Destroy the evidence

[Maddog's]

Those who have served in similar leadership capacities, such as statewide and national association boards will recall legal guidance highly recommending that certain procedings not be kept in the form of minutes. In fact, some associations don't even keep minutes due to their legal standing. They instead substitute unofficial notes which can be kept and referred to but will not stand up as legal representation of board actions. There are very good reasons for all of this. I have no experience inside the leadership of KCBS...none. However, based on extensive experience on other non-profit boards, I will defend any board's right to act confidentially, again for a number of reasons. I'll only bother to drag you through a couple, here. Say you sit on a board and there is reason to discuss an individual's unfortunate actions. You do not want to make the member more of a target than he has already made himself but you think you may be able to HELP him by some outside-the-board one-to-one action in good faith. You certainly don't want to make that a matter of "public record" even though it had become a matter potentially for board action. The board would rather help the invidual than make him a further target. You may also find that disucssions about staff salaries are confidential by virtue of the contracts under which they work. In that case, those discussions may not be made public. There are a myriad of other topics that are governed by other rules, regulations, contracts and by-laws, to say nothing of common sense and compassion for the member or members, that if entered into official minutes would be in violation of one or more of the binding, guiding documents of the association. So, rather than getting emotional over words such as "confidential" and "secret" I would suggest you...
Elect people you trust and then trust the people you elect!
( Good of you all to care about your association in the first place. )

 

[drbbq]

If the presentation is given during the open meeting and in the podcast then members that are unfamiliar with closed session will be educated and the rest...well...the internet is never happy. QUOTE]

I think this is a great idea. But I'd also expect the BOD members to abide by the guidelines that are recomended.
For me the problem is the criteria for moving something to closed session. I'd never disagree with sensitive issues being discussed that way. But I don't agree with using it to make unpopular decisions and to mask the infighting. I believe that happens.

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

...well...the internet is never happy.

:laugh: This is so true, forums, Facebook, whatever the topic! LOL!

 

[drbbq]

Thanks for the input Jeff.

 

[Warthog]

I think this thread should be called stirring the pot! :drama:

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

I'd never disagree with sensitive issues being discussed that way. But I don't agree with using it to make unpopular decisions and to mask the infighting. I believe that happens.

Ray, I can tell you with certainty that I've been involved in two executive sessions now and in those two (which is all I can speak for), there has been ZERO "infighting" and only respectful, on-topic and beneficial discussions. Additionally, while tough issues are discussed at times, no decisions are made in executive session that require any kind of vote in the executive session. Votes are taken in open session. That being said, if I am a part of making one of the "tough decisions", I will take the heat for it as need be as long as I vote true to my values of not doing anything for my personal benefit but always looking at what might best benefit the members of KCBS.

 

[drbbq]

So all the rep approving stuff was/is congenial but just needs to be kept from the members to protect something legit? I guess I just don't understand how business works

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

Now you're talking about something else. Yes, it was all congenial as far as I was concerned.

We did have a discussion during open session about what is or isn't for executive session. We are going to look at developing a policy that will direct future decisions on what will be on that agenda. Hope that helps.

 

[riblette]

I’m more-or-less an outsider, but I try to pay attention. Based on my observations over the past few years the KCBS BOD has had a tendency to be self-serving and, given the size and scope of the organization the BOD has displayed some amateurish behavior. I believe that is slowly changing, and I remain hopeful that they are heading in the right direction.


That being said, just because someone feels like an organization has done them wrong (for example, maybe they feel their stature in the BBQ community has been disrespected) or whatever, does not necessarily make EVERYTHING that organization does or says wrong or suspect. Of course, I’m not inferring Ray here, cause he’s an Honey Badger and don’t care, and all that.

Unfortunately, as with most things like this, the closed sessions appear to boil down to the legal ramifications, i.e. lawsuit exposure ($$$$). At my job today I received a notice about 42 separate cases where I am required to keep any documentation I have related to these cases. To delete or destroy that data now would be in violation of court orders. Had I never kept that data, or had I destroyed or deleted or prior to the “Record Freeze” notice for that case…no problem.

Limiting the organization’s legal exposure does not seem like a bad thing. And whatever happens in those sessions eventually comes out anyway….this network is not real good at keeping secretsJ And, more importantly, membership to KCBS is most certainly a free will choice. But, hey, it’s still cold outside, the season's not at full throttle yet…might as well stir some pots, huh?

 

[Scottie]

This sounds like Watergate.

I can only say what we do at my law firm. We have a document retention policy. Real beotch if you conveniently destroy something and it goes to litigation....

As far as getting rid of all past meetings? Why not archive them? I just get what is so secretive that everyone has to cover their trails. Didn't seem like we had these problems when 'nepotism' was allowed in KCBS... :-o

 

[dmprantz]

Since this thread started, I've been trying to figure out a way to post my thoughts without it seeming like I was attacking the BOD. My general beliefs are not in line with this motion, but I don't want to place them each on a skewer for it. Still, I have a few comments....

As some one who works with data every day, I am a strong proponent of data retention. Under the mantra of "Disk space is cheap," countless times I have used historical data to help solve problems, whether those data are records in a database or past eMail communications to know who said what when. I have literally had to use both of those approaches within the past week, one to figure out an issue, and one to cover my behind on some actions I had taken. I believe in it.

In a past job, while working for one of the largest corporations in the world, we had a more strict data retention policy where the default behaviour was to delete all eMails 120 days after they had been sent. I found out that the reason for this policy was so that should any one be subpoenaed for any reason, they would not have data on hand in eMails which could be presented. Another approach I've seen is to cc: every single eMail sent or received to legal counsel so that it becomes privileged.

So that being said, I can understand the desire of some to purge records, even though they can be useful. The big question I have, and one which no one seems to have brought up, if legally CYA is the intent of purging records, what the heck are you doing? Proactively purging records so that it can't come back to haunt you, while maybe legal, indicates to me that there are things going on which shouldn't be. If you, and this applies to any one, are doing something that would be bad if it was brought up in court or a deposition, is the better answer to consider not doing it? A couple of extreme examples that come to mind are Hoover’s secretary deleting his personal file, and accounting firms shredding documents before they get subpoenaed. If the documents are bad, why do you have them? Just my thoughts....

dmp

 

[Jeff_in_KC]

In regards to destroy it or keep it, I will publicly state that my stance is that NO information should be destroyed for any reason. One could place five years or more worth of meeting notes on hard copy in one file drawer. One good sized file cabinet could probably hold every set of minutes of every meeting KCBS has ever held. And one hard drive could hold more MP3's than we'll ever produce. Storage should not be an issue. Not only do these things hold important details, they also are a history of our organization that is gone if destroyed. I will not be afraid to have anything I say in meetings preserved for as long as KCBS is in existence. Not that anyone cares what I say anyway but I'm just sayin'... :yo:

 

[Smoke'n Ice]

This sounds like Watergate.

I can only say what we do at my law firm. We have a document retention policy. Real beotch if you conveniently destroy something and it goes to litigation....

As far as getting rid of all past meetings? Why not archive them? I just get what is so secretive that everyone has to cover their trails. Didn't seem like we had these problems when 'nepotism' was allowed in KCBS... :-o

Is it possible that there is concern about a previous member of the board?

 

[drbbq]

Is it possible that there is concern about a previous member of the board?

Lol! Yes I'm sure this is Merl's fault.

 

[smoke-n-my-i's]

This sounds like Watergate.

That was my exact thoughts when I started reading this thread...