PDA

View Full Version : KCBS Vote


vraczka
01-02-2012, 12:51 AM
Just got my email to vote. Open at 12:00 midnight central time on 1/2/2012.:clap2:

I voted!!

Good luck too all!!

JimmyDAL
01-02-2012, 07:00 AM
Me too but, there was no cash in mine. LOL

Rich Parker
01-02-2012, 07:10 AM
I voted this morning

Ron_L
01-02-2012, 07:39 AM
I voted, too! It was painless!

Bob S
01-02-2012, 08:12 AM
I just cast my vote. Quick and easy process.

kihrer
01-02-2012, 08:28 AM
My vote has been cast.

Leatherheadiowa
01-02-2012, 08:31 AM
I just cast my vote. I wish it would have shown a running total of total votes cast. Not for each candidate but the total sum of voters. I would like to see a running total.

arrowhead
01-02-2012, 08:36 AM
i voted. good luck to everyone.

KC_Bobby
01-02-2012, 09:31 AM
OK - about the two bylaw votes ... the 2nd is straight forward, but the 1st...

Does it mean that any owner of a corporation who uses their home address is not eligible to run? If so, I kind of see the point for some conflict of interest issues, but on the other hand I think a good number of competitive cooks, vendors, etc fall in this group - not sure if that's good

Candy Sue
01-02-2012, 09:35 AM
OK - about the two bylaw votes ... the 2nd is straight forward, but the 1st...

Does it mean that any owner of a corporation who uses their home address is not eligible to run? If so, I kind of see the point for some conflict of interest issues, but on the other hand I think a good number of competitive cooks, vendors, etc fall in this group - not sure if that's good

KCBS does not have "corporate" memberships. Any individuals living at the same address who are KCBS members cannot serve on the board of KCBS at the same time.

KC_Bobby
01-02-2012, 09:50 AM
Got it, looks like I totally misread that.

Thanks Candy

White Dog BBQ
01-02-2012, 10:13 AM
Just voted. I voted "no" on both questions -- I think that the membership is smart enough to decide whether board members should share a roof or whether they have spent enough time off the Board. Maybe I am giving the membership too much credit, but I think these are decisions we can make at the ballot box. This seems like it is aimed at a certain individual rather than addressing any real problem.

Erik

ThomEmery
01-02-2012, 10:29 AM
Done
Man that's a lot of candidates

Matt_A
01-02-2012, 10:46 AM
Which brethren are running? I know Jorge is, but I can't find the thread about the others.

JD McGee
01-02-2012, 10:56 AM
Which brethren are running? I know Jorge is, but I can't find the thread about the others.

Here ya go Matt...this may help! :-P
http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1895616&postcount=1

arrowhead
01-02-2012, 10:57 AM
Which brethren are running? I know Jorge is, but I can't find the thread about the others.

jeff, dave and steve

JD McGee
01-02-2012, 11:05 AM
Just voted...good luck to all (that I voted for...:twisted:)! :thumb:

Matt_A
01-02-2012, 11:17 AM
I guess I remembered the names... they were the ones I voted for, mostly based on their answers to the questionnaire.

big brother smoke
01-02-2012, 11:45 AM
Voted proudly for Brethren after reading the details of the other candidates.

Rookie'48
01-02-2012, 12:57 PM
Got 'er done! My votes were as follows:

George
Steve
Jeff
Dave

NO

YES

PLEASE - vote!

Booking It
01-02-2012, 01:06 PM
It only took 30 seconds to vote. Please make your voice heard!

Good luck to all of the candidates!

Pig Headed
01-02-2012, 01:53 PM
A very painless process. Let's hope more members vote than last time.

bbq.tom
01-02-2012, 02:00 PM
Both my wife and I just voted.

That means that at least 3 JUDGES have voted!!! (Dave too!)

Would be interesting to see the percentages of judges that voted and percentages of cooks that voted. Of course if you both cook and judge that throws things off.

Please everyone VOTE!

Slamdunkpro
01-02-2012, 02:43 PM
Just voted. I voted "no" on both questions -- I think that the membership is smart enough to decide whether board members should share a roof or whether they have spent enough time off the Board. Maybe I am giving the membership too much credit, but I think these are decisions we can make at the ballot box. This seems like it is aimed at a certain individual rather than addressing any real problem.

Erik
Agreed - +1

bover
01-02-2012, 03:31 PM
Just voted. I voted "no" on both questions -- I think that the membership is smart enough to decide whether board members should share a roof or whether they have spent enough time off the Board. Maybe I am giving the membership too much credit, but I think these are decisions we can make at the ballot box. This seems like it is aimed at a certain individual rather than addressing any real problem.

Erik

Agree completely. There's undoubtedly a story behind these two questions, but without being privy to those details I don't see how they can expect us to responsibly vote YES.

Jeff_in_KC
01-02-2012, 04:04 PM
These are not aimed at any one individual. That individual is leaving the board. If my wife and I both served on the board, I could say "Honey, I'll do all of the laundry for the next month AND cook all of the dinners if you'll vote the way I want you to on an upcoming issue." Seems almost ridiculous but who's to say it wouldn't effect certain issues? As for the three years off, it gives other members the opportunity to contribute with fresh ideas and energy. Everyone wants term limits in Congress - why not KCBS? Do we not have a very clear picture now of what can happen when people become attached to their board seat and have moss grow all over them?

Fat Freddy
01-02-2012, 05:02 PM
I voted!!! This was the less stressful voting I will have to do between today and tomorrow. Gotta love Iowa at Caucus time.:rolleyes:

White Dog BBQ
01-02-2012, 11:10 PM
These are not aimed at any one individual. That individual is leaving the board. If my wife and I both served on the board, I could say "Honey, I'll do all of the laundry for the next month AND cook all of the dinners if you'll vote the way I want you to on an upcoming issue." Seems almost ridiculous but who's to say it wouldn't effect certain issues? As for the three years off, it gives other members the opportunity to contribute with fresh ideas and energy. Everyone wants term limits in Congress - why not KCBS? Do we not have a very clear picture now of what can happen when people become attached to their board seat and have moss grow all over them?

Jeff,

I'll take your position on this at face value. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest this ballot question isn't about Merl, considering this whole push to keep related parties off the Board started when Carol ran.

And your justification that this is necessary to prevent some sort of domestic horse-trading is silly considering the tens of thousands of married couples who somehow find a way to work together on boards and in professional environments without basing their decisions on who took the trash out the night before.

I can at least understand a policy basis for spacing out Board terms, although I personally tend to look down upon term limits because it ends up putting too much power in the hands of the entrenched bureaucracy. But I see no such basis for married couples. Yes, it is possible that you could have a married couple that votes in lockstep or where one spouse just follows the other's lead. But there are many that don't, just as there are many "independent" board members that follow someone else's lead. Seems like a tenuous basis for crafting policy.

I'll say it again -- trust the membership, give them the tools to make decisions, and let them judge who should and should not be on the Board. If you don't trust a married couple on the Board, then don't vote for them. But don't limit my choice because you don't trust me to vote the right way.

Erik

timzcardz
01-03-2012, 07:30 AM
Just voted the Brethren party line. Good Luck guys.


Now . . .

I hope one of you can write in English!

Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.


YES Change Bylaws

A vote YES means you WANT to add the following to the KCBS bylaws:

Section 4.03 Requirements
A Member of the Corporation is not eligible to seek election for Director of the Corporation if the member shares a physical address with any currently Director of the Corporation.




With any currently Director?

This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.


And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.


I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.

Jeff_in_KC
01-03-2012, 08:57 AM
Just voted the Brethren party line. Good Luck guys.


Now . . .

I hope one of you can write in English!

Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.



With any currently Director?

This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.


And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.


I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.

I saw the currently thing and hoped it was just a typo here and that if and when it passes, they'll notice it and make the correction. You're definitely correct that technically it would prevent someone from running even if by installing new board members, you'd be removing the spouse of the newly elected board member. Maybe that was intentional? Don't know. Would like to hear Candy explain it.

timzcardz
01-03-2012, 10:10 AM
I saw the currently thing and hoped it was just a typo here and that if and when it passes, they'll notice it and make the correction.

Jeff,

I don't think that the board should be permitted to "notice it and make the correction." The time for that would be before it is voted on.

The vote is on the verbiage as presented. Otherwise, what is the point of the vote? Change a word here, change a word there, what's the difference?

Oh yeah, after the vote they just noticed that the word "not" was a typo and wasn't supposed to be in there. :wink:

Jorge
01-03-2012, 10:23 AM
Just voted the Brethren party line. Good Luck guys.


Now . . .

I hope one of you can write in English!

Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.



With any currently Director?

This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.


And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.


I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.

I retain legal counsel for my business, but don't write my own contracts for this very reason:wink: I can go to him and tell him what I need accomplished, but that's as far down that path as I go. I'll address the other issue below.

Jeff,

I'll take your position on this at face value. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest this ballot question isn't about Merl, considering this whole push to keep related parties off the Board started when Carol ran.

And your justification that this is necessary to prevent some sort of domestic horse-trading is silly considering the tens of thousands of married couples who somehow find a way to work together on boards and in professional environments without basing their decisions on who took the trash out the night before.

I can at least understand a policy basis for spacing out Board terms, although I personally tend to look down upon term limits because it ends up putting too much power in the hands of the entrenched bureaucracy. But I see no such basis for married couples. Yes, it is possible that you could have a married couple that votes in lockstep or where one spouse just follows the other's lead. But there are many that don't, just as there are many "independent" board members that follow someone else's lead. Seems like a tenuous basis for crafting policy.

I'll say it again -- trust the membership, give them the tools to make decisions, and let them judge who should and should not be on the Board. If you don't trust a married couple on the Board, then don't vote for them. But don't limit my choice because you don't trust me to vote the right way.

Erik

I understand your point. When the issue came up several years ago, I agree that it appeared that it could be aimed at two people and I opposed it for that very reason. Evidence of that is on this forum. I support the intent of the proposed change to the bylaws, and in a private conversation with Merl I explained my reasoning to him.

I support the intent of the current proposed change, because I think it benefits KCBS over time. The membership indicated that they'd like regional representation last year. That becomes more difficult with two members in the same household serving concurrent terms. I'm also taking into account the current process used in the event that a seat on the board becomes vacant. That process is to wait until the next annual election.

I think it's reasonable to assume that two individuals sharing the same address will either be married, or in some form of a long term committed relationship:wink: I also think that it's reasonable to assume that any two people living at the same physical address would travel together more often than two members that weren't. In the event of some tragic event, such as a plane crash, traffic accident, house fire, etc. the board is faced with potentially having two vacant seats until the next election. We are faced with similar options in the event of some serious health issues. If one member of a household becomes seriously ill, I think that it's reasonable to believe that KCBS could effectively lose two members of the board if the second needed to focus on the needs of a spouse etc. How does that serve the board, or the membership?

I've had this conversation with Merl, and I'm confident that if asked he'd tell you that he does not believe that I'm targeting him, or Carol. He may not agree with my opinion but I'm comfortable that he understands it, and my reasoning behind it.

I think the way this has been done, excluding the way the proposed change is worded, is a step forward. Membership has been presented with a proposed change to either approve or reject. It is up to the membership. In contrast, in the last election the membership was asked whether or not they supported regional representation. They said 'YES', and the board is still wrestling with how to accomplish that and I'm willing to bet that whatever plan they roll out will draw the ire of a fair percentage of members when it's time to vote.

The last 990 available indicates that KCBS had $700k in assets. I expect the next 990 to show that KCBS is, or soon will be, worth $1 Million+. If growth continues that number can be expected to grow. With that in mind, I believe that there are many things that need to be looked at with long term growth being the primary focus. The infrastructure that is currently in place is not suited to deal with the issues that KCBS will face in the future. We need to make changes to deal with tomorrow, rather than what happened yesterday.

Candy Sue
01-03-2012, 10:58 AM
When an organization gets to be 15,000 members strong, encouraging diversity on the board of directors is a very good thing. Look at the passion many of us have for competitive BBQ, it's good to have people who care in control. It is bad when the same people do the same thing over and over. That's why there's "no reports" from committees and things don't change. New blood, new ideas, new directors on the board is imperative for continued growth and hopefully positive changes. One year laying off the board is not long enough for a director to come back to a new situation. A 3 year lay off will mean that board composition has significantly changed over time.

The related parties issue is diversity related as well. Many of you know that I was the only "newbie" on the board in 2010. I can tell you that many times I didn't know who was sending e-mails. It was terribly confusing and I asked at least once, to whom am I writing. One board member with a specific assignment should not be able to read or respond for another board member with another assignment. This change to the bylaw is a practical one in my opinion.

"Currently" was pointed out as an error at the last board meeting. Should have been fixed and obviously slipped through the cracks.

Arlin_MacRae
01-03-2012, 10:59 AM
We done voted.

Come on you cooks, judges (or both) and lurkers - spend five minutes and make the BoD a body which truly represents what YOU want from the society!

Warthog
01-03-2012, 12:10 PM
Voted today. Come on all KCBS members.

lcbateman3
01-03-2012, 05:41 PM
Voted!

Smoke'n Ice
01-03-2012, 06:49 PM
Voted twice (found a loop hole) the bro's and no/yes. I find that the requirement for the same address BS may be found discrimatory. Communes and military reservist called to active duty are just a couple of example that comes to mind.

White Dog BBQ
01-04-2012, 11:11 AM
George, thank you for the thoughtful response. I don't agree with your position but it is clear you have given this some serious consideration. And to be fair, I did not consider the vacancy issue. Your point hasn't changed my mind, but I can certainly see where you are coming from.

Erik

Rich Parker
01-04-2012, 11:27 AM
Voted twice (found a loop hole)

You are proud of that? :tsk:

Jorge
01-04-2012, 11:31 AM
You are proud of that? :tsk:

Rich, knowing Mack, I suspect he's talking about the family membership he and Sharon probably have:becky:

Jorge
01-04-2012, 11:46 AM
George, thank you for the thoughtful response. I don't agree with your position but it is clear you have given this some serious consideration. And to be fair, I did not consider the vacancy issue. Your point hasn't changed my mind, but I can certainly see where you are coming from.

Erik

I appreciate that, as well as your position. I shared it for a long time, and had a hard time moving past my fundamental reluctance to have my choices narrowed for me.

I appreciate your getting involved in the process and sharing your thoughts and reasoning even more. Whether I agree with your or not, you presented a well thought out argument that others can think about before voting and making a choice.

At the end of the day I'm more concerned about members participating and making informed choices than I am about winning or losing. If membership becomes more active and involved in the process I think we all stand to benefit.

Smoke'n Ice
01-04-2012, 07:54 PM
You are proud of that? :tsk:
Well, I did live in Chicago once. :shocked:

Doesn't everone have a family membership which allows two votes from the same address, Or are we voting that out also?:roll:

Please understand I am just being a devil’s advocate. I have no legal training, but question the legality of the same address ban. If the husband were to file for the board and then the wife were to file at a later date, we would prevent the one from running in favor of the other. Aren’t there a few Supreme Court rulings against this? Vice Versa would be reverse discrimination would it not? And a mixed marriage would be even worse. Just wondering?
If a hot shot attorney filed a law suit against McDonalds because his client spilled hot coffee in her lap at the drive thru and won a million dollars then what prevents the filing against KCBS for discrimination? Maybe someone on the board asked the attorneys this but I would probably think not because of the method of operations and the sloppy verbiage being used.

dmprantz
01-04-2012, 09:26 PM
If a hot shot attorney filed a law suit against McDonalds because his client spilled hot coffee in her lap at the drive thru and won a million dollars then what prevents the filing against KCBS for discrimination?

I've stayed out of the same address discussion. I don't think I have much to add to it one way or the other except my opinoin. That said though, the case you mention above is often quoted, and usually incorrectly. The abbreviated facts are that she was in the passenger seat of a parked car when the coffee spilled, and received full thickness burns in her groin as a result. She had to have skin grafts and two years of rehab for it. All she wanted was her medical bills and lost wages covered, and McDonald's refused, even though they had paid previous burn victims. In court it was found that McDonald's serves coffee too hot so that it will cool down in the car. It's about the temp of a pork butt just coming off the smoker. Stick the inside of one of those in your crotch (or even your mouth) and tell me what you think is fair. It should be about the temp of a medium rare steak. The actual award, after adjustment by the judge, was was about 2/3 of a million, but 3/4 of that was punitive. Had they paid the $20,000 she originally asked for to cover her medical bills, it would have gone much differently.

dmp

bbqbull
01-04-2012, 09:34 PM
I voted yesterday afternoon.
I hope the majority of members excercise their right to vote also.

Jeff_in_KC
01-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Jeff,

I don't think that the board should be permitted to "notice it and make the correction." The time for that would be before it is voted on.

The vote is on the verbiage as presented. Otherwise, what is the point of the vote? Change a word here, change a word there, what's the difference?

Oh yeah, after the vote they just noticed that the word "not" was a typo and wasn't supposed to be in there. :wink:

So we need another election to clarify a typo on a previous election? We all know it's just the improper form of that word. We'd all also know if they tried to take out the "not".

Jorge
01-05-2012, 10:28 AM
So we need another election to clarify a typo on a previous election? We all know it's just the improper form of that word. We'd all also know if they tried to take out the "not".

Tim's point is that if the verbiage is changed, it isn't what the membership voted on. I agree with him.

We don't want to get into the game of a handful of people deciding what membership 'thought' they were voting for or against after the fact.

In all honesty I'm not sure what the right move is at this point. I don't know what legal ramifications exist if it's removed from the ballot. I don't believe that we can change the wording after the election if it passes.

This is why KCBS retains counsel, and yesterday would be a good time to make a call.

Edit: If my memory is accurate, I believe that the deal KCBS has with the online election firm allows for an additional election during the year. If that is the case, the reasonable solution in my mind is to allow the membership to vote on a properly phrased change to the bylaws. It's not a perfect solution, and I don't think the voter turnout will be as representative of membership as the current election...but I'd prefer that to jacking around with verbiage after the fact.

mobow
01-05-2012, 01:57 PM
my votes are in. go chiefs. oh...never mind. keith

Smoke'n Ice
01-05-2012, 04:10 PM
How about America's Team? Well, maybe next year, if Jerry will quit coaching?:redface:

boogiesnap
01-05-2012, 08:45 PM
voted. and voted hard 4 times!

also NO and NO, even before i saw this debacle. i mean really, do my dues, or portion thereof pay an attorney? if so, i want my 2 cents back.