Kamarag Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 The Academy took a few weeks off of tour a couple of years ago; they could have finished in the top twelve that year but chose to look out for the financial interest of the corporation ahead of the competitive placement; I contend that they are one of the most 'successful' corps in DCI because of that action. I'm not sure "successful" is the word you're looking for here. I'd suggest "responsible" as a better alternative. Probably a more accurate one as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 I'm not sure "successful" is the word you're looking for here. I'd suggest "responsible" as a better alternative. Probably a more accurate one as well. It was the correct word choice unless the word 'success' is exclusive to the competitive field; which it is not. The Academy has been both responsible and successful within their financial structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Open Class, as much as we like it, isn't exactly cost-effective. And the financial aspects of a World Class Drum Corps 'is' cost-effective? :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> :w00t:/> By the way, there are just as many, if not more, financially responsible corps within the Open Class as there are in the World Class. George and Co. are right when they say that using the money spent on Open to bolster World will help World corps. I absolutely agree with him. In fact, it may indeed be a far better use of that money in the long run. When a corps, any corps, chooses to join a 501c3 non-profit youth activity such as DCI 'all' 'every' corps youth within that activity should be supported by DCI; end of story!!! None of which, of course, has any bearing on your argument that Cadets/YEA isn't doing a ton to help youth in areas not called DCI Open Class. They certainly do. The point is that by signing on to DCI they, all the corps who chose to join DCI, agree to bear a responsibility to help all the youth within that 501c3 called DCI instead of attempting to spit some of them out of the activity. Edited February 22, 2013 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamarag Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) The point is that by signing on to DCI they, all the corps who chose to join DCI, agree to bear a responsibility to help all the youth within that 501c3 called DCI instead of attempting to spit some of them out of the activity. You have a source for that? Copies of the signed agreements corps make when they agree to participate in DCI, prerhaps? I think that's a huge load of bunk, and no director worth his salt would ever agree to it. Edited February 22, 2013 by Kamarag 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 When a corps, any corps, chooses to join a 501c3 non-profit youth activity such as DCI 'all' 'every' corps youth within that activity should be supported by DCI; end of story!!! Non-profits do good but you cannot simply expect their good to be ubiquitous. Sometimes in order to help people more effectively you need to minimize the sheer number of people you help. This shouldn't be demonized. the quantity of people you help should not by default trump the quality of help those people receive. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) Non-profits do good but you cannot simply expect their good to be ubiquitous. Sometimes in order to help people more effectively you need to minimize the sheer number of people you help. This shouldn't be demonized. the quantity of people you help should not by default trump the quality of help those people receive. By the very nature of a 501c3 altruism should be an internal habit. However, in the case of the G7 proposal instead of trying to create a system which was altruistic within DCI, their proposal was to extensively help themselves above and beyond all others, relegate many other WC corps to inferior status, and totally eliminate all support for most of the OC; except, of course, their own feeders. Edited February 23, 2013 by Stu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soccerguy315 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Open Class, as much as we like it, isn't exactly cost-effective. George and Co. are right when they say that using the money spent on Open to bolster World will help World corps. I absolutely agree with him. In fact, it may indeed be a far better use of that money in the long run. and giving Phantom's money to Cadets will also help bolster Cadets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie1223 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) By the very nature of a 501c3 altruism should be an internal habit. However, in the case of the G7 proposal instead of trying to create a system which was altruistic within DCI, their proposal was to extensively help themselves above and beyond all others, relegate many other WC corps to inferior status, and totally eliminate all support for most of the OC; except, of course, their own feeders. You wouldn't expect that a drum corps be so altruistic as to completely ignore their own needs would you? You are confusing a corps desire to be altruistic and the corps capacity to be altruistic. This goes the same for DCI. No 501c3 should pursue a purely altruistic goal if it effects the quality and scope of their mission. You may feel G7 have enough money to do what they want... but clearly the G7 don't think that. And if you see that as greed fine, but I do not. That's simply a matter of opinion not fact. The only way you can prove that is if you question the G7 directors on their "actual" motives or if the proposal had passed that you see the compensation of the executives rise if operationally no reason existed (non-reasonable pay raise). And I'm sorry to inform you the proposal did not pass. I believe that the standards and laws set by the IRS and the Government regulate how much a 501c3 spends on its mission and "overhead". Until the government or the organization's board members feel that their causes are driven by Greed and over compensation the 501c3 is acting in its best interest to maintain the quality and breadth of it's services. If ALL the 501c3 corps do this but disagree in the methods (if it effects their own mission) then discussion and action will be taken. Every corps has to be responsible for itself and no corps should rely on the welfare of another to make sure their interests are being represented. And that's exactly how it's been playing out over the last couple years. And you keep insinuating that a 501c3 should "act" a certain way and I agree they should. And as long as the corps still have 501c3 status and are not threatened by risk of losing tax exempt status... they are acting within the means of a 501c3. Being a 501c3 does not mean you must be meager and be sustained penny to penny. The most successful 501c3's are worth quite a lot. Edited February 23, 2013 by charlie1223 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 By agreeing to be a part of the DCI 501c3 structure, which by it's very nature was intended to be a choice to help the collective, all of this 'altruism' could have, nay, should have been thrown into helping the youth within DCI. Hardly! YEA is far more than just the DCI member corps The Cadets. No organization signs up with DCI expecting that every dollar they take in 'belongs' to DCI. They are independent 501c3 organizations of their own with their own mission statements and goals. DCI doesn't own them. My statement was not false. By striking out part of my statement you claim is false you are maintaining that the G7 proposal, written by Hop, did not indicate that all support would be taken away from the Open Class thus opening up more DCI revenue to further their own agenda. You are choosing to revise history while I am referring to his own document. The G7 believe that the best place for Open class corps to thrive is within regional circuits, not DCI. Many here on DCP have said exactly that over the years. They are not looking to 'hose' the corps; they just don't believe DCI is the proper venue for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 By the way, there are just as many, if not more, financially responsible corps within the Open Class as there are in the World Class. Note that John said Open Class...the division within DCI in his statement. He said nothing about the individual corps. It is the open class division that does not support itself financially; WC revenue subsidizes Open Class operations. When a corps, any corps, chooses to join a 501c3 non-profit youth activity such as DCI 'all' 'every' corps youth within that activity should be supported by DCI; end of story!!! The point is that by signing on to DCI they, all the corps who chose to join DCI, agree to bear a responsibility to help all the youth within that 501c3 called DCI instead of attempting to spit some of them out of the activity. Groups that join DCI do not sign away the rest of their organizations when they sign up with DCI. Can you show me the contract clause that states that DCI owns the rest of a separate 501c3 corporation's assets when that 501c3 decides to participate within DCI with one or more of their ensembles? 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.