garfield Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Not taking sides, but in the interest of historical accuracy, DCI was founded on "we're the act, we should be making the money", verbatim from Jim Jones (check out the Brass Roots video on Fan Network; he said it to Don Warren at a mens room in Wisconsin). This is true. I was there, minding my own "business" in another stall. :tongue:/> (Plus, I read it in The Green Machine). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The “7” As the 7, we are united in our concern for the future of the activity. We have individually and as a group examined the financial outlook of the activity, and we do not believe there can be hope for future programming if we maintain the current structures, programs, and methodologies. Because of these beliefs, the “7” have been working together for a few years now, hoping that we can create for ourselves and for the world of marching music, a better tomorrow. We do not claim to have all of the answers and we do not know that the answers we have will work … BUT WE ARE WILLING TO TRY! The implication being that the other corps are not trying? How ironic that statement is, when moving a little further down the page. In order for this to happen, we believe that we need to be represented at the table of governance. Then why did you all walk away from that table? Why did you all resign from the BOD and/or stop running for BOD positions, and instead hold your own private 7-person meetings that now occur weekly? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The implication being that the other corps are not trying? How ironic that statement is, when moving a little further down the page. Then why did you all walk away from that table? Why did you all resign from the BOD and/or stop running for BOD positions, and instead hold your own private 7-person meetings that now occur weekly? Whoa, there. This needs clarification. The G7 did not "walk away" from the BOD. They were booted off by a vote of the remaining members because of the G7 proposal (and after they sacked Dan A.). While some contend the G7 proposal was just a "beginning point for further discussion" the remaining members, apparently, took it a lot more seriously than the G7 expected. Thank goodness the by-laws were drafted to protect DCI from exactly such a coup attempt. It's not a coincidence that the 7 now want to change those same by-laws. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Not taking sides, but in the interest of historical accuracy, DCI was founded on "we're the act, we should be making the money", verbatim from Jim Jones. (Check out the Brass Roots video on Fan Network; he said it to Don Warren at a mens room in Wisconsin. We can only assume that he was talking about their respective drum corps...) Correct, and the reference was in regards to the corps (in general) making the money rather than the service organizations. At the time the VFW and American Legion events, as example, were making big bucks while the appearing corps were making next to -0-. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troopers1 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Actually, in the interest of historical accuracy, DCI was founded on "we're the act, we should be making the money", verbatim from Jim Jones. (Check out the Brass Roots video on Fan Network; he said it to Don Warren at a mens room in Wisconsin. We can only assume that he was talking about their respective drum corps...) Or was he saying the drum corps should be making the money, and not the VFW? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brigadier80 Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 There sure is a lot of cynicism and paranoia associated with this thread. I feel that the proposal from the 7 is reasonable, level headed, and makes sense for the future of this activity. Why don't the most consistently successful corps have a vote in DCI? That is flat out bad business, DCI is not taking advantage of input from the most successful. No one will convince me that the talk of this being a "power grab" is anything but anti-Hop rhetoric, plain and simple. We have a really bad economic environment in this country, keeping a drum corps alive is a challenging endeavor. If DCI doesn't listen to input from the successful in this activity, they will not survive. I say kudos to the 7 for thinking outside of the box and trying to ensure the future of this great but fragile activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) The implication being that the other corps are not trying? How ironic that statement is, when moving a little further down the page. Then why did you all walk away from that table? Why did you all resign from the BOD and/or stop running for BOD positions, and instead hold your own private 7-person meetings that now occur weekly? I also see the irony - remember the DCI 5-year plan? The one that was ratified by the then-BOD as "willing to try"? Only then, months later, the 7 reneged on that commitment, built a coalition, and crafted their own plan. Seems they're willing to try alright, but only if it's their plan and not the one voted on and passed by the whole director group. "Willing to try"? Edited January 10, 2013 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) There sure is a lot of cynicism and paranoia associated with this thread. I feel that the proposal from the 7 is reasonable, level headed, and makes sense for the future of this activity. Why don't the most consistently successful corps have a vote in DCI? That is flat out bad business, DCI is not taking advantage of input from the most successful. No one will convince me that the talk of this being a "power grab" is anything but anti-Hop rhetoric, plain and simple. We have a really bad economic environment in this country, keeping a drum corps alive is a challenging endeavor. If DCI doesn't listen to input from the successful in this activity, they will not survive. I say kudos to the 7 for thinking outside of the box and trying to ensure the future of this great but fragile activity. You mentioned the " bad economic environment in this country. Ok. Maybe the rich in this country should put together a proposal that would only allow people over a certain income level be allowed to vote. Afterall, they are the " consistently successful ", and the poor and the middle class should " listen to their input from the successful" by simply relinquising their right to vote to them. For example, one has to make an income of $300,000 per year. If you don't make that sort of yearly income,... and " consistently"... could the rich count on YOU to give up your right to vote ? to them ? Would you vote to give UP your right to vote ? Edited January 10, 2013 by BRASSO 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CACTSC Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Whoa, there. This needs clarification. The G7 did not "walk away" from the BOD. They were booted off by a vote of the remaining members because of the G7 proposal (and after they sacked Dan A.). While some contend the G7 proposal was just a "beginning point for further discussion" the remaining members, apparently, took it a lot more seriously than the G7 expected. Thank goodness the by-laws were drafted to protect DCI from exactly such a coup attempt. It's not a coincidence that the 7 now want to change those same by-laws. Actually, the remaining members booted off 1 or 2 G7 members and the other 1 or 2 quit. (Can't remember which way it was) So both answers are correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Whoa, there. This needs clarification. The G7 did not "walk away" from the BOD. They were booted off by a vote of the remaining members because of the G7 proposal (and after they sacked Dan A.). While some contend the G7 proposal was just a "beginning point for further discussion" the remaining members, apparently, took it a lot more seriously than the G7 expected. That is true too. In a sense, they had already walked away prior to that, holding secret meetings for months to develop the G7 proposal that caused the events you describe. Thank goodness the by-laws were drafted to protect DCI from exactly such a coup attempt.It's not a coincidence that the 7 now want to change those same by-laws. Excellent catch. And I do not think this would be the only bylaw change they have in mind, once they get their foot in that door. 1 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.