Sorry if I didn't make this clearer:
If Federation needs a particular staff person for only part of a day, since staff account for their time in 15 minute increments, Federation can pay EXACTLY for the time they need and have services of staff with expertise in various things, from (and I'm not certain exactly what services they may need but am certain it varies with the project) secretarial to Ph.D in nutrients in beef, as an example, and there are many specialized staffers;
This has been explained many times, but NCBA is the overall coalition of cattle organization (Policy/Dues Division), CBB (originally in the same office, using shared, therefore less costly, staff), and the Federation Division (members of state Beef Councils who are from ALL cattle groups in a given state who participate in the Beef Council).
You would need to ask each state why they want to have a voice at the national level, in addition to the CBB spending half of the state dollar, AND have the ability to choose for themselves which ADDITIONAL projects they would like to focus an extra, self determined portion of their states' share of the half dollar of the beef checkoff.
Some states understand that their states are very low on numbers of consumers and very high in beef production, thus cannot hope to eat even a small percentage of beef they produce. Therefore, they believe it serves them well to target and focus extra money on specific projects approved by the Operating Committee of the CBB (the ONLY group approving proposals using ANY national beef checkoff dollars).
Further, the directors serving on the Federation are able to say where they want those additional dollars targeted, which they would not be able to do if they sent the money directly to the CBB.
Some states like the idea of having those extra directors (Federation, in addition to their CBB directors) being on the scene to participate in discussions of the standing committees charged with determining which AR's (Authorization Requests for spending) will be presented to the CBB for consideration by the Operating Committee. Some states have members they send to the Federation because they have expertise in a specific area which can be of value to both the state and the cattle/beef industry in general.
I know this is all complicated, but our industry is a complicated group of businesses, especially when considering that so many of us are producing basically the same end product, but in very different ways when you think about you and others producing for a local market, me and others producing high quality 9 to to 16 month calves and yearlings to sell to feeders, and some also produce grass yearlings raised without any exposure to feed bunks or grains to sell to feeders, some produce totally grass fed cattle, others produce totally organically grown and grain fattened cattle........some buy weaned calves in fall to pasture on wheat in the south and sell to feeders in spring, others send their fall calves directly to feedlots.......AND, it all works together to keep a steady supply of CHOICES of style of beef for consumers! And if we do not have some understanding of ALL the businesses involved between our own farm/ranch gate and the consumers plate, we cannot hope to serve the consumer what they want and deserve. WE have spent far too much fighting among ourselves about how beef SHOULD be produced, and have only in recent years begun to focus enough on producing high quality and the variety of STYLES of beef production those consumers demand. NCBA Policy division, along with Farm Bureau and some of the other beef groups have been at the forefront of this effort, while others have worked overtime to bring down 'the bigs'....feeders, packers, wholesalers, retailers, in the belief if we only keep it 'local' we can produce that grass fed or grain fed organic beef people want. BUT, how many people could afford it? Our VARIETY of qualities and styles of beef today are in demand world wide, with record high exports measured both in tons and dollars. If only our governments would stop playing politics with trade agreements, that would only grow!
You misinterpret the 'voting according to cows'....it is to give the producers in states paying more into the beef checkoff a fair shake over states producing very few cows/cattle in decisions on how the national share of the beef checkoff is spent, AND that happens through the Federation division.
Further, that argument of "one of evey 33 cattle producers....." is used routinely by those trying to bring down the Policy division of NCBA as justification for their 'myths' spread like so much manure against that group.
Kansas is one of the 'one hat' states. Meaning, they ARE affiliated, by choice of the beef producers in that state. Being 'affiliated' as part of a group of people and organizations working toward the same end (a successful cattle and beef industry) seems an unlikely reason to castigate that group!!!! 'One hat' states, as I understand them, had a state Ag department with which all or most commodity organizations in the state were AFFILIATED for many years.........so the natural progression was to continue that successful system when the Beef Checkoff was voted in. SD is not one of them, and has a more complex system, which is different, not necessarily better or worse.
Your preference for a separate, stand alone system for a commodity checkoff was tried with other commodities and the results were not good. Far too much money was spent on overhead (and the same is happening with the separated CBB office....it was inevitable) and I believe there have been problems with lavish travel allowances and entertainments at meetings. Under this system, you have multiple groups watching to assure that doesn't happen. I will say the MEF may be the exception to my contention of no lavish 'living' but they are funded by federal dollars and have to work with conditions of internation trade, is how I've heard that justified. I do NOT want that for the majority of checkoff dollars. Nor did the majority of cattle organization proponents of the Beef Checkoff who worked together to design the current law and system. They had observed problems with other systems, and with our voluntarily funded National Livestock and Meat Board. Politics have had some adverse effect on CBB, IMO, and thankfully that has been relatively rare. Hopefully the checkoff can survive as designed.
If it doesn't, or is hijacked by dissidents, I'm ready to work even harder to build a separate, privately funded checkoff branch within NCBA Policy division. That group, and the Federation (comprised of representatives from ALL beef organizations) developed the expertise, raport, and ability to work together with all players', from Land Grant Universities, Allied Industries, Government Agencies state and national cattle and breeds groups and all segments of producing beef from farm gate to consumers plate. These are the groups and individuals determined to continue cooperating to produce the best beef possible for the most people possible, and make a living at it.
Additional point: ALL money, even the state share spent WITHIN a state, has to meet the rather stringent guidelines for allowable uses of beef checkoff dollars, according to the law.
mrj
