Why no mention/Important New Rule Change Proposal

[DrumCorpsFan27]

I agree with your second sentence.

I will say again, though, that even voting for the 9 will have the tendency to create favored voting blocks and quid-pro-quo type situations. IF they want to go to a 9 member board, I see their reasoning for wanting to do so, but I would prefer rotating board seats staggered among ALL member corps.

Yes, my point is to have a system that allows anyone an opportunity to sit on the board. Yours would do that as well. I also do believe that those on the board must commit to the four meetings.

[bawker]

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

Controversial proposals are most often put out there by those in the upper echelon. Amps and electronics with Hop, Bb with Gibbs...and so on. That said, the ones who usually vote for these changes are (you guessed it) the bigger programs, with Phantom being an exception occasionally...so now, with a smaller board of those very same "big boys"...you accelerate the pace of change. It's probably exactly what Hop wants to try to change things faster.

So...if, by "efficiency", you mean that the pacing of changing DCI into "superbands" will increase...then, yeah, perhaps it will be more efficient.

[audiodb]

plus grounding of the "pit" horrible changes...each one of them

Oh, please. I was only pointing out that there have been other changes that involved capital outlay - not casting judgment on any of them.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

It's interesting in a discussion about who should represent this activity in its principal decisions that some offer up the U.S. Congress as a positive example of representative democracy. Do you really believe that system yields the American people representatives genuinely free of influence so they can accurately represent the priorities of their constituencies?

I don't. And I urge you to reconsider whether electing a nine-member board of directors for DCI would likewise provide the sort of genuine representation some of y'all aspire to have for drum corps. Electing that board would set up a situation where votes could be traded for influence and action. Is that what you want? Wouldn't you want a board where membership isn't subject to the influence of any group?

Think about this. Any eight corps right now could make a deal to vote for each other for the board on the condition that all eight support a ninth corps (who would also vote for the eight). At that point the deal is done. Nine corps are aligned in a voting block capable of protecting their position and able to enact whatever agenda the block selects.

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

Do you see Cavies, Cadets, BD, SCV, Phantom, Bluecoats falling out of the top 9 anytime soon? Yes, I know anything is possible but really going to happen? No. There's a pretty big voting block, a majority of 6 that will be in place for years, if not decades. Now, I agree that, even in a democratic process, there is room for deal making....it happens, however, if there is to be a BOD of 9, I'd like to see everyone get a shot at sitting on the board. Otherwise, let's keep it at every member has a vote on the rules.

[Liam]

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

I don't believe that voting members onto a smaller board (9 members or whatever) is a good idea no matter who they are. To me this is no different than they have now with a 9 member Exec Committee and full member voting. The same voting blocks would exist to elect members as now exist to pass proposals.

If they want to go to a 9 member board -- for the astute reasons listed on the proposal -- then I believe it needs to be a staggered rotation system to maintain balance and influence throughout the organization. On the field, the Cavies, Cadets, BD, etc rule. In the boardroom of a consortium organization like DCI, Pioneer should ALWAYS count as much as Phantom (for example).

[roosevelt]

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

If you read the rest of my post you will see that it is not the potential rule proposals or changes to the rules that bother me. It is the off the field stuff like show line-ups, performance order, show payouts and so forth that make me uneasy.

Hopkins and many of the other corps directors in the top nine already believe that the top groups are what make the money for the activity as it is. What is to stop them from only paying out those top corps ad leaving everyone else to fend for themselves?

People always talk about parity and how it would be nice to go to a drum corps show without already knowing what the order was going to be. If this rule were to pass it would pretty much eliminate any shot at having parity. As someone previoulsy mentioned, even if we somehow did get parity with this new structure,it would create instability in the board.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

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

Yes, especially because there would be elections every year so that if one does not seem to be meeting the expectations of the members, s/he could be replaced.

[willyc]

I tend to agree -- although I could see a corps who is in that 8 or 9 spot thinking "hey -- I'm in 9th now and in danger of falling out. If this passes I'll have more control over keeping myself in 9th" Just a thought..

Also, even if it doesn't pass, I think the damage is done to some degree just by the proposal itself. It sends the message to the lower corps that this is how the top few think and the future of the activity might well pass you by if you don't get on board.

Liam,

I would disagree with your point about corps calculating so much on the ninth-place issue, for two reasons: the first - with nine voting corps, it will still be the top 5 that make the rules. George's proposal simply draws up the ladder and makes the number nine instead of the current 17 (if that actually is the real number). Over time the 6th-9th corps would start griping about how they have no control because "DCI is ruled by the top five". Maybe attractive at first, but I've said it before: George is the master of the incremental philosophy - in his quest to rule drumcorps.

I'd also disagree because, IMHO, ninth place is determined by judging - not board dictates. I will give you the point that the board could create certain policies (appearance fees, etc.) that could allow the top nine some advantage, but placement is still largely up to the members performances and how the judges perceive them.

I do however agree with your comment about the message it sends to the lower ranked corps! Is anyone surprised that George has disdain for them?????

Edited January 23, 2008 by willyc

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Another issue to consider is that if the top 9 become the BOD, and that remains relatively consistent, who do the sponsors work with? The top corps. Hence, by using this system, we increase the likelyhood of the entire activity being inluenced by outside forces such as Yamaha, etc.

[Liam]

Yes, my point is to have a system that allows anyone an opportunity to sit on the board. Yours would do that as well. I also do believe that those on the board must commit to the four meetings.

I agree with your sentiment, but the reality is that with such a relatively small number of members like DCI has, it would be easy for a core group to exclude any one person from the board. I'm sure you can think of at least one example of a person that certain other people would have loved to exclude from the voting process

Any perception of unfairness or exclusion in a process like this becomes unfairness and exclusion in reality. Even if someone FEELS that they are being excluded, they may stop trying to fight it. A rotation system ENSURES that every corps has an equal time at the helm and in the process.

I agree with the attendance requirement, too. As part of your inclusion into DCI, you must commit to having a representative participate in the board process when it is your turn.