noduttingoutloud Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I could have sworn that DCI was formed in response against having non drum corps people chart the course for everyone I could have sworn that DCI was formed in response against having only certain people (AFL/VFW) chart the course for everyone...yet, George Hopkins is heading us right back towards that scenario.This....over any amplification or other instrumentation/judging/etc change...is the worst single proposal ever floated concerning the activity since DCI came to be. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Well that's nice of you to cut out that important facet. However, when performance level is dependent on those toys (i.e. Bbs play with better tone and your score willl go up, amps give better balance and your score will go up) the two are inextricably tied together. Those with money can buy better toys, leading to better scores. Those with money can say we need more of those toys, which they can afford, hence score higher. So, sorry, you can't say, "don't buy more toys." But..someone (forget who...might have been Tim)...already said that some of the non-top-9 are in better financial shape than some of the top-9, so the above is not true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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????? Just to play devil's advocate a little here -- if your in this TOp 9 voting block, yes you have to maintain it on the field. But being in the voting block allows you to change the financial distribution, allows you to change the voting criteria, allows you to change the tour schedule, alows you to change the sponsorship relationships, etc all in your favor. If I were in 8th or 9th right now, and saw the corps below me getting better and maybe in a position to pass me in a year or two, I would see this as a powerful opportuinity to solidify my position now in the ruling class. Also, playing off your last sentence, I would see that the message was sent I would want to get on board now rather than wait until I drop to 10th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bawker Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I could have sworn that DCI was formed in response against having non drum corps people chart the course for everyone Point being, this takes control away from the many and puts it back into the hands of the few, effectively robbing lower placing corps of controlling their own destinies via payouts, rules and anything else "The Nine" would decide to do...kinda like how the AFL/VFW was "rewarding" only competitive placement before DCI was formed. No one said my analogy was perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Well, I would prefer we tweak the existing system by attracting the right people for "at-large" board positions, establishing the magic number of nine people in the Executive Committee, and requiring better attendance. But if there must be a nine-person board of all corps directors instead of a mixed Executive Committee, then there should be some better means of selection than contest placement. Your idea of rotation is a good one, but some claim we need stability and longevity on the board, and rotation prohibits that. Electing board members provides a means to select and retain the best people, but no iron-clad guarantee of that result. Both of these ideas, however, are inherently superior to the vicious circle of elitism that the current proposal represents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 OK, go ahead and keep your head buried in the sand. I don't see snide and sarcastic comments in this thread, but sadly this is one. You disagree....fine. But it doesn't warrant a comment like that just because you happen to hold a different view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Sure - no problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. That reminds me - just to clarify - whatever shape the BOD or Executive Committee takes, I would recommend that rule changes still be voted on by the full membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 But..someone (forget who...might have been Tim)...already said that some of the non-top-9 are in better financial shape than some of the top-9, so the above is not true. "Better financial shape" does not mean "richer". Some corps have been more fiscally responsible by controlling expenses, rather than just making more revenue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BetoSuave Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 From DCI.org: World Class Board of DirectorsSince September, there has been ongoing discussion among directors of restructuring the current board setup to streamline and offer a more effective and efficient structure for decision making. This is one of the many “hot topics” for the DCI Board of Directors as they assemble for their regularly scheduled January meeting. A topic on previous agendas, a streamlined approach to organizational governance moves to the forefront again after extensive consideration and input among all board members and many revisions to a proposal which will ultimately be brought back to the table for discussion starting Thursday. I suspect voting members of the Board are watching the discussion here. The rational, thoughtful manner of debate in this thread certainly improves the credibility of the positions taken here and their chances of 'being heard'. 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.