corpsband Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The logic of the proposal is not the point. I disagree - the face value *does* matter. Regardless of the inferences you want to draw, the board and membership have a duty to consider the proposal at face value on it's merits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaddyt Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 IMO, all this who's on/who's off the board takes a back seat to the WE7 premise that they hold the key to sustainability of DCI. This email reads as though they're convinced their presence on the board will help DCI, yet they're pretty forthcoming in that they don't pretend that their answers will solve the problems. So... I'm not sure I see the urgency in their argument (and don't see why the current board would either). The more I think about it, the more I see it as an empty threat. DCI won't do anything because, like it or not, the WE7 corps are a huge draw. And WE7 won't go anywhere, because financially, they can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I disagree - the face value *does* matter. Regardless of the inferences you want to draw, the board and membership have a duty to consider the proposal at face value on it's merits. I like your optimism, but the G7 is not operating with honest motives and straightforward communication. The board should ignore this proposal entirely. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 My point is that those recipients did not agree to get a private message. Further, the content of the email is the key point: it's written as a public statement. Also, regardless of the email headers, the message was *not* addressed to individuals, it was addressed to the DCI membership. You are focussing on the recipients...the guideline makes no reference to that. It talks about a person posting an email that they did not create. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 You are focussing on the recipients...the guideline makes no reference to that. It talks about a person posting an email that they did not create. It talks about people posting *anything* they did not create, which is not enforced elsewhere on this board, except in exceptional circumstances (eg actual private emails). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) I like your optimism, but the G7 is not operating with honest motives and straightforward communication. The board should ignore this proposal entirely. It's not optimism -- it's a responsibility they all have to each other. If you're going to make a proposal to change the bylaws of a corporation, you ought to have a strong and logical argument for doing so. Leaving the direction of the activity in the hands of a board selected by people chosen to evaluate a marching performance is not a sound basis for corporate governance. It's just plain stupid -- even if it has historical precedent. Edited January 10, 2013 by corpsband 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewSkool Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) Perhaps a electoral college system would work best? Seemed to work out fine for the states and territories when there was vast differences state to state. Every corps gets 1 vote per year that they have been a member of DCI. You get an additional X votes for placements. Lets say an additional 1 vote per bronze, 2 for silver, 3 for gold. So, with those calculations a corps like The Cadets would have 40 years in DCI, 5 Bronze, 6 Silver, 10 gold for a total of 87 votes. On the other end of the spectrum would be a corps like Pioneer. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of what circuit/non competing years, let's say Pioneer has 40 years with DCI and no Bronze/Silver/Gold for a total of 40 votes. Now, in the middle you have a corps like Carolina Crown. While recently successful, they are much younger than many WC corps, so their points would break down like this: 22 years with DCI, 2 Silver for a total of 26 votes. This way I feel that success and longevity/history count for something. You total all the votes from every WC corps that participated in Championships the year before and 2/3rds plus 1. So if all the corps from 2012 were to meet at the DCI conference in 2013 and the total of all the votes was 600(a total bs number, just an easy one to divide by 3), a rule would need 401 votes to pass. I dunno. Just an odd thought that came to mind as I was browsing the thread. Edited January 10, 2013 by NewSkool 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 To: George and the directors of the "7" From: The Membership of Drum Corps International Re: Your previous failed coup attempt and math Salutations, We find it interesting that you are communicating to us by that most impersonal and ineffective means of relationship building, email. But we digress. Since your failed attempt to overthrow the DCI board of directors in 2010, culminating in your removal from the board, we have attempted to work with you to retain you within the DCI family. The fracture of such a small organzation can only produce negative results, and as such it's our desire to remain together. To that end we have allowed you, within the DCI framework, to organize, run, and retain the profits from 6 events this coming summer. We wish you well. Your proposal to return to the DCI board of directors and revise the board membership to the directors of the top 12 corps was reviewed. However, a simple math calculation shows that with 12 voting members, 7 of which likely coming from the "7", means the "7" will gain control of the board of directors. Since you proved yourselves untrustworthy in 2010 and have done nothing to change that perception, we're going to have to say "no thanks" to your very thinly veiled "offer." With best wishes for the new year, THE Membership of Drum Corps International /> Seems you might not exactly be interpreting in the proper context. Go to the DCI web site. Scroll to the bottom. Check out the list of sponsors. Consider, if you will, the relationships those organizations have with the top 7 corps vs. the remainder. The sponsorship and endorsement deals these top 7 corps have are dramatically different than the level of support given to the remainder. It is not even close. At all. So, what would really happen to this support if there were a split? Where would these sponsor companies choose to focus their attention? Granted, they are not really a strong line item contributor to DCI's actual current revenue, yet their engagement indirectly contributes quite considerably to the success of the whole. If there were a split, where would these sponsors choose to concentrate their efforts? Judging by their current efforts, the answer is quite clear and any decrease in support on the part of manufacturers for these organizations could threaten the stability of DCI via a challenge in stability to the remainder organizations. There is a sort of delicate ecosystem here, and disrupting it would only further concentrate support by some key sponsors, not broaden it. Again, a decrease in support on the part of manufacturers for non-G7 corps (even though their deals aren't all that great as it is) could be disruptive enough to where we would see many more Glassmen or Teal type scenarios. And, while the reviews of the 990's are truly revealing, the part of the story that they do not tell is the timing of cashflows and interdependency of revenues. This is deeper story, as the it is the true and most significant vulnerability of many of these organizations (and this was the real issue with the Glassmen and Teal - paying Peter from Paul, etc.). Any disruption from any point for these organizations is pretty much air in the line, which will be fatal for some. As an outsider looking in, simply observing, this seems to be one key point where DCI and the remaining corps have really over played their hand. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KakkoiiOtaku Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I have an idea that might fix the entire situation. Why don't we just have the corps directors from EVERY World Class Corps on the Board of Directors? I honestly think that would be the best approach. In that situation, I'd say that your corps also has had to have been in World Class for three consecutive tours before they can be on the board. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I have an idea that might fix the entire situation. Why don't we just have the corps directors from EVERY World Class Corps on the Board of Directors? I honestly think that would be the best approach. In that situation, I'd say that your corps also has had to have been in World Class for three consecutive tours before they can be on the board. Even 12 is entirely too many for a board. What DCI needs now is pretty much a benevolent dictatorship, not further dilution. Many of their current challenges are the result of the "design by committee" approach of years past. 3 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.