New Survey

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

Whomever created the new survey is either a moderately clever supporter of splitting the county into regions or completely clueless how to write a "fair" survey. Seriously, employ some one with some real analytical skills.

I opted to not answer the biased questions, just add 1 to the no regions vote.

 

[Rich Parker]

I think regionalization is vital to the continued growth of the organization. I listen to the BoD meetings and when there is discussion on sanctioning or other items in areas outside of the board members area they all seem stunned and then use a team count in the area that hardly seems accurate. It would be great if there were board members from these areas that can explain to the rest of the board how these decisions impact there areas.

 

[bover]

Whomever created the new survey is either a moderately clever supporter of splitting the county into regions or completely clueless how to write a "fair" survey. Seriously, employee some one with some real analytical skills.

I opted to not answer the biased questions, just add 1 to the no regions vote.

I agree. This survey was horribly written. If you are opposed to regional representation, there's no fair way to complete the survey. If there are any BoD members reading this post, please consider rescinding this survey and put a new one out that removes all of the method questions if the survey taker answers 'No' to question #1.

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

I would suggest sending an email out to all board members. Remember, there aren't many who read the forums... unfortunately.

 

[Funtimebbq]

There is no reason for this survey in the first place because the membership voted for regional representation a couple of years ago with over 2/3's voting in favor. That BTW was the same year the membership voted against allowing relatives to serve on the BOD at the same time. Why was one implemented and the other not? Of course, when the majority of the BOD are centralized, implementing what the majority of members want would them put several of them out of their positions. While I am in favor of regional representation, I'm practical enough to know, it will not happen except by electing candidates who are in favor of it to begin with. That has not been the case since the vote was taken a few years back.

Let's hope I'm proven wrong.

 

[Diva]

I can only answer #4.

 

[Candy Sue]

There is no reason for this survey in the first place because the membership voted for regional representation a couple of years ago with over 2/3's voting in favor. That BTW was the same year the membership voted against allowing relatives to serve on the BOD at the same time. Why was one implemented and the other not? Of course, when the majority of the BOD are centralized, implementing what the majority of members want would them put several of them out of their positions. While I am in favor of regional representation, I'm practical enough to know, it will not happen except by electing candidates who are in favor of it to begin with. That has not been the case since the vote was taken a few years back.

Let's hope I'm proven wrong.

Well, you are under a misconception. There was a member concensus in the January election several years ago that covered those two items. It was fairly easy to get the "no related parties" issue addressed in the bylaws (which was approved by the membership). The board deadlocked on the regional representation issue, which is why no bylaw amendment happened and regional representation doesn't happen now. The survey is supposed to give the board direction in what the membership thinks now (since it's been almost 3 years since the member concensus) and hopefully provide a way out of deadlock. Frankly, the survey should have let you answer "no" to question one and submit without having to answer all of the questions. I have doubts as to the quality of information gathered based on that problem. Board has limited time to formulate a regional rep plan and get a bylaw amendment on the ballot in January.

Don't you want to run for the board? KCBS needs good directors! Please consider tossing your name on the ballot!

"""These are my words only and don't take them to mean anything on behalf of KCBS"""

 

[ModelMaker]

While I agree the survey was poorly set up so you could not interact with the questions if you chose no to #1. I tried to manuver through it and just gave up.While I think regional representation is a good idea ,in all practicality there is not nearly enough qualified, interested, volunteers in any specific region to get nominations needed to have quality people in place.And then there is voting, of course members in each zone should vote only in their zone.How can regionality be effective if I vote for someone on the left coast and I live in the midwest?I think what we have now is working for the most part. However it doesn't hurt to visit different thoughts once in a while.Ed

 

[Funtimebbq]

I for one am interested and feel I'm qualified. However, I do not feel I could earn a seat in a national election. I am not alone in this thinking and regional elections will bring out highly qualified (more so than I) who are not well know enough to stand for election nationally (or internationally, sorry for not including our friends overseas).

I will be happy to serve on any committee that would have me.

It is a shame the survey is flawed by not allowing one to complete the survey without answering every question. But having it that way does allow those who do not want regional elections to use the flaw as an excuse to delay the process further.

 

[Hawg Father of Seoul]

It is a shame the survey is flawed by not allowing one to complete the survey without answering every question. But having it that way does allow those who do not want regional elections to use the flaw as an excuse to delay the process further.

That must be California logic. Thought about running for Congress?

 

[Funtimebbq]

Yes, several years ago. I didn't have the money and I don't ask for handouts.

 

[Candy Sue]

Don't take money to run for the board of KCBS -- just takes the heart and the will to give back to KCBS! I've voted for folks I didn't know, based on how they answer the questions posed to every candidate. Thru those answers you can see who really keeps up with what's going on at KCBS and on the prior years' boards, if they are active in one way or another with KCBS. I believe it is a good standard to judge potential directors and every candidate is on the same set of standards. Not every candidate can be Mike Peters, who lives barbeque on the Great American BBQ Tour, or Candy Weaver, who has given pellets away regularly for years. BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO BE to get elected.

In the 4 years I've been on the board, there has been a mix of life skills, geographical areas, KCBS experiences (when I got on the board in 2010, it was mostly reps) and personalities. Serving KCBS has been a mostly good experience, sometimes really frustrating, I'm proud to have had the experience.

There's 4 days left to get your name on the ballot! Please think about it. If you heart leads you to give back to KCBS by serving as a director, please do! If you are embarrassed to nominate yourself (but you shouldn't be), PM me. I'll do it.

This is my opinion and thoughts only! It doesn't reflect anything beyond my opinion.

 

[swamprb]

I didn't dwell on the survey questions because they will not really affect how I compete, since KCBS events in Pacific Northwest BBQ Association-land are poorly represented or non existent.
Not knocking it, and I would love to see regional representation, but I've seen it happen over and over around here the last couple years where some event organizer$ are lured into the notion that their $how will be a $ucce$$ with KCBS's world class sanctioning:
A sanctioned contest offers the organizer:
(1) Integrity,
(2) Experience,
(3) A built in base of cookers and judges, and
(4) A support system of other organizers and members.

How can you seriously promote events in areas where KCBS isn't even a force?

Big money isn't really a big factor around here, but communication is. (Sam's Club being the exception)
KCBS needs to do a better job at hipping the organizers to advertising or promoting the events where the "built in base of cookers and judges" reside and go to for their information, not the Bullsheet or Facebook, but the PNWBA site. Its a sad day when a 2nd year KCBS event can only draw 12 teams and not even have 2 full tables of 100% CBJ's!

The California BBQ Association seems to do a great job of promoting all kinds of events on the West Coast through their forum, but PNWBA is also a sanctioning organization and in our corner of the country (let us not forget Western Canada as well) KCBS could use some help.

...just sayin'

 

[Scottie]

Sad part is I don't have a clue what KCBS survey this is about. Did they send out an email?

 

[bbq.tom]

Sad part is I don't have a clue what KCBS survey this is about. Did they send out an email?

YES. October 22, 2013 at 11:53 AM.

 

[Scottie]

Amazi g I did t get an email. I get every other email blast that MMA sends out, but not for an actual member survey? WTF? Maybe they dont let lifetime members vote?

 

[Slamdunkpro]

Amazi g I did t get an email. I get every other email blast that MMA sends out, but not for an actual member survey? WTF? Maybe they dont let lifetime members vote?

It's like the airlines - life members are considered "Nonrev"