Eustis

Understood. I think my point is that, although a given Board member might not be directly or even indirectly involved in the preparation of these financial documents (appropriately so - ultimate responsibility falls to the Treasurer and/or CFO, who may contract for outside services for prep of the documents), they know that if they have to sign the document (signifying approval and therefore legal liability) they are more than likely going to read the fine print and ask the tough questions necessary to gain their approval. It's all about accountability.

Curious to know the level of approval (vs. responsibility for preparation/consult for input/inform) required for those audits within any given BoD. It seems to me that the some or all members of these boards are or ought to be legally liable for the contents of any audit (as for periodic financial reports and tax filings) to be filed with the responsible regulatory authorities.

Thanks for the clarification on that, I'd forgotten about the charter bus company and it's a great idea, especially if the operation actually went into the black for Star after the initial investment(s), which are not insignificant. Do you know if any current corps does this? As to the bugle situation, did this earn Star a corporate sponsorship from King? Apologies for the thread drift, I know this was all about SCV's challenges, but funding is crucial to sustaining the activity. Sure, we have corporate sponsorships for equipment, uniforms, perhaps design software, etc. Are corps in general open amongst themselves about their successful income alternatives?

To be clear I'm not part of any organization, I'm just asking what I consider to be valid exploratory questions. Which drum corps are you referring to that do have strategic and financial plans that allow them to market their core activities as their primary source of income (vs. bingo)? Do junior drum corps, any of them, get paid sufficiently for their performances (competitive or otherwise) to be primarily funded by that source? Or primarily from corporate sponsorships? By your own admission SCV and BD do not seem to be among them, and they are among the most historically successful corps on the field. As I seem to recall even in the days of the one of the first corporately sponsored corps, Star of Indiana, that sponsorship had virtually nothing to do with the corps' on field (core) activities. Bill Cook's business was Cook Group which was/is in medical instrumentation (think heart stent, for example). A respectable and above board business of course, but drum corps was if any thing a loss leader (financially speaking) for Mr. Cook.

It would seem that all members of the BoD would be on distribution for the results of those audits (as well as other periodic financial statements). Without alumni org representation on the BOD, such assurances would be meaningless; do they have it?

Agreed. While it may be that 'gambling' in the form of bingo, scratch-offs and the like are inconsistent with the stated missions of drum corps (and even more so, churches), the fact is that it is one of the legacy forms of income for such organizations. Bingo games are, broadly speaking, reliable income, low overhead (assuming you can get a bingo hall on the cheap; otherwise the equipment isn't exorbitantly expensive), easy to start up and easy to staff. Bingo is and has been the 'low-hanging fruit' for an np that otherwise can't be self-sustaining from its' core operations. Bingo traditionally and IMHO doesn't have quite the stigma of more high stakes gambling like slots and table games where the odds simply favor the house. Competition is minimal except in areas where casinos and arcades have been established. Bingo by its' nature can be susceptible to unethical acts though, if there is lots of cash flowing which can be siphoned off by less than scrupulous staff before it hits the books. That is, unless all cash (or credit) is collected and paid out centrally (at the door), and play is conducted only with scrip, chits or tokens. So in other words it's possible to make the games a bit more 'honest'.

Sure, possible. But it looks like SCV got what they paid for: NP status delinquency, at minimum.

These are really interesting points you're making here. As someone who is considering becoming involved with the activity again (after many years away), do you know if there are any organizations within drum corps that have adopted the model you outline here, to a greater or lesser extent?

Just swooped in here after only paying marginal attention to the activity for a good long while. Very disappointed to read this news about one of DCI's founding corps. By the sustained quality of their on-field products (up until recently), one would have had to believe that SCV was a very well run organization; this news causes me to believe (and apologies for speculating) that something well beyond simple non-profit status delinquency is involved. There has to be some very good (or bad) reason why audits weren't filed and the fee paid; and it's difficult to believe it was merely administrative oversight. Having said that, any organization can live or die by its reputation, especially in a community and an activity that is as small and as niche as competitive junior drum corps. Honesty and transparency in disclosure of information, most especially around the failures within the organization and efforts to prevent recurrence, would go a long way towards maintaining (or restoring) the organization's reputation, and in this case, help return the corps to the field at the earliest opportunity. I'm not sure from what I've read here that that is how things are being handled, so as a latecomer, please correct me if I'm wrong on that point.