Quick notes Feb 6 meeting on the KCBS site

[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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

In your opinion, right?

[Ford]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

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]

Originally Posted by Ford

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

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

[monty3777]

Thanks for your reply, Merl. Could you help us also understand the process that lead to the revote - this is in reference to the vote to reject the application Ron Cates submitted several days late. That would help fill in some blanks. Again, thanks to all the BoD members who have taken the time to reply to concerns!

[Scottie]

I'd like to know who voted for AZ BBQ to be not sanctioned and then voted in favor of Lula geing sanctioned. That should interest more folks than a flawed system to appoint a vacancy on the Board and who made a motion and who didn't.

I guess I'd get it in my Bullsheet, but I never get it. Maybe our Education committee can focus on that? As I'd love to be educated on what really happens at the Board by the minutes...

[Ford]

Originally Posted by Scottie

I'd like to know who voted for AZ BBQ to be not sanctioned and then voted in favor of Lula geing sanctioned. That should interest more folks than a flawed system to appoint a vacancy on the Board and who made a motion and who didn't.

I guess I'd get it in my Bullsheet, but I never get it. Maybe our Education committee can focus on that? As I'd love to be educated on what really happens at the Board by the minutes...

It would be nice if the KCBS posted the minutes online. they were approved at the Feb meeting for Jan so why not post them. No need to wait for the Bullsheet.

Chandler AZ 9-3 to deny. I to would like to know who voted differently. I's probably a safe assumption that the 6 who voted deny for Lula voted the same on Chandler.

[Jeff_in_KC]

Scottie, I am really starting to agree with you. I've had to do something this morning that makes all this bullchit seem pretty insignificant. Let 'em destroy it with the divisiveness. I tried. I'll compete somewhere until there's nowhere else to go.

[Scottie]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

Scottie, I am really starting to agree with you. I've had to do something this morning that makes all this bullchit seem pretty insignificant. Let 'em destroy it with the divisiveness. I tried. I'll compete somewhere until there's nowhere else to go.

I am not sure we have any other options Jeff. there is a political struggle that they are playing with OUR Society. It's not theirs to destroy, it's ours as dues paying members. Some, if not all need to understand that. These factions need to end. We need to do what is best for KCBS. Not individual "A', that just so happens to be a Director of KCBS.

I will still say that if those Disclosure Statements were made public, we wouldn't be having nearly half the problems that we see...