Jerseyboy Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 The G7 wants the controlling vote at the DCI BOD table. 7 out of 12 votes. these corps have Contributed at every level . Thats WHY DCI is in the predicament it is. when These corps were ON the DCI board was when all these changes were made to Alienate the fans ,ticket holders and souvenir buyers. A request stating that we need the controlling vote of the DCI BOD table or we are leaving is in bad form. Not the way to run an organization and one I would not support or defend . DCI is not for the corps with the highest budgets , IT IS FOR ALL . Look at the mission statements for these corps. I believe these 7 should re read them. Making better human beings through music and the arts does not mean , only the higher budgeted corps make better humans, but ALL participants in every corps. If these G7 have ideas on how to help the future of DCI it should share them with all corps and the DCI BOD.. DCI is not for only the RiCHER , higher tour fee , higher placing corps . But ALL CORPS. Since this is the second attempt at a coup on the DCI board they are not to be trusted with the majority vote. PROVE YOURSELF to be trustworthy, keeping the integrity of DCI , their fans and supporters, in mind first. Its a NON PROFIT >>> So higher budgets do not matter. HigherTour fees do not matter. they should all balance out end of the year. DCI should NOT be for the rich students but ALL students. If a young man or women wants to better themselves through participation in a DCI corps , the amount they can afford to pay in tour fees or their skill level , should NOT limit their ability to prosper as a human being. This is what this G7 PROPOSAL IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. Higher , faster , louder , higher scoring , more toys , higher budgets has all to do with competition . The DCI board should NOT be run by competition but by ALL who participate. If the west coast corps wanted all the votes because there budget is more than the CADETS and CROWN the EAST coast corps would have a fit. Thats the same as they are doing to the other WC and OC corps. Do they deserve a vote . YES. Do they deserve the controlling vote . NO The G7 is looking for 7 votes. Give them 5. Give them 5 of 21 votes. Since they have separated themselves into this group G7and have separate shows ( The TOC shows ) . the group should receive 5 votes . The other 16 corps in WC should receive a total of 12 votes .With the OC corps receiving 4 votes. Voting members should be voted on by their separate groups. G7 , WC , OC =21 votes . With DCI executive Director having a VETO on all rule changes and changes to the DCI By laws. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFZFAN Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Yes! What he said! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) What Corps that currently have a DCI vote are going to vote " yes" on a proposal to deny themselves a future vote ? Duh. Thats why this proposal floated out there by George Hopkins is a complete non starter, and he knows it too. He may be many things, but being completely stupid is not one of them. So he KNOWS this proposal is a charade that he's floating out there... as perhaps a cover for the decision to bolt DCI that has, in my opinion, already been made. Hopkins( and Fielder, Gibbs ) are getting up there in age now, maybe it IS time for these guys to take their not thoroughly well conceived plan out into the wild blue yonder, and let the rest of DCI recoup and begin anew and fresh with younger and more progressive minds. DCI is chock full of young, intelligent, business saavy folks ready, willing, and able to fill these greedy, old dinosaurs shoes. Let them take their circus act elswhere, and don't let the door hit you when you go out the door. DCI will ALL vote on whether to leave the light on for you should you decide to return or not. In the meantime.... See you later,... Adios Amigos ! Edited January 10, 2013 by BRASSO 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewSkool Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 Don't we already have a thread for this? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCFan Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 The solution is simple: Just put the names of all the "Group of 7" corps in a hat, then draw one name. This corps will be ostracized by the fans for one entire season. Nobody goes to their sponsored show/shows. Nobody buys tickets or merchandise from them. Nobody stays in their seats for their performance in any show, all season long. Instead they file out beforehand and return afterward. I think the Director of this corps would quickly get the message..... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlamMan Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 What Corps that currently have a DCI vote are going to vote " yes" on a proposal to deny themselves a future vote ? Duh. Thats why this proposal floated out there by George Hopkins is a complete non starter, and he knows it too. He may be many things, but being completely stupid is not one of them. So he KNOWS this proposal is a charade that he's floating out there... as perhaps a cover for the decision to bolt DCI that has, in my opinion, already been made. Hopkins( and Fielder, Gibbs ) are getting up there in age now, maybe it IS time for these guys to take their not thoroughly well conceived plan out into the wild blue yonder, and let the rest of DCI recoup and begin anew and fresh with younger and more progressive minds. DCI is chock full of young, intelligent, business saavy folks ready, willing, and able to fill these greedy, old dinosaurs shoes. Let them take their circus act elswhere, and don't let the door hit you when you go out the door. DCI will ALL vote on whether to leave the light on for you should you decide to return or not. In the meantime.... See you later,... Adios Amigos ! That right there ladies & gentlemen is a great post. Nicely done! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thirdcoast Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 (edited) What Corps that currently have a DCI vote are going to vote " yes" on a proposal to deny themselves a future vote ? Duh. Thats why this proposal floated out there by George Hopkins is a complete non starter, and he knows it too. He may be many things, but being completely stupid is not one of them. So he KNOWS this proposal is a charade that he's floating out there... as perhaps a cover for the decision to bolt DCI that has, in my opinion, already been made. Hopkins( and Fielder, Gibbs ) are getting up there in age now, maybe it IS time for these guys to take their not thoroughly well conceived plan out into the wild blue yonder, and let the rest of DCI recoup and begin anew and fresh with younger and more progressive minds. DCI is chock full of young, intelligent, business saavy folks ready, willing, and able to fill these greedy, old dinosaurs shoes. Let them take their circus act elswhere, and don't let the door hit you when you go out the door. DCI will ALL vote on whether to leave the light on for you should you decide to return or not. In the meantime.... See you later,... Adios Amigos ! IMO, I think you are right. I wonder if this is just to get a rise out of us fans of OUR activity. I mean think about it, as I read the e-mail I can just see the 3 going ya, ya that's the ticket. I mean it is kinda creepy in a way. Edited January 11, 2013 by thirdcoast 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 The current model is fundamentally broken. 21 votes is absolutely not a solution. The biggest problem with DCI from an operations standpoint is that nearly everything is design by committee. If you want to create an extremely mediocre or ineffective result, you simply add more people to the decision-making process. The last thing that should happen is that more people, not less, should be involved in the decision-making process. Three would be a good balance. If you want to take the performance or money aspects out of the equation... Take the organizations that have programs that engage the greatest number of youth. Give the three groups that serve the greatest number of kids decision-making power. So, if you want to call the shots, serve more kids. Doesn't have to be a drum corps, can be community programs, camps, whatever. Right now I'd say the top 3, if using this metric: 1 - Cadets 2 - Blue Devils 3 - Santa Clara Vanguard 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyGranite Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 The only problem with your suggestion is your assumption that those top three corps, in any way, can be assured of considering the best interests of DCI over their own (or other's) interests. Given the proposals of 2010, that assurance is dubious. The current model is fundamentally broken. 21 votes is absolutely not a solution. The biggest problem with DCI from an operations standpoint is that nearly everything is design by committee. If you want to create an extremely mediocre or ineffective result, you simply add more people to the decision-making process. The last thing that should happen is that more people, not less, should be involved in the decision-making process. Three would be a good balance. If you want to take the performance or money aspects out of the equation... Take the organizations that have programs that engage the greatest number of youth. Give the three groups that serve the greatest number of kids decision-making power. So, if you want to call the shots, serve more kids. Doesn't have to be a drum corps, can be community programs, camps, whatever. Right now I'd say the top 3, if using this metric: 1 - Cadets 2 - Blue Devils 3 - Santa Clara Vanguard 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielray Posted January 11, 2013 Share Posted January 11, 2013 The only problem with your suggestion is your assumption that those top three corps, in any way, can be assured of considering the best interests of DCI over their own (or other's) interests. Given the proposals of 2010, that assurance is dubious. The real issue here is that there is no one that actually KNOWS what is in the best interest of DCI. Many THINK they do... but currently no one KNOWS. The best solution here is to find someone who has run a similar type of organization of a larger size, and hire them to run the BUSINESS side of things. That person actually KNOWS. I strongly believe that the real solution to DCI's current challenges as an organization is a change in leadership. Not because of Dan, again, he is a fantastic guy and has worked some absolute miracles. It is simply that DCI needs something different moving forward... a fresh perspective, different experience and broader contacts. I also strongly believe that this new leadership should not come from within DCI or the marching world. In fact, it is even better than they know little about it, as they would be able to better communicate what DCI is to a broader audience. People complain that this type of individual would be expensive, that DCI cannot afford it. The reality here is that DCI cannot afford not to make such a hire. 5 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.