What happens next?

[Jeff Ream]

It takes more than 7 votes on the DCI Board to pass any sort of rule or policy change, right? Even if Hopkins or Gibbs, or Fiedler make the proposal, it still takes the majority of member corps directors to pass, right? And most of the things you are probably referring to were passed either unanimously or almost unanimously, so it's not like we have the G7 directors "forcing" their policy down unwilling DCI's throats.

Also, it would seem that these same people who you say are to blame for the concerns have been trying unsuccessfully for several years to correct the financial and behind-the-scenes issues with (from the G7 directors' seeming perception) DCI blowing them off. So, worst case scenario, we have:

* several rule changes, policy changes, etc. have been proposed by G7 corps and have been overwhelmingly approved by DCI directors

* over the course of many years, issues have developed, mostly of the financial nature (I'll even entertain you and stipulate that financial problems have developed due to rule/policy changes proposed by G7 directors and implemented by all of DCI)

* G7 Directors have recognized there is a financial problem, and tried to deal with things on their own by making 'minor' changes while staying within the accepted modern framework of DCI touring & competing

* those 'minor' changes didn't affect the necessary changes

* G7 corps directors brainstormed and came up with radical outside-the-box plans that they believe will benefit not only their corps, the majority of the other corps, but also DCI in general. This plan calls for minimizing expenses while providing different performance opportunities that would not only hopefully attract more people, but would also add revenue stream for all

* DCI, from the G7 corps directors' perspectives, does not seriously consider the proposal. This leaves a continual problem with no real plans for a legit solution (at the very least, in the G7 directors' opinions).

* the G7 directors, after recognizing a problem, formulating a solution, presenting it to the DCI Board & member directors, being soundly ignored/shot down of their idea, decides to focus on their end of the plan in order to at least better their own organizations

I think one could genuinely argue that if in fact the G7 Directors are to be solely to blame for the woes of DCI and drum corps model in general, they are indeed at least trying hard to find/implement what they feel is the best solution to those problems but have been dismissed by DCI. Mistakes are OK as long as you strive to correct the mistake: I think you could argue that at the very least, the G7 directors are attempting to fix those mistakes while DCI is treading water, keeping the status quo and mainly hoping things don't get worse. If nothing else, between the corps who could not complete their summer tour in 2012, and with Glassmen being in significant danger due to 2012 debt, radical change should be seriously considering or else we risk more significant loss. From my perception, the G7 directors have made serious suggestions while DCI and its non-G7 member Directors have seemingly not.

DCI changed the Executive Board, aka the final say, down to just 9 did they not? of which a majority of the spots were held by G7 members. There's your way to get things passed....it's what caused the G7 folks to get voted off and the BOD realigned when the #### hit the fan.

Now before that change, I do believe far too many proposals from the top were just voted on by other directors to appease. ( i'll not deny or confirm anyone telling me how true this was). People trusted these guys...they are the leaders right? The top of the pack?

Yet things suffered. Corps folded. attendance dwindled. Some of it is due to the economy yes. Can't deny that. But some of it is also because what tehse guys pushed for didn't work. Funny how several times over the years I have said those who refuse to learn from the past keep repeating the same mistakes....that most certainly applies to these guys....and now, they want to go back and re-visit some ideas from the past. Amazing! You mean....gasp...some of that stuff actually worked ok?

:rolleyes:/>

Trust me when I tell you due to some of the egos involved, people said yes because it made life easier for them in the long run. Grudges can and have been held.

[corpsband]

Guys the intent of this thread is to talk about what might happen next -- not to debate if the G7 is good or evil.

Please keep your G7 is evil / G7 is amazing talk to the *other* G7 thread. We don't need another one.

[charlie1223]

Charlie,

Let me ask you an honest question. if someone presented a proposal that basically limited your groups options interms of being able to produce revenue and have a say in how things are run, wouldn't you freak? That g7 proposal was a power grab, plain and simple. It basically stated the top 7 are everything, the rest of you are minor in the grand scheme of things. There for we get twice votes, more performance opportunities, and we limit how much your corps can make. Yeah, they were justified in freaking out.

if they had stuck just to their super shows, which seem to get panned more than praised, that'd be one thing. I think most of the fans here would have tolerated that. But what was presented was a pure political power move. You say we want it to be like politics...########. The G7 made their political line in the sand...we want this to pass and we'll do whatever we have to do in order to see it through.

sorry, but the above is keeping it far more real than what you presented as a defense

Thank you for that cute little shot at my signature... Again... It NEVER gets old.... Ever...

In politics that happens all the time. Someone proposes major cuts the other side FREaKS! And in the freaking out decisions are made hastily. I don't want a BOD to freak because of an idea. You calmly deal with the proposal in a constructive way. But clearly the only thing that bugged you about my post was the first sentence... Care to comment on the rest?

[cixelsyd]

Why in EARTH do people want this G7 thing to be like U.S politics!

Who says people want that? Unfortunately, we were not asked. When the G7 made their separate plans over a period of months and presented that Power Point, that was a political power play. Now, the foundational principles of that proposal are politically charged. That is the reality we must work within.

You do drum corps for the sake of drumcorps and times are changing and maybe we do need to investigate a little more about the different corps dynamics and considering both the particular pay load they bring and the less tangible educational impact as well and how that plays into their position in DCI. The fact that people have favorite corps and that some corps have more fans than others may not be an important factor or maybe it is. And maybe the fact that some kids use corps as a stepping stone toward higher level corps is a factor and maybe it isn't. I just think we need to look at ALL the facts of DCI corps, especially the ones that are a little taboo in a non-profit activity like this, to think of legitimate solutions for ALL the member corps issues and concessions on both sides probably need to be made.

Okay. How?

So far, this is your only offering of specifics -

A top tier corps probably does need more money if they are a fan favourite to travel to California, and maybe a lower tier corps would like a larger fan base, and more talented auditionees in the corps.

Before we veer off course, it is worth mentioning that DCI already provides additional money to subsidize that California tour for the selected top corps that does it.

Now - in my opinion, world class is the top tier. No WC member corps has any greater inherent need of money than any other, with the exception of when a corps performs a special service above and beyond the call of WC duty (like the cross country tour you mention above).

How can all these things be met? Maybe the top tier corps do drive most of the DCI interest? Speaking for myself, if I'm being honest, I find that to be true. While I do appreciate all 23 corps I do find myself donating/buy souvies from corps concentrated at the top. I'm not the only one and that doesn't make me or anyone else a bad person.

No, that does not make you a bad person. Do what you want. Glad you support drum corps in whatever form you choose!

It's a reality for many fans so what does that mean for DCI? I think it should atleast be considered... DCI is not popular and with its limited fans and limited money all needs to considered.

Considered in what way? You are correct in your observation about souvenir sales - that is a big bonus that top placing corps enjoy. Should DCI pay lower placing WC corps more to compensate? I doubt that will go over well politically.

It sucks that while we acknowledge that what every drumcorps does is valuable for its members no matter the placement that there lingers ominous truths. But I argue they don't need to ominous or taboo and maybe acknowledging them would benefit everyone.

Were the "ominous truths" mentioned above, or is there something else?

[skywhopper]

And there you go: nothing against the rules with putting on their own series of shows.

Just because it's not explicitly against the rules doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[charlie1223]

but under what was proposed, don't you think DCI will suffer as corps keep dwindling away? Because that would happen

Well clearly you didn't even need the G7 plan for that to be happening anyway! Change is the only thing that will stop that from happening.

[JimF-LowBari]

Well clearly you didn't even need the G7 plan for that to be happening anyway! Change is the only thing that will stop that from happening.

Which changes?

[charlie1223]

Who says people want that? Unfortunately, we were not asked. When the G7 made their separate plans over a period of months and presented that Power Point, that was a political power play. Now, the foundational principles of that proposal are politically charged. That is the reality we must work within.

Okay. How?

So far, this is your only offering of specifics -

Before we veer off course, it is worth mentioning that DCI already provides additional money to subsidize that California tour for the selected top corps that does it.

Now - in my opinion, world class is the top tier. No WC member corps has any greater inherent need of money than any other, with the exception of when a corps performs a special service above and beyond the call of WC duty (like the cross country tour you mention above).

No, that does not make you a bad person. Do what you want. Glad you support drum corps in whatever form you choose!

Considered in what way? You are correct in your observation about souvenir sales - that is a big bonus that top placing corps enjoy. Should DCI pay lower placing WC corps more to compensate? I doubt that will go over well politically.

Were the "ominous truths" mentioned above, or is there something else?

The truth is some corps are more popular than others. And some corps draw more people to shows than others. And some corps draw more talent than others and I think that needs to be considered along with a number of other factors ofcourse.

[Tim K]

The real reason why many schools won't house corps isn't because of infamous behavior and large-scale destruction. It's far more pedestrian. It's because the band director or whomever doesn't have sufficient political capital to offset the perceived inconvenience to school staff and neighbors.

Yes, there are cases of damage (most absolutely accidental). More likely is neighbors complaining to police and principal about the "noise." Coaches who didn't learn how to share. Custodians who counted on less work. Teachers whose plans were interrupted. Landscapers who have a schedule.

These lesser inconveniences are the real obstacle when the band director pitches for a day or two next summer. The rejection might not focus on those directly, however. It ends the discussion more efficiently to cite the "trash" or the "damage" or of course the "liability."

There was a time when our schools like our society were more forgiving, accepting and more prone to help by saying "yes." Today the reflex is for "no" not so much because corps are disrespectful to their host schools but because schools and the people in them would prefer not to bother.

I've seen many a corps on tour. That's reality they're confronting now.

HH

There are all kinds of stories regarding hosting, good and bad. I remember reading in a local paper that a corps competing in the Boston area gave up its free day in Boston to help with a community clean-up effort. I believe it was Star of Indiana, so this story goes back a while. I also know a school maintenance man who claimed that every time a certain drum corps stayed at the school, things were stolen, the building was ransacked, and the locker rooms destroyed.

You have some good points here, but citing liability may not be an excuse as much as a reason. Staying overnight in a school can be a lawsuit waiting to happen for all kinds of crazy and illogical reasons. I know one school system in the Boston area that is willing to allow a corps to use their fields for practice, gives the corps full access to the facilities during the day, and is even willing to feed the corps, all as attempts to bolster the band program, but cannot allow the corps to stay overnight due to liability issues. School systems face many legitimate lawsuits due to injury, etc. and more than their share of frivolous ones.

Some schools may have specific rules regarding age and sleeping arrangements. A few years back I planned on chaperoning a group doing a Habitat for Humanity project. We were going to stay at a school but we could only stay as long as the participants were of high school age. No one above the age of 18 was allowed to stay overnight if there were participants under the age of 18 involved. Chaperons had to be above the age of 25, so you couldn't pass off older kids as chaperons. My guess is that this is not the only school district with such a policy, and for most, if not all corps, this would be an issue.

Then there's also tax exempt status. If a school is a private school and any money exchanges hands that is not a donation, and there are specific definitions of what is and is not a donation, that can be considered income and this can have an impact of tax exempt status.

[charlie1223]

Which changes?

Ones that work. I don't know! But is continuing the same way the best?