cixelsyd

Well, that is what happens when the DCI annual meeting follows the VMAPA example for transparency.

Since it is you asking, this probably is not just a rhetorical question so I will try to answer. If I were in a position where the people in that boardroom asked me that question... I would start by revisiting the premise that "most corps don't see making it beyond 5 years and that the existing model cannot sustain itself" as many times as necessary to get through the five stages of grief. Why? Because we have heard this refrain over and over since 1971. Nine times out of ten, it ends without passing the denial phase. This fall on this forum, we demonstrated how denial works. Numerous people denied there even is a cost problem, and some were so determined to deny it that they would rather stop the conversation than admit that much. I expect nothing different this time. There are really only three choices here - decrease cost, increase revenue, or ignore the iceberg/full speed ahead. 1. If it is as bad as you say, bickering over cost cuts will not fix it. The one BIG way to make the activity more sustainable would be to have far more corps. We have so few now that national touring is virtually mandatory just to provide enough of an experience to make it worth the time and money participants put into it. Of course, to grow the activity from the top down would require the top corps to make sacrifices for greater inclusion. The first step should be to grant membership to what few full-fledged corps still persevere in the rugged wilderness of open-class, and world-class non-member status. (Yes, I know - that will NEVER HAPPEN, and therefore, this whole paragraph will NEVER HAPPEN.) 2. In similar fashion, bickering over revenue ideas which are mostly already in play and maxed out will not be an adequate fix either. The one BIG way to address the revenue side of the equation would be to raise member fees. Arguably, the activity currently charges about half of what elite room-and-board summer arts camps cost. Provide a comparable quality experience, and charge a comparable price. Of course, our activity is rooted in the idea of providing opportunities for people of limited economic means, and the fact that corps compete among each other for applicants probably drives fee levels down, so this would be a difficult transition to make. 3. If real change like the above is still unpalatable, there is always the founding DCI philosophy to fall back on. If the current model is unsustainable, divide the activity into "haves" and "have-nots", and make it sustainable only for the "haves". If it is still unsustainable, move more corps out of the "haves" into the "have-nots". Keep throwing deck chairs off the Titanic until it floats again.

... or just hurling all but 21 of the chairs overboard.

There is not enough time to run the all-age corps twice prior to 'the' finals, which advertise a 5:30 start time. All-age has to be a single round.

That explains this photo from the boardroom at the Januals:

Make that 40+ corps. The new DCI all-age division adds on in 2024.

My hope is that VMAPA is dragging this out to the last possible moment before magically fixing it all, just to mess with us.

I agree that DCI was falling down on the job. But is there anything DCI should be doing differently now? All DCI can really do is conduct a review, and implement the following possible outcomes as prescribed in their Policies and Procedures: 1. no further action needed 2. plan to get back in compliance, no punitive action 3. lower membership one or more levels 4. suspend It appears that the "review" likely occurred in September of this year, when VMAPA could claim they hired Russ Gavin and he/they presented the plan to get the reporting back in order by January. With that, the review outcome was apparently option #2, and at the same time option #3 also occurred as a consequence of the corps sitting out 2023. If VMAPA fails to right the ship by January, DCI has one more action they can take (option #4.)

I confess. I complain here because the answers I want to hear - factual details of progress addressing and resolving the growing compliance issues - never seem to come.

Now I understand what VMAPA meant by "transparency". Transparent, as in "nothing to see here".

If you ask me... no, we should not just "look at it" that way. We should look at evidence with an open mind, and determine whether accountability extends to an organization on a case-by-case basis. Was the organization actually functioning as a criminal enterprise? Or were they simply a benign/benevolent youth org with hundreds/thousands of people involved, among whom a few bad individuals did very bad things individually? Follow the money. And unfortunately, when people do that, the true perpetrators of abuse escape justice by not having deep enough pockets. Worse yet, perpetrators discover they can develop a certain degree of immunity from justice by maintaining shallow pockets, and using deeper-pocketed organizations as a diversionary target. I have not been able to articulate my frustration with this misdirection of justice toward punishing organizations instead of perpetrators. It feels a lot like what you say here.

And which corps would that be?

And at the rate things are going, will we be wishing we took that deal while it was still available?

Flo already has video on demand. (And as an additional treat, a few of those on-demand videos have sound in spots.)

You mean, a program like this? https://www.scvanguard.org/vmapa_ousd_program/

But this would be three auditions. I figured with the likelihood of conflicting dates, only one or two could be in-person with the rest as video auditions. And if video auditions go for $500 apiece, I am starting a corps tonight.

$500 for an audition? That idea belongs in the revenue thread we had going last month.

As the policies are written... every participating ensemble from SoundSport tier 3 up to DCI World Class champion is expected to be a non-profit. (But like all DCI policies, the Orwell principle still applies - when it comes to enforcement, some corps are more equal than others.)

Would DCI even allow that? It appears that DCI requires all of its participating units (even SoundSport teams) to be non-profits.

At this time last year, the vast majority of us would have presumed the same about plans for 2023.

Okay, then. Here is what you did say, quoted for accuracy: And my response - I do not see the word "member" attached to the listing of SCV to which you refer.

I was being nice... and offering you the opportunity to self-correct. Actually, there is a lot more information on the DCI website. For instance, a "Policies and Procedures Manual" which explains that not all World Class participants are member corps. You may change your mind after reading that manual. If the premise of your contention is that DCI faces potential guilt-by-association with one of their member corps, then the membership status of that corps needs to be established by factual evidence, not misinterpretation of a website participant listing. And on the other hand, if your premise is merely that DCI might be sued-by-association, then maybe they should start by taking down the entire Open Class and All-Age listings. None of those corps are DCI members, so why risk having them interpreted as such?

Show me where that is. All I see is that under the "Corps" heading, SCV is one of 22 "World Class" corps. Nothing is stated or implied about "member" status for any of those corps.

2018

Happy Thanksgiving! (Now, how many of you thought this would be some ominous drum corps breaking news about to drop?)