A year ago today

[BigW]

2 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

She did march. I know because I marched with her. 

Likely a clarification needed that they have no current affiliation or position with any currently active corps.

[garfield]

14 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

She did march. I know because I marched with her. 

Is being a vet the same as having a current "affiliation"?

I marched in 1973 and '74, but I've been giving money to Friends since 1983 specifically because I had no, specific corps affiliation.  I loved them all.

Can she lobby today for issues that benefit her alumni corps' ahead of, or in replacement of, other corps?

 

[Terri Schehr]

15 minutes ago, BigW said:

Likely a clarification needed that they have no current affiliation or position with any currently active corps.

She doesn’t now.  I think she was on Oregon Crusaders board in the past. 

[Terri Schehr]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

 

Can she lobby today for issues that benefit her alumni corps' ahead of, or in replacement of, other corps?

 

That would be tough to do since her corps (and mine) has been dead for a long time. 

[garfield]

8 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

That would be tough to do since her corps (and mine) has been dead for a long time. 

Well, I guessed as much.  So there's no way she could show favoritism towards "her" corps and therefore, supposedly, can make decisions in the best interest of the activity overall, is that correct?

I would call that the perfect kind of "Independent" Governance leader.  Someone with a history and love of the activity, with no current affiliation to sway her opinion, and a professional (not corps director or band director) CV that brings with it some presumption of qualification based on education, experience, or both is a far cry from the BoD leadership of the past.

I don't refer at all to my opinion of her efficacy in her position or whether I think she will actually accomplish her goal in an unbiased way.

Edited April 6, 2019 by garfield

[BigW]

6 hours ago, garfield said:

Well, I guessed as much.  So there's no way she could show favoritism towards "her" corps and therefore, supposedly, can make decisions in the best interest of the activity overall, is that correct?

I would call that the perfect kind of "Independent" Governance leader.  Someone with a history and love of the activity, with no current affiliation to sway her opinion, and a professional (not corps director or band director) CV that brings with it some presumption of qualification based on education, experience, or both is a far cry from the BoD leadership of the past.

I don't refer at all to my opinion of her efficacy in her position or whether I think she will actually accomplish her goal in an unbiased way.

Point taken, someone who has been a part of the activity who people with skepticism would think would 'get it', yet has no dog in the fight/agenda/perceived bias. There have been issues with other activities where someone from 'outside' or 'no real experience in the activity' starts running things, and when it goes bad, gets massive flak because of their outsider status.  Example, Randy Bernard with the IRL/Indy Car circuit.

[Weaklefthand4ever]

15 hours ago, BigW said:

Trying to get back OT.... School districts are weird animals. Not always sensible, not always logical, and usually very scared of anything that could upset the apple cart or cause a ruckus with their constituents. Hence some of the DCI housing issues, whether warranted or not. It's a perception issue, and DCI will have to work hard to repair that negative perception. It may take years.

Exactly the point that I was trying to make (but written better.) At this point, with no new fires to point at and say "there's your proof," the perception of a problem (real or imagined) "possibly, maybe, kinda" existing is a powerful thing. Fair? Absolutely not! Life? Yup! And you're 100% correct in that it could take years. Time to put the big kid pants on.

[Weaklefthand4ever]

13 hours ago, garfield said:

This is Just. Not. True.

EDIT:  How do you explain that the Chairman of the Board of DCI is now an attorney with no corps affiliation what-so-ever?

This is why I never speak on anything which speaks about what DCI is doing or has done behind the scenes. I can say "I see this" but it will always be from the narrow view of someone standing outside the restaurant looking into the window. 

That being said.....it leaves things open to, you guessed it, PERCEPTION. What I perceive is going on or not going on is mine to own. I'm just luckily not the type to formulate a locked down opinion based on what I see. I would rather wait until those of you who have more knowledge of the inner workings chime in and then formulate an opinion from there. 

But I can see where people may perceive from the outside that no change has been made. I probably would too if it weren't for folks on here who have more knowledge than I ever will. 

[garfield]

6 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said:

This is why I never speak on anything which speaks about what DCI is doing or has done behind the scenes. I can say "I see this" but it will always be from the narrow view of someone standing outside the restaurant looking into the window. 

That being said.....it leaves things open to, you guessed it, PERCEPTION. What I perceive is going on or not going on is mine to own. I'm just luckily not the type to formulate a locked down opinion based on what I see. I would rather wait until those of you who have more knowledge of the inner workings chime in and then formulate an opinion from there. 

But I can see where people may perceive from the outside that no change has been made. I probably would too if it weren't for folks on here who have more knowledge than I ever will. 

DCI is not actually a glass house because its not a public company, but matters of organization are all public because they are a non-profit.

A few minutes of investigation would quickly show that the governance of the activity began changing before the GH explosion forced more and faster change (ex: Fred Morrison).

We all make ill-informed statements from time-to-time, but these facts are not exactly hidden from plain sight.

rpbobcat's comments lead me to believe he/she won't be satisfied that "anything" has been done until Dan is gone.  

Both are sad, IMO.

 

 

[Weaklefthand4ever]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

DCI is not actually a glass house because its not a public company, but matters of organization are all public because they are a non-profit.

A few minutes of investigation would quickly show that the governance of the activity began changing before the GH explosion forced more and faster change (ex: Fred Morrison).

We all make ill-informed statements from time-to-time, but these facts are not exactly hidden from plain sight.

rpbobcat's comments lead me to believe he/she won't be satisfied that "anything" has been done until Dan is gone.  

Both are sad, IMO.

Good points all around. I generally don't do a lot of research specifically on DCI as an organization because I simply don't know where to begin. It's not a "lazy" thing really just a matter of people far smarter than me are already doing that research and posting facts. There's no reason for me to re-invent the wheel. 

As far as people wanting specific people gone I feel that you're right. People are like bulldogs. Once they get their teeth into something and have their minds made up, you can't force them into seeing beyond their own perception. I've had to work VERY hard to change my personal perceptions on things unrelated to Drum Corps to stay relevant in what I do for my side-gig. It's not an easy change to make.