What the DCI BOD/ WC corps has already done regarding G7 proposal

[SomeOtherJoe]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe "Corps X" is the Colts. Right?

No idea.

The article points out 6 corps; 4 of 6 being G7. Also, I saw an article from '09 that refers to BK's Director as Chairman of the Board, which is why I threw BK up there.

[lOST BOY]

SCV was not removed from the Board......

No, maybe Santa Clara wasent removed but Jeff Fielder has stepped down as DCI CEO Board of Director.

Edited May 26, 2010 by lOST BOY

[jonnyboy]

It would seem foolish to remove Dan A. at this point in the year. No?

Then again . . .

I believe the vote was to not renew his contract, which expires in Jan 2011? I read something about that in a thread but can't recall details. I think the 2010 is scheduled to go as already planed, complete with Dan A at the the helm.

Thanks for this thread, I was wondering what players were involved in this whole thing.

[SomeOtherJoe]

I believe the vote was to not renew his contract, which expires in Jan 2011? I read something about that in a thread but can't recall details. I think the 2010 is scheduled to go as already planed, complete with Dan A at the the helm.

Thanks for this thread, I was wondering what players were involved in this whole thing.

"Those actions started in a board of directors (six corps directors and three outside, non-affiliated members) meeting in Rosemont"

"An interim board was proposed and subsequently ratified by a majority of the corps represented on the call,

installing four new members and leaving four of those already seated."

"According to several credible anonymous sources, the board of directors had also taken action at the

Rosemont meeting which may affect the tenure of DCI’s executive director."

Started out with 9, ended up with 8 (installing four new members and leaving four of those already seated). Where'd the 9th member go?

[Reservoir Dog]

No, maybe Santa Clara wasent removed but Jeff Fielder has stepped down as DCI CEO Board of Director.

The original question was if SCV had been removed from the Board. That was the question to which I was responding.

[SomeOtherJoe]

No, maybe Santa Clara wasent removed but Jeff Fielder has stepped down as DCI CEO Board of Director.

You wouldn't replace a pro-G7 with another pro-G7, or a non-G7 with another non-G7, if your intent was to "lead to better balance." So, since SCV is still part of the board, that tends to support the idea that at least one of the two initial non-G7's supported the plan, no?

Be nice if that article pointed out who the original 9 members were, as well as the existing 8 after reconstitution. Nothing wrong with transparency.

Bottom line: I hope all these guys can put themselves in each other's shoes and figure out a way to move ahead coming out better for it. Seems plenty opportunity to come out worse.

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

Bottom line: I hope all these guys can put themselves in each other's shoes...

The problem with that statement is that the G7 is close-minded to any further discussion on keeping the BOD system and member corps on equal ground. The whole of the G7 is about reconstituting the BOD and DCI funding to only the G7. Thus no compromise can be achieved.

Respecting the democratic process and the business of drum corps means discarding ego in favor of equality. The fewer the corps, the fewer the alumni, the fewer the message, the fewer the fans. Simple.

By the way, G7 is the dumbest, most arrogant name I've ever heard. You're not saving the environment, solving the economic crisis, or fixing the environment. You're making a competitive game determine business qualifications.

[SomeOtherJoe]

The problem with that statement is that the G7 is close-minded to any further discussion on keeping the BOD system and member corps on equal ground. The whole of the G7 is about reconstituting the BOD and DCI funding to only the G7. Thus no compromise can be achieved.

Maybe, maybe not. It's definitely clear that, at minimum, they've achieved framing the discussions that will take place in July.

Though it's "G7", really, I think the 12-9 vote for board change is more telling. 12-9... that's 43% of World's that appear to think drastic change is in order. That's a pretty large number... too large, imo, to write it off as being a few greedy or selfishly visionary individuals.

I'm ok with believing the 43% share's motives are less than sinister and the end result will be compromise.

[Glenn426]

Maybe, maybe not. It's definitely clear that, at minimum, they've achieved framing the discussions that will take place in July.

Though it's "G7", really, I think the 12-9 vote for board change is more telling. 12-9... that's 43% of World's that appear to think drastic change is in order. That's a pretty large number... too large, imo, to write it off as being a few greedy or selfishly visionary individuals.

I'm ok with believing the 43% share's motives are less than sinister and the end result will be compromise.

That 12-9 vote was to restructure the BOD. 9 against changing the board. of those 9, 7 are believed to be the G7 corps. With the other 2 being Who knows.... And one corps who Fell asleep (did not vote)

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

Maybe, maybe not. It's definitely clear that, at minimum, they've achieved framing the discussions that will take place in July.

Though it's "G7", really, I think the 12-9 vote for board change is more telling. 12-9... that's 43% of World's that appear to think drastic change is in order. That's a pretty large number... too large, imo, to write it off as being a few greedy or selfishly visionary individuals.

I'm ok with believing the 43% share's motives are less than sinister and the end result will be compromise.

Or 2 non-G7 top 12 corps that believe themselves to be in the G7 in the future, or those two directors who will live or die by the words of George Hopkins.

I, for one, will not pay homage to King George, as is the American thing to do.