GUARDLING Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Interesting. Except drum corps is not a creature, and it's not under attack by a predator and finally why would biology provide any useful information? It's just about yucky, squishy things.* *paraphrasing Dr. S. Cooper lol,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,yucky for sure i remember well....lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) why would the corps relinquish their power....the very power the reason DCI was formed..( just asking your opinion).....as far as restating truth..i guess on any given subject it's in the eyes of the beholder I think this is the wrong question, for it presumes that they'd be relinquishing the very vision on which DCI was formed. That's not necessary. In fact, charging an outside group of leaders to finally reach the goals of the leaders is only an admission on the part of the directors that, while they each are highly qualified to produce wonderful drum corps, they may not be the best, most qualified group to do that. While some would consider it a blow to their egos, others might see that it's only an admission that what's been tried to this point has failed. If one defines success of the management of the activity as allowing it to survive, mostly, with one nostril above the water, then you could call the to-date business management a success; not ALL of the corps have failed. But, if you consider the vision of the founders of DCI to have been to grow and flourish the activity for the betterment of all of its member corps then, by any proper measurement of financial success and growth of the activity, the business decisions and paths taken have clearly failed. There is no way to dodge that truth no matter how many differenct people or decisions were involved. In a more-traditional for-profit business structure, the BOD would fire the executives and force change. In DCI with no outside leadership to force change, change must come voluntarily for the benefit of the activity driven by the fiduciary responsibility that DCI's non-profit status charges on its leadership. Why would the BOD take themselves "out of power" (they wouldn't necessarily have to do so)? Because they have a fiduciary responsibility to live up to as board members of DCI. Not coincidentally, and as I understand it, it was that notion of fiduciary duty that prompted the O-15 to sieze power of the Board because they felt that the then-leadership was failing in that duty of care to the whole group of corps. Why would they charge others with the responsibility to lead the business side of the activity? Out of humble admission that they've reached the limits of their own capabilities to achieve the goals those same directors want to achieve. That may be a hard admission for some with staunch egos, but that difficulty does not release them from the duty. They have to trust that the group of BOD leaders chosen have the whole activity's best interests at heart, despite the fact that many corps don't share ideas of "best interest". I know of one director who stated that he'd never be part of an organization in which he didn't have a controlling interest. That sentence alone shows in the clearest of terms why that director, and any other who felt similarly, is not qualified to act as leadership of the entire activity. My perception is that the group of BOD leadership now in place was willing to go to extreme measures to protect the by-laws for the betterment of the activity as a whole. That willingness, IMO, qualifies them to make decisions on the activity's future. Based on that fact, I believe that we might be closer to attaining an independent BOD than at any time in the history of DCI, at a time when, again IMO, we need it the most in all of the activity's history. Is it defacto truth that only corps directors can successfuly lead the activity? The proof of history doesn't support that notion. Is it possible that the current leadership will do a better job than their predecessors? Sure, and I'd be happy to see it. But, as many here have said over and over, it wasn't one or two men who've led us to where we are, it was all of them. Is it possible that an independent BOD can do a better job of growing the activity's income and reach? You betcha, and it's never been tried, unlike director leadership that's been used for 40 years (and failed). Do directors need the control of the activity to produce wonderful drum corps shows that sell well? I'm not convinced of that at all. And I posit the possibility of better productions coming when directors only have to worry about their corps and not about business decisions they must wrestle with under the fiduciary duty charged to them as Board members. Why would they do it? A better question might be: Why wouldn't they if it promised better results? I'm afraid the answer to that questions is simply ego. Fiduciary duty doesn't allow for ego, especially in this context where the foxes guard the chicken coop. If it can be shown that an independent BOD offers better results, they have no choice but to take themselves "out of power" (your words). Edited January 2, 2014 by garfield 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) I think this is the wrong question, for it presumes that they'd be relinquishing the very vision on which DCI was formed. That's not necessary. In fact, charging an outside group of leaders to finally reach the goals of the leaders is only an admission on the part of the directors that, while they each are highly qualified to produce wonderful drum corps, they may not be the best, most qualified group to do that. While some would consider it a blow to their egos, others might see that it's only an admission that what's been tried to this point has failed. If one defines success of the management of the activity as allowing it to survive, mostly, with one nostril above the water, then you could call the to-date business management a success; not ALL of the corps have failed. But, if you consider the vision of the founders of DCI to have been to grow and flourish the activity for the betterment of all of its member corps then, by any proper measurement of financial success and growth of the activity, the business decisions and paths taken have clearly failed. There is no way to dodge that truth no matter how many differenct people or decisions were involved. In a more-traditional for-profit business structure, the BOD would fire the executives and force change. In DCI with no outside leadership to force change, change must come voluntarily for the benefit of the activity driven by the fiduciary responsibility that DCI's non-profit status charges on its leadership. Why would the BOD take themselves "out of power" (they wouldn't necessarily have to do so)? Because they have a fiduciary responsibility to live up to as board members of DCI. Not coincidentally, and as I understand it, it was that notion of fiduciary duty that prompted the O-15 to sieze power of the Board because they felt that the then-leadership was failing in that duty of care to the whole group of corps. Why would they charge others with the responsibility to lead the business side of the activity? Out of humble admission that they've reached the limits of their own capabilities to achieve the goals those same directors want to achieve. That may be a hard admission for some with staunch egos, but that difficulty does not release them from the duty. They have to trust that the group of BOD leaders chosen have the whole activity's best interests at heart, despite the fact that many corps don't share ideas of "best interest". I know of one director who stated that he'd never be part of an organization in which he didn't have a controlling interest. That sentence alone shows in the clearest of terms why that director, and any other who felt similarly, is not qualified to act as leadership of the entire activity. My perception is that the group of BOD leadership now in place was willing to go to extreme measures to protect the by-laws for the betterment of the activity as a whole. That willingness, IMO, qualifies them to make decisions on the activity's future. Based on that fact, I believe that we might be closer to attaining an independent BOD than at any time in the history of DCI, at a time when, again IMO, we need it the most in all of the activity's history. Is it defacto truth that only corps directors can successfuly lead the activity? The proof of history doesn't support that notion. Is it possible that the current leadership will do a better job than their predecessors? Sure, and I'd be happy to see it. But, as many here have said over and over, it wasn't one or two men who've led us to where we are, it was all of them. Is it possible that an independent BOD can do a better job of growing the activity's income and reach? You betcha, and it's never been tried, unlike director leadership that's been used for 40 years (and failed). Do directors need the control of the activity to produce wonderful drum corps shows that sell well? I'm not convinced of that at all. And I posit the possibility of better productions coming when directors only have to worry about their corps and not about business decisions they must wrestle with under the fiduciary duty charged to them as Board members. Why would they do it? A better question might be: Why wouldn't they if it promised better results? I'm afraid the answer to that questions is simply ego. Fiduciary duty doesn't allow for ego, especially in this context where the foxes guard the chicken coop. If it can be shown that an independent BOD offers better results, they have no choice but to take themselves "out of power" (your words). i kind of thought this is how you would answer and to some degree would agree that there could be a better way for future success. BUT this is assuming that ( as you have said ) that it has failed up to now...could it be possible that without some of the movers and shakers over the years that drum corps, and decisions ( un popular as many were ) would have been long gone without them..theres 2 sides to every coin and having seen the good bad and certainly ugly within the activity...it sure can be a possibility IMO . The founders did want total control and decide what the fate, decisions, finances, competition rules, etc etc and would only be decided by themselves...could it or should it change? who knows..would it promise better results changing it? maybe...maybe not..i certainly see on paper how it MIGHT look like it could work, will it..im not so sure or convinced I guess Edited January 2, 2014 by GUARDLING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 i kind of thought this is how you would answer and to some degree would agree that there could be a better way for future success. BUT this is assuming that ( as you have said ) that it has failed up to now...could it be possible that without some of the movers and shakers over the years that drum corps, and decisions ( un popular as many were ) would have been long gone without them..theres 2 sides to every coin and having seen the good bad and certainly ugly within the activity...it sure can be a possibility IMO . The founders did want total control and decide what the fate, decisions, finances, competition rules, etc etc and would only be decided by themselves...could it or should it change? who knows..would it promise better results changing it? maybe...maybe not..i certainly see on paper how it MIGHT look like it could work, will it..im not so sure or convinced I guess If it can be shown that an independent BOD offers better results, they have no choice but to take themselves "out of power" (your words). There's a huge number of "if's" in Garfield's speech. But the crux of the matter is the statement above. I don't think anyone has provided any sort of offer of "better results". ( In fact given the current state of affairs, the *only* path out of the current state of affairs is to generate more revenue. And the only people I see talking about revenue would be the evil 7. Clearly none of the new DCI initiatives put forth recently (DLB and SS) have any sort of revenue generating model at all ). In the absence of such an offer, you're then left with changing the board "for change's sake". Ironic isn't it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranintothedoor Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 ( In fact given the current state of affairs, the *only* path out of the current state of affairs is to generate more revenue. And the only people I see talking about revenue would be the evil 7. Clearly none of the new DCI initiatives put forth recently (DLB and SS) have any sort of revenue generating model at all ). In the absence of such an offer, you're then left with changing the board "for change's sake". Ironic isn't it. DLB and SS were started as a grassroots experiments aimed at expanding 1) the membership and 2) the fan base. Wouldn't these two things generate more revenue if successful? I'm not arguing that their roll-out was handled well, nor am i saying it met its goals. I'm just saying I'm pretty sure the current BoD knows the financial state of affairs just as well as the 7. The ultimate solutions of the two camps just don't jive. IMO, 40 years of corps leadership in the BoD has given us financial and competitive stagnation in DCI.... how would bringing in non-drum corps professionals hurt at this point? So we get something different as the corps' final product... okay! As long as the soul of this awesome activity lives on and the members get the same experience they get now.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsband Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 DLB and SS were started as a grassroots experiments aimed at expanding 1) the membership and 2) the fan base. Wouldn't these two things generate more revenue if successful? I'm not arguing that their roll-out was handled well, nor am i saying it met its goals. I'm just saying I'm pretty sure the current BoD knows the financial state of affairs just as well as the 7. The ultimate solutions of the two camps just don't jive. IMO, 40 years of corps leadership in the BoD has given us financial and competitive stagnation in DCI.... how would bringing in non-drum corps professionals hurt at this point? So we get something different as the corps' final product... okay! As long as the soul of this awesome activity lives on and the members get the same experience they get now.... Right. We agree. There's no revenue model except I guess they could force the SS and DLB participants to buy tickets for the show they're attending. And change for change's sake. Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 ... In fact given the current state of affairs, the *only* path out of the current state of affairs is to generate more revenue. And the only people I see talking about revenue would be the evil 7... So, given the fact of the current state of affairs we do not have a spending problem we have a revenue problem. Hmmmmm... I have recently heard that same philosophy from someone talking about a $17,000,000,000,000 debt. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newseditor44 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Im going to say it... Hop is Jesus reincarnated. There, I said it. Oh, and I like PB&J. There, I said that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 (edited) I think this is the wrong question, for it presumes that they'd be relinquishing the very vision on which DCI was formed. That's not necessary. In fact, charging an outside group of leaders to finally reach the goals of the leaders is only an admission on the part of the directors that, while they each are highly qualified to produce wonderful drum corps, they may not be the best, most qualified group to do that. While some would consider it a blow to their egos, others might see that it's only an admission that what's been tried to this point has failed. If one defines success of the management of the activity as allowing it to survive, mostly, with one nostril above the water, then you could call the to-date business management a success; not ALL of the corps have failed. But, if you consider the vision of the founders of DCI to have been to grow and flourish the activity for the betterment of all of its member corps then, by any proper measurement of financial success and growth of the activity, the business decisions and paths taken have clearly failed. There is no way to dodge that truth no matter how many different people or decisions were involved. In a more-traditional for-profit business structure, the BOD would fire the executives and force change. In DCI with no outside leadership to force change, change must come voluntarily for the benefit of the activity driven by the fiduciary responsibility that DCI's non-profit status charges on its leadership. Why would the BOD take themselves "out of power" (they wouldn't necessarily have to do so)? Because they have a fiduciary responsibility to live up to as board members of DCI. Not coincidentally, and as I understand it, it was that notion of fiduciary duty that prompted the O-15 to sieze power of the Board because they felt that the then-leadership was failing in that duty of care to the whole group of corps. Why would they charge others with the responsibility to lead the business side of the activity? Out of humble admission that they've reached the limits of their own capabilities to achieve the goals those same directors want to achieve. That may be a hard admission for some with staunch egos, but that difficulty does not release them from the duty. They have to trust that the group of BOD leaders chosen have the whole activity's best interests at heart, despite the fact that many corps don't share ideas of "best interest". I know of one director who stated that he'd never be part of an organization in which he didn't have a controlling interest. That sentence alone shows in the clearest of terms why that director, and any other who felt similarly, is not qualified to act as leadership of the entire activity. My perception is that the group of BOD leadership now in place was willing to go to extreme measures to protect the by-laws for the betterment of the activity as a whole. That willingness, IMO, qualifies them to make decisions on the activity's future. Based on that fact, I believe that we might be closer to attaining an independent BOD than at any time in the history of DCI, at a time when, again IMO, we need it the most in all of the activity's history. Is it defacto truth that only corps directors can successfully lead the activity? The proof of history doesn't support that notion. Is it possible that the current leadership will do a better job than their predecessors? Sure, and I'd be happy to see it. But, as many here have said over and over, it wasn't one or two men who've led us to where we are, it was all of them. Is it possible that an independent BOD can do a better job of growing the activity's income and reach? You betcha, and it's never been tried, unlike director leadership that's been used for 40 years (and failed). Do directors need the control of the activity to produce wonderful drum corps shows that sell well? I'm not convinced of that at all. And I posit the possibility of better productions coming when directors only have to worry about their corps and not about business decisions they must wrestle with under the fiduciary duty charged to them as Board members. Why would they do it? A better question might be: Why wouldn't they if it promised better results? I'm afraid the answer to that questions is simply ego. Fiduciary duty doesn't allow for ego, especially in this context where the foxes guard the chicken coop. If it can be shown that an independent BOD offers better results, they have no choice but to take themselves "out of power" (your words). There's a huge number of "if's" in Garfield's speech. But the crux of the matter is the statement above. I don't think anyone has provided any sort of offer of "better results". ( In fact given the current state of affairs, the *only* path out of the current state of affairs is to generate more revenue. And the only people I see talking about revenue would be the evil 7. Clearly none of the new DCI initiatives put forth recently (DLB and SS) have any sort of revenue generating model at all ). In the absence of such an offer, you're then left with changing the board "for change's sake". Ironic isn't it. Four "if's" is a "huge number"? Really? And the only "speeches" I make I get paid for. If you're suggesting that there are significant unknowns to proceeding towards an independent board, I don't disagree with your sentiment. But so what? Familiar but unsuccessful business practices are always better than unknown possibilities? "There are some things one can only achieve by a deliberate blind-faith leap in the opposite direction", and "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome". I disagree with your contention that creating more revenue is the only answer forward, and the 990's of all but 2 or 3 corps back me up because that small number of corps are the only ones who spend less (of any significance) than they take in. While budgets have grown substantially over the years most corps find a way to spend everything they bring in and, in a few cases, more than they bring in. The point is that increasing revenue at the corps level will result in simultaneously more expense, and the argument that more revenue is "needed" will always be trotted out as both a necessity and as an example of how DCI fails in its responsibility. How does one jibe Hopkins' recent declarations that the activity is too expensive for all but the "elite" of the activity while he, at the same time, believes that any financial reward generated by DCI should be shared only by those same few "elite" corps? IMO, the contradiction is blatantly apparent. I also disagree with your contention that DLB and SS have no revenue-generating model. In the end, the success of those two programs can lead to multiple revenue-generating results. (For example, DCI charging DLB and SS teams to compete in an official DCI program while, at the same time, charging the TEP producers a fee to obtain the "official" DLB and SS show materials [show arena, banners, marketing templates, etc]). But, those two programs are not meant to be as much the financial savior of the activity as they are direct methods of attracting new performers to marching DCI. Lots of marketing budgets have line items that are meant to spread awareness more than to generate dollars on their own. SS and DLB are examples of that. (I think you'll be surprised when you find out how many groups DCI has attracted via SS and DLB!) Has DCI, or any other connected executive, actually solicited input from outside, independent BOD members? That no "...better results" is now on the table isn't necessarily the result of there not being one; it might be that no one has asked for better ideas because of the apparent belief that there can't be any better ideas coming from any group other than the current crop of directors and board members. Again, Punkin Chunkin was sponsor-less until some enterprising marketing guy from Canon camera decided they could make money producing a one-evening show. Maybe those types of visionaries are out there with similar ideas about drum corps, but somebody connected to the activity has to broach the subject, yes? Edited January 2, 2014 by garfield 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Oh, and Corpsband, speaking of taking a blind-faith leap into the unknown, doesn't that equally well describe virtually every new initiative that has been brought forth from DCI's leaders over the last decade? Was there ever any proof that Bb, A&E, or increased membership would bring out more interested kids to march? Yet, according to many here, each and every member (equal in responsibility, BTW) agreed to them with no prior experience with efficacy or hard facts to back up the claims. Even if one agrees that today's shows are "better", is there evidence that all the toys and programming that made them so has attracted any more MMs? (And the bunk of "it might have died sooner" is just double-speak that can't be proven either way. Many experienced and proven leaders and instructors of the activity call the 1980s the high-point of the drum corps activity. If true (and I believe so) it doesn't rationalize that the proposals implemented during the 90s saved the activity from dying earlier.) 1 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.