mobrien Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) None of the previous outside directors fit that description. I'm sure they were and are great folks, but the organization needs a strong outside voice with experience doing the SPECIFIC thing that DCI is set up to do - produce and market events - but on an even bigger scale that what DCI currently does. The world is a world of connections. When you're shopping for outside directors for any company, profit or non-profit, it's the personal connections they bring to the table, along with their real-world experience and judgement, that make a candidate valuable. Edited January 28, 2013 by mobrien 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickhaltsforlife Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 (edited) I'm not too upset by the board. But it isn't what I was looking for. I feel like it's just the same old.... there needs to be more of a shake-up. And more business minded people who won't let on the field performance get in the way of making the right decisions for drum corps. I'm glad the G7 do not have a majority vote. And hopefully they put the right person in the last spot. They really cannot have any affiliation with drum corps. I'd prefer not even a fan. We need new eyes on the project. I will say, having Fred on the board I have always seen as a plus. He had absolutely nothing to do with DCI until the offseason between 06/07. If anyone is a voice of reason on the current board it is him. Not to mention his many connections from his life previous to drum corps. Edited January 28, 2013 by kickhaltsforlife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindap Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 2012 ............................................... 2013 Mark Arnold 3 years.................. Mark Arnold (Blue Knights) 1 year Roman Blenski 2 years............... Roman Blenski (Pioneer) 1 year new position for 2013 ............... Jim Coates (Carolina Crown) 1 year new position for 2013 ............... Jeff Fiedler (Santa Clara Vanguard) 1 year new position for 2013 ............... David Gibbs (Blue Devils) 1 year Tom Spataro 1 year ................... George Hopkins (Cadets) 1 year Chris Komnick 3 years ................ Chris Komnick (Madison Scouts) 1 year Fred Morrison 2 years ................ Fred Morrison (Crossmen) 1 year John Masterson 3 years................ Non Affiliated TBD Julie Burns 2 years Mark Stasa 1 year so... looks like at least one of the non affiliated will lose their spot, even though based on last year they should still be here. Also, that Chris Komnick and Mark Arnold lost a year from their terms. We added 3 corps director positions and took away 2 non affiliated positions, in addition to replacing Boston with one of the G7, if I have understood correctly. Was there a bylaw change? Do the existing bylaws allow change to executive terms? I'm curious : ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 Glad I could be of service! Now I feel used... Then I didn't fully do my job...You should also feel violated and dirty. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 I believe the election of this new board represents that a clear winner did come out of the Indianapolis meeting... Drum corps. yeah. I feel bad for the TBD person if they are indeed the tie breaker....could make their life fun :tongue:/> still it's about the best win win we could expect given the last 3 years. Where it goes who knows, but for now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Whoever they bring in should have experience producing major sporting events, festivals, or concerts, with the private phone number of the Marketing and Sponsorship decision maker at every major consumer brand in America, and who has the time and energy to sit down with DCI's staff and the other Board members and convince them that they need to focus on mainstreaming the product while pushing the boundaries of performance. They need someone who is willing to look each of them in the eye and ask "what are you willing to do in order to change yourselves, change your position in the market, and change the negative perceptions that stands between your activity and a much bigger audience?" No armchair quarterbacks. No PTO chairs. No "nice guys with a good head on his shoulders." Only a real business person with real experience working at a much bigger, much more visible level than anything DCI has yet attained. this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 28, 2013 Author Share Posted January 28, 2013 yeah. I feel bad for the TBD person if they are indeed the tie breaker....could make their life fun ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 You can also choose to see it as a group of directors who clearly have differences who are coming together to try and make things work. It's what adults (smart adults) do. That is not the image that comes to my mind, considering that they could not even complete the BOD election process this weekend. A 9th person to be named later? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripper Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Maybe the Ninth should represent the Open Class directors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skywhopper Posted January 28, 2013 Share Posted January 28, 2013 Well, I guess that's one way to think of it. You can also choose to see it as a group of directors who clearly have differences who are coming together to try and make things work. It's what adults (smart adults) do. There's compromise and there's giving in. Compromise is only possible if all sides are working towards a common goal and operating in good faith. Based on what I've seen out the G7, I don't believe they are operating in good faith. Private negotiations and starting up competing umbrella organizations are not good-faith moves. Seeing a couple of G7 directors on a board with five or six directors would have been a sign of compromise--bringing the G7 back into the discussion. A 4-4 split looks like a sop to the invalid argument so common these days that if there are two "sides" to an issue, then both "sides" must be equally represented, no matter what the actual balance of fact or numbers of supporters are. Oh well, I'm hoping with the G7 on the board, their actual intentions will become clear soon enough, and if they propose positive changes, great. If not, and if they use their power to funnel yet more DCI resources to MIMPA to make it easier to split off in the future, I hope the rest of DCI will use the opportunity to swing things back to a more reasonable structure. 2 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.