A spending cap, not a "salary" cap

[N.E. Brigand]

The directors waited until they felt the time was right, first for 'A' and then for 'E': it was a slow and deliberate process until the majority felt ready to pass them... and not even all at once.

They exercised exactly the thought you seem to be asking for.

Well, you may be right, and the 8 (of 20) directors who voted against amplification when it passed actually were ready to spend that money a year later, and Fielder's argument that I quoted a few times (and won't quote again), arguing that too many changes were happening too fast and taxing corps resources, was just hot air.

As for slow and deliberate change, you probably remember that it was said in 2003 that allowing "A" was not going to be a "gateway" leading to "E". And yet, five years later, there was "E"! Should the 7 (of 18) corps who voted against "E" in 2008 have known better, and set aside funds for "E" in the intervening period?

[MikeD]

Well, you may be right, and the 8 (of 20) directors who voted against amplification when it passed actually were ready to spend that money a year later, and Fielder's argument that I quoted a few times (and won't quote again), arguing that too many changes were happening too fast and taxing corps resources, was just hot air.

I'm sure Fiedler believed every word he wrote. Why must it be "hot air", just because the majority felt otherwise when 'A' and later 'E' was passed. His opinion was just a minority POV the year it passed. Nothing wrong...or hot air-ish...with that.

As for slow and deliberate change, you probably remember that it was said in 2003 that allowing "A" was not going to be a "gateway" leading to "E". And yet, five years later, there was "E"! Should the 7 (of 18) corps who voted against "E" in 2008 have known better, and set aside funds for "E" in the intervening period?

IMO both should have been passed all at once...decades ago, really, but that is just MHO.

In the case of DCI, the majority did not vote 'E' in until they determined it was time. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Jeff Ream]

Feidler believed what he said at the time it was voted...and funny. when he finally added them, he also spoke of competing with one arm tied behind his back when not having them.

however, money doesnt always equal good. we have seen some shows where small fortunes were spent on design, and the show sucked and didn't place well.

thats why a spending cap, transfer fees etc will never work

[N.E. Brigand]

Fiedler believed what he said at the time it was voted... and funny, when he finally added them, he also spoke of competing with one arm tied behind his back when not having them.

I gather there's some history on these forums where anytime you cite Fiedler as having said that, you get criticized, or in this case, voted down. I don't understand what that's about.

That said, and as I mentioned before, I can't blame Fiedler for that remark! He had done what he could to stop amplification, but once it was allowed, he probably figured that corps would be penalized for not taking advantage of the new tools. Isn't that a perfectly reasonable position?

And the Cavaliers made less obnoxious use of amplification (pre-synthesizer, anyway) than many other corps.

However, money doesn't always equal good. We have seen some shows where small fortunes were spent on design, and the show sucked and didn't place well. That's why a spending cap, transfer fees, etc. will never work.

That's my emphasis added to your comment, because no one's seriously talking about a spending cap "always" working, and everyone knows that under any rules there will be "some" exceptions. But does a bigger budget correlate to a higher score most of the time, or not? If it does, that may be an indication that more money yields better scores. Yes, yes, I know correlation is not causation, but lacking any better data... well, I'll just note that almost everyone on both sides of this argument seems to agree that there is a connection, since those most opposed to a cap see it as "penalizing" success.

[N.E. Brigand]

Well, you may be right, and the 8 (of 20) directors who voted against amplification when it passed actually were ready to spend that money a year later, and Fielder's argument that I quoted a few times (and won't quote again), arguing that too many changes were happening too fast and taxing corps resources, was just hot air.

I'm sure Fiedler believed every word he wrote. Why must it be "hot air", just because the majority felt otherwise when 'A' and later 'E' was passed. His opinion was just a minority POV the year it passed. Nothing wrong...or hot air-ish...with that.

Well, what Fielder said could have been just his opinion, right or wrong, or it could have been a statement of fact. To help you appreciate it in the latter sense, allow me to briefly restate it as follows:

--New rules are being implemented so quickly that some corps will be unable to keep up with the required expenses and will be relegated to non-competitive status (and may even fold).--

Now, he didn't state it that clearly, but he probably should have. Am I being hyperbolic? I have a reason to think I am not; perhaps you have an inkling of what it is. But it is, regardless, something veriable, and so not just an opinion.

As for slow and deliberate change, you probably remember that it was said in 2003 that allowing "A" was not going to be a "gateway" leading to "E". And yet, five years later, there was "E"! Should the 7 (of 18) corps who voted against "E" in 2008 have known better, and set aside funds for "E" in the intervening period?

IMO both should have been passed all at once... decades ago, really, but that is just MHO.

In the case of DCI, the majority did not vote 'E' in until they determined it was time. I see nothing wrong with that.

Well, I approve of majority rule, although I am open to the idea of requiring a supermajority in cases that have the potential to be particularly harmful to the minority. For instance, what if it took a 75% vote to pass a new rule that would cause any corps' annual expenses to increase by more than, say, 3%? Or what if, as I suggested earlier, any rule change that was likely to require a corps yearly costs to go up, or go up by some percentage, also required a longer lag time? Because what we have here is a case where the majority has required the minority to find extra funding in just one year, which may not be long enough. I know, I know, it happens in politics all the time, with unfunded mandates! But I would think a collective, or consortia, would treat its minority a little better than that.

[MikeD]

Well, what Fielder said could have been just his opinion, right or wrong, or it could have been a statement of fact. To help you appreciate it in the latter sense, allow me to briefly restate it as follows:

--New rules are being implemented so quickly that some corps will be unable to keep up with the required expenses and will be relegated to non-competitive status (and may even fold).--

Now, he didn't state it that clearly, but he probably should have. Am I being hyperbolic? I have a reason to think I am not; perhaps you have an inkling of what it is. But it is, regardless, something veriable, and so not just an opinion.

What Fiedler wrote is still opinion, not 'fact', as is what you wrote above. It isn't verifiable that the cost of an amp or synth caused a corps to fold. If a corps was that close to the edge of folding, it would not be a corps I'd want to see travelling all over the country throughout the summer.

Well, I approve of majority rule, although I am open to the idea of requiring a supermajority in cases that have the potential to be particularly harmful to the minority. For instance, what if it took a 75% vote to pass a new rule that would cause any corps' annual expenses to increase by more than, say, 3%? Or what if, as I suggested earlier, any rule change that was likely to require a corps yearly costs to go up, or go up by some percentage, also required a longer lag time? Because what we have here is a case where the majority has required the minority to find extra funding in just one year, which may not be long enough. I know, I know, it happens in politics all the time, with unfunded mandates! But I would think a collective, or consortia, would treat its minority a little better than that.

Again...the directors could build in any amount of lag time they wanted, if they deemed it necessary. They didn't...A&E changes were not costly enough to even consider such a thing, and increasing the size brought in new revenue to offset all or much of the added cost of those members marching. The Open class committee could also build in lag time if they wished...they did it when multi-key was passed.

You say 'harmful'; IMO the A&E changes were beneficial, and way overdue. I like the size change as it provides more members the chance to experience marching with the corps they most desire, and is little if any added cost to the corps.

[Stu]

... I like the size change as it provides more members the chance to experience marching with the corps they most desire, and is little if any added cost to the corps.

a) Increasing the number of instruments (corps mainly increase the numbers in the lower brass lines), along with extra food (three meals a day during camps and all summer), etc... are rather large expenditures and not nearly offset by the performer dues. So I do not get your premise that there is little cost associated with a numbers increase.

b) Also, if the size increase does not add much to the expenditures of a corps, and it provides for more members to have the chance to experience marching, then why are most all corps not marching the 150; and why does even those which attempt to march 150 end up with holes in which there are no bodies to fill?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Stu

[MikeD]

a) Increasing the number of instruments (corps mainly increase the numbers in the lower brass lines), along with extra food (three meals a day during camps and all summer), etc... are rather large expenditures and not nearly offset by the performer dues. So I do not get your premise that there is little cost associated with a numbers increase.

Please quantify the dollar amount of this "large expenditure". Against the total of a $800,000-$1,000,000, the non-offset cost, if any, for the added members is little, if there is any. What do the extra instruments cost...to the corps....not the list price? Food for a max additional 20 people is not a large increase, as compared to the total food budget. If a corps decides to march 150, they receive an added $50-$60K in revenue or thereabouts; that much is known.

b) Also, if the size increase does not add much to the expenditures of a corps, and it provides for more members to have the chance to experience marching, then why are most all corps not marching the 150; and why does even those which attempt to march 150 end up with holes in which there are no bodies to fill?

The opportunity is there. It is up to each corps to set its size based on what they think best. Doesn't mean every corps will march 150, but any size increase is providing more opportunity, even if only 5 or 6...or 10 or 12, or even 1.

[perc2100]

however, money doesnt always equal good. we have seen some shows where small fortunes were spent on design, and the show sucked and didn't place well.

thats why a spending cap, transfer fees etc will never work

EXACTLY!

[perc2100]

does a bigger budget correlate to a higher score most of the time, or not?

I think the more apt correlation is the better executed & better designed show scores higher most of the time.

Maybe you could say a corps that knows how to fundraise better than others has a bigger budget most of the time?