cixelsyd Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 1 hour ago, garfield said: I think some of them trusted too much and were, in fact, shocked at the battle plan being proposed in the pdf. I keep getting stuck on the difference in presentation from the first half to the second. The part Hop wrote and the part Dave Gibbs wrote - the differences were stark. Which means they were written independent of the others and combined together. Who combined them? Is it reasonable to surmise that the release came from the east coast? Was there the opportunity, then, for a "revised" first piece to be substituted for the EXACT version agreed on by the group? The file properties of the PDF show the author as "yea". It is likely that Hopkins was the one who combined the two sections, along with any potential final edits. Plus, he is the one who presented the slide show to DCI. Please also remember that in addition to the series of G7 meetings held to formulate these ideas, the G7 directors each consulted with their own corps BODs to obtain buy-in from them before presenting the proposal to DCI. I think we would have heard if the proposal that went public was fundamentally different from what was planned among not just six, but more like 66 people, the directors and board members from the G7 corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 hours ago, garfield said: Polar bears are known to eat their young. Ya have to quote it right Gar!! “Now I know why tigers eat their young.” – Al Czveric (Rodney Dangerfield) in Caddyshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 hours ago, garfield said: Participation trophies. .... are far from being noble!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 32 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: The file properties of the PDF show the author as "yea". It is likely that Hopkins was the one who combined the two sections, along with any potential final edits. Plus, he is the one who presented the slide show to DCI. Please also remember that in addition to the series of G7 meetings held to formulate these ideas, the G7 directors each consulted with their own corps BODs to obtain buy-in from them before presenting the proposal to DCI. I think we would have heard if the proposal that went public was fundamentally different from what was planned among not just six, but more like 66 people, the directors and board members from the G7 corps. I can tell you with first hand knowledge and fact that your second paragraph is, at best, partially correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 hours ago, garfield said: I know you find this hard to believe, but it's possible that they believed they were actually doing what was best to preserve the activity in which they participate, The world has been chock full of leaders with that mind set; that they believe by placing everyone else under their mighty hand of control that they are actually 'taking care and looking out for' the weaker folks. We all can name those world leaders, the ones who ruled or desired to rule with an iron fist in the name caring for the weaker; .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 10 minutes ago, Stu said: Ya have to quote it right Gar!! “Now I know why tigers eat their young.” – Al Czveric (Rodney Dangerfield) in Caddyshack I've never seen Caddyshack and I never appreciated the comedy of Rodney Dangerfield. I'm just a dino protecting his lawn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 hours ago, garfield said: It's the perfect system for them, Stu! It's a $30million or $50million activity that they control to their own benefit! There has to be some incentive for them to gain by releasing control of the activity to a group of others, no matter the other's names, CV's, or intentions. And, in the end, that incentive will be financial at its core. All the altruism we can muster will likely be ignored in favor of the financial benefit and, without it, governance will not change. Period. Bolded that for ya. As it applies to being a director of their own corps, their decisions certainly should be For Them. But as it applies to being a director of the DCI Governing Body their decisions should be equitable for the entire membership of that body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 2 minutes ago, Stu said: Bolded that for ya. As it applies to being a director of their own corps, their decisions certainly should be For Them. But as it applies to being a director of the DCI Governing Body their decisions should be equitable for the entire membership of that body. Again, "...should be..." is your desire (or hunch) but I'm waiting for facts that show the By-Laws stating that the voting members are required to protect each individual corps the same to live up to their fiduciary obligation. I don't have the facts, but I suspect the requirement is doing what's in the best interest of the activity, not the individual corps. Otherwise and if you're right, it appears that the voting board could be held liable for the failure of each corps over the years. I'm no lawyer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, Stu said: Bolded that for ya. As it applies to being a director of their own corps, their decisions certainly should be For Them. But as it applies to being a director of the DCI Governing Body their decisions should be equitable for the entire membership of that body. And the "them" I was referencing included all the corps, not just a portion, or the voting members, or any specific group of them. The system "they" have today is designed, built, and modified by "them" to suit their own needs. What incentive would they need to give up that control? And I can almost guarantee that, if any part of that incentive includes "...give up some of your revenue to pay downstream to lower-placing corps (or for alternative classes)...", that control will never be given up or granted. Whatever incentive that is necessarily has to include increasing financial benefit, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 50 minutes ago, garfield said: Again, "...should be..." is your desire (or hunch) but I'm waiting for facts that show the By-Laws stating that the voting members are required to protect each individual corps the same to live up to their fiduciary obligation. I don't have the facts, but I suspect the requirement is doing what's in the best interest of the activity, not the individual corps. Otherwise and if you're right, it appears that the voting board could be held liable for the failure of each corps over the years. I'm no lawyer... The Bylaws and Mission Statement, as they existed in 2010, would be what is relevant; but I do not have a copy. However, the articles in 2010 put out by Drum Corps World and the response from Dan all give indications of what the DCI Mission and Bylaws stated at that time. As for the legal, I too am no lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts