PDA

View Full Version : ** Bylaw change regarding Family members serving on BOD on November 12 KCBS BOD agenda.


Merl
11-11-2008, 07:34 AM
Agenda for Board of Directors Meeting
November 12, 2008
Minutes
Financial Reports
Finance Committee Report—Yearly Board Retreat
MBN update
Contests—Past
Sanction Committee Report
Committee Reports Nominating Committee—Mullane:
Candidates Accepting: Harwell (I), Lohman (I), Whitebook (I), Ashford, Budai, Goycochea
Rules—No Report
Technology—Elections Online, New Scoring Computer Program
CBJ—No Report
Education—No Report
Membership—No Report
Marketing—MMA Marketing Report re Tour,Web, PR, Merchandise, Miscellaneous
New Ideas—Board Makeup, Regional Representation and At Large Board members, and discussion about time for phase in
Contest Reps—No Report
Research & Development—Contest Audit Report Update
Old/New Business—Petition to Amend Bylaws
Request for position on communication from organizer containing religious/political statement
Rep Conduct Question
Table Captain’s Order to presentation to Judges
Other

Merl Whitebook
Secretary KCBS Board of Directors

Merl
11-11-2008, 07:38 AM
The amendment to the by-laws shown on the agenda, jis asking for a by-law change to prohibit members of the same family from serving on the Board at the same time. This is the same effort which was brought up after Carol was elected by the largest margin of all times.

This is an effort, I would guess to either keep me off the ballot or not allow me to be seated if re-ellected.

If you have an opinion, please let the Bod know how you think. The Board meeting is Wednesday eveing. You can go to KCBS.US and click the link to write to the entire board for or against.

Thank you for you support.
Merl Whitebook

ThomEmery
11-11-2008, 07:56 AM
Folks we need to respond once again to this threat to our rights
Email all the BoD members
We can decide for ourselves who sits on the KCBS BoD

ThomEmery
11-11-2008, 08:05 AM
You can email all BoD Members at once click
http://www.kcbs.us/about_board.php

Bride of Roo(BQ'n)
11-11-2008, 09:16 AM
Sent...

Stoke&Smoke
11-11-2008, 09:24 AM
Done

KC_Bobby
11-11-2008, 10:12 AM
How many times in one year can the board spend time on the same issue? Why is this such an issue with 2-3 board members?

KC_Bobby
11-11-2008, 10:29 AM
Did I hear that Troy is not running for re-election? Is this a go out in a blaze of glory effort on his part?

motoeric
11-11-2008, 11:48 AM
Can a mod split this into two threads? The aspect of the by-law change is worthy of it's own thread and will get ignored under the general heading of the agenda title.

Here is the email that I sent to the BoD members:

Hello,

As a member of the KCBS, a CBJ and an organizer of multiple cook-offs including two state championships; I wanted to let you know what my thoughts were on the proposed changing of the by-laws to restrict potential family members from serving concurrently.

If this passes it will have a significant impact on my decision to renew my membership in the KCBS and to support the efforts of the KCBS in the future. In addition, any board member that votes for this proposal can be assured that they will not be getting my vote.

It is incredibly insulting to think that the membership is not capable of deciding who they can and should vote for. It is sad to see attempts to put restrictions in place on who we can and can not vote for to represent us in the Board of Directors.

Let me be clear about where I am coming from. The only member of the Board of Directors that I know and speak with is Linda Mullane. I don’t think that Jerry Mullane plans on running for the Board, so I have no personal bias in this debate. I have never met, nor spoken with anyone currently running for the Board.

Aside from the inherent supercilious message in such a measure, there are logical problems as well. What about people who qualify as common-law spouses? How about domestic partners? What about amiable divorce couples? In-laws? Business partners?

The entire concept is an insult to the membership and flies in the face of what I have come to expect from the KCBS. BBQ is the most egalitarian of hobbies and an attempt to limit who we, the membership, can choose to represent us is just plain wrong.

I realize that you must be very busy, but I would appreciate your writing back to let me know where you stand on this issue.

Thank you,


Eric Devlin

jminion
11-11-2008, 12:24 PM
When I was voted onto the Board in 2005 within the first hour of the first meeting a letter was read questioning the eligibility of one of the board members who had been reelected. After the letter was read I was called upon to argue the point. In this case, the bylaws stated that a board member could not run for reelection after serving two consecutive terms without taking one year off before running for another term.

After a heated debate, I was called upon to make a motion on how to handle the situation. My motion was to remove the board member that had been in reelected based on the current bylaws and that the board would fill the vacancy. Bunny Tuttle nominated Rod Gray and the board approved a motion.

The difference in this case is that they're asking for a new amendment to the bylaws which should take a vote of the membership to approve, and to accomplish what they are trying it would have to be retroactive to cover this current election.

The subject was brought up in the last election by board members and general members, but was tried to implement without changing the bylaws. In this case the membership did speak by voting Carol onto the board. Not only voting her onto the board which she received the largest number of votes of any candidate.

I have no problem with members asking for amendments to the bylaws but I can see a problem if they were to be instituted retroactively. I believe that would be a dangerous president to set for the future.

Merl
11-11-2008, 02:54 PM
I have had many conversations with Troy about this issue. Troy did not bring the petition forward. The petition is signed by a contest rep from the south whom I know was at the Jack and emailed it to others.

I don't think Troy deserves the criticism on this petition.
Merl

stlgreg
11-11-2008, 02:58 PM
Did I hear that Troy is not running for re-election? Is this a go out in a blaze of glory effort on his part?

IN a way this reminds me of the Missouri Vote on Gambling Boats about 10-15 years ago. They just kept putting it on the ballot until it passed.

CivilWarBBQ
11-11-2008, 03:05 PM
At the risk of being dog-piled, I'm going to have to take the opposing viewpoint on this issue.

I agree with Jim that any such change should not be applied retroactively, so that any sitting BoD members should be permitted to serve out their terms. Also, I'm personally very grateful for Merl's efforts to bring more transparency to the administration of our organization, and will be voting for him in the upcoming election.

HOWEVER, when dealing with the politically charged environment of a large membership organization like KCBS, it is crucial that steps be taken to eliminate the potential for inappropriate influence upon the BoD as well as the appearance of the same. I understand that many of you see this issue as a personal attack upon Merl and Carol because you know and trust them to represent you. But imagine that three brothers that you've never heard of were elected by a landslide to the Board. Would you be concerned about the possibility of something fishy going on?

I can't speak for others, but for myself this is an issue about operating our Society in a professional manner in keeping with recognized standards for non-profit organizations. If my mother and daughter were both sitting on the BoD I would still support this initiative.

-Gowan Fenley
Cartersville, GA

jminion
11-11-2008, 03:17 PM
At the risk of being dog-piled, I'm going to have to take the opposing viewpoint on this issue.

I agree with Jim that any such change should not be applied retroactively, so that any sitting BoD members should be permitted to serve out their terms. Also, I'm personally very grateful for Merl's efforts to bring more transparency to the administration of our organization, and will be voting for him in the upcoming election.

HOWEVER, when dealing with the politically charged environment of a large membership organization like KCBS, it is crucial that steps be taken to eliminate the potential for inappropriate influence upon the BoD as well as the appearance of the same. I understand that many of you see this issue as a personal attack upon Merl and Carol because you know and trust them to represent you. But imagine that three brothers that you've never heard of were elected by a landslide to the Board. Would you be concerned about the possibility of something fishy going on?

I can't speak for others, but for myself this is an issue about operating our Society in a professional manner in keeping with recognized standards for non-profit organizations. If my mother and daughter were both sitting on the BoD I would still support this initiative.

-Gowan Fenley
Cartersville, GA

Based on your scenario I would have to question the manner elections were held. But the reality is, it's hard to get voted onto the KCBS board unless you're known nationally. An outside firm is used to count votes and no member of the board knows the outcome until just before it's announced.

If an amendment is to be put in front of the members for their consideration in the next election I see no problem with that at all.

arlieque
11-11-2008, 03:18 PM
Unless I am wrong the membership would not get to vote on this or any matter as we were cheated out of out votes a few years ago. merl can tell us more about that and the number in the by laws I also remember that the bylaws would be on the KCBS website, are they?

Bentley
11-11-2008, 03:57 PM
Are the minutes of board meetings avaiable to current members?

Bride of Roo(BQ'n)
11-11-2008, 05:25 PM
Every month in the Bullsheet Bentley, Merl does a great job of detailing the issues and votes

Diva
11-11-2008, 05:42 PM
How can anyone send an educated response to something that hasn't been seen, by but a few people?

I'm not doubting that this petition doesn't exist, but, I,for one, am not going to send a letter to the entire board without reading it first.....

Bentley
11-11-2008, 06:04 PM
Every month in the Bullsheet Bentley, Merl does a great job of detailing the issues and votes


They are the same as the offical minutes, or is that a synopsis?

QN
11-12-2008, 07:50 AM
Unless I am wrong the membership would not get to vote on this or any matter as we were cheated out of out votes a few years ago. merl can tell us more about that and the number in the by laws I also remember that the bylaws would be on the KCBS website, are they?

Arlie, you are correct. Any change in the bylaws does not require any vote by the membership. Here is the language from the election/vote where this change was made and approved by a vote of the membership at that time. The red text is what this section used to say and the blue text is the new wording that was approved. It is difficult to read so below the actual wording from the section with the colored text I have inserted what the actual current wording is in the bylaws as they exist now.

Article XVIII.
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted at the annual meeting of the members by in accordance with Missouri statute 355.116. and a twothirds (2/3) affirmative vote of two-thirds of the all members present directors whole who are entitled to vote. Proposed amendments and/or revisions must be provided to all members director entitled to vote in writing at least one (1) month prior to the any meeting.

Article XVIII.
AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted in accordance with Missouri statute 355.116. and a twothirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the directors who are entitled to vote. Proposed amendments and/or revisions must be provided to all directors entitled to vote in writing at least one (1) month prior to any meeting.

As you can see, the membership who voted gave complete power over the bylaws to the board of directors.

If anyone wants a copy of the current bylaws you can PM me your email address and I will send them to you as a PDF file. It is the complete document that was voted on and approved in a past election. It has all of the changes shown in color like the section above.

Yakfishingfool
11-12-2008, 07:57 AM
By Laws should not be a membership vote, it is right for the directors to do this. It should be a large margin, 2/3rds and should be done with lot's of discussion first. By laws should not be opened and voted on at every meeting, they should be a living document and dealt with accordingly. Scott

Yakfishingfool
11-12-2008, 07:58 AM
Just as a side note. A quorum to change by laws is not 2/3 of present directors, but rather 2/3 of all directors. So if 12 directors, 7 at the meeting, not enough directors to vote on the issue. Scott

Alexa RnQ
11-12-2008, 10:57 AM
imagine that three brothers that you've never heard of were elected by a landslide to the Board. Would you be concerned about the possibility of something fishy going on?
OOOoooOOOOooOOOooo, the imaginary boogeymen!!! But since

Article XVIII.
AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted in accordance with Missouri statute 355.116. and a twothirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the directors who are entitled to vote.

So unless the Board is in imminent danger of being hijacked by a posse of 8(?) elected family members, I call BS.

LindaM
11-12-2008, 01:54 PM
Here is a copy of the petition with the names removed

Scottie
11-12-2008, 02:07 PM
I just do not see how this can be a representation of KCBS members. I never received any email or no one ever talked to me about signing this petition. So how does this represent me and my KCBS? To me, this "Petition" should not even be recognized by the Board. As I do not understand how the membership is represented by the few that signed this "Petition"...

Merl
11-12-2008, 02:13 PM
Why don't we cut to the chase, this petition has only two alternative.
1 to exclude Merl Whitebook from assuming his seat if re-elected or
2 to exclude Carol Whitebook from running for a second term.

OK now its on the table, lets talk about motive and why a few want to take your rights to vote away.

Merl

BBQchef33
11-12-2008, 02:19 PM
Merl, correct me if ium wrong, but if I understand things properly, this is a request to amend the by-laws, which in order to move forward, the BOD would table and it then go to a vote.

Please everyone keep in mind this is NOT a KCBS board member that initiated it this time. So, , since this was received by the board form a member, and it has some sigs on it, then i would think the board has a responsibility to address it and make some type of ruling.

To shoot it down,
To table for further discsussion
To vote on it.

the vote would require 2/3 of the BOD, or 7 votes to pass 5 to overturn. We know Merls stance and most likely Carols, so thats 2, we need 3 more to overturn IF IT EVEN GETS TO A VOTE.

I think thats where we stand and we wait and see what the board thinks. I'm sure our BODs know the general standing of the membership based on the storm this caused last year.


Just my nickels take on the situation.

timzcardz
11-12-2008, 02:23 PM
You have to love the "to include, but not limited to" part. Is it intentionally limitless to afford the opportunity to fit any desired need?

Not very well thought out, or was it?

YankeeBBQ
11-12-2008, 02:44 PM
I just do not see how this can be a representation of KCBS members. I never received any email or no one ever talked to me about signing this petition. So how does this represent me and my KCBS? To me, this "Petition" should not even be recognized by the Board. As I do not understand how the membership is represented by the few that signed this "Petition"...

I think all members should be allowed to particpate in the KCBS including Randy Bigler and anyone who signs his petition. It's up to the board to then take that info and get input from more of the membership or maybe even decide not to persue the matter. Why should Randy and the other signatories be denied their rights? Just because you don't agree with them ? By the way I don't support that petition and the premise behind it but I recognize the rights of other KCBS members. I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about the petition.

jminion
11-12-2008, 02:56 PM
I think all members should be allowed to particpate in the KCBS including Randy Bigler and anyone who signs his petition. It's up to the board to then take that info and get input from more of the membership or maybe even decide not to persue the matter. Why should Randy and the other signatories be denied their rights? Just because you don't agree with them ? By the way I don't support that petition and the premise behind it but I recognize the rights of other KCBS members. I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about the petition.

I also don't have a problem with a petition being passed around but if it is to represented as speaking for the membership them I do have a problem. This petition never left one geographical area of the country and the contents of the petition were not made public until today (the day the Board is to meet).

We know that folks like Phillip Braizer, Randy Bigler and Mike Davis knew the content of the petition but refused to make available to whole membership. I really doubt that it is an oversite, there was plenty of opportunity.

Read into it what you want, I certainly will.

Scottie
11-12-2008, 03:08 PM
I do agree Steve that Randy has his rights to submit the Petition. But what he wants to do is take something away from me and I would have no say or voice.

I do think it's a big deal though. Let's say that for some reason this is brought up for a vote at the meeting. And the board decides to vote yea or nay... The by-laws would be re-written for something that is probably not favored by the majority of the KCBS membership.

Whether is was right or wrong to bring this Petition up. I do not see how it brings the KCBS membership together as one? All I see this doing is splintering the KCBS membership.

As I got to hear a whole new side out in Arizona this last weekend.

I just urge the Board to not take it up for consideration and/or a vote.

YankeeBBQ
11-12-2008, 03:13 PM
I do agree Steve that Randy has his rights to submit the Petition. But what he wants to do is take something away from me and I would have no say or voice.

I do think it's a big deal though. Let's say that for some reason this is brought up for a vote at the meeting. And the board decides to vote yea or nay... The by-laws would be re-written for something that is probably not favored by the majority of the KCBS membership.

Whether is was right or wrong to bring this Petition up. I do not see how it brings the KCBS membership together as one? All I see this doing is splintering the KCBS membership.

As I got to hear a whole new side out in Arizona this last weekend.

I just urge the Board to not take it up for consideration and/or a vote.

I have faith the BOD will do the right thing. I guess we'll know eventually.....

Scottie
11-12-2008, 03:25 PM
I hope so too Steve. All it takes is one BOD member, I am assuming to bring it to a vote. If I remember how robert's work...

Bentley
11-12-2008, 03:43 PM
Attached Imageshttp://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=20941&stc=1&d=1226519625


If this is the entire petition, sans those that signed it...I do not see Nepotism mentioned anywhere in this petition. Wonder who started that this was about Nepotism?


I just do not see how this can be a representation of KCBS members. I never received any email or no one ever talked to me about signing this petition. So how does this represent me and my KCBS? To me, this "Petition" should not even be recognized by the Board. As I do not understand how the membership is represented by the few that signed this "Petition"...

It is a representation of the KCBS members that submitted it. One would hope if there is a required amount of KCBS members needed to bring a petition to the BoD, that someone is verifing who sign it and that they are valid members.



I do think it's a big deal though. And the board decides to vote yea or nay... The by-laws would be re-written for something that is probably not favored by the majority of the KCBS membership. I urge the Board to not take it up for consideration and/or a vote.

This is when you and other members will see if your voice is truly heard by YOUR BoD.

drbbq
11-12-2008, 04:32 PM
Here is a copy of the petition with the names removed

It says he needed them by November 2nd.
Why the urgency?

If this truly isn't about Merl he should have taken his time to get many more signatures.

Stoke&Smoke
11-12-2008, 04:37 PM
I haven't seen this question asked. Was there a space on the petition for the signers KCBS member #?

I not, than I would suggest that the petition is meaningless. If you aren't a dues paying member, your signature is worthless.

Ford
11-12-2008, 05:32 PM
At the most the BOD can agree to vote on it next month if they want to change the by-law. 1 months notice is in the by-laws for change and that's assuming Decembers meeting is more than 30 days after this months.

Of course the BOD can just agree that it is a small sample of the members and can agree to not consider the petition. End of story.

In any event Merl has been accepted as a candidate so any attempt now to change the rules would obviously be a direct action aimed at him. If they want to change the by-laws and grandfather people in that are already on the BOD, they can do that and I'm fine.

Diva
11-12-2008, 06:44 PM
I'm done reading all this crap. Nepotism wasn't mentioned in the thing. I don't see how anyone is 'losing any of their ''rights'' as a member'......some people have an 'issue' its being heard, as it should. Everyone bitches about 'are we being heard', 'are they listening to us'.....obviously, the entire board is listening. What they do with it..it's up to them, that's why they were elected with the votes from the membership.

Sometimes, you have to read between the lines. Who's wanting people to believe what? Why? Who benefits from all this hub bub? The damn things out here, we can see it for ourselves. Interpretation is what you make it.

BBQchef33
11-12-2008, 11:01 PM
The board has voted it down.

4 in favor

7 against.

Case closed.

Vince RnQ
11-12-2008, 11:18 PM
I'm happy to learn that result. It would appear that all voices were heard, both in favor of and against the issue, and the Board acted in accordance with the make up of the membership.

I thank those Board members who took the time to reply to my e-mail regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed on the issue.

jminion
11-13-2008, 12:53 AM
What needs to be looked at and remembered who wanted to take away member's choices. Wayne Lohman presented the motion, second from Steve Ownby with Tana Shupe and Paul Kirk voting in favor.

BBQchef33
11-13-2008, 01:08 AM
Yup, and so I know where one vote is NOT going.

drbbq
11-13-2008, 05:23 AM
What needs to be looked at and remembered who wanted to take away member's choices. Wayne Lohman presented the motion, second from Steve Ownby with Tana Shupe and Paul Kirk voting in favor.

No surprises there. Thanks to the other members for having the sense to vote this down.

Cue's Your Daddy
11-13-2008, 06:23 AM
Maybe i should know, but who is Randy Bigler?

ThomEmery
11-13-2008, 08:06 AM
Looks like the majority gets it
But your right Jim
We have work to do

ique
11-13-2008, 08:32 AM
The board has voted it down.

Case closed.

OK, lets get back to arguing about pellet cookers.

BBQchef33
11-13-2008, 08:40 AM
nothing wrong with pellet cookers.

as long as they dont have a thermostat.




<I am now running out of room, across the border, and diving under a bush>

Scottie
11-13-2008, 08:43 AM
Can we switch it to Geer's though? Might spice it up a little. Geer Envy...

stlgreg
11-13-2008, 08:46 AM
I almost wish it would have gone to a general membership vote - just to let those that are pushing it know they are in the minority.

I dont think there is anyway it would pass. So why not let us vote and really send a message. Oh well - its over until "they" try to bring it up again.

BTW, I am picking up my FEC100 this afternoon so I must respectively disagree with the Grand Poobah

Jorge
11-13-2008, 08:53 AM
Can we switch it to Geer's though? Might spice it up a little. Geer Envy...

I still have some of your stickers and know where Jambo is:wink:

BBQchef33
11-13-2008, 09:10 AM
BTW, I am picking up my FEC100 this afternoon so I must respectively disagree with the Grand Poobah

I'm just lobbing grenades. I see an FE on my horizon.

Lakeside Smoker
11-13-2008, 09:39 AM
I think if you don't have a homemade smoker, your cheating! I mean really, how can you call it YOUR bbq if your using someone else's smoker design???? :-P

Sledneck
11-13-2008, 10:02 AM
I still have some of your stickers and know where Jambo is:wink:I am still waiting for my stickers

Bentley
11-13-2008, 10:14 AM
I dont think there is anyway it would pass. So why not let us vote and really send a message. Oh well - its over until "they" try to bring it up again.




Which will probably happen. They just need the make-up of the board to shift...3 votes aint much. Not like this died a resounding death.

Scottie
11-13-2008, 10:24 AM
I am still waiting for my stickers

I got a new shipment in while I was in Arizona. I have them on my desk and will ship them out to all that requested them... Including you Sled! Top of my list!

QDoc
11-13-2008, 09:42 PM
The fact a petition was circulated is a moot point considering a petition is not now needed for a board member to propose an ammendment to change . I don't necessarily like it. I would like the by-laws ammended to require approval by a majority of the members on by-laws issues, rules, and election of board members as well. An example would be an amendment which stated " In order to ammend a portion of the by-laws or rules, such proposal should be sumitted for approval at the next general election and may either be proposed by (1) a current member of the board and requiring a consenting majority vote by the board or by (2) a petition from the membership in good standing containing a minimum number equal to 10% of the membership voting in the last board election. Notification of intent to ammend the by-laws or rules should be made in the 'Bullsheet' and on the KCBS website a minimum of 60 days prior to the election." Ratification of such proposals should require a minimum of 2/3 majority of the voters.

BBQchef33
11-13-2008, 09:46 PM
i think it was changed FROM something similar to that 2 years ago.

Sledneck
11-13-2008, 09:58 PM
I got a new shipment in while I was in Arizona. I have them on my desk and will ship them out to all that requested them... Including you Sled! Top of my list!Thank just breaking chops no rush

butt head
11-16-2008, 09:18 AM
I think if you don't have a homemade smoker, your cheating! I mean really, how can you call it YOUR bbq if your using someone else's smoker design???? :-P
you tell'em brother:lol:

Scottie
11-17-2008, 02:25 PM
Thank just breaking chops no rush


They have been mailed...

StLouQue
11-17-2008, 03:12 PM
Fantastic. I didn't realize the vote was last week. I just sent the following to all BoD members.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please consider this my request for your opinion on why the proposed amendment to the by-laws on this week's agenda should be enacted. This amendment (as I understand it), would prohibit members of the same family from concurrently serving on the Board.

It is my contention that the membership alone should decide who will and who will not represent us on the BoD. As such, I request your vote against this amendment. If any of you doubt the KCBS members' ability to vote judiciously and with intelligence, keep an eye on your vote count when reelection time rolls around.

So, I look like a boob... not the first time. My point stands.