PDA

View Full Version : It's not all about the parsley ban


DONHARWELL
09-17-2009, 04:11 PM
This is my opinion only:
The issue I am writing about is not about parsley. I am wondering where and how four members of the KCBS Board of Directors can make a decision like this or any decision. The KCBS bylaws state “Election of one class of directors by the members shall take place annually.” I may be wrong but the wording “one class” means, all members of the board are equal. I cannot find in the bylaws where only four directors have the right to take action for the full board. I have been on the board for almost four years now and I have heard the term “executive board” from some people, again I find nothing in the bylaws talking about an executive board. I do have issues with a statement which was placed on forums and our WEB site “The Board of Directors has issued the following advisory…” I and seven other members of the board did not vote on this issue to send a statement out to the members or in fact change the rules. Before I posted this on this forum, the above statement was sent to all KCBS board members. Here is one response I received from a board member (name withheld.) “Although I understand Don's statement, I want the board to know that, personally, I have no problem with the officers of the board making this decision without consulting with the rest of us since a decision needed to be made in a timely manner. I believe this is an perfect example of why arbitrary time restrictions often deter this board from acting in the best interest of our members ... and in this case, especially our judges.” My response that is with emails and phones the way they are today we could have had a quorum in an hour’s time.” We have a provision to provide for the proper handling of such situations as this parsley issue already clearly outlined in our bylaws: “Any director may waive notice of any meeting. The attendance of a director at any meeting shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting, except where a director attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business because the meeting is not lawfully called or convened” This seems pretty clear to me, simply call an emergency board meeting and set up a conference call to discuss the matter. So to end this post if you like the way only a few run KCBS then great but if you believe that you have elected 12 members to serve you, the KCBS members, then I would ask that you do indeed look at who is running for the board in January and ask them where they stand on issues such as this. By the way if At Ease Moonlighters which is my cooking team was cooking this weekend, we would use parsley because I was never asked to vote on a ban.
Again this is my opinion only and to my knowledge does not represent any other members of the board. Don Harwell

Skip
09-17-2009, 04:30 PM
By the way if At Ease Moonlighters which is my cooking team was cooking this weekend, we would use parsley because I was never asked to vote on a ban.



Interesting. What is the penalty for a team doing so. Is it a DQ? What if there were 50% or so teams doing it at every contest?

WWTBD

Bentley
09-17-2009, 05:19 PM
I and seven other members of the board did not vote on this issue to send a statement out to the members or in fact change the rules.


Why should I have to wait for the next elections? I am I not entitled as a member to to expect the current BOD to operate according to the bylaws?

I cant vote the good ole boys out if I dont know who they are...Sorry, its time for people to get outted!

Jeff_in_KC
09-17-2009, 06:37 PM
Wow! Very interesting stuff. No wonder there has been no roll call vote announced. I personally believe we should know the full story here. Sounds to me like maybe this parsley ban is not enforceable. Correct?

HBMTN
09-17-2009, 07:43 PM
It's a health safety call so people don't get sick isn't it, or am I missing something?

Smoke'n Ice
09-17-2009, 08:45 PM
Since we, as members, by a majority vote gave all of the power to the BoD, it is up to the members of the BoD to take care of the problem. The only recourse that the general membership has is to vote at the general election.

RONR would have been a great addition to the rules but, most members and most of the BoD PooPooed it. We now live with our decisions. Yes I am a member of KCBS and a CBJ and I voted against giving the board the broad powers we did several years ago .

Accept it and live with it.

Mack

txschutte
09-17-2009, 09:09 PM
Solve it once and for all. Move to a no garnish box rule all of the time. Judge the meat, not the lettuce.

Jeff_in_KC
09-17-2009, 09:24 PM
Like Don says, this is not about the ban. It is actually about an action some could consider illegal. I know if I were currently a BOD member, I would be pissed as hell that four people made a decision without including me in the decision.

butts
09-17-2009, 09:31 PM
This is my opinion only:
The issue I am writing about is not about parsley. I am wondering where and how four members of the KCBS Board of Directors can make a decision like this or any decision. The KCBS bylaws state “Election of one class of directors by the members shall take place annually.” I may be wrong but the wording “one class” means, all members of the board are equal. I cannot find in the bylaws where only four directors have the right to take action for the full board. I have been on the board for almost four years now and I have heard the term “executive board” from some people, again I find nothing in the bylaws talking about an executive board. I do have issues with a statement which was placed on forums and our WEB site “The Board of Directors has issued the following advisory…” I and seven other members of the board did not vote on this issue to send a statement out to the members or in fact change the rules. Before I posted this on this forum, the above statement was sent to all KCBS board members. Here is one response I received from a board member (name withheld.) “Although I understand Don's statement, I want the board to know that, personally, I have no problem with the officers of the board making this decision without consulting with the rest of us since a decision needed to be made in a timely manner. I believe this is an perfect example of why arbitrary time restrictions often deter this board from acting in the best interest of our members ... and in this case, especially our judges.” My response that is with emails and phones the way they are today we could have had a quorum in an hour’s time.” We have a provision to provide for the proper handling of such situations as this parsley issue already clearly outlined in our bylaws: “Any director may waive notice of any meeting. The attendance of a director at any meeting shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting, except where a director attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business because the meeting is not lawfully called or convened” This seems pretty clear to me, simply call an emergency board meeting and set up a conference call to discuss the matter. So to end this post if you like the way only a few run KCBS then great but if you believe that you have elected 12 members to serve you, the KCBS members, then I would ask that you do indeed look at who is running for the board in January and ask them where they stand on issues such as this. By the way if At Ease Moonlighters which is my cooking team was cooking this weekend, we would use parsley because I was never asked to vote on a ban.
Again this is my opinion only and to my knowledge does not represent any other members of the board. Don Harwell

Well said DON! We need more people like you on the board and less like the "four" that made the parsley decision!

Bentley
09-17-2009, 10:59 PM
It's a health safety call so people don't get sick isn't it, or am I missing something?


It was for me until Don made his statement. It then became a minority decision that on the surface does not appear to be in keeping with the establish procedures.

Since we, as members, by a majority vote gave all of the power to the BoD, it is up to the members of the BoD to take care of the problem. The only recourse that the general membership has is to vote at the general election.

Accept it and live with it.

Mack

I guess we wont know, and I appreciate Don taking a stance and bringing to the attention of members, some BOD won't.

Again is the BOD acting in a manner that is correct? I don't know, I am relying on the voice of one BOD that I believe wants to see the by-laws used properly.

As a MEMBER I should not have to wait for another election or accept it, the current BOD should abide by the by-laws of the Society, those that cant or wont should resign or be recalled.

timzcardz
09-18-2009, 07:09 AM
If Don's statement is accurate (and I have no reason to believe that it is not) then it is disappointing that we have rogue directors that freely chose to ignore the explicit established rules by which they are governed.

The unfortunate thing for all concerned is that the rules are in place to protect everyone; the membership as well as the directors. I assume that the KCBS has Officers and Directors insurance which protects them from liability for actions they may take as a director, but when taking action under the guise of a "director" but contrary to the rules under which you are governed, would anyone like to guess how long it will take the insurer to conclude that the individual was not acting as a director but on their own and are therefore not covered?

For directors to ignore the governance under which the organization is formed not only violates the fiduciary responsibility with which they are charged, but is disrespectful to the membership that elected them, and is downright stupid from a personal financial liability perspective.






P.S. THIS THREAD STARTS OFF WITH AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE THAT HAS BECOME DILUTED WITH OFF-TOPIC DRIVEL. MODS, PLEASE CONSIDER SCRUBBING THIS THREAD.

Roo-B-Q'N
09-18-2009, 08:11 AM
Don is being just as rougue as the next BoD by venting this on a public forum. It should be taken care of in a BoD meeting and not vented in public.
He can then make it his platform when he runs next time and not make a veiled attempt at it right now.

Skip
09-18-2009, 08:24 AM
Don is being just as rougue as the next BoD by venting this on a public forum. It should be taken care of in a BoD meeting and not vented in public.
He can then make it his platform when he runs next time and not make a veiled attempt at it right now.


I'm surprised that with all this ink they haven't actually called an emergency meeting. Maybe they want to see it go away or no one has taken the lead to arrange it.

We are all assuming a lot from limited information. All we truly know is that the rules have been compromised and that issue isn't being addressed in my opinion.

If this weekend is allowed to go off as planned it can never be taken back. There is no do over. Forever more there will always be a question, not only of what if, but will it happen again.

To all those who think this is foolish mindless nonsense---You've made your point. You've expressed your opinion and it has been heard by everyone involved. Its obvious this is a big deal for others. These "others" are quite confident in themselves and will not stop asking their questions until they receive a better response then "suck it up and deal with it". So please refrain from adding another response aimed at derailing this issue. Thank you

Bill The Grill Guy
09-18-2009, 10:27 AM
I dont remember such a ban on lettus back in 2006.


By Annys Shin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Health officials suspect lettuce and tomatoes in a nationwide outbreak of salmonella that so far has sickened 171 people in 19 states, a spokeswoman for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said yesterday.
The spate of salmonella infections comes as federal and California state investigators are still searching for the cause of September's deadly spinach-borne E. coli outbreak, the 20th episode of foodborne illness linked to leafy greens in 10 years.

Skip
09-18-2009, 10:29 AM
I dont remember such a ban on lettus back in 2006.

Someone else mentioned that too. That is an interesting point.

Big Mike's BBQ
09-18-2009, 12:54 PM
OK, here is the problem I see. Due to forum rules and possibilities of liable no one ever states the board memebers name in this or any of the other public forums. It is always name withheld. I understand why it is done here. the problem is that there is no other place where these issues that effect us all are voiced. How can I vote for a person for the BOD if I do not know if they are ones that are stirring things up. I have not read the bylaws but I would guess that there is in there some where that states the BOD must have a quorum to vote, Is four really the quorum? If it is not then they just broke the bylaws and we have a right to know who they are. Where can we get the full (both sides) of the story for this and any other of the hot BOD topics going around?


Big Mike

BigdaddyBBQ
09-18-2009, 02:46 PM
Meat in a box is the best no rabbit food allowed

crd26a
09-18-2009, 03:12 PM
Can the other board members get back and allow pork to be parted and put back on the heat? I need my sauce to set after all, and really, its only in the interest of judges they get hot food

Jeff_in_KC
09-18-2009, 03:12 PM
Meat in a box is the best no rabbit food allowed

Specifically, rabbit food is not allowed. You are correct. However, parsley and other greens are. :wink:

MilitantSquatter
09-18-2009, 05:30 PM
Mod Note : This thread has been scrubbed with all the off topic posts etc.

Please keep it on topic and not personal

Thanks !!

jonboy
09-18-2009, 05:49 PM
Just thinking outside the box or well, inside it,
Couldn't we just substitute green cardboard for the parsley/lettuce.
You could cut it and it would fold up the sides of the box or
you could fold it under and raise your meat for presentation or
maybe even both...
like i said just thinking, drinking a beer...
please dont over think this post...
jon

Solidkick
09-19-2009, 10:04 AM
Don, first, thanks for posting your thoughts here, and I appreciate your thoughts.

Second, though a decision needed to be made on this issue, it surely could have waited 4 hours while everyone involved in the decision making process could have been contacted and a group decision be made.

BBQchef33
09-20-2009, 08:42 PM
OK, here is the problem I see. Due to forum rules and possibilities of liable no one ever states the board memebers name in this or any of the other public forums. It is always name withheld. I understand why it is done here. the problem is that there is no other place where these issues that effect us all are voiced. How can I vote for a person for the BOD if I do not know if they are ones that are stirring things up. I have not read the bylaws but I would guess that there is in there some where that states the BOD must have a quorum to vote, Is four really the quorum? If it is not then they just broke the bylaws and we have a right to know who they are. Where can we get the full (both sides) of the story for this and any other of the hot BOD topics going around?


Big Mike

Admin note:

Theres nothing in OUR forum rules that say names must be withheld.. AS LONG AS THE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND VERIFIED board members can be specified. However, it if its dicovered to be false, hearsay, rumor, or anything besides the truth, it will be scrubbed.

Spydermike72
09-21-2009, 06:06 AM
Well, this sounds like a failure to follow the By-Laws of the KCBS. Regardless of the topic, the BOD should have met a Quorum, if they did not meet the Quorum then any action by the BOD is not valid... That is pretty standard BOD operating procedure for any organization.

big brother smoke
09-21-2009, 06:35 AM
Well, this sounds like a failure to follow the By-Laws of the KCBS. Regardless of the topic, the BOD should have met a Quorum, if they did not meet the Quorum then any action by the BOD is not valid... That is pretty standard BOD operating procedure for any organization.

I support this statment +1

Jeff_in_KC
09-21-2009, 09:05 AM
Mike, I was assured by the office that it is in the by-laws that the executive committee can meet to decide "pressing issues" however, unless I'm completely off my rocker, I don't see mention of that OR that there is an "executive committee" anywhere in the by-laws. I agree that the parsley issue is minor. It's another small thing and everyone survived, as we all figured would happen. But I just have an issue with the way it was handled and making an "executive decision" and excluding a majority of the board from being involved in the decision does nothing to foster cooperation, respect and trust between board members, which is what's badly needed these days.

HoDeDo
09-21-2009, 01:18 PM
I dont remember such a ban on lettus back in 2006.

Skip is correct, I did allude to this outbreak in an earlier post...Thanks for doing the work to find the specifics. I was too lazy to go get the info, just knew we weren't banned from lettuce back then :) Even though it was a larger outbreak ...