G7 Update

[Jeff Ream]

Not very clear, that post! But I'm guessing what you're saying is that in DCA --if I understand correctly-- the voting membership is based on the (ten?) highest prelim scores. (With the caveat, as I understand it, that a corps has to have also competed in at least one other DCA-sanctioned event during the season.)

I don't believe anyone else has asked: if it works for DCA, why not for DCI?

One reason, I would guess, is that an overwhelming majority of the highest class DCA corps are voting members, which would not be the case for the highest class of DCI corps under the SE7EN proposal

for starters...DCA is a very different animal. budgets are not nearly as high, and, well, a lot less ego in the room too. The corps that has won 7 of the last 8 championships considers proposals that would affect all of DCA, not just their corps.

[N.E. Brigand]

In the other threads discussing SE7EN, I have mentioned in passing that this long discussion included several compromise proposals. I thought it might be worth listing those in one place.

Before I do, a reminder that DCI’s board presently has eight members, with five “affliated” members (corps directors) and three “unaffiliated” members. Currently none of the affiliated members are the directors of SE7EN corps. In May 2010, when George Hopkins presented the G-7 proposal to the board, there were, I believe, three unaffiliated members and six affiliated members, of whom four were SE7EN directors. After that board meeting, a full emergency membership meeting of all corps was convened by conference call, in which two of the SE7EN directors were voted off the board, and two more resigned. I gather that no SE7EN director has run for a position on the board since then.

DCI’s bylaws allow for the full membership to override board decisions, as happened in May 2010. (I believe the membership also prevented the board from firing Dan Acheson at that time—is that right?) SE7EN’s new proposal is that the bylaws of DCI be changed so that this is no longer the case, and all power rests in a twelve-member board composed of the previous year’s finalists. (I supposed this board might then elect a smaller “executive” board to handle business between the annual meeting.) Because SE7EN will then control a majority of the votes, and because there has been no indication that they repudiate the goals stated in the 2010 proposal, which would essentially instate them as a permanent elite, many people believe that they would enact those proposals. There is therefore substanial opposition here to the new proposal. Another train of thought (expressed pre-eminently by corpsband) is opposed to DCI’s board membership being determined, or solely determined, by the artistic decisions of the competition judges, who are essentially vendors or contractors for DCI.

However, SE7EN’s proposal also hints that if they don’t get what they ask for, they will, sooner or later, leave DCI to form their own league. Some people here take a hard line to this, perceiving it as extortion, and have proposed responses DCI can take ranging from ignoring SE7EN's request entirely, to imposing sanctions against them, to expelling them from DCI. Others believe that SE7EN are only bluffing, and that they have neither the will nor means to actually leave DCI--or that if they do, they will fail, either because of incompetence or internecine strife (three of the seven are more financially stable than the other four). However, many of the same people who think that it would be fatal for the other corps to give SE7EN full control of DCI also fear that the departure of all SE7EN corps would damage DCI, possibly irreparably.

Accordingly, the following compromises have been suggested. All the options below give SE7EN directors at least a chance of some representation on the board (just not necessarily the controlling representation for which they have asked), though the first two do not guarantee it.

1. garfield (post #493) proposes simply that one or more of the SE7EN directors run for a position on the board as it is currently constructed. It is not past belief that they could get elected, since the other directors surely recognize that they have a valid point of view to express, and lacking the chance of total control could not adversely effect the health of other corps--indeed would show a true determination to work with DCI. This would allow SE7EN more chances to convince others to accept their arguments (or some of them) on their merits rather than from fear.

2. perc2100 (post #182) proposes that DCI have a twelve-member board invested with complete control, but one that is elected by the full membership, not based on last year's results with an essentially guaranteed seven-seat block. Depending on how convincing their arguments are to the other corps, SE7EN members thus have a shot at anything from zero to seven votes.

3. lead (post #294) proposes that DCI have a seven-member board based on the previous year’s placements, but distributed throughout the results, with one member voted from each group of five scores (1st through 5th, 6th through 10th, etc.) This guarantees SE7EN one seat, with a shot at two.

4. Tyler C. (post #319) proposes that DCI have a thirteen-member board comprising (1) the previous year’s six highest-placing corps (except that corps with certain financial shortcomings would not be eligible: i.e., your high scores can't come at the expense of losing money for X years in a row), plus (2) “the six most financially-stable corps of the previous season” who were not selected by score, plus (3) a non-corps member to vote in ties only. This would “give very smart and effective directors … a much louder voice [and] ensure competitive standing isn’t the … most important factor” thus balancing “competitive success, corps size, and organizational strength” because “tax forms are more important than the recaps”. SE7EN would only be assured of control if they improved their own finances.

5. MikeN. (post #320) proposes a variant of this in which DCI has a twelve-member board composed only of the corps with the largest assets.

6. New School (post #57) proposes a model loosely based on the U.S. Electoral College: all corps would vote, but each corps’ voting power would be determined by a combination of longevity (e.g., “1 vote per year that they have been a member of DCI”) and scores (e.g. “1 vote per bronze, 2 for silver, 3 for gold”). Stability should count for something.

7. Crunchy Tenor (post #11) proposes that DCI have a fifteen-member board based on the previous year’s highest placements. SE7EN directors thus could enact changes by convincing just one non-SE7EN member to vote with them on any particular issue.

8. N.E. Brigand ('>post #598) proposes that SE7EN be given the seven out of twelve votes just as they’ve asked for, in exchange for the bylaws being further changed to prohibit (or require the full membership to approve) the more controversial aspects of their 2010 proposal: e.g., the new board could not enact restrictions preventing other corps from performing on certain days, or change the payout structure to further benefit themselves, or make further changes to the voting structure (so that there’s a chance of the other five winning over one of the SE7EN), or perhaps to prevent Dan Acheson from being fired, if that’s what the full membership wants. Alternately DCI could take a harder line, and require rollbacks in recent SE7EN-inspired policy in exchange for these seven votes: e.g., no MiM shows for the next three years, or a restructuring of the payout plan to benefit the top corps less than is now the case. (Or maybe a reduction in corps size—one poster fairly convincingly argued that this would reduce corps expenses.)

9. mobrien (post #716) proposes something similar: in exchange for getting seven of twelve votes (or other proposals), DCI could require SE7EN to provide something else the rest of the membership wants, like “an expanded corporate sponsorship and marketing department” or a permanent no-woodwinds policy.

What do you think about these compromise options? What other suggestions do you have?

(I also welcome corrections to my descriptions either of DCI's structure or these DCP proposals.)

[cixelsyd]

However, SE7EN’s proposal also hints that if they don’t get what they ask for, they will, sooner or later, leave DCI to form their own league. Some people here take a hard line to this, perceiving it as extortion, and have proposed responses DCI can take ranging from ignoring SE7EN's request entirely, to imposing sanctions against them, to expelling them from DCI.

True, and I am one who thinks that a harder line should be taken. But DCI has chosen a course of action already, so for the purposes of this post, no point in debating that.

Others believe that SE7EN are only bluffing, and that they have neither the will nor means to actually leave DCI--or that if they do, they will fail, either because of incompetence or internecine strife (three of the seven are more financially stable than the other four).

Or because the concept is flawed. A seven corps circuit of separatists will not sustain a national touring model. But yes, strife is also a concern among those who have already demonstrated a tendency toward cannibalism.

However, many of the same people who think that it would be fatal for the other corps to give SE7EN full control of DCI also fear that the departure of all SE7EN corps would damage DCI, possibly irreparably.

I beg to differ. But that is another subject best left for a later post.

Accordingly, the following compromises have been suggested. All the options below give SE7EN directors at least a chance of some representation on the board (just not necessarily the controlling representation for which they have asked), though the first two do not guarantee it.

1. garfield (post #493) proposes simply that one or more of the SE7EN directors run for a position on the board as it is currently constructed. It is not past belief that they could get elected, since the other directors surely recognize that they have a valid point of view to express, and lacking the chance of total control could not adversely effect the health of other corps--indeed would show a true determination to work with DCI. This would allow SE7EN more chances to convince others to accept their arguments (or some of them) on their merits rather than from fear.

#1 above is my favorite. I do not see a need to change DCI governance again. The governance system DCI finally settled on in 2009 actually has some vital checks and balances. The election process for the Executive BOD is one of those. By that process, there is a price to pay for engaging in conflicts of interest with DCI - you might find it harder to win subsequent elections to the Executive BOD. That is the compromise already built into the system of DCI governance, and I think it is uniquely appropriate.

[Jeff Ream]

True, and I am one who thinks that a harder line should be taken. But DCI has chosen a course of action already, so for the purposes of this post, no point in debating that.

Or because the concept is flawed. A seven corps circuit of separatists will not sustain a national touring model. But yes, strife is also a concern among those who have already demonstrated a tendency toward cannibalism.

I beg to differ. But that is another subject best left for a later post.

#1 above is my favorite. I do not see a need to change DCI governance again. The governance system DCI finally settled on in 2009 actually has some vital checks and balances. The election process for the Executive BOD is one of those. By that process, there is a price to pay for engaging in conflicts of interest with DCI - you might find it harder to win subsequent elections to the Executive BOD. That is the compromise already built into the system of DCI governance, and I think it is uniquely appropriate.

#1 is really the only option I see, but then again, I don't think all 7 will truly bail.

[bneid26]

I'm not even sure what to think anymore. When I first saw this, I figured it was just another one of Hopkins' plans that won't go through. Now everyone is making it sound like this is something to be worried about, the G7 splitting from DCI and all of this. Have any of the other corps involved in this said anything about it? Is it just Hopkins' trying something like usual? You'd think if something serious was going to happen, the other corps would release something about it too, since the letter is "signed" by all 7 corps.

[perc2100]

#1 is really the only option I see, but then again, I don't think all 7 will truly bail.

I think if that were to happen it would not be acceptable because there might be perceived bias/animosity towards that Director: i.e. if there is a Dem President and Republicans controls House & Senate that President is not going to get most of his policy through (or at the very least it would be a draining battle & fight for everything). I could see where the 7 Directors, who have honestly already likely ostracized themselves from DCI with their actions (note: I realize that's their choosing/problem), would feel that having a seat on the Board would likely not accomplish much for them. I agree that giving them the majority of votes would also not be best either (unless that's what DCI would want, of course: I'm 100% for Directors voting in whomever they feel is best).

[perc2100]

I'm not even sure what to think anymore. When I first saw this, I figured it was just another one of Hopkins' plans that won't go through. Now everyone is making it sound like this is something to be worried about, the G7 splitting from DCI and all of this. Have any of the other corps involved in this said anything about it? Is it just Hopkins' trying something like usual? You'd think if something serious was going to happen, the other corps would release something about it too, since the letter is "signed" by all 7 corps.

Keep in mind that

A) DCP kinda overreacts to ANY type of change (see change to any key brass, larger corps size, electronics, amps, vocals, etc) and uses said overreaction as a means to declare the end of the activity. It's been going on since before DCI was formed with fans, so it's nothing new.

B) DCP is mostly arm-chair fans with little/no involvement in the activity right now. The old saying kinda goes, "Those who talk, don't know: those who know, don't talk" and that's the case. The only people who have a strong grasp of what's really going on are the folks going to the Jannual. Some people on DCP who have chimed in have heard some inside dope from friends, but that's still not the full story.

C) the leaked email (likely never meant for mass consumption) only kind of subtly (or not-so-subtle, depending on how you interpret it) hinted that there MIGHT be an exodus. I read that leaked email as more of a discussion point from guys who know how to negotiate. In negotiations (disclosure: I'm a former union Board member who has spent a bit of time at the bargaining table) you typically aim high and leave yourself room to compromise. If you're dying to introduce electronics, you might put a TON of other whimsical ideas on the table so your electronics idea seems OK by comparison. If you want a louder voice on the Executive Board, you suggest your entire crew enjoy the majority voice, and then there is plenty of room to settle for, say, four seats instead of seven. This is a lot of posturing and negotiating tactics (that's how I read it at least), little more.

D) Cadets have been threatening to leave DCI for decades. Going back to the early/mid-90's Hop was talking about leaving DCI to start an independent thing where he could experiment more. It hasn't happened yet, and I would be shocked if it happened now.

In short, no cause to freak out at this point. Are things dysfunctional with DCI? Yes. Are things typically dysfunctional with DCI? Probably. If you have corps experience, you know that a paramount lesson learned is you look adversity in the face, laugh at it, and then solve the problem. I suspect that will happen in this case. If I'm wrong and there's an announcement in the near future about seven WC corps bailing from DCI, I'll gladly admit my error in judgement.

[cixelsyd]

I think if that were to happen it would not be acceptable because there might be perceived bias/animosity towards that Director: i.e. if there is a Dem President and Republicans controls House & Senate that President is not going to get most of his policy through (or at the very least it would be a draining battle & fight for everything).

Not all issues are battles between diametrically opposed partisans. Just as Democrats and Republicans find agreement on giving themselves pay raises, it is possible for a corps director from one of "The 7" to serve constructively on the DCI Executive BOD.

If by "policy", you mean all the most partisan leaning ideas one side has, then you are correct, many of those ideas will not pass when the other side disagrees with them. That is called "checks and balances".

[UNCGQ]

Not very clear, that post! But I'm guessing what you're saying is that in DCA --if I understand correctly-- the voting membership is based on the (ten?) highest prelim scores. (With the caveat, as I understand it, that a corps has to have also competed in at least one other DCA-sanctioned event during the season.)

I don't believe anyone else has asked: if it works for DCA, why not for DCI?

One reason, I would guess, is that an overwhelming majority of the highest class DCA corps are voting members, which would not be the case for the highest class of DCI corps under the SE7EN proposal

Out of the (10) current DCA voting members:

(8) Open Class:

Buccaneers

Minnesota Brass

Caballeros

Hurricanes

Cadets2

Empire Statesmen

Atlanta CV

Fusion Core

(2) Class A:

Carolina Gold

Govenaires

Only (3) other Open Class corps' expected to be in competition at DCA Champs in 2013 that aren't voting members but would be eligible for voting membership (Tampa Bay Thunder, Bushwackers and Kilties).

Edited January 24, 2013 by UNCGQ

[cixelsyd]

Out of the (10) current DCA voting members:

(8) Open Class:

Buccaneers

Minnesota Brass

Caballeros

Hurricanes

Cadets2

Empire Statesmen

Atlanta CV

Fusion Core

(2) Class A:

Carolina Gold

Govenaires

Only (2) other Open Class corps' expected to be in competition at DCA Champs in 2013 that aren't voting members but would be eligible for voting membership (Bushwackers and Kilties).

What about Tampa Bay Thunder?