Quick notes Feb 6 meeting on the KCBS site

[Plowboy]

Pork Prices? I am getting st louies and record lows for me.

The National Pork Board sponsored the contest at the World Pork Expo, in Des Moines. Pork prices are down, and the funds aren't there.

The way I understand it is a percentage of the pork checkoff goes towards this event. With the pork prices being so low, the money generated from this was very low as well. Thus lack of funds.

Bingo - Good for consumer, bad for industry.

 

[Jacked UP BBQ]

I see. I understand how the comp works now.

 

[HoDeDo]

But the vote was 11 to 0 in favor of the rule change/clarification.

And I will be chewin some butts for it when I see them at contests...

A:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy

 

[monty3777]

Took 2 posts to display them. Showed some votes. Roberts Rules were followed on Lula and it was Paul Kirk who changed his vote to no.

Since I work in the church I tend to be around Robert's Rules more than I'd like. I know from experience that once a motion is passed there are some procedural steps that need to be followed in order to take a revote. Not impossible - but there is a process. If the process wasn't followed correctly the new vote is meaningless and the first vote stands. Again, that how it has been handled in my experience. Certainly the parliamentarian may have interpreted the rules incorrectly and therefore my experience is meaningless - but there it is.

 

[Plowboy]

And I will be chewin some butts for it when I see them at contests...

A:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy:icon_shy

Will you be parting those butts before you chew them? Just sayin.

 

[monty3777]

Let me be more specific. I was at a synod assembly where a motion was passed. This vote upset a number of people in the assembly - but they were not allowed to simply call for a revote - as that would destroy the process. Anyone who didn't like an outcome would be able to call for a revote and the assembly would not be able to move forward. The parliamentarian ruled that only a person who voted to approve the motion could call for a revote - thus eliminating the sour grapes types from gumming up the process. So, as far as I know that's how a revote is dealt with under Robert's Rules of Order. But what do I know - I'm a preacher, not a lawyer.

 

[Diva]

Will you be parting those butts before you chew them? Just sayin.

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KC_Bobby]

If you're butt is chewy - I don't think putting it back in the smoker to set the sauce is really gonna matter. Sounds more like ya shouldn't ahh pulled it out when ya did. :twisted:

 

[BBQ_Mayor]

Let me be more specific. I was at a synod assembly where a motion was passed. This vote upset a number of people in the assembly - but they were not allowed to simply call for a revote - as that would destroy the process. Anyone who didn't like an outcome would be able to call for a revote and the assembly would not be able to move forward. The parliamentarian ruled that only a person who voted to approve the motion could call for a revote - thus eliminating the sour grapes types from gumming up the process. So, as far as I know that's how a revote is dealt with under Robert's Rules of Order. But what do I know - I'm a preacher, not a lawyer.

You make a motion on the subject, discuss the subject matter and then call for the vote. As community politics work, if the vote is shot down it can not come up for a revote the same night. It must have time for the public to see what is being voted on at the next meeting.
I don' think this revote would be in the same boat but I could be wrong.

 

[Smoke'n Ice]

The rules followed are similar to RONR. A motion to reconsider the previous motion can be made by anyone who voted on the prevailing side. This motion is only valid providing no new business has been conducted by the group. Apparently Paul Kirk voted in the majority and then ask for a reconsideration prior to any new business. This motion was seconed by someone and a vote taken. There was discussion and a new vote was taken with Paul Kirk changing his vote which caused the contest to be denied. It was all straight forward and above board.

I have heard rumors that the reasons for denial had nothing to do with being two days late with paper work but with failure to provide the necessary paperwork to protect the cooks in case a similar incident to last years contest in Hot Springs when a sponsor backed out and the cooks who had entered prior to the reduction of advertised prize money appeared to be left hanging with no way to gracefully withdraw and get their money back.

We can all understand that chit happens and the BOD was looking out for us, the cooks, in requiring at least a guarantee and letter of credit that if advertised monies cannot be paid, then the cook can withdraw from the contest without penality. I for one, agree as I have an entry from several years ago that the the sponsor backed out and there was no money forth coming from the organizer as he had spent it.

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

Well at least they did not remove the turn-in times from the rules nor do we have to cook six or eight whole chickens to get six nice thighs!

BUT... I don't understand the "filling a vacancy on the board" ruling. First it says Candy made the motion (which I'm guessing she did NOT) but then the motion says first it will remain vacant until the next election. THEN it says the person 5th in the voting will get the remainder of the term that was not completed.

If a member of the board ceases to serve in the capacity as a member of the Board, during an unexpired term, then the vacancy shall be filled in the following manner:

The board opening shall remain vacant until the next general election of Board members. The vacancy shall be filled by the candidate receiving the 5th highest vote count. (in the event of multiple vacancies, then the 6th, and so on.) The candidate receiving the 5th (and the like) highest vote count shall serve the remaining term of vacant board seat.

So which is it? Does it remain vacant or does the next in line from previous voting fill the seat?

 

[Smoke'n Ice]

It appears to be poorly worded but, the next highest vote getter is placed in the vacant position until the following general election. The appointed person is not appointed to fill the remaining term but is appointed until the next opportunity to conduct an election. Similar to What occured in MA when Kennedy (almost 2 years sober) was replaced.

 

[Plowboy]

Well at least they did not remove the turn-in times from the rules nor do we have to cook six or eight whole chickens to get six nice thighs!

BUT... I don't understand the "filling a vacancy on the board" ruling. First it says Candy made the motion (which I'm guessing she did NOT) but then the motion says first it will remain vacant until the next election. THEN it says the person 5th in the voting will get the remainder of the term that was not completed.

If a member of the board ceases to serve in the capacity as a member of the Board, during an unexpired term, then the vacancy shall be filled in the following manner:

The board opening shall remain vacant until the next general election of Board members. The vacancy shall be filled by the candidate receiving the 5th highest vote count. (in the event of multiple vacancies, then the 6th, and so on.) The candidate receiving the 5th (and the like) highest vote count shall serve the remaining term of vacant board seat.

So which is it? Does it remain vacant or does the next in line from previous voting fill the seat?

Actually, my first question was what this meant to term limits. The person quitting the first day on the job is different from the last day of the job. Is this already covered in the term limits section of the bylaws?

Would kind of suck taking someone's seat for two months and then lose one of your terms. Then again, wouldn't be fair to take the job after month 2 and you essentially get three terms.

 

[Gene01]

what it should say is: the seat will be left vacant till the next year general election.... the top 4 voted into office will receive the 4 newly opened (regular) positions, the fifth in line will fill out the remaining term of the Board Member who vacated their position.

 

[Jorge]

It appears to be poorly worded but, the next highest vote getter is placed in the vacant position until the following general election. The appointed person is not appointed to fill the remaining term but is appointed until the next opportunity to conduct an election. Similar to What occured in MA when Kennedy (almost 2 years sober) was replaced.

In your opinion, right?:mrgreen:

 

[Ford]

First it says Candy made the motion (which I'm guessing she did NOT) but then the motion says first it will remain vacant until the next election.

I heard that it was actually her suggestion to keep it vacant until the next election. Personally I think it's a great solution. I can remember KCBS elections with only 4 or 5 candidates.

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

I heard that it was actually her suggestion to keep it vacant until the next election. Personally I think it's a great solution. I can remember KCBS elections with only 4 or 5 candidates.

I'm not so sure it is a good idea, especially given the divisiveness on the board. Could cause some real issues.

I don't believe it was Candy who made the motion. I heard differently than you from someone who should know.

 

[Scottie]

I don't believe it was Candy who made the motion. I heard differently than you from someone who should know.

My understanding is that Candy made the initial motion. It was flawed and presented in a couple of different versions.

But in reality, who cares? There is clearly a divide in the KCBS and a certain individual is being the scapegoat. If I was a kCBS member, I'd be more concerned about a certain director flip flopping and changing their vote. If there is anger, that is who I would look at. Otherwise, the BOD followed what has been done in the past. I believe the BOD followed what they have done in the past. No organizer is above the rules that the BOD has set. I guess that's the way I look at it. But I also don't have an agenda or am I sharpening knives to go after the directors that I don't like. These folks have been elected. Give them a chance is how I look at it. Do I agree with everything they do? Nope, but I also don't agree with politics in our country either. That's my right as a voting member.

So for all these folks that have the 'insider info'n I would say what side of the fence you are on and what side is the person that is telling you the info. Are they embelishing the story? I've heard from both sides and I can make an educated assumption of what really happened. The notes won't lie either.

I think we have too many Monday morning quaterbacks in the KCBS is what I think.

Good luck to all trying to figure out the mess. But I could care less. I know there are no angels in the Boardroom and there are no angels that are organizers either. Organizer are business men who are in it to make a buck. So take that as you may.

I know I don't wear rose colored glasses either.

Good luck all.

Scottie

 

[Merl]

My motion was to take nominations and pick the best. Concerns were voiced as result of e-mails from members that was a control issue. It was stated that some might perceive this as Merl personally for trying to take control by allowing the Board to pick the best nominated person. As a collective voice from suggestion by the members of the Board, a recommendation for keeping the BD seat open until the next election and fill it by allowing the members to exercise their vote as the fifth place vote. This as an alternative motion was voted 10-1-0 and passed.

Now some are voicing their opposition to allowing the Board to pick the best person and your opposed to letting the members vote at the next election, taking the BOD out of the decision.

It seems that no matter how fair the bod tries to make it and make it objective, that a few have an objection. I will not support a system where if we like the fifth this year we take him, if not we do something else. That is what I call unfair and a power grab.

I think John Markus should be on the Board. He was the fifth place person when Rod was elected and should fill his term. Most said that was the precedent, but we made a brand new precedent to pick the 5th place from another year's election. And how did Mike Lake get appointed when no one liked number 5 and the BOD picked out an outsider.

I told the Board that all I wanted was a system which could not be manipulated by the Board. Fair to all. I do not understand, why there are a few who seem to remain opposed to that.

I do not want the old way, that was clearly unfair to all concerned.
Just my thoughts.
Merl

 

[ThomEmery]

Hummm Whats to say the 5th person should be on the BoD?
The first looser does not make you a natural to be on the BoD
It is silly to set it up and get stuck with someone who did not
have the talents and abilities