LabMaster Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 20 hours ago, garfield said: Laudable, I'm certain. To each his own. If my loyalty is to the corps and not, necessarily, a particular kid then my first priority is the health of the corps. That might include desiring to stimulate longevity of its members. Placing a restriction requiring loyalty to the corps by the recipient is perfectly appropriate. The ED has the choice to accept the gift or not based on his ability to find a recipient willing to commit to multiple year's of loyalty to the corps. Disingenuous? What right do we have to call a loyal corps supporter any names at all? That's right to each his own. Who called anyone names? I expressed an opinion. MY opinion. Don't put your spin on what I wrote & don't put words in my mouth. And if I donate to a kid, specifically to a kid who has requested assistance to support their attempt to raise money for their tour fees, who the heck do I think I am, to put restrictions on a KID? Who am I to think I can lord over a kids DC experience? when I donate to the kid I not only have a loyalty to the corps but to the kid as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 14 hours ago, xandandl said: I am presuming by following your logic that you and your accountant take no deductions for charitable giving when doing your taxes for that would not be charity or generosity anymore but a means to make your status better by giving yourself credit for what you gave to others. That's exactly right bubba. No deduction. A true donation, anonymously, when it is directly given to a kid for tour fee assistance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 5 minutes ago, LabMaster said: Disingenuous? What right do we have to call a loyal corps supporter any names at all? 6 minutes ago, LabMaster said: That's right to each his own. Who called anyone names? I expressed an opinion. MY opinion. Don't put your spin on what I wrote & don't put words in my mouth. And if I donate to a kid, specifically to a kid who has requested assistance to support their attempt to raise money for their tour fees, who the heck do I think I am, to put restrictions on a KID? Who am I to think I can lord over a kids DC experience? when I donate to the kid I not only have a loyalty to the corps but to the kid as well. dis·in·gen·u·ous ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/ adjective not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does. synonyms: insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; hypocritical "that innocent, teary-eyed look is just part of a disingenuous act" OK, so disingenuous is not a "name". Got it. I'll change my sentence. Disingenuous? What right do we have to call a loyal corps supporter any names at all say anything negative or accusatory about a loyal supporter? So, the opinions here include casting aspersions against at least one corps, and include suggesting that one or more of their donors, sponsors, and contributors are, by putting restrictions on their gifts, being insincere, dishonest, untruthful, false, deceitful, duplicitous, lying, mendacious; and/or hypocritical. Do I have that right so far? And we haven't even seen the contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, LabMaster said: That's exactly right bubba. No deduction. A true donation, anonymously, when it is directly given to a kid for tour fee assistance. I appreciate your gifting a lot, even if your logic of taking advantage of exiting tax rules baffles me. Your altruism is impressive even if we don't know the extent of your support. Perhaps the size, or lack there-of, prompts you to focus on the altruism. My apologies, I don't believe that. I just wondered if your are familiar with the other end of the pitchfork. There is no evidence that has been shown here, as of this moment, that suggests anything other than Crown is enforcing a contract and some parents are complaining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, garfield said: Interesting. Even in a NP activity that has had the practice in place for some time and all participants agree to? And I presume you mean because the punishment is too great, correct? I'm just throwing out spitballs here, so don't go all lawyer-defensive on me. Your opinion is worth exactly what I'm paying for it... I don't think the non-profit halo insulates the business practices from the same legal restrictions on what cannot be enforced. After all, the kids are still in effect purchasing an educational product from the corps - it's a business relationship like any other. Let's look at an analogy outside the non-profit world: You purchase a one year membership at Costco for 2017 (= 1 year membership with Crown) As an incentive for first-time members, or perhaps because it is a newly opened Costo in your town, they waive the annual fee for 2017 (= Crown giving a scholarship [not some alumni] for the year's tuition) You receive for one year a product of financial discounts on merchandise in their store (= the member receives the product of musical education) You're not required to renew the contract at the end of the year (= you're not required to march next year; in fact, under Crown's own policy on their website, you are not even guaranteed the chance to march the following year, but are in fact required to audition all over again!) But if you don't renew the membership with Costco, and instead take out a membership with BJs in 2018, you will be sent a bill for the 2017 annual membership they waived. As you said - you haven't paid for my legal opinion, and you are getting what you paid for here, but I don't think Costco would be able to enforce such a provision because I believe it would be a violation of anti-trust law. Frankly, I think the DCI policy would be even more problematic for many reasons which would bring up other policy restrictions on contract, including: (1) failure to pay back that discount could actually prevent you under DCI rules from marching elsewhere, (2) the fact that the corps is not even guarantying you the right to march with them next season, but is imposing a financial penalty if you march elsewhere, (3) the already existing limited window of opportunity to march with any corps due to age restrictions, which would set the bar even higher on additional restrictions of movement. I'm certain there is probably a hefty body of case law on the subject with regard to the academic world of scholarships and transfers, and I really do not believe a DCI corps would be able to distinguish themselves from those situations very easily. Edited February 6, 2017 by Eleran to fix a continuity error 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimthetuba Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Eleran said: (2) the fact that the corps is not even guarantying you the right to march with them next season, but is imposing a financial penalty if you march elsewhere, This is my only objection to the policies, but other than that I'm not sure why legal adults (or parents agreeing on behalf of their children) cannot make a contract with stipulations and face the benefits and penalties of a contract as they arise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, jimthetuba said: This is my only objection to the policies, but other than that I'm not sure why legal adults (or parents agreeing on behalf of their children) cannot make a contract with stipulations and face the benefits and penalties of a contract as they arise. Because the settled law of the county says there are certain important matters that you simply are not permitted to contract for. Because for every two consenting adults with equal bargaining power that know what they are getting into, there will be a dozen other instances of unequal power where one side will be clearly taking advantage of the other's desperation. Some would say Carolina Crown versus an 18 year old might be included in the latter. Should people be able to contract themselves into indentured servitude? [Edit: i don't mean to equate DCI marching to indentured servitude; it's just one of the obvious examples of a contract that would not be permitted, even if the two consenting adults thought they should be able to make such a contract] Edited February 6, 2017 by Eleran 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 10 minutes ago, Eleran said: Because the settled law of the county says there are certain important matters that you simply are not permitted to contract for. Because for every two consenting adults with equal bargaining power that know what they are getting into, there will be a dozen other instances of unequal power where one side will be clearly taking advantage of the other's desperation. Some would say Carolina Crown versus an 18 year old might be included in the latter. Should people be able to contract themselves into indentured servitude? [Edit: i don't mean to equate DCI marching to indentured servitude; it's just one of the obvious examples of a contract that would not be permitted, even if the two consenting adults thought they should be able to make such a contract] What's interesting is that apparently more than one person now feels aggrieved by the action of the corps yet they all willingly and, presumably without the benefit of a lawyer's advice, accepted the stipulations of the contract and signed. It's almost as if they've all come to realize that they signed an unenforceable document and don't need to worry about repaying their debt. Almost as if someone coached them to sign regardless of the contract's covenants... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 31 minutes ago, garfield said: What's interesting is that apparently more than one person now feels aggrieved by the action of the corps yet they all willingly and, presumably without the benefit of a lawyer's advice, accepted the stipulations of the contract and signed. It's almost as if they've all come to realize that they signed an unenforceable document and don't need to worry about repaying their debt. Almost as if someone coached them to sign regardless of the contract's covenants... I don't know about that. You're speculating as to motives. I quite imagine that 18-19 year olds simply signed whatever was given them, trusting the explanation that "Hey, you don't have to pay to march with us in 2016!", and had no idea that there might be an obligation to repay the scholarship. When corps check out instruments to the kids at camps, they make them sign a multi-page agreement right on the spot without any time to carefully review - I doubt a single marcher even reads it. Is that wrong for the 18-19 year old to do? Sure. But you might feel it is even "more wrong" for the corps to put them in that position. In the scholarship case, the real adults (i.e. parents) probably didn't even get involved until the problem arose, and THEN the kids went to them for advice. And as I've said before, we've never even seen the provision and have no idea whether it clearly and unambiguously states what Carolina Crown claims it states. Contracts are frequently rife with ambiguous and conflicting provisions - it all depends on the quality of the drafter. If they were all clear and proper, the courts would be a much emptier place. But even so, it's a only a small percentage of crappy contracts that ever get challenged in court. Edited February 6, 2017 by Eleran 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibexpercussion Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) Obviously, it's the off-season, and these are the only things we have to talk about. Once tour starts I'm sure we'll all be besties again, and not have any disagreements at all. Edited February 6, 2017 by ibexpercussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts