kevingamin

Arsenal Drum Corps Offers Tuition Discount To Pioneer/Oregon Crusaders Vets

Recommended Posts

Just now, cixelsyd said:

And putting that off for a year, THEN telling them what more they need to do, would be better how?

Now they have open lines of communication and can be sure to get a full picture of what IS needed to make next year that much better. Based on someone's prior analysis of their 990's, was it a lock they'd pass? Nope. But now they have time to work TOGETHER, so when the time comes, it shouldn't be an issue.

Whenever I have had to work with anyone at the DCI offices, they have always been more than patient to answer any and all questions and be sure things are understood. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

here's the thing......evaluation is never a sure thing. they could have beemn told to do more before passing. So making promises that weren't delivered by the admin could have hurt worse than this. 

That kind of 'what if' argument is an incredibly terrible way to make business decisions or view anything in hindsight. By that logic, the whole Arsenal discussion is theoretically moot because there's always a chance the corps' hall could get hit by a comet.

I have to assume that if a corps was going to take the time to submit for evaluation, then at least internally they anticipated passing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

he was within his rights to do what he did because....and i'll be sure to type it so you get it:

 

DCI HAS RULES IN PLACE NOW AND HE FOLLOWED THEM.

 

that simple. You may not like the rules, you may not like the end result, but thats what happened.

Ok, so now re-read the post you quoted again because it is directly applicable to what you just wrote.

Here, I'll paste it again for you just to make sure, and even bold the important bits so to make it extra easy:

Which is why I don't understand why you (and a few others) feel the need to then explain why Dan Acheson was within his rights to do what he did. Everyone knows that. It doesn't change the fact that I strongly oppose the way he handled the situation. What is the point of beating that drum, if not to show you support Acheson and attempt to discredit his critics?

Edited by jeffmolnar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

he was within his rights to do what he did because....and i'll be sure to type it so you get it:

 

DCI HAS RULES IN PLACE NOW AND HE FOLLOWED THEM.

 

that simple. You may not like the rules, you may not like the end result, but thats what happened.

 

DCI has rules in place. DCI does not have pre-outlined punishments in place. No one's arguing that a rule was broken, they're arguing that the punishment does not fit the crime.

A guy is doing 5 MPH over the speed limit. He gets a ticket, and a judge ultimately decides to give him life in prison, because the speed limit is a rule that was broken. Most people would assume that's not just, and would argue that the law has clearly-defined punishments for specific crimes, and this decision is outside of that.

DCI doesn't have those prescribed punishments, so instead the organization defaults to the decision of the CEO. In this case, many of us view that the CEO did not act within the best interests of all involved. That's an opinion, sure, but it's one we're all very entitled to have. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Now they have open lines of communication and can be sure to get a full picture of what IS needed to make next year that much better. Based on someone's prior analysis of their 990's, was it a lock they'd pass? Nope. But now they have time to work TOGETHER, so when the time comes, it shouldn't be an issue.

Whenever I have had to work with anyone at the DCI offices, they have always been more than patient to answer any and all questions and be sure things are understood. 

They had open lines of communication before.  We have the emails to prove it.  :)

Sorry.  DCI had all week to admit they made a mistake in judgment.  Instead, they issued two press releases - one to lie and smear the ex-director, and one to try and gloss over everything by saying they are working together to move forward and learn... as long as DCI gets to keep their heels precisely where they dug them in from the start.

Are these behaviors consistent with the values of DCI ethics guidelines?  And how do we move forward on the greater challenges DCI faces when their own office cannot set an example of ethical behav... , oh, ####, even abide by their own guidelines?

Edited by cixelsyd
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, jeffmolnar said:

Which is why I don't understand why you (and a few others) feel the need to then explain why Dan Acheson was within his rights to do what he did. Everyone knows that. It doesn't change the fact that I strongly oppose the way he handled the situation. What is the point of beating that drum, if not to show your support Acheson and attempt to discredit his critics?

Maybe this will help...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

DCI HAS RULES IN PLACE NOW AND HE FOLLOWED THEM

Dan said worse disparging comments explaing why he ousted them do the rules apply to Dan?

Edited by Bluzes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bluzes said:

Dan said worse disparging comments explaing why he ousted them do the rules apply to Dan?

Royal decrees never apply to the monarchy.

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ouooga said:

DCI has rules in place. DCI does not have pre-outlined punishments in place. No one's arguing that a rule was broken, they're arguing that the punishment does not fit the crime.

Exactly.  I don't see any rules that say DCI had to handle it the way they did.

Although I don't think everyone agrees with their interpretation of the rule (so some may argue that, in their opinion, it was not broken) particularly given that those in the supposedly disparaged organizations appeared very appreciative of what he said. 

But no one is arguing over whether they have the authority to make the decision.  This is about their judgment in how they used said authority.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ouooga said:

Royal decrees never apply to the monarchy.

I try to keep a low profile.only rep for the unwashed masses. What will it take for thoses in the orchestra pit to stop throwing their chicken bones on the field? Nothing less than blind justice, Dan, Fred, 2019 Arensal stay or they all go. The unwashed masses have weighed in! 

Edited by Bluzes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.