G7 Update

[soccerguy315]

I wonder how many here will spend an extra buck or two at Troops souvie stand this year?

I wonder if the other directors realize the marketing and support position they could command by taking a similar position public as Troop has.

I will.

Remember you can donate to the Troopers and buy merch any time of the year!

Updated: I just donated through their paypal link and left a message thanking them for this letter.

I am going to donate when my next paycheck comes in.

[Jeff Ream]

<SNIP>

####.

but hey you got the deep throat joke so thats what counts

Edited January 26, 2013 by JohnZ
lengthy repost snipped

[Jeff Ream]

This is certainly an interesting discussion and will be exciting to see where DCI stands after this weekend. Here is an official response from The Troopers organization that was forwarded to me last night. I wonder how this letter will impact any voting for this weekend...

1/23/13

The following is the Troopers Board of Directors' response to the 1/9/13 e-mail letter from the Directors of the "7", titled "re: Drum Corps International and the Future."

As the leadership of a founding member of Drum Corps International, one of the very few who initiated the effort to create an independent, viable structure that would allow American Drum & Bugle Corps to thrive, we are greatly saddened by the current divisive state that exists within our activity. Our founder has been oft-quoted as saying "We are the show." The "we" to which he referred was not the Troopers, but to the drum corps of the era. DCI was created as a collective, an organization to work solely in the interest of American Drum & Bugle Corps. We, the leaders of the youth whom we serve, are responsible for maintaining that collective spirit.

Therefore, in the name of that spirit, we firmly reject the claims and requests contained in this letter. We believe the claim that the current "tragic" economic realities of operating a drum corps was somehow "inevitable" and out of DCI's control is disingenuous. Obviously, many of the "7" have been responsible for it to a significant degree as they've advocated changes that have made competing more and more expensive while working to maintain a status quo where revenue is concentrated at the top.

Equally disingenuous is the claim that the decline of open class corps is a "product of economic times." Times are clearly difficult as we all know too well, but we see this argument as a red herring. The decline is due to a failure of stewardship over the activity as a whole, a failure aided and abetted by the philosophy espoused by the "7", that has funneled the resources to the "haves" while ignoring the need to build capacity at all levels, and has indulged the whims of a few influential corps directors, preventing any real sense of community and mutual ownership of the activity, driving up expenses, and leaving corps without the skills and means to survive the tough economic times.

While the "7" seem resigned to, if not even proud of it, we are not content with a situation in which there is a large disparity in "fiscal and organizational abilities." We believe true stewardship demands that resources should be allocated in a way that lifts the level of these capabilities throughout all strata of the activity.

Similarly, we disagree with the argument that the governance of the activity should be exclusively in the hands of corps directors. In addition to representation from competing organizations, the governing organization needs to include voices that have demonstrated excellence in nonprofit management and who are motivated solely by a passion for keeping the activity alive and free from the pressure to advance the interests of individual drum corps. Competitive success is simply not the same thing as organizational capability. We are predominantly nonprofit organizations and the nonprofit world is a precise industry with benchmarks and best practices of organizational competence that have nothing to do with scoring well in a stadium.

As an example of this, we believe board representation must be gained in legitimate fashion in a manner that is fair to all. Even though the initial DCI board was determined by competitive placement, the leadership of those very finalist corps, which included members of the "7", agreed to change the board to be an elected body. It was a selfless act on behalf of the collective that they easily could have refused to do in the interest of protecting their individual power.

The current situation, where none of the "7" are represented on the board is due in no small part to their own deliberate non-participation in the electoral process that those twelve similarly situated drum corps established many years ago, and that we have all agreed to over time.

Ultimately, if the "7" truly have some valid claim to superior qualifications, organizational ability and vision, we feel it is incumbent on them to act like it. This means running for election, honoring and following procedures outlined in current bylaws, ending petty bickering, refraining from issuing ultimatums, and participating in the process.

To summarize, the Troopers' Board of Directors stands by the efforts of the greater drum corps community to bring stewardship, fairness and parity to the activity, as opposed to the self-serving and divisive demands of the "7". We reject the tactics currently employed by this group, its disregard for due process and parliamentary procedure, its lack of respect for duly established organizational bylaws, its penchant for resorting to disrespectful and aggressive behavior at the expense of mature and mutually respectful deliberation, its lack of professionalism and all of its attempts to undermine the unity of the activity.

We are heavily and wholeheartedly invested with our colleagues in governing in a way that will strengthen and grow the activity as a whole and at all levels, including the organizations represented in the January 9 letter, not diminish it as the very name the "7" seems to endorse.

To this end, we applaud the recent proposal to create a regular opportunity for board members of DCI member corps to meet, engage in mutual problem solving and share best practices to better serve the activity and the respective members as a whole. It is thanks to the collective of volunteer board members in each of these organizations, who truly bear the fiduciary responsibility for this activity, that all of our organizations are able to put "...the rubber to the road," and it would only serve to strengthen our organizations by allowing the free exchange of ideas between those bases. By tapping into this broad and diverse experience, we are confident that we will soon see an age where our activity will be united once again as a collective, and that the numbers of organizations, experiences, and opportunities for young musicians involved with DCI will flourish and grow.

Respectfully,

The Troopers Board of Directors

Milward Simpson, President

WOW! Holy F U!

I'm cutting a check to the Troopers tonight

[drumcorpsfever]

TROOPERS!!! They truly are America's Corps!!!

Here's what I found impactful in the Troopers' letter:

"DCI was created as a collective, an organization to work solely in the interest of American Drum & Bugle Corps."

"We believe the claim that the current "tragic" economic realities of operating a drum corps was somehow "inevitable" and out of DCI's control is disingenuous. Obviously, many of the "7" have been responsible for it to a significant degree as they've advocated changes that have made competing more and more expensive while working to maintain a status quo where revenue is concentrated at the top."

"Equally disingenuous is the claim that the decline of open class corps is a "product of economic times."

"The decline is due to a failure of stewardship over the activity as a whole, a failure aided and abetted by the philosophy espoused by the "7", that has funneled the resources to the "haves" while ignoring the need to build capacity at all levels, and has indulged the whims of a few influential corps directors, preventing any real sense of community and mutual ownership of the activity, driving up expenses, and leaving corps without the skills and means to survive the tough economic times."

"In addition to representation from competing organizations, the governing organization needs to include voices that have demonstrated excellence in nonprofit management and who are motivated solely by a passion for keeping the activity alive and free from the pressure to advance the interests of individual drum corps."

"Competitive success is simply not the same thing as organizational capability."

"Ultimately, if the "7" truly have some valid claim to superior qualifications, organizational ability and vision, we feel it is incumbent on them to act like it. This means running for election, honoring and following procedures outlined in current bylaws, ending petty bickering, refraining from issuing ultimatums, and participating in the process."

Edited January 25, 2013 by drumcorpsfever

[corpsband]

####.

but hey you got the deep throat joke so thats what counts

you really quoted that entire msg?

[danielray]

Very glad that Troopers are proposing some potential alternatives to this issue.

I do agree engaging board members could be helpful, as it could take some of the emotion out of it and add some perspective (a lot of groups have board members come from a wide range of backgrounds).

I don't think that adding too many of these guys into the mix would be the right thing at this stage, though. Already too many cooks in the kitchen as it is.

I do think that the board members can possibly diffuse the bomb... but as far as creating a clear and mutually agreeable path forward, probably best to have an expert assessment here with recommendations.

If there are equally qualified and objective individuals from within respective boards that could come together and form a sort of working group that would present a similar objective assessment and recommendations... would be cool. I do, however, suggest it is a worthwhile investment to have this performed by individuals with really no ties at all.

[garfield]

I would encourage all of you who agree with Troopers' stand to take a moment and pen a thoughtful note to Mr. Simpson and the entire Troopers organization.

http://troopersdrumcorps.org/page/aboutus/contact-us

[garfield]

Very glad that Troopers are proposing some potential alternatives to this issue.

I do agree engaging board members could be helpful, as it could take some of the emotion out of it and add some perspective (a lot of groups have board members come from a wide range of backgrounds).

I don't think that adding too many of these guys into the mix would be the right thing at this stage, though. Already too many cooks in the kitchen as it is.

I do think that the board members can possibly diffuse the bomb... but as far as creating a clear and mutually agreeable path forward, probably best to have an expert assessment here with recommendations.

If there are equally qualified and objective individuals from within respective boards that could come together and form a sort of working group that would present a similar objective assessment and recommendations... would be cool. I do, however, suggest it is a worthwhile investment to have this performed by individuals with really no ties at all.

You know we agree that the activity should be led by an independent group of leaders, but I think you misread what Simpson was saying here. There was, last year at finals, a meeting of corps boards convened in Indy where they shared the ideas and best practices, as well as heard Dan A's vision of DCI-Next. It was that new impetus to which Simpson was referring, I think. I don't think the letter was suggesting that corps Boards have more influence on the governance of the activity.

This quote gives me hope that that our shared vision of independent governance is probably closer to reality than it's been in the history of the activity:

"Similarly, we disagree with the argument that the governance of the activity should be exclusively in the hands of corps directors. In addition to representation from competing organizations, the governing organization needs to include voices that have demonstrated excellence in nonprofit management and who are motivated solely by a passion for keeping the activity alive and free from the pressure to advance the interests of individual drum corps."

But I don't interpret the letter as meaning that corps BOD members should, necessarily, fill that role.

Edited January 25, 2013 by garfield

[drumcorpsfever]

I would encourage all of you who agree with Troopers' stand to take a moment and pen a thoughtful note to Mr. Simpson and the entire Troopers organization.

http://troopersdrumc...utus/contact-us

Great suggestion. DONE!

[skywhopper]

I do think that the board members can possibly diffuse the bomb... but as far as creating a clear and mutually agreeable path forward, probably best to have an expert assessment here with recommendations.

If there are equally qualified and objective individuals from within respective boards that could come together and form a sort of working group that would present a similar objective assessment and recommendations... would be cool. I do, however, suggest it is a worthwhile investment to have this performed by individuals with really no ties at all.

This is a perfect argument for having unaffiliated individuals (who are nevertheless fans) on the board. The outside perspective and voice is key in making good decisions. Hired consultants too often don't have the time or inclination to truly understand the organization they are recommending changes to, but committed external board members, properly chosen, can bring some of the same benefits.