Why no mention/Important New Rule Change Proposal

[glory]

Let's give you another scenario... say a judge is in a position to knock a former 9th place corps into 10th, but doesn't because they wouldn't be a board member.

I don't take to conspiracy theories very often. In this case, what you describe would require the collusion of several judges. I'd venture they'd be more likely to collude on selecting a champion than a board member - and that both scenarios are highly unlikely.

HH

[glory]

When people no longer have a say in thier own destiny, they start to not care what those above them say. This is definatly going to polarize the already split sides of DCI.

Polarize DCP? Yes. Polarize DCI? A&E didn't. Why would this?

HH

[dbc03]

Okay... I have to say that I love this post. Unfortunately, i think that if the hardcore fans leave, DCI will just cut the programs that they have been using to cater to them, premium memberships, Quarter final theater shows etc.

And yes, BOA fans will probably be able to make up the difference to a point but that point will not be reliable. It is a very dangerous thing to not be able to count on a certian percentage of the cash needed to operate coming in. DCI is playing a very dangerous game, especially if music programs in potential fan/member schools keep getting cut. In some sense, i think they are cutting what little safety net they have amassed over the yeaars.

Hardcore fans are generally made up of alumni.

There are new alumni every year. As long as there are ageouts there will be new hardcore fans.

[Liam]

Without conceding your other characterizations, it's also consistent with boards everywhere. I know corporate best, so I'll start there. Shareholders come from all walks of life - rich, poor (relatively), etc. Yet which corporate board accurately reflects the shareholders it purports to represent? Any? Instead, boards are reflections of management and themselves, mostly affluent white men who used to be senior executives agreeing with other affluent white men who used to be senior executives.

The little I know about non-profit boards suggests they're not that different. They tend to be stacked with cronies of current and past board members and thus a continuum of narrow experience and thought.

Diversity on boards is usually an illusion if also an aspiration. You aspire to make DCI different, to make its board reflect the diversity of the participating corps. So why limit this to World Class? Why not reserve two of the nine spots for the smaller corps of Open Class? But is two enough? More important, would you make room too for struggling corps if you want to reflect diversity?

I going over the top to make the point that true diversity not only isn't possible, it might not even be desirable. Some categories - fifth place vs. fifteenth place - seem easy. Others - stable vs. unstable - aren't. So I start from the premise that diversity is an illusion. From there, it's easier to accept objective criteria such as placement to pick the board.

HH

First of all, most corporate boards hae a majority of outside members -- not current management -- so they have no fiduciary conflicts of interest. I agree that many are executives/management of other orgs, which is mainly because board work isn't easy and needs a certain level of expertise. Most succesful boards I have have seen, though, do have (or at least strive to have) members from a cross section of industries that either complement or otherwise offer a different persepetive from the company.

I think it's a great idea to include Open class representatives. I also think its a good idea to include a member representative -- many corporate boards have employee reps especially if the have some sort of ESOP plan. Also members from outside drum corps would be a good idea in my opinion.

It's true, you can't please everyone all the time. But the answer to "well I can't include all the Open class corps" isn't to say that then you won't include any. If you think they add a good perspective, then find a fair way to pick one. Believe me, OPen class corps would rather have 1 representative who isn't them personally, than no representative at all.

I worked for a company years ago that had an ESOP plan covering 15% of the open stock. When asked why there wasn't an employee rep on the board, the CEO said "well how would we decide which one -- from this division or this one or tihs one. No matter who we pick, others will be upset". This was a GRADE A copout, and I let him know that. Sure, I'd rather the board rep was from my office so I would have their ear. But I would much prefer that SOME employee was on the board giving an employee's perspetive than no repreentation of employees at all.

In short -- Yes, you can't please everyone -- but you should try to have as "diverse" (however you care to define that), as perspective-laden, and as conflict free board as possible. This proposal goes in the wrong direction on all counts, imo.

(edit -- also association boards are a little different than corporate boards. SHareholders come from all walks of life, that's true, but their goal with the company is the same -- to increase share price. Associations are formed for the betterment of all their members who often have differing goals and approaches to "success". Just another thing I thought of to add to the discusison )

Edited January 23, 2008 by Liam

[CrunchyTenor]

Add one more top 12 corps director responding to my e-mail, and also NOT in favor of this proposal. It's also a top 9 corps. This may not be as popular as some have been thinking, but we won't know for sure until the results of the vote are known.

Have you written any e-mails today? The meetings start tomorrow.

Garry in Vegas

[TerriTroop]

If they can't run a 20-person meeting effectively, then they are doing something wrong. I've seen COLLEGE STUDENTS (18-21 years that are, presumably, somewhat to far less mature than corps directors) run effective 20-25 person meetings.

That was my point - thanks for making it for me! I didn't do a good job.

(my point being that when the meeting doesn't go the way certain people want it to go, sometimes the inclination is to change the makeup of the membership in the meeting rather than actually look at the process of the meeting first.)

[Tom Brace]

Nicely put.

You know, if I were a director of a corps that realistically has no shot ever becoming Top 9 (and there are some!!!), and someone came to me and said, "We're going to vote you out of a board seat, but don't worry ... we'll take real good care of you....", I would be so PO'd to high heaven ... I mean, it's hard not to see the condescension in this.

Regardless of the outcome, just the fact that this was put on paper has to cause some damage to the cohesiveness of DCI, imo.

However...some of the current corps directors (members of the current DCI board have not apparently been keeping up with their end of the bargain here. Not reading the balance sheets for DCI, not prepping for Board Meetings...sure they are busy with their primary duty...running their department (sorry, corps) but if they want a seat at the BIG table they have to demonstrate they deserve it.

DCI Board Meetings should not be the time to educate people on the issues...that information is sent in advance and a corps director that does not prepare themselves before going to a Board Meeting should eat the costs and give up their seat.

It's getting more and more expensive to fly these folks in for Board meetings as well. Maybe DCI should explore WebEx or InterCall or some of the other webconferencing tools out there to save funds.

And DCI Board Members....maybe some of you should come better prepared for your meetings.

[kusankusho]

I don't take to conspiracy theories very often. In this case, what you describe would require the collusion of several judges. I'd venture they'd be more likely to collude on selecting a champion than a board member - and that both scenarios are highly unlikely.

HH

I seem to remember looking at sheets and saying if it wasn't for judge "X" we would have placed higher (2004 comes immediately to mind but no names...). One judge can potentially influence placement.

[audiodb]

non-profit rule #1: survive.

Is DCI on the brink of death? Just wondering what the relevance of this statement is.

you need money to survive. the market for "BOA" style marching band is exponentially larger than "drum and bugle corps."

Excuse me?

If the market for BOA-style marching band was any larger than that of drum corps:

- why are there only 16 BOA-sanctioned events per year, vs. 140 DCI-sanctioned events?

- why can't BOA sell their own tickets, instead of enlisting the participating bands to do that?

- why must BOA force all participating bands to "pay to play", putting up $2000 each for these ticket blocks?

- why doesn't BOA have a fan base comparable to drum corps?

- why did summer marching band fade to near extinction, while drum corps sustains a summer-long tour and four dozen corps?

Now, granted, the participant base for BOA is larger, thanks to the nine-figure tax subsidy that supports these programs. But DCI serves independent, summer programs, and thus can't tap into the scholastic money. So I just don't see your point.

[HockeyDad]

If it's efficiency he wants, why 9? How about one? Decision making would be super easy. I nominate Al Gore. Everyone would be super stoked for Al Gore. I'm serial.