Madison Scouts 2023

[HockeyDad]

12 hours ago, C.Holland said:

Yup. He went under the bus from some alumni, so did anyone who’s taught there.  It’s a fishbowl of varied unrealistic expectations. There’s been many a group that was shut down due to old dude toxicity.  It’s also why many younger alumni have no desire to mingle with with elder ones.  It’s like going to thanksgiving and listening to your cranky old uncle spout political propaganda at you all evening. 
 

if you’re a current scout reading this, I’m behind you all the way. Many of us are. If you’re coming near nyc, drop me a line. First beverage is on me. 

Keep beating that drum. It’s everybody’s fault except the BOD and ED. Yup. 

[TenHut]

14 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Keep beating that drum. It’s everybody’s fault except the BOD and ED. Yup. 

Defending failed leadership and deflecting blame are hallmarks of an organization that needs an intervention. 

[madisonsmiley]

On 7/8/2023 at 2:08 PM, gbass598 said:

I don't think the organization or activity matters but I find the far majority of alumni fall into 2 categories.

Cranky and vocal or apathetic and uninvolved.

Those that fall in between those 2 categories are the ones that matter and are doing the real work.

Cranky = they're wrong

Apathetic and uninvolved = whatever the issue is, it's their fault

Accountability = null value

Edited July 9, 2023 by madisonsmiley

[madisonsmiley]

On 7/8/2023 at 1:29 PM, kdaddy said:

While I enjoyed the Mason years (though preferred 2015 to anything Mason fielded), I'm pretty sure you could go back to the Madison threads in those years and see that they are full of complaints about the competitive and design direction of the corps. 

And that further proves the point that Madison alums have a history of being cranky and vocal, and potentially having a negative influence on designers wanting to join the team.

You're "pretty sure . . . the Madison threads . . . are full of complaints" about the competition and design direction while Mason was involved?" I missed them. Can someone show me? I'd appreciate it.

Edited July 9, 2023 by madisonsmiley

[madisonsmiley]

On 7/8/2023 at 9:44 AM, BlueStainGlass said:

I mean didn't their Facebook groups get shut down for how toxic it got? If the alumni only want people they like and threaten to withhold funding then they have to do what's best financially. And if they want the corps to still be like the 90s in 2023 it won't be competitive. So it's like shooting yourself in the foot. 

 

After yesterday they NEED a new drill writer. Boerma can write for 2023 style but the drill just seems high school marching band level and not like high BOA. Is that because of talent or design? Idk. 

Management and the board silence dissent. 

I don't know of a donor, and I've talked to many, that withheld financial support because management was making sound financial decisions. It's consistently been the other way around. 

Best wishes to all of the creative and instructional staff, and members for a great season! Nice to see them currently at 13. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by madisonsmiley

[madisonsmiley]

On 7/7/2023 at 4:26 PM, rmurrey74 said:

Designing at Madison is not looked at as a popular destination because of past experiences with the alumni base.  That’s definitely discussed throughout.  Some people like the freedom to create and openness to ideas of other organizations.  

Alumni have control over the Scouts' program? That's interesting. Who makes personnel decisions? I thought Komnick did. And aren't their programs designed for the judges and the audience? I'm surprised the alumni could have such an outsized influence on the Scouts' program design.

Best wishes to all of the creative and instructional staff, and members for a great season! Nice to see them currently at 13. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by madisonsmiley

[rmurrey74]

10 minutes ago, madisonsmiley said:

Alumni have control over the Scouts' program? That's interesting. Who makes personnel decisions? I thought Komnick did. And aren't their programs designed for the judges and the audience? I'm surprised the alumni could have such an outsized influence on the Scouts' program design.

Best wishes to all of the creative and instructional staff, and members for a great season! Nice to see them currently at 13. 

Correct, they have made past designers glad to be somewhere where they’re allowed complete freedom without all the negative comments from alumni living in the past. 

[BlueStainGlass]

11 minutes ago, madisonsmiley said:

Alumni have control over the Scouts' program? That's interesting. Who makes personnel decisions? I thought Komnick did. And aren't their programs designed for the judges and the audience? I'm surprised the alumni could have such an outsized influence on the Scouts' program design.

Best wishes to all of the creative and instructional staff, and members for a great season! Nice to see them currently at 13. 

If they are the large majority of income outside of whatever comes from competing I see them as investors.  If investors start selling stocks, the company loses value, tanks, and files for bankruptcy.   Company boards have meetings and all investors get to vote on stuff for what they believe is the best interest.  So IF alumni were to pull together and cut funding then yes they have control.

[madisonsmiley]

2 hours ago, BlueStainGlass said:

If they are the large majority of income outside of whatever comes from competing I see them as investors.  If investors start selling stocks, the company loses value, tanks, and files for bankruptcy.   Company boards have meetings and all investors get to vote on stuff for what they believe is the best interest.  So IF alumni were to pull together and cut funding then yes they have control.

By their actions, the board doesn't care about alumni donations. The board doesn't receive reports on donor retention and doesn't ask for them. Chris provides the board with a report that includes total dollars received from donations. When a four, five, or six figure donor stops giving or a donor takes the corps out of their will, the board doesn't know and doesn't care. There's no transparency or accountability. 

To stifle dissent, the board recently changed the bylaws so a donor must give $500 or volunteer 50 hours to have a vote for directors. Shortly after that they converted to what's called a self-perpetuating board: the board elects or appoints new directors. When you could vote if you were a donor, Chris Komnick approved the volunteer hours. Also, when you could vote if you donated, they instituted a policy to reject donations from any person or organization whose values do not align with the corps, which they've done to alumni that voiced dissent with management without any due process. It allowed Chris to say, "I don't like you. Keep your money. You can't vote."

Their board meetings are secret. No one can attend unless approved by, if I recall, the chair. For example, Carolina Crown's board meetings are open. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by madisonsmiley

[BlueStainGlass]

Do alums put the corps in their will?  Never heard it before but maybe some rich person has done it for any corps recently to go under.