KCBS Vote

White Dog BBQ said:

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

Click to expand...

I appreciate that, as well as your position. I shared it for a long time, and had a hard time moving past my fundamental reluctance to have my choices narrowed for me.

I appreciate your getting involved in the process and sharing your thoughts and reasoning even more. Whether I agree with your or not, you presented a well thought out argument that others can think about before voting and making a choice.

At the end of the day I'm more concerned about members participating and making informed choices than I am about winning or losing. If membership becomes more active and involved in the process I think we all stand to benefit.

Rich Parker said:

You are proud of that? :tsk:

Click to expand...

Well, I did live in Chicago once. :shocked:

Doesn't everone have a family membership which allows two votes from the same address, Or are we voting that out also?:roll:

Please understand I am just being a devil’s advocate. I have no legal training, but question the legality of the same address ban. If the husband were to file for the board and then the wife were to file at a later date, we would prevent the one from running in favor of the other. Aren’t there a few Supreme Court rulings against this? Vice Versa would be reverse discrimination would it not? And a mixed marriage would be even worse. Just wondering?
If a hot shot attorney filed a law suit against McDonalds because his client spilled hot coffee in her lap at the drive thru and won a million dollars then what prevents the filing against KCBS for discrimination? Maybe someone on the board asked the attorneys this but I would probably think not because of the method of operations and the sloppy verbiage being used.

Smoke'n Ice said:

If a hot shot attorney filed a law suit against McDonalds because his client spilled hot coffee in her lap at the drive thru and won a million dollars then what prevents the filing against KCBS for discrimination?

Click to expand...

I've stayed out of the same address discussion. I don't think I have much to add to it one way or the other except my opinoin. That said though, the case you mention above is often quoted, and usually incorrectly. The abbreviated facts are that she was in the passenger seat of a parked car when the coffee spilled, and received full thickness burns in her groin as a result. She had to have skin grafts and two years of rehab for it. All she wanted was her medical bills and lost wages covered, and McDonald's refused, even though they had paid previous burn victims. In court it was found that McDonald's serves coffee too hot so that it will cool down in the car. It's about the temp of a pork butt just coming off the smoker. Stick the inside of one of those in your crotch (or even your mouth) and tell me what you think is fair. It should be about the temp of a medium rare steak. The actual award, after adjustment by the judge, was was about 2/3 of a million, but 3/4 of that was punitive. Had they paid the $20,000 she originally asked for to cover her medical bills, it would have gone much differently.

dmp

I voted yesterday afternoon.
I hope the majority of members excercise their right to vote also.

timzcardz said:

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:

Click to expand...

So we need another election to clarify a typo on a previous election? We all know it's just the improper form of that word. We'd all also know if they tried to take out the "not".

Jeff_in_KC said:

So we need another election to clarify a typo on a previous election? We all know it's just the improper form of that word. We'd all also know if they tried to take out the "not".

Click to expand...

Tim's point is that if the verbiage is changed, it isn't what the membership voted on. I agree with him.

We don't want to get into the game of a handful of people deciding what membership 'thought' they were voting for or against after the fact.

In all honesty I'm not sure what the right move is at this point. I don't know what legal ramifications exist if it's removed from the ballot. I don't believe that we can change the wording after the election if it passes.

This is why KCBS retains counsel, and yesterday would be a good time to make a call.

Edit: If my memory is accurate, I believe that the deal KCBS has with the online election firm allows for an additional election during the year. If that is the case, the reasonable solution in my mind is to allow the membership to vote on a properly phrased change to the bylaws. It's not a perfect solution, and I don't think the voter turnout will be as representative of membership as the current election...but I'd prefer that to jacking around with verbiage after the fact.

my votes are in. go chiefs. oh...never mind. keith

How about America's Team? Well, maybe next year, if Jerry will quit coaching?:redface:

voted. and voted hard 4 times!

also NO and NO, even before i saw this debacle. i mean really, do my dues, or portion thereof pay an attorney? if so, i want my 2 cents back.