Stu Posted September 15, 2017 Author Share Posted September 15, 2017 46 minutes ago, garfield said: 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. For now I am steering away from the issue with the OC, but am sticking with the issue of the WC. Yes the system is built around the needs of the member corps; and that is why it was all of the non=G7 who stepped up and quickly squelched the G7 proposal; because it did not serve the needs of the entire membership but just the needs of seven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 48 minutes ago, garfield said: I can tell you with first hand knowledge and fact that your second paragraph is, at best, partially correct. My paragraph was based on what was written on the first slide of the G7 presentation in boldface ("We have the backings of our boards, we have discussed matters in depth, and we are united in our goals."), as well as corroborating public statements of support by Kit Rodgers (president of BD Performing Arts at the time) and Bill Speakman (president of YEA! at the time), included in a press release issued by the G7 when this all first went public. From that, I conclude that each of the G7 corps directors was in some form of communication with a sufficient portion of their corps BOD about this proposal in advance of its presentation. It is entirely possible that individual BOD members who missed a meeting might have been out of the loop, or that a corps director may have consulted with his BOD chairman or a committee rather than the whole board. (Oh, and the estimate of 66 people was only an educated guess.) If you have "first hand knowledge" (i.e. you were a BOD member of a G7 corps in 2010, and your corps director kept this whole matter from the entire corps BOD until May 19th), then feel free to share what you know. If not, even your secondhand knowledge is well worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 6 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: My paragraph was based on what was written on the first slide of the G7 presentation in boldface ("We have the backings of our boards, we have discussed matters in depth, and we are united in our goals."), as well as corroborating public statements of support by Kit Rodgers (president of BD Performing Arts at the time) and Bill Speakman (president of YEA! at the time), included in a press release issued by the G7 when this all first went public. From that, I conclude that each of the G7 corps directors was in some form of communication with a sufficient portion of their corps BOD about this proposal in advance of its presentation. It is entirely possible that individual BOD members who missed a meeting might have been out of the loop, or that a corps director may have consulted with his BOD chairman or a committee rather than the whole board. (Oh, and the estimate of 66 people was only an educated guess.) If you have "first hand knowledge" (i.e. you were a BOD member of a G7 corps in 2010, and your corps director kept this whole matter from the entire corps BOD until May 19th), then feel free to share what you know. If not, even your secondhand knowledge is well worth considering. Does "first hand knowledge" include that which comes from the mouths of those who were "in the room"? It's important to understand that, prior to the G7 episode, it was generally accepted that the fiduciary responsibility that comes along with "Voting Member" status was vested in the ED of the corps represented on the voting member board. After the G7 episode, it was reinforced, and is now generally accepted practice, the the BoD of the voting member corps holds 100% of the liability, and they only nominate someone to represent them on the voting BoD. It's just not representative of the time to presume that the BoD of the G7 corps were either A) aware of the sea change being presented, B) aware of the details of the proposed sea change, nor that C) the BoD's understood that they were exposing themselves when their director asked for their support and approval. Further, understanding the dynamics of the governance of most corps at the time, it's reasonable to presume that some BoD's simply rubber-stamped their approval to the ED as they had done as almost a matter of course in prior decisions/actions for which he asked their support. A common problem associated with BoD service is a completely understandable emotional reaction of being flattered-to-submission by being asked to serve. In many cases, it causes almost unchallenged acquiescence to the ED who asked them to serve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 10 minutes ago, garfield said: Does "first hand knowledge" include that which comes from the mouths of those who were "in the room"? It's important to understand that, prior to the G7 episode, it was generally accepted that the fiduciary responsibility that comes along with "Voting Member" status was vested in the ED of the corps represented on the voting member board. After the G7 episode, it was reinforced, and is now generally accepted practice, the the BoD of the voting member corps holds 100% of the liability, and they only nominate someone to represent them on the voting BoD. It's just not representative of the time to presume that the BoD of the G7 corps were either A) aware of the sea change being presented, B) aware of the details of the proposed sea change, nor that C) the BoD's understood that they were exposing themselves when their director asked for their support and approval. Further, understanding the dynamics of the governance of most corps at the time, it's reasonable to presume that some BoD's simply rubber-stamped their approval to the ED as they had done as almost a matter of course in prior decisions/actions for which he asked their support. A common problem associated with BoD service is a completely understandable emotional reaction of being flattered-to-submission by being asked to serve. In many cases, it causes almost unchallenged acquiescence to the ED who asked them to serve. Then perhaps the real "sea change" was this BOD awakening that you describe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 16 hours ago, Stu said: In your opinion. no it's been proven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 15 hours ago, Stu said: If I am in consultation with someone to propose organizational changes, and that person drafts a proposal that I am not aware of which is condscending to my fellow members, that proposes forcibly taking revenue from my fellow members to be put in my coffer, that proposes giving me more voting power than my fellow members, that goes against what I voluntarily agreed to when I joined the organization, and I agree with that, I publically support it. But if I find it appalling, I publically state that I want no part of it. ok so you view things from a socialist good for all POV. Even DCI isnt set up that way, as payouts are different for corps 1-8, 9-17 and 17 down. So to them, they wanted their 1-8 portion to be higher than it already was. They obviously didnt feel it was offensive in some regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 14 hours ago, Stu said: Doh!!!!! So they all did agree upon it in rough draft, they all did see the collected presentation, and all knew what was in the presentation, 'prior' to the leak!!!!!!! Ya can't take that back now that ya posted it!!!! they agreed on a few basic points. what was presented went a lot farther in some areas than what was agreed upon. That's the part you refuse to get....a rough framework was largely expanded by one person....and none of them knew what was awaiting them when they got there and saw it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 7 hours ago, garfield said: Then why not the "G-16"? Crossmen got no love. at that point, Crossmen was on the verge of being 17 or lower had they not made some changes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 5 hours 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted September 15, 2017 Share Posted September 15, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, cixelsyd said: My paragraph was based on what was written on the first slide of the G7 presentation in boldface ("We have the backings of our boards, we have discussed matters in depth, and we are united in our goals."), as well as corroborating public statements of support by Kit Rodgers (president of BD Performing Arts at the time) and Bill Speakman (president of YEA! at the time), included in a press release issued by the G7 when this all first went public. From that, I conclude that each of the G7 corps directors was in some form of communication with a sufficient portion of their corps BOD about this proposal in advance of its presentation. It is entirely possible that individual BOD members who missed a meeting might have been out of the loop, or that a corps director may have consulted with his BOD chairman or a committee rather than the whole board. (Oh, and the estimate of 66 people was only an educated guess.) If you have "first hand knowledge" (i.e. you were a BOD member of a G7 corps in 2010, and your corps director kept this whole matter from the entire corps BOD until May 19th), then feel free to share what you know. If not, even your secondhand knowledge is well worth considering. except then cavies released contradictory statements, because The Old Man was fit to be tied when he heard about it. So they were for it...kindaish. and who knows how much of the details the boards actually knew vs. what was presented. Edited September 15, 2017 by Jeff Ream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts