Bob984

Spirit's board could at the least remove all members who were involved, and all staff involved as well. Also, anyone "stepping down or resigning " is not enough.......DCI needs to have a 'data base", and these individuals should not show up at any other corps. Ever. The fact that one individual is already supposedly at BD is unacceptable. Also, the worst thing that could happen would be for apathy.......that individual can easily be "called out", and there should be an outcry for BD to remove that member...ditto for all of the others.......if there are no consequences, things will happen over and over again......

Like most corps, Spirit of Altanta has a board of directors. The board is the overseer, and has the right/obligation to terminate anyone who does not handle their responsibilities, especially including anything involving the well-being and safety of the members. The main problem that I see is that other than one member removed after a month of abusive behavior, nobody else was held accountable, and also events reported about the rookie talent show were ignored. DCI has placed the corps on a 2 year probation with expected steps during that time. What concerns me is that it is likely that individuals (staff) who did not properly respond to things possibly remain in their positions. Had this happened in a school environment, there would have been disciplinary action (and likely removal) involving multiple members, and any adult (including the director) who did not respond fully to what was going on would be subject to termination. Termination of any and all staff/management who did not respond properly and promptly should be a quick responsibility of the board here. Doing so will send a clear message to staff and management that they have a serious responsibility to respond promptly, properly, and professionally, to anything reported to them by anyone in the organization.....members, staff, support staff, etc......you can put a million pages of documents together on "policies", but if there are not consequences for individuals/all involved when incidents such as these occur, the documents are meaningless. I do not see where DCI demanded investigation/actions involving all involved....just policies "moving forward". If I were a parent of a young SOA prospect, I would want assurance that the individuals who failed to act and or/"downplayed" things are no longer there. I also think that DCI needs to have a "do not hire" list....when someone is removed from staff/management for reasons such as these, they should no longer have the opportunity to show up at another corps......ditto with member misconduct.......

Like most corps, Spirit of Altanta has a board of directors. The board is the overseer, and has the right/obligation to terminate anyone who does not handle their responsibilities, especially including anything involving the well-being and safety of the members. The main problem that I see is that other than one member removed after a month of abusive behavior, nobody else was held accountable, and also events reported about the rookie talent show were ignored. DCI has placed the corps on a 2 year probation with expected steps during that time. What concerns me is that it is likely that individuals (staff) who did not properly respond to things possibly remain in their positions. Had this happened in a school environment, there would have been disciplinary action (and likely removal) involving multiple members, and any adult (including the director) who did not respond fully to what was going on would be subject to termination. Termination of any and all staff/management who did not respond properly and promptly should be a quick responsibility of the board here. Doing so will send a clear message to staff and management that they have a serious responsibility to respond promptly, properly, and professionally, to anything reported to them by anyone in the organization.....members, staff, support staff, etc......you can put a million pages of documents together on "policies", but if there are not consequences for individuals/all involved when incidents such as these occur, the documents are meaningless. I do not see where DCI demanded investigation/actions involving all involved....just policies "moving forward". If I were a parent of a young SOA prospect, I would want assurance that the individuals who failed to act and or/"downplayed" things are no longer there. I also think that DCI needs to have a "do not hire" list....when someone is removed from staff/management for reasons such as these, they should no longer have the opportunity to show up at another corps......ditto with member misconduct.......

Look at the 990's.........it took me all but 5 minutes to realize that the judge made the correct decision, and it was very cut and dry.......

Judges in a court of law....twice.......indicate clearly in their decision that a significant portion of funds benefited DB substantially instead of the purpose...scholarships. This is not a "rumor, opinion, etc" but a decision of judges in a court of law.

Fine piece, and one that I didn't know.....I think it would work well......Tchaikovsky was a brilliant composer.......I like this one, too............Suite No. 3 Finale..........I actually have it written (brass and pit anyway....didn't even write battery because I don't write enough notes...lol), but have not tried to pitch it to anyone, plus, I am old.....lol.....

To be honest, just like from business to business, things will vary substantially from corps to corps. There are world class corps who operate on an income that is triple another world class corps. Some would immediately say, "ah, hah!!" when seeing that on the surface. But maybe the one corps also has to travel over twice the road miles that another corps does. Maybe their insurance costs are greater. There are many factors. As long as the members are well fed, housed, traveling in safe buses, treated well, and provided quality instruction....and the corps bills get paid......I think it is ok to leave it at that. I do think some corps have a tendency to "spend now....worry later", and that's not good. For example, if you are strapped, I don't think that you have to say yes to a staffers desire for an $80,000 prop in the show......you may also find it wiser if you do have the money to fix an old truck in the fleet that is breaking down frequently....perhaps that should take priority. The truth, though, is fiscal mismanagement nearly always bites a corps in the tush, and especially in these days....I do think if some are not a bit more frugal, it could be bad for them. In the DB case, we are not talking about funding for a drum corps, but funding for a foundation to raise scholarship funds for kids who wish to march somewhere....yes, they are both "non-profits", but the similarities pretty much end there. Even with that, I know of no corps that is spending or ever spent over 76% of their funds on "administrative costs".....

Sadly, the United Way just seems to have bad stuff with CEO's, that keep hindering their cause......On February 9, 2021, The Chronicle of Philanthropy published an article titled, "United Way Worldwide’s CEO Brian Gallagher Stepping Down After Sexual Bias and Harassment Complaints Roil Charity."

I am actually surprised at the numbers with the corps(ie nothing way out of wack)....perhaps Academy had their entire instructional staff bill, drivers, other workers, etc. under "administration". With corps, it is a bit different....yes, they are non-profits....what they (IRS) mainly look at is that all monies are spent ( you can have some reserve to be in the black, but no windfall), the service goals of the non-profit are met, and everything is documented. What WOULD be a possible problem would be if a corps had a huge staff/administrative payroll (and some do), but yet the corps finishes a season and is majorly in the red.....the truth is that the budgets currently, and almost always since the DCI era began, have varied pretty radically. My 2nd year as a staffer we made finals, and yet there was a finalist that had an annual budget that was 15 times ours.....Anyway.....when the non-profit is a foundation, and the main goal stated is to provide scholarships....but over 76% of the money is NOT going toward the scholarships.....that's a fairly huge red flag....

My guess is that didn't happen when she was first hired, which I believe was as staff coordinator...I'm sure she was screened, but at that time her court thing (which was civil, not criminal) I don't think that there was a verdict yet...and then quickly she was director, and just as quickly CEO.......I honestly hadn't heard about this until recently, so I doubt the board had knowledge, either, or to the real extent of this (ie way more than a family squabble over a name/trademark).....I just hope that they move soon........

You are correct about the initial judgement, but she filed for appeal, and the final rubber stamp on the appeal decision was just 12/8. It's anyone's guess as to if the board knew/knows, or if they took the time to read the court documents and also examine the 990's....but this is way beyond a family squabble over use of the corps' name, etc.....I am still hopeful that they will look at all and then act. Time will tell, and I think it would be best for all if they do not let this linger and deal with it promptly and well before Spring.

Not at all. Nor am I stating that she has or will try to use Cadets' funds inappropriately. However, the numbers clearly indicate that she has seriously mishandled a "charity" that she formed, a judge agreed, and another judge rejected her appeal and also agreed. Not only does she now have a significant civil liability in that case, she could have easily qualified for possible criminal liability as well....at the very least, her handling of the foundation was "unethical", and she was the biggest benefactor of all funds raised'; with only a minority percentage of monies raised going toward the actual charitable cause. I am suggesting that I am cautiously hopeful that the board will fully examine the facts and ask for her resignation.

It would be wise for her to resign, and if she doesn't, then I believe that she should be removed. Someone who clearly mishandled, in an unethical manner, a "charity", should not be CEO of a major (or any) corps.

Totally agree. with all that you say. The Cadets have 17 on the board not including DB, with many new people. They very well may not be aware of any of this or have had time to thoroughly examine things or to meet/discuss. I am hopeful that they will deliberate and take appropriate actions.

Interesting read.......I can tell you that Mr. B was not a happy camper after 1981 when he lost Mr. Z, Miss Twigs, and Mr. Sylvester to Garfield....and when the Cadets won the title in 1983, he rushed his corps to the buses with not a handshake....still, this isn't about Mr. B......nor is it about the family squabble over the corps name, alumni events, etc.........what I DO think is a HUGE concern (and the main concern) is that a charity was founded by DB for the supposed main purpose of providing scholarships for young people to march, and perhaps at the onset, things were genuine. However, when you take in over 14K in a calendar year, but only provide 2K in scholarships and the rest is "expenses"......thus over 76% administrative costs, and those being "questionable"....there are red flags all over the place. Also, info from the plaintiffs indicate that they tried everything to reason with DB, to no avail....she was "running the show", and "FU"....even though Mr. B in his will directives gave control to the plaintiffs....a civil court ruling stands, and DB is liable for a large sum of money....she is the CEO of a major corps with a $2 million+ budget, and has the checkbook.......also, with 17 other Cadet board members, many new, and the final verdict just being a few weeks ago, I would not be surprised if Cadets board members know nothing of this......from an outsider's perspective, looking at the suit, the judge's remarks, and especially the 990's for the foundation, it would have taken me 5 minutes to reach my verdict (the same as the judges), and I would be wanting to take a serious look at Schedule O attachments for 7 years, and would also want to see verified bank balance and transactions for the foundation (as there is over 21K that is supposed to be currently in there....maybe it is...maybe it's not....it may sound "paltry" in today's terms, but that's 20 more $1K scholarships that could be awarded.......)

I worked a job briefly many years ago where they (the UW) came in and did a "hard-sell" presentation and then pushed for folks to sign on the dotted line for direct payroll deduction...I simply said, "I give to my church and the Salvation Army" and left it at that. Around one year later was a large national "scandal", when it was disclosed that the CEO of the United Way at that time was getting "rock star" level pay in the millions.......I will say that since that, they have cleaned up a bit, as have others.....sadly, the "law" still allows BS....."The United States Supreme Court has ruled that solicitation of contributions is a form of speech and, therefore, no government entity can limit how much an organization may spend on fundraising, administrative fees, etc.".........this "loophole" has created a world of very "unethical" behavior, but those involved are usually adept at avoiding any criminal prosecution. Still, non-profit "grading/rating" throws a total red flag at any entity where administrative costs/etc. are listed as over 25% of funds taken in, and many really good charities earnestly try to keep that number even under 10%. Also, they have to make their 990's public, so that can expose them.

you are correct.....fighting over a name/trademark is one thing, and frankly with a defunct corps, who cares.............however, creating a "foundation" where only a small percentage of the raised funds is actually going toward the charitable cause and the rest of the $$$ goes toward "expenses" certainly raises a red flag...

The appeal verdict was recent......there are good people on the board, and it's quite large.....17 members not including DB......they deserve the opportunity to review and respond...........

Your last sentence says it all. A family "control squabble" is one thing.......and I can also tell you that the "other side" (ie the plaintiffs) seem to have done all that they could to try to convince/beg DB to do things the right way. However, just in one particular year, her "foundation" took in $14,045.....awarded $2000 in scholarships.....but claimed $10650 in "expenses", including $7726 in "other expenses"........the judge CALLS HER OUT on this, with many of the "other expenses" in reality being a personal "expense account" for DB for things unrelated to the scholarships. Though I do not know if this will be pursued or not, as it was not only a civil matter, but possibly could be subject to becoming a criminal matter as well. If you establish a "charitable" organization, but claim that your expenses to provide the charity represent administrative costs that are 76% of a good amount of money taken in (many reputable charities run at 5-10% and almost all reputable one's run under 20%), I would call that a red flag (and subject to a full audit)....and there are 7 tax years in a row....all following this similar pattern. The next question I ask is this.....should someone who has done this be CEO and have access to the checkbook of a major corps and a two million+ budget......and one who now owes a $94,000 judgement in the matter.......also, is the Board aware of this judgement against DB, and did she disclose this at any time to them, especially when promoted from staff coordinator to director, and then director to CEO.....all in a short time frame.

Good call.......that was a funky qf, because BD had a .5 penalty which cost them 2 positions, and Cadets would have been 3rd.......also, I just realized as a result, that BD was the only corps to go from 4th in a prelim round to 1st place champions......Phantom did it in 1996, but for a tie for 1st....BD was the only one to do it outright......

See above.....they won both brass and percussion in semifinals......but placed 4th overall.......... all corps who have won both brass and percussion at DCI prelims/finals prior and since also won the show/championship.......they not only didn't win, but didn't even place in the top 3, finishing 4th..........

The 2015 Cadets, in semifinals, won both brass and percussion, but finished 4th. It represents the first (and only) time in DCI history where a corps at world championship prelims/finals won both brass and percussion, but did not win the show. Not only did they not win the show, but did not finish in the top 3.

At the 2015 DCI Semifinals, something happened with the Cadets that never happened in DCI before, or since, with any other corps. What was it?

Sadly, Eric Landis passed away on 12/15/21. Eric played in the USAF drumline. He went on to arrange for and instruct the Crossmen and the Garfield Cadets, and also served as an arranger for senior corps, and was a judge for DCI, DCA, and band circuits. He was a great and kind man who was liked by all who knew him. RIP Eric

Garfield Cadets 1972 DCI Prelims........they won marching by judge one, and finished 4th in overall marching.....but didn't make finals....... They would have been 10th in prelims, but a penalty put them in 13th.........