G7 Update

[cowtown]

As usual on this board, we're too focused on assigning blame, not focused enough on solutions. The only reasonable solution has the seven represented by some factor on the board. Absent that, the best we can hope for is the uncomfortable, unsustainable status quo in which the two sides stand apart to the detriment of all.

My point is the seven has taken a step toward DCI. Now DCI must take a step toward the seven. Leadership is needed to break the impasse and start the process toward progress. From DCI's perspective the risk is five or even three seats on its board might be enough to recruit a majority and thus a change. That's the risk. But it's always been there, always will be there and inevitably must be taken. Or else we're already where we dare not be. And that's where blame is all we have left.

HH

only reasonable solution ???

I wouldnt mind DCI giving the G7, one vote for all 7… some time down the line

Part of what makes this letter so suspicious is they say they dont have a plan yet they want the majority vote to enact what ever plan they dont have after months of private talks?

The 7 have already shown themselves to be hostile to other DCI corps and that they think the way to save and serve DCI is to prune it down to being all about the 7

This DCI board is in place as a fire wall to the G7 attempt at a hostile, procedural coup and nothing from the 7 since has seemed to change

So, have any of the 7 tried to run for the board, you know garner the vote under the exiting bylaws?

Why should DCI change the bylaws now...just because the G7 wet the bed and got called on it?

I feel this letter is partly from some of the 7 to others in the 7 (look, we tried) this letter is so poorly presented, so these are the same minds that can save DCI?

What’s preventing the G7 from presenting anything to the DCI members, like this letter?

If it’s a good plan, it will be approved

Edited January 16, 2013 by cowtown

[Rifuarian]

As usual on this board, we're too focused on assigning blame, not focused enough on solutions. The only reasonable solution has the seven represented by some factor on the board. Absent that, the best we can hope for is the uncomfortable, unsustainable status quo in which the two sides stand apart to the detriment of all.

My point is the seven has taken a step toward DCI. Now DCI must take a step toward the seven. Leadership is needed to break the impasse and start the process toward progress. From DCI's perspective the risk is five or even three seats on its board might be enough to recruit a majority and thus a change. That's the risk. But it's always been there, always will be there and inevitably must be taken. Or else we're already where we dare not be. And that's where blame is all we have left.

HH

Lest we forget, the G7 excluded themselves after the initial fiasco. As I recall the G7 at that time held four of the six "corps" seats on the board. The membership voted two of them out to make things more proportional . . . i.e. the G7 made up 1/3 of the total DCI membership at that time, so they should only hold 1/3 of the seats on the board. But after that the other G7 directors on the board resigned and haven't tried to regain their seats since that time. Maybe they wouldn't get elected if they did try, but I don't really know that for sure. Anyways my point is that the G7's exile is entirely self-imposed.

And I'm curious to know what step the G7 has made towards DCI? The ToC was a massive concession on the part of DCI, and the seven apparently couldn't agree on how to run these so DCI stepped in and saved the G7's baby at the last minute. Pretty magnanimous. In return the G7 have demanded that they be given a majority of seats on an unwieldy 12 member board, or else. Now both sides are at fault here, but the G7 is absolutely the most intransigent. That's pretty hard to deny.

I love these seven corps, support them, and will continue to support them whatever path they take. I've got a sister in one of them and have spent a lot of time volunteering with that corps. These are all great organizations that are mostly well run. But I'm afraid some of my fellow G7 fans are a bit obtuse or maybe contrarian and are refusing to see the truth that's standing in plain sight right in front of them. The bitterness, the pettiness, the acrimony, and the "have your cake and eat it too" attitude are all very, very disheartening. They have no solutions and have admitted as such, but still want to be in charge.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Rifuarian

[jumpball15]

Unless the G7 does something really outlandish, the 2013 season should come off OK on the field. Behind the scenes? God only knows and He aint saying. 2014 could be very interesting.

The G7 have an inflated opinion of their ability to run the show, literally and figuratively. I attended a so-called TOC /G7 or 8 show this past summer. It was irritating at best. You could tell the corps hadn't really committed to doing anything special. (They were too busy practicing so they could beat each other's head in to work on extra stuff.) Some of the "novelty acts" were OK, but nothing more. And the announcers were painful, especially the bubble headed girl wandering the stands. If the G7 wants to offer more of that, they can keep it.

IMHO,DCI and its BOD has been very measured and diplomatic in its responses to the G7 threats and puffery. The G7 is still part of DCI after all. Let's hope that diplomatic approach doesn't result in a Neville Chamberlain moment, as long as we're quoting history. Appeasement at all costs won't work with some of these characters either.

Some truly ironic side notes:

Watch the Brass Roots documentary and hear Cavalier founder Don Warren talk proudly of the founding of DCI and the spirit of cooperation it took to make it work? And where are the Cavaliers today? For shame. Could the same Don Warren have sanctioned their participation in the G7?

Carolina Crown came up through the DCI Class A ranks to get to where they are today. Now they want to make it much more difficult for other aspiring corps to do the same thing. "We got to the mountain top. Now we're pulling up the ladder." For shame.

DCI helped a cash-strapped Phantom Regiment stay alive with a cash infusion a few years ago. Phantom eventually paid it back and has now added a G7 "thank you." For shame.

The Cadets continuously rely on that DCI "cash float." Unless Gibbs and Fieldler ante up that extra bingo money in a big way to help, there could be trouble in YEA land. YEAh, right.

[Jeff Ream]

So DCI may be legally obliged to help these seven corps damage DCI. (By giving them a year to position themselves for a 2014 split.) That would be a shame.

well, if you look at the other side of the fence, it gives DCI time to get ready for life without them

[Jeff Ream]

Back on topic, a history lesson might be useful here. Real history.

The American people had to elect a president in bloodiest year of a bloody civil war. Abraham Lincoln stood for re-election in 1864 against a backdrop of suffering unseen by his fellow citizens – and all for the intangible principle of preserving the union. Lincoln's opponent seemed to promise the opposite; his election would likely meant peace in the form of disunion.

The relevance here is that 1864 election had to take place even though it risked that the union would be dissolved. That's democracy. Democracy, as it turns out and as we all should know, isn't without risk. Where Lincoln in the midst of a civil uprising risked the vote and the union on the prospect that the voters would do the right thing, DCI in its own uprising has put itself in a position where it is denying a vote to those who should have the right.

To those who say the seven might ruin DCI and drum corps, the answer is that is always a risk. Bad ideas aren't just the province of the mighty. The democratic process allows for the good and the bad, for the majority and for respect of the rights of the minority. Contentious proposals aren't supposed to alter the fundamentals of the democratic process. Where contentious proposals become contentious programs, the democracy addresses the deficiencies by law, not by seceding or by denying the vote.

To use Lincoln's words now with reference to DCI, a house divided against itself cannot stand. DCI cannot continue to leave the seven outside its house. They have to be inside.

DCI is a non-profit, not a body politic – I know that. Yet it is also a democracy to the extent it governs itself through a representative board. The seven have to be represented on that board. That doesn't mean they deserve seven votes of 12. It just means that the tantrum on both sides should end with a board that reflects a diversity of views, with a democratic process that aims at consensus, at union, even at the risk of something worse.

HH

the 7 can run if they choose. The problem is their option is a take it or leave it. DCI is more than just those 7, and when you want to trot out democracy, then they all should get a vote...and that's what the 7 do not want. They want a controlling interest.

[Jeff Ream]

I am referring to the fact that none are represented on the board. I am not saying all seven must be on the board. I am saying its not right to exclude them all.

HH

2 of them walked on their own. Whose fault is that? not the other 14. Nothing has stopped them from running since then..except pride and ego. Again, they want their cake and they want to eat it too...they want a voice at the table, but all of them together, #### everyone else

[Jeff Ream]

Both sides in the 1864 U.S. presidential election wanted the Confederacy back in the Union, but the Democrats, the party opposed to Lincoln, were more inclined to obtaining that result through peace negotiations. Some of the Democrats were willing to let the Confederacy depart, but that raises a key part: barring the confirmation of slavery by the Union, the Confederacy wasn't coming back without a fight.

So by your analogy, DCI should act like Lincoln, and thoroughly whup THE SEVEN to get them to return to the fold.

If that's what you meant, I am inclined to agree.

I can see it now....Acheson's march to the sea!

[garfield]

A discussion with a friend today made me step back and reflect on this thread and the week that has passed since the email came out.

As I look back over my own very passionate posts, the positions I've taken, the jabs I've freely thrown, I have to wonder...

What have we accomplished here? What positive contributions have we made that would prompt anyone to pay attention?

Worse, what negative commentary have we presented that, again, reinforces the perception that DCP is a snakepit?

Have we really contributed in a positivie, constructive way to the discourse surrounding this issue?

As we stand around with our pitchforks, looking at each other, I have to ask...

What have we accomplished here that counts towards a positive solution that keeps the activity together, united, and strong?

We have about a week before what will be, likely, the most important Janual meeting in DCI's history, second only to the original one.

Now that we all have our anger, disgust, resentment, resignation, and reactions aired like so much dirty laundry isn't it time we put our collective heads together to advance some positive solutions to keeping the activity from splintering?

I'm guilty, I admit it. But I'll help advance the positive side of our collective passion.

Will you?

[Jeff Ream]

G,

There is nothing we can say or do here to solve the issues. It's going to have to come from the directors of the DCI corps themselves. Either they learn to live together as a whole and stop with power grabs, or they can't.

DCP is being watched, and on both sides. No matter what we say or do, we will have no effect.

Complaina bout the sound in LOS...hey we got more curtains. even FN stuff, we complain, stuff like that, theydo listen.

This....honestly, the lines are drawn in the sand by the people that can affect the end result. Both sides think their wayis best, even if they admit they don't fully know what that way is. After all, ever since th TOC shows, you've seen many complaints on here about the "extras"...and they still roll it out.

[corpsband]

Indeed. The TOC was a huge accommodation. Now the MIMPA shows appearing on the DCI schedule are yet another.

It is interesting to consider why DCI enabled the TOC and MiM show to exist.

BLACKMAIL OF COURSE

Perhaps they thought/think the ideas have merit and are worth exploring.

NAHH. BLACKMAIL

Without dragging all the apocalyptic rhetoric into all this:

WHAT RHETORIC? WE HAVE THE SLIDES TO PROVE IT ALL !!

TOC: explore a more engaging show format.

BORING

MiM: explore a different approach to show operations/management

GREEDY

*IS* there a way to make shows more profitable for corps? When a corps attends a TEP show , isn't DCI running a fundraiser for some local organization? Is that / should that be part of DCI's mission (to be a fundraiser for other organizations)? Would the corps be better off if they took home a bigger part of the net from each show?

Is the current model outdated? Inefficient? Fiscally prudent?

All good questions.

WE DONT NEED MORE QUESTIONS WHEN I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS ALREADY