N.E. Brigand Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 While I don't speak for the corps officially, my conversations with folks in Boston indicates their bigger concern is the stated intent by SOME of the G7 to insulate and institutional their "elite" status, which would be contrary to the DCI tradition of being able to move up through the ranks. As one of the board members put it to me last weekend in DC, "In 2000, when we were in 5th and Bluecoats were in 12th, putting a "G7" plan of some sort in place wouldn't have even been in our minds". So much this. Yet no one who support SE7EN has offered a cogent response to this point, which has been made here a few dozen times by different people over the past two weeks. Missed this earlier. Like perc2100, I'm definitely in the "waiting for more info" camp instead of the support any side camp... BUT The simple answer to this is that's it's no longer the year 2000. The decisions and positions of the various players are based on what's happening NOW, not 10,20 or 50 years ago. The past is just that -- past. But right and wrong haven't changed. It would have been wrong for the top six plus one corps to grant themselves permanent elite status in 2000, and it's still wrong. And that's what SE7EN have proposed to do, even though every one of them would have screamed bloody murder had someone attempted to pass this plan when they weren't one of the top corps--and they would have been right to be outraged! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 How are things in the abyss, anyway? Where all that's "relevant" is what Bluecoats and the rest of SE7EN can get away with? Where Boston Crusaders are fools for not having taken similar action in 2000 to keep Bluecoats from succeeding? Where your answer is its own refutation, or if you prefer: if Boston is, as you have said, "free to do whatever they want" to increase their revenue, then what they should want, and do, is call for a vote for all tour fees for SE7EN corps to be cut in half, or worse, and soon: this year if possible. So, you think BAC show make proposals out of pure spite? WOW REALLY glad you're not running things. I appreciate your obvious anger about an activity you obviously have a lot of passion for. But when you start talking illogical, spiteful stuff it just makes it seem like you're running on emotion and lacking logic. See that phrase I've bolded and underlined above so you don't miss it this time? It starts with the word "if". That means that the next phrase in the sentence, the one that starts with "then", is conditional upon that highlighted phrase. So to restate: If we accept your horrible, immoral premise that the Bluecoats should do whatever it takes, no matter how much that action harms other corps, to increase their own bottom line, like instilling themselves as part of a permanent elite with Boston Crusaders forever shut outside... ... then we ought to grant Boston Crusaders the same latitude to do whatever it takes, no matter what harm it does to other corps, to improve their own bottom line, and since they're on the board and Bluecoats are not, that "whatever" may as well include permanently locking up for themselves the money that Bluecoats are eager to claim. But I don't accept your premise. It is not OK for Bluecoats and their six friends to undermine the rest of the corps to set up a scheme in which they get a forever-sweetheart deal on the basis of the past several years' successes, just as it would not wouldn't have been OK for Boston to have done the same thing in the early 2000s, and just as it would not be OK for Boston to act so immorally today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 But right and wrong haven't changed. It would have been wrong for the top six plus one corps to grant themselves permanent elite status in 2000, and it's still wrong. And that's what SE7EN have proposed to do, even though every one of them would have screamed bloody murder had someone attempted to pass this plan when they weren't one of the top corps--and they would have been right to be outraged! If you want to convert a sloppy, incomplete, poorly constructed PPT slideshow into the complete, comprehensive manifesto of the G7, I guess you can do that. Were those all ideas discussed in some fashion? No doubt they were. Did any of them come before the membership as a formal proposal? Is the G7 bound and determined to implement each and every item? I have no idea. Is every idea in the PPT controversial? I don't think so. Are controversial proposals something new to DCI? No. I'm guessing the G7 are waiting until after the Januals to do any communicating. We'll see what they have to say at that point. I think they have a responsibility to communicate their plans to their members and supporters. So I think eventually we'll hear something from them. And I have no doubt that someone will posting updates from those meetings right here on DCP. In the meantime I'm not going to try to read between the lines, layer assumption on assumption, and assign motives based on speculation and hyperbole. There's just no point. Here's a fact I DO know: every one of those corps (G7 or not) is led by directors who have nothing but the best interests of the young people their organizations serve at heart. I think everyone of them cares about drum corps, cares about each kid, and cares about the health of the activity. Do they disagree ? Obviously. Can they collectively figure things out ? I think (and hope) so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aanpote Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 This is starting to sound a little to much like "we need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it" for my taste... 😄 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Somewhat objective questions about this... G7 wants top 12 Finalist to have a vote on the board as it was " back in the day". But what if a Finalist corps doesn't want to be on the board? How did that system objectively work back then? If this was implemented is it really safe to assume that G7 will always individually cast their vote the same way every time? It really would only take 1 corps of the G7 to Disent for their to be a tie. And the email says they do not agree 100% on all the issues. If we assume that this one demand is implemented does Dan A have the power of veto? (This wasn't in the letter) Also are there laws about having a super majority etc. to pass certain things in the bylaws? Are there voting quotas when changing bylaws or is there always a simple majority rukes? Couldn't DCI as a counter state that if the make-up of the board was to change that they change tge viting quota for all business in order to be passed? Besides the G7 just asking for this change what would physically need to happen, in accordance with the DCI bylaws for them to change the make up of the BOD and how positions are appointed? What would be the procedure? Assuming that changing DCI bylaws is difficult could it be the case that if this change were to happen and then a G7 corps places out of finals this year would then not get a spot on The BOD? How quickly are changes in bylaws implemented? What is the relationship between voting member corps and the BOD on how policy gets passed? if a proposal was thrown out there that clearly benefited the 7, I can't imagine they'd vote against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 ... every one of those corps (G7 or not) is led by directors who have nothing but the best interests of the young people their organizations serve at heart. I think everyone of them cares about drum corps, cares about each kid, and cares about the health of the activity. Do they disagree ? Obviously. Can they collectively figure things out ? I think (and hope) so. Really? You think everyone of them cares about drum corps, cares about each kid, and cares about the health of the activity. Well here is how they showed that they care: From the original G7 Proposal... > DCI should not be the focus of our concerns and decisions. > Corps Are Independent. We need to care for 'ourselves'. > Corps are NOT the same. It is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current World Class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. > A re-classification of corps AAA, AA, and A [with the G7 being the original, and permanently included in, AAA] > This reclassification will also play into governance, fiscal remuneration and overall control of the future. > Open Class Corps... They can add into a show and they can attend the champs, 'but there is no real service offered'. Yes siree bob cat tails, it sure does appear that them there G7 directors really do care about drum corps, care about each kid, and care about the health of the activity. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Really? You think everyone of them cares about drum corps, cares about each kid, and cares about the health of the activity. Well here is how they showed that they care: From the original G7 Proposal... > DCI should not be the focus of our concerns and decisions. > Corps Are Independent. We need to care for 'ourselves'. > Corps are NOT the same. It is not wise, or appropriate, that each of the current World Class corps have a vote that holds equal influence. > A re-classification of corps AAA, AA, and A [with the G7 being the original, and permanently included in, AAA] > This reclassification will also play into governance, fiscal remuneration and overall control of the future. > Open Class Corps... They can add into a show and they can attend the champs, 'but there is no real service offered'. Yes siree bob cat tails, it sure does appear that them there G7 directors really do care about drum corps, care about each kid, and care about the health of the activity. rare that I give Stu props...just because it would go to his head...but well done sir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 rare that I give Stu props...just because it would go to his head...but well done sir Thanks. By the way, I had to read your post twice Jeff; I thought you wrote Poops! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Thanks. By the way, I had to read your post twice Jeff; I thought you wrote Poops! look, I have a 7 month old...i wish no poops on anyone 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 look, I have a 7 month old...i wish no poops on anyone Gives sort of a different definition to Cheese Chuchuddas now doesn't it!!! 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.