KCBS at it again!!

[Merl]

How quick you all are to jump to conclusions!

I see terms like "witch hunt" and "back stabbing" tossed around from folks who say they've not seen the petition in question and don't know who initiated it. It seems to me like a lot of people are getting all worked up over what amounts to gossip.

Since you signed the petition and talked to the author, if you would reveal the name of the author and the contents of the petition, then those whom you address your message too, could make the determination you ask for. The BOD is tonight, members do not have time to sit back while we use "groupspeak" to confuse the issues.

 

[Alexa RnQ]

How quick you all are to jump to conclusions!

I don't believe following the last entire drag-out of this issue even remotely qualifies as "quick".

As an advocate for transparency and expecting a higher ethical standard for the KCBS administration I would think Merl would understand why putting the issue to a vote of the full membership is the best way to put the question to rest once and for all.

A vote BY THE FULL MEMBERSHIP is NOT what is at issue here. An attempted action by the Board to thwart the voice of the membership as demonstrated IN ELECTION is at hand.

 

[Jorge]

I've kept my mouth shut on this, until now.

The last time this came up, I got involved a little. More than anything else, I was uncomfortable with the way the issue was brought up originally. It just plain looked bad for several reasons.

During that time, I can remember reading something from Merl that said he could understand if a friend/member had a concern about two members of the board being married (Merl please don't hesitate to correct me if that isn't accurate). While I'm not concerned about Merl and Carol, I may be concerned later if another couple were to be elected; based solely on their actions. I see the point.

The issue I seem to have now is one of transparency, or the lack of transparency. The last time this issue was raised I started a petition myself. Those that were asked to sign knew who was responsible for it, as did the KCBS board. I felt strongly enough about the issue to do it, so there was no reason to try to hide my identity. If the motive behind this current petition is pure, then there should be no reason for the author(s) to remain anonymous. Doing so, does nothing but raise doubt about their motive in my mind.

My .02

 

[Alexa RnQ]

Further for those who have let their membership lapse: Mine, too, is up for renewal. But a non-member is a non-vote, and the only leverage the membership HAS is through votes. The only tie to accountability, the only assertion of response to Board actions, is through votes.

 

[Podge]

I usually stay out of these KCBS politics, but I will say this.. what ever these issues are, they did not affect my contests I've went to the past few years, and I don't anticipate they will in the coming years.

I believe that No One, and no group of people want to ruin KCBS that are on the BoD or that are running for the BoD. I have faith that KCBS will end up doing what is best to grow and be productive.

 

[jminion]

How quick you all are to jump to conclusions!

I see terms like "witch hunt" and "back stabbing" tossed around from folks who say they've not seen the petition in question and don't know who initiated it. It seems to me like a lot of people are getting all worked up over what amounts to gossip.

As for me, I choose to reserve judgment until I've examined the facts rather than react to rumors. Certainly it's possible that the petition I signed was started by someone with a hidden agenda, but that's not the way it was presented to me. If that was the case then I might regret that motivation, but the basic concept behind the suggested rule change is still sound. As an advocate for transparency and expecting a higher ethical standard for the KCBS administration I would think Merl would understand why putting the issue to a vote of the full membership is the best way to put the question to rest once and for all.

Sir
Your position is dishonest at best. You signed the petition and then tell us that we are getting worked up over gossip. Well cure that for us. What did it say and who started it?

This was brought up last year and membership expressed their feelings by giving Carol Whitebook more votes than any other candidate. Now we have the same group that raised the question last year doing it again in the form of a petition and taking it out of the hands of the members and putting it in the hands of the Board.

This a southern thing, that is where the petition came from, it is where the question came from last year and where the petition was circulated this year.

To say this isn't about Merl is dishonest but I guess if you repeat enough times you will be able to believe it.

 

[Bentley]

My letter:

I urge you to not only vote this down but to explain to the membership the reason why this is an issue and why it was brought up again this year.

If they do not, it will be brought up again.

I too have chosen not to renew my membership at this time so I will not be able to vote.

Further for those who have let their membership lapse: Mine, too, is up for renewal. But a non-member is a non-vote, and the only leverage the membership HAS is through votes.

Neither will I. I will not financially help a Society that I believe is moving in the wrong direction.

 

[bbqczar]

Sir
Your position is dishonest at best. You signed the petition and then tell us that we are getting worked up over gossip. Well cure that for us. What did it say and who started it?

This was brought up last year and membership expressed their feelings by giving Carol Whitebook more votes than any other candidate. Now we have the same group that raised the question last year doing it again in the form of a petition and taking it out of the hands of the members and putting it in the hands of the Board.

This a southern thing, that is where the petition came from, it is where the question came from last year and where the petition was circulated this year.

To say this isn't about Merl is dishonest but I guess if you repeat enough times you will be able to believe it.

Well said Jim ! This is a good old southwern witch hunt,nothing more,nothing less !

 

[stlgreg]

Total replacement

2 from Midwest, 2 from NorthEast, 2 From South, 2 from West, 1 from Cali, 1 from Florida, one from Texas (since they think KCBS is bunkus)

I was thinking something like this

Create 9 regions and elect one from each region. Something like this:

• West
• Rocky Mountains
• Southwest
• Plains
• Upper Midwest
• Lower Midwest
• Southeast
• South
• Northeast

We can argue on how to define regions later. Perhaps taking a map of current KCBS members and dividing it up equally (would we have a Kansas and a Missouri region then? - dont know). Anyway, we have three more spots left to be wild cards.

Since we elect 4 BOD members each year, then the first year we elect one BOD member from three different regions plus one Wildcard. The wildcard can be from anywhere can be related to anyone.

We also need to decide what to do if no one from a region wants to run.
We have to decide which regions are up for vote first.
Who decides what the regions are? When do the regions get redrawn?

Does everyone vote on each region or just the members of that region - the person will represent them afterall?

ETC

Hummm, never mind i like it the way it is - this is just to much of a headache and a lot less politics :-D:tongue::icon_bugeyed:twisted:

 

[Bossmanbbq]

Sir
Your position is dishonest at best. You signed the petition and then tell us that we are getting worked up over gossip. Well cure that for us. What did it say and who started it?

This was brought up last year and membership expressed their feelings by giving Carol Whitebook more votes than any other candidate. Now we have the same group that raised the question last year doing it again in the form of a petition and taking it out of the hands of the members and putting it in the hands of the Board.

This a southern thing, that is where the petition came from, it is where the question came from last year and where the petition was circulated this year.

To say this isn't about Merl is dishonest but I guess if you repeat enough times you will be able to believe it.

AMEN Jminion !!

So CivilwarBBQ, it’s ok for you to sign a petition and circulate it, but an entire different issue if others disagree with your motives and reasoning?

Our opinion and VOTE counts just as much as yours, I think you need to take that into consideration before posting a reply attempting to show the rest of us as being uninformed. Sounds like we all pretty much know what is trying to be done here, the only question is WHO and WHY, other then a personal agenda.

 

[timzcardz]

How quick you all are to jump to conclusions!

I see terms like "witch hunt" and "back stabbing" tossed around from folks who say they've not seen the petition in question and don't know who initiated it. It seems to me like a lot of people are getting all worked up over what amounts to gossip.

As for me, I choose to reserve judgment until I've examined the facts rather than react to rumors. Certainly it's possible that the petition I signed was started by someone with a hidden agenda, but that's not the way it was presented to me. If that was the case then I might regret that motivation, but the basic concept behind the suggested rule change is still sound. As an advocate for transparency and expecting a higher ethical standard for the KCBS administration I would think Merl would understand why putting the issue to a vote of the full membership is the best way to put the question to rest once and for all.

That issue is currently put to a vote by the full membership every election, without encumbering future electorates with the current electorates decision.

The membership is fully capable of evaluting the potential for conflict or control of the board, and will cast their vote accordingly at each and every election.

What you are suggesting is that the full membership should decide the future of what they can't be trusted to decide for themselves! That makes no sense at all.

 

[jminion]

The problem is Civilwarbbq did understand that this not going in front of the membership it will go infront of the Board and they will decide what choices the membership will have. If the Board decides that the membership is not wise enough or they did not like the outcome of last years vote them they can amend the by-laws as they see fit.

 

[Gowan]

No.

Jim, you don't know me, so please don't presume to make statements about what I think or what my motivations are. You simply don't know what you are talking about.

For some reason I seem to have become a target for those who are carrying the "witch hunt" banner, so let me set the record straight by laying out the FACTS and put an end to this ridiculous cycle of people making posts where they lay out their own imaginative speculations about me.

I have never created any petition regarding KCBS.

I have never distributed, circulated or asked anyone to sign any petition regarding KCBS.

I am not a personal friend, colleague of or otherwise acquainted with the person who asked me to sign the petition. I believe he was a KCBS Rep that I had met once before but truth be told I don't even remember his name; I was at the Jack, I had other things to think about.

I don't know who the creator of this petition is.

I believe this talk of a "Southern Conspiracy" is silly. As an organizer, cook and judge I am very involved with KCBS contests in Georgia. Yes, many folks I talk to would like to see more regional representation for ALL areas of the country and make our Society less Kansas City-centric. No, there is no organized attempt to somehow undermine the KCBS BoD that I am aware of.

Frankly I am disappointed to see the direction this discussion has taken. I came here originally seeking information about Spicewine cookers and have attempted to give back by being a contributor with my posts. I never expected to end up on the defensive over what appears to be somebody else's personal political drama just for voicing my own opinion on a business question.

I've tried to be clear and honest with all of my posts on this issue, so if you still aren't certain where I stand go back and re-read my earlier posts. Believe what you will, I'm not going to put any more energy into this dialog. I've got a barbecue restaurant to worry about.

-GF

 

[Bentley]

If the Board decides that the membership is not wise enough or they did not like the outcome of last years vote them they can amend the by-laws as they see fit.

Then if I was a member...I would make Dang sure the BoD did not have that Farken power!

 

[Jorge]

Then if I was a member...I would make Dang sure the BoD did not have that Farken power!

All you have to do is mail in your $35.

 

[Bentley]

All you have to do is mail in your $35.

Or not...

 

[Jorge]

Or not...

Then you have zero opportunity to fix the perceived defects you complain about.

My .02

 

[Bentley]

Then you have zero opportunity to fix the perceived defects you complain about.

My .02

That is correct. The exact same as when I was a member! Read some of my other posts, at no time did KCBS ever acknowledge even one of my contacts with them. I can get that same level of service as a non-member, would you not agree?

 

[Rookie'48]

These two answers came in before 8:00 am today. That makes four replies to me from the board, counting the ones from Troy & Merl.


Dave,

Thank you for your response. I believe the membership has the RIGHT to vote for any candidate they feel will represent the organization best. I also believe this issue was addressed last year during the election by the overwhelming majority that Carol won by. Hopefully this issue will be resolved once and for all tomorrow night.

Best in BBQ<
Linda Mullane

Dave,

Thank you for writing the board of directors for the Kansas City Barbecue Society. The issue at hand, specifically the proposal to create a nepotism policy for the KCBS directors is a serious matter. This matter was submitted by a member in good standing and requests that the board discuss and decide it on it in our Wednesday meeting. It appears that membership is polarized, either strongly for it or strongly against it. Be assured that I have read your letter and understand your concern. I believe this issue has merit and will consider your comments when making my decision in the board room.

I appreciate your time in contacting me. As one of the twelve members of the KCBS board, please let me know if I can answer any questions or help in any way.


Sincerely,


Rod Gray
Vice President/Director
Kansas City Barbecue Society
On Nov 11, 2008, at 8:13 PM, Dave C. wrote:

I hear that this subject is again before the board. I feel that we (the KCBS membership) already have a nepotism policy. It is called "The Ballot Box". Each & every candidate for any elective office, be it private, corporate or public, should be evaluated and voted for / against on their OWN merits. If some one feels that there should be no family members serving together, then that person can and proably should vote against any and all candidates that fall under the heading of family members.

Thank you,
Dave Compton
KCBS CBJ # 22569

​

 

[bbqczar]

Everytime I have e-mailed a board meber they have responded withing 48-72 hours,I can live with that kind of speed for a hobby !