The BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS.

The BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS. (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/index.php)
-   For the Board (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=51)
-   -   Agenda posted for 8/11 meeting (http://www.bbq-brethren.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90173)

Ford 08-10-2010 11:24 AM

Agenda posted for 8/11 meeting
 
http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=269

What the fark is going on with invoicing????

And what is all this,
Motion 1. That two members be reinstated as contest reps.
Motion 2. That two members be reinstated as Certified Barbeque Judge instructors

Motion 3. That one member be reinstated as a member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Barbeque Society.


Motion 6:
A motion to ratify a statement by the Officers of KCBS.
No member of the Board of Directors or Committee Chairperson has the right the make policy, to enter into agreements on behalf of KCBS, to give consent to action, to engage or discharge employees or contract laborers on behalf of KCBS, or take other action which would bind or obligate KCBS without the explicit consent of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Barbeque Society

And nepotism again.

Submitted by Candy Weaver, August 8, 2010
MOTION: "No related person of a currently serving director may run for a
position as director or serve as an appointed director while the
current related director is serving their elected term as a board
member. Related persons are considered immediate family
members, spouses or life partners sharing a physical address."
To be added to the Bylaws at Section IV, paragraph 3. Propose adding this as a
member-decided option to add to the Bylaws in the January election

Jorge 08-10-2010 12:19 PM

That's going to be a loooooong meeting.

crd26a 08-10-2010 01:16 PM

Missed a couple key points, revisiting the pork rule YET again, and of course

Education Committee Paul Kirk No Report
2010 - 25th Banquet and Annual Meeting Committee Paul Kirk No Report

Diva 08-10-2010 01:59 PM

Quote:

New Ideas Committee Merl Whitebook


A. Motion for reinstatement of two members of KCBS.
Motion 1. That two members be reinstated as contest reps.
Motion 2. That two members be reinstated as Certified Barbeque Judge instructors

Motion 3. That one member be reinstated as a member of the Board of Directors of Kansas City Barbeque Society.

How is this a New Idea, they voted unanimously to oust them.

tmcmaster 08-10-2010 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorge (Post 1364604)
That's going to be a loooooong meeting.

and yet, I will still be looking forward to it... :boxing:

Smoke'n Ice 08-10-2010 03:00 PM

Reading between the lines opens up a lot of questions. I would hope that someone on the board can answer them.
1. What was the real reason for the cancellation of New Orleans? Looking at the web site in NO does not show ANY OTHER cancellations and the supposed sponsor is still very involved.
2. If the documents requested of Candy & Tana were truly given to the office why did Mike Lake have to appoint a committee to look into the absence of compliance.
3. Is there more to the Linda M. story?
4. Who at Sam's is involved with the upcoming cookoff? I have seen nothing at my local Sam's nor on their web site other than KCBS.
5. Is the KCBS board now in competition with organizers, et. al.
6. Why was Sam's money given to only one organizer?
7. Having the membership vote on a bylaw change opens up a precedence as the BOD is the only authorized body that can change them. If, in the future someone does not like what the board did, they could take it to court based on this. IS THE BOD willing to chance this?

There are more, but I am beginning to think that the disorganized group of rabble rousers that we have for a board couldn't handle it. I suspect the NO REPORT is a darn good defence.

Mack

motoeric 08-10-2010 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford (Post 1364547)
http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=26
And nepotism again.

Submitted by Candy Weaver, August 8, 2010
MOTION: "No related person of a currently serving director may run for a
position as director or serve as an appointed director while the
current related director is serving their elected term as a board
member. Related persons are considered immediate family
members, spouses or life partners sharing a physical address."
To be added to the Bylaws at Section IV, paragraph 3. Propose adding this as a
member-decided option to add to the Bylaws in the January election

Wow, I'm really happy to see that this issue is FINALLY being addressed. I mean, it's about time. How has the board not looked at this issue in the past?

Thankfully, the board has taken the courageous stance of looking into protecting the membership from itself as the members clearly don't know who they should or should not be voting for.

Very refreshing. Certainly not beating a dead horse.

Eric

Ford 08-10-2010 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smoke'n Ice (Post 1364788)
Reading between the lines opens up a lot of questions. I would hope that someone on the board can answer them.
1. What was the real reason for the cancellation of New Orleans? Looking at the web site in NO does not show ANY OTHER cancellations and the supposed sponsor is still very involved.
2. If the documents requested of Candy & Tana were truly given to the office why did Mike Lake have to appoint a committee to look into the absence of compliance.
3. Is there more to the Linda M. story?
4. Who at Sam's is involved with the upcoming cookoff? I have seen nothing at my local Sam's nor on their web site other than KCBS.
5. Is the KCBS board now in competition with organizers, et. al.
6. Why was Sam's money given to only one organizer?
7. Having the membership vote on a bylaw change opens up a precedence as the BOD is the only authorized body that can change them. If, in the future someone does not like what the board did, they could take it to court based on this. IS THE BOD willing to chance this?

There are more, but I am beginning to think that the disorganized group of rabble rousers that we have for a board couldn't handle it. I suspect the NO REPORT is a darn good defence.

Mack

You actually want people to tell members what is going on?:crazy::tape: We the members don't need to know.

For the record I'd love to hear the answers to these questions. And the BOD should have access to everything that BOD members are doing and all should be discloded. They work for us!

Smokedelic 08-10-2010 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva (Post 1364732)


How is this a New Idea, they voted unanimously to oust them.

Them who?

So wouldn't reinstating "them" be a new idea? If they were voting to oust "them" again, it wouldn't be a new idea.

It's certainly a much newer idea than flogging the nepotism issue once again.

White Dog BBQ 08-10-2010 09:30 PM

Wow, it's been no secret that the BoD is dysfunctional. But I think this agenda shows the Board has moved up to REALLY FARKIN' DYSFUNCTIONAL.

I hate to be critical, but it looks like things are an absolute mess.

Jorge 08-11-2010 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ford (Post 1364547)
http://www.kcbs.us/news.php?id=269

And nepotism again.

Submitted by Candy Weaver, August 8, 2010
MOTION: "No related person of a currently serving director may run for a
position as director or serve as an appointed director while the
current related director is serving their elected term as a board
member. Related persons are considered immediate family
members, spouses or life partners sharing a physical address."
To be added to the Bylaws at Section IV, paragraph 3. Propose adding this as a
member-decided option to add to the Bylaws in the January election

I slept on this one last night.

The last two times it came up, I opposed it. It was clearly, in my opinion, aimed at Merl and/or Carol at that time. Unless I'm mistaken Carol stated that she didn't intend to run for an additional term and if reelected Merl would have been required to sit out the following cycle. Well, Merl is going to have to sit an election out after his current term expires and Carol isn't going to run again unless things have changed.

While I opposed this previously, I can support it now because the circumstances are different. If approved it's not going to prevent Merl or Carol from running in the future if some other related person isn't serving on the BoD at the same time.

If KCBS wants to grow, it needs a diversified and representative BoD. I appreciate the service that Merl and Carol have given to KCBS, but as a member I can't assume that the next potential couple, or some other prohibited relationship as proposed, will provide the same service.

KCBS is going through a period of growth that has the potential to take the organization to the next level. I think it's time to take some of the needed steps to run the organization like a business with the money that is in play.

My .02

Smokedelic 08-11-2010 02:18 PM

So if you're really looking for diversification and representation, how does excluding related persons from serving at the same time accomplish that, in your opinion? If you really want diversification and representation wouldn't mandating regional representation from all parts of the country be a better way to accomplish this?

Why have 2 or 3 board members from a particular state or region? Why not divide the membership base into 10 regions and elect one board member from each region, with an "at-large" board member....as an example?

The timing of this motion smacks of retaliation, and has nothing to do with diversification or representation. If having related persons serving on the board together were really an issue, KCBS wouldn't be where it is today.

motoeric 08-11-2010 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jorge (Post 1365732)
If KCBS wants to grow, it needs a diversified and representative BoD. I appreciate the service that Merl and Carol have given to KCBS, but as a member I can't assume that the next potential couple, or some other prohibited relationship as proposed, will provide the same service.

I understand your reasoning, but I respectfully disagree.

1) There are no guarantees that of having a diversified board regardless of the implementation of this rule. I agree to a certain extent it would help force diversification to exclude family members, but then you have numerous other areas of concern for diversification that this wouldn't help at all. Look at the current voting blocks.

2) I am absolutely NOT in favor of limiting the ability of the membership to vote for who they think will represent them the best as a BoD member. Are there any voting members out there that did not think that Carol and Merle were at least related? They (the members) made their choice knowingly and I don't think that their choice should be hindered in the future.

3) This is setting a precedent for Board members where if they don't like the results of a vote that they should just continue to bring it up until it passes. Eventually, due to lethargy or shifting allegiances, it's going to pass. That's ridiculous and shouldn't be tolerated. This is the third time this has come up in recent memory. I admire persistence, but not when it is an attempt to circumvent the will of the members.

Eric

Ford 08-11-2010 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokedelic (Post 1365821)
Why have 2 or 3 board members from a particular state or region? Why not divide the membership base into 10 regions and elect one board member from each region, with an "at-large" board member....as an example?

Been proposed ever sine 2005 when I ran for the BOD. Main part of my platform but people didn't vote for me partly because of this suggestion. Wouldn't have mattered anyway as most of the BOD were against it and I bet still are today.

Jorge 08-11-2010 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokedelic (Post 1365821)
So if you're really looking for diversification and representation, how does excluding related persons from serving at the same time accomplish that, in your opinion? If you really want diversification and representation wouldn't mandating regional representation from all parts of the country be a better way to accomplish this?

Why have 2 or 3 board members from a particular state or region? Why not divide the membership base into 10 regions and elect one board member from each region, with an "at-large" board member....as an example?

The timing of this motion smacks of retaliation, and has nothing to do with diversification or representation. If having related persons serving on the board together were really an issue, KCBS wouldn't be where it is today.

If you can come up with a solution to represent all regions equally that will fly, I'd like to see it.

Two members of the BoD residing in the same home or closely related, doesn't advance that cause. Does it?

Where KCBS started, and where it is now are two different worlds. When it started it was a group of friends, and based on the attention and work of the founders it has grown into something larger.

At the time the last two motions similar to this were raised Merl was still eligible to run for a second consecutive term, and then it was raised again soon after. He's had six years in office at this point. At the time all of that was going on, I recall Carol stating that she didn't intend to run for an additional term.

I don't see this being aimed at them, but even if it is I think it's time to think beyond the immediate issue that you raise. KCBS has been served well in the past by couples that cared. There is no guarantee that will continue in the future. As KCBS continues to grow, I think it's prudent to make efforts to diversify the leadership to better serve the membership.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise v2.6.0 Beta 4 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2003 -2012 BBQ-Brethren Inc. All rights reserved. All Content and Flaming Pig Logo are registered and protected under U.S and International Copyright and Trademarks. Content Within this Website Is Property of BBQ Brethren Inc. Reproduction or alteration is strictly prohibited.