"G7" formed to raise more money...

[soccerguy315]

what does being a non profit have to do with a salary. If someone deserves a salary for a talent good for them. This activity is a business now, like it or not. I know I wouldnt spend 3 months on the road and all the luxuries that go with that, produce a top 5 corps ( say ) and do it just for the LOVE of the sport..... ahhhhh NO. Theres certain things you donate and then theres a time to financially get rewarded for the time , effort , education, and especially in this activity longevity you earned. a few of my best friends work for non profits and have huge slalaries, and of course just the opposite within the same non- profit. You get what youre worth or produce. God Bless America...lol ....JMO

exactly. It's a business. They need to survive (not make a profit, but break even with all funding sources). And the businesses (the corps) are obviously not getting the return on their investment (high staff salaries) that they want, because they are trying ("need") to take money from others.

Edited August 4, 2010 by soccerguy315

[GUARDLING]

exactly. It's a business. They need to survive (not make a profit, but break even with all funding sources). And the businesses (the corps) are obviously not getting the return on their investment (high staff salaries) that they want, because they are trying ("need") to take money from others.

Personally ( for me ) I have no problem with a staff person getting what they deserve or can demand for their talent ,effort and dedication BUT ( now this will drive some crazy including me ) I know of certain Div 1 corps that have certain named instructors on a yearly salary merely because the have been around forever and almost never show up. I say kick those to the curb, excess baggage and a cost not needed. Thats what I would do BUT I wouldnt persume to tell someone how to run thier own corps,. If they want that added expense so be it, Personally I dont have to contribute to it.

[Dave]

exactly. It's a business. They need to survive (not make a profit, but break even with all funding sources). And the businesses (the corps) are obviously not getting the return on their investment (high staff salaries) that they want, because they are trying ("need") to take money from others.

Well, they do need to make a profit. If they're not making a profit then, as the kids say, they're doing it wrong. Once again, let's all repeat together:

"Non-profit does not mean 'doesn't make a profit.'"

[N.E. Brigand]

Now that is something with which I can agree. Restriction on salaries/staff would bring the activity back into sync with being a non-profit youth-oriented experience. I don't think what the G7 has proposed is unreasonable. They simply should not being suggesting that this be done at the expense of the greater drum corps community. If the incredibly talented professionals who are involved with the upper-echelon corps cannot find satisfaction within the bounds of a non-profit activity, there is a big entertainment world out there to test. They don't have to leave the activity, just realize that "non-profit" drum corps will never afford the opportunities of a Hollywood or Nashville environment.

I could be wrong--didn't Michelle Obama make millions as a board member for some non-profits?

Not according to her wikipedia entry. I think by definition the board members of non-profits are volunteers for those organizations. Of course, they usually have day jobs, often well-paying, which is usually a big reason the non-profits want them on their boards: board members are typically expected to donate heavily to the non-profits they serve. (Another is for the members' connections: they are also expected to ask other to donate to their non-profits.) Now the staffs of some non-profits, hired by the boards, can be very-well compensated, of course--particularly in the top positions (director of a hospital, conductor of a major symphony orchestra, etc.).

[GUARDLING]

Not according to her wikipedia entry. I think by definition the board members of non-profits are volunteers for those organizations. Of course, they usually have day jobs, often well-paying, which is usually a big reason the non-profits want them on their boards: board members are typically expected to donate heavily to the non-profits they serve. (Another is for the members' connections: they are also expected to ask other to donate to their non-profits.) Now the staffs of some non-profits, hired by the boards, can be very-well compensated, of course--particularly in the top positions (director of a hospital, conductor of a major symphony orchestra, etc.).

You are right. I serve on 2 boards but have a friend who makes well into 5 figures closer to 6 and one that does make 6. Most employees , especially once who do service to others dont make much but hire a person to do development or fundraising and they can make a bundle. Seems backward but thats exactly how it is.

[ajwdad]

what does being a non profit have to do with a salary. If someone deserves a salary for a talent good for them. This activity is a business now, like it or not. I know I wouldnt spend 3 months on the road and all the luxuries that go with that, produce a top 5 corps ( say ) and do it just for the LOVE of the sport..... ahhhhh NO. Theres certain things you donate and then theres a time to financially get rewarded for the time , effort , education, and especially in this activity longevity you earned. a few of my best friends work for non profits and have huge slalaries, and of course just the opposite within the same non- profit. You get what youre worth or produce. God Bless America...lol ....JMO

Tons of NPs and Charities pay salaries.

[GUARDLING]

Tons of NPs and Charities pay salaries.

yes

[soccerguy315]

Well, they do need to make a profit. If they're not making a profit then, as the kids say, they're doing it wrong. Once again, let's all repeat together:

"Non-profit does not mean 'doesn't make a profit.'"

why do they need to make a profit? what would they do with the money? it all has to go back into the corps. if they can cut their expenses (you know, like... not add an additional truck to their fleet to drive around the props, or pay staff members to do nothing as was mentioned), then they do not need to bring in as much money.

[MikeD]

why do they need to make a profit? what would they do with the money? it all has to go back into the corps. if they can cut their expenses (you know, like... not add an additional truck to their fleet to drive around the props, or pay staff members to do nothing as was mentioned), then they do not need to bring in as much money.

The profit, or as we call it at the not-for-profit corporation where I work...the 'surplus', is used to provide a cushion for a down year, or it is put back into the company in some form or other.

[Dave]

why do they need to make a profit? what would they do with the money? it all has to go back into the corps. if they can cut their expenses (you know, like... not add an additional truck to their fleet to drive around the props, or pay staff members to do nothing as was mentioned), then they do not need to bring in as much money.

"Profit" simply means "money made above and beyond expenses." And yes, that all does go back into the corps--that's why they should be making a profit, so they can continue to build their operation and thrive. All that "non-profit" or "not-for-profit" means is that instead of that profit going to pay shareholders who have invested in the company, it goes back into the organization. It has nothing to do with how many trucks or how much/what kind of equipment they carry. It's simply a tax status that relates to your business' purpose, not a way of doing business.