bawker Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 With performance-based criteria, no such block can be guaranteed. The achievement of Colts or Spirit or Academy or whomever to crack the top nine puts a new and independent voice on the board, one not beholden to the status quo as nine elected members must be.HH Nevertheless, this "The 9" nonsense still keeps about five votes the same very year at least...Cadets, Cavaliers, BD, Phantom, Bluecoats...and that's a majority over any stragglers (SCV, Crown, BK, BAC, etc) that might make it in or out of this little elitist club... that's all it takes for adding anything from monkeys to woodwinds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) .... And once again, I will state that this is precisely why I would favor staggered, rotating board seats among ALL members. They could be patterned so that there are representatives from seperate placement categories, but otherwise the rotation systme will minimize this kind of block voting and quid-pro-quo. If you want to control the board over time, you would have to win over ALL the members (or at least a very solid majority) eventually. (edit -- this was in response to glory two posts up. I'm trying to minimize quoting superfluously, but bawker sneaked in between us ) Edited January 23, 2008 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Nevertheless, this "The 9" nonsense still keeps about five votes the same very year at least...Cadets, Cavaliers, BD, Phantom, Bluecoats...and that's a majority over any stragglers (SCV, Crown, BK, BAC, etc) that might make it in or out of this little elitist club... that's all it takes for adding anything from monkeys to woodwinds. ............... OR ................... MONKEYS WITH WOODWINDS !!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 The problem is, every voting member is going to do what is in their corps best interest. People are going to look out for number one first. That is just human nature. By having equal representation (or a cross section of the entire cast of corps) all of their points of view are going to be taken into account. By having just the top nine, they are going to do whatever it takes to stay in power. Are they? Even if we concede on the self-interest you describe, does that preclude a commonality of self-interest sufficient to sustain and grow the organization in general? Take amplification for example. And let's assume the self-interest you decry. In the current regime, a majority of the board endorsed it. That is, a board that represented all the D-1 corps decided their self-interest (using your framework) favored amplification. Here you have a controversial proposal that already has the backing of most corps. You didn't need a nine-member board. So what would be different? How would this self-interest issue change the nature of decision-making? Would they really have to do "whatever it takes" to stay in power? It sounds to me as if reducing the board to nine wouldn't change any outcomes, it would merely make the process more efficient. HH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Really, what's so wrong with using performance as a standard for selecting the board? What is wrong is that this proposal is to select board members based on the "performance" of their corps on the field - not their own "performance" as corps administrators. Competitive placement does not equate to administrative strength or stability. It is a measure of the skills of the marching members and their design/instructional staff - none of whom will be eligible to serve on the DCI board. Electing board members by a vote of the full DCI membership would be a far better measure of a corps director's ability, experience and commitment. The DCI board should not deny itself access to their best people over some arbitrary competitive placement. In fact, I would open up the eligibility to open-class directors as well. If nine people are going to steer DCI, I'd want as many ideas, as wide a perspective, and as much initiative in that group as possible. Those attributes are not unique to world-class; Bob Jacobs of Jersey Surf is one example that comes to mind immediately of an open-class corps director who would certainly bring a lot to the DCI table. Why deny 3/4 of DCI's corps directors from consideration for these board positions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 To play off of that, I find it organizationally hypocritical to have made so many changes about World-Division membership to be about financial stability, and then to turn around and make it about the placement on the field again. There were lots of strides toward stability when you remove the aspect of performance. This spits in the face of all of that work, in a sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) What is wrong is that this proposal is to select board members based on the "performance" of their corps on the field - not their own "performance" as corps administrators. We agree on this. Ability as a director is the best criteria (or whatever the singular form of a Latin word is). So, if we elected a nine-member board based solely on their skill, ability and dedication as directors and it just so happened that all nine represented top-10 corps, would that be okay? Just asking. HH Edited January 23, 2008 by glory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Are they? Even if we concede on the self-interest you describe, does that preclude a commonality of self-interest sufficient to sustain and grow the organization in general?Take amplification for example. And let's assume the self-interest you decry. In the current regime, a majority of the board endorsed it. That is, a board that represented all the D-1 corps decided their self-interest (using your framework) favored amplification. Here you have a controversial proposal that already has the backing of most corps. You didn't need a nine-member board. So what would be different? How would this self-interest issue change the nature of decision-making? Would they really have to do "whatever it takes" to stay in power? It sounds to me as if reducing the board to nine wouldn't change any outcomes, it would merely make the process more efficient. HH But you're only using a given past to predict the future. Once one variable changes, then all variables adjust accordingly. So the future types of proposals may not at all be of the types of "add amplification". Once the dynamics of the voting process changes, the things you vote on are likely to change as well. Is it guaranteed to change? Certainly not. But in my opinion, driven from seeing these types of management groups operate in many walks of business, community, government, etc., they are heading down a dangerous path that can easily be avoided with a few modifications. Again, I think they have rightly ackowledged that the board process needs improvement/revamping. I strongly disagree with the solution offered because I think it is short-sighted and ignores/disregards experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sideways Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I say dci just makes it the top 7 then we would know that the Renegades were behind all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corps-mudgeon Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 QUOTE (bawker @ Jan 23 2008, 09:47 AM) *Nevertheless, this "The 9" nonsense still keeps about five votes the same very year at least...Cadets, Cavaliers, BD, Phantom, Bluecoats...and that's a majority over any stragglers (SCV, Crown, BK, BAC, etc) that might make it in or out of this little elitist club... that's all it takes for adding anything from monkeys to woodwinds. smile.gif ............... OR ................... MONKEYS WITH WOODWINDS !!!!!!! Monkeys, yes; woodwinds, no. Unless the monkeys are playing the woodwinds, then it would be ok because it wouldn't be the members. 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.