34 + ME

[Govie Goddess]

By looking at the 2006 Prelims video, and counting members, and hopefully not on field judges or rain drops. Not that one could easily tell with the camera angles. Or that the previous years or coming years corps are the same size.

Govenaires <= 35 <==<<< (but really hard to tell and close)

We had 40 marching members in '06 (not including DM or AG)

[audiodb]

As someone mentioned in the other thread on this stuff, if you're really concerned about this contact corps directors or DCA directly.

Ya done that? I'm bettin not.

Why do you think that would be appropriate? After all:

1. There are several corps directors participating in these threads already.

2. We have had DCA PR people answer questions and clarify things in DCP threads in the past (hopefully this will continue).

3. Contacting "DCA directly" is not appropriate. The job of the DCA officers is not to make the rules, but rather to implement them. And I already know they don't just send off copies of their rule book to anyone who asks.

4. And if I were inclined to lobby for change, this wouldn't be the time for it. The decision has already been made and will not be up for review for two years. I have contacted directors in the past - in the weeks preceding a vote, not following it. That wasn't an option this time, as I was unaware of this proposal until after the meeting took place.

[LegalEagle50]

just thinking out loud here so work with me a bit please.

Lee made a very big stink on-line about the so-called proposed Renegades Rule. many people got behind both him and the proposed rule and and vocalized against it, going so far as to call out the directors and staff of the northeast corps that supposedly endorsed this proposed rule.

was this 35 rule, which apparently had originally been proposed as 40, not brought up in the original meeting back in the fall? if it was, how come no one tried to rally the troops then after that meeting? was it presumed that it stood no chance of passing? IF the same approach was taken that Lee took do you feel the final outcome of the DCA vote would have been different?

i'm sorry but IF Lee et al were aware of this proposed rule and did nothing to bring it to the forefront i feel it was self-serving. THIS rule hurts current and future DCA corps much more than the so-called Renegades rule IMO. again it comes down to looking out for yourself, your corps and who cares about the next guy. for all that great talk about Drum Corps United i guess that means United if you are above 35 members?

IMO if people had been made aware of this 40 members and under rule, as originally proposed, the response to it would have been far more vocal than what we saw here when Lee launched his fight on the other proposal.

if i am wrong and this rule was slipped in under the table only at the meeting last week and no one had time to prepare to fight against it, i apologize for any chaos my commentary causes.

[Vagabond Skyliner]

Why do you think that would be appropriate? After all:

1. There are several corps directors participating in these threads already.

2. We have had DCA PR people answer questions and clarify things in DCP threads in the past (hopefully this will continue).

3. Contacting "DCA directly" is not appropriate. The job of the DCA officers is not to make the rules, but rather to implement them. And I already know they don't just send off copies of their rule book to anyone who asks.

4. And if I were inclined to lobby for change, this wouldn't be the time for it. The decision has already been made and will not be up for review for two years. I have contacted directors in the past - in the weeks preceding a vote, not following it. That wasn't an option this time, as I was unaware of this proposal until after the meeting took place.

I don't think he meant to contact DCA Directors. He was implying that all of us that were posting were just all talk. That if we "really" meant to help those that might fall a little short should contact those "Corps Director's" Which I HAVE DONE. The hard part for us that want to help them is. Knowing which Corps will need the help. So I have sent an email to 5 of the smaller units, to let them know. I am available and at what shows. AND, I bet other people not in a specific competeing Corps and Alumni people are doing the same!

[RsD]

GROW or DIE!

(Because small corps are just plain bad for business . . . )

It's "hilarious" because I just finished reading a thread about how good Class A is/was for DCA, and then I follow it up with this thread. C'mon, DCA.

[Gary Matczak]

just thinking out loud here so work with me a bit please.

Lee made a very big stink on-line about the so-called proposed Renegades Rule. many people got behind both him and the proposed rule and and vocalized against it, going so far as to call out the directors and staff of the northeast corps that supposedly endorsed this proposed rule.

was this 35 rule, which apparently had originally been proposed as 40, not brought up in the original meeting back in the fall? if it was, how come no one tried to rally the troops then after that meeting? was it presumed that it stood no chance of passing? IF the same approach was taken that Lee took do you feel the final outcome of the DCA vote would have been different?

i'm sorry but IF Lee et al were aware of this proposed rule and did nothing to bring it to the forefront i feel it was self-serving. THIS rule hurts current and future DCA corps much more than the so-called Renegades rule IMO. again it comes down to looking out for yourself, your corps and who cares about the next guy. for all that great talk about Drum Corps United i guess that means United if you are above 35 members?

IMO if people had been made aware of this 40 members and under rule, as originally proposed, the response to it would have been far more vocal than what we saw here when Lee launched his fight on the other proposal.

if i am wrong and this rule was slipped in under the table only at the meeting last week and no one had time to prepare to fight against it, i apologize for any chaos my commentary causes.

I have been having a lot of those same thoughts Liz,.................

[LegalEagle50]

I have been having a lot of those same thoughts Liz,.................

so i'm not the only one?

thank you :)

[84BDsop]

I believe the only rule up for discussion WAS the "Renegade rule"...and then ONLY because lee brlough it up here in the first place.

Unlike DCI, DCA did not post the list of proposed rules for public viewing prior to the meeting. If they HAD, we could've discussed this as well, and all our arguments against it could've been brought up.

As it turned out, some people at the meeting DID speak out against it...Darkman for one...but it fell on deaf ears....and the ORIGINAL minimum number was 40....which means Govies would've barely made the field if it'd been in effect THIS year. He was able to talk it down to 35, but that's still going to be tough for some corps.

Culture of secrecy = BAD for small corps....and now they're stuck with it...of course, if all corps had a vote on the activity they're involved in (instead of the top 10), it may not have passed...but that's another issue...

[LegalEagle50]

I believe the only rule up for discussion WAS the "Renegade rule"...and then ONLY because lee brlough it up here in the first place.

but that is a big part of my question ~ if this rule has far greater impact on DCA overall why if Lee brought one thing public did he not bring this as well?

[JohnZ]

I believe the only rule up for discussion WAS the "Renegade rule"...and then ONLY because lee brlough it up here in the first place.

Unlike DCI, DCA did not post the list of proposed rules for public viewing prior to the meeting. If they HAD, we could've discussed this as well, and all our arguments against it could've been brought up.

The directors had a packet containing a number of proposed changes in advance of the meeting. I can't confirm whether the minimum membership rule was in that packet, but I believe it was.

Great point, Liz - you were not alone.