willyc Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Could it be the subset is intended to provide in general more committed and stable representatives for the activity? Aren’t more stable corps the ones less likely to be swayed by short-term needs and most likely to make decisions consistent with the long-term health of the activity?I don’t mean to suggest that any of the corps, past or present, who’ve finished lower in the hierarchy have cast their ballots selfishly or stupidly. It is possible to imagine, however, that a corps facing inactive status or one with a particular financial hardship might be persuaded to vote in ways that served their own short-term interests alone. Those are conditions that aren’t usually associated with the top-finishing corps. HH not to take this to the extreme, but consider the past and present power-holders of the political world. does anyone doubt that people in power will do ANYTHING to retain and consolidate their power? I don't need to name the ruthless people who have sought to gain and keep absolute power............. I'm not making personal comparisons, just an observation about the psychology of seeking, gaining and holding power. i'm sure the "stability" arguement has been used very successfully as a part of the strategy numerous times. Mussolini had the trains running on time............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 So aside from amps and mics, the rich haven't forced new toys on the budgets of the poor. To me, amps and mics seem to be enough of an investment. And if some of the expansions don't pass this year, they will in the not-too-distant future. And these toys are forced on those who want to compete. Mr. Fiedler taught us that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobrien Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) 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. Agreed. Ironic that the proposal is coming from one director who always seems to be operating in crisis mode, whether in figuring out how to run his org or in putting his program together in summer. And he believes he's in a BETTER position to be able to offer guidance for everyone else? My own perspective is that DCI's long term health would have been better vested with a largely outside board at this point in their development, the same way that most arts organization start with a board made up of the artists and their friends/family, and eventually shift to committed - but not personally affected - members of the business and philanthropic community. That type of board will be driven by the mission of the organization rather than by (necessarily) personal needs. While the "personal needs" model of DCI was absolutely at the heart of DCI's founding, it's questionable as to whether it should still be the driving motive. Edited January 23, 2008 by mobrien Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsoprano Posted January 23, 2008 Author Share Posted January 23, 2008 Needless to say, I don't think Hopkins would have liked this to get out... oops I'm sure you're 100% right. I don't expect George to be buying me any drinks in Orlando this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Would people be in favor of this decision if Rules Changes would be voted on by all Member Corps instead of just the Top 9? No. That is an improvement, but not enough of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Top nine is a performance measure not a financial one. That is not correct. Higher-ranking corps already receive more share money from DCI than lower-ranking corps. Giving them the exclusive grip on DCI's purse strings will ensure that continues....or grows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 On the table. Soon to come. So aside from amps and mics, the rich haven't forced new toys on the budgets of the poor. That's hardly a trend. HH OK, go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Really, what's so wrong with using performance as a standard for selecting the board? While I'll grant that it precludes a struggling corps from joining in the immediate term, it does allow for any corps to have the opportunity in the longer term. Looking at recent years, the top nine leaves out one of the "elite" corps. Another elite corp nearly missed out in this decade. Some of the corps on the soundest financial footing wouldn't make the cut. Yet others who've been deeply in debt do.So tell me, what would be so dangerous about the composition of a board determined solely by placement in the top nine? Can anyone genuinely say that a board which drew its members from recent top nine corps such as Crossmen, Blue Knights, Glassmen, Crown, Crusaders, Scouts, Bluecoats, Phantom, SCV, Cavies and BD wouldn't make decisions good for drum corps? Would there really be a qualitative difference if top nine near misses such as Colts and Spirit were there? Cascades and Crest? I doubt it. You? HH What would be wrong about members electing nine board members? Everyone's ideas gets heard and the ones the majority like get to lead the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Really, what's so wrong with using performance as a standard for selecting the board? While I'll grant that it precludes a struggling corps from joining in the immediate term, it does allow for any corps to have the opportunity in the longer term. Looking at recent years, the top nine leaves out one of the "elite" corps. Another elite corp nearly missed out in this decade. Some of the corps on the soundest financial footing wouldn't make the cut. Yet others who've been deeply in debt do.So tell me, what would be so dangerous about the composition of a board determined solely by placement in the top nine? Can anyone genuinely say that a board which drew its members from recent top nine corps such as Crossmen, Blue Knights, Glassmen, Crown, Crusaders, Scouts, Bluecoats, Phantom, SCV, Cavies and BD wouldn't make decisions good for drum corps? Would there really be a qualitative difference if top nine near misses such as Colts and Spirit were there? Cascades and Crest? I doubt it. You? HH This is like saying that, instead of electing a president and congress, we should just make a rule saying that the CEOs of the top 100 companies get to be congress and make the rules, since they are the most financially stable, they must know what's best for every american. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dstemet Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Has anyone looked at the votes over the past 5 years to see if the outcome would be different if only the top 9 votes had been counted? 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.