Why no mention/Important New Rule Change Proposal

[SkyRyder_FMM]

This is basically the crux of the issue -- the rationale for the proposal is that the Top 9 are obviously successful and stabile, so therefore they are better suited to lead the others. (Paraphrasing of course)

I get that argument. I just don't agree. Seems very elitist and condescending to me. Not all the corps are in it for exactly the same thing, which is why it's important to balance all their strategies thru equal voting. IN this new world, everyone will have to follow the strategies of the Top guys, because they will set the agenda.

I just don't think that's healthy for the overall organization.

Take a look at the finances of the top 9 and compare them to the 10th and down. The top 9 is not exactly the model of financial health. The same can be said for other former top 9 placing corps from recent years. Competitive placment does not mean you bring financial acumen to the table.

[Jared_mello]

Why let competition decide the 9?

It’s clean, it’s simple and there is a truth to the results at some level. The 9, are the corps, generally, that sponsors want, their participation and buy in is crucial, and 99% of the time, there IS a relationship between placement and organizational ability.

What about the other corps?

We are asking for trust in a system that we hope will allow for supportive and effective governance of the organization. We can see that 20-25 corps in the room is at best ineffective and is at worse, a FARCE. Member corps should concentrate on their organization. Place 9th and you are a part of the governing body.

wow, what a short-sighted, biased, and ignorant statement to make. not only that, but are people really supposed to believe that the 'cutoff point,' where organizational ability, financial stability, and the prevalence of the 'ideal corps experience,' really starts at 10th place and goes all the way down from there?

how egomaniacal, self-serving, dangerous, and entirely undemocratic. its completely illogical to assume that its not necessary to have regulated, respected, and equal (or at least very close to it) input from smaller corps as well as the larger ones, seeing as their interests and needs vary and demand special attention (especially in the current state of dci). when international legislation needs to be passed, do you think itd be proper for only the self-described "major powers" got to participate in the voting/discussion?

"i am not interested in [his] personal allusions to me, [but] that he should refer to my insignificant little country must be understood as his usual way of dealing with small countries in this council with arrogance....i would like to remind mr. vishinsky that we the little davids are here to fling our pebbles of truth between the eyes of the blustering goliaths and make them behave." - carlos romulo of the philippines, referring to a soviet delegate's condescending statement/suggestion during the framing of the universal declaration of human rights

(might as well tie this in to some schoolwork if im going to be procrastinating on dcp, haha)

seriously though, what an arrogant and selfish proposal, i agree with everyone else in saying that it'd be terrible if it passed (and find it really coincidental how its a reversal of the reasoning behind the birth of dci, too). people like scott stewart must not be too surprised.

[Liam]

Took me a while to get past the "hottest girl contest" but now that I've read the proposal, it's not as hare-brained as some here would have us believe.

Among the salient points are the uneven participation of many board members and the unwieldy nature of a group so large. Most important is the assertion that both those factors and others too often require that the board rely on its executive committee for progress. That’s an even smaller group. Vesting so much influence on such a small group alienates and disenfranchises the board already. Consolidating decision-making in nine corps and their nominated representatives creates a more optimized working-group size and eliminates the need for any executive committee. The nine-member board is both small enough to work together and large enough to represent the activity at least as well as larger group. This is partly because the new rules have penalties for non-attendance, something missing currently and something that now diminishes the board’s function.

Also, this apparently isn’t work of any single person. The presentation makes clear it is the result of a collaboration that apparently included Fiedler and Acheson and perhaps others.

HH

I told you there was some good stuff in it

The crux of the issue to me is the makeup of the "new" board.

As I read thru it I was lft with a sense of "you had me then you lost me" -- right diagnosis, wrong medicine.

[glory]

Agreed -- I noticed that you edited out this part of my post that adresses that:

And who's to say if it's the "right" nine or the "wrong" nine. Right today may be wrong tomorrow -- best course of action for ANY organization imo is to have a representative cross section of voices balanced with dis-interested (from an operating/monetary standpoint) outsiders.

Sorry, no disrespect intended. I snipped and responded only to keep the comparisons apples and apples as "true" outside directors as you suggest aren't currently employed (I think). Yours is a good point.

HH

[Jared_mello]

Should have used the H-word.

HH

hahah, true

[Liam]

Take a look at the finances of the top 9 and compare them to the 10th and down. The top 9 is not exactly the model of financial health. The same can be said for other former top 9 placing corps from recent years. Competitive placment does not mean you bring financial acumen to the table.

Excellent point. I think the argument fails on two points:

1) the supposition is unsupported that "99% of the time, there IS a relationship between placement and organizational ability."

and

2) even if if were, that doesn't then equate into those folks knowing what's best for the other folks, who maybe don't have the same missions and goals for their organizations.

[dbc03]

wow, what a short-sighted, biased, and ignorant statement to make. not only that, but are people really supposed to believe that the 'cutoff point,' where organizational ability, financial stability, and the prevalence of the 'ideal corps experience,' really starts at 10th place and goes all the way down from there?

how egomaniacal, self-serving, dangerous, and entirely undemocratic. its completely illogical to assume that its not necessary to have regulated, respected, and equal (or at least very close to it) input from smaller corps as well as the larger ones, seeing as their interests and needs vary and demand special attention (especially in the current state of dci). when international legislation needs to be passed, do you think itd be proper for only the self-described "major powers" got to participate in the voting/discussion?

"i am not interested in [his] personal allusions to me, [but] that he should refer to my insignificant little country must be understood as his usual way of dealing with small countries in this council with arrogance....i would like to remind mr. vishinsky that we the little davids are here to fling our pebbles of truth between the eyes of the blustering goliaths and make them behave." - carlos romulo of the philippines, referring to a soviet delegate's condescending statement/suggestion during the framing of the universal declaration of human rights

(might as well tie this in to some schoolwork if im going to be procrastinating on dcp, haha)

seriously though, what an arrogant and selfish proposal, i agree with everyone else in saying that it'd be terrible if it passed (and find it really coincidental how its a reversal of the reasoning behind the birth of dci, too). people like scott stewart must not be too surprised.

Corps that are organizationally stable tend to place better over the long haul. The only counterexample that I can think of is Pioneer.

Also, no offense, but unless you have sat through a meeting with 20-25 directors you can't really say he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[It's Godzilla!]

Also, this apparently isn’t work of any single person. The presentation makes clear it is the result of a collaboration that apparently included Fiedler and Acheson and perhaps others.

HH

Well, those guys can have a free pass. We only really want to lynch Hopkins, that evil, evil man.

Also, did it ever occur to you that it was proposed simply with the intention to be discussed and not passed? I know for a fact that some of this year's rules were done for precisely this.

[Liam]

Sorry, no disrespect intended. I snipped and responded only to keep the comparisons apples and apples as "true" outside directors as you suggest aren't currently employed (I think). Yours is a good point.

HH

No worries -- I agree that the current board setup isn't ideal. I agree that the proposal starts to acknowledge and address that. My point was, and is, that the "solution"" offered proceeds to take the board even further down the wrong direction, imo.

[glory]

its completely illogical to assume that its not necessary to have regulated, respected, and equal (or at least very close to it) input from smaller corps as well as the larger ones...

And not different at all from DCI from the beginning. DCI's governance always favored the big over the little. From inception until recently, it also made placement a factor in board participation. The rationale for this is the best-performing corps generally are most responsible for revenue. They therefore should set the agenda.

No, it's not pure democracy. But neither has it ever been. And you could a pretty good argument that it never should be.

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Some are are the board. Some are not. The only question is where to draw the line that decide who votes. Among all the complaints, I have yet to see anyone put forth a better suggestion.

HH