Santa Clara Vanguard 2024

[IllianaLancerContra]

10 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

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, being there for there for less the right reason? 
 

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 the only few persons who make it work for extensive time without any apparent problem ever coming up?  
 

Should we lend the organisation to those drum corps lover willing to invest themself after closing 4-8-12 corps in the last 20 years?! 
 

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?

I think it the the board, which provides oversight, which should have term limits 

[scheherazadesghost]

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

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. 

Term limits are, in some cases, written into law... so it's not necessarily just a matter of best practice. Most relevant resources (websearch for yourself) also encourage 6 years. And, yes, while all stakeholders you mention are of the same importance, only the board is recommended to have term limits.

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

As an administrator, why would I want a great staff to leave for someone I consider less talented, less invested, being there for there for less the right reason? 

This is only one possible (worst-case) scenario. Others (that are more positive) include strategic pipelining of talent, advancement, and recruitment. But again, I'm not talking about term limits for anyone outside of the board so this is moot.

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Same with a board member or full time personal. 

No. Again, the resources aren't lying: https://www.captrust.com/resources/nonprofit-board-member-term-limits-easier-said-than-done/

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Why would I take the only few persons who make it work for extensive time without any apparent problem ever coming up?  

To prevent groupthink and its adverse outcomes, for one. But again, I encourage you to look into the justifications for term limits for nonprofit boards. There are many many viable justifications for term limits.

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

Should we lend the organisation to those drum corps lover willing to invest themself after closing 4-8-12 corps in the last 20 years?! 

I'm not sure I understand this point, but I'm willing to discuss if you explain it further. If it's what I think it is I'll just say that every single person willing to invest time, money, volunteer hours, work into this activity is a stakeholder. Each of us is needed to keep the legacy alive and bring it back to thriving. Nonprofits are designed to be inherently communal and democratic for a reason... because they don't contribute to society like other companies via taxes. Their "tax" is being transparently beholden to their stakeholders. So, in essence, yes, those drum corps lovers you speak of should be more involved. If that's at the board level because they have talent to contribute, so be it.

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

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

We're here discussing VMAPA. Because they are a nonprofit, they share many challenges similar to other nonprofits... especially drum corps. If others are extrapolating fine, but I'm very careful about drawing conclusions intentionally.

15 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

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?

I think I'll just refer back to my earlier point and say that I was discussing BoD term limits only. 'Cause those are the only positions that most experts recommend following them. For sound, documented, web-searchable reasons.

That said, org staff should also have a reasonable and sustainable succession/recruitment plan as well. One person in any one position for too long without such a plan is begging for disaster eventually.

[Jeff Ream]

31 minutes ago, Old Guy said:

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, being there for there for less the right reason? 
 

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 the only few persons who make it work for extensive time without any apparent problem ever coming up?  
 

Should we lend the organisation to those drum corps lover willing to invest themself after closing 4-8-12 corps in the last 20 years?! 
 

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?

the size of the board should be much larger for an organization with this kind of money flowing through it.

[craiga]

1 minute ago, Jeff Ream said:

the size of the board should be much larger for an organization with this kind of money flowing through it.

How many people serve on their BOD? (For context, Boston has 50)

[Jeff Ream]

3 minutes ago, craiga said:

How many people serve on their BOD? (For context, Boston has 50)

last i saw i think it was 8?

[olddrummer34]

I am just creating an account to tell the 3-4 of you that continually post about NOTHING in the thread to PLEASE STOP. Take your grievances to your DMs and let the rest of us talk about the 2024 corps. 

[scheherazadesghost]

18 minutes ago, craiga said:

How many people serve on their BOD? (For context, Boston has 50)

I'm imagining that your BoD chair is a beast to heard that many cats professionals. 'Cause from roughly the same distance at which I observe VMAPA, Boston has what appears to be a very large, very high-functioning BoD. I hear that was hard earned, so my respect.

[Richard Lesher]

17 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

last i saw i think it was 8?

That is correct. In 2020 before things fell apart the board count was 17 (per the 990). 

The board membership hasn't been this low since the Bingo Fraud of 2005. 

[LabMaster]

12 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

last i saw i think it was 8?

I’m not sure there are 50 board members but there definitely more than 40.  If you go to Bostons website you can open the BOD table and see all the names and available bios.  It shows a wide range of experience and expertise in many areas that enable contributions of skill and expertise to cover many aspects of running the corps.  This stems from lessons learned over the years as well as understanding what was and is needed for sustainable success.  A large BOD seems necessary so no small group or a single person wields enough power to mismanage an org. Too much visibility.  And for BAC, no one is afraid to challenge anything that jeopardizes the org., that has taken so long to get where they are.  Like a metaphorical cutting ranks.

 

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, Richard Lesher said:

That is correct. In 2020 before things fell apart the board count was 17 (per the 990). 

The board membership hasn't been this low since the Bingo Fraud of 2005. 

Are there openings or do bylaws allow size of board to change? Wondering as my old church (since closed) almost couldn’t conduct business due to not enough people on council. Had to have a special congregational meeting to change bylaws about size of council.