2000Cadet Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Just now, MikeRapp said: Enablers tacitly approve of destructive behavior by not doing something about it. I wasn't referring to you, but the BOT. They may be, but we don't know what exactly is going on behind the scenes, behind the Facebook posts, etc. Who knows, they may be indirectly searching for someone new. But we don't know. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icer Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said: They may be, but we don't know what exactly is going on behind the scenes, behind the Facebook posts, etc. Who knows, they may be indirectly searching for someone new. But we don't know. I don't know if you serve on any non-profit boards (I have served on a few over the years), but the kinds of things that are talked about are: budgets and performance by business unit, compliance, fundraising, capital investment, etc. The only reason a board would get involved at the level you are talking about is if there were allegations of wrongdoing. The debate about show design, facebook posts, etc. is something they should stay out of. It would be like a university board of trustees dealing with run/pass ratios on the football team. Now overall management style and the effectiveness of the organization as a whole - eventually issues like that will bubble up to the board, but in the absence of some triggering incident (like a major safety issue, an allegation of wrongdoing by one of the staff, etc - look at what happened at Uber, for example), this is evaluated over the long term and in the context of everything the organization does. This gives stability, but also can lead to frustration if stakeholders think the pace of change is too slow. The only difference with a for-profit board is that the shareholder return also comes into play, and that can potentially lead to a change in management even if there are no other underlying issues. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2000Cadet Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Just now, Icer said: I don't know if you serve on any non-profit boards (I have served on a few over the years), but the kinds of things that are talked about are: budgets and performance by business unit, compliance, fundraising, capital investment, etc. The only reason a board would get involved at the level you are talking about is if there were allegations of wrongdoing. The debate about show design, facebook posts, etc. is something they should stay out of. It would be like a university board of trustees dealing with run/pass ratios on the football team. Now overall management style and the effectiveness of the organization as a whole - eventually issues like that will bubble up to the board, but in the absence of some triggering incident (like a major safety issue, an allegation of wrongdoing by one of the staff, etc - look at what happened at Uber, for example), this is evaluated over the long term and in the context of everything the organization does. This gives stability, but also can lead to frustration if stakeholders think the pace of change is too slow. The only difference with a for-profit board is that the shareholder return also comes into play, and that can potentially lead to a change in management even if there are no other underlying issues. Good points. That's why I say that people should not assume what people are fine with or what they're not fine with. I don't know what goes on in non-profit boards so that's an education you've just given me. And based on that, it sounds like that even IF the board WASN'T fine with what GH does, they couldn't really do much about it in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabe211 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKT90 Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said: Good points. That's why I say that people should not assume what people are fine with or what they're not fine with. I don't know what goes on in non-profit boards so that's an education you've just given me. And based on that, it sounds like that even IF the board WASN'T fine with what GH does, they couldn't really do much about it in the first place. This is something I have experience with, serving on board committees for a current WC corps in fund raising, marketing and communications, along with serving on the Alumni board as a member, VP and President...I have seen first had a BOD President hand pick board members who were loyal to that individual, and it was virtually impossible to penetrate it, they had free reign to do what they wanted, and they almost tanked the whole thing...not saying this is the current state of affairs here, but I have had conversations back in 2015 with someone who knew what was happening, and it sounded similar to the situation I just mentioned. All that to say, if it is similar, then change is extremely hard to affect. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exitmusic Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 25 minutes ago, Icer said: I don't know if you serve on any non-profit boards (I have served on a few over the years), but the kinds of things that are talked about are: budgets and performance by business unit, compliance, fundraising, capital investment, etc. The only reason a board would get involved at the level you are talking about is if there were allegations of wrongdoing. The debate about show design, facebook posts, etc. is something they should stay out of. It would be like a university board of trustees dealing with run/pass ratios on the football team. Now overall management style and the effectiveness of the organization as a whole - eventually issues like that will bubble up to the board, but in the absence of some triggering incident (like a major safety issue, an allegation of wrongdoing by one of the staff, etc - look at what happened at Uber, for example), this is evaluated over the long term and in the context of everything the organization does. This gives stability, but also can lead to frustration if stakeholders think the pace of change is too slow. The only difference with a for-profit board is that the shareholder return also comes into play, and that can potentially lead to a change in management even if there are no other underlying issues. I agree that the Board should not be dealing with granular issues such as scoring, because who cares? But -- when the CEO's public statements are contrary or at odds with the stated mission of the organization, I think they have a fiduciary duty to act. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, gabe211 said: Thanks Gabe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icer Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 22 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said: Good points. That's why I say that people should not assume what people are fine with or what they're not fine with. I don't know what goes on in non-profit boards so that's an education you've just given me. And based on that, it sounds like that even IF the board WASN'T fine with what GH does, they couldn't really do much about it in the first place. I think the correct way to say it would be "If the board was dissatisfied with the overall handling of everything that goes into running a diverse organization, of which the corps is one component, then they would have to consider a change." I know that's not sexy on a social media discussion board where artistic interpretations, z-pulls and company fronts engender a lot of passion, but trust me when I tell you that this is how any organization like this operates. And that's OK, because someone has to do that stuff so everyone else can have fun talking about this. :-) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) ..And please don't let Aungst or Hoppy find out what we did... Edited July 21, 2017 by xandandl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craiga Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Just read GH's facebook post. It is unfortunate. As someone who has a former high school band student in Cadets' hornline this summer, I am frankly concerned. In addition to that, words DO matter. I fully believe he was referring to the members when he said the "kids need to push when it hurts, etc". 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.