N.E. Brigand Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 8 hours ago, garfield said: So, as the _Kid and I were hanging crown molding in the kitchen today, I was rolling around this whole subject in my head. . . . Clearly biased because you weren't hanging crusader molding. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Liahona said: That is just ONE example...you make it sound like it only happened to this one kid. WRONG...you really don't want me to drop a bombshell over another corps that was aggrieved by this behavior...trust me that will create a firestorm that makes this look like a small blip on a radar screen more than you would imagine..please don't push it... Sure we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 9 hours ago, craiga said: I ask this with absolute respect to corpsband, Garfield, and anyone else...and it is something I joked about a few pages back: Suppose the fictitious Boston Crown Cadets Corps decided to take its $3500 fee, increase that fee by another $3500, but then give each member a "scholarship" back of $3500 with the condition of those members never marching elsewhere or they would owe the scholarship back? Guys, seriously if you follow this idea to its possible conclusion, would that not have the effect of forcing kids to march with one corps for their entire eligibility? I know the example seems absurd, but the methodology is the exact same. You're starting with the premise that the fees were doubled and we don't have that here (based on known details). I wonder if it went down like this: The Boston Crown's fee is $3,500. Fabulous trumpet-player can't afford it. ED calls a donor and asks for $2.500 donation to help a kid march. Said donor agrees but puts stipulation on the gift that the kid must agree to march at the Boston Crowns for XX years (more than one). ED asks member, who quickly agrees. Member gets "scholarship", owes $1,000, pays $500, and marches the season. Season ends and Mr. Fabulous Trumpeter goes with some buddies to audition at the Carolina Crusaders, knowing he owes money to the Crowns, and gets a contract. He never pays his remaining fee to the Crowns. ED of the Crusaders follows DCI policy and contacts the Crowns about FT's outstanding debt. As of that moment, FT owes the $500 plus the $2,500 gift he got to march at the Crowns. I don't see anything wrong with this scenario. Particularly the lesson the FT learns about putting on his big boy (purple) pants and living up to the obligations he signs his name to or, IMO, on which he shakes the other's hand in agreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 9 hours ago, corpsband said: Well it is the part they are having a problem with. The face value of "scholarship revoked" sounds bad. And don't hold Crown blameless for choosing the wrong terms. But what matters here is what actually took place between the FMM and Crown. What was the actual transaction? And what were the terms? If some alum created a fund for $1000/year scholarship to be disbursed to a MM, it would be entirely wrong to "revoke" that scholarship and make the MM repay. Because -- from Crown's POV -- they got paid for the members tuition. Heck even if Crown established a separate fund that paid dues on behalf of member, the situation would remain the same. But what happened here was different: Crown received no monies to pay for the tuition. Instead some portion of that tuition was forgiven (with terms). ...and, by allowing the terms of the agreement to go unfulfilled has both pi$$ed off a substantial donor and failed in their fiduciary responsibility to treat his contribution accurately under the terms it was given. How anxious do you think the donor will be to make another contribution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 9 hours ago, BRASSO said: The word " scholarship " was utilized in the legal language of the contract. The term " debt forgiveness " was not utilized in the CC contract because a " debt forgiveness ", is not a " scholarship ". For example, hundreds of H.S. football players just signed College Letters of Intent this week to receive " Scholarships " to play football at Div.1a Colleges. The football " scholsarship " is not " debt forgiveness " as there is no personal " debt " for the future player. There is no " debt " as they have not yet set foot on the football field to practice, let alone play at the " scholarship " providing institution. So there is nothing to "forgive " the " scholarship " winner with. Furthermore, once the player fulfills the responsibilities of the "scholarship".. goes to practice, follows the team rules, etc, and leaves the school at the end, he does not owe the school the " scholarship " monies back. Even if the player decides to transfer from Texas to Oklahoma ( a firece football rival ) Texas is not going to turn that players " scholarship" into a punitive " payment on demand bill ". Not only is Texas not going to do so for just ethical reasons and good PR reasons, they are going to make sure they don't do it for legal reasons. The NCAA prohibits any of its member organizations to turn a " scholarship " into a " payment on demand " bill. So to this extent, CC probably should utilize another phrase than " scholarship " in its contracts, as you and I both now agree this phrase " scholarship " does not even have Webster Dictionary definition of something that needs to be future " paid back ". Has anyone seen a contract? We know this word was used in an email, but do we know the gift is called a "scholarship" in the actual contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 8 hours ago, Liahona said: Only the OP can request closure...stop asking for it. Completely not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruckner8 Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, garfield said: You're starting with the premise that the fees were doubled and we don't have that here (based on known details). I wonder if it went down like this: The Boston Crown's fee is $3,500. Fabulous trumpet-player can't afford it. ED calls a donor and asks for $2.500 donation to help a kid march. Said donor agrees but puts stipulation on the gift that the kid must agree to march at the Boston Crowns for XX years (more than one). ED asks member, who quickly agrees. Member gets "scholarship", owes $1,000, pays $500, and marches the season. Season ends and Mr. Fabulous Trumpeter goes with some buddies to audition at the Carolina Crusaders, knowing he owes money to the Crowns, and gets a contract. He never pays his remaining fee to the Crowns. ED of the Crusaders follows DCI policy and contacts the Crowns about FT's outstanding debt. As of that moment, FT owes the $500 plus the $2,500 gift he got to march at the Crowns. I don't see anything wrong with this scenario. Particularly the lesson the FT learns about putting on his big boy (purple) pants and living up to the obligations he signs his name to or, IMO, on which he shakes the other's hand in agreement. As long as the donor is kept in the loop, I'm down, cuz the donor created the condition NOT THE CORPS. (This not a subtle thing, but it's being glossed over.) technically the donor should get that money back! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subcritical Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 hours ago, garfield said: Has anyone seen a contract? We know this word was used in an email, but do we know the gift is called a "scholarship" in the actual contract? No we haven't seen the contract - which can be considered the important part. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcifanforlife Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) I have been sponsoring members in different corps for over thirty years and many of those members moved to other corps after a couple years. I have also given funds to many scholarship funds. Sponsorships are not tax deductible but scholarships are only if they are not for a particular individual. Donors should never get their money back under any circumstance. I don't care what the individual or the corps does with my money. Contracts are awarded in the fall and winter months. Most scholarships are awarded just before spring training or at spring training. A corps has no way to know if a member is going to need a scholarship until they fall behind in their dues payments not when the contract is signed. No member or parent should sign a contract with Crown if a revoking scholarship provision is part of the contract. We are talking about a corps here that collects thousands of dollars in registration fees and camp fees from hundreds of auditionee's that have no chance of making the corps. This is petty and vindictive on Crowns part. Crown should redo all of their 2017 contracts. Edited February 5, 2017 by dcifanforlife Corrections 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 6 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said: Self-awareness is a good first step. Yes, indeed. Publically acknowledging it, is even more enobling for people, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts