Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, MikeD said:

It is there, for sure. I am the one who noticed it and posted here. I do agree it was an error in editing, not intent.

I also know Encorps went through a large admin change in Sept/Oct, so on their end there may have been "misses".

(I know.  I saw you post it.  And thanks.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, garfield said:

Well!  And there it is.  I never suspected for a moment that your contention was not sourced.  You're right, there is an error in the manual.  And that proves, or even suggests, what, exactly, in the context of Encorps not being able to field 55 members?  

Nothing that I am aware of. 

I was merely responding to your post where you said you saw no conflict.  To me, if it says 30 members on one page and 55 on another page, that is a conflict.

Quote

More importantly, had the Encorps BoD or ED done the very same task you have and read the manual carefully, they would have spotted the inconsistency.  Then, had they spotted it, is it reasonable to suggest that they would have contacted the OC Coordinator or even DCI directly?

I could not say.  That is moot, however, since someone speaking on behalf of Encorps has already indicated they became aware of the change this fall.

Quote

And further, of course, relying on a premise that a typing error is even culpable in Encorps' demise requires the willful ignorance of reality (and Occam) that Encorps was completely unaware that the 55/100 rule was being discussed, waayyy prior to 2019, that the OC Coordinator completely failed in his mission to groom OC candidates for the big dance, and that DCI would pass a rule so critical to so many performing units and then intentionally keep it hidden on page 83 without ever telling those it affects.  Really?  You can get there?

Is this paragraph even addressed to me?

I take no position on precisely why Encorps folded.  I do not understand or defend their specific courses of action.  Because of that, I cannot assert that the outcome for Encorps would necessarily have been any different had DCI acted differently.  Whatever takeaways I have from this mess are general in nature.

Quote

I realize that the administrators and governance of DCI have appeared to have stepped in crap several (many?) times over the Association's history, but spinning this tale that a typing error, or the codifying of an already-agreed-upon rule change AFTER notifying a group likely to be significantly impacted by it,  as likely significant contributors to Encorps' decision is a step out of reality that I surely can't make.

Well, that is where you all (both you and DCI) are stepping in it - when it is a rule change, but the rule change process has not occurred.

Once again, corps make long-term plans based on the knowledge that rules can only change once every two years, only through the rule change process detailed in the rules manual, and that it is unlikely that big-impact changes will take immediate effect in the season-in-progress.  I do not care how much offline discussion or out-of-context "agreement" occurred - no one has the right to prematurely change DCI policies/procedures when a rule change is required and has not even been voted on yet.

To be candid, if we cannot even agree on that, then I have to ask... what ELSE has been "discussed" or "agreed to" behind the scenes by the people who now think they can rule DCI by fiat?  

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/28/2019 at 6:47 PM, Bruckner8 said:

Encorps needs to spend more time figuring out why they can’t find 55 members, instead of crying about DCI operations.  

^^^ THIS ^^^

If I am paying money to go watch a drum corps competition and these guys are on.. well... let's be honest, this is my hot dog corps. Now I get it that is not fair to the performers, but it is what it is. And I am just saying what a lot of people won't. 

To me, the big issue is why can they not recruit members? It's not as if there aren't high school music programs close by... The problem MUST be internal and not the fault of DCI. All DCI does is provide a contest schedule and a venue in which to compete. Do you know what The Academy, Blue Stars, Carolina Crown, Genesis, Jersey Surf, Mandarins, Music City and Pacific Crest all have in common? They all performed in DCI's "second tier" and are now succesful World Class units. Perhaps instead of complaing about DCI, they ought to be figuring out what made those corps so sucessful and how they used Open Class as a springboard. Or perhaps they should look at longstanding Open Class corps such as BDB, Gold, Guardians, Legends, Raiders, Southwind, Spartans and Vanguard Cadets and find out how they both recruit and retain members and try to emulate success.

Just a thought.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

Nothing that I am aware of. 

I was merely responding to your post where you said you saw no conflict.  To me, if it says 30 members on one page and 55 on another page, that is a conflict.

I could not say.  That is moot, however, since someone speaking on behalf of Encorps has already indicated they became aware of the change this fall.

Is this paragraph even addressed to me?

I take no position on precisely why Encorps folded.  I do not understand or defend their specific courses of action.  Because of that, I cannot assert that the outcome for Encorps would necessarily have been any different had DCI acted differently.  Whatever takeaways I have from this mess are general in nature.

Well, that is where you all (both you and DCI) are stepping in it - when it is a rule change, but the rule change process has not occurred.

Once again, corps make long-term plans based on the knowledge that rules can only change once every two years, only through the rule change process detailed in the rules manual, and that it is unlikely that big-impact changes will take immediate effect in the season-in-progress.  I do not care how much offline discussion or out-of-context "agreement" occurred - no one has the right to prematurely change DCI policies/procedures when a rule change is required and has not even been voted on yet.

To be candid, if we cannot even agree on that, then I have to ask... what ELSE has been "discussed" or "agreed to" behind the scenes by the people who now think they can rule DCI by fiat?  

It's not fiat.  (How can it be fiat when a committee is paneled to act on the wishes of the voting membership?)  It's your presumption, apparently, that rules changes are only able to be implemented in the odd-numbered years after going through the normal rules process in the even numbered years.  Am I gathering that from your line of thinking?  If you tell me that it's codified that way, then I'll stand behind your contention that Encorps was treated unfairly.

I see it the other way.  Had DCI announced or said nothing, knowing that its membership wanted this rule implemented in 2020, and allowed Encorps to actually believe they'd be fine marching 30 after the rule was adopted in January, there'd be a stronger case against DCI's admin processes.  Encorps' announcement hints at ignorance of a rule change, but they admit they were aware of discussions re: 55/100 before the October print change.

I take nothing at all away from Encorps for making the hard decision to not field.  They faced significant odds and made the right decision, AFAIC.  Facing declining membership and increasing minimums, I think they saw the writing on the wall.

Edited by garfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn’t Encorps the same bunch that announced a “partnership” with Cadets and then Yea/Cadets had to go on social media to explain that absolutely wasn’t the case?  Embarrassing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, garfield said:

It's not fiat.  (How can it be fiat when a committee is paneled to act on the wishes of the voting membership?) 

When there are already prevailing rules being broken in the process.

Quote

It's your presumption, apparently, that rules changes are only able to be implemented in the odd-numbered years after going through the normal rules process in the even numbered years.  Am I gathering that from your line of thinking?  If you tell me that it's codified that way, then I'll stand behind your contention that Encorps was treated unfairly.

No, that is not what I said.

Subsequent-year implementation is not the law.  There is plenty of precedent, however.  Many equipment rule changes allowing more valves on brass, or adding A&E, have been done that way.  Brass changes were even phased in over three years.

The 30-member minimum was a soft policy for the first two years.  Strict rule enforcement only began in year 3.

Quote

I see it the other way.  Had DCI announced or said nothing, knowing that its membership wanted this rule implemented in 2020, and allowed Encorps to actually believe they'd be fine marching 30 after the rule was adopted in January, there'd be a stronger case against DCI's admin processes.  Encorps' announcement hints at ignorance of a rule change, but they admit they were aware of discussions re: 55/100 before the October print change.

(55/110, not 55/100 - lest we create more confusion.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, by the way:

1 hour ago, garfield said:

(How can it be fiat when a committee is paneled to act on the wishes of the voting membership?)

Is that speculation, or do you know that a committee did this?  And if you know, perhaps some details on which committee, what they were empaneled to do, etc., might shed light on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Nothing that I am aware of. 

I was merely responding to your post where you said you saw no conflict.  To me, if it says 30 members on one page and 55 on another page, that is a conflict.

I could not say.  That is moot, however, since someone speaking on behalf of Encorps has already indicated they became aware of the change this fall.

Is this paragraph even addressed to me?

I take no position on precisely why Encorps folded.  I do not understand or defend their specific courses of action.  Because of that, I cannot assert that the outcome for Encorps would necessarily have been any different had DCI acted differently.  Whatever takeaways I have from this mess are general in nature.

Well, that is where you all (both you and DCI) are stepping in it - when it is a rule change, but the rule change process has not occurred.

Once again, corps make long-term plans based on the knowledge that rules can only change once every two years, only through the rule change process detailed in the rules manual, and that it is unlikely that big-impact changes will take immediate effect in the season-in-progress.  I do not care how much offline discussion or out-of-context "agreement" occurred - no one has the right to prematurely change DCI policies/procedures when a rule change is required and has not even been voted on yet.

To be candid, if we cannot even agree on that, then I have to ask... what ELSE has been "discussed" or "agreed to" behind the scenes by the people who now think they can rule DCI by fiat?  

Exactly!!

As I have said before - 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, George Dixon said:

Wasn’t Encorps the same bunch that announced a “partnership” with Cadets and then Yea/Cadets had to go on social media to explain that absolutely wasn’t the case?  Embarrassing. 

 

On 11/4/2019 at 5:50 PM, dbc03 said:

The Cadets posted on Facebook:

Recently an unofficial post appeared on the Encorps social media pages announcing an alliance between The Cadets and Encorps.

Despite the sharing of some resources, instruments, contacts, and best practices, there is not an official cooperative alliance or agreement between the two organizations, nor is there one planned for the near future. We wish Encorps the very best of luck as they prepare for their third season.

If you are interested in more information regarding the 2020 Cadets or 2020 Encorps organizations please visit their websites at join.cadets.org or jamwithencorps.org.

The Cadets apologize for any confusion or inconvenience this may have caused.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cixelsyd said:

Oh, by the way:

Is that speculation, or do you know that a committee did this?  And if you know, perhaps some details on which committee, what they were empaneled to do, etc., might shed light on this.

From the Encorps post:

"...we finally received confirmation and written documentation in a direct email from a corps director that stated as follows: “The Membership Affairs Committee just ratified by the Membership that the minimum is now 55 members. The policy is 216 - Participant Levels – and is housed in the Policy and Procedures folder under Corporate documents in Backstage."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.