Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, tesmusic said: Corps aren't going to just give money away. The people #####ing at Boston camp were parents, based on posts. So if mommy and daddy didn't sign, and it was a marching member, then maybe mommy and daddy shouldn't complain about their kids responsibility. Maybe mommy and daddy should tell Johnny or Jilly to take responsibility and teach them a lesson about reading things before they sign them, instead of thinking they're getting a hand-out with zero responsibility. Parents being involved is an allegation only. The kid already marched in the 2016 season for which that scholarship was applied. The scholarship was not credited towards the 2017 season. Sorry, but it does not sound like a hand-out to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 14 minutes ago, MChap47 said: I don't think you can put "revoke" in quotes like that when Crown used the word "revoke" themselves. They are revoking it...now whether it is okay to do something like that is in question. It seems like it was in the terms of the contract the kids signed. Until we see that, we won't be able to discuss the "legality" of their actions. That being said, just because it's legal doesn't make it right. People are more than welcome to argue the ethics of this. That shouldn't be dismissed by anyone...Boston or Crown fans. This really isn't even an issue between the two corps. We should be able to have a civil conversation about the ethics of this practice without being so one-sided. I imagine if the roles were reversed in this situation, a lot of the comments on here would be too. I agree with Brasso. There needs to be some sort of policy in place that sheds light on the revoking of scholarships from previous years. Personally, it doesn't sit right with me. Giving a kid a $500 scholarship to march in 2015 is for the 2015 season. To say, you can not march any other drum corps for the entirety of your drum corps career is a bit petty. Petty, I think so, yes...but in compliance with terms and conditions, probably. How do we know that it WASN'T spelled out clear-as-day? Funny how the OP got "evidence" that is based on an attached contract that she can't also provide. The presumptions of what was and wasn't know are biased towards BAC and against Crown. Why is that? What good can come from the speculation or the second-guessing of a policy voted-on and enacted by the activity? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamBomb Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I hate to upset your witch hunt………..but an individual found a soft spot in his previous employer and increasingly manipulated the system with full knowledge that a large number of those pupils would not fully met their financial obligations. This behavior was known by all parties. The pupils had pledged their allegiance to an instructor then upon relocation he recruited those pupils knowing full well of their previous outstanding balances. The instructor had access to that information as it was to use as part of the contract selection process. Call it what you want- but it cost “X” to participate and by contract you are on the hook for “X”. All that is being done is following through on a DCI policy. Like it or not? That’s a separate topic for conversation. If anyone should be getting upset, it should be the students and their parents getting upset at the instructor who has been miss informing and miss guiding them all along the way. An instructor who is ultimately not tied to anyplace and can wreak the same havoc at any stop along his employment chain. Please return to your regularly scheduled witch hunt……….. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, AdamBomb said: I hate to upset your witch hunt………..but an individual found a soft spot in his previous employer and increasingly manipulated the system with full knowledge that a large number of those pupils would not fully met their financial obligations. This behavior was known by all parties. The pupils had pledged their allegiance to an instructor then upon relocation he recruited those pupils knowing full well of their previous outstanding balances. The instructor had access to that information as it was to use as part of the contract selection process. Call it what you want- but it cost “X” to participate and by contract you are on the hook for “X”. All that is being done is following through on a DCI policy. Like it or not? That’s a separate topic for conversation. If anyone should be getting upset, it should be the students and their parents getting upset at the instructor who has been miss informing and miss guiding them all along the way. An instructor who is ultimately not tied to anyplace and can wreak the same havoc at any stop along his employment chain. Please return to your regularly scheduled witch hunt……….. As I said , there is ALWAYS 2 sides to a story and deeper than whats on the surface. Edited February 3, 2017 by GUARDLING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 This is an amazingly fast growing thread. There is a smoking gun, but details are not clear on all the issues. There are a few unknowns and everyone is getting all twisted up, angry and indignant defending their ground. First off facts are needed so let's ask the questions and maybe get some answers: Has ANYONE on this thread seen the contract Crown provided to and got signed by the MM? If not, then temper any assumptions or accusations or defenses until you do. Is a corps contract a standard document that ALL organizations use for MM's? There was inference in earlier posts that ALL DCI corps use the same contract docs. Does DCI have a contract template they ask or require all DCI member corps to use? Do ALL DCI member corps use/offer contracts? Does everyone know what a scholarship means? Usually it is not an element of a long term binding contract document. If it WAS part of the language of a long term contract that makes an MM commit to years of membership to an organization; does that relieve the MM from having to audition year after year? Does it guarantee the MM doesn't get cut from their position? Does it make the MM a member of the org for life (not a stand by either)? Is it fair (and legal) to go after scholarship money if the performance services requested and agreed to for the completed season were rendered? On the surface, not knowing the details of the contract; my idea of a scholarship is a year to year offering at no cost to an MM, for the desired MM's participation (sic services) to be a performer in the organizations program/show. Other MM's pay to play, but a "scholarshipped" MM is someone the org wants to have in their org because of the high level of quality the MM has in their respective skill. Much like a scholarship to college. The smart kid gets an academic scholarship. After year or two, the kid discovers there is another college they might prefer; closer to home, more academic opportunity, whatever. They transfer. Maybe they get a scholarship at their new school, maybe not. Does the school they depart from, bill them? Maybe they do. I don't know. But I sense they do not. This is just my take and opinion as like I said, I don't KNOW the details. Like may who have responded on this thread. Thanks for indulging me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liahona Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, garfield said: How do we know that it WASN'T spelled out clear-as-day? Funny how the OP got "evidence" that is based on an attached contract that she can't also provide. The presumptions of what was and wasn't know are biased towards BAC and against Crown. Why is that? What good can come from the speculation or the second-guessing of a policy voted-on and enacted by the activity? What we need is SWORN TESTIMONY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 3 minutes ago, AdamBomb said: I hate to upset your witch hunt………..but an individual found a soft spot in his previous employer and increasingly manipulated the system with full knowledge that a large number of those pupils would not fully met their financial obligations. This behavior was known by all parties. The pupils had pledged their allegiance to an instructor then upon relocation he recruited those pupils knowing full well of their previous outstanding balances. The instructor had access to that information as it was to use as part of the contract selection process. Call it what you want- but it cost “X” to participate and by contract you are on the hook for “X”. All that is being done is following through on a DCI policy. Like it or not? That’s a separate topic for conversation. If anyone should be getting upset, it should be the students and their parents getting upset at the instructor who has been miss informing and miss guiding them all along the way. An instructor who is ultimately not tied to anyplace and can wreak the same havoc at any stop along his employment chain. Please return to your regularly scheduled witch hunt……….. See, this is a part that doesn't make sense. If what you say is true, then BAC is CLEARLY on the hook for those unpaid balances to Crown. Particularly and specifically because their (new) employee "miss informing" (sic) these young, tender, unknowing ADULTS that the Grass Really Is Greener in Boston and (speculation coming) "Hey, don't worry about that contract. NOBODY enforces those contracts! Come on up to BAC!" If BAC is so amazingly financially sound, why is this an issue at all? Admit, BAC, that you're buying talented players and paying their dues! That's a GREAT way to attract more members! (/sarcasm. I'm not taking anything away from BAC; I'm highlighting the absurdity of the presumptions in this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 9 minutes ago, AdamBomb said: I hate to upset your witch hunt……….. Please return to your regularly scheduled witch hunt……….. Are these simply not-so-subtle allusions to the oft-guessed BAC's 2017 production, continuing their literary bent of late: "The Crucible"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabMaster Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 13 minutes ago, garfield said: How do we know that it WASN'T spelled out clear-as-day? Funny how the OP got "evidence" that is based on an attached contract that she can't also provide. The presumptions of what was and wasn't know are biased towards BAC and against Crown. Why is that? What good can come from the speculation or the second-guessing of a policy voted-on and enacted by the activity? Hi, you say this is a "policy voted-on and enacted by the activity". Can you provide us all with a copy of the policy? I would be fascinated to read that and read a contract because that and a contract would help clear all this up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Eleran said: Are these simply not-so-subtle allusions to the oft-guessed BAC's 2017 production, continuing their literary bent of late: "The Crucible"? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts