columbia1
is one Smokin' Farker
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2012
- Location
- Kalama Wa.
Surprised none of the current board members have chimed in yet?
THE BBQ BRETHREN FORUMS
Welcome to The BBQ Brethren Community. Register a free account today to become a member and see all our content. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
KCBS Bylaw vote?
- Thread starter QN
- Start date
Candy Sue
is one Smokin' Farker
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Location
- Pine Bluff, AR
I thought I was pretty loud and clear! Read the message above where the relevant part of the bylaws is in red. Percentage is based on total number of votes. Whether results suit you or not, a non-vote on the bylaws change counts in total votes cast since the member voted for directors. A non-vote is a negative vote by it's very nature. You're wrong about the board wanting a certain result. Board was split on this issue. I worked to come up with a solution that would give KCBS regional representation path relatively painlessly without a bunch of extra work (directors are all volunteers you know). It came pretty close to passing. I'd say that if you feel strongly about this issue, start a petition. Get signatures from members at the KCBS events you attend. Turn it in to the board. It won't be ignored.
This is my opinion and my opinion only and by no means reflects any other KCBS director on the board.
This is my opinion and my opinion only and by no means reflects any other KCBS director on the board.
QN
is one Smokin' Farker
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Location
- North Alabama
Thanks for chiming in Candy. In my opinion the question on the ballot was very poorly worded and should have never been presented as if it was two separate issues. It should have just been a yes or no vote for regional representation, period. As the wording was presented on the ballot it was confusing and convoluted. I can understand people not voting for either option.
GrillBillie_D
Full Fledged Farker
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2012
- Location
- Redding, CA
Thanks for the response Candy.
I think many of us disagree on the counting non-votes as a negative vote. If there were two questions, one for and one against, how do you then not say that the ones who didn't vote to NOT change the bylaws were voting to change them? If a non-vote is negative, then they should balance out. By your definition, a non-vote for changing the bylaws would be a no vote. But then a non-vote on NOT changing them would be a yes vote to change them.
Although we may not agree on this issue, I do appreciate your hard work and dedication. If the membership really wants this to happen, they will find a way to make it happen.
I think many of us disagree on the counting non-votes as a negative vote. If there were two questions, one for and one against, how do you then not say that the ones who didn't vote to NOT change the bylaws were voting to change them? If a non-vote is negative, then they should balance out. By your definition, a non-vote for changing the bylaws would be a no vote. But then a non-vote on NOT changing them would be a yes vote to change them.
Although we may not agree on this issue, I do appreciate your hard work and dedication. If the membership really wants this to happen, they will find a way to make it happen.
BMinahan
Knows what a fatty is.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2012
- Location
- Rockland, MA
Reword the petition question... Vote NOT to amend the bylaw. That way a no vote is a vote TO amend. In all my years in politics I have never heard of a non-vote counted towards a ballot question. It is total Yeas and Nays and the percentage thereof.
Rookie'48
Quintessential Chatty Farker
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Location
- Des Moines, Iowa
I'm very pleased to see that you have this awesome ability to read minds and predict the future.
Same answer as above.
Like Candy Sue said, the Board was very divided on this. There was probably at least two hours of debate over a couple of meetings on this subject - no one was happy.
According to our legal advisors, under Missouri law a non vote counts as a no. You take the total number of ballots cast and you need 2/3 of that number to make a change in the bylaws. Is this fair or right? Probably not, but that's what the law says and that's what the Board has to follow.
Perhaps, just maybe, if more than 20% of the membership voted then the outcome MIGHT have been different.
This rant is totally mine alone and I'm not speaking for anyone but myself!
Smoke'n Ice
is one Smokin' Farker
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Location
- Plano, TX
Dave, I would refer you to December of 2012 when the membership voted to start the process of regional representation. Took two (2) years of real hard work to structure a new question (?) and place it on the ballot of yes or no on regional representation and yes or no on not having regional representation. Someone somewhere is really using smoke and mirrors or left handed cigarettes with this convoluted type of questions that were, in 2012, asked and answered when it was less confusing. What was wrong with using that ballot results to actually present the membership with a REAL LIVE bylaw change based on the ask and answered question that was before the board for the last 2 years??????
I know, it did not fit well with someone, right?
I know, it did not fit well with someone, right?
Burnt at Both Endz
Babbling Farker
First off, Congrats on being reelected. One of the reasons I voted for you was just showed, the willingness to help the members understand the "tough" situations.
Now, just my humble opinion, until the board puts forward a plan offering a few different ways of splitting up the regions for regional representation that has some common ground/sense you guys are just wasting everyone's time on voting.
I, for one, used the nonvote as a way to abstain from from voting for a poorly formed regional plan....sorry but a poor divided region is not better than having no regional representation.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Location
- Lake Ponderosa-Montezuma, IA
Well I voted against regional representation because it was a forced placement of personnel.
If the members want a person from their area then they should find a volunteer, promote that person and get more than 20% of members to get off their asses and vote them in.
Ed
If the members want a person from their area then they should find a volunteer, promote that person and get more than 20% of members to get off their asses and vote them in.
Ed
Fat Freddy
is Blowin Smoke!
I voted for the people on the Board that I felt would be best. However I was confused on the 2 regional representative questions so I did not vote. I personally am for regional representatives just didnt understand the wording... Saying that I sure didnt want my vote being counted as a NO because I do indeed think regional representation is a good idea.
Dave and Candy I thank you for coming on here explaining your side or thoughts. And Dave i think you and me need another banquet where we outlast and maybe out drink everyone else.:shock:
Saying my thanks because I do appreciate, one of the things brought up is the lack of voting by the membership. But I am very involved always vote, help to remind others to vote, etc. but I almost feel that by voting this year i hurt something I believed in. Dont get me wrong if something was defeated on the ballot then it was defeated, end of argument. But again me not voting on a question because I didnt understand was not intended to be a NO vote and by not voting I hurt rather than staying out of something. So whats that old saying"if you have nothing nice to say then dont say anything" the way this is playing out it should be "if you dont have anything nice to say then it counts as a negative too" So playing devils advocate for the future what is to keep myself or someone in similar thoughts from choosing not to vote. I have always heard every vote counts, but really every non vote should count to??? i would have been better suited to vote yes on one and no one other question..At least half my vote would have counted the way I feel.
Dave and Candy I thank you for coming on here explaining your side or thoughts. And Dave i think you and me need another banquet where we outlast and maybe out drink everyone else.:shock:
Saying my thanks because I do appreciate, one of the things brought up is the lack of voting by the membership. But I am very involved always vote, help to remind others to vote, etc. but I almost feel that by voting this year i hurt something I believed in. Dont get me wrong if something was defeated on the ballot then it was defeated, end of argument. But again me not voting on a question because I didnt understand was not intended to be a NO vote and by not voting I hurt rather than staying out of something. So whats that old saying"if you have nothing nice to say then dont say anything" the way this is playing out it should be "if you dont have anything nice to say then it counts as a negative too" So playing devils advocate for the future what is to keep myself or someone in similar thoughts from choosing not to vote. I have always heard every vote counts, but really every non vote should count to??? i would have been better suited to vote yes on one and no one other question..At least half my vote would have counted the way I feel.
Candy Sue
is one Smokin' Farker
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2009
- Location
- Pine Bluff, AR
This is my opinion -- but a non-vote is an "I don't care either way." statement. Lots of real politicians have said they can interpret no shows as a vote for their agenda. Lots of voters who stay home always works for the side that doesn't.
My logic in drafting the bylaws proposal was this -- hard "regions" don't matter. What matters is representation on the board and how the board composition changes at the end of a year. The nominating committee (with board approval) would designate an area (ie, CA, AZ, NV, NM) where an empty seat (defined as no incumbent director can run for another term) should be filled. The NC would recruit at least 3 candidates living in that area to make the regional seat valid. Only 2 candidates, it's an at-large seat. Highest vote for the 3 candidates, gives that person a chair. Any member can vote for any candidate. I believe that this system would work and not be tied to a regional map that nobody likes. That map was really the stumbling block (for a couple of years) on getting a bylaws change to the members for a vote.
As it stands now, the members can continue to vote who they think are the best candidates. The way membership on the board has evolved, it's obvious that members are looking at a person's function in the KCBS structure and their geographic location. The 2015 board is the most diverse that has ever served! I hope for a really good and productive year.
My logic in drafting the bylaws proposal was this -- hard "regions" don't matter. What matters is representation on the board and how the board composition changes at the end of a year. The nominating committee (with board approval) would designate an area (ie, CA, AZ, NV, NM) where an empty seat (defined as no incumbent director can run for another term) should be filled. The NC would recruit at least 3 candidates living in that area to make the regional seat valid. Only 2 candidates, it's an at-large seat. Highest vote for the 3 candidates, gives that person a chair. Any member can vote for any candidate. I believe that this system would work and not be tied to a regional map that nobody likes. That map was really the stumbling block (for a couple of years) on getting a bylaws change to the members for a vote.
As it stands now, the members can continue to vote who they think are the best candidates. The way membership on the board has evolved, it's obvious that members are looking at a person's function in the KCBS structure and their geographic location. The 2015 board is the most diverse that has ever served! I hope for a really good and productive year.
Smoke'n Ice
is one Smokin' Farker
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Location
- Plano, TX
BOARD MEETING QUICK NOTES - February 11, 2011
Election Results: Out of 14,060 eligible voters, 2,591 were returned. 74.68% of the total votes cast favored regional board representation. 65.03% of the total votes cast feel that related persons should not serve on the KCBS Board of Directors at the same time.
January Straw Vote: Don Harwell made a motion that an ad hoc committee be formed to plan and report to the Board how the January straw poll vote regarding regional representation can be achieved. Seconded by Paul Kirk, vote was unanimous; motion passed.
On the forum
Posted by robertlh on March 14, 2011 at 20:50:36:
again - at this time.
At the March Board meeting this topic was discussed again and as reflected on the MP3 and in the Quick Notes, the majority of the BOD has chosen to ignore the wishes of the membership. Only 2 Board Members voted for pursuing a Bylaws change to create regional representation and those 2 Members are in their final year.
The poll conducted during the last election showed that 74.68% of the members voting desired regional representation and yet the continuing Board Members and newly elected Members have flatly ignored the membership.
I hope this same 74% of the voting members remember this the next time these BOD Members names appear on the ballot.
I would encourage every member of KCBS to listen to the MP3 of the last 2 Board meetings, although the February meeting has already been removed from the downloads section. There has been a tremendous fight for transparency and cohesiveness of the BOD over the last 2 yrs or more and it’s being whittled away at. It just amazes me at how uninformed some of the Board Members are. This particular discussion starts at precisely 2:00:00
Robert in Garden City
Posted by Big Creek BBQ - Jeff on March 16, 2011 at 11:32:04:
In Reply to: KCBS BOD rejects Regional Representation posted by robertlh on March 14, 2011 at 20:50:36:
Not to say regional reprtesentation isn't a good thing but 74% of the 20% that voted isn't really a large portion
Posted by JohnKinMD on March 16, 2011 at 11:58:09:
In Reply to: Re: KCBS BOD rejects Regional Representation posted by Big Creek BBQ - Jeff on March 16, 2011 at 11:32:04:
True, but the same can be said about the board. They are elected by the people that vote, and 74% voted for regional representation.
does anyone else see an issue here?????
Just curious.
Election Results: Out of 14,060 eligible voters, 2,591 were returned. 74.68% of the total votes cast favored regional board representation. 65.03% of the total votes cast feel that related persons should not serve on the KCBS Board of Directors at the same time.
January Straw Vote: Don Harwell made a motion that an ad hoc committee be formed to plan and report to the Board how the January straw poll vote regarding regional representation can be achieved. Seconded by Paul Kirk, vote was unanimous; motion passed.
On the forum
Posted by robertlh on March 14, 2011 at 20:50:36:
again - at this time.
At the March Board meeting this topic was discussed again and as reflected on the MP3 and in the Quick Notes, the majority of the BOD has chosen to ignore the wishes of the membership. Only 2 Board Members voted for pursuing a Bylaws change to create regional representation and those 2 Members are in their final year.
The poll conducted during the last election showed that 74.68% of the members voting desired regional representation and yet the continuing Board Members and newly elected Members have flatly ignored the membership.
I hope this same 74% of the voting members remember this the next time these BOD Members names appear on the ballot.
I would encourage every member of KCBS to listen to the MP3 of the last 2 Board meetings, although the February meeting has already been removed from the downloads section. There has been a tremendous fight for transparency and cohesiveness of the BOD over the last 2 yrs or more and it’s being whittled away at. It just amazes me at how uninformed some of the Board Members are. This particular discussion starts at precisely 2:00:00
Robert in Garden City
Posted by Big Creek BBQ - Jeff on March 16, 2011 at 11:32:04:
In Reply to: KCBS BOD rejects Regional Representation posted by robertlh on March 14, 2011 at 20:50:36:
Not to say regional reprtesentation isn't a good thing but 74% of the 20% that voted isn't really a large portion
Posted by JohnKinMD on March 16, 2011 at 11:58:09:
In Reply to: Re: KCBS BOD rejects Regional Representation posted by Big Creek BBQ - Jeff on March 16, 2011 at 11:32:04:
True, but the same can be said about the board. They are elected by the people that vote, and 74% voted for regional representation.
does anyone else see an issue here?????
Just curious.
BasicPatrick
Full Fledged Farker
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Location
- Hyannis, MA on Ol'e Cape Cod
I've served on dozens of boards etc and have unfortunately taken three separate trainings on "rules of order". In general "the body" should set and maintain a standard policy to address how it handles both "abstentions" and "blank" aka "null" aka "white" votes.
A "blank", "null" or "white" vote is when a voter refuses to vote. These may or may not count toward the total number of votes when calculating voting results. There is no rule or standard way to handle these and this category of vote is commonly handled either way.
These are different from an "abstention" which is when a voter takes a specific action letting "the body" know the voter chooses not to vote for or against the question. "Abstentions" should never be counted toward the total votes and are simply a method for a voter to participate in fulfilling the "quorum" but removes themselves from being "for" or "against" a particular vote.
A "blank", "null" or "white" vote is when a voter refuses to vote. These may or may not count toward the total number of votes when calculating voting results. There is no rule or standard way to handle these and this category of vote is commonly handled either way.
These are different from an "abstention" which is when a voter takes a specific action letting "the body" know the voter chooses not to vote for or against the question. "Abstentions" should never be counted toward the total votes and are simply a method for a voter to participate in fulfilling the "quorum" but removes themselves from being "for" or "against" a particular vote.
