KCBS Says Cheating Better Than Offending TOTY

[Muzzlebrake]

One mistake compromised the integrity of an entire contest, the other compromised a teams integrity... Big difference.

I agree with all of you who say this. The difference in my view is the compromised integrity of the contest was repaired using established procedures. That is why you pay for KCBS sanctioning (IMO). Did a representative of the organization make an error? Yes. Were there steps in place to correct that error? Yes. In the end everyone affected by Sonny's error was made whole and the correct scores were used following the correct procedure. KCBS not only did guarantee the vaiidity of the contest, they ensured the fair outcome by taking the proper corrective action after a mistake had been made on site. Everyone involved was made whole.

How does the KCBS repair the damage done to someone offended by a lewd act? They cannont go back and correct scores. How do they repair the integrity lost by a competitor who offended someone? They only way I see available is to not allow that entity to continue to compete.

That is the problem many of us have...They don't treat everyone the same.

the problem I have is that while many in this thread are saying this, nobody is complaining about the other person and team that was involved in the same incident of inappropriate behavior being given a lesser sentence. I have a problem with the fact that we are comparing 2 very separate and distinct acts that are not equal. I get rules are rules and everyone should be held accountable, but all rules are not the same. Murder and larceny are not equal crimes in the eyes of the law.

Lots of people in this thread have complained about everyone not being treated equally, nobody had talked about the other party involved getting a lesser sentence. Why is it that one team was put on probation for a year and the other was banned for 3? Thats comparing apples to apples. Same incident, 3 people involved, not all treated the same.

To use another separate dissimilar incident involving a KCBS official for a basis of comparison to me is just another blatant attempt at smearing the organization as a whole and is not about inequality of treatment.

The Schwantz apron reflected poorly on a single team withh ZERO impact on the competitors, the outcome of the contest, the payouts, etc.. It made one team look bad, and ticked off some folks in the crowd, but had no bearing on the outcome of the event.

In business, and in any company(and KCBS IS a corporation)Tenure and service should never be considered when it comes to enforcing policy and procedure, so the service of the reps involved should not be part of the equation when deciding disciplinary action. What should be considered is their performance in their statements of work which in this case was an 'F'.

One was nothing more than an embarrassment, the other well.... Much worse than some bad judgment that reflects poorly on a team and an individual with no bearing on the outcome of the contest. Ever hear of a company hire back an employee that falsified a document?.. maybe as simple as lying on a resume?. Not likely. You're fired, and escorted to the door with your chit in a box.

I think I addressed the contest integrity above, I dont agree that the inappropriate behavior had no effect on other teams or the integrity of the contest. Like it or not the world of competition BBQ has become a much more business like affair over the past few years. Do you really think that competitor acting lewdly during awards has no bearing on a team's or contest's ability to attract sponsorship? In my opinion it wasnt so much the act as it was its timing. Awards are the showcase of the entire weekend. Its the time that everyone from teams, sponsors and spectators all gather in one spot to showcase the best of what took place during the contest. It is the only time that such a thing happens. If companies are willing to separate themselves from the Super Bowl because Janet flashed a nipple for few seconds do you really think they are willing to sponsor a BBQ contest with people wearing a dildo to the award ceremony?

And you are right not many people are rehired after accused of falsifying documents, even fewer are rehired after a case of sexual harrassment.

[dmprantz]

And you are right not many people are rehired after accused of falsifying documents, even fewer are rehired after a case of sexual harrassment.

I've tried my best to keep this thread on topic. I also tried to not make it about me complaining my punish, but rather the punishment of the two acts. I even walked away for a while thinking that it was time to let it be. Still it seems that those who don't know me, or know me through conversation on this site alone, are willing to muddy the waters and assault my character because I dare to call into question the integrity of the KCBS. To quote a previous post in this thread, "That thing you did there. I saw it."

In direct response to you, how many times is a co-worker or supervisor who had no knowledge of it fired for sexual harrassment acts committed of another employee? When a member of the BOD used this defense the last time a rep (who happened to be a member of the BOD) received a slap on the wrist for a screw up, I asked the same question. Not surprisingly, there was never a response to that question, and I do't expect people to respond to this one.

And by the way, I'll say again for the umpteenth time that the point was never to say in this thread "I was punished too hard." The point was to say "Punishment for the falsifying of score cards was only 1/3 as severe as wearing an innappropriate apron." It doesn't matter if I was punished for 6 months, or 5 years. Should the punishment for this rep not have been at least as long?

dmp

[TooSaucedToPork]

I've been around competition BBQ for over 2 decades.

I have seen crazy stuff way worse than what happened during "penisgate". I have seen women flashing for beads held by bbq teams. I have seen two drunk rednecks goin hot and heavy in the corner of a teams tent. I have seen teams to drunk to function puke and fall off the stage at awards. I have seen blow up dolls in team tent enteranceways.

This was all before my 16th birthday. I am now 34 years old and have grown up with BBQ. A penis apron is tame compared to a lot that happens at contests. Those shenanigans while lewd and wrong are part of the fabric of this great sport that we hold so dear to our hearts.

I remember when someone cheating at a contest was sent running from the contest, with cooks with torches and pitchforks close behind. Those days are gone, but in my mind, cheating should be dealt with harshly.

BBQ used to be about fun, and I'm sorry, wieners are funny...Cheating is not.

[Sawdustguy]

I agree with all of you who say this. The difference in my view is the compromised integrity of the contest was repaired using established procedures. That is why you pay for KCBS sanctioning (IMO). Did a representative of the organization make an error? Yes. Were there steps in place to correct that error? Yes. In the end everyone affected by Sonny's error was made whole and the correct scores were used following the correct procedure. KCBS not only did guarantee the vaiidity of the contest, they ensured the fair outcome by taking the proper corrective action after a mistake had been made on site. Everyone involved was made whole.

How does the KCBS repair the damage done to someone offended by a lewd act? They cannont go back and correct scores. How do they repair the integrity lost by a competitor who offended someone? They only way I see available is to not allow that entity to continue to compete.



the problem I have is that while many in this thread are saying this, nobody is complaining about the other person and team that was involved in the same incident of inappropriate behavior being given a lesser sentence. I have a problem with the fact that we are comparing 2 very separate and distinct acts that are not equal. I get rules are rules and everyone should be held accountable, but all rules are not the same. Murder and larceny are not equal crimes in the eyes of the law.

Lots of people in this thread have complained about everyone not being treated equally, nobody had talked about the other party involved getting a lesser sentence. Why is it that one team was put on probation for a year and the other was banned for 3? Thats comparing apples to apples. Same incident, 3 people involved, not all treated the same.

To use another separate dissimilar incident involving a KCBS official for a basis of comparison to me is just another blatant attempt at smearing the organization as a whole and is not about inequality of treatment.



I think I addressed the contest integrity above, I dont agree that the inappropriate behavior had no effect on other teams or the integrity of the contest. Like it or not the world of competition BBQ has become a much more business like affair over the past few years. Do you really think that competitor acting lewdly during awards has no bearing on a team's or contest's ability to attract sponsorship? In my opinion it wasnt so much the act as it was its timing. Awards are the showcase of the entire weekend. Its the time that everyone from teams, sponsors and spectators all gather in one spot to showcase the best of what took place during the contest. It is the only time that such a thing happens. If companies are willing to separate themselves from the Super Bowl because Janet flashed a nipple for few seconds do you really think they are willing to sponsor a BBQ contest with people wearing a dildo to the award ceremony?

And you are right not many people are rehired after accused of falsifying documents, even fewer are rehired after a case of sexual harrassment.

Sean,

The weenie apron damages the KCBS far less than the Reps falsifying documents. The apron was worn by a person that had no affiliation with the KCBS. The rep could have given the KCBS a big time black eye. Also falsifying documents is usually a criminal matter and sexual harassment is usually a civil matter. It sounds to me like the BOD took advantage of the opportunity to punish DMP for not being a member of the KCBS and his vocal opinion of the KCBS.

[Slamdunkpro]

.....Did a representative of the organization make an error? .....
NO!
An error is "I forgot crackers" or "We've only got 7 bread trays and we need 8". Creating false score cards and skewing the contest results is not an error, it's a deliberate act.

[Fat Freddy]

Muzzlebrake, I havent figured out how to only quote a small area so i chose not to quote at all but in regards to everyone affected being made whole, I respectfully disagree. There is at minimum ONE TEAM that feels still they were CHEATED because of the actions of Mr. Ashford. So again they have never been made whole in mine or their opinion.

[deguerre]

Muzzlebrake, I havent figured out how to only quote a small area so i chose not to quote at all but in regards to everyone affected being made whole, I respectfully disagree. There is at minimum ONE TEAM that feels still they were CHEATED because of the actions of Mr. Ashford. So again they have never been made whole in mine or their opinion.

Within the body of the quote, just hilite what you don't want and hit your delete key. Bam.

[bbqczar]

And BTW,doesn't anyone remember about how KCBS came out after the teams suspension for the Apron incident and said they were going to ,"clean up events, and make SURE comps were family friendly,and BS, and BS, and BS" ? I remember people being worried about the Royal coming up,and people worried about having to change their logos,shirts,banners,etc.,HOWEVER,KCBS NEVER did anything to anyone else since(at least that I know of)and their has been ALOT worse seen and done at some comps since,so why no KCBS action on anyone else ? There was a reason that team was singled out,I know of at least 2 reasons,but yet some really crazier stuff went on, and has gone on, at comps since and KCBS is blind,and done nothing.Hmmmmm,yeah,just makes you go hmmmmm.

[BBQchef33]

I agree with all of you who say this. The difference in my view is the compromised integrity of the contest was repaired using established procedures. That is why you pay for KCBS sanctioning (IMO). Did a representative of the organization make an error? Yes. Were there steps in place to correct that error? Yes. In the end everyone affected by Sonny's error was made whole and the correct scores were used following the correct procedure. KCBS not only did guarantee the vaiidity of the contest, they ensured the fair outcome by taking the proper corrective action after a mistake had been made on site. Everyone involved was made whole.

Answer me this, AS A FELLOW COMPETITOR, would you accept 'averaged' scores with a grain of salt? Would you feel whole if 2 of your categories received fictitious scores, or would you feel royally screwed? I dont think everyone feels as though they were made whole, and as a member of KCBS, I'm disillusioned that acts of a contest official that negatively effect the outcome of a contest were not dealt with harshly.

I think the crux of the comparison between the 2 scenarios referenced in this thread is that one was a stupid joke in bad taste thats NOT under the pervue of KCBS(i see no dress code) and yet a harsh penalty was handed down, and the other, which IS DIRECTLY KCBS' RESPONSIBILITY was handled no worse than separating the pork butt and returning to the cooker. Although I am not one to call the scorecard debacle 'cheating', it does however equate to something paramount. The scoring of our contests is the holy grail and to do anything that screws that up should be dealt witht he harshest of penalties.

How does the KCBS repair the damage done to someone offended by a lewd act? They cannont go back and correct scores. How do they repair the integrity lost by a competitor who offended someone? They only way I see available is to not allow that entity to continue to compete.

Not their job, but if they do, they will have a full time job.. walk around the dark side of the American Royal lately? Its not KCBS job to make sure no one is offended(id say that falls more on the organizer). It IS KCBS job to enure the scoring is fair and accurate.

the problem I have is that while many in this thread are saying this, nobody is complaining about the other person and team that was involved in the same incident of inappropriate behavior being given a lesser sentence. I have a problem with the fact that we are comparing 2 very separate and distinct acts that are not equal. I get rules are rules and everyone should be held accountable, but all rules are not the same. Murder and larceny are not equal crimes in the eyes of the law.

true, they are NOT equal. One is done buy a contest official, the other is done by a unnamed/unlisted participant. KCBS is responsible for their officials behavior. If DMP is responsible for the actions of his team, then KCBS should be responsible for theirs.

Lots of people in this thread have complained about everyone not being treated equally, nobody had talked about the other party involved getting a lesser sentence. Why is it that one team was put on probation for a year and the other was banned for 3? Thats comparing apples to apples. Same incident, 3 people involved, not all treated the same.

To use another separate dissimilar incident involving a KCBS official for a basis of comparison to me is just another blatant attempt at smearing the organization as a whole and is not about inequality of treatment.

I think I addressed the contest integrity above, I dont agree that the inappropriate behavior had no effect on other teams or the integrity of the contest. Like it or not the world of competition BBQ has become a much more business like affair over the past few years. Do you really think that competitor acting lewdly during awards has no bearing on a team's or contest's ability to attract sponsorship? In my opinion it wasnt so much the act as it was its timing. Awards are the showcase of the entire weekend. Its the time that everyone from teams, sponsors and spectators all gather in one spot to showcase the best of what took place during the contest. It is the only time that such a thing happens. If companies are willing to separate themselves from the Super Bowl because Janet flashed a nipple for few seconds do you really think they are willing to sponsor a BBQ contest with people wearing a dildo to the award ceremony?

The apron had ZERO effect on the teams or the outcome of the event and KCBS does not give a rats behind about the sponsorship a contest acquires. Someone speak up.. is there any team out there that cares if a contest has no significant sponsorship as long as the prize pool is intact.? if sponsors dropped out becase of the apron, again, no effect on teams, no effect on the event. Teams dont care about sponsors, but they care about scoring.

And you are right not many people are rehired after accused of falsifying documents, even fewer are rehired after a case of sexual harrassment.

fine, but they are BOTH FIRED.




My responses are in blue. :caked:

[Wampus]

The scoring of our contests is the holy grail and to do anything that screws that up should be dealt witht he harshest of penalties.

if sponsors dropped out becase of the apron, again, no effect on teams, no effect on the event. Teams dont care about sponsors, but they care about scoring.

:thumb:

[Smokedelic]

Someone speak up.. is there any team out there that cares if a contest has no significant sponsorship as long as the prize pool is intact.? if sponsors dropped out becase of the apron, again, no effect on teams, no effect on the event. Teams dont care about sponsors, but they care about scoring.

I'll speak up and respectfully disagree.

I don't know of too many contests that can survive without sponsors. It's extremely difficult for a contest to cover expenses and pay out decent prize money just from entry fees. Without sponsors, there would be a lot less contests.

So, yes, I care about sponsors just as much as I care about accurate scoring, because without sponsors, there would be no need for accurate scoring.

[Muzzlebrake]

My responses are in blue. :Answer me this, AS A FELLOW COMPETITOR, would you accept 'averaged' scores with a grain of salt? Would you feel whole if 2 of your categories received fictitious scores, or would you feel royally screwed? I dont think everyone feels as though they were made whole, and as a member of KCBS, I'm disillusioned that acts of a contest official that negatively effect the outcome of a contest were not dealt with harshly.


This you too?

And please understand that I am not quoting to single out a person just rather make a point on something. I'm not picking on anyone, hope it doesn't seem like that.

[kenthanson]

I'll speak up and respectfully disagree.

I don't know of too many contests that can survive without sponsors. It's extremely difficult for a contest to cover expenses and pay out decent prize money just from entry fees. Without sponsors, there would be a lot less contests.

So, yes, I care about sponsors just as much as I care about accurate scoring, because without sponsors, there would be no need for accurate scoring.

But that would be on the organizers to deal with sponsorship, he was stating that KCBS doesn't have any irons in the fire for sponsorship but they have the biggest one in the fire for scoring. I understand where your coming from, no sponsors equals no contests, but like I mentioned that's not what KCBS does.

[dmprantz]

If it makes any difference whatsoever, in regards to the specific competition where I was involved, I personally called the organizer and the mayor of the town after the event to apologize for what happened. I felt that they were owed an apology from some one. Both of them told me that they were not offended nor bothered by the event. Apparently some one told the KCBS BOD that at least one of them was, and they never verified the statement.

dmp

[Smokedelic]

But that would be on the organizers to deal with sponsorship, he was stating that KCBS doesn't have any irons in the fire for sponsorship but they have the biggest one in the fire for scoring. I understand where your coming from, no sponsors equals no contests, but like I mentioned that's not what KCBS does.
Again, I respectfully disagree.

My reply was to a direct question asked, which I included in my post. There was nothing in the question that was asked about KCBS's role in obtaining sponsors.

However, since you brought it up, KCBS has a lot of "irons in the fire" when it comes to sponsorship. KCBS sells a product to organizers. That product consists of a standard set of rules, a standard scoring system, certified judges, KCBS Reps to manage the contest, and a name that is recognizable in the BBQ community.

KCBS also does a lot of marketing for organizers through their website and the Bullsheet advertising their contest to potential cook teams. More cook teams can mean more public attendance, which makes it easier for organizers to find sponsors. It's one of the biggest reasons why sanctioned contests typically pay more than "backyard" events.

KCBS would be wise to protect the brand they've developed, which is why the possible reinstatement of a Rep, found to have blatantly disregarded established rules and procedures, is foolish at best, IMO.

[Here Piggy Piggy]

I do believe that you should hear from someone on the BOD and while I was not on the BOD for either one of these issues, I have voted on them both when they have come up again this year.
Like I am sure that you are aware, I cannot go into details that were discussed in closed session, I can only explain some of my thoughts and why I voted the way that I did. Either way, I support the decisions of the BOD.
Apron issue - Because of not experiencing discussion firsthand when the issue happened, I had to rely on the recollection of the BOD experiences. I honestly do not remember which way that I voted at the time. I think that the lesson I learned, that I have tried to put into play since is to address the issue. I certainly did not put any merit to whether the individual was a member or not concerning the penalty.
Rep in Training - people have talked about there being a connection with the new scoring system and the reinstatement. This is all news to me. I highly doubt that it was considered. What I personally did consider was the length of service this individual had prior to his termination. According to his questionnaire filled out when he ran for the BOD in Dec 2011, at that time he states 12 years as a member, 10 years as a CBJ and 7 years as a rep. This means countless contests judged and repped with no major issues (as far as I know) until this one. Not to discount the severity but it was fixed at the time, maybe not correctly, but fixed at the time, discussed to insure it does not happen again, and the rep was terminated. He has been approved to retrain and must shadow current reps before coming back before the board to possibly be reinstated.
I am not perfect and never can claim to be. I have made mistakes and have paid for those mistakes, but thankfully do not make the same mistake twice. I believe that any person who gets what they love doing pulled away from them because of an error that they made will not make that mistake again should they get another chance.
I appreciate all the interaction and comments on this forum and want to be an active participant. Those of you that know me, know that I want nothing but good things for KCBS and competition BBQ. The lifelong friendships that I have been fortunate to have because of this wonderful sport of BBQ keep me going. I strongly encourage members to forward concerns to [email protected] and to me directly at [email protected].

Mike Peters
KCBS Board Member

[Smoke'n Ice]

Thank You Mike.

Length of service does not equate to to an automatic pass. I will not consider doing a contest if this particular rap, weather in training or not, is involved. He has joined my short list of KCBS reps that do not have the integrity of the sport as his or her first concern.

Mack Yarbrough
Smoke'n Ice

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

I do believe that you should hear from someone on the BOD and while I was not on the BOD for either one of these issues, I have voted on them both when they have come up again this year.
Like I am sure that you are aware, I cannot go into details that were discussed in closed session, I can only explain some of my thoughts and why I voted the way that I did. Either way, I support the decisions of the BOD.
Apron issue - Because of not experiencing discussion firsthand when the issue happened, I had to rely on the recollection of the BOD experiences. I honestly do not remember which way that I voted at the time. I think that the lesson I learned, that I have tried to put into play since is to address the issue. I certainly did not put any merit to whether the individual was a member or not concerning the penalty.
Rep in Training - people have talked about there being a connection with the new scoring system and the reinstatement. This is all news to me. I highly doubt that it was considered. What I personally did consider was the length of service this individual had prior to his termination. According to his questionnaire filled out when he ran for the BOD in Dec 2011, at that time he states 12 years as a member, 10 years as a CBJ and 7 years as a rep. This means countless contests judged and repped with no major issues (as far as I know) until this one. Not to discount the severity but it was fixed at the time, maybe not correctly, but fixed at the time, discussed to insure it does not happen again, and the rep was terminated. He has been approved to retrain and must shadow current reps before coming back before the board to possibly be reinstated.
I am not perfect and never can claim to be. I have made mistakes and have paid for those mistakes, but thankfully do not make the same mistake twice. I believe that any person who gets what they love doing pulled away from them because of an error that they made will not make that mistake again should they get another chance.
I appreciate all the interaction and comments on this forum and want to be an active participant. Those of you that know me, know that I want nothing but good things for KCBS and competition BBQ. The lifelong friendships that I have been fortunate to have because of this wonderful sport of BBQ keep me going. I strongly encourage members to forward concerns to [email protected] and to me directly at [email protected].

Mike Peters
KCBS Board Member

Thank you for your response.

Please remember that if you do not know enough of the facts to make an informed decision there is more honor in abstaining from a vote than voting with the majority.

You have every right to cast your vote however you wish, but there are ALWAYS consequences.

Again, thanks for having the apron to speak your mind.

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

I am not perfect and never can claim to be. I have made mistakes and have paid for those mistakes, but thankfully do not make the same mistake twice. I believe that any person who gets what they love doing pulled away from them because of an error that they made will not make that mistake again should they get another chance.


BTW- you still have the opportunity to practice this philosophy. It is a noble one.

AND now you know that in one case there was no prior knowledge, so there was no mistake.

[Icekub]

Again, thanks for having the apron to speak your mind.


This made me coat my monitor in a nice spritz of ice water! :mrgreen:

[Teamfour]

Ever hear of a company hire back an employee that falsified a document?.. maybe as simple as lying on a resume?. Not likely. You're fired, and escorted to the door with your chit in a box.


Yep, the company is called the United States of America. The American people constantly look the other way when the "reps" for our people screw up royally and then reapply for the position (run again) and promptly get elected.

I'm not disagreeing with the position that serious wrong-doers should receive harsh punishments. My point is that, society today, has lost its sense of decorum, honesty, and integrity and therefore is all too willing to be conflict-averse.

[Here Piggy Piggy]

"Please remember that if you do not know enough of the facts to make an informed decision there is more honor in abstaining from a vote than voting with the majority."

Might or might not have voted with the majority, I certainly do not recall. Tried to go back to confirm one way or the other and could not find the answer.
I vote based upon the information that I have at the time and live with that decision...

[dmprantz]

Mr Peters,

Thank you for taking the time to address this issue publically. I am honestly still deciding whether or not there is more I wish to say, but I started this thread because you personally were one of six people who voted in March to uphold my competition ban at 3 years plus probation, and then voted this month to "re-hire" the rep responsible for, shall we call it "illegal scoring," back as a RIT after less than one year. Before I say anything else, I'd like to confirm that I understand your position correctly. Of course, I don't expect anything that you say to apply to other members of the board.

On the primary issue, do I understand correctly that for the vote in March, you did not have know anything about the vote nor have a position and simply voted with the majority, but immediately after that vote realized that it was a good idea to understand the issue upon which you are voting? Is that the reason why the votes from you were so different?

On another question regarding the rep's history with the organization, am I to understand that you as a board performed research to find facts related to him? You looked up old documentation from 18 months earlier when he ran for the board, and you used information contained in that documentation detailing the length and magnatude of his membership and service to the organization to factor into your vote?

Thank you,

dmp

[Here Piggy Piggy]

dmp,
As I stated, I voted based upon the information that I had at the time to not lessen the penalty that was given to you. It just happened to be in the majority. Two different issues, two different votes.
As to the rep, I have met him in the past and knew basics of his history. I looked on the KCBS member section to find out exactly how long he served KCBS. I used that information along with other information that was learned in closed session to make my decision to vote for him to join the RIT pool. If and when he completes those requirements, I will then vote based upon the information that I have whether I agree or disagree for him to be a KCBS Rep. No matter the outcome, I will support the decision of the BOD.
Should you ever compete in a KCBS event going forward, I would guess that you will make sure that no member of your team act inappropriately.

[sdbbq1234]

"Please remember that if you do not know enough of the facts to make an informed decision there is more honor in abstaining from a vote than voting with the majority."

Might or might not have voted with the majority, I certainly do not recall. Tried to go back to confirm one way or the other and could not find the answer.
I vote based upon the information that I have at the time and live with that decision...

Look, at face value, someone tried to kill a mosquito with a sledge hammer (DM).

Then when another offense happened, more severe in most folks views, it was a slap on the wrist.

:pop2:

Whatever, I do not agree with the punishment for DM, nor do I agree with the KCBS rep's punishment. They are reversed.

wallace

[Uomograsso]

dmp,
As I stated, I voted based upon the information that I had at the time to not lessen the penalty that was given to you. It just happened to be in the majority. Two different issues, two different votes.
As to the rep, I have met him in the past and knew basics of his history. I looked on the KCBS member section to find out exactly how long he served KCBS. I used that information along with other information that was learned in closed session to make my decision to vote for him to join the RIT pool. If and when he completes those requirements, I will then vote based upon the information that I have whether I agree or disagree for him to be a KCBS Rep. No matter the outcome, I will support the decision of the BOD.
Should you ever compete in a KCBS event going forward, I would guess that you will make sure that no member of your team act inappropriately.

Mr. Peters, yes taking a persons years of service into account should be done in relation to the severity of the offense. Since the matter was discussed in closed session there is no way anyone that is not on the BOD would know what the facts are. Going off second hand information in this thread there is one thing that troubles me. That is that the rep in question refused to give no explanation of what occurred and what part they played in the incident. If that is true there is no way they should ever be reinstated. That's what your research should have looked into. If you didn't have enough info you should have requested that the motion be tabled and brought back up at a time in which you had the proper information. Same thing with apron incident. I don't think it would have been that difficult to have the matter tabled and then contact DMP directly. I just get the feeling that you went along with the members of the BOD that have been there for quite a while and which some might label as "good ole boys." I think that is what many of the posters here are frustrated with. The more the BOD changes, the more it stays the same.

[dmprantz]

As to the rep, I have met him in the past and knew basics of his history....Should you ever compete in a KCBS event going forward, I would guess that you will make sure that no member of your team act inappropriately.

I find these comments to be evidence of why I started this thread. Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are saying that you feel that having a team member act inappropriately is worthy of stricter punishment than a rep, that you knew, who submitted false score sheets.

dmp

[drbbq]

Guys, i feel lucky that we have a board member here being honest. If we beat the hell out of him we won't have him anymore.

[sdbbq1234]

Mr. Peters, yes taking a persons years of service into account should be done in relation to the severity of the offense.

What??? You have got to be kidding me!!:shock:

wallace

[BBQchef33]

However, since you brought it up, KCBS has a lot of "irons in the fire" when it comes to sponsorship. KCBS sells a product to organizers. That product consists of a standard set of rules, a standard scoring system, certified judges, KCBS Reps to manage the contest, and a name that is recognizable in the BBQ community.

KCBS also does a lot of marketing for organizers through their website and the Bullsheet advertising their contest to potential cook teams. More cook teams can mean more public attendance, which makes it easier for organizers to find sponsors. It's one of the biggest reasons why sanctioned contests typically pay more than "backyard" events.



just to clarify something (which you may already know.)

The only advertising KCBS does for a contest is list it on the website and posssibly in a schedule in the bullsheet, both of which the organizer pays a $350 listing fee for. Any real ads you see in the bullsheet for a contest is advertising space also purchased by the organizer separate and apart from any listing/sanctioning fees.

As an organizer, the only value I see in KCBS sanctioning is the perceived 'integrity' of a sanctioned event. Everything else,(scoring system and reps) can be gotten from multiple sources. So, since all IMO, I am paying for is the veil of integrity, which in this case was compromised... all i would be left with after this contest is a black eye.

[boogiesnap]

Guys, i feel lucky that we have a board member here being honest. If we beat the hell out of him we won't have him anymore.

he beat the hell out of one and let another nearly scott free.

i don't feel lucky.

i appreciate the willingness for honesty though, and respect as a fellow brethren, but sometimes, the truth hurts.

[Here Piggy Piggy]

Uomograsso, I see your point. As to the rep issue, that was all handled by the previous board. I have to trust in their judgement to allow possible reinstatement which is what I voted on to put the rep back in the RIT program.
Things can be tabled and tabled until possibly forgotten without a decision being made. I make decisions based upon the information that I have.
dmp, I am making decisions based upon what has happened in the past and punishment that was handed out which is now coming up. I apologize if my comment was interpreted differently than I intended. I doubt that the rep will make the same mistake again should he make it back into the rep pool.
Ray, thanks for the thoughts. I could have kept to myself but I think it is important to explain my decisions when I can. I will pay the price one way or another...

[boogiesnap]

so you "doubt" the rep will falsify scores again, but you thought DMP and his team would wear an offensive apron again?

OMG.

[BBQchef33]

Guys, i feel lucky that we have a board member here being honest. If we beat the hell out of him we won't have him anymore.


Absolutely correct Ray.

Folks, keep in mind, having a BOD member speak up is huge and he is speaking honestly and to the best of his memory. Please refrain from monday morning quaterbacking his past decisions. I see it best played out and in all our best interest if we speak freely(and respectfully) and Mike will comment when he feels its appropriate...

but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. :mrgreen:

[Here Piggy Piggy]

Seriously Boogiesnap?

The truth is that a prior board handed down the punishments. They were in office when all this occured. They had all the immediate first hand knowledge of both issues. They voted for the punishments based upon that knowledge. My votes were based upon what I had knowledge of.
From the June special meeting:
Steve Farrin made a motion, seconded by Dave Compton, to terminate contest reps Patty Flessner and Sonny Ashford, with a right to re-apply as reps in training after one year, although acceptance of application is not a given, and to terminate Sonny's duties as a CBJ instructor. With 9 ayes and 2 opposed, the motion passed. - See more at: http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=513#sthash.OucdJyJM.dpuf
I am pretty sure that meeting notes would show that dmp was banned for 3 years.

I take responsibility for what I do and how I vote and have to believe that a prior board would not make the said decisions lightly. There must have been a reason for them to issue the punishments that they did. I am not going to go back and second guess each and every decision that a prior board makes and have to vote on motions based upon the information that I have at the time.

I ABSOLUTELY do not think that dmp nor anyone else that has knowledge of this incident will ever wear an offensive apron like that to awards.

[boogiesnap]

Absolutely correct Ray.

Folks, keep in mind, having a BOD member speak up is huge and he is speaking honestly and to the best of his memory. Please refrain from monday morning quaterbacking his past decisions. I see it best played out and in all our best interest if we speak freely and Mike will comment when he feels its appropriate...

but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. :mrgreen:

forget your past, repeat in your future.

[BBQchef33]

And please understand that I am not quoting to single out a person just rather make a point on something. I'm not picking on anyone, hope it doesn't seem like that.

Me too....i just picked yours out because it had all the talking points in it... :thumb:

[BBQchef33]

forget your past, repeat in your future.

:confused::noidea:

[boogiesnap]

:confused::noidea:

past poor decisions....

[BBQchef33]

I ABSOLUTELY do not think that dmp nor anyone else that has knowledge of this incident will ever wear an offensive apron like that to awards.

Now that right there is the understatement of the year.

:tongue::rolleyes::first:

[boogiesnap]

Seriously Boogiesnap?

The truth is that a prior board handed down the punishments. They were in office when all this occured. They had all the immediate first hand knowledge of both issues. They voted for the punishments based upon that knowledge. My votes were based upon what I had knowledge of.
From the June special meeting:
Steve Farrin made a motion, seconded by Dave Compton, to terminate contest reps Patty Flessner and Sonny Ashford, with a right to re-apply as reps in training after one year, although acceptance of application is not a given, and to terminate Sonny's duties as a CBJ instructor. With 9 ayes and 2 opposed, the motion passed. - See more at: http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=513#sthash.OucdJyJM.dpuf
I am pretty sure that meeting notes would show that dmp was banned for 3 years.



I take responsibility for what I do and how I vote and have to believe that a prior board would not make the said decisions lightly. There must have been a reason for them to issue the punishments that they did. I am not going to go back and second guess each and every decision that a prior board makes and have to vote on motions based upon the information that I have at the time.

I ABSOLUTELY do not think that dmp nor anyone else that has knowledge of this incident will ever wear an offensive apron like that to awards.


but you PERSONALLY voted to uphold said punishment or reinstatement for each???

just cuz?

C'MON MAN!

[BBQchef33]

but you PERSONALLY voted to uphold said punishment or reinstatement for each???

just cuz?

C'MON MAN!


Spilt Milk.

Berating the one BOD member willing to discuss things will get us no where.

I'll paste this in one more time;

Folks, keep in mind, having a BOD member speak up is huge and he is speaking honestly and to the best of his memory. Please refrain from monday morning quaterbacking his past decisions. I see it best played out and in all our best interest if we speak freely(and respectfully) and Mike will comment when he feels its appropriate...

but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. :mrgreen:

[mgp03051]

Enuff sed ! After spending an hour reading this thread I believe there is nothing more that can possibly be said to change either sides position...As far as my option on this. Consider me Switzerland ....

[Cue's Your Daddy]

Dmprantz. After reading all this and re reading my post I apologize. As stated before I believe your punishment was to harsh. I don't know you. I made assumptions of your personality and who you are. You are probably a good dude that I would consider a friend after I meet you. But I haven't. And just like the board did they voted by either taking the time to find out who you are or just looked at the act that happened and made a decision on that, which is what I did. Now, after reading this, I believe you should of received a 1 year probation and then the organizer of the contest could have said we don't want your team back and they would have had every right to do that.I apologize for judging YOU. I still do think it was wrong. I am actually at the point that I want to pay your 35 bucks kcbs fee and see what happens.if you are ever up this way join our team. We compete in brethren run contests so there is no problem there. KCBS has no jurisdiction, just some balding, Obama hating, sleeveless guy, media whore . (Hi Phil, buddy). I also respect any board member who comes on a forum to state facts and not back down but answer questions truthfully.

[Bigdog]

Mr. Peters,
Thank you very much for contributing your insight into this issue. But please help he with one thing, which seems to be the crux of this issue: Why does it seem that the rep. got off easy and DMP got a much harsher punishment?

[timzcardz]

Mr. Peters,
Thank you very much for contributing your insight into this issue. But please help he with one thing, which seems to be the crux of this issue: Why does it seem that the rep. got off easy and DMP got a much harsher punishment?

He's already answered that question.

Would you be happy if his answer changed because the question kept getting asked?

What would the next question then be? How can we trust you if you keep changing your answers?

Seriously Boogiesnap?

The truth is that a prior board handed down the punishments. They were in office when all this occured. They had all the immediate first hand knowledge of both issues. They voted for the punishments based upon that knowledge. My votes were based upon what I had knowledge of.
From the June special meeting:
Steve Farrin made a motion, seconded by Dave Compton, to terminate contest reps Patty Flessner and Sonny Ashford, with a right to re-apply as reps in training after one year, although acceptance of application is not a given, and to terminate Sonny's duties as a CBJ instructor. With 9 ayes and 2 opposed, the motion passed. - See more at: http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=513#sthash.OucdJyJM.dpuf
I am pretty sure that meeting notes would show that dmp was banned for 3 years.

I take responsibility for what I do and how I vote and have to believe that a prior board would not make the said decisions lightly. There must have been a reason for them to issue the punishments that they did. I am not going to go back and second guess each and every decision that a prior board makes and have to vote on motions based upon the information that I have at the time.

I ABSOLUTELY do not think that dmp nor anyone else that has knowledge of this incident will ever wear an offensive apron like that to awards.


To Mike Peters:

As a KCBS member, thank you for coming here and publicly stating what you have. :clap:

[drbbq]

he beat the hell out of one and let another nearly scott free.

i don't feel lucky.

i appreciate the willingness for honesty though, and respect as a fellow brethren, but sometimes, the truth hurts.

He's telling us what he thinks. The vote has been counted. I appreciate his honesty. Like it or not.

Instead of picking a meaningless fight here, just don't vote for him next time. Maybe even run for the board yourself.

[drbbq]

Spilt Milk.

Berating the one BOD member willing to discuss things will get us no where.

Where are the board members that we all voted for so they'd help change things? Steve and Candy at least post once in a while and I understand not standing in the middle of the fire.

Dave? Jeff?

[Pigs on Fire]

Sounds like there's two sides to the stories....

I never would have guessed.

[deguerre]

He's telling us what he thinks. The vote has been counted. I appreciate his honesty. Like it or not.

Instead of picking a meaningless fight here, just don't vote for him next time. Maybe even run for the board yourself.

What I got was that he was telling us how OTHER people thought...:rolleyes:

[CarolinaQue]

The truth is that a prior board handed (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2530284#) down the punishments. They were in office when all this occured (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2530284#). They had all the immediate first hand knowledge of both issues. They voted for the punishments based upon that knowledge.

There must have been a reason for them to issue the punishments that they did. I am not going to go back and second guess each and every decision that a prior board makes and have to vote on motions based upon the information that I have at the time.

Apron issue - Because of not experiencing discussion firsthand when the issue happened, I had to rely on the recollection of the BOD experiences. I honestly do not remember which way that I voted at the time. I think that the lesson I learned, that I have tried to put into play since is to address the issue. I certainly did not put any merit to whether the individual was a member or not concerning the penalty.

Rep in Training - people have talked about there being a connection with the new scoring system and the reinstatement. This is all news to me. I highly doubt that it was considered. What I personally did consider was the length of service this individual had prior to his termination. According to his questionnaire filled out when he ran for the BOD in Dec 2011, at that time he states 12 years as a member, 10 years as a CBJ and 7 years as a rep. This means countless contests judged and repped with no major issues (as far as I know) until this one.

Mike Peters
KCBS Board Member


Mr. Peters, I'm not trying to split hairs here or berate you in any way, but I think that the 2 points in red above is where the confusion lies in my mind concerning this issue.

Regarding the apron issue, you stated that you relied on the knowledge of the board concerning the incident and you voted based on that knowledge. But then, when it came to the rep's issue in question, it appears that you took the time to look up answers to questions from a questionnaire from years past to help you make that decision. Thereby not just relying on the boards decision, but actually doing some leg work to come to your conclusion.

It just seems that the way you voted for one was dealt with and approached very differently than the other looking at it from the out side in.

Maybe you can shed some clarity on the confusion as I am certain that I am not the only one a little confused by these apparently contradicting statements.

[drbbq]

And we wonder why the board members stay away.

[CarolinaQue]

And we wonder why the board members stay away.


I don't wonder. However, a public statement was made, are questions for clarities sake not allowed to be asked in a "public" forum setting???

[Balls Casten]

Maybe you can shed some clarity on the confusion as I am certain that I am not the only one a little confused by these apparently contradicting statements.

He has done that that already. I understand his position just fine.

[boogiesnap]

He's telling us what he thinks. The vote has been counted. I appreciate his honesty. Like it or not.

Instead of picking a meaningless fight here, just don't vote for him next time. Maybe even run for the board yourself.

i'm not "picking a fight". i'm voicing my opinion and addressing it to the board member direct.

i surely would run if i thought i had a rat's a** chance, but i'm an asshat and wouldn't get any votes.

[deguerre]

Any KCBS board members from the South?:rolleyes:

[mobow]

Where are the board members that we all voted for so they'd help change things? Steve and Candy at least post once in a while and I understand not standing in the middle of the fire.

Dave? Jeff?

They are not here because they have already learned the lesson that Mike is learning now. Keith

[dmprantz]

Any KCBS board members from the South?:rolleyes:

Yes, including one in Memphis and another in South-Central TN. I suggest you look the members to know more details.

dmp

[deguerre]

Duh. I forgot about Arkansas.

[CarolinaQue]

And we wonder why the board members stay away.

But yet...you asked for other board members to chime in???

Where are the board members that we all voted for so they'd help change things? Steve and Candy at least post once in a while and I understand not standing in the middle of the fire.

Dave? Jeff?



????

[Muzzlebrake]

I'm sticking by my guns too. this thread has nothing to do with KCBS stating cheating is better than offending the Team of the Year as the title states.

As I thought from the onset, it a sensational way to once again draw undue attention to an incident in which someone felt wronged.

In the course of this discussion many have complained about people not being treated equally and look to the two disparate examples given. Yet during this discussion those same people stumping for equlaity have never once metioned the fact that another team and person involved in the very same incident of inappropriate behavior recieved a much lesser punishment. Instead all anger and comparison is being drawn to another completely separate incident with an entirely different set of circumstances. So let's be honest, if this was really about equailty and people treated the same shouldn't we at the very least start with comparing the punishments of all parties involved in the same incident? If we are in search of equality lets start by comparing apples to apples. Why was it that 2 people involved were banned for 3 years and the other person implicated was only given one year of probation? That doesnt seem equal to me, yet not one person including the OP has mentioned that, nor has that been the basis of comparing punishments. I too think that Dan's 3 year ban was kind of harsh, but lets look at this entire picture before start comparing it to others.

In the case of the Rep, i understand that many feel the punishment was too light and this was a much more ergregious act. Those may be fair points, in fact I may tend to agree with some of them, but that is another discussion altogether and has nothing to do with a ban for inappropriate behavior. In fact if we are to compare the severity of the rep's punishment it would be much more fair to compare it to actions taken against other reps for mistakes, errors, oversights or whatever you would like to call it.

And whil many have complained that the rep's punishment was too light yet not one person has made mention of bringing that to the rules committee. I'm not sure if that is the proper place to start but I guarantee it is more effective than bitching about he got a year and somone else got 3 for a much lesser offense. The solution seemingly offered by this discussion is to bash the board member naive enough to bravely step in and try to explain, scream poor Dan and complain how the entire organization is rife with corruption, nepotism, cronyism and lacks and integrity.

If you think the rep should have recieved a stiffer punishment, than let's try and direct that discussion towards the proper channels. Complaining that someone else was punished more for less in this thread, may bring some new light to the 3 year ban, is not going to change the way reps are punished.

The other thing that many seem to have issue with is with the reinstatement of the rep and not a reduction in 3 year ban. Once again I am failing to see the logic in this argument.

In one case we have a person that served their sentence (i understand it may not be harsh enough for some) and then applied to be reinstated. The other has admittedly done nothing to ask to have his sentence reduced and has since quit the organization and objects to taking the most basic steps towards once again becoming part of the organization. So I am confused as to how these people are to be treated the same.

One is someone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that accepted the punishment, continued to be part of the organization and is now taking steps towards once again holding postions of greater responsibility within the organization. the other issomeone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that has not accepted the punishment, is no longer part of or willing to rejoin the organization and instead chooses to throw stones and accusations from the outside. Once again to me I see apples and oranges.

So I'm sticking to my guns too. The more this discussion goes on the more I see it as a way to bash KCBS over 2 very differnt but in both cases very unfortunate events that have left a seeping wound on the collective organization. Are they both problems that should be dealt with? Absolutely. But to think they are one and the same or in any way present eveidence the BOD approves of cheating more than offending someone is miles from the truth.

[dmprantz]

In one case we have a person that served their sentence (i understand it may not be harsh enough for some) and then applied to be reinstated. The other has admittedly done nothing to ask to have his sentence reduced and has since quit the organization and objects to taking the most basic steps towards once again becoming part of the organization. So I am confused as to how these people are to be treated the same.

One is someone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that accepted the punishment, continued to be part of the organization and is now taking steps towards once again holding postions of greater responsibility within the organization. the other issomeone that made an incredibly stupid mistake that has not accepted the punishment, is no longer part of or willing to rejoin the organization and instead chooses to throw stones and accusations from the outside. Once again to me I see apples and oranges.

You make some good points. Some I agree with and others not so much. What I've tried to say many times is that it's really up to how you personally feel about this. If you want to look at individual actions in a vacuum, then that is your right. I do not look at things that way, and to me the point is specifically to compare the punishments handed down. You don't see it, or don't agree with it, and I think it's best that every one agree to disagree on that.

In response to the paragraph above, it contains inaccuracies and misconceptions that I would like to clear up: I was not a member of KCBS at the time of the incident and have not renewed since then. While I didn't "drop out" after my punishment, you can bet your a$$ that I didn't rejoin after being banned and then extorted for the membership fees. What's more, I believe that it is against the law for my punishment to be based on my membership in the organization. I really wish you would acknowledge that and say that either you feel the KCBS should violate the law or not. It's a red herring. It may be important to you, and I know it's important to some on the KCBS BOD, but if it were legal, they'd require memberships to compete, and this would all be moot.

Also, though it was not my intent to make a big deal of this at the onset of this thread, you seem to be glossing over the fact that I did not make an incredibly stupid mistake. I signed a piece of paper and let some one else accept a 9th place call because I didn't feel well. I could go on about what Mr Peters has done and said to me on this thread and how that deserved a three year punishment or not, but it's a dead horse. The facts are that he thinks what I did (or didn't do) deserves to be away from competitions for three years, and he thinks that what Mr. Ashford did deserves only one. I see a problem with that. You do not. I'm sure we'll both live.

dmp

[drbbq]

????

Not biting.

[deguerre]

Yes, including one in Memphis and another in South-Central TN. I suggest you look the members to know more details.

dmp

The website didn't list where BOD members were from that I could find.

[Muzzlebrake]

You make some good points. Some I agree with and others not so much. What I've tried to say many times is that it's really up to how you personally feel about this. If you want to look at individual actions in a vacuum, then that is your right. I do not look at things that way, and to me the point is specifically to compare the punishments handed down. You don't see it, or don't agree with it, and I think it's best that every one agree to disagree on that.

In response to the paragraph above, it contains inaccuracies and misconceptions that I would like to clear up: I was not a member of KCBS at the time of the incident and have not renewed since then. While I didn't "drop out" after my punishment, you can bet your a$$ that I didn't rejoin after being banned and then extorted for the membership fees. What's more, I believe that it is against the law for my punishment to be based on my membership in the organization. I really wish you would acknowledge that and say that either you feel the KCBS should violate the law or not. It's a red herring. It may be important to you, and I know it's important to some on the KCBS BOD, but if it were legal, they'd require memberships to compete, and this would all be moot.

Also, though it was not my intent to make a big deal of this at the onset of this thread, you seem to be glossing over the fact that I did not make an incredibly stupid mistake. I signed a piece of paper and let some one else accept a 9th place call because I didn't feel well. I could go on about what Mr Peters has done and said to me on this thread and how that deserved a three year punishment or not, but it's a dead horse. The facts are that he thinks what I did (or didn't do) deserves to be away from competitions for three years, and he thinks that what Mr. Ashford did deserves only one. I see a problem with that. You do not. I'm sure we'll both live.

dmp

I find it a little humorous that in the midst of all this you and I have been having the one of the more constructive discussions about this.

I agree with you that we should compare punishments, just not the 2 you choose to use. I dont think that punishments should be looked at in a vacuum I think they should be compared to others with similar circumstances. Once again the ones you have chosen do not meet that criteria and the one that is similar is being ignored.

I am not sure what inaccuracies and misconceptions you are refering too. Am I wrong in thinking that you are no longer part of the KCBS? I do not think that the KCBS took your membership into account when they doled out your punishment. While that punishment may have been harsh, I am sure that it was done legally and within the scope of powers the the BOD possesses. You will have to excuse me if I do not consider asking you to pay the $35 fee for membership that everyone else in the world also has to pay as extortion. I stand by my remarks that you are no longer a part of the organization and continue to critcize from without.

I also stand by my remark that you made a stupid mistake. If the word stupid is a little harsh, I apologize but I think it is. The fact of the matter is that as head cook you are responsible, like it or not. A member of your team did something inappropriate, you get the blame. Like it or not thats how it is. You not liking or accpeting that fact is not going to change it. In fact IMO your continued refusal to accept this further demonstrates your unwillingness to accept and abide by the established rules.

Thoughout this thread you have claimed no responsibility for the act and consistently claimed you were wrongly accussed, yet you freely admit to offering an apology to the organizer and mayor for the same act. To me that is ambiguous at best, proclaiming to one side you didn't do anything and apologizing for it to another.

Why is it that you continually skirt the fact that another person involved in the same incident also received a much lesser sentence and continue to use Mr Ashford's punishment as a comparison? Why was their punishment so much less than yours? Once again I stand by my statement that is a much more equitable basis for comparison than comparing it to Mr Ashford's. Granted it might not have the same effect as throwing stones at a disgraced rep, but I think we all know that.

[BBQchef33]

Sean,

I'm not sure of the legal terminology but I think folks aren't addressing the disparity of punishment between the team members for the same reasons an accomplice in a crime gets a different sentence than the someone else more directly involved. IE; the trigger man gets life and the driver of the getaway car gets 10 years and probation. in the case of DMP it seems he was considered the triggerman.

just a thought. ;)


now.... folks... I'm telling u know you are shooting yourself in the foot by expecting mike to explain his action s as an Individual. the way he voted for something long ago has no relevance to him as a member here offering us insight. it was a majority vote by the whole board. keep badgering him and all we will see his shadow.

[deguerre]

This dog just jumped off of the pile.

[Uomograsso]

Uomograsso, I see your point. As to the rep issue, that was all handled by the previous board. I have to trust in their judgement to allow possible reinstatement which is what I voted on to put the rep back in the RIT program.
Things can be tabled and tabled until possibly forgotten without a decision being made. I make decisions based upon the information that I have.
dmp, I am making decisions based upon what has happened in the past and punishment that was handed out which is now coming up. I apologize if my comment was interpreted differently than I intended. I doubt that the rep will make the same mistake again should he make it back into the rep pool.
Ray, thanks for the thoughts. I could have kept to myself but I think it is important to explain my decisions when I can. I will pay the price one way or another...

I think the frustration of a lot of poster's here is the perceived inequality between the two punishments. Like the old saying, it is like trying to compare apples to oranges. But one thing stands out to me is to my knowledge there is no formal code of conduct for BBQ contests other than "moral turpitude" which so vague it could include almost anything. Therefore the punishments can seem arbitrary and capricious. I think that is at the heart of DMP's complaint. He was given the hammer because he feels that a couple of teams with connections to the BOD complained about the apron incident so the BOD hammered him. Then we have a rep who at best made a gross error in handling scoring at a contest and worst out and out cheated. To many this appears to be a far worse incident than the apron' This was further enhanced by DMP being denied reinstatement after a year and the rep being allowed a chance to regain their status by becoming a rep-in-training. Wouldn't it have also been fair to give DMP a second chance by allowing him to return with probation as well?

So the perception is cheat and you are banned for year, then you can get your job back....have a lapse in judgement (or in this case be the captain for a team in which one person had a lapse in judgement) and get banned for three years. Can you see how some might perceive this as a gross inequality in punishment? Perception is reality unfortunately in some cases.


Also, for those wising to contact the KCBS BOD, you can use the link below which gives a list of board members and their KCBS email address.

http://www.kcbs.us/about_board.php

[dmprantz]

Let's take this one step at a time. It will likely be long, but such is life.

I agree with you that we should compare punishments, just not the 2 you choose to use. I dont think that punishments should be looked at in a vacuum I think they should be compared to others with similar circumstances. Once again the ones you have chosen do not meet that criteria and the one that is similar is being ignored.

I honestly think it's fair to say that we agree to disagree on this. It's not that I think my punishment relative to "Fred's" was fair, but I think it's a bigger deal when comparing the punishment from an apron to falsifying scores. Like I said, agree to disagree. That horse is dead, butchered, and being fed to dogs as I type this.

I am not sure what inaccuracies and misconceptions you are refering too. Am I wrong in thinking that you are no longer part of the KCBS?

I did not quit KCBS after the punishment. I was already not a member. Maybe a small difference, but the way you characterized the situation, it sounded like I stopped paying dues because of the punishment, when in fact, I stopped paying dues because in 2011 the KCBS promised a free membership to Sam's Club on their website if I joined. After I joined and couldn't get the free membership, the KCBS office staff said that they just hadn't updated the website (and did that day). I felt cheated and lied to, so I didn't re-up the next year. I never slammed the KCBS publically for it because I thought it was petty, but a member of the BOD said in this forum that he would refuse to take action on things I wrote in this forum because I wasn't a member.

I do not think that the KCBS took your membership into account when they doled out your punishment. While that punishment may have been harsh, I am sure that it was done legally and within the scope of powers the the BOD possesses.

You are wrong, at least to a point. I don't know what was discussed in August of last year, but in September or October when one of the members of the BOD who voted to punish me tried to make a motion to reduce the punishment, some one on the board argued that it shouldn't be done because I wasn't a member. Yeah, it happened in Executive Session, but I know about it. Don't expect any one to confirm or deny it, but it happened, and I don't think it was legal according to government.

You will have to excuse me if I do not consider asking you to pay the $35 fee for membership that everyone else in the world also has to pay as extortion. I stand by my remarks that you are no longer a part of the organization and continue to critcize from without.

You'll have to forgive me if I disagree with you. You'll also have to forgive the IRS if it violates the law. You do not have to be a member to compete, and I am banned from competing. Why should I have to join to change that? They are unrelated, except for those who want to increase the bottom line of the company.

The fact of the matter is that as head cook you are responsible, like it or not. A member of your team did something inappropriate, you get the blame. Like it or not thats how it is. You not liking or accpeting that fact is not going to change it. In fact IMO your continued refusal to accept this further demonstrates your unwillingness to accept and abide by the established rules.

Sadly, you are wrong again. Contrary to popular belief, the 2012 KCBS rules do not indicate that a head cook is responsible for everything his team does. A lot of people want it to say that, but it just doesn't. I encourage you to read the first two sentences of those rules. They say that the entire team is responsible "jointly and severally" which means that any person on the team can be held responsible for any other's actions, including guests. While that certainly opens up the door for me to be punished for him, it is not the same thing as saying that I am responsible for everything he does. As much as people want it to mean that the board was obligated to hold me responsible, it means something different.

Thoughout this thread you have claimed no responsibility for the act and consistently claimed you were wrongly accussed, yet you freely admit to offering an apology to the organizer and mayor for the same act. To me that is ambiguous at best, proclaiming to one side you didn't do anything and apologizing for it to another.

So the apologies. The two days after the competition, I called every one I knew on the BOD to apologize that the incident had happened. I was sorry to them that they had to go through an emergency meeting on account of the incident. I also called the organizer to apologize to her. It doesn't mean that I admitted culpabillity for it, but I felt badly that the whole thing happened. Keep that in mind the next time some one claims that if I had apologized to the board I would have been punished lighter.

The day after the punishment was handed out, some one on the board who voted to ban me called me up in order to explain why. One of the things he said was that the board was told that the mayor of the town was embarressed because of not only the incident, but also the publishing of a photograph of it. I didn't take the photo, didn't publish it, and have honestly never seen it (nor do I want to). My former teamate didn't take or publish the photo either. I felt that the honorable thing to do was to call him and apologize for his embarressment, even though I didn't do it. The funny thing is that he has twice told me that he was not embarressed...some one lied to the BOD. Still, I apologized because I was sorry for some things that happened. I don't think that means that I was responsible for it. You may disagree.

Why is it that you continually skirt the fact that another person involved in the same incident also received a much lesser sentence and continue to use Mr Ashford's punishment as a comparison?

I don't think I've skirted it. I've explained what happened. To me, the point of this thread is that submitting false score sheets is worse than wearing the apron, worse than providing said apron, and worse than being a team captain in that situation. My point is comparing those two punishments. Your point is to compare two different punishments, and it honestly sounds like subterfuge to me. Once again, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

dmp

[Cue's Your Daddy]

From the KCBS rules:

CAUSES FOR DISQUALIFICATION & EVICTION of a team, its members and/or guests: A cook team is responsible jointly and severally for its head cook, its team members and its guests.

This seems to be the reason why you were jumbled in for what your team mate did. Again, not your fault, but it is in writing.

KCBS Creed: Rules are designed to be fair and equal to all cookers. Integrity of the Contestants, Judges, KCBS Contest Representatives, and Organizers is essential.

What they got you on I ASSUME is INTEGRITY. BUUUTTTTT, opens up a can of worms for the actions of a contest rep.

edit: I was typing as you were so I have the rule posted up top.

[dmprantz]

From the KCBS rules:

CAUSES FOR DISQUALIFICATION & EVICTION of a team, its members and/or guests: A cook team is responsible jointly and severally for its head cook, its team members and its guests.

Yes. Joint and several responsibillity. It means that any person can be held responsible for any other person's actions. It does not mean that the head cook is responsible for every one's actions. I'm not saying that there was no basis for punishing me.* I'm saying that it is not true that the BOD had to punish me for some one else's actions, nor is it true that the rules stated that it was encumbant upon me to keep a leash on every member of my team.

dmp

*I think it's worth noting that joint and several liabillity is considered unconstitutional in the state of Tennessee, and is not applicable in civil liabillity lawsuits. How that applies to private matters that occur in Tennessee, I'm not sure, but it makes me think.

[Cue's Your Daddy]

Missouri

Joint and Several Liability Reform: H.B. 393 (2005); § 537.067 R.S.Mo.

Provides that joint and several liability applies if a defendant is 51 percent or more at fault. In such circumstances, the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the amount of the judgment rendered against the defendant. If a defendant is found to be less than 51 percent at fault, the defendant is only responsible for the percent of the judgment he or she is responsible for.



Joint and Several Liability Reform: HB 700 (1987).

Bars application of the rule of joint and several liability in the recovery of all damages when a plaintiff is assessed a portion of the fault.



Joint and Several Liability Reform: § 537.067 R.S.Mo.

Limits joint liability to two times the defendant’s percentage of fault, if the plaintiff was at fault.

Here is Missouri law. Seems like that is more in your favor as well.

[Pappy Q]

I think I'll run for the BOD on the platform that I promise to vote against the majority on every issue.

[EMTTLC]

My Momma taught me that life is not fair. I accept that, and move on. I'm of the opinion that if anyone was told somewhere along the line that life was fair, they should find the person that told them that and call them a liar.

That being said, these were two separate issues, heard by the board at separate times. This is not a judicial system where case precesdence is looked at, and witnesses are brought in to testify. When the rep issue was heard I'd be surprised if anyone even thought about the apron issue. Is that fair? Probably not. (reference above paragraph)

It's a hobby - not life and death - try to have fun!

[Muzzlebrake]

I'm not sure of the legal terminology but I think folks aren't addressing the disparity of punishment between the team members for the same reasons an accomplice in a crime gets a different sentence than the someone else more directly involved. IE; the trigger man gets life and the driver of the getaway car gets 10 years and probation. in the case of DMP it seems he was considered the triggerman.


I'm tracking you brother, in fact this is what I am talking about. Out of the 3 people invovled with the whole apron fiasco, 2 were banned for 3 years another was placed on probation for a year.

It is my view that the the person given the year probation was given a fair punishment for the "wearing of the apron" yet for some reason nobody seems willing to talk about this guy. Why arent we bitching about this guy getting off light when the hammer fell on the other two? Where is the "a broken rule is a broken rule, everything must be equal" argument in this scenario? Is it because we think he received a just punishment or because we better not mention his name he may get in trouble?

It is also my view that the other 2 people have been punished more harshly for other mitigating circumstances above and beyond "wearing an apron". In all three cases, all three were given equal oppurtunity to defend themselves and their actions. All three did so for an extended period of time directly to the BOD in closed session.

In general I find the BOD members to be quite reasonable folks. A majority of them not once, but twice, saw fit to punish 2 of 3 people invoved in the same act much more harshly then the other participant. In that they based their decision on information and evidence above and beyond what we as the public have access to, then I am going to trust their decision.

[dmprantz]

It is my view that the the person given the year probation was given a fair punishment for the "wearing of the apron" yet for some reason nobody seems willing to talk about this guy.

I don't bring "Fred" into the picture because it doesn't fit my thesis. I don't publically agree or disagree with your statements regarding the disparity between his punishment and mine, but I am referring to a different disparity, plain and simple. To me, this is about all the people who say "The apron hurt the product or integrity of KCBS." I think false score cards hurt it more. Plain and simple.

In all three cases, all three were given equal oppurtunity to defend themselves and their actions. All three did so for an extended period of time directly to the BOD in closed session.

This is not completely true. In my case, along with the other two involved, we were given the opportunity to call in and answer questions. The rest happened in "executive executive session" without us present. There is a pretty far cry from answering questions to defending ourselves. We were never told the exact accusations levied against us, nor ever given a chance to "defend" ourselves. A majority of the questions that they asked were about protecting themselves too: "When did you put the apron on? Who saw you with the apron? Is there any way that you can prove that the reps and promotor knew you had it, or can we get out of this without punishing them?" The last one is an exaggeration, but that was the gist of most of them.

Some examples, as I mentioned above, some one told the BOD that the mayor of the town was embarressed over the incident, but I was not told that until after the fact, and of course I found it to be untrue. Another example, some one (the same person?) told the BOD that at that competition I threatened or attacked some one with a knife. THAT IS A BOLD FACED LIE. I was not informed of that accusation until months later, and again, never got the chance to defend myself against it. The BOD just accepted it as fact and didn't even tell me about it. For the two motions that were brought up (only one voted) to reduce my punishment, I was never invited to speak on my own behalf. Who knows what other slanderous BS any one told the BOD and they used to punish me without informing me?

A majority of them not once, but twice, saw fit to punish 2 of 3 people invoved in the same act much more harshly then the other participant. In that they based their decision on information and evidence above and beyond what we as the public have access to, then I am going to trust their decision.

As I mentioned above, it was information not available to me either, and at least some of it was untrue. When I told a member of the BOD that the mayor told me he was not embarressed, he was shocked. Also, it's worth noting, that the two motions made since the punishment (of which I'm aware) were for me only, not the other two involved.

dmp

[The_Kapn]

Is there any chance that someday--maybe in the deep dark future--that the positions of everyone will be stated over and over enough times that this thread can just fade into "electron heaven" and get some rest ??

Just curious.

TIM

[SDAR]

22 pages later it's all about the "night" of the apron incident and a lot of 3rd hand statements. Are we supposed to just blindly become sympathizers and agree? Geez over and over.

[Smoke'n Ice]

What! and ruin a good soap opera? I hope not, haven't reached the longest thread milestone yet.:twisted:

[dmprantz]

I seem to recall spending the first several pages of this thread trying to keep from discussing the actual apron incident, and even said I thought it had gone as far as it could go. I failed and the gave in when some one started to ASSume facts. It would not bother me if this thread died down and went away, but as long as some one is in here saying things that just aren't true, I'll set the record strait. Of course, as I said in the beginning, folks are welcomed to PM me to ask questions in stead.

Not to come across as too much of a jerk, but with the exception of mods, I don't recall any one being forced to read this thread. There are several I quit reading over the years, and never even began the UDS thread....

Like I tell my wife though, I'm sure it's all my fault in the end, and for that I apologize....

dmp

[Muzzlebrake]

Like I tell my wife though, I'm sure it's all my fault in the end, and for that I apologize....

dmp

I tell my wife that all the time. I motion to adjourn on a point we both agree on.

[Bigdog]

I tell my wife that all the time. I motion to adjourn on a point we both agree on.

I second the motion. All in favor....:thumb:

[Rookie'48]

Where are the board members that we all voted for so they'd help change things? Steve and Candy at least post once in a while and I understand not standing in the middle of the fire.

Dave? Jeff?

Ray, I voted against the majority on both of these motions. Obviously I disagreed with the majority on both or I would have voted for them.

That being said, the Board of Directors has made it's decisions on these matters and that's the way things stand. I'm not going to try to pick apart a vote that I was against or the people that voted one way or the other. My votes speak for themselves.

[drbbq]

Thanks Dave.

[BBQchef33]

Ray, I voted against the majority on both of these motions. Obviously I disagreed with the majority on both or I would have voted for them.

That being said, the Board of Directors has made it's decisions on these matters and that's the way things stand. I'm not going to try to pick apart a vote that I was against or the people that voted one way or the other. My votes speak for themselves.


gotta love'em! :clap::clap::thumb:

[bbqczar]

Wouldn't the PROPER thing for the BOD to do here is re-visit the team suspension vote and maybe do a re-instatement of the team,lift the 3 year suspension or do something along the lines of being more reasonable ? Maybe the BOD could consider the suspension done now,time served,and just give a probation period,seems it would go a long way with mending ALOT of peoples attitudes and views on the BOD,BUT I won't hold my breath,that would be a far too reasonable,and beneficial, thing to do.

[RangerJ]

Wouldn't the PROPER thing for the BOD to do here is re-visit the team suspension vote and maybe do a re-instatement of the team,lift the 3 year suspension or do something along the lines of being more reasonable ? Maybe the BOD could consider the suspension done now,time served,and just give a probation period,seems it would go a long way with mending ALOT of peoples attitudes and views on the BOD,BUT I won't hold my breath,that would be a far too reasonable,and beneficial, thing to do.

Hey Tim, long time no see, hope things are well out there in AZ.

As to the bold above, this seems to be your attitude towards most things KCBS, wondering what axe you have to grind?

[bbqczar]

No axe to gring with KCBS,just think this was a really bad decision to ban this team for 3 years,that was excessive and I think you would agree,especially if it happened to you.The only other axe I HAD,was a problem with a certain former board member who lied to me, and just did some real dishonest things and I had a problem with him.I still do KCBS contest when I have the time,they're great,I just think(as do ALOT of others)the BOD has made some really poor decisions as of late,this 3 yaer suspension being one of them.Hope all is going good out where you are,it's hot here,you aren't missing much 120 deg. today !

[Haastyle]

Now I am just curious how far I can push the envelope with aprons.......