tesmusic Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Hmm... Perhaps a campaign for change could be directed at the BODs of each corps. They might agree with the idea of change (and the directors technically report to them), especially if the recommendation is that they themselves would appoint their DCI BOD member. Isn't that already happening. In most corps, the board picks the executive director, who then picks corps director, staff, etc. In most cases DCI BoD members are the exec. Director or corps director, thus, most corps have picked their representative on the DCI board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Isn't that already happening. In most corps, the board picks the executive director, who then picks corps director, staff, etc. In most cases DCI BoD members are the exec. Director or corps director, thus, most corps have picked their representative on the DCI board. I thought it was always the director, by DCI policy. If the DCI BOD member is already chosen by the corps BOD, then my solution would be that they appoint someone else enough so that maybe 50% are corps leaders, the rest from outside the activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peel Paint Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Seriously??! I just got the update from Vegas. Odds of DCI corps directors divesting themselves of power and appointing George Hopkins King of DCI for Life: 500,000:1 Odds of DCI corps directors watering down their power and appointing people outside DCI with business experience to DCI BOD: 499,999:1. I think the bookmakers are being generous. I'm not talking how things should be run. I'm saying the last three pages of discussion in this thread are a pipe dream... and well off-topic. These guys don't trust outsiders. They don't want DCI centrally stronger with more policy power vested in outsiders. Ain't gonna happen. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Seriously??! I just got the update from Vegas. Odds of DCI corps directors divesting themselves of power and appointing George Hopkins King of DCI for Life: 500,000:1 Odds of DCI corps directors watering down their power and appointing people outside DCI with business experience to DCI BOD: 499,999:1. I think the bookmakers are being generous. I'm not talking how things should be run. I'm saying the last three pages of discussion in this thread are a pipe dream... and well off-topic. These guys don't trust outsiders. They don't want DCI centrally stronger with more policy power vested in outsiders. Ain't gonna happen. I agree, but we're not talking about the directors (George Hopkins) giving up power, we're talking about the chairs of their own BODs taking that power away from them. And that's still unlikely, but the question should be what is the least unlikely solution that improves the structure of the DCI BOD? Because that's probably the only way to get DCI to promote the activity and is arguably also the root issue with licensing problems (although admittedly we don't have the whole story on that yet). At the bottom of this page is YEA's BOD, for example. These are the people who actually have root political power in the activity. Pulling them into the foreground and involving them in the conversation might influence things. Call it the least unlikely solution. Can you think of a less unlikely solution that is productive to the conversation? Edited January 2, 2015 by Pete Freedman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I thought it was always the director, by DCI policy. If the DCI BOD member is already chosen by the corps BOD, then my solution would be that they appoint someone else enough so that maybe 50% are corps leaders, the rest from outside the activity. First off, no, not corps director in all cases. Second, if the corps BoD already appointed someone they believe can lead and has the ideas and knowledge they feel is best for their individual corps, why would they simple have a second person that they are hoping has the same vision when it applies to the full activity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I agree, but we're not talking about the directors (George Hopkins) giving up power, we're talking about the chairs of their own BODs taking that power away from them. And that's still unlikely, but the question should be what is the least unlikely solution that improves the structure of the DCI BOD? Because that's probably the only way to get DCI to promote the activity and is arguably also the root issue with licensing problems (although admittedly we don't have the whole story on that yet). At the bottom of this page is YEA's BOD, for example. These are the people who actually have root political power in the activity. Pulling them into the foreground and involving them in the conversation might influence things. Call it the least unlikely solution. Can you think of a less unlikely solution that is productive to the conversation? You realize if the corps BoD wanted to take power away from him (George Hopkins) or any other corps, they would simply do that. That's why they're the board and the corps director, exec director, etc. can be replaced, in most corps cases at any time they see fit. SCV fired JW after the 1999 season-which was a championship year-because they wanted to change directions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tesmusic Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Btw, any of these board changes or ideas are not going to change the fact that groups like BMI, ASCAP, etc are changing sync rights and this is completely beyond the control of DCI, their board, or virtually anyone in this activity. As for fundraising, those numbers that they charge for such rights will only continue to climb, so unless the activity can get some inside voices with the decision makers in copyright, not DCI, or there are people dropping millions into the activity for copyright uses only, it's not going to change drastically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Interesting discussion tes and Pete. But tes, I think you mischaracterize the structure of the vast majority of corps. I have only personal anecdotal evidence but I think that most corps are made up of a director with a vision (and/or a long history as director) who picks his BOD because the person will A) be helpful or accretive to the functions of the corps, and/or B) won't get in the way of the director's desires. Only in the last few years have I heard of an effort to pull the corps' BOD's together to strategize about their individual corps and its part in the activity. Unfortunately, most corps BODs (IMO) look like most other 501c boards - they feel honored to serve at the behest of the director and are flattered that they are asked. There is no requirement that the corps director be the representative to the DCI BOD, although that's obviously been the history of the activity. JW may have been replaced, but when was the last time a corps BOD, any corps BOD, fired its director for under-performance? It seems to me that, in most cases, survival without financial calamity is a sound basis for calling a director "successful" in running a corps. Perhaps that's OK and the best we'll ever get. I, personally, don't believe it's rational to expect a person to vote for any proposal that might benefit the activity but not his corps. The conflict is one of human nature, and human nature isn't changed by titles or experience, IMO. To quote a corps director often referred to here and in most other drum corps topics: "I will never belong to an organization in which I have no control". Attrition may be the best hope for the longevity of the activity. Edited January 2, 2015 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peel Paint Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) I agree, but we're not talking about the directors (George Hopkins) giving up power, we're talking about the chairs of their own BODs taking that power away from them. And that's still unlikely, but the question should be what is the least unlikely solution that improves the structure of the DCI BOD? Because that's probably the only way to get DCI to promote the activity and is arguably also the root issue with licensing problems (although admittedly we don't have the whole story on that yet). At the bottom of this page is YEA's BOD, for example. These are the people who actually have root political power in the activity. Pulling them into the foreground and involving them in the conversation might influence things. Call it the least unlikely solution. Can you think of a less unlikely solution that is productive to the conversation? No, I can't. But who's clamoring for this change, other than outsiders who may indeed have the best intentions for the activity, but are not on the inside? Who puts forward the proposal? Not the directors on the DCI BOD. If somebody did convince a corps director to submit this for a BOD vote, don't you think it just immediately gets pushed off into a committee for study and never sees the light of day again? Outside proposals and inside proposals that weaken corps director power are nonstarters in my opinion. I have even less insider connection than garfield, but I understand the historical perspective that gave birth to DCI. I think most of these guys would rather risk DCI self-destruction than weaken their control. Here's all they have to say if some buttinsky corps board member starts pushing for outsider oversight and power on the DCI BOD. "Do you understand that if your proposal is enacted, we may lose control of our finances for the good of DCI as a whole? We'll get less, others get more. Do you understand--David Gibbs to BD BOD here--we may have to perform, gulp, in five shows a week all summer long, for the good of DCI as a whole? We'll no longer have control of our tour schedule. We have to go where they say and play when they say." Etc. The corps board is going to support the director. Edited January 2, 2015 by Peel Paint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Freedman Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Btw, any of these board changes or ideas are not going to change the fact that groups like BMI, ASCAP, etc are changing sync rights and this is completely beyond the control of DCI, their board, or virtually anyone in this activity. As for fundraising, those numbers that they charge for such rights will only continue to climb, so unless the activity can get some inside voices with the decision makers in copyright, not DCI, or there are people dropping millions into the activity for copyright uses only, it's not going to change drastically. The premise of my comments was the idea that the simplest "Occam's razor" explanation is that DCI never got synch rights for streaming pre-2000 content in the first place, hoping the original VHS/DVD rights would cover them. It's the simplest explanation because going back and getting specific streaming rights for all those years would have been a major project. IIRC all the shows were made available at the same time and there were no blockouts due to unavailable rights. That strongly suggests they didn't even try to get them, possibly because they chose to believe they were covered, which suggests possible irresponsibility on the part of the BOD. This would depend on the wording of all those original contracts, but it seems unlikely that contracts from 1980 generally are deemed to cover internet streaming. But we don't know. Maybe they went back and successfully got new agreements with streaming specifically mentioned, for every single work played prior to 2000. And one or more rights holders is exploiting a loophole to invalidate those agreements and thus sent a cease and desist letter to DCI. Maybe. 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.