BOBSMYTH Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 ...That being said, it may be time for him to go. .... In fairness to Acheson, he could only implement the policies adopted by the membership. He was hamstrung by that. However, perhaps a more stronger leader could have exerted more pressure to take DCI in a direction more in keeping with his own personal vision. Acheson, a very good man, is not a shaper of events. I am going to have to disagree with this line of thinking. The 5 year DCI business plan (excerpts posted on the DCI website in response to the G7 proposal) is full of quite a few ideas and programs that have a lot of potential. Mr. Acheson was the primary author of that plan. I would love to see him have the opportunity to implement those ideas. If even half of them come to fruition, we'll all be in a better place, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 The 5 year DCI business plan (excerpts posted on the DCI website in response to the G7 proposal) is full of quite a few ideas and programs that have a lot of potential. Mr. Acheson was the primary author of that plan. That explains it, then. Dan Acheson finally puts a policy of his own out there....a policy in favor of growth (and, thus, dilution of G7 power)....so the G7 respond by trying to fire him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) That explains it, then. Dan Acheson finally puts a policy of his own out there....a policy in favor of growth (and, thus, dilution of G7 power)....so the G7 respond by trying to fire him. Unless I'm mistaken, I thought that as recently as a year or two ago, the DCI membership Corps ,INCLUDING the G-7 Corps, voted FOR a long range mission statement plan that was proposed at the time. No ? Edited August 2, 2010 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Did Mr. Acheson's 5-year plan come before or after the G7 proposal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 (edited) Did Mr. Acheson's 5-year plan come before or after the G7 proposal? Before, Lance. Last September, in fact, and at the behest of the members. Edited August 2, 2010 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Before, Lance. Last September, in fact, and at the behest of the members. Thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschooldbc Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 I am going to have to disagree with this line of thinking. The 5 year DCI business plan (excerpts posted on the DCI website in response to the G7 proposal) is full of quite a few ideas and programs that have a lot of potential. Mr. Acheson was the primary author of that plan. I would love to see him have the opportunity to implement those ideas. If even half of them come to fruition, we'll all be in a better place, IMO. I have read that business plan too. In many respects, the plan that was published is the antithesis of the G7 efforts. If the junior drum corps ranks expand, it will eventually lead to the dilution of power in the G7. More corps means more competition for the G7, both on and off the field. Could one of the corps that benefits from the 5 year plan someday challenge their hegemony? It is certainly possible, although it would be years down the road. Of course, I could argue that this plan could have been implemented 6-7 years ago. And then we would not be facing the dire straights we are in today. And I still have my reservations, as to whether Acheson is the person to pull this off. Has his credibility been weakened by the G7 affair? Will the BOD, regardless of their composition, have faith in his abilities? If not, then sadly, it is time for someone new. Again, I do not dislike this man as a person. I simply evalate what he has done, during his decade and a half at the helm of this institution. The results have not been satisfactory, and 14 years is certainly enough time to determine that. If this was a for-profit entity, such as a publicly-traded corporation, there would have been a change at the top long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 I have read that business plan too. In many respects, the plan that was published is the antithesis of the G7 efforts. If the junior drum corps ranks expand, it will eventually lead to the dilution of power in the G7. More corps means more competition for the G7, both on and off the field. Could one of the corps that benefits from the 5 year plan someday challenge their hegemony? It is certainly possible, although it would be years down the road. Of course, I could argue that this plan could have been implemented 6-7 years ago. And then we would not be facing the dire straights we are in today. And I still have my reservations, as to whether Acheson is the person to pull this off. Has his credibility been weakened by the G7 affair? Will the BOD, regardless of their composition, have faith in his abilities? If not, then sadly, it is time for someone new. Again, I do not dislike this man as a person. I simply evalate what he has done, during his decade and a half at the helm of this institution. The results have not been satisfactory, and 14 years is certainly enough time to determine that. If this was a for-profit entity, such as a publicly-traded corporation, there would have been a change at the top long ago. The fact that the organization is run incestuously accounts for much info that we don't know prior to laying responsibility at Dan's feet. If I understand the governing system it's the corps' directors who charge Dan's office with completing a task or developing a program. Yet, at the same time, they wish to extract more and more revenue out of the activity for their own use. This contradictory system is not found in any corporate governance system. According to the G7 proposal DCI is there to produce revenue for the corps, yet at the same time they ask Dan to expand attendance and membership while demanding more revenue for themselves. I'd suggest hearing the XO's opinion of the unfunded mandates that have held back the development of national campaigns before we say it's time for Dan to go. Could it be that it's time for the corps who are demanding more revenue to go? Oh, wait, yea that's right. I remember now...we don't have to ask them to go, they're doing that without us having to ask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reservoir Dog Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 BOBSYMTH knoweth from which he speaketh. It's exactly how I understand the events transpired. I might add he left out the security guard escort out of the building for one former ousted BOD member voted out ( but to be fair, he did exit with the guard in an orderly and peaceful manner after security was contacted for the requested departure from the building ) What meeting was it that security was called? Was it the meeting on May 16, 2010? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 What meeting was it that security was called? Was it the meeting on May 16, 2010? Who are you.... Perry Mason? 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.