Jump to content

Northern Lights is NOT a rare example...


Recommended Posts

Hi, although I am disappointed by the recent story about Northern Lights, I am not terribly shocked. I can think of several D&BCs that continue to raise money althought they do not field a corps. I am not talking about corps that take one year off, but corps who repeatedly fail to produce a unit.

To highlight this, I want to point out Mairon Glory Cadets. MGC had not fielded a corps in 2 years (maybe 3 years), but they continue to raise money to fund a corps. The Executive Director of MGC continues to get paid, although the organization fails to meet it's mission. A quick review of MGC's IRS filing shows that there are only 2 people on the MGC Board of Directors, one of which, is the ED. All of this is public record, available on Guidestar.org (In fact, if you have ever wanted to know what the financial state of a specific corps is, I highly recommend you go to guidestar and check them out - there is a TON of good info there)

I say all of this not to bash a corps, but to show how stories like Northern Lights can happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MGC is also looking to get back. Just because an organization may take a season or two off, does not mean that all fundraising needs to cease. Keeping the cash flowing also means the organization can rebuild the coffers and come back, or to offer an alternative means to meeting its mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MGC is also looking to get back. Just because an organization may take a season or two off, does not mean that all fundraising needs to cease. Keeping the cash flowing also means the organization can rebuild the coffers and come back, or to offer an alternative means to meeting its mission.

I am in complete agreement, but where should the line be drawn? Should a corps be allowed to only have 2 people on it's Board of Directors? How long should a corps be "allowed to exist" if they continually fail to field a corps? I know this is more of a hypothetical question, but interested in hearing ya'lls thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fielding a corps is their sole mission?

It depends on the wording of the mission statement. If, and this is just a hypothetical situation, the mission read: "To provide youth a positive experience through music, teamwork, and dedication," they can go about reaching that goal through a drum corps, color guard, marching band, percussion ensemble, etc. They don't necessarily have to field a corps competitively, either. Even just doing local events until returning to competition would fulfill their mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe a corps should be able to stay a corps, even if they are not fielding if they are working on getting their act together. It is an organization that we are not in charge of, therefore, I do not think we have a say so as to how things go within their organization. If people are concerned about how they are using their money I can say there are only 2 things one can do: 1-contact the corps and find out how they are raising money, why, and what they are using it for, and 2-if we are unhappy, don't give them money-although I do not think this is the route to go.

I for one am all for a corps or any organization continuing their name/status if they are working to regroup or build on their name/model, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if an organization continues fund-raising to pay off their debt before regrouping, or even folding altogether? That's better than just leaving creditors hanging, and makes it easier for future organizations to receive credit.

There's also the case of a group like The Academy in Arizona. Did you know they started fund-raising in 1999? Then started up their ensembles in 2000 or 2001, but didn't field a corps until 2004? Should they have been denied the chance to build up their resources? At least they knew how to put the horse before the cart.

In the case of MGC, perhaps it is because of the problems they faced in the past that they're working to avoid a repeat when they come back out?

Garry in Vegas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a little sad about this, but not too sad.

I marched in the Argonauts from 94-96. After Argonauts folded in the fall of 1996, Jim and Randy Bairl, who were running Northern Lights at the time, stepped in and took over operation of the Band. We had good years in 97 and 98. We had great show designs that our staff worked very hard on. We had many instructors who are major players in the NW drum corps and Marching Band scene. Mike Anderson, Todd Zimbleman, Lewis Norfleet, Richard Kibbey, Bob Yeager, Mike Apodoca, Mike Freel, Greg Hall, Steve Kuske, Tim Wells, Bret Cappelutti, Kurt Jull and many others. We had great recruting which gave us great talent and size. I loved having Jim and Randy around because they cared about how we did, and wanted us to succeed. I was saddened to hear of Randy's passing, he was a fun guy. I realize now that perhaps they weren't the best at handling the organization as a business, but we all had quality experiences when they were in charge. I felt like I was the priority. Everything changed when they left, and the current(well I guess not anymore) management took over.

1999 was the last year Northern Lights fielded the band, and from the start I knew it was not going to be the same. Most of our staff did not return. The staff that remained and the few that joined us worked very hard that summer. We did almost no recruiting, which was obvious in our camp turnouts, and the final size of the Band. One shining thing about that summer though was our drumline. They were smokin' good with awesome arrangments. But we only really had one full time horn instructor, Steve Kuske who was and still is awesome. That and our lack of talented players in relation to previous years, made sectional and ensemble work difficult. The result was a mediocre band. We also had a different visual designer that year which was difficult for many of us because we all had "grown up" with Mike Anderson as our drill designer. Steve Sanger's drill was good, but it was just so different from what we had done before. We also had a smaller visual staff that year and a TON of innexperianced marchers. I believe if we had the same amount of attention, design and staff wise that year by the management, we would have had a superior show design, better recurting, and less membership turnover from the previous year. It was a dissapointing summer for me, and was the only year out of the six I marched that I was glad when it ended.

At the banquet that fall it was announced that we would not be fielding in 2000. This was not really a big surprise to many of us. It had become quite apparent, at least to me, that the band was no longer a priority for the organization. It was announced that day that we may possibly field a corps in 2001, but that never panned out. And me, of course, being a loyalist, didn't march my last two years in hope that I could ageout with the group that I had marched with since I was 14. A few years ago When Northern Lights stopped fielding all but their world guard, it was obvious to me that they had stopped serving youth, and had become an elitist organization.

I have been thinking about all this for years, and it is the first time I have had a chance to express my feelings about what happened to the Northern Lights organization. I am truly sorry if I offended anyone associated with the organization; but I believe when a youth organization stops serving youth, and begins serving itself, it should be shut down.

The Northern Lights I knew died in 1999, what folded in 2006 was not the organization that I was proud to be a part of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am in complete agreement, but where should the line be drawn? Should a corps be allowed to only have 2 people on it's Board of Directors? How long should a corps be "allowed to exist" if they continually fail to field a corps? I know this is more of a hypothetical question, but interested in hearing ya'lls thoughts.

Hey pal, no one gets to decide if a corps is "allowed to exist". Don't want to fund them? Don't donate. DCI does not have the authority to disband corp. They can only choose who is actually a member of DCI. That's it. So if MCG wants to continue to fundrasie with only 2 board members, that's their right. I'm with drumcat, you are in no place to judge or say who is "allowed" to do what just because you don't like it.

Edited by Morgoth Bauglir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...