Where is the love?

[2000Cadet]

3 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

I didn't ask him anything except a question in a thread that's vanished. Still no answer there. In this thread, he hopped in and defended the org without my prompting. I asked whether I was missing something (quite open to the possibility) and he responded that I was incorrect about my verifiable observations. I even provided info from y'all's board, by his prompting, to further my point. 🤷🏽‍♀️

I don't understand the pushback on holding orgs to higher ethical/transparency standards. I'm glad you were appeased by their response; great, they need you and all other faithful supporters right now. I, too, recognize that value 'cause I'm actually not a monster or an enemy. Where we differ is that I also see value in raising questions and concerns, as publicly and respectfully as possible.

I just think public discourse is important in public nonprofits. And I've gotten results.

The pushback is the fact that a few people have already walked in with their own preconceived notions about what was going on within the organization, and many are requesting answers to questions on which they've already solidly formed their own opinions.

What is also rich to me is many of these questions only arise when things take a turn. But when things are unicorns and rainbows, there are crickets, naturally. 

As for the bolded section, I do not think we differ in that idea. But I also recognize there are legal issues involved and while many of us do have questions, there is only so much information that can be put out there. 

The only thing I'm saying is we could all learn a little empathy and patience instead of coming out the gate with pitchforks. 

[scheherazadesghost]

26 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said:

The pushback is the fact that a few people have already walked in with their own preconceived notions about what was going on within the organization, and many are requesting answers to questions on which they've already solidly formed their own opinions.

My commentary in this thread has demonstrated my willingness to bend (in the case of Chris pointing out that his board does have nonprofit pros... remember? I said kudos?)

That doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade, or in this case, the spitting image of sour alum responses to valid concerns what they are. Again, that's not a "notion," that's and observed and verified behavioral trend that is not good for the sustainability of the activity. It eats away at the trust of what could be extremely loyal donors or volunteers.

26 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said:

What is also rich to me is many of these questions only arise when things take a turn. But when things are unicorns and rainbows, there are crickets, naturally. 

Again, not in my case. I started calling things out in 2022 before both Vanguard hiatuses, the Cadets hiatus and others. I haven't experienced unicorns and rainbows in this activity pretty much ever so that's foreign to me. Also, if this thread isn't enough evidence, it's kind hard to speak out, especially when things are going well from all appearances. Retaliation in all its ugly forms is alive and well in this activity, like it or not.

26 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said:

As for the bolded section, I do not think we differ in that idea. But I also recognize there are legal issues involved and while many of us do have questions, there is only so much information that can be put out there. 

Just because I'm calling for transparency doesn't mean I don't understand that. I literally included an article a few comments that summarizes that very challenge.

26 minutes ago, 2000Cadet said:

The only thing I'm saying is we could all learn a little empathy and patience instead of coming out the gate with pitchforks. 

You can only earn back the empathy of some with consistent, diligent, repeated demonstrations of trustworthiness. My well for empathy is vast and broad, but not when I'm regarded the way I am nearly across the board. And again, not just me... but others like me who raise valid questions to various corps. Numerous others. When that same expectation for empathy extended to them, I will be the first to yield.

Edited November 6, 2023 by scheherazadesghost
typo

[2000Cadet]

8 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

My commentary in this thread has demonstrated my willingness to bend (in the case of Chris pointing out that his board does have nonprofit pros... remember? I said kudos?)

That doesn't mean I won't call a spade a spade, or in this case, the spitting image of sour alum responses to valid concerns what they are. Again, that's not a "notion," that's and observed and verified behavioral trend that is not good for the sustainability of the activity. It eats away at the trust of what could be extremely loyal donors or volunteers.

Again, not in my case. I started calling things out in 2022 before both Vanguard hiatuses, the Cadets hiatus and others. I haven't experienced unicorns and rainbows in this activity pretty much ever so that's foreign to me. Also, if this thread isn't enough evidence, it's kind hard to speak out, especially when things are going well from all appearances. Retaliation in all its ugly forms is alive and well in this activity, like it or not.

Just because I'm calling for transparency doesn't mean I don't understand that. I literally included an article a few comments that summarizes that very challenge.

You can only earn back the empathy of some with consistent, diligent, repeated demonstrations of trustworthiness. My well for empathy is vast and broad, but not when I'm regarded the way I am nearly across the board. And again, not just me... but others like me who raise valid questions to various corps. Numerous others. When that same expectation for empathy extended to them, I will be the first to yield.

Well, I'm not here to invalidate your or other people's concerns. However, no organization, non-profit or for profit, is perfect, and they deserve to be held accountable. But there comes a point where people need to step back and recognize that, though they may not receive the answers they think they deserve, it does not mean those organizations are not trying to fix their issues (nor does it mean they ARE trying to fix them). 

 

[cixelsyd]

5 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Yeah. That’s a controversial word. Let me try a reply that doesn’t use that word. 
My problem here (MY problem, others are entitled to their opinions and I respect that), I think, is that I’m just not buying the explanation provided by the BOD member. Paraphrasing (in other words, how my brain interpreted it) - some bills came in late that we weren’t expecting, and busses were an issue and we won’t skimp on that kind of stuff.   And that’s why they can’t tour in 2024.  I’m not buying it. There is more to the story here. That’s where I am with this. 

There are two responses that come to mind.

1.  Generally speaking, drum corps is like many other amateur competitive activities in that it spends to whatever extent its constituency is willing to contribute to the competitive cause.  For 100 years, we have had corps with budgets based on the three-legged stool of member fees, program-generated revenue and "fundraising" done by or donated from the corps constituency. 

Corps live or die depending on the generosity of others.  You want full transparency... there it is.

2.  Specifically speaking, the Cadets have gone through a total reorganization upon parting with YEA!.  But you are probably right - there is more to the story.  They may essentially be going through another reorganization right now with the move to Erie.  When you look at the "revenue" thread here, you do not see nearly as many of those ideas in practice at Cadets as you did 6 years ago.  The likely path to recovery here involves several things:

• a replacement CEO
• constituents developing new revenue-generating programs and fundraising events
• re-engaging with the donor base

Those things should probably occur in the sequence listed.  I sense this is part of the reason the corps is taking a year off, because they cannot fix all of that quickly enough to do 2024 right.

If my description of the situation is accurate, we will not get greater transparency right now.  Going forward, we will get it gradually as the above pieces of the puzzle are assembled.

[scheherazadesghost]

1 minute ago, 2000Cadet said:

Well, I'm not here to invalidate your or other people's concerns. However, no organization, non-profit or for profit, is perfect, and they deserve to be held accountable. But there comes a point where people need to step back and recognize that, though they may not receive the answers they think they deserve, it does not mean those organizations are not trying to fix their issues (nor does it mean they ARE trying to fix them).

Respectfully, I also never implied or indicated that I believed they weren't all doing their best to right their respective ships. It is actually an incredible depth of empathy from which my criticisms abound. Again, I've been in nonprofits with relatively higher stakes, much more pressure and time sensitivity, and that are operating at much higher efficiency levels. The cognitive dissonance is real: but I promise, I can manage to be both empathetic and demanding in my calls for transparency as a heartfelt stakeholder in for this activity. It's when I and others are painted as unyielding negative Nancies who "just don't get it" that you'll read me pushback. It's oversimplification and denial of my career in the field.

But time is of the essence and, as I have before, I sometimes see icebergs before other alum who are otherwise blinded by these unicorns and rainbows you speak of (but which I've never witnessed, myself.) I've been shamed for both pointing the icebergs out in advance of direct hits, and for pointing them out too soon, and for doing so in the wrong way. There's a point where simply putting the info/questions/critiques out there, however they appear, is better than not saying anything. Criticism about the delivery and timing be ######.

And I'd argue that, despite their weakened states, both of corps are run by well-intending, heartfelt professionals who can handle feedback they don't like with poise instead of panic. It's how nonprofits are supposed to work, especially because public oversight is the exchange for tax benefits. The article I linked talks about this as well.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, craiga said:

I am frankly surprised that it hasn't dawned on anyone that perhaps the reason why the Cadets organization isn't giving specifics may be on advice of legal counsel.  Given their history with their former director, this wouldn't seem too far fetched, would it?

i have said before that lawyers may have to have some say.

[2000Cadet]

17 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

i have said before that lawyers may have to have some say.

Clearly some people (including myself) didn't realize this. 

[keystone3ply]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

i have said before that lawyers may have to have some say.

 

[JimF-LowBari]

3 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

 

Just reminds me that my lawyer gets paid by the hour….

[Jeff Ream]

6 hours ago, keystone3ply said:

 

that'll really drive up the billable hours