kcbs bod meeting

[BritToby]

Would be pretty unprofessional of me to give out details, but I will say they have seriously got their wires crossed and referred to items that I have never requested or suggested.

It really was very confusing, I replied immediately and had hoped to see something on the BOD agenda about it, i assume they require a board meeting before responding to me with a factually correct letter, but they seem to have missed their own deadline for posting this info up.

 

[Candy Sue]

Jeff, you must understand, the membership cannot change any thing relating to the bylaws. That authority was given to the BOD by a vote of the membership several ages ago. WE, THE MEMBERS, HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!

This is not correct. Last January's election wrote a change in the Bylaws that has members having ALL AUTHORITY in passing Bylaw changes. There are several important items regarding Bylaw changes in the upcoming election. The board does not change Bylaws, members do. Now, as far as how members make changes -- that's up in the air. My opinion is that the board cannot and should not ignore any member petition requesting any change. That was done in the past.

The board will shape proposals to change Bylaws for member vote, but that's all. One of the hot topics at tonight's board meeting is how to divide our membership up regionally for regional representatives on the board. This was generated from the members' concensus vote last January.

 

[bover]

One of the hot topics at tonight's board meeting is how to divide our membership up regionally for regional representatives on the board. This was generated from the members' concensus vote last January.

The vote was to require that some board members be elected by regions and not that the membership would be divided up, correct?


I would support the change in KCBS that would require some Board Members to be elected by regions
Yes - I support this statement receives 1935 votes, 74.68% of the total.
No - I do not support this statement receives 453 votes, 17.48% of the total.
Make no selection. receives 203 votes, 7.83% of the total.


And for what it's worth, I know what's done is done and can't be undone but I'm of the opinion that the wording on this particular poll question was a bit unfortunate. It seems to me that the spirit of the question was to gauge the membership's opinion on the need for regional representation on the board, but the way it was worded presumes that the solution to that representation is through direct board membership. If that is the solution that is ultimately put in place, it could potentially open a can of worms if someone is elected mainly due to their mailing address and not necessarily because of their qualifications. I believe a much better solution would be the formation of a committee made up of members from each region dedicated to gathering input and intel from their respective areas and injecting those findings in to all BoD decisions that are relevant. The wording of the question however eliminates this as a possibility and it appears that a decision was already made for a solution before the need was even confirmed.

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

If that is the solution that is ultimately put in place, it could potentially open a can of worms if someone is elected mainly due to their mailing address and not necessarily because of their qualifications. I believe a much better solution would be the formation of a committee made up of members from each region dedicated to gathering input and intel from their respective areas and injecting those findings in to all BoD decisions that are relevant. The wording of the question however eliminates this as a possibility and it appears that a decision was already made for a solution before the need was even confirmed.

Josh, that's my thought as well. Regional representation should be at the committee level. What happens if there is a region that is up for re-election and no one in the region wants it? Then what do we do? Leave the seat open? That would be ridiculous. Then what if we had a region where there was someone running unopposed and that person was a known nut job? So that person is automatically on the board? Electing someone because of where they're from rather than their qualifications makes zero sense and is, in fact, VERY dangerous!

 

[ThomEmery]

I would not agree with your thoughts there Jeff

 

[Candy Sue]

The vote was to require that some board members be elected by regions and not that the membership would be divided up, correct?


I would support the change in KCBS that would require some Board Members to be elected by regions
Yes - I support this statement receives 1935 votes, 74.68% of the total.
No - I do not support this statement receives 453 votes, 17.48% of the total.
Make no selection. receives 203 votes, 7.83% of the total.


And for what it's worth, I know what's done is done and can't be undone but I'm of the opinion that the wording on this particular poll question was a bit unfortunate. It seems to me that the spirit of the question was to gauge the membership's opinion on the need for regional representation on the board, but the way it was worded presumes that the solution to that representation is through direct board membership. If that is the solution that is ultimately put in place, it could potentially open a can of worms if someone is elected mainly due to their mailing address and not necessarily because of their qualifications. I believe a much better solution would be the formation of a committee made up of members from each region dedicated to gathering input and intel from their respective areas and injecting those findings in to all BoD decisions that are relevant. The wording of the question however eliminates this as a possibility and it appears that a decision was already made for a solution before the need was even confirmed.

I'd venture that you'll be voting NO for regional representation then. You've got to realize though that getting elected to the board now is a popularity contest not a process where qualifications are a major factor. Mostly reps get on because they interact with judges and cooks. That means they are more well known. Cooks generally just want to cook and (mostly) know better than serving on the board. Reps like to run things, that's what they do.

 

[boogiesnap]

Liking to do something and knowing how to do it are two totally separate things.

 

[vraczka]

Would be pretty unprofessional of me to give out details, but I will say they have seriously got their wires crossed and referred to items that I have never requested or suggested.

It really was very confusing, I replied immediately and had hoped to see something on the BOD agenda about it, i assume they require a board meeting before responding to me with a factually correct letter, but they seem to have missed their own deadline for posting this info up.

Thank you for the update and good luck.

 

[White Dog BBQ]

If that is the solution that is ultimately put in place, it could potentially open a can of worms if someone is elected mainly due to their mailing address and not necessarily because of their qualifications.

And what do you think is happening now? Candidates from the KC area sure seem to do a lot better than candidates from other parts of the country.

I think the fears about regional representation are misplaced. Does anyone really think any regional board seat would go unopposed? Look at the number of candidates running this year without regional representation. For regional representation, I bet you would bring out a lot more candidates, especially outside the Midwest, since they know they won't have to compete with the inherent advantage some candidates enjoy due to their geographic location.

I admire Steve and Jeff and will likely vote for them, but this idea of using a committee composed of people from different regions is an empty gesture. If you think it is easy to alienate a board member, imagine how much easier it is to ignore a committee. "No report", anyone?

Split the country in to 5 regions (Northeast, Southeast, Northern Midwest, Southern Midwest and Pacific) and have a regional rep from each, plus 4 at large seats. I'll feel a lot better knowing that there will always be at least one voice from my geographic area on the Board.

 

[Bunny]

I'd venture that you'll be voting NO for regional representation then. You've got to realize though that getting elected to the board now is a popularity contest not a process where qualifications are a major factor. Mostly reps get on because they interact with judges and cooks. That means they are more well known. Cooks generally just want to cook and (mostly) know better than serving on the board. Reps like to run things, that's what they do.

What if you're a rep AND a cook? What do we like to do?

 

[Dr_KY]

If you hang a line out there and someone bites, which was your intention...