My Open Letter to the "G7" and the activity as a whole

[bluesman]

I could care less as to whether this letter was for public consumption or leaked. I am glad the fans are finally able to see what is happening and are able to discuss for better or worse some of changes that have been made instead of taking their seats at a show and having a WTF moment by what they see or don't see and hear on the field.

This letter has been out for several days and there have been no denials from the G7 or DCI so the question of it's authenticity has been answered by the silence.

[2000Cadet]

Wow, apparently I've been gone for a long time.

[jasgre2000]

I could care less as to whether this letter was for public consumption or leaked. I am glad the fans are finally able to see what is happening and are able to discuss for better or worse some of changes that have been made instead of taking their seats at a show and having a WTF moment by what they see or don't see and hear on the field.

This letter has been out for several days and there have been no denials from the G7 or DCI so the question of it's authenticity has been answered by the silence.

You are seeing less than one percent of what is really happening, which is worse than seeing nothing at all (because it is misleading).

Edited January 21, 2013 by jasgre2000

[JimF-LowBari]

You are seeing less than one percent of what is really happening, which is worse than seeing nothing at all (because it is misleading).

how do you know this percentage?

[cixelsyd]

So... we shouldn't critique the proposals we *do* hear about? There was discussion on DCP about the possibility of merging WC and OC last Spring. That was not a G7 proposal. There was a DCI business plan that was made public back in 2009. That was not a G7 proposal. Indeed, after the business plan was established, that's when the G7 went off and started scheming amongst themselves. The G7 powerpoint led directly to the huge compromise of the TOC tour, which has now morphed into MIMPA--a set of shows run by an organization that can only be seen as the G7's attempt to establish a replacement for the DCI organization.

If you go back and look at the 2009 business plan, you'll see that the core focus was to *grow* the activity. To get more corps started and more students involved in those corps. The G7 said, no, we want any extra resources to go to *us* and not to growing the activity. For nearly four years now things have been static, and we're losing corps rather than gaining them.

Now, DCI is back with a new initiative to grow drum corps. What has the G7 done to grow drum corps in all that time? Wrote a letter asking to take over the board, and established a corporation to run their own exclusive set of shows.

The individual corps' responsibility is to the health of their own organizations, but DCI's responsibility is to the activity as a whole. If anything, DCI's board needs to be more distant from direct control by member corps, not closer.

I was going to make a post exactly like this. Thank you for saving me all that typing.

[JimF-LowBari]

The individual corps' responsibility is to the health of their own organizations, but DCI's responsibility is to the activity as a whole. If anything, DCI's board needs to be more distant from direct control by member corps, not closer.

winner....

[cixelsyd]

The ONLY thing that the G7 want as of now is a voice. They clearly feel that their needs aren't being addressed. If that's true, or if that's an exaggeration, or whatever doesn't really matter. I would like to see DCI hear the G7 out Completly without the hyberbole of DCP posts screwing up the conversation.

The G7 have a voice, as voting DCI member corps. To say they do not is "an exaggeration, or whatever". I would like to hear about the G7 without the hyperbole of them "not having a voice" screwing up the conversation.

[cixelsyd]

They have a voice. They have seven out of twenty-odd votes in the annual meetings. And they can choose to run members for positions on the board of directors as those open up. Positions, mind you, that two of their members resigned from in 2010. Why is that not a fair shake for the SE7EN corps?

However, their e-mail to the DCI membership didn't ask for a voice, it asked for the voice: a controlling interest, a change in bylaws which would give them the ability to change DCI to whatever they want it to be. To make themselves a permanent elite. To cut revenue shares to other corps. To prevent other corps from competing on weekends.

Even so, in the other long discussion thread, at least a half-dozen compromise positions were suggested, along with, admittedly, a lot of recommendations for flat rejection.

The e-mail asked for nothing else but a controlling vote. And nowhere in the past two years have we heard one word from SE7EN about what they would do to improve the overall situation of drum corps. That's two years, since their earlier takeover proposal was leaked, in which they couldn't make public any explanation for their actions, or any plan for drum corps future. In the meantime, DCI seems to have done a lot to accommodate them, as garfield in particular noticed by reading the 990 forms.

All of this has been posted in response to your earlier posts. You emphasize the importance of "listening and understanding". Why not heed your own advice?

(And I apologize for not figuring out these smiley things in time for the other dozen deserving recent posts of yours.)

[cixelsyd]

It doesn't matter what the email asked. The proposal 2 years ago asked for more... Did they get it? No. It's part of the negotiation process and nothing more.

No, it is not. These directors are supposed to be serving together in the governance of their common activity, not issuing demands as a negotiation tactic.

For me the G7 are entitled to demand anything they want and they can make whatever threat they want. It's just words on paper. When they actually begin discussing orally is when the rubber meets the road and it won't matter what was said in a #### letter.

I see. In that case, I suggest DCI respond with an email detailing their intent to ban the 7 from DCI permamently, sue them for every last penny, and take that money and split it among the remaining DCI corps. Of course, that will just be part of the negotiating process, so that permanently banning the 7 from DCI will be seen as a "compromise".

This situation had been handled very poorly from a PR perspective.

So we do have common ground?

The people who instantly vilify the G7 for their ideas are reactionary. Every radical proposal does not require people to assume "G7 is taking our Corps away!" ... No their not. Abd even if the G7 said explicitly "We want to be the only WC corps in DCI" good for them! Let them battle it out in DCI they can state (or misstate) anything they like and I won't hate them for it.

The responses to G7 proposals/demands here are reactionary because these proposals/demands are so disingenuous.

If the 7 had the requisite sincerity to put forth a cohesive point of view, we could debate it on the merits. That will never happen if they mask such a viewpoint in double talk about how much they want to help the lower corps (by reducing their pay), work together (as long as they get all the votes), and how they want to make their changes happen within DCI (while they incorporate their own separate circuit).

[charlie1223]

No, it is not. These directors are supposed to be serving together in the governance of their common activity, not issuing demands as a negotiation tactic.

I see. In that case, I suggest DCI respond with an email detailing their intent to ban the 7 from DCI permamently, sue them for every last penny, and take that money and split it among the remaining DCI corps. Of course, that will just be part of the negotiating process, so that permanently banning the 7 from DCI will be seen as a "compromise".

So we do have common ground?

The responses to G7 proposals/demands here are reactionary because these proposals/demands are so disingenuous.

If the 7 had the requisite sincerity to put forth a cohesive point of view, we could debate it on the merits. That will never happen if they mask such a viewpoint in double talk about how much they want to help the lower corps (by reducing their pay), work together (as long as they get all the votes), and how they want to make their changes happen within DCI (while they incorporate their own separate circuit).

Based on only 2 leaked (and for Garfield i am making the likely assumption the g7 email was not posted by a G7 director or affiliate) pieces of information in 2 years I'm not sure we are able to understand what the G7 even want. I feel we are missing a lot if detail not because its not been discussed with the parties involved but because it hasn't been leaked (and shouldn't be).

The assumption that G7 want to purposefully hurt the other corps for their personally financial gain can't be adequately proven just by one e-mail. Without any official announcements and without knowing what DCI thinks and what the other non-G7 corps think it would hard to make judgment? Isn't it possible to assume there is more information being discussed behinds the scenes than this one e-mail?