BOBSMYTH Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Clearly things got heated. I don't know all that happened in that board room. But in an emotionally charged environment things are often said and done that wouldn't happen in other circumstances. What were the circumstances surrounding that action? Are you telling me that the presentation took place and that in the next moment one of the G7 directors calmly said "pursuant to this proposal (which by our own admissions is incomplete and missing many details) I move that DA's contract not be renewed". Is that what happened? Pretty close. The G7 proposal was made. There was a vote by the Board to ask for further development of the proposal and to re-present it at the next scheduled meeting in July. The next item thing to happen - the Board went into executive session to discuss personnel. It doesn't get much more straight forward than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 By the same token, it's the legitimate business of the Board of Directors to hire and fire the executive staff. If the old board wanted to replace Dan, that was their prerogative. If the new board wants to retain him, that's also their prerogative. It's their job to make decisions like that, and anyone in Dan's position knows that's the score. No argument with a Board's right to hire and fire. It is their responsibility. A proposal that completely redefines the membership and governance of DCI is a big deal and deserves to be controversial. A BoD decision to change executives might be wrong, but it shouldn't be controversial in the same way. It is absolutely controversial when the two are tied together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rd&10 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 There is NO excuse for Academy & PC turning their back on the rest of the drum corps in DCI. NONE. Shame on their lemming like behavior. quote name='bawker' date='May 25 2010, 01:00 PM' post='2793651'] I agree, but let's include David Gibbs there, too. Too many times both have threatened to leave over the years to either perform in exhibition or create some other sort of stage show. It's been talked about since 2001 in some form or fashion. Time to put up or shut up now. Make no mistake, as it's written now . . . this proposal will fail in July. Let's do some numbers: -Pacific Crest and Academy will probably vote for it since not having BD/SCV/BDB/SCVC hurts their bottom line at their own shows. That's understandable for them to feel that way. -Unless this proposal is rewritten in a lot of ways, I don't think the Cavaliers are going to vote for it. -BK as a "maybe", since Mark Arnold seems to follow along with most of the BD/Cadets votes. Figuring those things in, and assigning the Mandarins as a "maybe" vote since they may be in the same boat as Pac Crest and AA . . . For: Cadets BD Crown SCV Bluecoats Phantom Pac Crest Academy Mandarins? BK? Against: Cavaliers Madison BAC Pioneer Spirit Crossmen Cascades Blue Stars Glassmen Troopers Teal Sound Jersey Surf It fails (10-12) in this scenario. Question is: what happens after that? Will we see the G7 units stand by the "no action is not an option" phrase in 2011? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Matt,Normally your thinking, although different than mine, is sound. We just arrive at different conclusions. But I think you’re confused here. No corps can “swim on its own”. Phantom (name chose at random) without competitors is just a Yamaha (another random choice) endorsed artist. Just as the Globetrotters need the Generals to play against, the Cadets need Surf to fill out an evening. It doesn’t matter that the competition may be one-sided, without the opponent there is no competition. Are you going to pay $43 to watch the Cadets, Cavaliers, and Crown perform their incomplete shows twice? That what the flyer I received from Yea is asking me to do. What is so objectionable to me is that the G7 declare the activity near death, identify the problems to be not themselves, and elect to send to the scrap heap, or relegate to the minor leagues, the less profitable elements of the activity while taking over the elements with the most value. “Thanks Jersey Surf, you built an entertaining corps. You built a solid organization. You fought you way into the big time. Now give up your Friday night dates. You’re not good enough to hang with the big dogs.” Matt, The G7 are stealing that which is not theirs. Drum corps belongs to the marchers and the people who pay to watch them. Not to DCI. Not to the directors of the DCI corps. And certainly not to a cabal within DCI. There are always going to be less profitable corps within DCI. Or any organization following from DCI. The test of leadership is that they do their best to keep the activity going. Not the individual corps. Oh, and by the way, enjoy the clarinets. Excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShortAndFast Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Assertion #1: Drum Corps International is in danger fiscally.This assertion is foundational to much of the rest of the entire proposal. You have to buy into this assumption and a lot of the rest flows. TOO BAD - IT IS NOT TRUE. Drum Corps International, Inc. is not in danger fiscally. Looking at the 990 reports through the years, there have been up years and there have been down years. I have it on very good authority that DCI had a solid year in 2009. This occurred in the midst of a very troubling economy that hurt almost all companies in this country. If that's the case, then Dan A and DCI can easily demonstrate it to the current board members and the other directors. Some simple financial reports comparing 2009 to earlier years should convince everyone. And I agree with you that if there is no financial crisis, then the justification for the proposed massive changes looks pretty weak. OTOH, "solid year" can mean a lot of things, including "I'm not dead yet". Every arts non-profit I know of struggled in 2009 because no one is immune from a big recession. DCI reported a pretty substantial (~20%) revenue drop from 2007 to 2008. I would bet that there was another drop in 2009. We'll find out for sure this fall. I would guess that DCI is solvent, but with significantly lower revenues and liquid assets than they enjoyed at the 2007 peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 (edited) From what I heard in an open reception at the DCI Worlds in Madison 2006, BEFORE the move to Indy, there would be a one-year drop in assets due to the once only expenses incurred from the big move and it was not only expected, but made quite public. It is not an annual thing. If you throw out statistics, there needs to be context.Also, according to my notes, at this year's January meeting, it was announced by Dan Acheson in his "State of the Activity" speech that DCI enjoyed its highest net return in the past half decade. This, despite the world economic situation. I'm not going to take a side here and there is much to absorb from both sides; but I do believe I have a responsibility to offer clarification when I have it. Thanks Mike! That really helps! Edited May 25, 2010 by jjeffeory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 bah you cant even answer a question. your supposition was clearly "NOT" in my list. I did answer your question...you just dont like the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 What evidence do you have to suggest that this isn't exactly what proposal may emerge from this whole hullabaloo ? This entire thing is *not* happening in a vacuum. The entire voting membership has to approve it. I'm not ignoring the controversial points but I also fully expect them to be as unacceptable to the rest of the membership as it is to most of DCP! It may in fact be possible that the entire proposal was pitched among the G7 as "we'll ask for the moon but realistically get a few things we want". Obviously that would have been a serious miscalculation added to this entire debacle.My point is that many are viewing the proposal as some sort of manifesto instead of a starting point for discussion. And if it's weened down to something that *is* acceptable to the membership then there's an excellent chance that most of DCP would feel that way too (well that's probably going too far given the reactionary atmosphere here!) . I wholeheartedly agree that damage has been done. What I'm suggesting is that it need not have. If you're truly interested in what's best for drum corps, what's the best course to follow? Outrage? Or engagement? I dont see a lot of room for engagement here Mike because of the damage done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 My antivirus software is stating this link is unsafe. Are any of you getting this same message? Heh, it probably is unsafe! ( It's not showing as that here ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I haven't seen a championship show in the past 10 years that wasn't extremely entertaining I have... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts