Booking It
Knows what a fatty is.
It only took 30 seconds to vote. Please make your voice heard!
Good luck to all of the candidates!
Good luck to all of the candidates!
Pig Headed
Babbling Farker
A very painless process. Let's hope more members vote than last time.
bbq.tom
is Blowin Smoke!
Both my wife and I just voted.
That means that at least 3 JUDGES have voted!!! (Dave too!)
Would be interesting to see the percentages of judges that voted and percentages of cooks that voted. Of course if you both cook and judge that throws things off.
Please everyone VOTE!
That means that at least 3 JUDGES have voted!!! (Dave too!)
Would be interesting to see the percentages of judges that voted and percentages of cooks that voted. Of course if you both cook and judge that throws things off.
Please everyone VOTE!
Slamdunkpro
Babbling Farker
Agreed - +1
bover
is one Smokin' Farker
Agree completely. There's undoubtedly a story behind these two questions, but without being privy to those details I don't see how they can expect us to responsibly vote YES.
Jeff_in_KC
somebody shut me the fark up.
These are not aimed at any one individual. That individual is leaving the board. If my wife and I both served on the board, I could say "Honey, I'll do all of the laundry for the next month AND cook all of the dinners if you'll vote the way I want you to on an upcoming issue." Seems almost ridiculous but who's to say it wouldn't effect certain issues? As for the three years off, it gives other members the opportunity to contribute with fresh ideas and energy. Everyone wants term limits in Congress - why not KCBS? Do we not have a very clear picture now of what can happen when people become attached to their board seat and have moss grow all over them?
Fat Freddy
is Blowin Smoke!
I voted!!! This was the less stressful voting I will have to do between today and tomorrow. Gotta love Iowa at Caucus time.
White Dog BBQ
Full Fledged Farker
Jeff,
I'll take your position on this at face value. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest this ballot question isn't about Merl, considering this whole push to keep related parties off the Board started when Carol ran.
And your justification that this is necessary to prevent some sort of domestic horse-trading is silly considering the tens of thousands of married couples who somehow find a way to work together on boards and in professional environments without basing their decisions on who took the trash out the night before.
I can at least understand a policy basis for spacing out Board terms, although I personally tend to look down upon term limits because it ends up putting too much power in the hands of the entrenched bureaucracy. But I see no such basis for married couples. Yes, it is possible that you could have a married couple that votes in lockstep or where one spouse just follows the other's lead. But there are many that don't, just as there are many "independent" board members that follow someone else's lead. Seems like a tenuous basis for crafting policy.
I'll say it again -- trust the membership, give them the tools to make decisions, and let them judge who should and should not be on the Board. If you don't trust a married couple on the Board, then don't vote for them. But don't limit my choice because you don't trust me to vote the right way.
Erik
timzcardz
Babbling Farker
Just voted the Brethren party line. Good Luck guys.
Now . . .
I hope one of you can write in English!
Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.
With any currently Director?
This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.
And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.
I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.
Now . . .
I hope one of you can write in English!
Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.
With any currently Director?
This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.
And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.
I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.
Jeff_in_KC
somebody shut me the fark up.
I saw the currently thing and hoped it was just a typo here and that if and when it passes, they'll notice it and make the correction. You're definitely correct that technically it would prevent someone from running even if by installing new board members, you'd be removing the spouse of the newly elected board member. Maybe that was intentional? Don't know. Would like to hear Candy explain it.
timzcardz
Babbling Farker
Jeff,
I don't think that the board should be permitted to "notice it and make the correction." The time for that would be before it is voted on.
The vote is on the verbiage as presented. Otherwise, what is the point of the vote? Change a word here, change a word there, what's the difference?
Oh yeah, after the vote they just noticed that the word "not" was a typo and wasn't supposed to be in there. :wink:
I retain legal counsel for my business, but don't write my own contracts for this very reason:wink: I can go to him and tell him what I need accomplished, but that's as far down that path as I go. I'll address the other issue below.
I understand your point. When the issue came up several years ago, I agree that it appeared that it could be aimed at two people and I opposed it for that very reason. Evidence of that is on this forum. I support the intent of the proposed change to the bylaws, and in a private conversation with Merl I explained my reasoning to him.
I support the intent of the current proposed change, because I think it benefits KCBS over time. The membership indicated that they'd like regional representation last year. That becomes more difficult with two members in the same household serving concurrent terms. I'm also taking into account the current process used in the event that a seat on the board becomes vacant. That process is to wait until the next annual election.
I think it's reasonable to assume that two individuals sharing the same address will either be married, or in some form of a long term committed relationship:wink: I also think that it's reasonable to assume that any two people living at the same physical address would travel together more often than two members that weren't. In the event of some tragic event, such as a plane crash, traffic accident, house fire, etc. the board is faced with potentially having two vacant seats until the next election. We are faced with similar options in the event of some serious health issues. If one member of a household becomes seriously ill, I think that it's reasonable to believe that KCBS could effectively lose two members of the board if the second needed to focus on the needs of a spouse etc. How does that serve the board, or the membership?
I've had this conversation with Merl, and I'm confident that if asked he'd tell you that he does not believe that I'm targeting him, or Carol. He may not agree with my opinion but I'm comfortable that he understands it, and my reasoning behind it.
I think the way this has been done, excluding the way the proposed change is worded, is a step forward. Membership has been presented with a proposed change to either approve or reject. It is up to the membership. In contrast, in the last election the membership was asked whether or not they supported regional representation. They said 'YES', and the board is still wrestling with how to accomplish that and I'm willing to bet that whatever plan they roll out will draw the ire of a fair percentage of members when it's time to vote.
The last 990 available indicates that KCBS had $700k in assets. I expect the next 990 to show that KCBS is, or soon will be, worth $1 Million+. If growth continues that number can be expected to grow. With that in mind, I believe that there are many things that need to be looked at with long term growth being the primary focus. The infrastructure that is currently in place is not suited to deal with the issues that KCBS will face in the future. We need to make changes to deal with tomorrow, rather than what happened yesterday.
Candy Sue
is one Smokin' Farker
When an organization gets to be 15,000 members strong, encouraging diversity on the board of directors is a very good thing. Look at the passion many of us have for competitive BBQ, it's good to have people who care in control. It is bad when the same people do the same thing over and over. That's why there's "no reports" from committees and things don't change. New blood, new ideas, new directors on the board is imperative for continued growth and hopefully positive changes. One year laying off the board is not long enough for a director to come back to a new situation. A 3 year lay off will mean that board composition has significantly changed over time.
The related parties issue is diversity related as well. Many of you know that I was the only "newbie" on the board in 2010. I can tell you that many times I didn't know who was sending e-mails. It was terribly confusing and I asked at least once, to whom am I writing. One board member with a specific assignment should not be able to read or respond for another board member with another assignment. This change to the bylaw is a practical one in my opinion.
"Currently" was pointed out as an error at the last board meeting. Should have been fixed and obviously slipped through the cracks.
The related parties issue is diversity related as well. Many of you know that I was the only "newbie" on the board in 2010. I can tell you that many times I didn't know who was sending e-mails. It was terribly confusing and I asked at least once, to whom am I writing. One board member with a specific assignment should not be able to read or respond for another board member with another assignment. This change to the bylaw is a practical one in my opinion.
"Currently" was pointed out as an error at the last board meeting. Should have been fixed and obviously slipped through the cracks.
Arlin_MacRae
somebody shut me the fark up.
We done voted.
Come on you cooks, judges (or both) and lurkers - spend five minutes and make the BoD a body which truly represents what YOU want from the society!
Come on you cooks, judges (or both) and lurkers - spend five minutes and make the BoD a body which truly represents what YOU want from the society!
lcbateman3
is Blowin Smoke!
Voted!
Smoke'n Ice
is one Smokin' Farker
Voted twice (found a loop hole) the bro's and no/yes. I find that the requirement for the same address BS may be found discrimatory. Communes and military reservist called to active duty are just a couple of example that comes to mind.
White Dog BBQ
Full Fledged Farker
George, thank you for the thoughtful response. I don't agree with your position but it is clear you have given this some serious consideration. And to be fair, I did not consider the vacancy issue. Your point hasn't changed my mind, but I can certainly see where you are coming from.
Erik
Erik
Rich Parker
Babbling Farker
You are proud of that? :tsk:
Rich, knowing Mack, I suspect he's talking about the family membership he and Sharon probably have:becky:
Similar threads
