Per the California Attorney General Vanguard is operating illegally as a non profit

[scheherazadesghost]

19 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

So, to sum it up, SCV is a bingo operation that thinks it is a Drum Corps.

This is why I advocate for an eventual separation of the two. It will never happen so why not say what I think?

But that revenue stream is both an outlier and a liability. This makes two reports, separated by at least a decade, of bingo fraud. I haven't seen this kind of model in any of the other arts non profits I've worked for. Nothing like it. (I know other examples exists, but my work didn't intersect with them. And my circle of professionals give side eye whenever I ask them about bingo as a NP revenue source.)

Edit to add... This, again, is my professional opinion, but here are some sources that reinforce my point:

https://grantstation.com/gs-insights/Fundraising-Through-Charitable-Gaming

https://prism.ucalgary.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/194b7c27-814d-4822-96d0-b1dba92f39dc/content

Edited May 4, 2023 by scheherazadesghost

[JimF-LowBari]

Thinking out loud here: If Bingo and it’s profits are connected to a group, what is the difference on tax laws comparing nonprofit to not nonprofit group. Or are the bingo games covered as a separate entity that gives profits to SCV?

(Thinking of when my group lost nonprofit for a while and how that affected the huge annual money maker)

Edited May 4, 2023 by JimF-LowBari

[Tenoris4Jazz]

4 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

💯 Didn't take it that way and appreciate your saying so. Also, it's crucial that other corps cross their t's and dot their i's. I hate that my corps is splayed out for our teachable moments but might as well learn from it if nothing else.

If it makes you feel any better, my heart sank when Spirit's issues came to light.  They've almost folded several times due to self-inflicted wounds, but there was enough alumnae who wanted the corps to survive even if it meant throwing everyone out and starting over.  I hope SCV gets the same chance.

[jjeffeory]

21 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

To claim that whistleblowers wouldn't want SCV around is rich.

If anything, we want it around more than the general public and we want it at a higher standard that doesn't subject members and staff to harmful environments. Everyone I know who has blown the whistle also offered to help, before and after blowing the whistle.

Just because all you see a whistleblower do is post online, doesn't mean that's all we do. We're doing the public a service by reporting out what we find when we have consent to do so. And there are legal protections for us for a reason... what we do is difficult.

Most of the other alum are fully disengaged (can't be contacted) or have stepped away in frustration. Sorry Vanguard is stuck with me...

Perhaps Vanguard didn't really "choose me" like it did the others.

My previous post was NOT directed towards you, btw. I very much think what you're doing is to protect vulnerable people and help end that cycle.

 

 

[Jeff Ream]

5 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

If the org doesn't have that kind of power, the individuals it harmed still have even less.

I just fear that some are giving whistleblowers more power than we actually have to "destroy" an institution. And, even though anyone outside of wb circles would have no way of knowing this... the amount of restraint demonstrated by every single one I'm in contact with is monastic and profoundly compassionate, given what they endured.

I think the subtext directed at wbs in this convo of ours is "be careful, don't break Vanguard pl0x." To which I can only say, "We are being incredibly delicate. But to move the dial, we also have to judiciously assertive as well. We love Vanguard too." And it's not like these wbs are some united force, most just want to be left alone.

I'm btw a hard rock and a place. Seriously. Alum with reports approached me as recently as last month. Beyond everything else, I'm stuck figuring out how to help ensure those and future reporters don't face retaliation. Unless anyone here has any better ideas about how to handle that...

My context is just be prepared for unexpected consequences. My old corps had huge issues after 97 and some crusaders in charge focusing on revenge instead of rebuilding. Yes you want to right the wrongs but you want to be sure you don’t burn it down also. 
 

and they burned it down. And never righted the wrongs or got the accountability they sought to boot. 

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, Richard Lesher said:

I hear ya. Others have said it before. However, let's look at the quantifiable aspect of it. I didn't crawl out from under my rock until both Corps were terminated. Enemies? Meh...... this isn't organized crime. I'm not losing drinking buddies out of all this. 

At worst, I'm the one pressing the accelerator. I'm not changing the destination. 

There are three groups of folks at play here: 

1) Those I am a mortal enemy of. These are folks closely tied to the current SCV leadership. They are constantly on the look out for ways to explain away the responsibility off of the shoulders of those in actual positions to execute material change and improvements. Somehow I am the one preventing progress. 

2) Those in my camp making efforts to force material change who know the behind the scenes score. Believe me, I'm often the one used as the mouth piece. Not many are willing to put themselves out like this. I'm not doing this single handedly. 

3) Then the overwhelming silent majority who simply don't know the ins and outs of the organization but are distant stakeholders. They don't like the direction of SCV, and they don't like my blunt head on tactics. They don't like what SCV is pushing out, and as much as they don't like what I say they can't ignore written warnings from the Department of Justice, absent financial audits, 990 tax filings, and two no longer existent Drum Corps. 

*****

I've seen this before. It took me two years while on the board to get a direction where the financials could be cleaned up. That was working from the inside, and even then being the loudest voice in the room finally pushing the issue until it couldn't be ignored. 

Now I totally get it. I know how the business model works, and even with my limited current information the fact both corps are defunct now is just about the worst possible outcome. So things are just not adding up. 

People fear SCV going away forever. I don't see that happening. There is too much money to be had from Bingo. Greed will dominate that outcome. SCV is needed in some remote capacity for the Bingo Cash Cow to continue to be milked.

All things absent of SCV existing as a drum corps there still is $3,000,000 of bingo market share they have easy access to. I don't see people in a position to keep that going letting it die by the wayside. 

If SCV doesn't come back it will be because those in a position to make them stay alive didn't follow through on what is needed to make them survive. 

Someone will still be cashing in on Bingo. That is for certain. 

Imo probably BD will cash in on it. Look at how they got USBands

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Thinking out loud here: If Bingo and it’s profits are connected to a group, what is the difference on tax laws comparing nonprofit to not nonprofit group. Or are the bingo games covered as a separate entity that gives profits to SCV?

(Thinking of when my group lost nonprofit for a while and how that affected the huge annual money maker)

Ask the Brigadiers RIP

[Lance]

The SCV board are the only ones who can "right wrongs".  Any of them who would try to blame their failure on anything said by anybody on here or social media should be removed and replaced with a professional.  If they aren't, then the org deserves to fail.  

So maybe start there when it comes to accountability. 

Nonprofits have publicly disclosed documents so people are going to talk.  SCV can best control the narrative by taking actual action to right wrongs and (hopefully) communicate it effectively.  

 

 

 

 

[IllianaLancerContra]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

My context is just be prepared for unexpected consequences. My old corps had huge issues after 97 and some crusaders in charge focusing on revenge instead of rebuilding. Yes you want to right the wrongs but you want to be sure you don’t burn it down also. 
 

and they burned it down. And never righted the wrongs or got the accountability they sought to boot. 

So which is worse:

A Corps with sketchy business and member-treatment practices, or

No Corps at all?

 

[Mello Dude]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

So which is worse:

A Corps with sketchy business and member-treatment practices, or

No Corps at all?

 

But it doesn't have to be either of those.  That's the travesty.  The problem when you start dealing in large sums of money you have to be SO careful who is manning the ship as it were.  Non-profits are so hard to do right.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by Mello Dude