Most of my readers likely know that my relationship to the national organization is lengthy and contains many parts: The New Orleans-based organization I worked with for a decade (2001-2011) was one of the markets that helped found it, both through volunteerism and also sharing its start up funding. When I left that organization in 2011, it was to bring my Marketshare resource and technical assistance model to the national level, and while doing that consulting, to help build FMC, all with the blessing of our Executive Director, Richard McCarthy.

Since then, I have worked as an advisor to FMC, then as a contractor, and finally being brought on as staff in 2015.

I’ve watched its development through the honest energy so many have brought, determined to grow it to the consistent support organization for market operators that is known for.

Starting with the groundbreaking Real Food, Real Choice report with CFSC and other research, the development of Oregon City’s POP club as a national template, the adoption of National Farmers Market Week and the materials leading to the evergreen toolkit we offer as well as our annual leadership on national messaging, early technical assistance for FMPP proposals, developing the first user-friendly measurement program with embeddable graphics (Metrics) which led to the recent comprehensive evaluation site, farm direct incentive support (leading to the Farm Direct Incentive Guide site), the Legal Toolkit, EBT support as a contractor to FNS and the continued analysis and advocacy for the food access work at markets, including the EBT Brief analyzing markets breakthrough work on knocking down the digital divide via centralized payment systems and incentive pilots, support for the Anti Racist Toolkit, convening and funding state associations through pass through funds, support and analysis during COVID, working in partnership with associations on state level projects to train market operators (most recently with Maine, Ohio, Vermont, and Texas), working on one of the first national consumer surveys focused on farmers market shoppers and the ensuing social media messaging research with University of Wisconsin-Madison, pilots with 1890 universities on developing farmers markets on campus, the advocacy toolkit, and probably at least a hundred other resources, trainings, and networks developed in house with hundreds more in partnership with markets, state leaders, and partners.

(That was all off the top of my head as I want to get this out quickly so forgive omissions!)

All of that above is about the central mission of FMC: to support market operators.

Based on surveys, feedback forms, impromptu calls and meetups, that work is well-regarded by markets and market partners, even while there are honest conversations about gaps in how FMC serves the entire country.

That gap is part of what needs to be discussed, as does the structure of the entity.

Because what has been clear for a while (maybe really since the start), is that much of what needs to be done isn’t going to be funded through grants or through membership fees.

And may require a different administrative structure.

What I write below is my understanding of the organization’s history from someone who was there as a member partner and then contractor and then staff. I’ve asked past board for their recollections and have convened a few “brain trust” meetings to learn as much as I could. I tell you all of that to give background, not to point fingers about any of the decisions made honestly and all meant to serve FMC.

The original structure (a project/chapter of a larger national farm direct trade association) was changed in the early days because of a amiable disagreement in vision with that organization, and led to a relatively quick decision to organize as a stand alone organization.

That standalone included a volunteer board (which has members that cycle off regularly) and when founded, had one staff person who was hired not as an Executive Director but was meant to be more of a administrator working with the board. That role changed while that first staff person was there- but little else in terms of structure changed.

Over the first decade at some point, the board became a governance only board and no longer volunteered their time to fundraise or to manage programs. In recent years, this governance board has clarified that it had 3 main jobs: to hire/fire/manage the Executive Director; approve the ED’s budget annually; maintain the vision of FMC. The rest was up to the ED and he/she/they would manage staff, projects, administration, funding with advice from the board.

Some board members were deeply attached to FMC or to a particular ED and so gave more of their talent or resources for the time they were on. Unfortunately, none of that was codified into any long term systems moving forward.

In terms of membership, since we had begun as a project of a farm direct trade association entity, membership was included as what FMC would do. Since there were few independent state market associations (maybe 5 or so?), market organizations were who were sought as members. There were almost no benefits at first- newsletter maybe some discounts, but under the second ED, the benefits grew as programs were developed (POP/Metrics) which required a membership to use. The number of members never represented all markets, and was never expected to do so; instead it often seemed to represent a healthy number of markets in their growth stage or markets that were interested in larger impacts for the sector. In 2019 or so, we piloted an idea to grow the now more than 15 or 20 state associations’ by allowing them to join for 100.00 a year (o 1% of their annual budget) and have all of their markets as members.

What we found was that only a small percentage of markets used their membership if they joined that way (meaning only a small percentage of those members ever logged in) and that it required a lot of staff time to manage those bulk memberships, including members who paid twice not knowing they were already a member and so emails and refunds had to be completed, members who were on a different renewal mindset than their state association and so would ask about the membership as the year ended and a new renewal code was coming, and many other logistical issues for a small organization that rarely had a staff member entirely devoted to this task.

In 2022, or so, staff started to ask what the purpose of membership since we served all markets regardless of membership, the funds did not amount to a significant net, and the organization was no longer called to “prove” our reach to policy makers or funders, who could easily see we were the entity for US farmers markets. Proposals to change membership were sent to board meetings and openly discussed but decisions made were more difficult to come by…

SO, the point is that most of these things – even though they were not necessarily aligned correctly with the governance or the remote workplace concept that FMC used – worked pretty well while the organization was starting out, collecting and writing new resources and programs.

The issue seemed to come at times when the organization grew to a point where it relied on a single grant to a large degree, or was busy managing large grants and without the added support to fundraise beyond that, or to explore non-grant income streams.

The first contraction of staff and output happened in 2019, and then again in 2023/24 with some minor ones at other times.

Each time, FMC rebounded (mostly through another large federal grant!) and began another growth cycle.

This time, things are different, partly because federal grants are not plentiful nor is FMC getting those that are applied for as often as before. And maybe because members of the current board are determined to solve this now. There may be any of a number of reasons why, but it’s the reality. The good news is that a lot of the costs and financial systems that were not right were corrected by our part time, interim ED Willa Sheikh in 2024 and 2025. And all of our bills paid.

And even through the 2024-25 contraction, the few staff and many advisors continued to have successes with partners, funders, and new programs. What most of us agree on is that FMC operating as an educational communications hub that connects markets, focuses on leadership development in the sector, and advocates for markets through its coalitions is the right way to go.

We know that markets continue to rely on FMC and send appreciation of the resources, analysis and support it offers market operators. The difference this time may be that the administration has been stretched and adapted as far as can go, and FMC just needs a new way to operate.

What that is, is what needs to be discussed.

The annual meeting is at the end of April, and the board is likely to offer a short Google survey to ask some of your opinions and ideas for what your national organization should be/ can be in the current funding climate.

I am also interested in your thoughts both as a current staff person but as someone also aware that that role may very well end and a new FMC without me may be the right one. Even if I leave, my interest in ensuring that a functioning national network is running for markets is one I will continue. So please feel free to forward this, email me, or maybe even get a group chat going.