Daave Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I was simply referring to more detail that what I have posted about my own idea/suggestion. I have posted a hell of a lot of detail on this board over the years. Can't say that it was really all that useful. The thing about DCP though... there are a handful of contributors. I don't really post for this audience... it is more for the lurkers. That is the real audience of DCP. These guys can't post or choose not to because of their affiliation with specific organizations. I have no direct affiliation with any organization, so can say exactly what is on my mind. I believe it would be reasonable to say that many of these same "guys" that are lurking have been doing so for many years and yet, here we still are. So, all of that detail over all of those years of posting and here we still are. Face to face meetings and communication with the "guys" and others, inside knowledge (presumably) about what is happening and here we still are. So, if it's really not all that useful as you say, what's your end game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 The assumption, then, is that someone would be willing to leave a for-profit known $30-40M profiting business to build a 'failing' business that needs massive restructure and will likely have huge resistance from within (or are you talking about someone managing Music in Motion: i.e. building from kind of scratch)? I'm not sure that is based in any reality. Just as you seem to suggest that drum corps needs a multi-millionaire who will take DCI (or a corps) under their wings, give them seed money for them to start businesses (that, remember, will take years to start turning a profit, i.e. it will be a failing venture for years before it can even begin to contribute income to a drum corps). That too seems like a pipe dream: something that of course would be awesome, but unless there are millionaires out there willing to do this this plan is invalid. Heck, Bill Cook has said himself that he is shocked that more businesses and investors didn't step up to sponsor drum corps and/or DCI: the implication there is that there were attempts but no business/investor 'bit' so to speak. So, if it's established that these lofty ideas are likely to be unattainable, then we fall back to "so, what can we reasonably do to change things." I agree that DCI and its corps directors are unlikely to make the necessary radical changes needed, but I don't think the radical changes needed are what you suggest; or at least, I think the radical changes needed are a little more reasonable to attain other than, "DCI needs to pluck a billionaire out of the sky to give them lots of money AND lead them in a whole new direction that will of course work: we're not hypothesizing those radical direction changes will be successful, we KNOW they will be!!" Dan surely doesn't need for me to speak for him, but your understanding of what he contends should happen is completely wrong. (I think he's in bed now, anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 That's one interpretation of what happened. Here's another... Dan was fired, that part is true. If that is what's sticking in the craw of the G7 - that their edict was undone - then I suggest they grow a pair and get over themselves. They apparently didn't realize at that time that the new corporate structure had instilled them with a specific mandate of fiduciary responsibility for the whole activity. Either they didn't realize or remember it, or they just didn't think the other members of the BOD - the O-15 - would have the gumption to trump their edict and reverse their decision. Either way, the almighty decree was invalidated, two members were removed for not facilitating their fiduciary mandate, and two other members resigned in sympathy with the two who were removed. So be it. It's not surprising then to learn that both of the members who left in sympathy are now "on executive staff" at a G7 corps. So be it. If the then leadership had cronies on the BOD who were always going to vote in favor of the two who were removed, then they don't deserve to be on the BOD in the first place. The legal basis for the O-15's action is not some obscure line in the by-laws. Prior to the existing charter, there was no such mandate, but the new one did. The validity of that mandate was established by legal counsel before the meeting and the O-15 recognized the failing on the part of the then leadership, met in session, and agreed, by a majority vote, that the leadership was not, in fact, living up to the fiduciary mandate. They acted based on the fact that the then-leadership fired the ED with no announced plan for his replacement, effectively leaving the activity leaderless with only the BOD left to guide the activity having announced their intentions in the G7 proposal. The truth came out later that their plan was to install an ex-director of one of their own cabal to lead DCI. The conflict of interest, even without knowing their plan for Dan's replacement, was enough to cause the O-15 to act firmly, on solid ground and with substantial basis and evidence to support their action. THOSE facts, and those alone, are what really pizzez off the 7. It is that fact, that they were trumped and beaten in their own hubris and actions, that causes them to continue in their quest. They just can't get over the fact that these, the best 7 corps in the activity (in their own minds) would be beaten, BEATEN!, by the lowly corps that perpetually languish at the bottom of the competitive scale. The 7 have said so in private many times, to many people. It is not a secret. And what the O-15 did was based totally in legal legitimacy, and with the true best interest of the activity AS A WHOLE. Their actions were based on that responsibility. And the 7 just can't seem to get over the fact that the others disagreed with them. That's another view, but it's just that simple. So, if true, the 7 acted in selfish cronyism tandem and the rest acted within the selfless rule of law. Sounds rather correct to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 I was simply referring to more detail that what I have posted about my own idea/suggestion. I have posted a hell of a lot of detail on this board over the years. Can't say that it was really all that useful. The thing about DCP though... there are a handful of contributors. I don't really post for this audience... it is more for the lurkers. That is the real audience of DCP. These guys can't post or choose not to because of their affiliation with specific organizations. I have no direct affiliation with any organization, so can say exactly what is on my mind. This, if true, pretty much invalidates the claims of many of these same lurkers that DCP is irrelevant, and a cesspool of discontent, that encourages negative comments about them and their corps. They disdain DCP to extent of preventing their own members from reading it, yet they follow closely along and wait for hidden meanings in posts intended just for them. Come on, Dan. Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 That's one interpretation of what happened. Here's another... Dan was fired, that part is true. If that is what's sticking in the craw of the G7 - that their edict was undone - then I suggest they grow a pair and get over themselves. They apparently didn't realize at that time that the new corporate structure had instilled them with a specific mandate of fiduciary responsibility for the whole activity. Either they didn't realize or remember it, or they just didn't think the other members of the BOD - the O-15 - would have the gumption to trump their edict and reverse their decision. Either way, the almighty decree was invalidated, two members were removed for not facilitating their fiduciary mandate, and two other members resigned in sympathy with the two who were removed. So be it. It's not surprising then to learn that both of the members who left in sympathy are now "on executive staff" at a G7 corps. So be it. If the then leadership had cronies on the BOD who were always going to vote in favor of the two who were removed, then they don't deserve to be on the BOD in the first place. The legal basis for the O-15's action is not some obscure line in the by-laws. Prior to the existing charter, there was no such mandate, but the new one did. The validity of that mandate was established by legal counsel before the meeting and the O-15 recognized the failing on the part of the then leadership, met in session, and agreed, by a majority vote, that the leadership was not, in fact, living up to the fiduciary mandate. They acted based on the fact that the then-leadership fired the ED with no announced plan for his replacement, effectively leaving the activity leaderless with only the BOD left to guide the activity having announced their intentions in the G7 proposal. The truth came out later that their plan was to install an ex-director of one of their own cabal to lead DCI. The conflict of interest, even without knowing their plan for Dan's replacement, was enough to cause the O-15 to act firmly, on solid ground and with substantial basis and evidence to support their action. THOSE facts, and those alone, are what really pizzez off the 7. It is that fact, that they were trumped and beaten in their own hubris and actions, that causes them to continue in their quest. They just can't get over the fact that these, the best 7 corps in the activity (in their own minds) would be beaten, BEATEN!, by the lowly corps that perpetually languish at the bottom of the competitive scale. The 7 have said so in private many times, to many people. It is not a secret. And what the O-15 did was based totally in legal legitimacy, and with the true best interest of the activity AS A WHOLE. Their actions were based on that responsibility. And the 7 just can't seem to get over the fact that the others disagreed with them. That's another view, but it's just that simple. Not surprising...it should also be said that one of the same G7 directors, when discussing in a DCI judges meeting, said that he wasn't interested in what the audience thought. I think the actual quote was, "F the audience." Hubris, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 They are far too busy running their respective organizations, as are all corps directors, to get involved in the management and operations of DCI. I am of the opinion that very radical change is what is needed to keep this thing together and moving forward. I'm not talking half-hearted compromise, I'm talking full-scale, top to bottom, change in the way things are done, with leadership coming from outside the activity. At this point, there really isn't anything to lose, as if it stays the course... it is dead within a few years. Again, where's the stock market going to close on Monday, Dan? I could really use your crystal ball. I promise, I'll split the profits with you if your prescient foresight is correct at least 50% of the time. We'll make a KILLING! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 ... The truth came out later that their plan was to install an ex-director of one of their own cabal to lead DCI... This certainly narrows down the list of possibilities of who it was going to be now doesn't it!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 This certainly narrows down the list of possibilities of who it was going to be now doesn't it!?! It does, to 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaos001 Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 This certainly narrows down the list of possibilities of who it was going to be now doesn't it!?! Possibly in charge of stuff at MiM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Ask any group of charitable people within any 501c3 activity, especially a youth 501c3, to read the G7 proposal concerning the relegated tier system and suggested elimination of all support for the youth of the Open Class; then ask them to respond if that is how things are supposed to work internally within a 501c3 charitable youth activity. There you will discover the answer you seek. You still haven't answered the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts