bawker Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 From DCI.org: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'. Nice to see they finally decided to acknowledge the proposal...thanks for the link, Beto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Potential problem that I see is that "best people" is a relative term. Some folks may be great in one area and not so great in another, whereas another person may not be very beneficial to the board in many areas, but is strong in that one area where others are weak. That might not be enough to get them on the board though, because other folks are "better" overall. I do agree about the longevity thing -- you can't have board member turning over too quickly because then they don't have a chance to settle in and create some momentum/strategy positions. On the other hand, leaving a board member on for too long (no matter how "good" they are) is dangerous as well, because that person will have a tendency to have too much influence over the others. We can quibble about an appropriate length, but 3-5 years with 1/3 turning over every year seems a good starting place to me. Let experience dictate whether this is too long or too little, but I wouldn't mess with the overall concept of rotating thru the entire membership -- If there are 27 corps (wishful thinking to make my math easier ) everyone would would serve for 3 and sit for 6 (obviously there would be some longer or shorter terms to start to get the stagger up and going). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) Addition to my previous post -- I also proposed that the sub commitees for Finance, Rules, Marketing, Event Planning, etc be made up of board representatives and non-board corps representatives (directors/instructors/members/alumni/parents whatever is appropriate for that corps and that committee). So even if you are not currently serving via the rotation system, you still have an opportunity to join a sub-group to make resolutions/reports/etc to the voting board. This keeps all corps involved in the process to the extent they wish/are able, while allowing a smaller board to have the flexibility and advantages as laid out in the current DCI proposal. Edited January 23, 2008 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Addition to my previous post -- I also proposed that the sub commitees for Finance, Rules, Marketing, Event Planning, etc be made up board representatives and non-board corps representatives. So even if you are not currently serving via the rotation system, you still have an opportunity to join a sub-group to make resolutions/reports/etc to the voting board. THis keeps all corps involved in the process to the extent they wish/are able, while allowing a smaller board to have the flexibility and advantages as laid out in the current DCI proposal. However, the committee doesn't have to change this and also make all the corps non-voting members. Make the committees. Think of the NFL. They have a competition committee. Same with baseball and basketball. They hash out the proposed changes, using a panel of experts that aren't just owners. Then when they put together a set of changes that they believe will be passed, the owners have to pass the recommendations by 3/4, or usually, get 24 of 32 votes. Last I checked, this was a rather successful system... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 (edited) However, the committee doesn't have to change this and also make all the corps non-voting members. Make the committees. Think of the NFL. They have a competition committee. Same with baseball and basketball. They hash out the proposed changes, using a panel of experts that aren't just owners. Then when they put together a set of changes that they believe will be passed, the owners have to pass the recommendations by 3/4, or usually, get 24 of 32 votes. Last I checked, this was a rather successful system... True -- and look, I don't necessarily think they need to change the current board makeup/voting process. I think they need to change the focus and charter of the boards activities, which is acknowledged in this proposal. My point is that IF they want to go to a 9-person board, THEN I believe they should go to a staggered rotational system. I also believe, and have been saying so for many years, that should get more outside persepective on their board and on their committees. I also agree that it's worth looking into to have certain issues pas by more than a majority as you mention. Generally, boards should move slowly and deliberativey. And, generally, boards should be as free from individual influence and conflicts of interest as possible. I know I went off on a couple of different points there -- hope it still made sense Edited January 23, 2008 by Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 "Better financial shape" does not mean "richer". Some corps have been more fiscally responsible by controlling expenses, rather than just making more revenue. Financial shape is just that...how sound the corps is financially. Where did I mention revenue as the sole definition of financial shape? A person is not "rich" if they make 100K a year and spend 101K per year. To keep on referring to those who support the rule changes as 'the rich want new toys' is just not accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonnyboy Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I don't like it. Who's to say that, if the rule passes, next year a proposal will be made to have the "top 5" govern. Five out of nine vote yes, and corps 6-9 are tossed into the pile with 10-22. Then the back stabbing continues when 3 of 5 vote that the top three get to make the rules. Also, why are we going by score? Yes the top corps are run well, but not all are. PR defaults on a few hundred thousand in debts but gets a vote. Academy tours responsibly but placed 14th and doesn't get a vote. Why not the top nine best run corps instead of the top nine scores at finals? Why can't there be an ad hoc member? Top nine point getters, and two elected board members out of the 10-22 placing corps? Can't blame George for this, he is only doing what he feels is best for his corps and his business. If he can lobby others into agreeing more power to him, so to speak. Hopefully a current voter with a set of kahunas will stand up to the proposal so every voice can be heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Yes, understand that I prefer having all members vote. I am posting under the premise of "needing" to reduce the board to 9, what I think would be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 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. Maybe they are in a better financial position because they are not spending as much on the "toys." Hence, they have better finances, but lower placement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Maybe they are in a better financial position because they are not spending as much on the "toys." Hence, they have better finances, but lower placement. The point is the constant reference to "the rich want the new toys" is just not valid. 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.