2019 Madison Scouts!

[queenanne_1536]

4 hours 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 

Exactly this. CK would have been out of a job in the corporate world were he in charge. The alumni are not stuck in the past. The alumni want the corps to modernize while still staying true to their identity. This can and has been done. Why does CK apparently have immunity and complete job security? Something ins't right here. 

Someone said that the past few years the Madison design has been basically shots in the dark. That's just it. There's no clear vision in the direction of the corps. 2016 doesn't work, so they take a shot in the dark. 2017 didn't work, so they take another shot in the dark. 2018 didn't work and here we are again taking shots in the dark. I actually thought in 2017 they were on to something. I didn't like the music, but I liked the modern feel and that they were daring with the uniforms. Why didn't they stick to that and build off that? Why didn't that direction continue? 

Lots of questions.

[HockeyDad]

3 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

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

Kind of an ironic statement. As if you don’t post the same things over and over 

[cixelsyd]

13 hours ago, queenanne_1536 said:

• Are the bills being paid? *** Can't answer this, but why the delay in uniforms? Whether their was a storm or not is irrelevant. A little bad weather isn't going to delay your uniforms for weeks ****

I can answer this with no insider knowledge.  Just seeing the show once, everyone had uniform hats/pants/etc., and 2/3 of the corps proper had uni tops with only the larger sizes missing.  If you were a supplier, would you send 90% of the product to a customer who was not paying their bills?

[Jeff Ream]

56 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Kind of an ironic statement. As if you don’t post the same things over and over 

thanks for actually reading. have a great weekend!

[Jeff Ream]

29 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I can answer this with no insider knowledge.  Just seeing the show once, everyone had uniform hats/pants/etc., and 2/3 of the corps proper had uni tops with only the larger sizes missing.  If you were a supplier, would you send 90% of the product to a customer who was not paying their bills?

Dunno, ask those who supplied stuff to YEA for years

[Whiskey]

2 hours ago, queenanne_1536 said:

Exactly this. CK would have been out of a job in the corporate world were he in charge. The alumni are not stuck in the past. The alumni want the corps to modernize while still staying true to their identity. This can and has been done. Why does CK apparently have immunity and complete job security? Something ins't right here. 

Someone said that the past few years the Madison design has been basically shots in the dark. That's just it. There's no clear vision in the direction of the corps. 2016 doesn't work, so they take a shot in the dark. 2017 didn't work, so they take another shot in the dark. 2018 didn't work and here we are again taking shots in the dark. I actually thought in 2017 they were on to something. I didn't like the music, but I liked the modern feel and that they were daring with the uniforms. Why didn't they stick to that and build off that? Why didn't that direction continue? 

Lots of questions.

Boards are a unique group of individuals.  I've worked with good ones and crazy ones.  A good board although transparent with stakeholders will also keep their business close to vest.  There is so much we do not and should know about the inner workings of an organization. 

Currently, I know a principal who let go almost half of their employees at a local school.  It's a smaller school but the board did not renew 8 out of 14 teachers.  2 more teachers left for other jobs because of all the chaos and uproar that happened once the principal and board did this.  That left only 4 teachers remaining.  They didn't renew most of their cafeteria staff, all their certified SPED teachers, and other front office employees.  Up to this point they have only hired 2 new teachers and school starts in late July.  The community is up in arms but the board is sticking with the principal.  They have lawyered up and are sticking to their guns.  I don't know why they didn't renew all these employees.  The principal is a first year and brand new.  Perhaps a change of direction was needed.  Yet their spring scores improved across the board at every single grade level.  Some grades moved up 20 points.  That's great news for the principal but then they just shot themselves in the foot by losing over 2/3 of their teaching staff.  I'm baffled and upset for that community, but I've also been there where staff can be toxic. The whole organization in the long run suffers because of the level of power some workers have or think they have.  

All this that is happening with the Scouts and Regiment is something I have seen in other organizations.  I don't know what's happening with the Scouts.  If they give membership surveys, what are those surveys saying?  Have they done a needs assessment on their organization?  If things are working everywhere else except the scoresheets, then the competition aspect is just one factor.  If the needs assessment is saying something else like bad finances, health and safety concerns of its members, violations of policy, then we have a problem.  I try not to look at things at the surface because the real information and health of the organization is in the inside details.  I'd rather have a thriving group that can sustain itself year after year with happy members than making finals. If there are other issues, then perhaps the board and leadership needs to be called out on it.  

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Whiskey

[Whiskey]

Removed double post. 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Whiskey

[queenanne_1536]

I have to see after watching the show again tonight, there's a lot to like here from a musical perspective. I really enjoy it, but here's my issue. The design isn't going to win over the judges, so why not say "screw it" and have the balls to go all out and design the whole show to be structurally like a late 80s/90s/2000s show? I'm not saying play Malaga, Malaguena or Slaughter, I'm saying from a structural perspective. If you're designing a show that isn't going to win over the judges, why not go all out and try to win over the fans?

[HolyNOLA]

6 hours ago, queenanne_1536 said:

 CK would have been out of a job in the corporate world were he in charge. 

But this is drum corps. Where sex crimes don't even keep you from being employed. 

 

Ooops did I say that out loud? 

[queenanne_1536]

1 minute ago, HolyNOLA said:

But this is drum corps. Where sex crimes don't even keep you from being employed. 

 

Ooops did I say that out loud? 

True story.