KCBS Bylaw vote?

QN · Jan 28, 2015

This is what is posted on the KCBS web site regarding the voting on the bylaw change for regional representation;

Bylaws change #1 -- Amend Bylaws to implement Regional Representation
2349 votes out of 3,645 votes cast or 64.44%

Bylaws change #2 - No, do NOT amend Bylaws to implement Regional Representation
948 votes out of 3,645 votes cast or 26%

Both suggested Bylaws change fail

OK, I am confused

To me it appears these are both the same thing; just one to amend and the other to NOT amend

Is it just me being dumb? can someone explain this?

Red Valley BBQ · Jan 28, 2015

Need 2/3 (66.7%) approval by voting members. Since the bylaws change #1 only had 64.4% it failed.

Via KCBS website

AMENDMENTS

These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed and new Bylaws may be adopted in
accordance with Missouri statute 355.116 and by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all
approved Members who voted by paper ballot or secure electronic ballot in a general election or
special election with the Bylaws amendment on the ballot. Proposed amendments and/or
revisions must be provided to all Members entitled to vote in writing at least one month prior to
the voting period and must be published in the official publication of the organization at least
thirty days prior to the beginning of the voting period.

Burnt at Both Endz · Jan 28, 2015

The reason it failed, was because some folks didn't like the way the board divided up the regions...just my humble opinion!

Candy Sue · Jan 29, 2015

In MY Opinion only, there should have been one option on the ballot with a yes/no vote. I didn't build it, but I did report the results and I reported as it was handed to me. Also IMO, the regions really didn't make sense except that they were decided based on voting numbers. I wrote the regional representation proposal without hard defined regions in mind (because there needs to be flexibility if it's going to be based on member voting numbers). It put the work of recruiting 3 candidates from an under-represented area (as determined by the nominating committee, approved by board) on the nominating committee. If the nominating committee couldn't find 3 candidates to run, a regional seat wasn't going to happen that election. Wasn't perfect, but it would have been a start in the RR direction. Of course (again IMO!), we members can vote regionally and just vote for people based on where they are and what they do in the KCBS structure. Look at the diversity on the board for this year. I'm really excited about that.

Slamdunkpro · Jan 29, 2015

Candy Sue said:
In MY Opinion only, there should have been one option on the ballot with a yes/no vote. I didn't build it, but I did report the results and I reported as it was handed to me. Also IMO, the regions really didn't make sense except that they were decided based on voting numbers. I wrote the regional representation proposal without hard defined regions in mind (because there needs to be flexibility if it's going to be based on member voting numbers). It put the work of recruiting 3 candidates from an under-represented area (as determined by the nominating committee, approved by board) on the nominating committee. If the nominating committee couldn't find 3 candidates to run, a regional seat wasn't going to happen that election. Wasn't perfect, but it would have been a start in the RR direction. Of course (again IMO!), we members can vote regionally and just vote for people based on where they are and what they do in the KCBS structure. Look at the diversity on the board for this year. I'm really excited about that.

I have to agree with this. We already have regional representation on the BoD. Want someone elected from your region? Get out the voters and vote them in. Gerrymandering creates more problems than it solves IMHO.

timzcardz · Jan 29, 2015

QN said:
Bylaws change #1 -- Amend Bylaws to implement Regional Representation
2349 votes out of 3,645 votes cast or 64.44%

Bylaws change #2 - No, do NOT amend Bylaws to implement Regional Representation
948 votes out of 3,645 votes cast or 26%

Both suggested Bylaws change fail

Candy Sue said:
In MY Opinion only, there should have been one option on the ballot with a yes/no vote.

Well that is a very reasonable opinion to have!

Not that it would make any sense, but in theory, both could have been passed, and then what the hell would be the result? Amend the bylaws? Or don't amend them?

columbia1 · Jan 29, 2015

Candy Sue said:
In MY Opinion only, there should have been one option on the ballot with a yes/no vote. I didn't build it, but I did report the results and I reported as it was handed to me. Also IMO, the regions really didn't make sense except that they were decided based on voting numbers. I wrote the regional representation proposal without hard defined regions in mind (because there needs to be flexibility if it's going to be based on member voting numbers). It put the work of recruiting 3 candidates from an under-represented area (as determined by the nominating committee, approved by board) on the nominating committee. If the nominating committee couldn't find 3 candidates to run, a regional seat wasn't going to happen that election. Wasn't perfect, but it would have been a start in the RR direction. Of course (again IMO!), we members can vote regionally and just vote for people based on where they are and what they do in the KCBS structure. Look at the diversity on the board for this year. I'm really excited about that.

Thanks Candy!!!
I saw that the results were VERY close to this passing, I agree with you on the way it was wrote out, and even commented on it in an earlier post, I submitted my ballot without marking either option because it was very confusing, now to my question, how many ballots were turned in compared to the number of people that voted on that issue? were there enough ballots where people did not vote on that issue that if the question was worded like you suggested that they would be enough "Yes" votes to put it over the top?

ON EDIT: I just saw in the OP, the numbers I was looking for, out of 3645 voters, ONLY 3297 voted for that issue!!
Meaning 348 voters(over 10%) did not add their input, PLENTY enough to push the results over the top!!!

IMHO, the way that issue was wrote resulted in it's defeat!!!

columbia1 · Jan 29, 2015

2nd point, I just noticed something, if ONLY 3297 voted on that issue, that would come out to a 71% number!!!

For- 2349/3297= 71%
Against- 948/3297= 28%

I definitely now feel that KCBS is trying to pull some crap on us.

thesemicullen · Jan 29, 2015

columbia1 said:
2nd point, I just noticed something, if ONLY 3297 voted on that issue, that would come out to a 71% number!!!

For- 2349/3297= 71%
Against- 948/3297= 28%

I definitely now feel that KCBS is trying to pull some crap on us.

3,645 votes were cast.

And I completely feel that this bylaw failed because of the way they divided regions. I voted against it for that reason.

GrillBillie_D · Jan 30, 2015

thesemicullen said:
3,645 votes were cast.

And I completely feel that this bylaw failed because of the way they divided regions. I voted against it for that reason.

3645 voted for candidates. Only 3297 cast a vote for or against the regional question on bylaws.

columbia1 is correct in his math. 2349 for change the bylaws, 948 do not change bylaws. Total comes to 3297. 71% for change, 28% against.

Someone needs to clarify how they got the final numbers. :shocked:

Jorge · Jan 30, 2015

GrillBillie_D said:
3645 voted for candidates. Only 3297 cast a vote for or against the regional question on bylaws.

columbia1 is correct in his math. 2349 for change the bylaws, 948 do not change bylaws. Total comes to 3297. 71% for change, 28% against.

Someone needs to clarify how they got the final numbers. :shocked:

They used the number of votes cast by paper or electronic ballot, not the number of votes cast by paper or electronic ballot for that particular issue. My reading of the Missouri statute is that they followed the law, but I'm not an attorney.

Burnt at Both Endz · Jan 30, 2015

Jorge said:
They used the number of votes cast by paper or electronic ballot, not the number of votes cast by paper or electronic ballot for that particular issue. My reading of the Missouri statute is that they followed the law, but I'm not an attorney.

I could be wrong, I'm not an attorney either, but I think it would depend on how the KCBS bylaws are worded concerning a 2/3rds vote?

bbq.tom · Jan 30, 2015

Burnt at Both Endz said:
I could be wrong, I'm not an attorney either, but I think it would depend on how the KCBS bylaws are worded concerning a 2/3rds vote?

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 by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all approved Members who voted by paper ballot or secure electronic ballot in a general election or special election with the Bylaws amendment on the ballot. Proposed amendments and/or revisions must be provided to all Members entitled to vote in writing at least one month prior to the voting period and must be published in the official publication of the organization at least thirty days prior to the beginning of the voting period.

This means 2/3 of 3,645, not just those who voted on the amendment itself.

columbia1 · Jan 30, 2015

bbq.tom said:
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 by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all approved Members who voted by paper ballot or secure electronic ballot in a general election or special election with the Bylaws amendment on the ballot. Proposed amendments and/or revisions must be provided to all Members entitled to vote in writing at least one month prior to the voting period and must be published in the official publication of the organization at least thirty days prior to the beginning of the voting period.

This means 2/3 of 3,645, not just those who voted on the amendment itself.

Exactly!!!, if the question would have been worded as a one issue proposal, ie. approve/not approve(as Candy suggested) it would have passed, but they decided to make it TWO different issues, which according to my math means it would take close too 75% in order to pass(10% non-votes), that is why I am VERY upset

The way they constructed the proposal into the ballot made it about impossible to pass!!!

bbq.tom · Jan 30, 2015

What bothers me more than the amendment issue or the BOD members, or anything else, is that only 3,645 members voted out of the almost 20,000 members of KCBS!!!
Less than 20% of KCBS membership actually gives a $h1T!!!

Smoke'n Ice · Jan 30, 2015

It has been on the ballot in the pass and the results were not to their liking so, therefore, they reworded it so it was more convoluted and would achieve their end goal. There appears to be a select few who, if you wear an apron or have a drink and you are not one of the chosen, will seek to banish you East of Eden. This bylaw, had it have passed, would have been ignored as the wording was too ambiguous and would have diluted the chosen ones rule and authority.

If you read the wording, it was a proposed bylaw change to be studied and then an actual bylaw change would have to be included in the next ballot for all to vote on if they, the chosen ones, got around to it.

Since it did not pass, it will never be on the ballot again as the membership does not want it!!!!!!

ckelly · Jan 30, 2015

3645 ballots cast
2349 approved
948 reject
348 chose neither.

3645 ballots cast, but the vote for the BoD election and the referendum question were on the same ballot. Obviously, 348 people chose to submit only their selections for board members.

Why are the 348 blank ballots being considered as part of the total votes cast if no choice regarding the referendum question (regional representation) were made?

GrillBillie_D · Jan 30, 2015

I think we could argue the meaning of the bylaw but it doesn't really matter. They made the results look like the results they wanted.

In Presidential elections, you pick your Prez and you have ballot measures. If you vote for Prez, and not for the ballot measure, they don't count you part of the percentage who voted for the ballot measure.

And like Tom said, the voter turnout was terrible! Those of us who voted should be more outraged by that number!! Why belong to an organization if you don't care who runs it or how they run it? :tsk:

JD McGee · Jan 30, 2015

ckelly said:
3645 ballots cast
2349 approved
948 reject
348 chose neither.

3645 ballots cast, but the vote for the BoD election and the referendum question were on the same ballot. Obviously, 348 people chose to submit only their selections for board members.

Why are the 348 blank ballots being considered as part of the total votes cast if no choice regarding the referendum question (regional representation) were made?

Yep...my first thought as well...

BTW I voted for...

DUBBAGA · Jan 30, 2015

bbq.tom said:
What bothers me more than the amendment issue or the BOD members, or anything else, is that only 3,645 members voted out of the almost 20,000 members of KCBS!!!
Less than 20% of KCBS membership actually gives a $h1T!!!

I would like to see KCBS disclose the voting results broken out by those who are registered cook teams vs those who are not.

Looking at the 2014 TOY results, there are 2838 teams listed.

Having nothing to support my opinion other than a strong ability to talk out of my a$$, I would speculate that at least 80% of the teams that cook voted, and probably 90% voted for regional representation. If my guess is correct, that would mean 2270 out of 2838 votes. Let's say there are a total of 18k KCBS members, deduct 2838 cook teams = 15162 non-head cook potential voters. If 2270 of 2838 teams voted, this leaves the remaining 1375 votes coming from 15162 potential voters = 9% voting from non-head cooks.

Hopefully I'm very wrong about this, because it would mean that only 9% of the judges, table captains, reps, organizers, etc have an interest in the direction of the organization. This would mean that the largest portion of the membership has the least concern about it's direction :twitch:

KCBS Bylaw vote?

is one Smokin' Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

Babbling Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

Babbling Farker

Babbling Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

is one Smokin' Farker

Full Fledged Farker

Full Fledged Farker

somebody shut me the fark up.

Babbling Farker

is Blowin Smoke!

is one Smokin' Farker

is Blowin Smoke!

is one Smokin' Farker

Full Fledged Farker

Full Fledged Farker

somebody shut me the fark up.

is One Chatty Farker

Similar threads