KCBS Committees

[MilitantSquatter]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

Vinny, yes, being a chair of an assigned committee is required of all directors. It is without a doubt vital work, without which we get no new ideas to develop and if not utilized to its potential, it cuts out involvement from the membership because the committee is made up of members the director selects to join his or her committee.

Thanks Jeff... What I expected was the case.

Not specific to Paul Kirk...Is participation on ech committee primarily determined by " who knows who " ? Do they publish how many/who is on each committee, requirements/credentials etc. ?

For instance - Would a technology committee be best filled by putting out a call to all KCBS members that have strong IT skills and willingness to participate rather than just limiting it to those in a given geographic region that the BOD member may be aware of or given a referral from someone else ? Same logic for any other one (ex. marketing, education etc).

[Jeff_in_KC]

Vinny, at this point, I do not know if there are written guidelines for the chairman of each committtee and how they get assigned. I would like to know but I guess I don't need to know until we see what happens in January.

If elected, my plan for whatever committee I am assigned will be like this (unless I am required to do it differently) - I will look for people I know across the country, in every region, who are interested and sincerely wanting to help make a difference. I'll also look for a good cross-section of people who are involved in different aspects of KCBS, depending upon the committee. I'll look for people who have not served on KCBS committees before if at all possible (fresh ideas!) and NOT people who have name recognition. They will also need to be people who are willing to meet monthly (I'm assuming they do this via a conference call?) and to ensure there is not going to be a "No Report" shown in the minutes of board meetings for the committee.

[LindaM]

Just a clarification:

The President is the one who appoints the committee chairs. Typically once you are the chair of a committee you remain there for your entire term of office, unless there are circumstances that would cause a change. ie Marketing commiittee, - Troy was off the board, Steve was moved to marketing and Gene took over Membership. Your request may not play any role of the committee you are appointed to. Just do the best you can with the committee you have. Over the years I have made many recommendations and some have passed and some have been voted down. We just keep plugging along, listening to our members and making recommendations.

Hope this opens the eyes of everyone as to why and how things go right now.

[MilitantSquatter]

Thanks Linda

Can you share how members of a committee are typically recruited/selected by each chair or how many members maybe on each of them ?

[LindaM]

Members are recruited by each chair. My committee has members that are organizers, judges and cooks on it from TN to MA to OH. I also ask the opinions of others on some such as the survey on the KCBS website, and here on the BBQ Brethren the Organizers Forum. The rep committee has members from across the US but other than that I am not sure who has what members. Prior to being a board member I was on the technology committe, but board members are not typically on other board members committees. Oh and the number on the committee is totally up to the chair. It can only be the chair or it can be many.

[Plowboy]

A disclosure of committee members on the KCBS Website might be nice.

[Ford]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

They will also need to be people who are willing to meet monthly (I'm assuming they do this via a conference call?) and to ensure there is not going to be a "No Report" shown in the minutes of board meetings for the committee.

I've served on some committees over the years. Usually the chair will call individuals to talk about ideas and then start an email thread and we do reply all so that we can share ideas without having to be available for calls at specific times. I think sometimes a conference call would be a good idea.

Now something like rules committee is a different thing as they have an annual meting to discuss changes. However the committee can still meet by phone, email, etc during the year to start accumulating content for the next rules meeting. And of course the rules meeting is just a recommendation for the BOD to consider.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Plowboy

A disclosure of committee members on the KCBS Website might be nice.

I agree.


Linda, do the committee members have to file disclosures and/or conflict of interest affidavits?

[LindaM]

Originally Posted by Scottie

I agree.


Linda, do the committee members have to file disclosures and/or conflict of interest affidavits?

No only BOD members have to file those. By the way I was not referring to the rules committee- That I inhertited when Rod left, I am also Research and Development. I actually have no committee members on the rules committee. Prior to my request for discussion topics the only topics that were on the agenda were those that already came before the board for discussion. As you know we do not make rule changes during the year, we just clarify the existing rules. ie Pork. Now it is a topic for the meeting in January. Watching some of the other threads I would like someone to request discussion on the sculpting rule, however as chair I have the right to bring any topic up for discussion at the meeting.

[Jeff_in_KC]

Originally Posted by LindaM

As you know we do not make rule changes during the year, we just clarify the existing rules. ie Pork.

Wasn't there a weekend in September when parsley was illegal? I know that was a non-quorum vote so it wasn't "we" but still... what's your take on that?

[LindaM]

You are right I did not have a vote on that, however, if the health of the judges is at stake I think action needs to be taken. Since it was a little late in the day I think the call was ... well let's not go there. Requiring the cooks to wash the greens in clorox solution may have worked just as well. But still better safe than sorry. Jerry always tells the new CBJ's in his class we have never lost a judge from food poisoning at a contest. Let's keep it that way. The safeguards are there for a reason.

[Jeff_in_KC]

However, good research would have shown that all the tainted parsley had already been recovered prior to the weekend in question and the rule change would have been better made (if at all) during the previous contest weekend. I don't disagree with a "better safe than sorry" approach but... well, you know how I feel about this one, especially if you've read my Web site. You and everyone else should have been given a vote on this. I have yet to be shown in the by-laws where such a beast exists (an executive committee) that can take a legal vote without being a quorum. OK I'm hijacking Paul's thread so I'll quit. LOL!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by LindaM

You are right I did not have a vote on that, however, if the health of the judges is at stake I think action needs to be taken. Since it was a little late in the day I think the call was ... well let's not go there. Requiring the cooks to wash the greens in clorox solution may have worked just as well. But still better safe than sorry. Jerry always tells the new CBJ's in his class we have never lost a judge from food poisoning at a contest. Let's keep it that way. The safeguards are there for a reason.

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

However, good research would have shown that all the tainted parsley had already been recovered prior to the weekend in question and the rule change would have been better made (if at all) during the previous contest weekend. I don't disagree with a "better safe than sorry" approach but... well, you know how I feel about this one, especially if you've read my Web site. You and everyone else should have been given a vote on this. I have yet to be shown in the by-laws where such a beast exists (an executive committee) that can take a legal vote without being a quorum. OK I'm hijacking Paul's thread so I'll quit. LOL!

This one has bothered me since it happened. The first thing that should've been thought of was the integrity of the sanctioning body; nothing else. By making a mid season rule change they compromised their integrity. Integrity is consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcome. If there was that much concern then leave the Health issue to the Board of Health in that area. I'm sure there is contact between reps and BOH. They can inform the BOH of what they know and nothing more. If they make a suggestion they are again compromising integrity.

[Ford]

Originally Posted by Skip

The first thing that should've been thought of was the integrity of the sanctioning body; nothing else.

I have to disagree. A health issue is alwways #1. The options as I see it were no parsley or no contests. They made the right call

Originally Posted by Skip

If there was that much concern then leave the Health issue to the Board of Health in that area. I'm sure there is contact between reps and BOH. They can inform the BOH of what they know and nothing more. If they make a suggestion they are again compromising integrity.

Why do you think the BOD or HD as it's called here has any involvement with a contest? I've only been to a handful that had somebody come by to inspect temps, washing capacity, etc. If the cooks are not feeding the public then they don't normally get involved.

[ThomEmery]

I would love to serve on one of these committees