How can smaller DCI corps survive?

[Stu]

This may actually be the looniest post I have ever seen on DCP.

When was the last time you saw....no, this doesn't even deserve to be phrased as a question. I see these corps directors coming in/going out with their corps at shows all the time. And in over 20 years, I have never seen a single one of them "in a rant of anger" or the least bit "tipsy" at such a time and place.

Thanks for the compliment, I rather enjoy the Loony Tunes cartoons!!! Nevertheless, you need to hang out in between the buses at shows (after dark). As recently as last season I have seen various staff, even prominent staff, in the bus lot after shows ranting, cussing, scratching their..., even some who were smelly/dirty, as well as a few who were tipsy if not drunk. And again I am not talking about 1974, but as recent as last season.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Stu

[Stu]

So how does that work?

"Hey George, I got an idea! Let's go down to the field tonight and start talking about pulling our corps out of DCI, real loud, so that people overhear us."

"Dave, that's a dumb idea. You want to get booed like I did at the Rose Bowl?"

"George, you said you wanted to test the waters. You said this whole G7 deal is off unless those five people bantering on Drum Corps Planet like it now."

"So?"

"So we blab this in front of a blogger."

"And how do you know who's a blogger, Dave?"

"That's easy. They're the ones with those DCP headsets, y'know, that cup the ears and make everything louder."

"Oh, yeah. YEA!"

"We'll say we have eight corps ready to split, maybe nine now."

"Got it!"

Nope, I am saying this is a plausible possibility:

An elite corps director who wants to move on to get out from under a conversation, but also has a wicked sense of humor or a sarcastic moment in his thought process due to being annoyed, or just out of shear fun likes sarcasm, states to the other person something like, 'Ya know, we really do want to leave DCI". I certainly do see that as a plausible scenario with a few of the elites.

[27Socal]

Nope, I am saying this is a plausible possibility:

An elite corps director who wants to move on to get out from under a conversation, but also has a wicked sense of humor or a sarcastic moment in his thought process due to being annoyed, or just out of shear fun likes sarcasm, states to the other person something like, 'Ya know, we really do want to leave DCI". I certainly do see that as a plausible scenario with a few of the elites.

You are fixated on these bizarre what-ifs. You are missing the big picture. Like Deep Throat (W. Mark Felt) told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money".

[Stu]

You are fixated on these bizarre what-ifs. You are missing the big picture. Like Deep Throat (W. Mark Felt) told Bob Woodward, "Follow the money".

Are you Woodward, Bernstein, Redford, Hoffman, or merely a wann-be? I would place a huge bet on just a wanna-be. And by the way, No, I did not like Deep Throat; the script and soundtrack were way worse than b-movie quality.

[garfield]

So, when you say you disagree, it is your contention that Dan can actually make pronouncements such as, "That is enough. G7 corps directors you are levied huge fines and penalties for placing the DCI touring system in a position of financial collapse"; or "That is enough. G7 corps directors you are hereby on suspension. I do not want you to financially collapse DCI so you can sit out a few shows and think about what you want to do"; or "That is enough. There will be, from this point forward, at least two Open Class corps included in every local show provided that the Open Class corps expresses a desire to be included in that show". CEO's of other corporations can make those 'types' of pronouncements, but are you saying that you disagree and that Dan actually has that authority?

I'm saying that, when you cut through all the BS, Dan's job is to be a tour promoter and public face of the organized activity in DCI. The present board is charging him with a responsibility, to do what exactly? Is Dan beholden to the vocal members of the current board at the complete exclusion of the voices that are not now voting members?

Dan has every power to stand up and demand any darn thing he needs to carry out the directve of his board, up to and including a recognition, private if necessary, that the current form of decision-making is exclusive in nature, hobbles his efforts to promote the whole activity, and is completely ineffective at promoting the discussion necessary for the primary players to feel confident that their needs are being addressed. Dan's charge is to take that position up to and including his own sacrifice as ED, if necessary. Dan's job is not unlike any other leader's - he's supposed to lead. There is no other rational head in the circumstances that the directors find themselves. There is no one else who can make an attempt to break the stalemate and stop the activity from fracturing further. What directives you and I think he should attempt to implement are not important beyond our banter here; that he is acting on his leadership charge is all that's important. What the "plan" actually is is secondary to getting the two factions to start to talk. Confidence in their ability to make concessions will grow when they are all sitting around the table, but there must be a rational plan on the table to talk about. That's Dan's job, IMO. Whichever side he's closest to (presumably the current non-G7 BOD members), Dan's role would be spotlighted if he can craft a way to get that group back to the bargaining table. "Give them a reason to climb down off their high-horse", so to speak.

In my view, this is the moment a leader secretly longs for as an opportunity to exhibit his true leadership capabilities. Leaders don't simply acquiesce to the dominant side under the flimsy excuse that they have been granted no power. Dan's opportunity to build concensus stares at him - I hope he's using the time and effort wisely. It would help if Arnold, Orwall, Komnic, Gibbs, Hopkins, and Valenzuela all united to support him but, even if they don't, Dan's leadership role demands that he continue to try to find ways to let them back him. That means developing sufficient rewards and concessions on both sides to get them back to talk about a plan, his plan. Getting agreement from all parties is the singular goal, even if that agreement is that both sides hate the plan that he puts forth.

Agreement by the directors, ALL directors, is the only way forward. In that effort I think Dan has significantly more power than you credit him, even if he can't commit the corps director's purses without their support.

[Stu]

I'm saying that, when you cut through all the BS, Dan's job is to be a tour promoter and public face of the organized activity in DCI. The present board is charging him with a responsibility, to do what exactly? Is Dan beholden to the vocal members of the current board at the complete exclusion of the voices that are not now voting members?

Dan's job is to be a tour promoter and public face of the organized activity in DCI (within the manner and context in which the voting members tell him to). The way DCI has been set up since 1972 is that the Director is completely and utterly beholden to the "voting" members of the board at the complete exclusion of the non-voting members. It is a system where the Board makes the decisions and the Director executes them. I disagree with the system as it has been set up in DCI, but that is the way it is, always has been, and always will be unless a drastic change happens with a complete structural overhaul.

Dan has every power to stand up and demand any darn thing he needs to carry out the directive of his board,...

True, within the directive of the Board (again within the directive of the Board)

...up to and including a recognition, private if necessary, that the current form of decision-making is exclusive in nature, hobbles his efforts to promote the whole activity, and is completely ineffective at promoting the discussion necessary for the primary players to feel confident that their needs are being addressed.

Only if he has a desire to get fired!

Dan's charge is to take that position up to and including his own sacrifice as ED, if necessary.

And that is exactly what would happen if he began making demands and commands against the directives of the voting members.

Dan's job is not unlike any other leader's - he's supposed to lead. There is no other rational head in the circumstances that the directors find themselves. There is no one else who can make an attempt to break the stalemate and stop the activity from fracturing further. What directives you and I think he should attempt to implement are not important beyond our banter here; that he is acting on his leadership charge is all that's important. What the "plan" actually is is secondary to getting the two factions to start to talk. Confidence in their ability to make concessions will grow when they are all sitting around the table, but there must be a rational plan on the table to talk about. That's Dan's job, IMO. Whichever side he's closest to (presumably the current non-G7 BOD members), Dan's role would be spotlighted if he can craft a way to get that group back to the bargaining table. "Give them a reason to climb down off their high-horse", so to speak. In my view, this is the moment a leader secretly longs for as an opportunity to exhibit his true leadership capabilities. Leaders don't simply acquiesce to the dominant side under the flimsy excuse that they have been granted no power.

This I agree with 100%. Dan could be a stand up take the bull by the horns, take the bullet in the gut type leader, sacrificial though it may be, but a leader who would nonetheless bring notice the the voting members enough is enough.

Dan's opportunity to build consensus stares at him - I hope he's using the time and effort wisely. It would help if Arnold, Orwall, Komnic, Gibbs, Hopkins, and Valenzuela all united to support him but, even if they don't, Dan's leadership role demands that he continue to try to find ways to let them back him. That means developing sufficient rewards and concessions on both sides to get them back to talk about a plan, his plan. Getting agreement from all parties is the singular goal, even if that agreement is that both sides hate the plan that he puts forth.

This is where we probably disagree. The way I see it is that the Hop/Gibbs side does not want compromise, they want the power, all of it; and anything they compromise on is just manipulative calculation until they figure out a way to overcome. To me the ED should go to the current Board and ask them if they want DCI to be strong, all of DCI, or the G7 to be strong; if the Board responds DCI then the ED should be the sole "power" player; the ED should go to the G7 and state "This Is the Way it will be, and if you do not like it do not let the door hit you in the butt on the way out"!

Agreement by the directors, ALL directors, is the only way forward. In that effort I think Dan has significantly more power than you credit him, even if he can't commit the corps director's purses without their support.

And I know this is where we disagree. The four Beatles preached and sang about Love, Peace, and Harmony but how did that work out for them in reality? Heck, my wife and I on many occasions can never come to a agreement on decisions (other than we have agreed that she has the final say on aspects abc and I have final say on aspects xyz). Point is, the way forward is to place the buck-stops-here power in the hands of the ED with a check system from the Board in case the ED does something illegal or unethical; and the way DCI is set up that will never happen.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Stu

[27Socal]

Are you Woodward, Bernstein, Redford, Hoffman, or merely a wann-be? I would place a huge bet on just a wanna-be. And by the way, No, I did not like Deep Throat; the script and soundtrack were way worse than b-movie quality.

Name calling reduces a person's credibility to zero.

[Stu]

Name calling reduces a person's credibility to zero.

You are the one claiming multiple times as to being a journalist, using journalistic analogies, and making Watergate issue type comparisons; I was just wondering if you are a real journalist (a la Woodward, Bernstein) or if you are just an actor (a la Redford, Hoffman). There was no name calling. I just made an educated guess on which camp you were more likely to be in.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Stu

[garfield]

Dan's job is to be a tour promoter and public face of the organized activity in DCI (within the manner and context in which the voting members tell him to). The way DCI has been set up since 1972 is that the Director is completely and utterly beholden to the "voting" members of the board at the complete exclusion of the non-voting members. It is a system where the Board makes the decisions and the Director executes them. I disagree with the system as it has been set up in DCI, but that is the way it is, always has been, and always will be unless a drastic change happens with a complete structural overhaul.

True, within the directive of the Board (again within the directive of the Board)

Only if he has a desire to get fired!

And that is exactly what would happen if he began making demands and commands against the directives of the voting members.

This I agree with 100%. Dan could be a stand up take the bull by the horns, take the bullet in the gut type leader, sacrificial though it may be, but a leader who would nonetheless bring notice the the voting members enough is enough.

This is where we probably disagree. The way I see it is that the Hop/Gibbs side does not want compromise, they want the power, all of it; and anything they compromise on is just manipulative calculation until they figure out a way to overcome. To me the ED should go to the current Board and ask them if they want DCI to be strong, all of DCI, or the G7 to be strong; if the Board responds DCI then the ED should be the sole "power" player; the ED should go to the G7 and state "This Is the Way it will be, and if you do not like it do not let the door hit you in the butt on the way out"!

And I know this is where we disagree. The four Beatles preached and sang about Love, Peace, and Harmony but how did that work out for them in reality? Heck, my wife and I on many occasions can never come to a agreement on decisions (other than we have agreed that she has the final say on aspects abc and I have final say on aspects xyz). Point is, the way forward is to place the buck-stops-here power in the hands of the ED with a check system from the Board in case the ED does something illegal or unethical; and the way DCI is set up that will never happen.

It was the by-laws of the activity that saved it (for another year) by giving the board the power to replace board members who acted not in the best interest of the activity. However that is defined, it was sufficient to give the current BOD the power to remove those they targeted (and also fire 3 at-large board members - why would they do that?) Isn't it reasonable that the by-laws give the BOD the power to replace the ED for the same reasons? They haven't done that because the ED "appears" sympathetic to their cause because the "ED is beholden to them"; if the ED championed the G7 way forward you can be sure they'd have removed him as well.

So what's different now besides another year? The only difference now is that the BOD is the non-G7. Did that solve the rift between the two? Don't we have the same scenario now - a BOD that's only addressing their viewpoint?

Let's not kid ourselves, the G7 represent a significant drawing power and revenue production. If we have a BOD and ED that are not addressing their concerns it is as corrupt as having the G7 in charge, and the damage to be done by not finding an agreeable path forward is as great as the G7 threat. Splitting the activity at its current size could be a fatal blow to every corps. GH is calculating the risks and returns of his two options to stay or go. It's reasonable that he understands "The devil you know..." and would choose that if a plan came forth that addressed some of the G7 concerns (witness the TOC).

Dan is the only one in a position to bring them together. He has to rise to the occasion and be prepared to negotiate a re-working that represents a truce that all can live with, and try (ala-TOC).

They all need to drop their pitchforks and shake hands as gentlemen, with the reality that it doesn't have to be as divisive as it now is. A good leader should take the role of negotiating that peace, however he has to do it.

Don Pesceone would have never stood for this.

Edited July 21, 2012 by garfield

[GUARDLING]

It was the by-laws of the activity that saved it (for another year) by giving the board the power to replace board members who acted not in the best interest of the activity. However that is defined, it was sufficient to give the current BOD the power to remove those they targeted (and also fire 3 at-large board members - why would they do that?) Isn't it reasonable that the by-laws give the BOD the power to replace the ED for the same reasons? They haven't done that because the ED "appears" sympathetic to their cause because the "ED is beholden to them"; if the ED championed the G7 way forward you can be sure they'd have removed him as well.

So what's different now besides another year? The only difference now is that the BOD is the non-G7. Did that solve the rift between the two? Don't we have the same scenario now - a BOD that's only addressing their viewpoint?

Let's not kid ourselves, the G7 represent a significant drawing power and revenue production. If we have a BOD and ED that are not addressing their concerns it is as corrupt as having the G7 in charge, and the damage to be done by not finding an agreeable path forward is as great as the G7 threat. Splitting the activity at its current size could be a fatal blow to every corps. GH is calculating the risks and returns of his two options to stay or go. It's reasonable that he understands "The devil you know..." and would choose that if a plan came forth that addressed some of the G7 concerns (witness the TOC).

Dan is the only one in a position to bring them together. He has to rise to the occasion and be prepared to negotiate a re-working that represents a truce that all can live with, and try (ala-TOC).

They all need to drop their pitchforks and shake hands as gentlemen, with the reality that it doesn't have to be as divisive as it now is. A good leader should take the role of negotiating that peace, however he has to do it.

Don Pesceone would have never stood for this.

youre right..Don played dictator, king, mafia Don BUT he had his little tight knit group..wasnt all sunshine and roses bitd and certainly not without self preservation....But your right Dan needs to bring everyone somehow together especially before hes removed....wasnt successful once but ya never know. I belive after the hoopla 2 years ago its just brewing for some huge change within the next few years. One way or another