|
Colby, Kansas | Matt,
I certainly won't try and argue that there isn't waste in the system I'd really like the opportunity someday to point it out to someone who could and would actually do something about it. The bottom line is my job is to provide as much value to the producers as I can with the funds I have.
Your example of how funds are cut and moved to other uses is valid. However I'm not sure that the blame lies on the wheat checkoff as has been the case previously in this thread.
Current situation everyone in the K-State system has been advised to prepare for a 2% cut this FY and 5% in the next (8.7% compound). All open positions have been frozen. This is due largely to decreased state revenues and further compounded in the College of Ag / Research & Extension by several million dollars in storm damage.
Thats for real, now let's assume I'm working on some project that the wheat commission feels has value (hell lets have some fun with this, I'm close to developing a way to grow wheat that will yield 140 bu. ac dryland) and the commission is funding a portion of the project the rest is coming out of my operating funds. Over the two years I end up with 91% of the state funding I used to have, my fuel cost more than doubled, the legislature mandated that my employees get a raise, and I need to replace a 15 year old planter that has tripled in price. If I want to keep this superwheat project going I have two options.
1. Rob the funds from another project - likely won't be acceptable to my other research sponsors
2. Convince the commission to up their funding level
The commission feeling the superwheat project has merit will hopefully up my funding and may need additional checkoff funds to do so. So who's at fault here: the state for cutting back on funds it doesn't have, the researcher trying to get the most work done with the dollars he has, the wheat commission for funding a project it feels is important, or the general public for not making/spending enough money to generate taxes.
I guess my point is that I'm not sure the checkoff is the proper place for blame. They are trying to provide an adequate source of funding to ensure their producers are properly served. It's also important to understand that a lack of funding isn't always attributable to a redirection of funds, it may just mean that the cost of doing business has increased disproportionally to revenue.
If it brings any comfort, from my short involvement, I have observed the grain commissions to be the most careful, demanding, and restrictive of funds when compared to other funding sources. Sometimes its almost to a fault where commission members think that one year of data that fits their bias is good enough and no more work is needed.
Best Regards,
Lucas
Edited by LHaag 8/8/2008 01:25
| |
|
KS Wheat Assessment (tax) Going Up.
