obtained.

After orientation, the company should periodically re- 
view the progress of the probationary employee in order to 
fulfill the basic “screening” purpose of the probationary 
period. In a 90 day probationary period, supervisors should 
review the employee at least once and probably twice before 
the final review at the end of the probationary period. 
Again, the benefits of regular reviews of employee progress 
during the probationary period are twofold. First, the com- 
pany has an investment in each employee from the stand- 
point of training, supervisory time, etc. Thus, it is to the 
company’s self interest to make every effort to quickly lo- 
cate and correct the problems and difficulties of new em- 
ployees which might lead to termination. Second, good writ- 
ten records of the periodic reviews should provide the com- 
pany with a sufficient basis to make the decisions at the end 
of the probationary period regarding continued employ- 
ment of the probationary employee.

The following information should be typed on a sheet with space for the 
supervisor to initial each item as it is completed. At the top of the sheet 
there should be space for the employee’s name, job discription, date hired 
and name of supervisor. The following are items to be covered on three 
separate days of an orientation period:

FIRST DAY: Welcome—Supervisor gives name; determines name 
employee wishes to be called; discusses employee’s background, family, 
experience; explains organization, company history; products and ser- 
vices; introduce to fellow workers and give employee handbook. (1) Daily 
Routine: location and use of time clock; starting and stopping time; lunch 
period and break periods; work clothes; dressing and rest rooms; vending 
machines or cafeteria; parking facilities; first aid facilities; where to get 
information and help. (2) Pay Data: rate for job; pay deductions; pay 
week—or day or period; if job is to go on incentive, discuss pay oppor- 
tunities; pay for overtime; errors in pay—what to do; job evaluation; job 
description. (3) Pay Data: merit rating policy; answer any questions. (4) 
Procedures and regulations: safety rules; safety glasses; other safety 
equipment; fire regulations; reporting accidents; importance of punctual- 
ity; absenteesim; tardiness; sickness; reporting absences; care of equip- 
ment; leaving job during working hours; use of telephone; smoking; 
housekeeping; other; penalties for violation of rules; handling employees’ 
problems. Get employee’s signature.

THIRD DAY: Briefly review material covered on first day— answer 
questions on items covered under: Daily routine; Pay data; Procedures 
and regulations. (2) Discuss importance of his job: to production; to 
quality; to effect on other employees; to total process. (3) Importance of 
team work. (4) Bulletin boards. (5) Tour of plant. (6) Answer any ques- 
tions. (7) Job instructions. Get employee’s signature.

FIRST PAY DAY: (l)Rate of pay and how figured. (2) Pay deductions: 
insurance; Social Security; income tax; etc. (3) Discuss employee benefits: 
company’s policy on pay increases and fringe benefits; review employee 
handbook. (4)Group insurance plans. (5) Opportunities for advancement. 
(6)Vacations and holidays. (7) Recreation facilities. (8) Answer any ques- 
tions. (9) Job instructions. Get employee’s signature.

KEEP YOURSELF LEGAL

point, the company may be more concerned about the is- 
suance of a written reprimand than the employee. The 
company will probably have already invested a substantial 
amount of time and money in the training of the employee, 
and the issuance of a written reprimand will alert company 
management that the investment may be lost unless changes 
are made.

In many situations, nothing that the company does will 
alter the situation and discharge will be the ultimate result. 
However, counseling with the employee may uncover some 
difficulties which can be corrected by the employer and 
which will prove of significant assistance to the employee in 
complying with company rules and regulations.

From a legal standpoint, the company must insure that 
 the written reprimand contains basic information necessary 
to “prove the company’s case” in the event the employee is 
ultimately discharged and does file an action against the 
 company. The attached written reprimand form indicates 
the type of information that should be preserved in a written 
reprimand. Uniformity in the application of company rules 
and regulations is also a common element of employee 
discharge cases. Therefore, employers should devise a 
recordkeeping system that will allow them to easily answer 
questions such as: 1) How many other employees have been 
discharged for a violation of this company rule? 2) How 
many other employees in this specific department have been 
discharged for violation of this company rule? 3) Has the 
reprimand sequence (written warning, layoff and discharge) 
used for this employee been applied to all other company 
employees?

Most companies file written reprimands in the personnel 
file of the employee involved. A duplicate filing system for 
reprimands, or a regular personnel report listing reprimands 
by name, department, rule violated, and action taken will 
generally provide the company with enough information to 
 prepare its defense in an employee discharge case.

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Enforcement of Employee Rules and Regulations

Part III. 

It must be admitted that company rules and regulations 
for employee conduct are not always based upon common 
sense. In addition, many employee rules and regulations 
which are written today may not make sense tomorrow. 
However, the outdated and nonsensical employee rules and 
regulations are often retained, but not enforced. As a 
consequence, any employee disciplined or discharged for a 
violation of a previously non-enforced company rule or 
regulation has a perfectly valid claim of discrimination.

All too often, company work rules which have not been 
enforced for many years are brought into play only when the 
company is faced with a union organizing drive, a new 
minority group employee, or a woman in a job previously 
thought of as requiring a man. The difficulties in preparing 
an adequate defense for the legal actions which follow such 
revitalized company concern in enforcement of a previously 
discarded work rule are obvious.

As a consequence, sod producers should periodically 
review company rules and regulations to determine whether 
or not the rule or regulation is still necessary and is still being 
enforced. If the rule or regulation is not necessary and is not 
being enforced, it should be deleted from the list of rules and 
regulations and employees should be notified.

Written records of reprimands and warnings given to 
employees for violation of company rules and regulations 
are extremely important from the standpoint of legal actions 
which may follow the discharge of company employees. All 
too often employees who violate company rules and regula- 
tions, due to some sort of natural tendency to be a “trouble 
maker”, are the same employees that are most interested in 
joining a labor union—on the mistaken theory that the 
union will somehow be able to magically save their job, 
notwithstanding repeated violations of company rules and 
regulations. Similarly, as even the government notes, some 
minority group employees have a great deal of difficulty in 
adapting to rules and regulations which are commonplace 
for non-minority employees.

Thus, the employer should carefully determine what type 
of procedure will be followed in the event company rules and 
regulations are violated. Most companies reserve immediate 
discharge for violations of a flagrant and serious nature 
which may also involve unwritten, but generally assumed, 
company work rules. For example, flagrant and serious 
destruction of company property and physical violence 
toward other company employees may not be specified as 
prohibited employee practices, but both offenses are gener- 
ally regarded as deserving of immediate discharge.

Many company rules and regulations are of a much less 
serious nature and generally result in first a written repri- 
mand, and perhaps even a layoff before discharge. In these 
situations, the employee should be given a written notice of 
reprimand so that there will be no misunderstanding on the 
part of the employee that continued violation of the 
company work rule in question will result in termination. 
Many companies do not issue a formal written reprimand 
until after the employee has already been verbally reprimanded 
by his or her immediate supervisor. From a personnel stand- 

Part IV. 

Employee Evaluation

Personnel procedures relating to hiring, orientation, and 
discipline are important and the administration of company 
rules in these areas is not always easy. However, one of the 
most important areas of a company’s personnel policy, and 
one of the areas that is most difficult to administer, is an 
adequate employee evaluation system. Unfortunately, many 
companies which establish otherwise excellent personnel 
procedures still operate on a totally inaccurate and inade- 
quate evaluation system.

For those companies, the traditional "good news/bad 
news” story can be reversed in looking at evaluation 
procedures in light of federal and state equal employment 
opportunity regulations. The bad news for many of these 
companies may be that federal and state agencies in the field 
of equal employment opportunity will be demanding that 
evaluation systems be based on objective factors. The good 
news may well be that establishment of an evaluation system 
along these guidelines will make a significant improvement 
in the company’s personnel policies. In any event, companies 
under the jurisdiction of the federal Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission will be subject to some scrutiniza- 
tion of evaluation procedures that they have not encoun- 
tered in the past. For example, a federal district court 
recently considered an employment discrimination case in 
which minority group employees complained that they were 
being discriminated against with respect to promotions and 
pay increases. In words pointedly applicable to many 
companies in this country, the court noted:

The personnel manager testified that in granting 

promotions defendant considers the factors of qualifica- 

tions and seniority and in each instance attempts to 

choose the employee best qualified for the vacancy under 

consideration. If two or more employees are similarly 
qualified, the one with most seniority normally receives 
the promotion. Promotions are determined by consulta- 

tion among the personnel manager, the plant 

superintendent, and the employee's immediate and past 
supervisor. There are no written instructions or guidelines 
for supervisors pertaining to qualifications necessary for 
promotions. Under this system of judging qualifications, 
it is apparent that the supervisors' subjective evaluation of 

the employee's ability is an important factor in his 

advancement and an individual supervisor could, if he 
were so inclined, exercise racial discrimination in his 
selection of candidates for promotion. Promotion 

procedures which depend largely upon the subjective 

recommendation of the employee's supervisor are a ready 
mechanism for discrimination which may be concealed 

from management.

In this particular case the court issued an order requiring 
the company to furnish supervisory personnel with written 
instructions listing objective criteria and specific qualifica- 
tions necessary for promotions and transfers. Significantly, 
the company was given ninety days to implement such a 
policy.

The lesson is obvious. If your company does not now have 
objective criteria for use in evaluation of company employ- 
ees, you should develop such an evaluation system now at 

your own speed rather than being forced to do so at a later 
date and in a very short period of time by either an agency or 
a court decree.

There is no standard “boiler plate” answer to what type of 
objective criteria should be utilized by your company. The 
process can be explained rather simply, but the application 
can sometimes be quite difficult. The first step to be taken is 
to establish the goals for the particular department, division, 
or company for which the evaluation process is being 
developed. Second, the functions, type of work, and skills 
necessary to reach such goals should be isolated on either a 
job classification or a more general “project flow” basis. 
Third, each of the individual employee functions to be 
performed under the listed job classifications or projects 
should be isolated. Fourth, the type of production, work 
product, or contribution necessary for each employee 
function should be established and rated on as an objective a 
basis as possible. Finally, an evaluation form setting forth 
the objective criteria for use in regular employee evaluations 
should be developed and distributed to supervisors.

While the development of objective criteria in a sod 
production operation may not be as easy as the “number of 
widgets per hour” formula which can be used by the widget 
maker down the road, most companies can develop objec- 
tive criteria if someone puts their mind to it. The incentive 
for having someone develop such an evaluation procedure in 
your company obviously exists. First, your company may 
have to contend with the EEOC, state equal employment 
opportunity commissions, or legal actions in both federal 
and state courts if such an evaluation system is not 
developed. Remember, as more minority employees are 
injected into the work force of your company in compliance 
with federal and state laws, your company must assume the 
burden of being able to prove that the minority employees 
are not being discriminated against in promotions and pay 
increases. Thus, a company which makes a good faith effort 
to comply with the affirmative recruitment requirements 
urged by the EEOC and state equal employment oppor- 
tunity commissions may still run afoul of the law if adequate 
evaluation procedures are not developed and applied.

Second, and perhaps more important, employees who are 
not evaluated on a similar basis for similar work performed 
will soon become discontent and your company may either 
experience a high turnover rate or the other problems that 
flow from discontent within the work force.

Of course, one of the obvious solutions to establishment 
of an evaluation procedure for pay increases is to simply 
establish a lockstep non-discretionary salary schedule which 
provides for automatic increases for all employees within a 
given job classification after the passage of a certain length 
of time—usually every six months or every twelve months. 
While this non-discretionary system saves the company 
from having to “bite the bullet” on pay increases, some 
employee evaluation will still be required for promotions, 
and objective criteria will still have to be developed to 
evaluate employees for that purpose. In fact, even non- 
discretionary salary schedules have been held to be in 
violation of non-discrimination laws in some situations. If 
the salary schedule is based upon seniority, and if no 

minority employees have been allowed to accrue seniority 
because of past discrimination on the part of the company, 
the EEOC may conclude that seniority is an impermissible 
basis for the salary schedule in order to “remedy the effects 
of past discrimination.”

One of the most helpful tools in developing a good 
evaluation system is a well organized system of management 
training within the company. Programs of this type will 
benefit the development of an evaluation system within your 
company for at least two basic reasons. First, supervisors 
and management personnel will be provided with training 
and tools that will better enable them to apply and 
administer personnel policies including the evaluation of 
employees. Many ASPA members will agree that some 
supervisors are made supervisors not because of their ability 
to supervise employees, but because she's been around 
longer than any other employee,” or “he knows more about 
the machines in that department than any one else. 
Promotions of this type are fairly common in many 
companies and simply point out the fact that many people 
are promoted into positions for which they possess no 
particular qualifications and / or skills. However, not all 
supervisors are “untrainable” for the job of supervisor—they 
simply aren’t trained. Therefore, management develop- 
ment and training courses can significantly assist these 
employees in knowing how to make management decisions 
of the type necessary in developing a good evaluation 
procedure.
Second, company management development and training 
courses should be available to all employees on a voluntary 
basis, supervisors and non-supervisors alike. Generally, 
supervisors are required to attend management training and 
development courses while rank-and-file employees are 
allowed to attend similar courses on a voluntary basis. The 
interest indicated in signing up for such a company course as 
well as the results obtained from such a course provide the 
company with a better basis upon which to make promotions 
to supervisory positions. The results to be obtained from a 

mandatory-attendance management training program for 
supervisors will provide the company with an indication of 
the respective ability of supervisors. However, a non- 
mandatory program may also provide the company with a 
better indication of interest on the part of existing super- 
visors.

Even assuming that your company develops an objective 
checklist for evaluation of employees, and even assuming a 
regular management training program for supervisory em- 
ployees, your company can still run into trouble with the 
EEOC if regular personnel records are not maintained by 
supervisors for use in evaluation procedures. If a supervisor 
is asked to evaluate employees only once every six months or 
once every twelve months, the evaluation criteria may be 
objective but the application of the criteria may be extremely 
subjective. In order to guard against such an occurrence, 
supervisors should either be required to make evaluations on 
a more frequent basis or be required to maintain a fairly 
detailed record on the “plus and minus” performance of each 
employee whom they will be called upon to evaluate at a 
later date. If the evaluations are to be conducted only once 
every six months or once every twelve months, this “back- 
ground material” will provide the supervisor with a better 
basis upon which to make a decision when the time comes to 
“fill in the blanks” next to the evaluation criteria. A good 
evaluation system, properly applied, can provide your 
company with the answer to many personnel problems. Not 
only will your company be able to adequately evaluate 
employees for promotions and pay increases, but your 
company will also avoid a great amount of litigation that 
might otherwise develop without the evaluation system. 
Quite simply, your company will be able to make better 
personnel decisions based upon a good evaluation system. In 
addition, your company will be able to support and justify 
personnel decisions that are challenged by agency action or 
court action in either federal or state courts.

CONSTRUCTION OUTLOOK FOR 1984

Dailey R. Mayo  

Regional Sales Manager  

MHISCO, F. W. DODGE DIVISION  

Monterey Park, California

No forecast can be considered properly launched without at least a few basic 
assumptions. Three very broad ones will do the job:

1.  The economy's recovery is firmly established, a continued growth through 
next year will steadily absorb excess capacity and gradually reduce 
unemployment.

2. 

Inflation will creep up, but only within the range of four to six percent.

3.  Long-term interest rates are settling into a period of relative stability, 
with mortgages holding between 13 and 14 percent.

The mere fact that an election is coming up will influence monetary and 
fiscal policy in the meantime. For construction markets, it will be a 
positive influence.

Over the past several quarters, the housing market fulfilled last year's 
prophecy that a substantial decline in mortgage rates would result in a 
substantial gain in housing starts. Conventional wisdom has it that falling 
mortgage interest rates are supposed to be a boon to home ownership, which 
ordinarily means one-family houses. And, while that happened, multi-family 
building soared 45 percent.

Difficult as it is to imagine the normally volatile housing market suspended 
at any level of output for long, this is the most likely prospect for 1984. 
This time, the market will enjoy an extended stay at the upper end of the 
cycle as a total volume of 1.725 million units is the 1984 forecast.

Public works construction, like housing, got its big boost in 1983. And like 
housing, it has the potential for still a little more "residual" expansion in 
1984 as the forces that led to the past year's turnaround play themselves out. 
Before long, the outcry for economic stimulus will be drowned out by warnings 
of renewed inflation and budgetary restraint will again dominate the public 
works market.

The unfolding pattern of the housing cycle and to a lesser degree, the strength 
of consumer spending will determine the pattern of contracting for stores and 
warehouses in the quarters ahead. Past experience shows that a volume of 1.7 
million housing starts should be capable of supporting as much as 400 million 
square feet of retail building. But it won't all happen in 1984 due to the 
familiar lag.

In the area of manufacturing building, an extremely weak first quarter of 
only 88 million square feet will leave 1983's total at only 101 million 
square feet. In 1984, however, when capacity utilization is expected to 
average close to 80 percent, contracting for industrial construction is 
estimated to total 128 million square feet. By 1987, annual volume is 
expected to exceed 200 million square feet. One indication of what a long 
way back it will be for the industrial building market: Next year's forecast 
gain of 27 percent will still leave the 1984 total below the worst year of 
the mid-1970's cycle.

Only one word is needed to describe the office building market in the fall of 
1983: overbuilt. A match-up of the cumulative additions to the supply of 
space, with the cumulative demand for it reveals a surplus of nearly a full 
year's building. The double-digit vacancy rate for offices bears it out. 
With the rate of contracting still above 250 million square feet in 1983's 
third quarter, a pattern consistent with an extended decline might find 
1984's contracting beginning at a rate close to 200 million square feet and 
finishing around 165 million for a total of 182 million square feet (a 
decline of 30 percent). A further decline - to the range of 125 to 150 
million square feet - is indicated for 1985.

All through 1983, the recovery of the construction market has been retracing 
familiar steps. Early gains in housing and public works are now pointing the 
way to further expansion into commercial, industrial and other nonresidential 
building. It is at this point, however, that the 1983-84 recovery departs 
from past patterns and begins to develop a style of its own.

*In 1984, the extension of the construction industry's potential into 
nonresidential building will be hindered by an over-built office market 
which requires corrective decline in building.

*Beyond 1984, some issues which have been dormant for the past year or two 
will take on greater importance. One is the uncharacteristically high 
level of interest rates that prevailed even as recovery began. The other 
is the almost forgotten (but not gone) federal deficit.

Projections of huge budget deficits extending far into the future present 
some difficult post-election choices. Experience suggests that the 
resolution of the deficit problem will be a compromise, involving a blend 
of taxation, inflation and monetary restraint during the mid-1980's. 
Clearly, this poses a major risk to the later-stage development of the 
new building cycle that is still taking form.

For 1984, however, the risks are minimal. During election years, 
legislators traditionally do not raise taxes and central bankers usually 
try to be accommodating. With inflation dormant for the time being, 
external circumstances can be depended upon to be supportive through 1984 
as the building cycle begins to include its absent nonresidential sector.
The most urgent short-run problem will be the one that has developed 
within the construction market itself; the unwinding of the office- 
building boom.

PREPARING A BUSINESS PLAN—A GUIDE FOR THE EMERGING COMPANY

Dennis R. Marx, C.P.A. 

Partner 

Ernst & Whinney-Chicago

A well-conceived business plan can serve two important purposes for your 
organization-- as a sales tool for raising capital and as a key management 
tool.

As a sales tool, your business plan is an excellent way for potential lenders 
or investors to review your company’s potential. Many investors will not even 
consider meeting with you until they have read your business plan. And the 
quality of your plan can be a major factor in a lender’s or investor’s deci- 
sion whether to help fund your company.

As a management tool, your business plan can help you establish goals in ac- 
tually running the company. It can help you focus on your company’s strengths 
as well as its weaknesses. And it is a control tool that permits you to moni- 
tor and assess the progress of your company. 

'

While we will concentrate on the business plan as a tool in securing financing, 
keep in mind that the elements that make the plan effective in securing financ- 
ing are equally important in making it an effective management tool.

What should your plan contain? How much detail? In what order? We will ad- 
dress these questions and others.

Remember, however, that we are not proposing a "cook book" approach for busi- 
ness plans. No two plans should be alike. Some of the areas we discuss may 
not apply to your company. You should tailor your plan to your company’s 
specific circumstances.

So how do you get your message across?

PLAN SUMMARY

Potential lenders and investors receive hundreds of plans. Your goal is to 
quickly and concisely-- in just one to three pages-- provide an overview that 
convinces a lender or investor to continue reading your plan.

In the summary, highlight key elements of the entire business plan, with 
brief explanations of such things as your objectives, products or services, 
market potential, management team experience, and method of operation. Fi- 
nally, give an indication of the finances involved, including how much money 
you need and how much of a return investors can anticipate.

Remember, the plan summary will be the first section a lender or investor 
reads, but it will be the last section you write.

After stimulating the reader’s interest, the rest of your business plan will 
provide greater detail. However, you should avoid getting too bogged down 
in detail.

BUSINESS OVERVIEW

The business description should briefly explain the nature of the business 
you are in or plan to be in. In addition, it should describe your products 
or services and potential customers, and the current ownership of your company.

Obviously, by the time you are preparing a business plan, you have convinced 
yourself that you have a great idea. But you must show potential lenders or 
investors how you will turn that great idea into a viable product or service. 
You must analyze the market and convince them that there is a market need for 
your product or service, that it meets potential customer's needs, and that 
you can sell it at a profit.

You should cover several areas.

MARKET ANALYSIS

First, you must demonstrate that you know who your potential major customers 
are, either individually or as an industry group. You must know why they 
buy-- whether because of price or convenience-- and when they buy. Also, what 
do they expect in terms of price, quality, and service?

Next, what is the market like? Lenders and investors want to know the current 
and potential size of your market... how big it will be in five or ten years.

These numbers shouldn’t just be pulled out of thin air. Base your estimates 
on industry trends, technological developments, changing customer needs, and 
other market factors. And be realistic. If you overstate the size of the 
market or your potential share, lenders and investors will question the cre- 
dibility of your entire business plan.

Finally, tell a little bit about the competition. How does your product or 
service compare with those of the competition? What is the market share po- 
tential of each competitor? What are your competitor’s strengths and weak- 
nesses? How does their strategy compensate with yours? Be objective, as 
this will add credibility to your entire plan.

ADVANTAGES OF PRODUCT

Now that you have presented an analysis of the market and your competition, 
what is there about your product or service that sets you apart from the rest 
of the pack? Lenders and investors want to know how your product or service 
will provide a competitive advantage and what market needs it will meet. This 
section should include a laymen’s description of your product, highlighting 
key features and comparing them to those of the competition. Also describe any 
research and development involved, your plans for additional new products or 
services, and any patents, copyrights, or other conditions which could discour- 
age competitors from entering the field.

MARKETING STRATEGY

Of course, you may be convinced that your product or service is the best there 
is. But why will customers buy from your company? This section of the plan 
must demonstrate to prospective lenders and investors that you understand how 
the market should be segmented and that you have the ability to sell and deli- 
ver your product or service effectively to the correct targets.

First, identify your target market or markets. Carving out a market niche and 
concentrating your resources on the needs of a specific segment may mean the 
difference between success and failure. New companies frequently fail to pro- 
perly segment and target their market. Too many people believe that they can 
be all things to all people.

Then, realistically estimate the market share and sales volume you think you 
can achieve over the next two, three, four and five years. Identify which 
portions of your estimate represent "hard" purchase commitments.

Third, discuss the pricing strategy and policy for your product or service 
and compare it to that of your competition. Show how your pricing approach 
will enable you to penetrate the market, maintain and increase market share 
in a competitive environment, and-- most importantly-- make a profit.

Next, discuss how and where you plan to sell and distribute your product or 
service. Will you sell through distributors? Will you use a direct sales 
force? How many salespeople will you need?

Finally, discuss how you will generate awareness among potential customers 
for your product or service. Which promotional activities will you use--  
public relations? Advertising? Trade shows? Sales incentives? Promotional 
literature? If you expect these expenses to be a large percentage of the 
total, explain how much they will be and when they are likely to be incurred.

OPERATIONS

Lenders and investors want to know just how you plan to go about your busi- 
ness-- how you plan to manufacture your product or perform your service.

So outline the basic elements of your operations. . .The location of your 
business and the availability and costs of labor, materials, and transpor- 
tation... the facilities and equipment you will need and their cost. . . 
the manufacturing process or the method by which you will perform the ser- 
vice, including your production or operating advantage. . .and a production 
and operations plan that gives cost information at various levels of opera- 
tion.

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATION

Without solid management, many a business is doomed to fail. Therefore, 
one of the major concerns of potential lenders and investors is your com- 
pany’s key management team members. Management’s competence, integrity, 
and commitment are important.

Lenders and investors are looking for a team with a balance of marketing, 
financial, management, and production skills, as well as experience with 
the product or service you are proposing. Explain how your management 
team is organized, and describe the primary role each person plays. Pre- 
pare a brief synopsis of each key manager, including their duties and res- 
ponsibilities, career highlights, and significant past accomplishments that 
demonstrate ability for the tasks that will be required.

Mention the key people’s investment in the company. Many lenders and in- 
vestors insist that key managers be owners of a company. Also, identify 
your board members and briefly discuss how each helps in the development 
of your company.

And be honest-- discuss any apparent weaknesses in your management team. 
If any critical skills are missing, explain whether they will be overcome 
through training, recruiting, or outside advisors.

TIMING

Next, your business plan should include a schedule that shows the timing 
of major events for your enterprise of the next three to five years. En- 
trepreneurs tend to underestimate the amount of time needed to complete 
the various tasks, so be realistic.

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Now that you have described the other elements of your business, it’s time 
to get down to the numbers. You will need to include financial statements 
and projections for the next three to five years, including a projected 
statement of operations, cash-flow projections, pro forma balance sheets 
and breakeven analysis.

Your projections should be tied to your market expectations. It is impor- 
tant to state clearly the assumptions you used when preparing the pro formas 
and projections. It may be appropriate to show the ranges of the projections 
from the worst case expected to the best possible case. Your financial anal- 
ysis should identify and support the amount of money you are seeking from 
potential investors. 

Preparing financial projections requires accounting and finance experience. 
If none of your team members are qualified in this area, get outside help.

Tell potential lenders and investors how much your need, when you will need 
it, how it will be used, and the financial structure you are proposing for 
the financing.

Also address your plans for repaying lenders or cashing out the investors, 
such as going public or merging. Both lenders and investors look at the 
future value and liquidity of their investment.

ORGANIZATION OF PLAN

Now that you have gone through all of this work, be sure to organize your 
plan so it is easy for readers to find specific sections. Many readers 
will read only selected sections according to their need for specific in- 
formation. Your plan should have a table of contents, and you also should 
consider using tabs to identify major sections.

You should include exhibits to provide any additional details that help 
tell your story, including such things as marketing studies, patent in­
formation, photos or sketches of your product or service, and resumes of 
key executives.

OBTAIN AN OBJECTIVE REVIEW

Before sending your business plan to potential lenders or investors, have 
it reviewed by other entrepreneurs, your accounting and business advisors, 
or your attorneys. They are in the best position to provide you with con- 
structive comments. In addition, these people can serve as intermediaries 
in presenting your business plan.

With all of the areas that we have discussed, you may be visualizing a 
document with 100 to 200 pages. Actually, your business plan should be 
relatively brief, with a maximum length of 25 to 30 pages.

But a lot of hard work will go into those 25 or 30 pages. Preparing a 
business plan is no easy task. It’s time consuming and it’s challenging. 
Done properly, however, it will result in an invaluable tool for helping 
to secure financing and to actually run your business-- it’s definitely 
worth your effort.

And one more note-- don’t have ghost writers prepare your business plan. 
YOU should write the plan, with guidance from others. This is very im- 
portant, because when you meet with a potential lender or investor, you 
must be intimately familiar with the contents of your plan. . .and you 
must believe in it.

The plan is a reflection of YOU.

Preparing a business plan triggers a lengthy thought process-- so much so 
that the planning process really is more important that the plan itself.

THE NATIONAL TURFGRASS EVALUATION PROGRAM:  

KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS EVALUATIONS

USDA, ARS, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center  

Jack Murray 

Room 333, Building 001 

Beltsville, Maryland 20705

Increased efforts in breeding and development of improved turfgrasses in the 
past few years have resulted in a large number of varieties that have not been 
adequately tested. Time is of the essence to breeders and consumers in 
obtaining performance information on new varieties and experimental 
selections. Although research scientists have devoted considerable time to 
evaluation of varieties, many of the presently available varieties have not 
been tested sufficiently to determine their relative merits. Research 
programs at most locations do not have the personnel and other resources 
necessary to evaluate large numbers of varieties.

In 1980, the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) was organized to 
coordinate uniform evaluation tests of turfgrass varieties and promising 
selections in the United States and Canada. The program is useful not only 
for determining the relative merits of varieties, but also for promoting 
uniformity of evaluation techniques and data reporting. Information obtained 
from national tests is more useful to research and extension personnel, the 
seed industry, and consumers than the more limited tests of the past. Test 
results can be used by national companies and plant breeders to determine the 
broad picture of the adaptation of a variety. Results can also be used to 
determine if a cultivar is particularly well-adapted to a local area or level 
of turf maintenance. Local adaptation is of more interest to regional and 
local seed companies, extension personnel, and consumers because their major 
concern is with turf performance in their area. The NTEP should considerably 
increase the cost-effectiveness of variety evaluations.

The NTEP is a self-supporting, non-profit program sponsored by the Beltsville 
Agricultural Research Center (BARC) and The Maryland Turfgrass Council; it is 
not a Federal program. Program policy is made by a policy committee 
consisting of one member from each of the four Regional Turfgrass Research 
Committees in the U.S., one member from the Lawn Seed Division of The American 
Seed Trade Association, a national coordinator, and a technical coordinator. 
The program is financed by funds from two sources, an entry fee for varieties 
entered in a test and donations from organizations interested in turf. The 
entry fee is paid by the sponsor of an entry - usually the breeder or seed 
company. This has been the major source of funds to date. Central facilities 
of the program are located at BARC.

Functions of the NTEP include determining appropriate national tests; 
collection and distribution of seed to evaluators; and data collection, 
summarization, and distribution. Test evaluators are selected from 

cooperators on the four regional turfgrass research committees and others 
representing public institutions. Individual State universities and 
experiment stations are notified of a scheduled test. They can choose whether 
or not to participate in a particular test. Data taken by evaluations are 
submitted on computer code sheets in a format prepared for a particular test. 
Data submitted each year are statistically analyzed, summarized in tables, and 
automatically distributed to sponsors of entries in the test and test 
evaluations. Reports will be distributed to others on request. In addition 
to annual reports for each test in progress, a final report will be published 
when a test is completed.

The first NTEP sponsored test was the 1980 National Kentucky Bluegrass Test. 
This test has 84 entries and seed sets were sent to 51 evaluators. Since then 
the NTEP has sponsored the 1982 Perennial Ryegrass test (47 entries : 31 seed 
sets) and the 1983 Tall Fescue (30 entries : 55 seed sets) and Fineleaf Fescue 
(47 entries : 28 seed sets) tests. Planned tests include a 1984 southern 
overseeded dormant bermudagrass test, 1985 second year overseeded and 
perennial ryegrass tests, and in 1986 Kentucky bluegrass and/or tall fescue 
tests. Support for tests have been excellent from seed companies and 
evaluators.

Data from the 1980 Kentucky Bluegrass Test from 26 locations in 1981 and 37 
locations in 1982 have been summarized. Data for 1983 are being collected at 
this time. Because the 1980 bluegrass test is not completed, i.e., it will’ 
continue for 2 more years. The data we now have should not be used to make 
final decisions on relative performance of entries. However, I believe the 
data can be used to show some of the relative merits of the NTEP program, 
relationship between location and maintenance practices on genotype 
performance, and trends in relative performance of entries. The data indicate 
that :

1)  turfgrass quality of entries may vary considerably between 

geographical regions of the U.S. or between locations within a State; 

2)  sod strength at a particular location and time are not closely related 

to turfgrass quality; and 

3)  maintenance level-variety interactions are real; i.e., varieties 

providing the highest quality under high maintenance are less likely 
to provide as high a quality under low maintenance as varieties 
providing acceptable quality (but not the best) under high maintenance.

The NTEP will not make variety recommendations, nor will it be used to 
establish a national register of varieties similar to those of European 
countries. However, information from the program can be used by extension 
specialists and others in making recommendations or by producers in decision 
making.

CONTROL OF COMMON BERMUDAGRASS IN SOUTHERN TURFGRASSES  

Ray Dickens, Professor of Turf Management  

Auburn University, AL 36849

The Problem

Cynodon dactyl on, or bermudagrass, is a serious weed pest in much of the 
world today. One bit of evidence supporting this statement is the many names 
by which this species is called. A partial list would include Florida grass, 
hariali, kweek, indian couch, scotch, niguil, devil's grass, fingergrass, 
wire grass and dogtooth grass, to say nothing of the unprintable epithets 
used by people involved in its control.
Thr first recorded introduction of bermudagrass into the United States 
occurred in 1751 in Savannah, Georgia. Since that time it has become 
adapted throughout most of the country due to its wide genetic diversity. 
There are presently over 50 described cultivars of bermudagrass, as well as 
thousands of ecotypes, referred to locally as "common".
Common bermudagrass is one of the most serious weed problems plaguing sod 
producers wherever warm season turfgrasses are grown. Attempts to control 
this pest in sod fields meets with only limited success and usually results 
in bare areas at harvest and excess scrap.

History of Control

The first modern herbicide for control of bermuda and other perennial 
grasses was TCA released in 1948. The rates required were quite high by 
today's standards (50-100 lb/a). TCA is primarily absorbed into the plant 
from the soil by underground parts, and its effectiveness is greatly affected 
by soil temperature and moisture conditions. Another disadvantage is its 
soil residual, approximately two months in the summer.
In 1953, a much more active grass herbicide, dalapon, was introduced. Effec- 
tive control was obtained in most instances with single applications of 
5 to 10 lb/a. Dalapon is absorbed by both leaves and foliage and has a two- 
week residual in moist soil. It has generally been thought that tillage 
within a week after application and/or split applications enhances control.
Methyl bromide, a soil fumigant, has been used for preplant control, but 
excessive costs have limited its use in recent years. Glyphosate or Round- 
up appeared in 1973 and was heralded as the answer to the bermudagrass 
problem. Indeed, excellent control was obtained with 4 to 5 pounds per acre, 
and because there is no soil activity involved, planting was not delayed. 
Unfortunately, control is not acceptable in sod fields. Eradication is the 
only acceptable answer. None of these materials could promise eradication 
from a single treatment, or in most cases from repeated treatments.

The New Post Grass Herbicides

During the early 1980's, a new family of herbicides, the diphenyl ethers, was 
developed. Many of the herbicides have excellent activity against grasses 
with essentially no activity on broadleaf plants. Excellent control of 

bermudagrass has been obtained in row crops with these materials. So good 
were the results in cotton and soybeans that eradication of bermudagrass 
was discussed.
We established tests in 1982 to evaluate certain representative members of 
this group for eliminating bermudagrass in sod situations. The herbicides 
we tested were Fusilade (fluazifop butyl), Dowco-453 (haloxyfop methyl), 
Poast (sethoxydim), and an experimental CGA-82725. The herbicides were com- 
pared at two rates (0.25 and 0.50 Ib/a); the effects of repeated applications 
and crop oil additives were also evaluated. The herbicides were applied to 
a mature sod of common bermudagrass 18 August 1982 and 27 August 1982.

Injury ratings 17 September 1982 showed that excellent topkill was obtained 
in all treatments involving either Fusilade or Dowco-453. From 50 to 75 
percent topkill was obtained with the other two herbicides. The addition 
of crop oil enhanced control with these herbicides, as did the higher rates 
and dual treatment. Stand counts made the following spring showed that 
Dowco-453 was the most effective of the herbicides tested. The best control 
occurred from dual treatments at the higher rate with crop oil added. The 
experiment was repeated in 1983, and at this point results are similar. No 
treatment produced better control than that obtained from a single applica- 
tion of glyphosate at the recommended rate.
Work by other researchers has shown that the activity of these herbicides 
is greatly influenced by temperature and humidity. More work needs to be 
done to adequately assess the value of these newer herbicides for bermuda- 
grass control.

Needed Research

Considerable research is needed if we are to develop a dependable program 
for eradication of common bermudagrass in warm season sod fields. The 
following are three general areas of research which need pursuing:

1.  Rates and Timing. More information is needed as to the effects of 

dates of application on the efficacy of both the diphenyl ethers and 
some of the older materials, such as dalapon and TCA. The effects of 
split applications and higher rates need exploring. Also, the effects 
of environmental conditions before, during, and after application 
need more work.

2.  Combinations. The effects of combining applications of foliage active 

herbicides with soil active ones need to be determined. Also, the 
effects of combining photosynthetic inhibitors with herbicides, such 
as glyphosate, which affect protein synthesis need to be determined.

3.  After the above research is completed and adequate knowledge is avail- 

able, this information should be used to develop a protocol or procedure 
which, if followed, would assure the sod producer that he had achieved 
100% control of common bermudagrass in his field.

At this time a workable program for eradication does not exist, but I am 
confident one can be developed with adequate research effort.

TURFGRASS DISEASES - RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Dr. Richard W. Smiley  

Department of Plant Pathology  

Cornell University  

Ithaca, New York 14853

Recent advances in the development of grass cultivars have led to 
significant increases in their tolerance or resistance to diseases. Of 
special interest is the observation that a seed-borne fungus, called an 
endophyte, can protect seedlings from attack by certain soil insects and some 
pathogenic fungi. New chemical control compounds of superior performance have 
also been developed in recent years. And we have seen the advent of new 
diseases of local or regional importance. This paper, however, will 
concentrate upon recent discoveries that have been made at Cornell University 
during investigations into the causal nature of patch diseases of turfgrasses. 
This research is supported by funds derived primarily from sod 
production-related associations and individuals, including the Ben 0. Warren 
Foundation, Sod Growers Association of Mid-America, and American Sod Producers 
Association. Additional funds were provided by the New York State Turfgrass 
Association, the Connecticut Golf Course Superintendents Association, and 
several fungicide manufacturers and regional turfgrass associations.

Pathogenic fungi in the genus Fusarium have long been recognized as 

causal agents of diseases on roots, crown, stems, leaves, and inflorescens of 
cereals and grasses. These diseases are generally of diffuse distribution 
over the grain field or grass sward. This is so because the causal fungi are 
ubiquitous organisms that sporulate profusely. Fusarium crown and root rots 
are of most concern in drought-prone regions. They exhibit symptoms that 
resemble the melting-out caused by species of Drechslera and Bipolaris. The 
foliar diseases are equally important with the crown and root rots in humid 
regions. Fusarium leaf spots typically occur mostly or entirely on the older, 
senescing leaves of a tiller, or on tillers affected by stresses such as 
drought or root and crown rot. The overall distribution of Fusarium leaf 
spots is very characteristic of dollar spot on grasses mown at lawn heights. 
The symptoms caused by Fusarium species on grass foliage can be correctly 
described as a blight.

Complications arose in our understanding of such diseases when, in the 

mid-1960's, a distinct patch-type disease was also named Fusarium blight. The 
disease was so-named because of the ubiquitous presence of Fusarium species 
associated with dying tillers. The patch disease named Fusarium blight was 
therefore equated with the "melting-out" type of foliage blight that can be 
caused by Fusarium species. During the past two decades the patch disease has 
continued to plague Kentucky bluegrass stands. Research and field obser- 
vations by interested parties in all sectors of the turfgrass industry have 
made significant advances in finding methods useful for reducing the severity 
and/or occurrence of the disease. But scientists have for nearly two decades 
been unable to confirm that Fusarium species are capable of causing the patch 
disease. During the past decade many valuable resources have been directed 
toward disproving the original hypothesis, which was accepted as being true 
without having been shown to be so. Progress toward the development of new, 
more efficient control strategies was being hampered by incomplete or 

erroneous knowledge. Major advances have been made during recent 
investigations of "Fusarium blight" in New York.

In the late-1970's I and several other scientists began disregarding the 
obvious presence of Fusarium species that are associated with final stages of 
this patch disease. In 1981 formal challenges to the original "Fusarium 
blight" hypothesis were issued in chapters of two books. The authors of these 
challenges were pathologists working in New York and Pennsylvania; where the 
"Fusarium blight" concept arose during the mid-1960's. In 1983, in the 
Compendium of Turfgrass Diseases, I renamed the patch disease as the "Fusarium 
blight syndrome" (FBS) to redistinguish it from the diffusely distributed 
Fusarium diseases which were recognized prior to 1966. This was a stepping 
stone leading to the following information, which we are now ready to reveal.

Permanent markers were installed in the centers of FBS patches at five 

locations in New York and Connecticut during 1980. After a tape measure and a 
compass were laid over the marked patches they were photographed. The 
location of each permanent marker was then triangulated to permanent 
structures or trees. These procedures enabled us to precisely locate each 
patch and its perimeter even during winter and spring when there were no 
visual clues as to the whereabouts of the patches that had appeared the 
previous summer. Using these procedures, we began to systematically sample 
the areas where the patches would appear. Our samplings were made up to four 
or five months prior to the development of visual symptoms.

Foremost among our discoveries was the presence of dark-colored fungal 

mycelia growing on the roots, crowns, and rhizomes of tillers at the edges of 
the patches. But we had considerable difficulty in isolating these fungi from 
the affected tissues. Our success rate was low because fungi with more rapid 
growth rates were also present. These faster fungi overran our laboratory 
media before the desired fungi could develop into colonies. We, therefore, 
collected cores from the patch margins, buried them in sand in greenhouse 
pots, and planted wheat and oats into the pots. The cereal "trap crops" 
became infected by the dark-colored fungi, and pure isolations were then 
consistently made from the relatively clean roots of the trap crops. But then 
we experienced great difficulty in working with the fungi in cultures, and 
especially in identifying them. They are very slow growing, and are of three 
distinct colony types. Still without identities, two of the fungi were shown 
capable of causing typical FBS patches in two field plots. This was true for 
inoculations made by two different methods during 1982 and 1983. Although 
greenhouse tests confirmed the pathogenicity of these fungi to all grass 
genera tested, the susceptibility of the grasses differed. Most notably, 
perennial ryegrasses and tall fescues were quite resistant, which compares 
favorably with field observations that the disease can be controlled by 
over-seeding with these grasses. Several bluegrass cultivars also tended to 
have moderate to high levels of tolerance to the pathogens.

Two of the pathogens were recently induced to produce identifiable 

fruiting bodies. For one, the routine called for daily attention and specific 
environmental conditions during a two to three month incubation period. The 
pathogen is Leptosphaeria korrae. It is known to cause spring dead spot of 
Bermudagrass in Australia. The other fungus is Phialophora graminicola. This 
fungus is common in grasslands and in cereals, but has not heretofore been 
considered a pathogen. P. graminicola is much less pathogenic than L. korrae.

Very recent work in our laboratory illustrated differences in the 
sensitivities of these fungi to fungicides, water stress, temperature, and 
acidity. Each of these findings seem to relate well to field observations 
concerning the behavior of the FBS disease and its reaction to chemical 
control procedures.

Studies of these pathogens and diseases are continuing at a rapid pace. 

At present we know that L. korrae can easily kill grass plants in the 
greenhouse. This also seems possible in the field. In contrast, patches of 
plants weakened by P. graminicola probably must be further stressed by harsh 
environmental conditions of summer, and possibly also by infections of tissues 
by facultatively parasitic fungi that dominate the turfgrass ecosystem at the 
time when plant stress occurs. Fusarium species often serve the latter role, 
but there appears to be no reason why other foliar parasites may not serve 
equally well. We have demonstrated that the Fusarium blight syndrome results 
principally from pathogenesis by L. korrae, P. graminicola, or related fungi 
that are yet to be identified. A succession of stressful events may be 
necessary to cause full expression of symptoms for this patch disease of 
Kentucky bluegrass. The primary causal agents we have identified are both 
closely related to the fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. avenae, which 
causes take-all patch of bentgrasses. We, therefore, now recognize a close 
biological association between three patch diseases of similar appearance, but 
which occur primarily on different grass genera. These diseases are spring 
dead spot, take-all patch and Fusarium blight syndrome. I am proposing to 
redescribe the latter disease as "summer patch" to accurately equate its 
etiology and descriptive terminology more directly to comparable diseases such 
as take-all patch and yellow patch. This proposal has not been acted upon, 
and the name "Fusarium blight syndrome" remains as appropriate until further 
notice. We do not feel that our findings reveal the complete complexity of 
these patch diseases, and we will, therefore, continue studying them. We also 
do not know the geographical distribution of the fungi, although L. korrae is 
now confirmed in New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and California. Similar 
fungi from turfs in Washington, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Nebraska, 
Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado are being investigated.

WARM SEASON GRASSES IN THE SOUTHWEST

Victor A. Gibeault 

Extension Environmental Horticulturist  

University of California, Riverside

Both cool and warm season turfgrass species are used in the Southwest; the 
former because they have good turf quality characteristics, are well-recog- 
nized turf species, are seeded grasses, and they retain their color throughout 
the year. The most common cool season grasses used are Kentucky bluegrass, 
perennial ryegrass, and tall fescue. The latter, the warm season grasses, 
are, in general, better adapted than cool season grasses because of the cli- 
mate that characterizes much of the area. In addition to an adaptation advan- 
tage, warm season grasses provide excellent cover, good turf quality charac- 
teristics, and vigorous recovery during warm weather, but these grasses do 
have the disadvantage throughout much of the southwest area of winter dor- 
mancy. The commonly used warm season grasses include common and hybrid ber- 
mudagrass, St. Augustinegrass, zoysiagrass, kikuyugrass, and seashore pas- 
palum.
For sod production purposes, the most common warm season grasses grown include 
the hybrid bermudagrasses (especially 'Tifgreen' and 'Santa Ana') and St. 
Augustinegrass. Although there is an increasing interest in zoysiagrass 
because of its minimum maintenance characteristics, only limited production 
occurs in the Southwest. Most likely, increased attention to zoysia will be 
given when new varieties are released from current plant improvement programs.
Seashore paspalum, a relatively new turf species, is being grown by a few sod 
producers and used in areas of moderate winter temperatures. This warm season 
species has superior high salt tolerance to other turfgrass species; it also 
has good turf quality characteristics.
Kikuyugrass is not being grown by sod producers; however, it is a warm season 
grass that invades turf sites and is then maintained by the facility. It is a 
very vigorous, invasive grass, and is particularly well-adapted to the 
southern California coast from Santa Barbara to San Diego counties. Chemical 
control programs for kikuyugrass have not been successful; conversely, breed- 
ing programs for plant improvement have not been undertaken.

COMPUTERS - WHAT CAN THEY DO FOR YOU?

Panel: H. B. Michelson Michelson Sod Farms 

Elk Grove, California 

Ike Thomas 

Stephen Browne 

William L. Campbell  
Moderator

Thomas Brothers Grass Company 
Granbury, Texas
Bay City Turf 
Bay City, Texas
Fairlawn Sod Nursery  
Lynden, Ontario

INTRODUCTION:

Computers are now advertised so widely that, as a businessman, you start to 
feel that somehow you're going to be left behind if you don't rush out and 
buy one.

In most buying decisions for new equipment, you are able to read spec's,go 
to demonstrations (such as our Summer Field Days) and finally, and often most 
''important, you talk to people who are using the equipment: how long have they 
had it, does it break down often, does it do what the salesman said it would, 
and so on.
For computers this isn't always as easy as buying a new tractor. For one 
thing, the salesman often talks in a jargon you don't comprehend such as 
Bits, Bytes, RAM and CP/M.

That's what our panel would like to shed some light on this morning, based 
on practical in-house experience over a period of time.

H. B. MICHELSON:
In 1979 we became interested in computers and started to analyze what we 
thought we might need and what was on the market. We soon came to the 
conclusion that the companies selling computers were interested in selling 
only the hardware. The stock answer was that there were tons of software on 
the market and they were sure we could find something that would work. None 
of those companies would sell on that contingency.
After a few weeks of looking, I was completely confused. Then I found a 
small manufacturer of equipment who advertised they would contract for a 
complete system, both the hardware and the software. After contacting them 
and explaining my problem, I was told to make a list of all the things I 
thought I wanted from a computer. The list I made said I needed a complete 
bookkeeping system that would work for a sod farm. I wanted to do the 

invoicing on the computer to stop the mistakes in math on our hand-written 
invoices. I wanted a statement at the end of the month so I did not have to 
wait for our CPA to do the work. I wanted a method of inventory control so I 
knew how much sod we could sell without running out of product. This had to 
take into account orders that we had for future delivery, changes in harvest 
dates, loss caused by various conditions, etc. The mailing list was a real 
problem to keep up to date, and getting out a mailing was another problem - 
maybe the computer could do this. Then there was the payroll and all the 
records for it.

We had a meeting and it was agreed that they could adapt some of the existing 
bookkeeping programs and write a new program for the invoicing and inventory 
control, that a mailing list and sort program were on the market and, even 
though I did not ask for it, they felt that I needed a word processor. This 
surely proved right. It is the most valuable program we have. They came 
back with a proposal that could supply our needs in both hardware and software 
and would have us in operation with everything working in 90 days. The price 
for this package was $14,000.

But, like I said before, the software is everything. It took over a year to 
get all the programs working and some still do not do all that I want. Even 
with these drawbacks, I would not be without the computer. The control of 
our receivables has kept our bad debt loss to less than 1% and this has paid 
for the equipment many times.

After the first year our data files exceeded our disk capacity and we had to 
enlarge to a double density disk. Then again, about 18 months ago, we needed 
more space and converted to a 29 Megbite hard disk.

After 5 years of operation we started to get hardware breakdowns. We were 
told this was due to the dusty conditions at the farm.

At this time we also felt a need for a computer that would give more 
versatility. Our system would only allow one user on the computer at a time. 
This was a problem as the bookkeeping kept the machine tied up most of the 
day. We decided to purchase the televideo computer that would allow up to 6 
users at the same time and would run 2 or more printers. It is also compatible 
with our present software. We just finished installing this system and, at 
this time, we are most pleased with it. I now can get to use the computer 
for statements, what if's, letters and form printing while the bookkeeping is 
going on and it is still daylight outside.

This new machine also has a tape backup system which takes the pain and time 
out of making proper back up of the day's entries. We have now contracted 
with a programmer to work over our programs and actually work in the office 
one day a week to help our people get the maximum out of the computer.

IKE THOMAS:

We have had a computer for almost four years now. Our current computer is a 
TRS 80 Model II Radio Shack.

When we bought our computer we thought we were spending too much time and 
money on bookkeeping. Well, since then we probably spend even more time and 
money on bookkeeping, although we are probably more accurate and we get 
reports more quickly. Income statements, balance sheets and our payroll are 
done much faster and easier.

Our computer is a single user system, as opposed to a multi user system where 
a number of people can enter or receive data at the same time.

Our computer has 256 K memory, approximately 3/4 of megalyte storage, 3 floppy 
singly sided disk drives, and a printer with 120 CPS.

Our software is a canned Radio Shack business software that we have modified 
to our business. We use a general ledger program, and payroll program quite 
extensively. At one time we implemented an accounts payable program, but it 
would not interface with our general ledger so we dropped the accounts payable 
program.

Our major problems have been equipment or hardware breakdown and finding a 
programmer who has extensive knowledge in both computers and accounting. We 
also ran out of space or capacity fairly quickly and our 120 CPS printer is 
too slow.

In summing up our experience and feelings on computers, although we have had 
our problems with our computer and software, and have outgrown it, we are none 
the less committed to using computers, and we are now purchasing a new Altos 
40 Megalyte hard disk multi user system. With this system and new software, 
we plan to implement, along with our general ledger and payroll, an accounts 
payable program, accounts receivable program and inventory program.

Again, our payroll program is something that I think we couldn't do without as 
it does our payroll, writes checks, makes the deductions, payroll reports, and 
all of the W-2 forms.

So, we have had our problems, but think the benefits of computers out-weigh 
the drawbacks.

WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL:

Our micro-computer was purchased two years ago. It is a single terminal unit 
manufactured in Toronto by a small company called Megatel. It has 128 Kb RAM, 
a CP/M operating system and is of the 8 bit design. Data is handled with 
dual 8" DSDD disc drives. This means each drive can hold up to one mgb of 
data or in practical terms, it means it can hold the G. L. accounting data 
for 12 months for our Ontario business.

The dot-matrix printer has been a highly reliable Mannesmann-Tally, Model 
T1805. This model has print speed of 180 characters per second and a so- 
called "correspondence" quality of 100 c.p.s., which is a darker print. 
Printers also tend to be noisy. An optional hood may be necessary for some.

The approximate cost of the computer and drives in U. S. dollars would be 
$4,500. The printer would be $2,000.

Our equipment would probably operate an average of 15 hours per week. In 
terms of reliability, the computer has had to be returned to the manufacturer 
several times for repairs during the two years. Some of our troubles were 
due to static electricity damaging the Keyboard micro-processor. We now have 
an anti-static mat which is under the operator's chair and is grounded. It 
does make a difference.

Whatever equipment you purchase, I would suggest you check out the dealers 
ability to provide a "loaner" when repairs are required.

At this point, I should mention that while I have discussed hardware first, 
the experts would recommend that you select your programmes or software 
first and then pick the hardware that will run them.

The accounting programmes we have in use are General Ledger, Accounts 
Receivable, and Accounts Payable. Of these the General Ledger has been in 
use for two years, the Accounts Receivable for one and the Accounts Payable 
for only two months. These programmes are sometimes called "canned" in that 
they are not customized for sod operations and therefore cannot produce some 
of the special reports that others may have, such as cost per roll. On the 
other hand they normally come essentially "bug-free" and at a moderate cost. 
Each of the modules in our system, i.e., the General Ledger, Accounts 
Receivable, and Accounts Payable, currently sell for $600 each. Inventory 
and payroll modules are also available. The programmes are written and 
supported by Micro Business Applications of Burnsville, Minnesota. They may 
be purchased through the dealer where you buy your equipment and he will 
"install" them for you. A couple of reminders in purchasing your accounting 
programme, (1) try to test it at the dealers using some of your own data, and 
(2) examine the manuals for clarity. Some are very confusing.

Some comments: The General Ledger programme makes it convenient to "break- 
out costs" to a greater degree than with a "one-write" accounting system. 
For example, fertilizer: with the one-write you might have just one category.

With the computer you could readily split out fertilizer for sod, fertilizer 
for other cash crops and fertilizer for resale, all simply by assigning a 
different account number. In practice, a 3-part cheque is coded according to 
expense category with one part going to the computer operator for entry at 
month's end.

The General Ledger programme is also convenient for providing monthly 
management reports, such as an income statement or balance sheet. The income 
statement can be customized so that it shows actual and budgeted income and 
expense for the month and actual and budgeted for the year to date. It could 
also be set up to show actual and previous year. The original formatting of 
a custom report such as I've described might take two to three hours. After 
that, the operator can produce your month-end income statement or balance 
sheet in about five minutes.

The Accounts Receivable programme handles all our sales data. It could print 
an invoice if we wished, however, since many of our bills are written in the 
field, this feature isn't used. In practice then, the operator takes a 
bundle of invoices and enters them into the terminal where it is stored on a 
floppy disc. Depending on how busy we are, this might happen every second 
day. Likewise, payments on account, discounts and allowances, or whatever, 
would be entered.

At the end of the month, the operator does some final checking and calculates 
and adds on service charges. Monthly statements for 150 accounts can then be 
printed in about 20 minutes. The other plus available is that the aged 
account receivables list, complete with names and telephone numbers is ready 
for your immediate follow up. Some options available are using open item or 
balance forward in printing of statements. Breakouts are also possible by 
territory or salesman. Some disappointments were that our programme can't 
automatically calculate and assign service charges, or put a custom message 
on the statement such as "please return your pallets promptly or else." Also, 
you can't bring up a customer's account on the screen for a quick scan. You 
can, however, quickly print a copy of his transactions for a specific period.

The payable programme was started January 1st of this year. It allows 
invoices or statement totals to be entered to the respective vendors and 
designated according to month and week of payment. At any time you can get a 
report on the total dollar value of accounts to be paid at a particular time. 
The payables programme has not been installed because we have only about 35 
cheques to process every two weeks. A one-write system by Safeguard is used 
and preparation is done by our dispatcher during a "slow" part of the day.

Other programmes: For word processing, we have one called "Wordstar." These 
programmes are useful if you have a document several pages long to be edited 
and which may have many revisions. They are also useful for maintaining 
mailing lists, printing address labels, and preparing "boilerplate" letters.

For financial planning there are a number of "Calc" programmes on the market 
such as Visi Calc, Supercalc, Calcstar, and so on. We have Supercalc.

Programmes of this type are typically used for "what if" situations. For 
example, you would enter in your 12 month cash flow forecast of revenues and 
expenses. Then you can say "what if revenues were 5% lower than forecast, or 
what if wages are 3% higher than forecast."

The other programme is a Data base programme, known as D-Base II. Programmes 
of this type are easily customized for storing and retrieving large amounts 
of data. They are adaptable to mailing lists, inventory management, pallet 
control and analysis of sales.

Cost of each of these three programmes runs from $250 to $500 each. The word 
processing has been used moderately. To date we have not made significant 
use of the others, however, I can see that they have potential.

Some Closing Observations:

If you have a single location dedicated primarily to growing and trucking sod 
and a minimum of other revenue sources, I would recommend that you use one- 
write systems for all aspects of your accounting.

The computer does not lend itself to a one-person office. It's hard to enter 
data and be interrupted by the telephone, dispatching of trucks, writing 
invoices, etc.

Your data must be well organized. Programme implementations can easily take 
6 to 9 months for the first one.

The computer probably won't save accounting time if you are looking only at 
standard maintenance of GL/AR and AP. It's at its best in providing 
management reports as you may require them. The catch is, are you prepared 
to study them monthly. Many of us are satisfied with an annual financial 
report, and only want to know - How much tax do I have to pay this year?

In closing, for the small to medium sized farm, if purchasing a single 
terminal computer today - I would consider an 8 or 16 bit model - CP/M 
operating system with one 400 Kb disc drive and a 5 Mgb hard disc. The 
alternate would be the IBM PC XT or imitation, which has a different operating 
system (MS/DOS). There is a good supply of "canned" programmes available for 
both.