Instructors' Caucus

[MikeD]

Now, getting back to the crux of the matter - I don't think the instructors' caucus should have veto power over all proposals. It is the BOD's job to provide oversight; they must have the ability to review (and, if deemed appropriate, repeal) rule changes. The BOD cannot perform oversight if the instructors veto any attempt to reconsider a rule change they favored.

You still seem to think that the instructors operate in a vacuum from those who employ them. IMO they do not. If I were a director who wanted my staff to vote a certain way, regardless of how they personally think, I would be VERY PO'd if they went against my wishes on things like this.

[Liam]

You still seem to think that the instructors operate in a vacuum from those who employ them. IMO they do not. If I were a director who wanted my staff to vote a certain way, regardless of how they personally think, I would be VERY PO'd if they went against my wishes on things like this.

So, again -- there is absolutely NO PURPOSE to this extra round of BINDING votes. Why have 2 rounds of voting if the folks voting in the first round are going to vote the way those voting in the second round tell them to? It only leads to the POSSIBILITY that the folks in the first round could veto something that the folks in the second round actually wanted, which is putting the power in the wrong hands, imo.

OR -- the folks in the second round really, secretly WANT the folks in the first round to take the heat for veto-ing certain proposals, which would just be gutless. (I don't really believe that, btw -- just throwing out another theoretical possibility) Any way you look at it, it seems unnecessary and dangerous to me.

Edited December 20, 2007 by Liam

[audiodb]

You still seem to think that the instructors operate in a vacuum from those who employ them. IMO they do not. If I were a director who wanted my staff to vote a certain way, regardless of how they personally think, I would be VERY PO'd if they went against my wishes on things like this.

So most DCI directors were VERY POd at their staffs over the 14 years when they voted oppositely on amps?

[MikeD]

So most DCI directors were VERY POd at their staffs over the 14 years when they voted oppositely on amps?

No....where did I ever intimate that?

[MikeD]

So, again -- there is absolutely NO PURPOSE to this extra round of BINDING votes. Why have 2 rounds of voting if the folks voting in the first round are going to vote the way those voting in the second round tell them to? It only leads to the POSSIBILITY that the folks in the first round could veto something that the folks in the second round actually wanted, which is putting the power in the wrong hands, imo.

OR -- the folks in the second round really, secretly WANT the folks in the first round to take the heat for veto-ing certain proposals, which would just be gutless. (I don't really believe that, btw -- just throwing out another theoretical possibility) Any way you look at it, it seems unnecessary and dangerous to me.

The process seems fine to me...and even more importantly to me, it's how DCI wants to operate their business.

[Tank]

hmm... Well, aren't all the committees within Congress made up of congresspeople? The Instructors' Caucus is not made up of directors.

But they are composed of directors' subordinates, yes?

I'm just riffing here, really.

[Tank]

The BOD voted down amps for a dozen years. Even the instructors would, IMO, vote down WW at this time if proposed,

OT, but why? 'Cause MHO disagrees with YHO.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see flying monkeys pass at this point.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Tank

[tubamann]

Yet the converse:

If something were to reduce cost, but a majority of instructors do not want it, the BOD never sees it.

There is no BOD discussion. How is that good?

You know the Board can do whatever they want. If they want to overrule the instructor's, it is in the bylaws that they can. The realilty is that they BOD will respect the wishes of the instructors.

The real problem that YOU and many others have is that the majority of the "hands on" people of DCI (ie instructors and directors) DO NOT think as you do...

[drumcat]

You know the Board can do whatever they want. If they want to overrule the instructor's, it is in the bylaws that they can. The realilty is that they BOD will respect the wishes of the instructors.

The real problem that YOU and many others have is that the majority of the "hands on" people of DCI (ie instructors and directors) DO NOT think as you do...

To this point, no one has said that was how things work. You know for sure that the bylaws state that the directors don't have any obligation?

If that's the case, then how does one present a rule that gets by the instructors? Do the board simply have to say "we're going to consider it anyway"?

Let's not talk about what you think I think, k? Thanks. The point here was to ensure that the instructors' caucus was or was not binding. Sometimes what the ticketbuyers think trumps what instructors think. Sometimes directors have to reconsile that. I'm quite aware that instructors believe that tools are good, no matter the fan dislike. When it comes down to it, the gig is still showbiz, still putting butts in seats.

If I thought electronics and whatever would somehow help drum corps, I'd give it the opportunity to flourish. However, I know what electronics and sampling are, do, and quite well understand the issues. But I'm not in the minority until it passes, got it?

Have a nice day.

[tubamann]

To this point, no one has said that was how things work. You know for sure that the bylaws state that the directors don't have any obligation?

If that's the case, then how does one present a rule that gets by the instructors? Do the board simply have to say "we're going to consider it anyway"?

Let's not talk about what you think I think, k? Thanks. The point here was to ensure that the instructors' caucus was or was not binding. Sometimes what the ticketbuyers think trumps what instructors think. Sometimes directors have to reconsile that. I'm quite aware that instructors believe that tools are good, no matter the fan dislike. When it comes down to it, the gig is still showbiz, still putting butts in seats.

If I thought electronics and whatever would somehow help drum corps, I'd give it the opportunity to flourish. However, I know what electronics and sampling are, do, and quite well understand the issues. But I'm not in the minority until it passes, got it?

Have a nice day.

Whatever..Think alot of yourself, eh?

The end is, in DCI, the BOD can do whatever they really want. If they want to Fire Dan A..they can. Fold DCI and go home, they can. If they want to change the rules, they can. They have made a precidence of honoring the opinions of the instrutors when voting on rules. That is all.

If you really want to have a voice, start a competitive drum corps or get a job as a DCI director. Until then, you are just another of the DCP mob complaining about how drumcorps has changed in a way that they don't like.

Frankly, it is getting kind of stale.

Edited December 23, 2007 by tubamann