Jump to content

Pioneer What Next?


Recommended Posts

As I’ve said in other posts, I have followed drum corps since 1975 where as a 6th grader, I went to a drum corps competition and have been hooked since. If my favorite corps of today include Boston Crusaders who competed in that first show I saw as well as Cadets, Troopers, Crossmen, SCV, Madison, and Phantom,  not to mention just about every corps that competes, and my favorite corps of yesteryear is 27th Lancers, I more than understand “Don’t speak ill against the corps” and people who love the corps quickly coming to its defense. I have my share of bumps and bruises from saying the wrong thing about a corps even though I was being complimentary.

For better or for worse, people believe what they read on social media, especially where alleged cover ups are involved.  This summer, folks took to social media to voice complaints involving Pioneer. One complaint seems to have credibility, some could be all smoke, no fire, though they could be credible. Issues can no longer be ignored and defending the corps at all costs, even if true, is not effective. The allegations are actually easy fixes. You made a mistake with a sick kid, not good, but address it. You don’t have to  make a public apology but come up with a comprehensive policy that addresses how you handle emergency medical issues. Involve medical professionals and athletic directors in the writing of the policy and stick to it. With bullying, involve educators, church and scout leaders, the Y, etc., and again create a policy that sticks. Have workshops for staff on better instruction methods, especially for those who may not be professional educators, and how to spot problematic behaviors. Post pictures of this taking place everywhere on FB and corps websites. 

Pioneer is a corps that finds a home for everyone, and even prior to this past summer, Pioneer can get slammed, but if these allegations are even remotely true, we’re not talking about the usual slamming, and if it wants to be the corps for everyone, the current issues need to be addressed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just looking at the 2016 990's, they dont exactly pull in a ton of revenue...and they are finishing each year in the red, but  have some positive assets in year end...just not the amount as the bigger corps...not nearly the amount. They'll stay where they are because of finances most likely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JAZZER said:

Any idea how many age outs from PIO this year?

Last year a thread was here that compiled # of age outs for each corps. Might have been @BRASSO, he's good at digging into that type of info. 

 

 I started a thread on " ageouts " on DCP at the end of 2017 season... and see that someone has started one for 2018 now. I don't know the number of ageouts Corps have, only what is ( or will be ) reported by others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2006, DCI consider a comprehensive plan to reorganize itself, separating competition and governance and seperating participation from placement/competition. this plan was defeated by a single vote, with the "No" block driven by Hopkins -- parts of this plan were adopted piece meal in 2008. a key part that wasn't adopted in 2008 was that each year, each corps was subject  to an 'evaluation' to ensure compliance and competence off the field... the criteria for those evaluations had been developed over the preceding decade as DCI started to evaluate and assistance corps on an emergency basis. this work was the starting point for what has become the evaluation processes that new Open Class corps must comport with. But in 2008, DCI adopted some of 2006 new governance struture on a piece meal basis - they separated competitive success from the governance structure, made membership subject to the vote of the current membership,  and allowed board members to be recalled/removed by a simple majority - not super majority - vote of the membership, they DID NOT adopt the 'every corps must pass an annual evaluation' piece.. and Pioneer was a  grandfathered member. One reason that some corps wanted this "subject to successful evaluation" clause was to be able to proactively address corps whose methods of operating posed organization wide liability risks without regard to competitive success or lack thereof.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I’ll add is I was with a not so great corps as we were rebuilding. Staff was honest that we would be taking lumps for a while but things should get better as the members gain experience. That said safety and doing what is right by the members was never an issue nor should it ever be in a non top corps. Just saying totally separate issues.

Not saying it didn’t affect me in other ways and learned while lot of swear words and other ways to release frustration (know a whole lot of bus songs lol)

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without being able to acknowledge whether any of the allegations this year were true, all I will say is this: This was Pioneer's worst finish since well before they made the move up to World Class (then Division 1).  That, coupled with the rumors, simply can't be good for an organization that was already struggling to recruit, especially in a big pre-season hype year.  I hope they're able to recover from this season, but if I was a parent with the possibility of having a kid join this organization, I'd have a LOT of questions.  Not just about the treatment of members, but about the sustainability and actual odds of fielding a corps.  I'd hate to have my kid go through multiple off-season camps only to find out they're going to have to struggle to find another home before the season.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, OldDCGuy said:

As mentioned, Open Class provides a wonderful arena to provide musical and visual educational opportunities.  But, allowing corps that repeatedly place well below the majority of the Open Class corps at prelims to continue as WC, forces show promoters to pay WC pay scale to a lower-end OC corps.  Kind of like paying for the Boston Symphony when you get the Goochland String Choir.

OPEN CLASS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCORES. 

moving them back to Open Class takes away a HUGE chunk of their income. you move them there, you kill the corps.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I will say is this: things with Pioneer will not improve in any category (finances, recruitment, or on-field product) until Roman Blenski (in particular) and the Blenski Family (in general) are no longer involved with the organization in any way.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tim K said:

Finances, recruitment, and design are problems Pioneer has faced for years, but I think the problems many are referring to are things that surfaced this summer. A mother published a letter on either Facebook or Reddit asking whether it was standard procedure for a corps to leave a minor alone at a hospital when emergency treatment was required. Many believed Pioneer was the corps involved. If the young person did not march with Pioneer, it was discovered that a similar situation happened at Pioneer. Marching members from Pioneer also posted on social media complaints about staff bullying but the complaints were ignored. I can’t refer you to actual links, but that’s my understanding.

interestingly in Allentown and Indy, where stories fly all over the place, I heard very little chatter, and next to nothing about Pioneer except the words “Poor Pioneer” after their performance.

there was chatter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, stevedci said:

In 2006, DCI consider a comprehensive plan to reorganize itself, separating competition and governance and seperating participation from placement/competition. this plan was defeated by a single vote, with the "No" block driven by Hopkins -- parts of this plan were adopted piece meal in 2008. a key part that wasn't adopted in 2008 was that each year, each corps was subject  to an 'evaluation' to ensure compliance and competence off the field... the criteria for those evaluations had been developed over the preceding decade as DCI started to evaluate and assistance corps on an emergency basis. this work was the starting point for what has become the evaluation processes that new Open Class corps must comport with. But in 2008, DCI adopted some of 2006 new governance struture on a piece meal basis - they separated competitive success from the governance structure, made membership subject to the vote of the current membership,  and allowed board members to be recalled/removed by a simple majority - not super majority - vote of the membership, they DID NOT adopt the 'every corps must pass an annual evaluation' piece.. and Pioneer was a  grandfathered member. One reason that some corps wanted this "subject to successful evaluation" clause was to be able to proactively address corps whose methods of operating posed organization wide liability risks without regard to competitive success or lack thereof.

 

and we see how voting against this has turned out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...