PDA

View Full Version : Quick notes Feb 6 meeting on the KCBS site


Ford
02-08-2010, 10:13 AM
Took 2 posts to display them. Showed some votes. Roberts Rules were followed on Lula and it was Paul Kirk who changed his vote to no.

This years executive voted on. Committee assignemnts won't be out until March.

All the rule changes are there and effective Mar 1, 2010. Pating pork not allowed until box preparation (now how long can you prep a box - I think 4 hours at least - needs better clarification) and pork can not go back on the pit once parted.

Future years rule changes will be voted on at the August BOD meeting and be implemented Jan 1- no more rules meeting it looks like.

Board seat will remain vacant until the next election.

Other interesting stuff. Everybody that's been posting should take the time to read the notes and then the minutes once posted.

Jacked UP BBQ
02-08-2010, 10:22 AM
You cannot part pork until box prep, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. If they are serious, they are really destroying this category. I cannot believe they continue to make rules to destroy the cooks ability to put out the best product they can.

Ford
02-08-2010, 10:46 AM
But the vote was 11 to 0 in favor of the rule change/clarification.

Jacked UP BBQ
02-08-2010, 11:16 AM
My question is, if I like to soak my meat in sauce or marinade after pulling for about an hour before boxing, can I?

Divemaster
02-08-2010, 11:18 AM
Here are the changes according to the 'Quick Notes'....

Linda Mullane made a motion that the rules changed for 2010 will become effective on March 1, 2010.

The procedure from this year forward will be that the members of KCBS will have an opportunity to request Rule Changes any time prior to July 15 of each year. That the Board will consider any rule changes at the August meeting of the Board. That any rule changes adopted by the Board, will take effect on January 1, of the year next year.

The motion was seconded by Gene Goycochea.

Vote:
10 yes, 1 no, 0 abstentions
The motion passes.
--------------------------------------------
The Board determined that it would not make any changes concerning chicken.
--------------------------------------------
The Board determined that is would not make any changes concerning garnish.
--------------------------------------------
Linda Mullane made a motion to modify Rule 1 as follows:
Rule 1: The decision and interpretations of the KCBS Rules and Regulations are at the discretion of the KCBS Contest Representatives at the contest. Their decisions and interpretations are final to the extent consistent with the rules.

The motion was seconded by Ed Roith

Vote:
11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions
The motion to modify Rule 1 passes.
--------------------------------------------
Linda Mullane made a motion to modify Rule 6 as follows:
Fires shall be of wood, wood pellets, charcoal or propane gas.
Electric heat sources shall not be permitted for cooking or holding.
Electric is permitted as fire starters, provided that the competition meat is not in/on the cooking device. Electrical accessories such as spits, augers, or forced draft are permitted. No open pits or holes are permitted, except at the election of the contest organizer. Fires shall not be built on the ground.

The motion was seconded by Gene Goycochea.

Vote:
3 yes 8 no 0 abstain
The motion to modify Rule 6 fails.
--------------------------------------------
Linda Mullane made a motion to modify Rule 10

The Four KCBS Meat Categories:
CHICKEN: Chicken includes Cornish Game Hen and Kosher Chicken.
PORK RIBS: Ribs shall include the bone. Country style ribs are prohibited.
PORK: Pork is defined as Boston Butt, Picnic and/or Whole Shoulder, weighing a minimum of five (5) pounds. Pork shall be cooked whole (bone in or bone out) and not separated prior to preparing the meat for turn-in. At no time shall the meat once separated be returned to a cooker.
BEEF BRISKET: May be whole brisket, flat, or point. Corned beef is not allowed.

The motion was seconded by Carol Whitebook

Vote:
11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention
The motion to modify Rule 10 passes.
--------------------------------------------
Linda Mullane made a motion to amend Rule 11 as follows:

Judging typically starts at Noon on Saturday,
The four (4) KCBS categories will be judged in the following order:
CHICKEN NOON
PORK RIBS 12:30 pm
PORK 1:00 pm
BEEF BRISKET 1:30 pm,
Times may vary at any contest
Turn-in times will be confirmed at the Cooks Meeting.
An entry will be judged only at the time established by the contest organizer. The allowable turn-in time will be five (5) minutes before to five (5) minutes after the posted time with no tolerance. A late turn-in will receive a one (1) in all criteria.

The motion was seconded by Paul Kirk.

Vote:
11 yes, 0 no 0 abstentions
The motion to amend Rule 11 passes.
--------------------------------------------
Linda Mullane made a motion to amend Rule 14 to create Rule 14 & 15 as follows:

Rule 14
Entries will be submitted in an approved KCBS numbered container, provided by the contest organizer. The number must be on top of the container at turn-in.

Rule 15
The container shall not be marked in any way so as to make the container unique or identifiable. Aluminum foil, toothpicks, skewers, foreign material, and/or stuffing are prohibited in the container. Marked entries or containers with the above listed material will receive a one (1) in all criteria from all Judges.

The motion was seconded by Carol Whitebook.

Vote:
11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions
The motion to modify Rule 14 passes.
--------------------------------------------
Linda Mullane made a motion to renumber Rule 15 to Rule 16 and to modify the rule as follows:

Rule 16
Each contestant must submit at least six (6) portions of meat in an approved container. Chicken, pork and brisket may be submitted chopped, pulled, sliced, or diced as the cook sees fit, as long as there is enough for six (6) judges. Ribs shall be turned in bone-in. Judges may not cut, slice, or shake apart to separate pieces. If there is not enough meat for each judge to sample, the shorted judge(s) will score a one (1) on all criteria, and the judges having samples will change the Appearance score to one (1).

The motion was seconded by Candy Weaver.

Vote:
11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions
The motion to renumber and modify passes.
--------------------------------------------

Plowboy
02-08-2010, 11:20 AM
My question is, if I like to soak my meat in sauce or marinade after pulling for about an hour before boxing, can I?

I can't see why not. It is not in the pit or affected by a direct heat source.

Buster Dog BBQ
02-08-2010, 11:31 AM
I also saw in the minutes that the BarbeQlossal was revoked of grandfathered privilages. Kind of sad. They weren't able to have the contest this year because of pork prices. Now they probably will never have it again, at least as a sanctioned KCBS event.

Don Harwell made a motion to remove BarbeQlossal as a grandfathered contest. The motion was seconded by Merl Whitebook

Vote:
11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstentions
The motion passes

Ford
02-08-2010, 11:32 AM
I go as far as to say that you could put it in boiling sauce so long as there is no heat source to keep it boiling. And change pans every 5 minutes if you want. But the pork can't go back on the pit.

BBQchef33
02-08-2010, 11:39 AM
just curious. What was BarbeQlossal grandfathered in for/to?

Ford
02-08-2010, 11:41 AM
just curious. What was BarbeQlossal grandfathered in for/to?
cooking all pork. there were 5 contests that were allowed to cook other than the 4 main categories and have it count to GC.

Buster Dog BBQ
02-08-2010, 11:42 AM
just curious. What was BarbeQlossal grandfathered in for/to?
Since it was in conjunction with the Wolrd Pork Expo, the categories were pork, loin, ribs and whole hog. Last year the whole hog was optional. The contest drew about 70 teams from 10-12 states.

Jorge
02-08-2010, 11:46 AM
Since it was in conjunction with the Wolrd Pork Expo, the categories were pork, loin, ribs and whole hog. Last year the whole hog was optional. The contest drew about 70 teams from 10-12 states.

I really enjoyed it. If Anne is able to bring it back, I'll keep that on my calendar as long as the Plowboys make the trip and need a hand whether it's sanctioned by KCBS or not.

Plowboy
02-08-2010, 12:03 PM
I really enjoyed it. If Anne is able to bring it back, I'll keep that on my calendar as long as the Plowboys make the trip and need a hand whether it's sanctioned by KCBS or not.

Maybe the Cates group can pick it up. Seriously. The contest needs a sponsor to come along side of National Pork Board with pork prices what they are. World Pork Expo is a great platform for BBQ.

KC_Bobby
02-08-2010, 12:27 PM
Yeah, I noticed the grandfathering removal in the notes as well. Sad to see, but I do think it was the right decision based on the rules which protect the KCBS brand.

pat
02-08-2010, 12:32 PM
Maybe the Cates group can pick it up. Seriously. The contest needs a sponsor to come along side of National Pork Board with pork prices what they are. World Pork Expo is a great platform for BBQ.

Well said! That would be nice.

BBQchef33
02-08-2010, 12:36 PM
cooking all pork. there were 5 contests that were allowed to cook other than the 4 main categories and have it count to GC.

Since it was in conjunction with the Wolrd Pork Expo, the categories were pork, loin, ribs and whole hog. Last year the whole hog was optional. The contest drew about 70 teams from 10-12 states.


gotcha..thanksl(Hey, i can use the button for that).


I knew about the contest, didnt make the connection that they had 'waivers' of some type. makes sense.

Couldnt they still operate under the competitor series where tweaking the rules is allowed?

Jacked UP BBQ
02-08-2010, 01:17 PM
Pork Prices? I am getting st louies and record lows for me.

Jorge
02-08-2010, 01:19 PM
Pork Prices? I am getting st louies and record lows for me.

The National Pork Board sponsored the contest at the World Pork Expo, in Des Moines. Pork prices are down, and the funds aren't there.

Buster Dog BBQ
02-08-2010, 01:21 PM
Pork Prices? I am getting st louies and record lows for me.
The way I understand it is a percentage of the pork checkoff goes towards this event. With the pork prices being so low, the money generated from this was very low as well. Thus lack of funds.

crd26a
02-08-2010, 01:38 PM
I think when it was announced that I read the pork council was short $10 million this year due to the declining prices in pork. Pretty big chunk of change to lose and not have to make cuts somewhere

Plowboy
02-08-2010, 01:46 PM
Pork Prices? I am getting st louies and record lows for me.

The National Pork Board sponsored the contest at the World Pork Expo, in Des Moines. Pork prices are down, and the funds aren't there.

The way I understand it is a percentage of the pork checkoff goes towards this event. With the pork prices being so low, the money generated from this was very low as well. Thus lack of funds.

Bingo - Good for consumer, bad for industry.

Jacked UP BBQ
02-08-2010, 01:48 PM
I see. I understand how the comp works now.

HoDeDo
02-08-2010, 01:54 PM
But the vote was 11 to 0 in favor of the rule change/clarification.

And I will be chewin some butts for it when I see them at contests...

A:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:ico n_shy:icon_shy

monty3777
02-08-2010, 02:28 PM
Took 2 posts to display them. Showed some votes. Roberts Rules were followed on Lula and it was Paul Kirk who changed his vote to no.


Since I work in the church I tend to be around Robert's Rules more than I'd like. I know from experience that once a motion is passed there are some procedural steps that need to be followed in order to take a revote. Not impossible - but there is a process. If the process wasn't followed correctly the new vote is meaningless and the first vote stands. Again, that how it has been handled in my experience. Certainly the parliamentarian may have interpreted the rules incorrectly and therefore my experience is meaningless - but there it is.

Plowboy
02-08-2010, 02:30 PM
And I will be chewin some butts for it when I see them at contests...

A:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:ico n_shy:icon_shy

Will you be parting those butts before you chew them? Just sayin.

monty3777
02-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Let me be more specific. I was at a synod assembly where a motion was passed. This vote upset a number of people in the assembly - but they were not allowed to simply call for a revote - as that would destroy the process. Anyone who didn't like an outcome would be able to call for a revote and the assembly would not be able to move forward. The parliamentarian ruled that only a person who voted to approve the motion could call for a revote - thus eliminating the sour grapes types from gumming up the process. So, as far as I know that's how a revote is dealt with under Robert's Rules of Order. But what do I know - I'm a preacher, not a lawyer.

Diva
02-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Will you be parting those butts before you chew them? Just sayin.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!

KC_Bobby
02-08-2010, 02:37 PM
If you're butt is chewy - I don't think putting it back in the smoker to set the sauce is really gonna matter. Sounds more like ya shouldn't ahh pulled it out when ya did. :twisted:

BBQ_Mayor
02-08-2010, 03:04 PM
Let me be more specific. I was at a synod assembly where a motion was passed. This vote upset a number of people in the assembly - but they were not allowed to simply call for a revote - as that would destroy the process. Anyone who didn't like an outcome would be able to call for a revote and the assembly would not be able to move forward. The parliamentarian ruled that only a person who voted to approve the motion could call for a revote - thus eliminating the sour grapes types from gumming up the process. So, as far as I know that's how a revote is dealt with under Robert's Rules of Order. But what do I know - I'm a preacher, not a lawyer.

You make a motion on the subject, discuss the subject matter and then call for the vote. As community politics work, if the vote is shot down it can not come up for a revote the same night. It must have time for the public to see what is being voted on at the next meeting.
I don' think this revote would be in the same boat but I could be wrong.

Smoke'n Ice
02-08-2010, 05:17 PM
The rules followed are similar to RONR. A motion to reconsider the previous motion can be made by anyone who voted on the prevailing side. This motion is only valid providing no new business has been conducted by the group. Apparently Paul Kirk voted in the majority and then ask for a reconsideration prior to any new business. This motion was seconed by someone and a vote taken. There was discussion and a new vote was taken with Paul Kirk changing his vote which caused the contest to be denied. It was all straight forward and above board.

I have heard rumors that the reasons for denial had nothing to do with being two days late with paper work but with failure to provide the necessary paperwork to protect the cooks in case a similar incident to last years contest in Hot Springs when a sponsor backed out and the cooks who had entered prior to the reduction of advertised prize money appeared to be left hanging with no way to gracefully withdraw and get their money back.

We can all understand that chit happens and the BOD was looking out for us, the cooks, in requiring at least a guarantee and letter of credit that if advertised monies cannot be paid, then the cook can withdraw from the contest without penality. I for one, agree as I have an entry from several years ago that the the sponsor backed out and there was no money forth coming from the organizer as he had spent it.

Jeff_in_KC
02-08-2010, 06:05 PM
Well at least they did not remove the turn-in times from the rules nor do we have to cook six or eight whole chickens to get six nice thighs!

BUT... I don't understand the "filling a vacancy on the board" ruling. First it says Candy made the motion (which I'm guessing she did NOT) but then the motion says first it will remain vacant until the next election. THEN it says the person 5th in the voting will get the remainder of the term that was not completed.

If a member of the board ceases to serve in the capacity as a member of the Board, during an unexpired term, then the vacancy shall be filled in the following manner:

The board opening shall remain vacant until the next general election of Board members. The vacancy shall be filled by the candidate receiving the 5th highest vote count. (in the event of multiple vacancies, then the 6th, and so on.) The candidate receiving the 5th (and the like) highest vote count shall serve the remaining term of vacant board seat.

So which is it? Does it remain vacant or does the next in line from previous voting fill the seat?

Smoke'n Ice
02-08-2010, 06:18 PM
It appears to be poorly worded but, the next highest vote getter is placed in the vacant position until the following general election. The appointed person is not appointed to fill the remaining term but is appointed until the next opportunity to conduct an election. Similar to What occured in MA when Kennedy (almost 2 years sober) was replaced.

Plowboy
02-08-2010, 06:36 PM
Well at least they did not remove the turn-in times from the rules nor do we have to cook six or eight whole chickens to get six nice thighs!

BUT... I don't understand the "filling a vacancy on the board" ruling. First it says Candy made the motion (which I'm guessing she did NOT) but then the motion says first it will remain vacant until the next election. THEN it says the person 5th in the voting will get the remainder of the term that was not completed.

If a member of the board ceases to serve in the capacity as a member of the Board, during an unexpired term, then the vacancy shall be filled in the following manner:

The board opening shall remain vacant until the next general election of Board members. The vacancy shall be filled by the candidate receiving the 5th highest vote count. (in the event of multiple vacancies, then the 6th, and so on.) The candidate receiving the 5th (and the like) highest vote count shall serve the remaining term of vacant board seat.

So which is it? Does it remain vacant or does the next in line from previous voting fill the seat?

Actually, my first question was what this meant to term limits. The person quitting the first day on the job is different from the last day of the job. Is this already covered in the term limits section of the bylaws?

Would kind of suck taking someone's seat for two months and then lose one of your terms. Then again, wouldn't be fair to take the job after month 2 and you essentially get three terms.

Gene01
02-08-2010, 07:10 PM
what it should say is: the seat will be left vacant till the next year general election.... the top 4 voted into office will receive the 4 newly opened (regular) positions, the fifth in line will fill out the remaining term of the Board Member who vacated their position.

Jorge
02-08-2010, 07:35 PM
It appears to be poorly worded but, the next highest vote getter is placed in the vacant position until the following general election. The appointed person is not appointed to fill the remaining term but is appointed until the next opportunity to conduct an election. Similar to What occured in MA when Kennedy (almost 2 years sober) was replaced.

In your opinion, right?:mrgreen:

Ford
02-08-2010, 09:50 PM
First it says Candy made the motion (which I'm guessing she did NOT) but then the motion says first it will remain vacant until the next election.
I heard that it was actually her suggestion to keep it vacant until the next election. Personally I think it's a great solution. I can remember KCBS elections with only 4 or 5 candidates.

Jeff_in_KC
02-08-2010, 11:28 PM
I heard that it was actually her suggestion to keep it vacant until the next election. Personally I think it's a great solution. I can remember KCBS elections with only 4 or 5 candidates.

I'm not so sure it is a good idea, especially given the divisiveness on the board. Could cause some real issues.

I don't believe it was Candy who made the motion. I heard differently than you from someone who should know.

Scottie
02-09-2010, 07:11 AM
I don't believe it was Candy who made the motion. I heard differently than you from someone who should know.


My understanding is that Candy made the initial motion. It was flawed and presented in a couple of different versions.

But in reality, who cares? There is clearly a divide in the KCBS and a certain individual is being the scapegoat. If I was a kCBS member, I'd be more concerned about a certain director flip flopping and changing their vote. If there is anger, that is who I would look at. Otherwise, the BOD followed what has been done in the past. I believe the BOD followed what they have done in the past. No organizer is above the rules that the BOD has set. I guess that's the way I look at it. But I also don't have an agenda or am I sharpening knives to go after the directors that I don't like. These folks have been elected. Give them a chance is how I look at it. Do I agree with everything they do? Nope, but I also don't agree with politics in our country either. That's my right as a voting member.

So for all these folks that have the 'insider info'n I would say what side of the fence you are on and what side is the person that is telling you the info. Are they embelishing the story? I've heard from both sides and I can make an educated assumption of what really happened. The notes won't lie either.

I think we have too many Monday morning quaterbacks in the KCBS is what I think.

Good luck to all trying to figure out the mess. But I could care less. I know there are no angels in the Boardroom and there are no angels that are organizers either. Organizer are business men who are in it to make a buck. So take that as you may.

I know I don't wear rose colored glasses either.

Good luck all.

Scottie

Merl
02-09-2010, 07:43 AM
My motion was to take nominations and pick the best. Concerns were voiced as result of e-mails from members that was a control issue. It was stated that some might perceive this as Merl personally for trying to take control by allowing the Board to pick the best nominated person. As a collective voice from suggestion by the members of the Board, a recommendation for keeping the BD seat open until the next election and fill it by allowing the members to exercise their vote as the fifth place vote. This as an alternative motion was voted 10-1-0 and passed.

Now some are voicing their opposition to allowing the Board to pick the best person and your opposed to letting the members vote at the next election, taking the BOD out of the decision.

It seems that no matter how fair the bod tries to make it and make it objective, that a few have an objection. I will not support a system where if we like the fifth this year we take him, if not we do something else. That is what I call unfair and a power grab.

I think John Markus should be on the Board. He was the fifth place person when Rod was elected and should fill his term. Most said that was the precedent, but we made a brand new precedent to pick the 5th place from another year's election. And how did Mike Lake get appointed when no one liked number 5 and the BOD picked out an outsider.

I told the Board that all I wanted was a system which could not be manipulated by the Board. Fair to all. I do not understand, why there are a few who seem to remain opposed to that.

I do not want the old way, that was clearly unfair to all concerned.
Just my thoughts.
Merl

ThomEmery
02-09-2010, 08:06 AM
Hummm Whats to say the 5th person should be on the BoD?
The first looser does not make you a natural to be on the BoD
It is silly to set it up and get stuck with someone who did not
have the talents and abilities

monty3777
02-09-2010, 08:07 AM
Thanks for your reply, Merl. Could you help us also understand the process that lead to the revote - this is in reference to the vote to reject the application Ron Cates submitted several days late. That would help fill in some blanks. Again, thanks to all the BoD members who have taken the time to reply to concerns!

Scottie
02-09-2010, 08:27 AM
I'd like to know who voted for AZ BBQ to be not sanctioned and then voted in favor of Lula geing sanctioned. That should interest more folks than a flawed system to appoint a vacancy on the Board and who made a motion and who didn't.

I guess I'd get it in my Bullsheet, but I never get it. Maybe our Education committee can focus on that? As I'd love to be educated on what really happens at the Board by the minutes...

Ford
02-09-2010, 09:29 AM
I'd like to know who voted for AZ BBQ to be not sanctioned and then voted in favor of Lula geing sanctioned. That should interest more folks than a flawed system to appoint a vacancy on the Board and who made a motion and who didn't.

I guess I'd get it in my Bullsheet, but I never get it. Maybe our Education committee can focus on that? As I'd love to be educated on what really happens at the Board by the minutes...
It would be nice if the KCBS posted the minutes online. they were approved at the Feb meeting for Jan so why not post them. No need to wait for the Bullsheet.

Chandler AZ 9-3 to deny. I to would like to know who voted differently. I's probably a safe assumption that the 6 who voted deny for Lula voted the same on Chandler.

Jeff_in_KC
02-09-2010, 09:39 AM
Scottie, I am really starting to agree with you. I've had to do something this morning that makes all this bullchit seem pretty insignificant. Let 'em destroy it with the divisiveness. I tried. I'll compete somewhere until there's nowhere else to go.

Scottie
02-09-2010, 10:14 AM
Scottie, I am really starting to agree with you. I've had to do something this morning that makes all this bullchit seem pretty insignificant. Let 'em destroy it with the divisiveness. I tried. I'll compete somewhere until there's nowhere else to go.

I am not sure we have any other options Jeff. there is a political struggle that they are playing with OUR Society. It's not theirs to destroy, it's ours as dues paying members. Some, if not all need to understand that. These factions need to end. We need to do what is best for KCBS. Not individual "A', that just so happens to be a Director of KCBS.

I will still say that if those Disclosure Statements were made public, we wouldn't be having nearly half the problems that we see...

Jeff_in_KC
02-09-2010, 11:50 AM
Hummm Whats to say the 5th person should be on the BoD?
The first looser does not make you a natural to be on the BoD
It is silly to set it up and get stuck with someone who did not
have the talents and abilities

Using that logic, Thom, who's to say those who WON are naturals or have the talents and abilities? Yep, I said it.

Jacked UP BBQ
02-09-2010, 11:58 AM
WOW - all this over barbecue contests. Chit if I put this much work into my business I would be rich!

Ford
02-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Using that logic, Thom, who's to say those who WON are naturals or have the talents and abilities? Yep, I said it.
Bingo - most not for profit organizations with a non paid BOD have people that maybe lack some of the qualities needed to be successful. that's why it's a focus in the questions for the nominees. Then it's up to the members to vote for the most qualified and not their friends.

lWhile we're at it most organizations eave all the details to the paid staff and the BOD meets 4 or 6 times a year to set policy. No way they get involved in 90% of the stuff we see in normal minutes. Just read the dec minutes and there's so little that hte BOD should actually be voting on. Contests being sanctioned should be done by an admin. Sorry I kind of hikacked your point.

crd26a
02-09-2010, 12:50 PM
Just read the dec minutes and there's so little that hte BOD should actually be voting on. Contests being sanctioned should be done by an admin. Sorry I kind of hikacked your point.

I'd argue an admin, but believe it should be someone else.

For the KCBS to expand they need to reorganize the structure of the organization. They should capitalize on some of the regional BBQ Associations and let them handle local issues - sanctioning, issues with the reps / contests in the area, etc. Then let each local association vote for 1 member to the board and allow 2-3 board seats be globally elected. Ideally it would be something like this:

KCBS Board - 11 Spots, 3 elected nationally

Regional boards based upon size

MO/KAN - 2 spots to Board due to size / concentration of membership
Upper Midwest (Iowa, MN, WI, IL, MI, NE)
Southeast
Northeast
Southwest
Pacific Northwest
(Allow for a floating member between Upper Midwest - PNW or another region)

This would allow regions to focus upon issues that impact them locally, then send an elected representative(s) to focus on national issues.

This would allow the KCBS BoD to focus on what matters - National / Internationally growth and Strategic Development, Major Conduct Issues, Marketing, and Global Rule issues. Without an evolution in the fundamental structure of the business, the continued focus on personal interests and back door deals will continue. The BoD really needs to get to focusing on fundamental strategic developments.

HoDeDo
02-09-2010, 05:18 PM
I'm ready to go back to being a dumb cook. It's really what I do best anyway. :)

ThomEmery
02-09-2010, 05:30 PM
Using that logic, Thom, who's to say those who WON are naturals or have the talents and abilities? Yep, I said it.

Well we do vote for a reason
and the voters say they are qualified
But it does not seem to matter
jeez
I am getting sick of this KCBS crap
It never ends....
Right or wrong the sport is ripe for a
new organization

G$
02-09-2010, 05:33 PM
I'm ready to go back to being a dumb cook. It's really what I do best anyway. :)

Me too Andy. Heck I am half way there already!

White Dog BBQ
02-10-2010, 09:11 AM
Bingo - most not for profit organizations with a non paid BOD have people that maybe lack some of the qualities needed to be successful. that's why it's a focus in the questions for the nominees. Then it's up to the members to vote for the most qualified and not their friends.

lWhile we're at it most organizations eave all the details to the paid staff and the BOD meets 4 or 6 times a year to set policy. No way they get involved in 90% of the stuff we see in normal minutes. Just read the dec minutes and there's so little that hte BOD should actually be voting on. Contests being sanctioned should be done by an admin. Sorry I kind of hikacked your point.

Ford, I've disagreed with a lot of what you've written on the latest KCBS kerfuffle, but I think you are 100% right here. There was a time when KCBS was small enough that it needed a Board active in the day-to-day operations. Not anymore. The Board needs to step back and let the paid staff do its job.

Basically, the Board should be drafting policy, and staff should be implementing it. Your point on sanctioning is dead on -- the Board has set up the sanctioning rules, now let staff handle the sanctioning requests.

KCBS brags about how much it has grown, but it still operates with a small group mentality.