KCBS at it again

[Stoke&Smoke]

It'd be nice if Mr. Black, or anyone for that matter would explain the reasoning behind this proposal. I mailed the board the following...

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Why not just let the members vote for the leadership we want, instead of trying to pass rules designed to manipulate control of who can and cannot be on the board?
I propose this policy be abandoned before it ever sees the light of day. What is the supposed benefit of such a policy?

Being only my second year in the KCBS, I sure don't like seeing some of the things that are happening. It's taking away what interested my wife and I in the society in the first place.

Dan

 

[Bride of Roo(BQ'n)]

PSST Dan, your repeating yourself

 

[The Pickled Pig]

I think the topic at least merits discussion and am glad the BOD will discuss it. Take all of the personalities and conspiracy theories out of the equation and a nepotism policy for the BOD makes sense to me. Many public boards have similar policies in place. While it does promote some diversity, it's usually done to prevent a consolidation of power. Why is that such a bad thing?

 

[Scottie]

Is consolidation of power the same thing as groups of people being elected from the same region?

 

[Wizards of 'Que]

Good point Scottie. Maybe it is time for regional repesentation since KCBS has become a national organization.

 

[The Pickled Pig]

Is consolidation of power the same thing as groups of people being elected from the same region?

To an extent yes, but it's certainly not the same degree of consolidation as groups of people from the same household or family.

 

[DawgPhan]

To an extent yes, but it's certainly not the same degree of consolidation as groups of people from the same household or family.

What would it matter if there was a consolidation of power if the members all voted for it? It wasnt like no one knew they were related...they didnt hide it and everyone voted on it. As long as the elections are open and people vote then it shouldnt matter who gets elected.

 

[Roo-B-Q'N]

I think the topic at least merits discussion and am glad the BOD will discuss it. Take all of the personalities and conspiracy theories out of the equation and a nepotism policy for the BOD makes sense to me. Many public boards have similar policies in place. While it does promote some diversity, it's usually done to prevent a consolidation of power. Why is that such a bad thing?

This has nothing to do with nepotism and I doubt that it ever will unless a board member can hire or appoint his or her kin to sit on the board.

A nepotisim rule would have to be written only to disallow the appointment of kin by kin when an opening on the board exists, it can not prevent a nomination by the general membership for a candidate and then the election of the candidate by the general membership to the board of directors.

From Merriam-Webster Online

Main Entry:
nep·o·tism Pronunciation: \ˈne-pə-ˌti-zəm\ Function: noun Etymology: French népotisme, from Italian nepotismo, from nepote nephew, from Latin nepot-, nepos grandson, nephew — more at nephew Date: 1670 : favoritism (as in appointment to a job) based on kinship
— nep·o·tis·tic \ˌne-pə-ˈtis-tik\ adjective

A nepotism rule would also serve to prevent favoritism of kin to make money from the board or KCBS in the event an outside vendor is needed for some reason or another. This would be a conflict of interest, but we have seen precedence that conflicts of interest do not matter with the past board of directors. But that is for another thread.

This is an outright attempt to prevent one board member from getting re-elected by a few of the board members. And in so doing taking away the right to vote from its general membership for those they truly feel are a qualified candidate.

 

[Yakfishingfool]

OK, lot's to read. Let me come at this from a different angle. Maybe the BOD has concerns with families voting as a block. I'm not choosing sides, only offering other possibilities. With that said, I believe there are other methods to prevent "silo's" of power. When one person sits in a position for too long, they become a silo, perhaps to the point of being irrational in decision making for the organization. Are there any term limits? That would handle silos. I will also send a letter ot KCBS BOD and request that this proposal be rescinded. Scott

 

[Yakfishingfool]

Forgot to ask, does this come out of the nominating committee???

 

[BBQchef33]

Lets set aside alliances, friendships, and conspiracy theories.

I would really like to know the reasoning behind the proposal to avoid all the speculation, but even if it is explained the bottom line wont change.

What this does is not allow US, the members, to nominate someone we may see fit to run. That is where my issue lies. This is not about replacing our current board members, or squeezing out next years, but altering our rights to nominate who we see fit. If WE decide we WANT a shift, then WE should be allowed to do it, and have the membership vote it in, or not... We should not be given a watered down and weeded thru candidate pool to choose fromm based on the current boards preferences. Who's wagging the tail here?

BTW... IMO, There has always been a consolidation of power. In our circle, it has been know as the "good ole boys." We need new blood and forward thinkers. The dinosaurs are extinct and growth requires change.

 

[watertowerbbq]

I sent in my response. Let the membership decide who should get in and who is eligible. The BOD is losing touch with the membership.

 

[Muzzlebrake]

I think saying that a motion entitled KCBS Board Nepotism Policy has nothing to do with nepotism is a little out of order.
now I will admit to ignorance about the inner politics of the BOD, and to be honest I dont really care about that any of that chit.
what I see is a member of the board putting forth a motion to be discussed at the upcoming meeting. Isn't that what we want the people we elected to do? I agree the subject does warrant discussion and I am hopeful that this is what the BOD will do with this just as they would with any other motions that are brought before them.
am I just naive here or am I just way off base?

 

[Coz]

First point,I am not yet a member of KCBS.But since my interest in raising my personal bar to competition level there are 3 or 4 sites I visit every day(internet Shiggin?)and the most prevelant things I see about KCBS are inner turmoil,a board that isnt happy about the membership seeing whats going on etc.I guess until they make me join to compete I will save my dollars to use elsewhere.Any one else have a game being held in Wi.

 

[The Pickled Pig]

I didn't say that I was for or against the motion, only that I am glad it is going to be discussed. I would like to hear the reasoning of those that support it. I have no horse in this race. Everything I know about the situation is what I have read in this thread and other threads right here.

I don't think it's useful to get caught up in the semantics of the word nepotism. Whether it's the right or wrong term to use doesn't really impact the underlying motion. It's been my experience that in HR type policies, nepotism is used to denote all policies that cover the employment or service of family, and sometimes friends, and sometimes business acquantices or other potential conflicts of interest relationships.

The extent of the KCBS BOD's authority in this matter should be spelled out in the organization's charter, articles of incorpration, or by-laws. This would not be not be an uncommon authority granted to BODs.

The BOD represents all KCBS members. The vast majority of members probably don't want to be bothered by these types of issues and would welcome that type of board discretion. When those members don't like the way the organization is working, they elect new board members.

In every election I can think of, there are some sort of requirements a candidate must meet. Just look at the Constitutional requirements to run for US President. Someone who doesn't meet the requirements cannot be nominated regardless of the "members" wishes. Not being a family members of an existing board member is just another type of requirement.

I point these things out because I don't believe the motion in and of itself is unreasonable. If different personalities were involved I doubt this thread would even exist.

I like the KCBS and what it's done for me and the people I've met through KCBS experiences. I don't pretend to know or care about the politics involved. I appreciate the service of all of the board members, past, present, and future. I've served on boards and worked with many more and it's harder, and more stressful than it looks.

 

[Muzzlebrake]

I didn't say that I was for or against the motion, only that I am glad it is going to be discussed. I would like to hear the reasoning of those that support it. I have no horse in this race. Everything I know about the situation is what I have read in this thread and other threads right here.

I don't think it's useful to get caught up in the semantics of the word nepotism. Whether it's the right or wrong term to use doesn't really impact the underlying motion. It's been my experience that in HR type policies, nepotism is used to denote all policies that cover the employment or service of family, and sometimes friends, and sometimes business acquantices or other potential conflicts of interest relationships.

The extent of the KCBS BOD's authority in this matter should be spelled out in the organization's charter, articles of incorpration, or by-laws. This would not be not be an uncommon authority granted to BODs.

The BOD represents all KCBS members. The vast majority of members probably don't want to be bothered by these types of issues and would welcome that type of board discretion. When those members don't like the way the organization is working, they elect new board members.

In every election I can think of, there are some sort of requirements a candidate must meet. Just look at the Constitutional requirements to run for US President. Someone who doesn't meet the requirements cannot be nominated regardless of the "members" wishes. Not being a family members of an existing board member is just another type of requirement.

I point these things out because I don't believe the motion in and of itself is unreasonable. If different personalities were involved I doubt this thread would even exist.

I like the KCBS and what it's done for me and the people I've met through KCBS experiences. I don't pretend to know or care about the politics involved. I appreciate the service of all of the board members, past, present, and future. I've served on boards and worked with many more and it's harder, and more stressful than it looks.

well said

be careful you will find yourself nominated

 

[scottyd]

My grandpa always said there is someone born every minute to fark it up for the rest of us.

 

[jminion]

I think saying that a motion entitled KCBS Board Nepotism Policy has nothing to do with nepotism is a little out of order.
now I will admit to ignorance about the inner politics of the BOD, and to be honest I dont really care about that any of that chit.
what I see is a member of the board putting forth a motion to be discussed at the upcoming meeting. Isn't that what we want the people we elected to do? I agree the subject does warrant discussion and I am hopeful that this is what the BOD will do with this just as they would with any other motions that are brought before them.
am I just naive here or am I just way off base?

This is about not allowing Merl to run for re-election, this same member tried get a rule passed to gag me from posting in forums this not a new tactic.

Jim

 

[MilitantSquatter]

I've given my opinion here on a fair share of KCBS issues that we've discussed here and had interest.

However, the more I read through this particular issue, the more I realize that life is just way to farking short to need to get my pants all twisted about this or similar issues regarding the KCBS governing body and how business is run. It's truly a shame and unfortunate that they can find the time to discuss a petty, non issue like this when more important operational issues exist. I wish the KCBS the best in what it decides on this topic and others down the road.

For the time being, I will continue to be a KCBS member, vote for those I think have the spirit of BBQ at heart and compete for the fun of it.

What I've read over the last few weeks solidifies my decision to steer clear of any BS, politics, governing body rules etc.

It's also amazing that people (including me) will spend more time here fighting an issue here and e-mailing the BOD than we do in our civilian lives seeking answers and actions from our politicians etc. on important issues even at the local and not national level.

When the fun goes away regarding KCBS competitions, I'm gonna go back to just cooking in my backyard or with my Brethren friends...

 

[bbqbull]

I've given my opinion here on a fair share of KCBS issues that we've discussed here and had interest.

However, the more I read through this particular issue, the more I realize that life is just way to farking short to need to get my pants all twisted about this or similar issues regarding the KCBS governing body and how business is run. It's truly a shame and unfortunate that they can find the time to discuss a petty, non issue like this when more important operational issues exist. I wish the KCBS the best in what it decides on this topic and others down the road.

For the time being, I will continue to be a KCBS member, vote for those I think have the spirit of BBQ at heart and compete for the fun of it.

What I've read over the last few weeks solidifies my decision to steer clear of any BS, politics, governing body rules etc.

It's also amazing that people (including me) will spend more time here fighting an issue here and e-mailing the BOD than we do in our civilian lives seeking answers and actions from our politicians etc. on important issues even at the local and not national level.

When the fun goes away regarding KCBS competitions, I'm gonna go back to just cooking in my backyard or with my Brethren friends...

Vinny.............Perfectly Stated IMHO.