PDA

View Full Version : KCBS BoD Election Results


Alexa RnQ
01-15-2011, 09:14 PM
January 15, 2011
Election Results for KCBS 2011 Board of Directors

The Kansas City Barbeque Society is proud to announce the results for the 2011 Board of Directors Election.

The top four candidates by number of votes have been elected to serve a three year term to the KCBS Board of Directors:

Randy Bigler Receives 1007 votes, 38.87% of the total
Mark Simmons Receives 989 votes, 38.17% of the total
Mike Budai Receives 916 votes, 35.35% of the total
Tana Shupe Receives 910 votes, 35.12% of the total
In addition the fifth candidate by number of votes, has been elected to serve a remaining two year term to the KCBS Board of Directors:

Arlie Bragg Receives 811 votes, 31.30% of the total

The remaining candidates received the following votes:

Thom Emery Receives 644 votes, 24.86% of the total
Ford Alison Receives 625 votes, 24.12% of the total
Sonny Ashford Receives 588 votes, 22.69% of the total
Jim Stancil Receives 518 votes, 19.99% of the total
Dale Newstrom Receives 513 votes, 19.80% of the total
John Kirby Receives 402 votes, 15.52% of the total
Scott Kuklin Receives 288 votes, 11.12% of the total

Election Statistics:
Total ballots returned 2591
Total number of eligible voters 14060
Percent of ballot return 18.43%

The Board of Kansas City Barbeque Society wishes to thank Ed Roith and Carol Whitebook for their dedication and service to the Board and members of KCBS as their terms expire. We know we will continue to see them serving our organization in other capacities in future years.

The Board of Directors wishes to thank all the members who took the time to vote and support our great organization.

bbqbull
01-15-2011, 09:16 PM
Thanks for posting this information.

ssbbqguy
01-15-2011, 09:31 PM
18.43% voted. That sucks. This was a very important election. Amazing how many gripe without casting a ballot. Just like political elections. Hard to understand. Steve.

Just Pulin' Pork
01-15-2011, 09:38 PM
Percent of ballot return 18.43%

That's pathetic! For an organization that has that many members, that return shows why the KCBS is the way it is! FYI members we do have a VOTE! Remember that and use it! Congrats to those that got elected and please make the necessary changes that need to be made to make the KCBS better as a whole!

Rookie'48
01-15-2011, 09:42 PM
Those who didn't bother to vote have no moral standing allowing them to beotch about how KCBS is run. Just how much farkin' easier does it have to be before some people will cast a ballot?

MilitantSquatter
01-15-2011, 09:43 PM
That's pathetic! For an organization that has that many members, that return shows why the KCBS is the way it is! FYI members we do have a VOTE! Remember that and use it! Congrats to those that got elected and please make the necessary changes that need to be made to make the KCBS better as a whole!

Aren't the majority of members judges ? A good portion are probably one hit wonders who pay the membership fees to take a class to get certified and maybe to particpate at a local event etc....

If non-active judges are the majority of the membership pool, the stance of the candidates probably don't mean all that much which then puts more perspective to the % voted .

Slamdunkpro
01-15-2011, 09:52 PM
Aren't the majority of members judges ? A good portion are probably one hit wonders who pay the membership fees to take a class to get certified and maybe to particpate at a local event etc....

I'd speculate that 80%+ of the membership is 2 year or less casual CBJ's.

Just Pulin' Pork
01-15-2011, 09:58 PM
Aren't the majority of members judges ? A good portion are probably one hit wonders who pay the membership fees to take a class to get certified and maybe to particpate at a local event etc....

If non-active judges are the majority of the membership pool, the stance of the candidates probably don't mean all that much which then puts more perspective to the % voted .


Vinny you make a great point and I do not disagree! This is one example of what the KCBS needs to change in order to make the vote that much more important.

Jon

Slamdunkpro
01-15-2011, 10:22 PM
Vinny you make a great point and I do not disagree! This is one example of what the KCBS needs to change in order to make the vote that much more important.

Jon

The other side of that is with only 15% of the membership being active, the concerned members couldn't put 1100 votes together?

Hub
01-16-2011, 06:08 AM
Can anyone substantiate the above insinuations that the voting pool is made up of non-active judges? Where does this information come from? Why shouldn't a non-active judge who is interested in the organization vote? Being "active" is a qualifier? Why didn't 82% of the membership vote when it is soooooooo easy and takes only a minute?

There was an anti-judge message on another forum this morning, too. I don't get it. I'm assuming this is a manifestation of loathing on the part of some who think judges are lower forms of life. Fact: The power lies in VOTES, not in judges, cooks or "non-active" members of any stripe.

Ford
01-16-2011, 07:05 AM
How many voted in your last school board election when it wasn't tied to a national election? Less than 18% in most cases.

And I do agree that this Forum couldn't martial enough votes to make a change. How many Brethren are there? Now how many are actually KCBS dues paying members? Now how many voted? I think the answer to # 2 is the key here.

Ford
01-16-2011, 07:08 AM
The membership has spoken. It's time to move on and support our new Board and to give them a chance. This is our organization and we have chosen these people to represent us and to make decisions for us. We may not agree with them but at the end of the day we need to support the organization.

I for one will be real interested in the major changes coming to the CBJ program. It was obviously a key issue. I'm disappointed that there wasn't more support for national programs but hope that this will still come to happen and that some BOD member will decide to champion a national SR Q program.
This is written from my hotel room in Ft Peirce FL after another great FBA contest. Will head hone to Lakeland until Friday when I head out for the third weekend in a string of 6 out of 7 weeks cooking contests. Week 5 is my wedding and we're having it at a beach although I suggested going to a contest. Week 8 is open right now then 2 more right after and looking for more in March. Starting week 4 I'll be vending and competing at most.

BBQ_Mayor
01-16-2011, 07:42 AM
Those who didn't bother to vote have no moral standing allowing them to beotch about how KCBS is run. Just how much farkin' easier does it have to be before some people will cast a ballot?

Ain't that the truth Dave. That was super easy to vote and I am happy to be one of the 18% that did vote for my choice for BOD. Not all of them got it (OK, I think only one made it in) but I voted.

I was happy to see more cooks on the ballot and thats all who i want to vote for, is the cooks.

Thank you to all who ran and congrats to those that made it in.:clap2:

Rich Parker
01-16-2011, 08:02 AM
Congrats Arlie!

5-0 BBQ
01-16-2011, 08:36 AM
Let me put out a question. My wife and I are both members but we only got one ballot that only came to me?

MilitantSquatter
01-16-2011, 08:38 AM
Can anyone substantiate the above insinuations that the voting pool is made up of non-active judges? Where does this information come from? Why shouldn't a non-active judge who is interested in the organization vote? Being "active" is a qualifier? Why didn't 82% of the membership vote when it is soooooooo easy and takes only a minute?

There was an anti-judge message on another forum this morning, too. I don't get it. I'm assuming this is a manifestation of loathing on the part of some who think judges are lower forms of life. Fact: The power lies in VOTES, not in judges, cooks or "non-active" members of any stripe.


Hub - I can't validate my comment.. Take it for what it's worth (which admittedly isn't worth anything) as I've not renewed my KCBS membership for the past few years..There is no "anti-judge" perspective on my part. Just general observation.

Alexa RnQ
01-16-2011, 08:47 AM
If the theory that the preponderance of membership is composed of judges is indeed true (and I don't see why not), there's one good contributing reason. Membership is required to be a CBJ. It's entirely optional for the teams. Out of a team with 4 or 5 members, are they ALL KCBS members?

I'm part of a two-person team. We both have individual memberships. We both vote.

Slamdunkpro
01-16-2011, 10:05 AM
Can anyone substantiate the above insinuations that the voting pool is made up of non-active judges? Where does this information come from? Why shouldn't a non-active judge who is interested in the organization vote? Being "active" is a qualifier? Why didn't 82% of the membership vote when it is soooooooo easy and takes only a minute?

There was an anti-judge message on another forum this morning, too. I don't get it. I'm assuming this is a manifestation of loathing on the part of some who think judges are lower forms of life. Fact: The power lies in VOTES, not in judges, cooks or "non-active" members of any stripe.
I think you are misinterpreting my post, there was nothing "anti-judge" about it. It was sheer speculation on numbers. Every year there are hundreds of CBJ classes turning out 30-50-70 CBJ's at a clip. Each new CBJ is a member for the next year. I'm willing to bet that these "casual" CBJ's make up the bulk of the KCBS membership. How many of them actually care about what's going on in KCBS? From the vote tallies it's safe to say not very many.

tmcmaster
01-16-2011, 10:11 AM
Election Statistics:
Total ballots returned 2591
Total number of eligible voters 14060
Percent of ballot return 18.43%

Congratulations to the new Board members. But the above statement is, in a word, un-farking-believable.

ModelMaker
01-16-2011, 10:21 AM
Just a lowly CBJ here who cooks at least once a year, I'm a dues paying member of KCBS (not because I have to,but want to) Also a member in good standing of the Iowa BBQ Society.
I voted, I offer constructive criticism when required, and truly enjoy the sport of BBQ.
I think I'm doing my part. Why aren't those of you who cook only doing your part?
Join up, join in, make a difference maybe.
Smoke on Garth....
Ed

stlgreg
01-16-2011, 11:34 AM
Let me put out a question. My wife and I are both members but we only got one ballot that only came to me?

you should have contacted the KCBS office. they posted on the website that if you didnt receive a ballot to contact them. It was in the bullsheet and posted on some forums.

carlharper
01-16-2011, 11:50 AM
There were 2591 ballots received which should have resulted in 10364 votes. However, when you add up the votes received by the candidates, it only totals 8211 or 3.17 votes per ballot. That means that even the pitiful percentage of us who voted, managed to squander 2153 available voting opportunities.

I'd like to hear from some of those who did not cast four votes, explain their logic in doing so.

big matt
01-16-2011, 12:28 PM
If the theory that the preponderance of membership is composed of judges is indeed true (and I don't see why not), there's one good contributing reason. Membership is required to be a CBJ. It's entirely optional for the teams. Out of a team with 4 or 5 members, are they ALL KCBS members?

I'm part of a two-person team. We both have individual memberships. We both vote.Two of us are members two of us are not..two of us are judges also,perfect example!

Jeff_in_KC
01-16-2011, 01:30 PM
There were 2591 ballots received which should have resulted in 10364 votes. However, when you add up the votes received by the candidates, it only totals 8211 or 3.17 votes per ballot. That means that even the pitiful percentage of us who voted, managed to squander 2153 available voting opportunities.

I'd like to hear from some of those who did not cast four votes, explain their logic in doing so.

This time, I DID cast four votes but in years past, I have not always done so. If you have one or two candidates you feel strongly about, only voting for those one or two basically means you're not giving a vote to someone else and, in essense, it's like giveing four votes to one or two each to two candidates. It's done every year and encouraged by many candidacies.

Last year, I though low 20's was a bad number as a voter turnout percentage. This year is TERRIBLE and an embarassment to KCBS! It completely amazes me how apathetic so many people are. Look, if you don't care about the organization enough to participate by even doing the simplest damned thing you could possibly do as a member, why even bother? Seriously, this chaps my azz!

Buster Dog BBQ
01-16-2011, 03:10 PM
I think the problem with low voting percentages can be tied to a few things.

1. Outside of a small Q&A in the bull sheet there was hardly enough material available to become better educated on the candidates. With more than 1/2 run with basically the same ideas its hard to distinquish the candidates and easier to stay with status quo.
2. People that don't read this or Basso's forum have little idea what is going on at the Board level and probably assume things are going well so why fix it. Heck even on here it's like trying to piece together a puzzle to determine what really is going on.

Last year I didn't vote mainly because I didn't know much at all about those running or those up for re-election. I also was pretty content going to contest and competing, not knowing what I didn't know on a bigger stage because I didn't see a direct impact to me. So to me there wasn't incentive to vote because everything seemed fine and i didn't feel educated on my decision..

Just my 2 cents

Rookie'48
01-16-2011, 03:53 PM
If you have one or two candidates you feel strongly about, only voting for those one or two basically means you're not giving a vote to someone else...

Think of it this way:

You had 4 possible votes to cast.
You had one or two people that you really wanted to win.
You voted for your two favorites and two "others".
Your two favorites lost by 1 or 2 votes each but the two "others" won by 1 or 2 votes each.

If you would have voted for only your two favorites there is a good chance that they might have won. Instead you actually helped to defeat your own candidates.

arlieque
01-16-2011, 04:01 PM
Thanks to all that voted for me. I look forward to working for the members........... Arlie Bragg
arlieque@comcast.net

NRA4Life
01-16-2011, 08:05 PM
I think the problem with low voting percentages can be tied to a few things.

1. Outside of a small Q&A in the bull sheet there was hardly enough material available to become better educated on the candidates. With more than 1/2 run with basically the same ideas its hard to distinquish the candidates and easier to stay with status quo.
2. People that don't read this or Basso's forum have little idea what is going on at the Board level and probably assume things are going well so why fix it. Heck even on here it's like trying to piece together a puzzle to determine what really is going on.



I've got to agree with Buster Dog on some of his points. I joined KCBS a couple years ago, became a CBJ last year, judged 1 comp last year and cooked at 2. I really don't know what problems are going on with KCBS at the board level, and I really haven't seen any/many posts here on BBQ brethren that detail exactly what is wrong or who the board members are that are causing the "problems". I voted this year, but really didn't know the differences in candidates or personally know the candidates. I did vote for Arlie, Ford, and Thom because they are members here on this forum. I know there are a lot of folks here that have been involved in KCBS for a long time on this forum, and maybe some type of voter's guide such as "BBQ-Brethren endorsed candidates" list around election time would be helpful. Anything to say "this person is part of the problem, not part of the solution" would certainly help point less educated, less experienced folks like me in the right direction.

Divemaster
01-17-2011, 09:24 AM
Before I begin, let me preface my statement with that I didn't read the December, 2010 Bullsheet so I don't know if they had printed the Q&A in it.

The fact that it was in the January, 2011 Bullsheet was great. The problem was that I didn't receive it until the 13th of this month. Yes, I went on-line and found what I needed to make an informative vote, but it makes me wonder how many voted without that information.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Was that information available in the December edition?

Hawg Father of Seoul
01-17-2011, 09:35 AM
There were 2591 ballots received which should have resulted in 10364 votes. However, when you add up the votes received by the candidates, it only totals 8211 or 3.17 votes per ballot. That means that even the pitiful percentage of us who voted, managed to squander 2153 available voting opportunities.

I'd like to hear from some of those who did not cast four votes, explain their logic in doing so.

Your question seems very accusatory given your entire post.

You have no right to judge the way someone else votes. AND that goes for everyone. That also goes for those who abstain.

You can vote under most dictators, the choices just seem to suck.

Jorge
01-17-2011, 09:38 AM
There were 2591 ballots received which should have resulted in 10364 votes. However, when you add up the votes received by the candidates, it only totals 8211 or 3.17 votes per ballot. That means that even the pitiful percentage of us who voted, managed to squander 2153 available voting opportunities.

I'd like to hear from some of those who did not cast four votes, explain their logic in doing so.

I didn't use all four of my votes this year. I just wasn't comfortable doing so, with the information that I had available. I'm not willing to just roll the dice and vote, simply for the sake of voting and then have to regret one of those votes six months later.

I read the information that was available, and in several cases made phone calls to candidates or spoke to them in person. Based on the information that I had, I voted accordingly.

I haven't been shy about stating my opinion that it's time to bring in some new blood, new ideas, and hopefully end the feuding that has gone on for way too long. At the end of the day, I could not find four candidates that I was comfortable with to achieve that goal and make a positive change.

What you seem to see as squandering an opportunity, I see as doing my due diligence and voting my conscience. I don't know that either is wrong.

Big Poppa
01-17-2011, 10:32 AM
Intense forums of people in the know just got another lesson that they may or may not be 100% correct but that doesnt mean that their dissatisfaction is universal throughout said topic.

if most of the KCBS members felt that the organization is severely flawed then there might have been a bigger turn out.

I think that sometimes we in forums beilieve that everybody is in real time with us.

I have a question....How many members attended the Banquet? I woder if all of them voted heheh

Ford
01-17-2011, 10:43 AM
Before I begin, let me preface my statement with that I didn't read the December, 2010 Bullsheet so I don't know if they had printed the Q&A in it.

The fact that it was in the January, 2011 Bullsheet was great. The problem was that I didn't receive it until the 13th of this month. Yes, I went on-line and found what I needed to make an informative vote, but it makes me wonder how many voted without that information.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Was that information available in the December edition?
All but Thom's were in the December issue. And they were onlin at the KCBS website. And you should have received an email on 1/3 telling you voting was open and you could have gone online to see the Q&A.

At least you did vote. I'm sure you're not alone in not reading the Bullsheet.

Bentley
01-17-2011, 11:55 AM
I didn't use all four of my votes this year. I just wasn't comfortable doing so, with the information that I had available. I'm not willing to just roll the dice and vote, simply for the sake of voting and then have to regret one of those votes six months later.



I only voted for 3 candidates, and the above comments sums it up pretty well...And yes, I am a half empty glass kind of guy and I expect the BOD to keep on doing exactly the what they have been doing for the 9 years I have been in KCBS...The only difference is I have learned to keep the beatching to myself more as it does nothing to change...You want apathy, believe me, 2011 will be business as usual.

nthole
01-17-2011, 12:22 PM
'Don't blame me...I voted for Kodos!'

kellym
01-17-2011, 05:19 PM
January 15, 2011
Election Results for KCBS 2011 Board of Directors

Election Statistics:
Total ballots returned 2591
Total number of eligible voters 14060
Percent of ballot return 18.43%


Has anyone seen the results from the two polls regarding related family members serving on the BoD simultaneously and having regional BoD elections?

Ford
01-17-2011, 06:06 PM
Nope. The BOD won't release them until they have studied them and have considered options to implement them. At least that's what I got from 2 BOD members when asked.

Vince RnQ
01-17-2011, 06:10 PM
Nope. The BOD won't release them until they have studied them and have considered options to implement them. At least that's what I got from 2 BOD members when asked.

That's rediculous. Heaven forbid the membership should know the results of the poll they voted in.

drbbq
01-17-2011, 06:27 PM
The board is completely bulletproof so they do whatever they want.

kellym
01-17-2011, 07:06 PM
"have considered options to implement them"

Sounds like they passed..

HoDeDo
01-18-2011, 12:18 AM
It is fact that the majority of KCBS members are Judges. For the exact reason mentioned; to be a 'certified' Judge, you have to maintain your membership in good standing, or you lose your "certification". If you look at the curve of activity on cooks.... I would imagine that you have a similar distribution of judges - meaning a small percentage that judge ALOT, a few that judge outside region, and some that are local only judging 1-2 events a year. So you have a much smaller set that pay attention to the nuances that occur at micro level, and get taken to the board. The majority of the cooks out there, have no clue about splitting of hairs in the pork parting rule, and the frustrations of the cooks that are voiced on the boards. The people that are voting are active side of that curve; it is no surprise at all to 18%... If you look at the number of teams cooking alot, and active in forums and add that to the number of judges that are paying attention to details, I think you will see that percentages match up. The number of folks that attend board meetings via webcast is also small... I bet the podcast ticker is small also....

I am also one of those that didnt vote for 4 people. I voted only for those I truly wanted. I think several folks did that.

I think most folks just aren't in tune like some, and to get more votes would require much more education, and a driver to make those that are not voting - actually come vote.

I know when I was president of our HOA, I ALWAYS, had an item on "Dues Increase" on the ballot. Our voting occured at our annual meeting. We used to have less than 1/3 of the homeowners show, but if you put "dues increase" on the ballot, that gets all the members out... they all cared about the impact to thier pocketbook. Now a dues increase was never really going to happen, but it sure did get 100% participation. Not saying something like that on the ballots will drive voters to the polls , but the key is to put something out there that is important to all the members... finding what that is, is the challenge. :)

Divemaster
01-18-2011, 10:00 AM
I have a question....How many members attended the Banquet? I woder if all of them voted heheh
I was at the Banquet and used three of my four votes.

Before I begin, let me preface my statement with that I didn't read the December, 2010 Bullsheet so I don't know if they had printed the Q&A in it.

The fact that it was in the January, 2011 Bullsheet was great. The problem was that I didn't receive it until the 13th of this month. Yes, I went on-line and found what I needed to make an informative vote, but it makes me wonder how many voted without that information.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Was that information available in the December edition?

All but Thom's were in the December issue. And they were onlin at the KCBS website. And you should have received an email on 1/3 telling you voting was open and you could have gone on-line to see the Q&A.

I just didn't get the time to look at the December issue. I did get the Email and that is when I went on-line and reviewed the Q&A in the January issue.

What surprised me was the date that I received the printed version of the January issue. It makes no sense to get it the day before the voting ends. While I'm sure that others received it a bit earlier, I'm also sure that some didn't receive it until after the voting closed.

At least you did vote. I'm sure you're not alone in not reading the Bullsheet.
I normally try to read them all.

Bentley
01-18-2011, 11:11 AM
It is fact that the majority of KCBS members are Judges.

Now a dues increase was never really going to happen, but it sure did get 100% participation.

Not saying something like that on the ballots will drive voters to the polls , but the key is to put something out there that is important to all the members... finding what that is, is the challenge. :)

Interesting. I wonder if KCBS has the ability to know what member voted, not who they voted for, just that they voted?

You vote or you lose your status as CBJ. Meaning if you are a Master judge, you start again. If you have 17 competitions judged, you start again. Starting with a new CBJ class.

Would be much like mandatory comment cards, can you force something on someone? I am suprised KCBS does not say if you let your membership expire and are a CBJ, you start again...

Gonna happen the same time I win a Brad Pitt look alike contest!

Jorge
01-18-2011, 11:18 AM
You vote or you lose your status as CBJ. Meaning if you are a Master judge, you start again. If you have 17 competitions judged, you start again. Starting with a new CBJ class.

Would be much like mandatory comment cards, can you force something on someone? I am suprised KCBS does not say if you let your membership expire and are a CBJ, you start again...

Gonna happen the same time I win a Brad Pitt look alike contest!

I am strongly opposed to forcing anyone to vote. If they aren't interested enough to vote, I don't want to force them to log on and click the first four options and submit their vote.

We may as well just draw names from a hat, containing the names of all of the candidates.

Bentley
01-18-2011, 04:23 PM
Yet you are in favor of forcing someone to fill out a comment card...I would appreciate your take on how they are different?

Smokedelic
01-18-2011, 04:59 PM
Sounds like they passed..
Which creates a problem if you don't want to implement both of them.

How do you implement one by saying it's what the membership voted for without implementing the other? This assumes that they really are interested in what the membership wants, and not just using the poll as a tool to justify their actions.

Ford
01-18-2011, 05:12 PM
Which creates a problem if you don't want to implement both of them.

How do you implement one by saying it's what the membership voted for without implementing the other? This assumes that they really are interested in what the membership wants, and not just using the poll as a tool to justify their actions.
I would hope if regioanl representation passed that they form a committee led by a single BOD member to figure out a system or maybe options to put before hte membership for a vote.

In both cases however it would require a by-law ammendment. I think the BOD modified the by-laws in 2010 to say any change has to be voted on by members prior to ammending the by-laws. Anybody know more about this?

Jorge
01-19-2011, 10:25 AM
Yet you are in favor of forcing someone to fill out a comment card...I would appreciate your take on how they are different?


I think the two are worlds apart. In the case of comment cards we are talking about requiring someone that has made the decision to judge defend their actions in the case of a 'low' score. If someone has made the decision to judge on any given weekend, I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect them to take the time to jot down a few comments when needed. I'm not completely sold that the mandatory use of the cards won't impact scoring, so I suggested a statistical review after one year to determine if this has happened or not.

In the case of voting we are talking about A) Stripping someone of a membership that they've paid for. That's a great way to get someone to renew their membership. :tsk: And....

B) Potentially skewing the vote dramatically, due to for lack of a better word, ignorance. If you require members to vote, to maintain their membership, you are introducing a large number of voters to the pool that will randomly select candidates to comply with the requirement as quickly as possible. How does adding several thousand voters, lobbing darts at a board, do anything to improve the situation? My personal opinion is that if you don't have a clue, and aren't willing to do the research to inform yourself, then you are doing the organization a favor by not voting. Nominations are in October, information trickles out over the next several months unless a candidate is active, and the burden is primarily on the voter to gather information. I can't blame some folks for not having the time during the holidays.

I'd love it if participation was 100%, and everyone was casting informed votes. That's just not going to happen when the cost is $35/yr. and the vast majority will judge one event per year. I was more obligated than ever to take the time to gather information, since I've been pretty public about my lack of satisfaction with the way the current board has functioned. I owe that to the people I've been critical of, the teams that spend a lot of time and money, judges that do the same, and the organization as a whole. For me, all of this comes down to being personally responsible and accountable.

Did I cover it adequately?:redface:

Scottie
01-19-2011, 10:54 AM
El Jefe in 2012....

Just sayin...

Smokedelic
01-19-2011, 04:16 PM
Looks like the poll results finally made it up on the KCBS site.

http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=308

Gadragonfly
01-19-2011, 11:13 PM
I would hope if regioanl representation passed that they form a committee led by a single BOD member to figure out a system or maybe options to put before hte membership for a vote.


Here's an idea which is admittedly taken from another club I belong to but an idea that might work. These divisions are drawn up according to participation population and KCBS might not need as many divisions as this club has. Then, and this might be a little too radical :eusa_clap but, each of these divisions is given a certain number of directors based on the number of club members in those divisions. Each division is then divided into regions but that would possibly take this in a direction that would meet with a lot of resistance and I won't even go there. I will say though, that when I joined this club 28 years ago it was about the size of KCBS and now has almost 100,000 members.