2019 Madison Scouts!

[2muchcoffeeman]

Tidal. Tidal wave. Anyway, I applaud the concern for a "former champion," but I find the throw-the-bums-out approach to be a tad facile. We simply are not in a position to know the organization's books or the satisfaction level of the members. It's too easy to read organizational collapse into a middling ranking. We Simply. Do. Not. Know.

BAC probably has great alumni, but it was not alumni who cranked up the revenue machine in Boston. BAC has probably the highest-octane board in the activity, and membership on that board is not only way large, but membership also is pointedly offered to people who are not alums. Alums on a board start worrying about uniforms, so they are held at arm's length from the people whose responsibility is to keep the nonprofit parent of the Crusaders afloat. Don't get me wrong, they love their alums there, but that board is primarily interested in them only so far as they can open a checkbook, or can persuade someone else to do likewise. It is the diversified revenue stream of the parent 501 3(c), not the drum corps' alumni group, that has provided the horsepower.

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by 2muchcoffeeman

[Nine White Russians]

1 hour ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

Tidal. Tidal wave. Anyway, I applaud the concern for a "former champion," but I find the throw-the-bums-out approach to be a tad facile. We simply are not in a position to know the organization's books or the satisfaction level of the members. It's too easy to read organizational collapse into a middling ranking. We Simply. Do. Not. Know.

BAC probably has great alumni, but it was not alumni who cranked up the revenue machine in Boston. BAC has probably the highest-octane board in the activity, and membership on that board is not only way large, but membership also is pointedly offered to people who are not alums. Alums on a board start worrying about uniforms, so they are held at arm's length from the people whose responsibility is to keep the nonprofit parent of the Crusaders afloat. Don't get me wrong, they love their alums there, but that board is primarily interested in them only so far as they can open a checkbook, or can persuade someone else to do likewise. It is the diversified revenue stream of the parent 501 3(c), not the drum corps' alumni group, that has provided the horsepower.

 

Yep. And Madison's BOD, since the Stewart era(and maybe before) is mostly Madison alumni. Not good.

[Tim K]

6 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

Tidal. Tidal wave. Anyway, I applaud the concern for a "former champion," but I find the throw-the-bums-out approach to be a tad facile. We simply are not in a position to know the organization's books or the satisfaction level of the members. It's too easy to read organizational collapse into a middling ranking. We Simply. Do. Not. Know.

BAC probably has great alumni, but it was not alumni who cranked up the revenue machine in Boston. BAC has probably the highest-octane board in the activity, and membership on that board is not only way large, but membership also is pointedly offered to people who are not alums. Alums on a board start worrying about uniforms, so they are held at arm's length from the people whose responsibility is to keep the nonprofit parent of the Crusaders afloat. Don't get me wrong, they love their alums there, but that board is primarily interested in them only so far as they can open a checkbook, or can persuade someone else to do likewise. It is the diversified revenue stream of the parent 501 3(c), not the drum corps' alumni group, that has provided the horsepower.

 

I think it may be an overstatement to say BAC only cares about alums and supporters who can donate. Boston Crusaders has given alums and members of the community an opportunity to support the corps without giving supporters the power to dictate. They also presented a clear vision of what the corps could be for a number of years. They also have a few key people, some board members, others who are not, who have been able to unify a rather large group with all kinds of ideas. BAC’s growth has been piece by piece,  beginning with a common vision, getting lots of folks on board, including alums and former rivals, then they moved from there. Yes there are some well connected board members who made a great deal happen, but they knew what had to happen first before there would be stronger revenue sources and larger donations. No matter how we’ll connected some members of the board may be, no corporate sponsors throw good money after bad, especially today. 

So for Madison to copy BAC, there has to be a vision, a person or people skilled at bringing alums together will be needed. A strong board that knows how to balance a wide group of people but can stick to the vision, then and only then will Madison be able to copy Boston Crusaders.  

There is another important factor that cannot be ignored. As BAC groomed alumni, solicited corporate donations, created the umbrella organization of Inspire Arts, acquired Great East, and opened the music store, they were also finalists. 

[Daave]

10 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

Questions a board of directors should ask:

• Are the customers happy? Safe? What's our retention level? What feedback are we hearing from the members, and what are we doing to respond to it?
• Are the bills being paid? Are we financially sound?
• Are we achieving our mission?
• Are we in compliance with DCI policy, board-governance best practices, regulatory requirements?
• Is the executive leadership accountable to us? Do we have a succession plan in place?
• How much more money can I help raise?

Questions that a board should not ask:

• What's the show design?
• What is our ranking? What scores are we getting?
• How about those uniforms?
• Are the alumni happy?

 

There is one significant point of crossover between these two groups of questions, not only for Scouts but for any corps: The single most potent recruiting tool you have for next year is the show you put on the field this year. So if the show design is hurting your audition numbers, it's time to put the CEO on the spot. But if the customers -- i.e., the members -- like what you're giving them, then the audition numbers will be there, and the board needs to keep its nose out of the show.

And, while good relations with alumni are better than poor relations, the board does not exist to serve alumni. It exists to serve the members. At most, the alumni should have a third-party relationship with the corps. It can be positive, most crucially financially, but the alumni are not central to the purpose of the corps, and as such should not be a central concern of the board.

I would add one thing.  One would have to know what the current by-laws that cover that board/organization give them the power to do.  If the existing by-laws restrict what others are saying they should do (and that is what they as a board have the resolve to do), then it would seem that their recourse is to either change the by-laws, or to resign.  

[LabMaster]

7 hours ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

Tidal. Tidal wave. Anyway, I applaud the concern for a "former champion," but I find the throw-the-bums-out approach to be a tad facile. We simply are not in a position to know the organization's books or the satisfaction level of the members. It's too easy to read organizational collapse into a middling ranking. We Simply. Do. Not. Know.

BAC probably has great alumni, but it was not alumni who cranked up the revenue machine in Boston. BAC has probably the highest-octane board in the activity, and membership on that board is not only way large, but membership also is pointedly offered to people who are not alums. Alums on a board start worrying about uniforms, so they are held at arm's length from the people whose responsibility is to keep the nonprofit parent of the Crusaders afloat. Don't get me wrong, they love their alums there, but that board is primarily interested in them only so far as they can open a checkbook, or can persuade someone else to do likewise. It is the diversified revenue stream of the parent 501 3(c), not the drum corps' alumni group, that has provided the horsepower.

 

Not exactly correct in your assumption of the BAC alumni involvement.  Tim K mentioned that alumni are supporters but not necessarily having powers to dictate.  That is critical.  Particularly with staff and  staff programming decisions.  BAC alumni hold some key position however the same alumni understood what was needed to make the organization grow.  Mostly because of their being there when things were not so good and a few times when they were about to close shop.  A long developing plan was put in place and when it was ready to implement, it was.  They were patient with it.  BAC alumni are mixed in the BOD.  The IAM CEO, Jim Cronin, is an alum and former DM.  Another key person Mike Woodall is also an alum and former DM.  Chris Holland the Executive Director of the corps is an alum. It is/was the alumni who cranked up the revenue efforts because they realized that was a critical component to building the corps back to relevant national prominence.  Alumni help is a good thing if it is managed properly and they buy in to a clear program for growth.

Probably the most important piece in this, for Boston, is the BOD being as large as it is with a huge cross pollination of people with many skills, knowledge and networks.  It is not only people with a drum corps background.  The BOD recognizes the importance of the alums because there are many alums not only on the BOD but directly involved in the organization at many many levels.  They  work on the food truck,  sew uniforms, drive trucks, manage the souvies, manage marketing efforts, donate money, food, ice, auction items, hold barbecues for the MM's, run band shows, run a music store and countless other tasks.  There is no relying on only a few.  There are some old school hard corps alums who aren't crazy about the shows they are producing but they don't like many shows any corps is producing.  They are stuck in the past and that is how a corps can be , stuck in the past, if that sentiment is what an org tries to satisfy.  This works for Boston and I believe DCI has shown this model to other corps as a possibly path to growth and success.  Madison may simply need to ignore some alums who want nothing to change but think returning to the past will bring success today.  IMO.   I wish the Scouts org. the very best. 

[HockeyDad]

I reject the notion that the reason they’ve not been competitive in recent years is because “alumni are stuck in the past” and are “forcing them to do old school shows”.  EVERY post I read from alumni indicates a desire to help and be competitive / relevant again. Nowhere do I see any caveats beyond that. So this - they are struggling because the alumni are making them do it this way - is just not true. 

When your company or whatever is struggling, the leader needs to be held accountable. Period. It’s not complicated. CK has had ample time to get things going on the right trajectory and has failed to do so. Full stop. New leadership is needed. This may also include a complete changeout of the board of directors. Will the simple act of replacing the leadership fix everything?  Of course not. But it is the necessary first step 

[LabMaster]

1 hour ago, HockeyDad said:

I reject the notion that the reason they’ve not been competitive in recent years is because “alumni are stuck in the past” and are “forcing them to do old school shows”.  EVERY post I read from alumni indicates a desire to help and be competitive / relevant again. Nowhere do I see any caveats beyond that. So this - they are struggling because the alumni are making them do it this way - is just not true. 

When your company or whatever is struggling, the leader needs to be held accountable. Period. It’s not complicated. CK has had ample time to get things going on the right trajectory and has failed to do so. Full stop. New leadership is needed. This may also include a complete changeout of the board of directors. Will the simple act of replacing the leadership fix everything?  Of course not. But it is the necessary first step 

Maybe it is not only leadership (which I take your meaning to be the Corps Director ) but the leadership structure needs to be changed.   There needs to be some hard decisions made.  Keep what works & change what doesn't,  wherever in the org. it exists.  

[MikeN]

On 6/26/2019 at 10:00 PM, GREENBLUE said:

Just saw a video. My first look.

Im in disbelief that this is the Madison Scouts.

Sorry.

What were the designers thinking? Wow.

This show might not make Friday night.

Finally got to hear the show for the first time yesterday.  Actually, I thought it was *much* better than what I'd been led to believe.  It's definitely written for a younger group, and I do have to agree I don't think it's going to suddenly become a Finals-calibre program, but honestly, it was fine.  It does sound very Madison, and it's got a retro vibe while still leaning on current design trends.  Great first note too - it stands out when almost every other corps has a soft lead-in.

Mike

[Jeff Ream]

12 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Ok so you have no actual knowledge and are speculating. Thank you. 

I wanted to come back to this. You've been here long enough to know I am very careful with what i put out here. I don't throw wild #### against the wall to see what sticks. It's why people across the activity trust me and talk to me, even when it shouldn't be out for public consumption. If I've ever led anyone here astray, it's cause someone led me astray, and i don't speak to those people anymore if they do it intentionally. So yes HockeyDad, I have some knowledge, and i have held back more than I have said, and will say because I don't think it's anything you or others here need to know, especially with some of the knee jerk reactions and conclusions you and others love to jump to

Edited June 28, 2019 by Jeff Ream

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, HockeyDad said:

I reject the notion that the reason they’ve not been competitive in recent years is because “alumni are stuck in the past” and are “forcing them to do old school shows”.  EVERY post I read from alumni indicates a desire to help and be competitive / relevant again. Nowhere do I see any caveats beyond that. So this - they are struggling because the alumni are making them do it this way - is just not true. 

When your company or whatever is struggling, the leader needs to be held accountable. Period. It’s not complicated. CK has had ample time to get things going on the right trajectory and has failed to do so. Full stop. New leadership is needed. This may also include a complete changeout of the board of directors. Will the simple act of replacing the leadership fix everything?  Of course not. But it is the necessary first step 

it's not the entire reason, but it's part of it, but why let something stated here 1000 times get in the way of what you deem is right or wrong