Why no mention/Important New Rule Change Proposal

[Blueemrld8]

Hey, has anyone found out why this was kept in the dark so long? I mean, we know it was only sent to the directors but, i mean, the other proposals have been on DCP for a month or so.

[Liam]

Hey, has anyone found out why this was kept in the dark so long? I mean, we know it was only sent to the directors but, i mean, the other proposals have been on DCP for a month or so.

Well one thing, as I understand it, is that this is an organizational bylaw, not a Rules Proposal like the other stuff we've been talking about. These bylaws apparently are not publicized on DCI.org like the Rules Proposals and also the voting process is a little different and also are not subject to the same deadlines.

[WWonka]

This kind of relates to the discussion at hand...

The Star Chamber was on the FoxMovie Channel tonight.

[Tom Brace]

Well one thing, as I understand it, is that this is an organizational bylaw, not a Rules Proposal like the other stuff we've been talking about. These bylaws apparently are not publicized on DCI.org like the Rules Proposals and also the voting process is a little different and also are not subject to the same deadlines.

In fact, there may only be 18 people in the room when this is voted on.

17 corps directors and Dan Acheson

Michael Boo could correct me if I'm off base on this, but I believe this to be correct.

So, the discussion (which has been synopsized in some past cases) may or may not be known.

I have not heard overwhelming dismissal of the need for some kind of realignment or reorganization of the board.

Would a majority of folks be in agreement of a Board of Nine for Advisory, Performance Fee setting, etc., but NOT artistic or competitive rule change proposals?

Perhaps little modification would be necessary to better the current process for artistic/competitive rule proposals.

Thoughts?

[glory]

...the nature of this arangement will inevitably lead to a rich get richer phenomenon.

I hear what you're saying but I'm having a hard time figuring how that could be. What changes would a top nine corps reasonably support that would hurt the competitive situation of those at 10 and below and not affect nine and above?

Don't say buy more toys. Top nine is a performance measure not a financial one.

HH

[glory]

It is dangerous because those who are competitively successful are inherently incented to act in the best interest of their individual corps. This means that a conflict of interest is by definition inserted into the proceedings.

That's true for all corps today and for all time. The same question is apt. Why can't a board that includes SCV and Crusaders but not Cascades or Spirit make the right decisions for drum corps?

HH

[drumcat]

In fact, there may only be 18 people in the room when this is voted on.

17 corps directors and Dan Acheson

Michael Boo could correct me if I'm off base on this, but I believe this to be correct.

So, the discussion (which has been synopsized in some past cases) may or may not be known.

I have not heard overwhelming dismissal of the need for some kind of realignment or reorganization of the board.

Would a majority of folks be in agreement of a Board of Nine for Advisory, Performance Fee setting, etc., but NOT artistic or competitive rule change proposals?

Perhaps little modification would be necessary to better the current process for artistic/competitive rule proposals.

Thoughts?

Yes; IMO. Structure it however it makes things more efficient. But there's no need to remove the voting power of current voters in order to do it.

[Lancerlady]

It has come to the attention of some that George Hopkins has made a proposal to change the bylaws that, if passed, would become effective immediately (January 27th). The proposal is to limit the voting members of DCI to the top 9 corps in DCI. There are currently 17 voting members in DCI and 9 would be a majority of that 17.

I have put this in the World Class Forum instead of the Rule Proposal Forum because,

1) This is not a rule proposal but a change in how voting on rules and other issues will occur in the future.

2) There is a thread started in the Rule Proposal Forum, and many agree that this should be in the World Class Forum.

3) Since this is a change to the bylaws, it has not been posted anywhere. I think as many people as possible should know about this.

IMO, this proposal goes against everything that DCI was formed for, namely not having a few telling everyone what to do. Now, Mr. Hopkins wants to be part of a few who tells everyone else what to do.

This proposal, IMO, also lends some creedence to the belief that Mr. Hopkins is, and has been, trying to control as much of DCI as he possibly can. 20 years ago he, Gibbs and Acheson were discussing with other top 5 directors how DCI was going to be an elite few super corps and that they must cater to marching band (Hopkins is in charge of a marching band circuit, via YEA! already). Perhaps, Mr. Hopkins wants to be seen as the ruler of the entire marching arts world. This proposal does nothing to dispell that notion.

So, I ask, what's going on here?

This is unreal. I can't believe what I'm reading. Now where are all the Hopkins supporters who swear up and down he's not trying to manipulate people into voting on his proposals his way?

I guess this would be one way to do it. uh?

You're right it does go against everything that DCI was formed for.

I feel like we as fans/alumni have been cheated AGAIN. Why were they trying to keep this so quiet?

Edited January 23, 2008 by Lancerlady

[drumcat]

That's true for all corps today and for all time. The same question is apt. Why can't a board that includes SCV and Crusaders but not Cascades or Spirit make the right decisions for drum corps?

HH

OK, imagine the US is figuring out who it wants for Chief Executive. Imagine if, as an example, only the 13 Colonies get to vote for President. If you live on the Atlantic, you'll feel as though you made an excellent choice for those of us on the Pacific...

Edited January 23, 2008 by drumcat

[SkyRyder_FMM]

No offense, but this is the kind of thing I hear all the time -- "That won't work for us, we're different"

I have served on boards for groups of museums, for trade associations, all similar to what you're talking about -- directors whose primary responsibility is to their individual organizations. I have worked for and/or presented to boards in public, private, for profit, not for profit, family owned, manufacturing companies, service companies, you name it. They are way, way, way more similar than different. I find it astronomically hard to believe that the DCI board and organization are somehow different from every other organization in any significant fundamental way. The techniques of governance, communication, group dynamics, etc, work or don't work for the same basic reasons in every organization I have ever seen. I have been a CFO or COO or similar for many types of organizations, and although their PRODUCTS are very different, the basic nature of organizing and operating is amazingly similar, no matter how much folks like to think that their situation is somehow unique.

The directors and other management of these corps are phenomenal at the creative side of the activity. But from a business perspective, they are making the same mistakes that I see over and over again in all types of organizations. Their downfall will for the same reasons I have seen time and time again -- believing that their creative talent with be sufficient to run the business side and disregarding proven business principles because they see their organization as special and different.

I could not have said it better!