corps-mudgeon Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 By "outside directors" the proposal is not referring to those CORPS directors who would be "outside" of the top nine. It is referring to the several current spots on the board of directors allocated to non-corps directors. There are some lawyers, and former directors, et al, who are at-large members ("outsiders") who have a full vote on the board. They would become advisors only, not voting board members. Thanks. I've already been corrected, but I'll edit my post so others won't have to waste their time with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daave Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Shouldn't that be "hop at the opportunity to defend..." given the subject of who we are talking about? Awww, man.... I totally missed the opportunity at the obvious pun. Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Since David asked that his poll be discussed here, I want to say that I voted no, but not necessarily because everyone should have a say, but because for a number of reasons, it's simply a worse way to run things (the opposite of the yes vote description). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The shroud of the dark side has fallen. Where's THAT photoshop job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Yes he has. But you'll probably know that before you get to this post since you are making replies before reading the entire thread. Yep, you are right. I've read it now too, although it doesn't say that all members would vote on rules. Then someone says it has been changed, and another says what we have is accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Sounds like the amps argument of how many years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 OK, if I were to summarize the proposal through my tinted and cynical glasses, it would look like this... The top 8 consistently talk to each other. The others do not. Therefore, we should make the rules. That's what I read in between the lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueemrld8 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 K, haven't read everything yet (pg. 5) but I just have to say that my viceral reaction is the same that I had to 1984 or the movie "Brazil" which is an Austrailian interpretation of the book. Going back to reading posts now.. will probably have more to say later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 = Alot of you said it, I was thinking it... Now, can we actually get him UNDER the hood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Have you sat through a meeting with 20 to 25 directors? I've sat through legislative meetings with upwards of 60 members that have run smoothly. Perhaps all the directors need some lessons in parliamentary procedure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.