** Bylaw change regarding Family members serving on BOD on November 12 KCBS BOD agenda.

[Yakfishingfool]

By Laws should not be a membership vote, it is right for the directors to do this. It should be a large margin, 2/3rds and should be done with lot's of discussion first. By laws should not be opened and voted on at every meeting, they should be a living document and dealt with accordingly. Scott

 

[Yakfishingfool]

Just as a side note. A quorum to change by laws is not 2/3 of present directors, but rather 2/3 of all directors. So if 12 directors, 7 at the meeting, not enough directors to vote on the issue. Scott

 

[Alexa RnQ]

imagine that three brothers that you've never heard of were elected by a landslide to the Board. Would you be concerned about the possibility of something fishy going on?

OOOoooOOOOooOOOooo, the imaginary boogeymen!!! But since

Article XVIII.

AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted in accordance with Missouri statute 355.116. and a twothirds (2/3) affirmative vote of the directors who are entitled to vote. ​

So unless the Board is in imminent danger of being hijacked by a posse of 8(?) elected family members, I call BS.​

 

[LindaM]

Here is a copy of the petition with the names removed

 

[Scottie]

I just do not see how this can be a representation of KCBS members. I never received any email or no one ever talked to me about signing this petition. So how does this represent me and my KCBS? To me, this "Petition" should not even be recognized by the Board. As I do not understand how the membership is represented by the few that signed this "Petition"...

 

[Merl]

Why don't we cut to the chase, this petition has only two alternative.
1 to exclude Merl Whitebook from assuming his seat if re-elected or
2 to exclude Carol Whitebook from running for a second term.

OK now its on the table, lets talk about motive and why a few want to take your rights to vote away.

Merl

 

[BBQchef33]

Merl, correct me if ium wrong, but if I understand things properly, this is a request to amend the by-laws, which in order to move forward, the BOD would table and it then go to a vote.

Please everyone keep in mind this is NOT a KCBS board member that initiated it this time. So, , since this was received by the board form a member, and it has some sigs on it, then i would think the board has a responsibility to address it and make some type of ruling.

To shoot it down,
To table for further discsussion
To vote on it.

the vote would require 2/3 of the BOD, or 7 votes to pass 5 to overturn. We know Merls stance and most likely Carols, so thats 2, we need 3 more to overturn IF IT EVEN GETS TO A VOTE.

I think thats where we stand and we wait and see what the board thinks. I'm sure our BODs know the general standing of the membership based on the storm this caused last year.


Just my nickels take on the situation.

 

[timzcardz]

You have to love the "to include, but not limited to" part. Is it intentionally limitless to afford the opportunity to fit any desired need?

Not very well thought out, or was it?

 

[YankeeBBQ]

I just do not see how this can be a representation of KCBS members. I never received any email or no one ever talked to me about signing this petition. So how does this represent me and my KCBS? To me, this "Petition" should not even be recognized by the Board. As I do not understand how the membership is represented by the few that signed this "Petition"...

I think all members should be allowed to particpate in the KCBS including Randy Bigler and anyone who signs his petition. It's up to the board to then take that info and get input from more of the membership or maybe even decide not to persue the matter. Why should Randy and the other signatories be denied their rights? Just because you don't agree with them ? By the way I don't support that petition and the premise behind it but I recognize the rights of other KCBS members. I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about the petition.

 

[jminion]

I think all members should be allowed to particpate in the KCBS including Randy Bigler and anyone who signs his petition. It's up to the board to then take that info and get input from more of the membership or maybe even decide not to persue the matter. Why should Randy and the other signatories be denied their rights? Just because you don't agree with them ? By the way I don't support that petition and the premise behind it but I recognize the rights of other KCBS members. I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about the petition.

I also don't have a problem with a petition being passed around but if it is to represented as speaking for the membership them I do have a problem. This petition never left one geographical area of the country and the contents of the petition were not made public until today (the day the Board is to meet).

We know that folks like Phillip Braizer, Randy Bigler and Mike Davis knew the content of the petition but refused to make available to whole membership. I really doubt that it is an oversite, there was plenty of opportunity.

Read into it what you want, I certainly will.

 

[Scottie]

I do agree Steve that Randy has his rights to submit the Petition. But what he wants to do is take something away from me and I would have no say or voice.

I do think it's a big deal though. Let's say that for some reason this is brought up for a vote at the meeting. And the board decides to vote yea or nay... The by-laws would be re-written for something that is probably not favored by the majority of the KCBS membership.

Whether is was right or wrong to bring this Petition up. I do not see how it brings the KCBS membership together as one? All I see this doing is splintering the KCBS membership.

As I got to hear a whole new side out in Arizona this last weekend.

I just urge the Board to not take it up for consideration and/or a vote.

 

[YankeeBBQ]

I do agree Steve that Randy has his rights to submit the Petition. But what he wants to do is take something away from me and I would have no say or voice.

I do think it's a big deal though. Let's say that for some reason this is brought up for a vote at the meeting. And the board decides to vote yea or nay... The by-laws would be re-written for something that is probably not favored by the majority of the KCBS membership.

Whether is was right or wrong to bring this Petition up. I do not see how it brings the KCBS membership together as one? All I see this doing is splintering the KCBS membership.

As I got to hear a whole new side out in Arizona this last weekend.

I just urge the Board to not take it up for consideration and/or a vote.

I have faith the BOD will do the right thing. I guess we'll know eventually.....

 

[Scottie]

I hope so too Steve. All it takes is one BOD member, I am assuming to bring it to a vote. If I remember how robert's work...

 

[Bentley]

Attached Images

If this is the entire petition, sans those that signed it...I do not see Nepotism mentioned anywhere in this petition. Wonder who started that this was about Nepotism?

I just do not see how this can be a representation of KCBS members. I never received any email or no one ever talked to me about signing this petition. So how does this represent me and my KCBS? To me, this "Petition" should not even be recognized by the Board. As I do not understand how the membership is represented by the few that signed this "Petition"...

It is a representation of the KCBS members that submitted it. One would hope if there is a required amount of KCBS members needed to bring a petition to the BoD, that someone is verifing who sign it and that they are valid members.

I do think it's a big deal though. And the board decides to vote yea or nay... The by-laws would be re-written for something that is probably not favored by the majority of the KCBS membership. I urge the Board to not take it up for consideration and/or a vote.

This is when you and other members will see if your voice is truly heard by YOUR BoD.

 

[drbbq]

Here is a copy of the petition with the names removed

It says he needed them by November 2nd.
Why the urgency?

If this truly isn't about Merl he should have taken his time to get many more signatures.

 

[Stoke&Smoke]

I haven't seen this question asked. Was there a space on the petition for the signers KCBS member #?

I not, than I would suggest that the petition is meaningless. If you aren't a dues paying member, your signature is worthless.

 

[Ford]

At the most the BOD can agree to vote on it next month if they want to change the by-law. 1 months notice is in the by-laws for change and that's assuming Decembers meeting is more than 30 days after this months.

Of course the BOD can just agree that it is a small sample of the members and can agree to not consider the petition. End of story.

In any event Merl has been accepted as a candidate so any attempt now to change the rules would obviously be a direct action aimed at him. If they want to change the by-laws and grandfather people in that are already on the BOD, they can do that and I'm fine.

 

[Diva]

I'm done reading all this crap. Nepotism wasn't mentioned in the thing. I don't see how anyone is 'losing any of their ''rights'' as a member'......some people have an 'issue' its being heard, as it should. Everyone bitches about 'are we being heard', 'are they listening to us'.....obviously, the entire board is listening. What they do with it..it's up to them, that's why they were elected with the votes from the membership.

Sometimes, you have to read between the lines. Who's wanting people to believe what? Why? Who benefits from all this hub bub? The damn things out here, we can see it for ourselves. Interpretation is what you make it.

 

[BBQchef33]

The board has voted it down.

4 in favor

7 against.

Case closed.

 

[Vince RnQ]

I'm happy to learn that result. It would appear that all voices were heard, both in favor of and against the issue, and the Board acted in accordance with the make up of the membership.

I thank those Board members who took the time to reply to my e-mail regardless of whether we agreed or disagreed on the issue.