Jump to content

Why no mention/Important New Rule Change Proposal


Recommended Posts

Have you sat through a meeting with 20 to 25 directors?

Yes... Not corps directors, but directors of various organisations with billion dollar revenues...

It's doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 647
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes... Not corps directors, but directors of various organisations with billion dollar revenues...

It's doable.

Yes, I know. That was my point. I was responding to someone that was implying it could not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, sorry for the snyde remark, but I got very irritated when he asked for reasons for a point, then says you can't use your reasons for the point, it's rather ludicrous...somewhat snide even.

Come on. I'm stupid maybe, but not snide. Here's where I joined this part of the discussion:

For the sake of argument, I'll grant you the "rich" part. And also for argument's sake, I'll grant that you can count amps and mics as examples of "toys" that cost corps extra.

So where is the "more and more"? What else have the rich forced on the poor that cost them more? Touring? I'm not going to buy that because the rich touring shouldn't have prevented the poor from performing close to home. What else?

HH

I’ll admit to being provocative here and subsequently when I pushed you and others to come up with another “toy” to prove the “more and more” that’s so prevalent in discussion along these lines. But I don’t think I was even “somewhat snide.” I’d like to think if I were going to be snide, I’d have been very obviously and clearly snide – an approach I’m going to reserve for possible future posts!

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it. Who's to say that, if the rule passes, next year a proposal will be made to have the "top 5" govern. Five out of nine vote yes, and corps 6-9 are tossed into the pile with 10-22. Then the back stabbing continues when 3 of 5 vote that the top three get to make the rules.

Also, why are we going by score? Yes the top corps are run well, but not all are. PR defaults on a few hundred thousand in debts but gets a vote. Academy tours responsibly but placed 14th and doesn't get a vote. Why not the top nine best run corps instead of the top nine scores at finals?

Why can't there be an ad hoc member? Top nine point getters, and two elected board members out of the 10-22 placing corps?

Can't blame George for this, he is only doing what he feels is best for his corps and his business. If he can lobby others into agreeing more power to him, so to speak. Hopefully a current voter with a set of kahunas will stand up to the proposal so every voice can be heard.

Excellent points in the first paragraph. This is a youth activity, not a pilot for Donald Trump's "Apprentice", but that's what backdoor meetings say, folks. Cut it to nine, and 3 or 4 of those will gang up and decide they don't need the other 5 or 6 to be "effective" and "organized". Then one of those will decide he needs to be Tony Soprano, and ba-da-bing.

Why, indeed, judge by scores *or* financial statements? Competitive points and dollar signs are just numbers. Competitive judging is by definition subjective, and there are people who'll cook books to say anything you want for a few hundred bucks.

If this really isn't about a few egos, those egos should logically be comfortable with a rotating panel, a common practice in many professional associations and even in some protestant denominations. You sign on and agree to a 3-5 year term, then rotate off. It keeps things on the up-and-up.

I don't wanna see the same four football teams in the playoffs every year, and I don't wanna see the same nine corps year after year after year. Borrrring. And how many shows would those nine end up doing? 7 to 10 at the max.

Take away all the benefits from the other corps, and they'll all fold one by one. ("but that's not what it says", "but that's not what they want to do"... yeah, yeah, talk to the hand.) Nine corps of 150 members... so out of the entire world (don't forget that "i" in DCI), and that tallies to only 1,350 marching members. My, my, my.

While we're talking about people -- how many people does this plan leave out in the cold? Let's see, local schools and organizations who sponsor shows that will probably fall off the schedule... instructors and staff for the corps who will have to cut back severely or fold... kids who used to be in the other corps... a large number of judges who won't be needed with fewer shows...

It's certainly easy to see exactly who it would benefit. :ph34r:

Question I haven't seen here yet: Most of the corps are non-profit corporations; is YEA a non-profit corporation? They operate dozens of competitive events outside of drum corps. Most of the other corps don't, and may not want to. A regular corporation and a non-profit have vastly different business models. Is the gist of this idea to give everybody the same business template to adopt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotating board membership is interesting, but I’m not sold yet. One of my issues is rotating among the stratified hierarchy doesn’t necessarily preclude tilting the board too far in any direction. Another is it doesn't necessarily mean the best possible board members.

Suppose for instance, Madison is selected this year representing the 13-17 strata only to have them recoup traditional glory and find themselves for the next three years more in alignment with the top six than the bottom six. If Cadets went the way of Star and the group of elite corps is reduced by one, which corps would inherit that status where board selection is concerned. Might the board then overweight the middle to the detriment of either extreme?

On the other end of the spectrum, would the reappearance of Kiwanis or Magic mean automatic consideration for that board opening? Would Southwind rate higher consideration because it’s been absent less?

If the object is both to get the best board and a balanced board, does this achieve that result given how fluid this activity can be?

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question I haven't seen here yet: Most of the corps are non-profit corporations; is YEA a non-profit corporation? They operate dozens of competitive events outside of drum corps. Most of the other corps don't, and may not want to. A regular corporation and a non-profit have vastly different business models. Is the gist of this idea to give everybody the same business template to adopt?

Youth Education in the Arts is a not-for-profit 501©3 organization.

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, this "The 9" nonsense still keeps about five votes the same very year at least...Cadets, Cavaliers, BD, Phantom, Bluecoats...and that's a majority over any stragglers (SCV, Crown, BK, BAC, etc) that might make it in or out of this little elitist club... that's all it takes for adding anything from monkeys to woodwinds. :ph34r:

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time there was significant change to the top 6? I mean, when was the last time there was more then one switch out with an "outside" corp.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does a "gang 0f 9" benefit the top?

They can effect judging credentials. Example, amplification is used to benefit a corp we are told.

It does because it is only used to increase (or benefit) a GE score. What if a proposal was made to judge amplification like acoustic sounds (brass, drums) and any static, pops or imbalance issues were not beneficial but cause deductions or "ticks" (to be a little old school).

Do you seriously think any of the big boys would ever vote yes on a such a proposal? Never happen, never will. It will not benefit them, it will only help corps who can not afford or simiply choose not to use amplification.

If this "gang of 9" comes into effect there will NEVER be any judging of amps, they will get a pass on any problems they have, such as the SCV "pop" or the problems the Cadets have with static in the past, and only get the benefit of "GE" points.

This is only one example of the top of my pointy head.

What about performance placement, we saw what happened in 1988 when the status quo of order placement was replaced with placement of by random draw. Madison shook up that evening like we haven't seen in quite awhile. Again with an elite board these things that shake up will be long and few between.

Just my $.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rotating board membership is interesting, but I’m not sold yet. One of my issues is rotating among the stratified hierarchy doesn’t necessarily preclude tilting the board too far in any direction. Another is it doesn't necessarily mean the best possible board members.

Suppose for instance, Madison is selected this year representing the 13-17 strata only to have them recoup traditional glory and find themselves for the next three years more in alignment with the top six than the bottom six. If Cadets went the way of Star and the group of elite corps is reduced by one, which corps would inherit that status where board selection is concerned. Might the board then overweight the middle to the detriment of either extreme?

On the other end of the spectrum, would the reappearance of Kiwanis or Magic mean automatic consideration for that board opening? Would Southwind rate higher consideration because it’s been absent less?

If the object is both to get the best board and a balanced board, does this achieve that result given how fluid this activity can be?

HH

Rules as to how long a new corps has to wait until they become eligible for rotation are faced now. Let's say for the sake of argument, you have to be a member in good standing for 3 successive years before you can join the rotation.

As for the strata -- You have 9 board spots (for example). Let's say we average placements over 3 years running. (ANd I'm going to assume 27 corps for the sake of math :ph34r:). You give 3 board spots to the 9 corps in the top average, 3 to the middle, 3 to the bottom. So could a corps move from group to group during their tenure? Sure, but averaging placements will minimize this and also it's doubtful that so many would switch to suddenly change the perspective of the board as a whole. As corps move from one group to another, it may be that it's not a strict always-3-on-always-6-off rotation; ther may be some shifting of this to rebalance. But only as corps end their 3 year run -- no one is kicked off short of three years (unless they otherwise don't maintain their membership in good standing,of course). I would suggest rules that this shifting and other replacements due to folded corps, etc. never result in a corps having 2 successive terms. But corps may come back without waiting 6 years if necessary. (And obviously the real math is a little more complicated because we don't have exactly 27 or 18 corps!!). In all instances, though, the rules are set out ahead of time and rotation is systematic -- not voting for replacement members, etc.

Look, I know this gets complicated, but all we're talking about is situational bylaw rules that have to be written. It's just details. Don't dismiss the overall concept simply because I didn't lay out every single detail. :huh2:

Edited by Liam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the object is both to get the best board and a balanced board, does this achieve that result given how fluid this activity can be?

HH

Also, let me comment on this.

Although the "goal" of course would be to have the best board possible -- I don't think the process should be to identify the "best" board members for inclusion. IMO, the best board possible is one that allows for equal representation over time of all the members in good standing. If a particular corps chooses to disregard their opportunity and participate with attendance only, then so be it -- but I would argue that is still the "best" board because no member can complain that their voices weren't givena an opportunity to be heard. Balancing the board with subcommitees in which anyone can participate enusures against the unlikely scenario that a majority of the board are too weak to do anything. Trying to identify the "best" board members for inclusion is, and will always be, a matter of perspective and those left out will have the impression that they have no say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...