Restructuring the DCI BOD

[garfield]

This got buried in another thread that had run its course, so I'm posting it here for further discussion. Hoping the brain trust here will consider DCI votes of the past in this light to see how the decisions might, or might not, have been different.

The voting BOD of DCI should be reconstructed as follows:

12 members total

4 members are for-profit business leaders but not connected to any corps or non-profit arts organization. Mandatory term of 5 years.

3 members are "at-large arts", that is, they are active in the non-profit arts community but not connected to any corps or to the drum corps activity. Mandatory term of 3 years.

5 members are corps directors and, specifically, last year's 1st, 4th, 8th, 13th, and 17th place finishers

All directional referendum votes must win by 8 votes to 4 (examples: equipment, membership, tour length, age limit) and remain in effect for 3 years at which time they are up for renewal/amendment.

All judging referendum votes must win by 7 to 5 votes and remain in effect for 2 years, at which time they are up for renewal/amendment.

Edited November 23, 2011 by garfield

[danielray]

No corps directors or board members/representatives of individual corps.

Not only should it be more impartial and focused purely on the business aspects of the activity... corps directors and board members have enough to do as it is.

Also, 12 members is HUGE... and even.

7 would be better... but still too big for my taste... 5 would be great... 3 would actually be perfect.

It isn't an issue of quantity or an argument of quality... you could have insanely qualified and talented guys... just not the right fit. It is only about fit.. and fit for current needs of current stage. If you're doing things right... the right fit might be different a few years down the road.

Absolutely zero should come from the non-profit world. The mindset is completely wrong.

For an organization like DCI (turnover, scale, reach, etc.), each seat on a board should realistically represent about $1M in value (cash/in-kind/deals/etc.). If each member is not bringing something to the table that represents at least that amount... why else would they be there?

DCI board should have absolutely no say in details of things like equipment, membership, age limit, etc. These issues completely split the focus... and distract from the primary role of the board, which should be the BUSINESS aspects of the organization. As it is, these issues receive proportionately higher attention, yet return little actual value.

Split ALL of these issues out into a separate committee, congress, working group, whatever.... that is comprised of the corps directors and/or representatives... and let them figure it out. These issues have zero bearing on the business aspects of the organization.

I cannot stress enough how much of an immediate impact restructuring the role and composition of the board would have and how many current internal political issues that distract from the potential of the activity would be eliminated or greatly reduced as a result.

[dcifanforlife]

Why would the current Executive Director's of individual corps give up voting control of DCI? The decisions made by the BOD of DCI has direct impact on the individual corps operations. The Executive Director's first responsibillty is to his BOD, staff, members, volunteers and his whole organization and not DCI.

If you are a current Executive Director you want your board to be as diversified (alumni, parents, business people and donors) as possible inorder to minimize the risk of getting fired for making one bad decision and have the ability to implement a long term strategy for growth and fulfill your mission. That means nationwide recruitment for members to serve on corps BOD's. In today's economy it is difficult to find board members that have the correct skill set needed and the time and the money to serve on a non profit board.

I have served on a corps BOD for six years. To make a Saturday board meeting I have take a days vacation, drive to the airport and park in the short term lot. Pay an outrageous airfare to the city where the board meeting is taking place. I normally stay with relatives or friends but I do have car rental fees, gas and food expenses.

Sure I can deduct the $ 4,000 a year I spend attending board meetings but it still seems a lot when I get my credit card statement. Several other board members have similar expenses to attend the same meeting.

I love the activity and I will continue to serve on my board because I know that without board members corps can't operate effectively.

For those that think that the current DCI model is broken you are wrong. It has served the corps well for forty years.

Enjoy the 2012 performances.

[perc2100]

Why would the current Executive Director's of individual corps give up voting control of DCI?

Exactly; wasn't DCI started so that individual corps directors could have the absolute say over their own destiny? At any time if a majority of corps directors feel the direction isn't what is best for them, they can vote something down and/or change things.

Just because someone else from the cheap seats in the stands/living rooms don't agree with the direction of the activity doesn't mean their direction for DCI would be better/best. I think the folks who are in charge of keeping their own corps financially viable as well as competitively successful have a MUCH better grasp on shaping the activity than those not really involved. Even non-profit presidents or arts folks who are not involved with the day-to-day running of a drum corps would not have a great grasp on running things (and frankly, this type of thinking is the crux of multiple problems in this country: for example, education curriculum is largely controlled by politicians who receive campaign funding from testing administrators who are looking to profit on standardized testing - instead of people who actually teach for a living having the final say on what they feel is important, it is mandated by politicians who know little/nothing about education).

Agree or disagree with rule changes, touring models, etc. I think only the naive would believe that non-drum corps administrators would have a better grasp of how to run the activity than the directors.

THAT BEING SAID...

I think the BoD could have a few 'at-large' members who are not DCI corps directors. I don't know if this is already the case, but it would obviously benefit the Board to have 'fresh eyes' on the situation, and might be able to give a different perspective on things.

[garfield]

Exactly; wasn't DCI started so that individual corps directors could have the absolute say over their own destiny? At any time if a majority of corps directors feel the direction isn't what is best for them, they can vote something down and/or change things.

Just because someone else from the cheap seats in the stands/living rooms don't agree with the direction of the activity doesn't mean their direction for DCI would be better/best. I think the folks who are in charge of keeping their own corps financially viable as well as competitively successful have a MUCH better grasp on shaping the activity than those not really involved. Even non-profit presidents or arts folks who are not involved with the day-to-day running of a drum corps would not have a great grasp on running things (and frankly, this type of thinking is the crux of multiple problems in this country: for example, education curriculum is largely controlled by politicians who receive campaign funding from testing administrators who are looking to profit on standardized testing - instead of people who actually teach for a living having the final say on what they feel is important, it is mandated by politicians who know little/nothing about education).

Agree or disagree with rule changes, touring models, etc. I think only the naive would believe that non-drum corps administrators would have a better grasp of how to run the activity than the directors.

THAT BEING SAID...

I think the BoD could have a few 'at-large' members who are not DCI corps directors. I don't know if this is already the case, but it would obviously benefit the Board to have 'fresh eyes' on the situation, and might be able to give a different perspective on things.

Your post is full of contradictions. First you say that the directors wouldn't consider giving up control, then you suggest that outsiders have "a few" positions on the BOD.

If the at-large members disagree with the directors and prevent the directors from implementing something, isn't that giving up control?

If the at-large members are just puppets for the directors, what's the point?

And what difference is there between your at-large suggestion an the structure I originally outlined? If you'll notice the structure of votes in my example, if the directors disagree with a position en-mass, they can vote to turn it down.

Similarly, if only a few directors disagree they could be outvoted. The only way that the directors can affect or block change is if they are united. And having representation of all of the top 17 corps a more comprehensive judgement for the benefit of all WC corps.

[garfield]

Why would the current Executive Director's of individual corps give up voting control of DCI? The decisions made by the BOD of DCI has direct impact on the individual corps operations. The Executive Director's first responsibillty is to his BOD, staff, members, volunteers and his whole organization and not DCI.

You hit the nail on the head with this sentence, and you illustrate the root of the problem. If a director's responsibility is first and finally to his corps, how can he make decisions that are best for the whole activity?

The directors will give up control when they are confident that the decisions made by the BOD will not adversely affect his decisions for his corps.

[garfield]

No corps directors or board members/representatives of individual corps.

Not only should it be more impartial and focused purely on the business aspects of the activity... corps directors and board members have enough to do as it is.

Also, 12 members is HUGE... and even.

7 would be better... but still too big for my taste... 5 would be great... 3 would actually be perfect.

It isn't an issue of quantity or an argument of quality... you could have insanely qualified and talented guys... just not the right fit. It is only about fit.. and fit for current needs of current stage. If you're doing things right... the right fit might be different a few years down the road.

Absolutely zero should come from the non-profit world. The mindset is completely wrong.

For an organization like DCI (turnover, scale, reach, etc.), each seat on a board should realistically represent about $1M in value (cash/in-kind/deals/etc.). If each member is not bringing something to the table that represents at least that amount... why else would they be there?

DCI board should have absolutely no say in details of things like equipment, membership, age limit, etc. These issues completely split the focus... and distract from the primary role of the board, which should be the BUSINESS aspects of the organization. As it is, these issues receive proportionately higher attention, yet return little actual value.

Split ALL of these issues out into a separate committee, congress, working group, whatever.... that is comprised of the corps directors and/or representatives... and let them figure it out. These issues have zero bearing on the business aspects of the organization.

I cannot stress enough how much of an immediate impact restructuring the role and composition of the board would have and how many current internal political issues that distract from the potential of the activity would be eliminated or greatly reduced as a result.

If the directors are fully removed from BOD decisions what prevents another G7 mutiny attempt?

[KeithHall]

This sounds like...state government running education. The DCI BOD have done a great job throughout the years. MAYBE some decisions weren't very popular but the corps run DCI. I don't see any reason to restructure.

[GUARDLING]

If the directors are fully removed from BOD decisions what prevents another G7 mutiny attempt?

and?...it could happen either way

[perc2100]

Your post is full of contradictions. First you say that the directors wouldn't consider giving up control, then you suggest that outsiders have "a few" positions on the BOD.

If the at-large members disagree with the directors and prevent the directors from implementing something, isn't that giving up control?

If the at-large members are just puppets for the directors, what's the point?

I said that directors wouldn't consider to giving up control, and I think that's obvious. That being said, I also stated that it would maybe be a good idea to have a few at-large members of the board to give an unbiased opinion on certain situations. Directors, as always, can agree or disagree if they want choose.

And what difference is there between your at-large suggestion an the structure I originally outlined? If you'll notice the structure of votes in my example, if the directors disagree with a position en-mass, they can vote to turn it down.

Essentially in your your suggestion the corps directors have zero control over the board, as they are 'outnumbered' 7-5. Besides the fact that IMO it is ludicrous to have more non-directors on the board than corps directors, AND setting aside the fact that I think its asinine the way you kinda randomly decided which corps would be represented (I get that the spirit of your idea = the director representation won't solely be based on competitive success or won't be made up entirely by Top 6 directors), I disagree that a majority of the BoD is non-corps administrators. In my sort of throw-away idea, the BoD would have a few non-corps administrators as advisors (sort of like how Bill Cook was an advisor for awhile). Putting all decisions completely out of the corps directors hands runs counter-intuitive to the spirit of the inner-organization of DCI (that all decisions are made by the corps directors for the corps, instead of the older days when decisions were made by VFW-type folks - i.e. people who have nothing to do with running corps and have no idea about what is in the best interests of drum corps).

Similarly, if only a few directors disagree they could be outvoted. The only way that the directors can affect or block change is if they are united. And having representation of all of the top 17 corps a more comprehensive judgement for the benefit of all WC corps.

This is EXACTLY how it is right now, isn't it? If only a few directors agree with a change (such as the original G7 proposal) they can be outvoted and/or removed from the Executive board (as what happened with the original G7 proposal).