Santa Clara Vanguard 2024

[scheherazadesghost]

6 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

It is a variation on a quote from Orwell’s Animal Farm.  Basically (in context) means that the rules are not enforced equally among all Corps.  

Oh no, I dig the references. I was just asking you to hold my beer while I extrapolate further.

[IllianaLancerContra]

15 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Oh no, I dig the references. I was just asking you to hold my beer while I extrapolate further.

Ok.  Sometimes I can be rather dense.  

[TOC]

2 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

Well, if the staff and members can set aside a little competitiveness this upcoming season,     

Glad to read that you're still optimistic. 

[Richard Lesher]

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

It is a variation on a quote from Orwell’s Animal Farm.  Basically (in context) means that the rules are not enforced equally among all Corps.  

Absolutely...........

I handed DCI documentation from the California DOJ, and confirmation from the Pennsylvania Department of State and DCI chose to take the words of the organizations in financial default, expired non profit registration, and rape culture over state regulator documentation. 

Then I have to remember DCI is composed of organizations that are in violation themselves........... Ohhhhhh.........what was I thinking..................

[2muchcoffeeman]

20 hours ago, Boss Anova said:

. . .  The Corps name should be removed from DCI’s  official website for the simple reason of limiting financial liability exposure in any future lawsuit . . . .

From one non-lawyer to another . . . 

I don't share the same sensation of danger. A few reasons:

So you sue DCI. What are you going to get when you win? A VFW-era snare drum an old fax machine? It's a membership organization -- an office with some computers and a CMS system. All assets, such as they are -- 20-year-old eq trucks and beat-up horn lines, maybe a few buildings and a couple acres of real estate -- belong to the corps, not DCI. You'd spend more on the lawyers than you'd win in a judgment. The only motivation to sue DCI would be on principle -- to endure great personal expense to persuade a jury that the injuries DCI visited upon you are so severe they deserve the corporate death penalty.

. . . but that would be weird, because, most likely, the horribles you endured would have been delivered by a corps, not by anyone at DCI HQ in Indianapolis. I would venture to say that, as far as legal liability goes, the relationship between a member corps and DCI amounts to bupkus. As far as DCI's bylaws are concerned, "membership" is a status, not a contractual arrangement. You can't even equate it to a franchise agreement, where HQ at least has some responsibility for the ingredients in the secret sauce and the items on the menu. DCI has no such leverage over internal corps matters. DCI members get a vote on competition rules and association membership, and some of them get show payments. And that's about it, more or less. They are entitled to certain membership benefits, like someone with a Costco card.

DCI member corps agree to abide by certain rules of conduct that are meant to support member safety, financial stability, tax compliance, and the like. But (again: Not a lawyer!) these are expectations placed upon membership, not statements of DCI responsibility. In other words, the "enforcement" is in the possibility of being discovered and having membership revoked. There is little in the membership relationship between DCI and its members that bestows affirmative enforcement and investigative duties or powers upon DCI. In still other words, DCI is not on the hook to be the cop -- it is the members that created DCI; not the other way around.

If an individual corps behaves badly in financial, safety or other matters, responsibility for that misbehavior sits first and only with the corps itself. Suing DCI for the bad behavior of a member would, I imagine, be the legal equivalent of suing the American Automobile Association for the DUI of an individual motorist.

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong about all that. All I know is that, if I were on a jury and a lawyer was trying to persuade me to find against DCI for the misdeeds of an independent member organization, I'd think to myself, you're barking up the wrong tree.

(The matter of SCV's world-class status is separate from DCI membership. It is possible to recruit, train, transport and put onto the field a corps that 1) satisfies the DCI definition of "world class" yet is 2) not a member of DCI. And that is what SCV in 2024 will be -- a world-class non-member -- if it can pull it off.)

 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by 2muchcoffeeman

[scheherazadesghost]

2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Ok.  Sometimes I can be rather dense.  

Gimme back that beer then! 😜 No, it was @KVG_DC who brought me up to speed about Animal Farm and the BAC. Hands down one of my faves of all time. I love it when corps bite the hand.

2 hours ago, TOC said:

Glad to read that you're still optimistic. 

Wish I could say that's what it is. It's more that I've accepted the indomitable, voracious nature of the org and alumni who have a tendency to place competition/performance above all else. I get it, it's what the org is designed to do... and I've railed on them for mission failure in the past. But, they have historically, consistently overlooked crucial components... and I have less than no power to point out how much more important those components are than getting the show on the road.

I always said they should've taken two years off to really nail everything down. But since they're moving forward with 2024 no matter what, I get to strike a weird balance between continuing to be critical of the leadership and staff while lavishing the members with my usual ridiculous amounts of adoration. I'm optimistic that the membership will be stellar as ever.

...just wish the adults would get out of their way so everyone else could see them compete without one hand tied behind their backs... and, in turn, have the chance to adore them even a fraction as much as I do.

[TOC]

1 hour ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

  It is possible to recruit, train, transport and put onto the field a corps that 1) satisfies the DCI definition of "world class" yet is 2) not a member of DCI. And that is what SCV in 2024 will be -- a world-class non-member -- if it can pull it off.)

If the state of CA allows it, don't you think?

[Boss Anova]

1 hour ago, 2muchcoffeeman said:

From one non-lawyer to another . . . 

. I would venture to say that, as far as legal liability goes, the relationship between a member corps and DCI amounts to bupkus. As far as DCI's bylaws are concerned, "membership" is a status, not a contractual arrangement. You can't even equate it to a franchise agreement, where HQ at least has some responsibility for the ingredients in the secret sauce and the items on the menu. DCI has no such leverage over internal corps matters. DCI members get a vote on competition rules and association membership, and some of them get show payments. And that's about it

 

 

 The Troopers of 2005 would beg to differ however that  ( your words) "  DCI has no such leverage over internal Corps matters ". DCI  in 2005 after that season suspended the Troopers for the 2006 season and mandated that the Corps change mgt there as a mandatory condition of return to the ranks of DCI, and for the return to competition.  Troopers took the suspension, and the year off in 2006, and complied with DCI's directive to change management there,. Once DCI Board of Directors were satisfied the Troopers  had also complied with the  submittance  of  IRS payments and verifications of such to DCI HQ,  the Troopers were then allowed by DCI Board of Directors vote in 2006 to return to the field of competition in 2007. ( See historic info below )

   Group wants Troopers to stop marching (trib.com)

[Daave]

Having spent a week one day in Casper, if one is putting any credence in the journalism capabilities the Casper Star Tribune, it would be be misplaced.

[2muchcoffeeman]

22 minutes ago, Boss Anova said:

 The Troopers of 2005 would beg to differ however that  ( your words) "  DCI has no such leverage over internal Corps matters ". DCI  in 2005 after that season suspended the Troopers for the 2006 season and mandated that the Corps change mgt there as a mandatory condition of return to the ranks of DCI, and for the return to competition.  Troopers took the suspension, and the year off in 2006, and complied with DCI's directive to change management there,. Once DCI Board of Directors were satisfied the Troopers  had also complied with the  submittance  of  IRS payments and verifications of such to DCI HQ,  the Troopers were then allowed by DCI Board of Directors vote in 2006 to return to the field of competition in 2007. ( See historic info below )

   Group wants Troopers to stop marching (trib.com)

Even if 100% accurate on those details, none of it establishes DCI being responsible -- i.e., legally liable -- for whatever the Troopers did, or didn't, do. DCI laid out conditions, and Troop decided to comply. Troop could have said no, and walked away, and DCI would have had no power to stop them.

Point is, such a set of carrot-and-stick facts is not the same thing as DCI having, or being able to have, any kind of direct control over the corps. If you want to establish that DCI has legal exposure because SCV is a member, Troopers 2006 isn't the precedent you need, I don't think.