Santa Clara Vanguard 2024

[Richard Lesher]

When SCV originally went delinquent based on 2019 audits they were issued a warning in September and October of 2021 and given 60 days. 

They did not get another warning until 2023. COVID was still happening. 

COVID had bought them a lot of time (of which all was squandered). 

Now, when they were given a warning in August of 2023 that was for FY 2021 as FY2019 had been cleared up. However, 2021 never got fully cleared up (rejected) and the warning still stood. 

Here is the very important take away. The official SECOND WARNING from the DOJ was dated 16-November. 

That was only 85 days, not a year or more. 

The CA DOJ is operating much more in line with the timelines they provide now.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Richard Lesher

[scheherazadesghost]

11 minutes ago, Richard Lesher said:

The easter bunny has it. 

 

8 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Nepotism & inbreeding are often related (so to speak) 

Gross. "Keep it in the family" means something a little more gross now. Why do you think I'm so vocal?

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Let us know if you hear the strains of  “Nearer My God To Thee” coming from Space Park Drive. 

Send in the clowns was renamed send in the board

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, Richard Lesher said:

COVID has delayed the CA DOJ, and they are really close to operating as normal. 

note i never said who it delayed. just that it could have delayed

[Jeff Ream]

46 minutes ago, Richard Lesher said:

I totally got you..........

 

 

A follow up  question General Powell....when do you anticipate the big bombs being dropped and what type of damage do you expect them to cause?

[Richard Lesher]

27 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

note i never said who it delayed. just that it could have delayed

Oh, clarification............ SCV rumor mill has been using the COVID excuse. I also believe COVID slowed down the DOJ. 

[Old Guy]

2 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I would be curious to read it.

Also, an honest, open discussion within this organization needs to happen regarding BoD term limits. One director has been there for 17 years total, with their latest term exceeding the best practice of 3 2-year stints. If the nose for term limits isn't even developed here, that could be yet another flag to watch.

Term limits exist across professional fields for good reason.

Serving for 17 years isn’t necessarily a bad thing in my book. It might depend on the role, the personality, the implications. 
 

There was discussion about losing institutional knowledge a few month ago.

 

In the board I serve, it is me who insist to older fox to keep going as, while they wish to leave (and there is always one every other year who does despite my plea), most board members do between 1-3 years (while their kids are in). 
 

Decision are more sound and solid with half new blood and half older ones who know what came before, why we do certain things this way, etc. 
 

I see drum corps as a card castle. Very fragile. 
 

 

[Old Guy]

2 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Virtual. Still. 
Sooo many red flags. Almost everywhere you look in this organization. 

I don’t like virtual meeting. However, where I am, most people willing the give time and make sure the corps is run properly are parents of the members. 
 

with members coming from everywhere, it’s either you limit your pool of board candidates or you go virtual. 

[scheherazadesghost]

28 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Serving for 17 years isn’t necessarily a bad thing in my book. It might depend on the role, the personality, the implications.

There was discussion about losing institutional knowledge a few month ago.

In the board I serve, it is me who insist to older fox to keep going as, while they wish to leave (and there is always one every other year who does despite my plea), most board members do between 1-3 years (while their kids are in).

Decision are more sound and solid with half new blood and half older ones who know what came before, why we do certain things this way, etc.

I see drum corps as a card castle. Very fragile.

That's cool but best-practice is a max of 3 two-year stints to prevent problems like groupthink. That is plenty of time to ensure institutional knowledge is being passed along sustainably (and get everything else done.) There are all kinds of strategies for ensuring the right mixture of new and old blood, as I agree balance is important.

Of course drum corps is a fragile castle. All nonprofits are. Vanguard is especially so. Any one thing can tip it over. Weallknowdis.

And... also... some of us have been trying to point that exact thing out for a while... but few wanted to listen. If it falls (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) it's because external and internal factors have been weakening it for a while, not because someone pointed out that hey, I think I saw a major leak in the basement last year... maybe that has something to do with it?

All that said, the sacrifices and risks young members are willing to make to march in '24 (to keep our legacy alive) are powerful. I was also taking such risks as a member... I just had no real way of knowing about it.

These young members should know about the issues by now, and they are choosing Vanguard anyway.

[Old Guy]

7 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

That's cool but best-practice is a max of 3 two-year stints to prevent problems like groupthink. That is plenty of time to ensure institutional knowledge is being passed along sustainably (and get everything else done.) There are all kinds of strategies for ensuring the right mixture of new and old blood, as I agree balance is important.

Of course drum corps is a fragile castle. All nonprofits are. Vanguard is especially so. Any one thing can tip it over. Weallknowdis.

And... also... some of us have been trying to point that exact thing out for a while... but few wanted to listen. If it falls (and I sincerely hope it doesn't) it's because external and internal factors have been weakening it for a while, not because someone pointed out that hey, I think I saw a major leak in the basement last year... maybe that has something to do with it?

All that said, the sacrifices and risks young members are willing to make to march in '24 (to keep our legacy alive) are powerful. I was also taking such risks as a member... I just had no real way of knowing about it.

These young members should know about the issues by now, and they are choosing Vanguard anyway.

I may understand wrongly but to me, board, staff, volunteers, donors, ceo are all the same in importance. If you limit them all to 6 years, there would no more non profit. 
 

As an administrator, why would I want a great staff to leave for someone I consider less talented, less invested, etc just because the 6 years limit is reach?
 

Same with a board member or full time personal. 
 

What I saw in my area was the wrong person taking over corps after corps and closing them one by one. 
 

Why would I take out the only few persons who make it work for extensive time without any apparent problem ever coming up, just to replace them for the sake of replacing them, probably with the only other people interested: those who shot the other corps one after the other?
 

I understand your point that you want the bad folks not to be there forever. But not every org are in the same place. 
 

And what about people who see themself doing it for life for half the salary they could make somewhere else?  We refuse them?  No to their dream?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Old Guy
Clarification