Sign the Petition

[garfield]

14 minutes ago, Stu said:

DCI has the official statement that there are no legal or fiduciary ties between the corps and Drum Corps International.... but it comes with this injection, “… other than those associated with membership and participation in an event”.  Also, DCI admits that they do indeed meddle somewhat into the inner workings of each corps with the statement, “That said, Drum Corps International has an interest in helping corps remain financially healthy and organizationally sound. Therefore, each year some resources are allocated to evaluate and support corps that may require assistance."

The problem with your stance, Gar, is that DCI admits that they do indeed have association with each corps membership and participation combined with the admitted DCI meddling in evaluation of individual corps inner workings; that negates your claim that DCI has no vested interest in the membership, participation, and inner workings of each corps using the DCI banner.

And if I were a parent, and something happened to my child in this type of situation with a corps under the banner of DCI, I would have my attorney key on on those '...other than...' and '... that said...' lines in the DCI statement and hold DCI accountable as well.  Because with those caveats, DCI does admit that they do indeed have a vested interest in the inner workings of the corps under their banner.

But I never said that.  You're conflating DCI's "meddling" with DCI becoming the arbiter of whether its member corps have established and practiced policies on this issue.  It doesn't exist.  DCI doesn't determine what business practices a corps uses, only that it operates in a "financially healthy" manner.

If your attorney is any good at all, he'll tell you that, to win a case, you have to follow the money, and it ain't in DCI (although they undoubtedly have insurance for such liabilities).

 

[Stu]

1 minute ago, Tim K said:

This is why there are calls for a National registry, but this would only list people convicted and not those accused. So someone who is on administrative leave from a school district or fired based on suspicion would not be listed on an FBI check or a state check.

A) I would NEVER want a registry of those who are just accused.  There have been far, far, far too many false accusations; a person is supposed to be presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law, and a registry like that would destroy the lives of innocent people.

B) The problem with the Federal government creating a National list of State crimes, not Federal crimes but State crimes flies against the Tenth Amendment.  However, since convictions are deemed public information I suppose that a private party could create a State by State crime list; but the amount of data to collect would be overwhelming.

[garfield]

11 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

If an organization is at the point whereas they can’t find qualified individuals who agree to educate and/or instruct their marching members who don’t have a background of inappropriate behavior with minors, then yes it’s being tolerated and condoned. In Cadets case maybe they couldn’t find anyone else to say yes I’ll join your staff. I don’t know or care, but these sick people shouldn’t be allowed around or anywhere near a youth activity. Are we really to the point where there isn’t any other qualified people? 

Again, you're applying your version of the law and penalty.  Your version is not the law and you can't hold any other in contempt if they believe differently than you.

What you're really saying is that you're ticked off at Cadets for hiring this guy because you have a personal opinion about how this guy should be punished that is different than the law, and different than Cadets' viewpoint.

Again, I'm not taking a position contrary to yours regarding the incident.  But I am holding firm to exactly what the law says; doing anything else invites and inflames a crowd mentality against a person who, according to the law, has paid the penalty required.

[Stu]

5 minutes ago, garfield said:

But I never said that.  You're conflating DCI's "meddling" with DCI becoming the arbiter of whether its member corps have established and practiced policies on this issue.  It doesn't exist.  DCI doesn't determine what business practices a corps uses, only that it operates in a "financially healthy" manner.

If your attorney is any good at all, he'll tell you that, to win a case, you have to follow the money, and it ain't in DCI (although they undoubtedly have insurance for such liabilities).

 

Yes attorneys follow the money.  Both membership and participation, which DCI admits that they are tied in with each and every corps under their banner, have monetary components.  And since a member corps is participating in a DCI sanctioned event, DCI is therefore engaging in monetary issues dealing with each and every corps.  While a criminal action deals with behavior, civil action deals with money.  And a good attorney would not go after DCI on criminal charges, but certainly would go after DCI on civil charges; especially since DCI officially admits that they do indeed engage with each corps membership, participation, and finances.  Again, all it would take to help blunt this would be a simple official general statement by DCI that they require all corps engaging in activity under the DCI banner to follow the laws of the State in which the DCI event is taking place.

[BRASSO]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

According to you DCI wants no policy on the situation and just leaves it up to the corps. Which means that if a corps is ok with it, DCI is tolerating it by default.

 Also, just because an organization, even a fraternal one, puts out a statement that says" we have no fiduciary, nor legal responsibility for blah blah blah" does not automatically make it so. Guess what ?,... " They don't get to make that ultimate legal call. A Court's Judge does. Lawyers have been known... perhaps thousands of times... to make a compelling , persuasive argument that an organization is not entirely held blameless when things go wrong, simply because THEY believe they have no fiduciary, nor oversight, responsibilities when things go wrong with members of their organization.

 if DCI has taken steps that it believes will protect itself from legal harm should one of its member Corps take a risk in a hire that might possess a higher risk than normal, thats their call however. If not, the petition  can serve as a wake up call for DCI itself to do more. So whats the " harm " here in either case with this petition to DCI, when balanced out to the potential " harm " of doing nothing, and finding out later that more should have been done ?  By the way, if this petitiion is being viewed as a " Cadets hate ininiative " there might be some element of truth to that... who knows. But the larger picture here really does not... nor should not... be a Cadets centric issue. Its much bigger than that. Its an issue to make sure everything possible is being done within DCI to be sure the kids are safe from harm. if DCI, and its member Corps believes the kids and their safety is presently their most important priority, then they have their priorities in order, and have no concerns to be concerned about. If they believe they can do more to create an environment where the potential for future harm can be even further protected and enhanced, that should be viewed as a good thing. This petition drive despite its motives ( good or bad ) can ultimately turn out to be a productive enterprise. I see very little downside to the petition drive, frankly... even if DCI ultimately decides to dismiss its demands, as it believes  ( rightly or wrongly ) that they have no legal, fiduciary, nor oversight responsibilities for what its dues paying members do.

Edited November 2, 2017 by BRASSO

[Ghost]

2 hours ago, Jim Schehr said:

  It’s not uncommon for men to believe it’s okay for men to behave this way, and give this type of male behavior a pass.  

Seems like some in the movie industry have behaved this way for many decades.

[Eleran]

Several random points:

• Some of the earlier pages kept using terms like "registered sex offender" which of course is not applicable to the current Brass Caption Head at Cadets (and formerly the caption head at Cavaliers and Troopers, and former drum major of Blue Devils) - I believe that probably was a conflation of reports on the Pioneer Reddit thread of them having hired someone who actually was on the registered sex offender list.  I don't know the details of that person.
• Background checks, including FBI and fingerprinting, are woefully inadequate (have done the research in running youth sports clubs), and in any event still leave the ultimate decision as to where to draw the line on hiring with the club/corps.  They're for the most part merely a "cover your butt" step.
• The OP, who posted the same on the Reddit thread, very much appears to be following a course of frequent posting under throwaway anonymous screen names both here and on Reddit.  You'll also note the "DCIPetitioner" does not include his/her real name in the Petition - which of course undermines the credibility of a petition in the first place (i.e. - "Everyone needs to sign with their name to get this done ... except me, who wants to remain anonymous).  The OP's goals, if indeed the OP is the same actual person responsible for many other posts/threads, do seem very much about attacking the Cadets as much as beating the drum about protecting the children.
• Yes, DCI, WGI, schools, all seem to have more than their share of people who should probably be restricted from participation within those organizations.  This thread alone has mentioned the Cadets brass caption head, someone hired by Pioneer, the Asst. Direction at Crossmen.  There was a DCP thread in 2010 about someone  arrested for having sex with a minor at his school, and that person is currently on a WGI staff.  The former husband of one my son's prior music teachers was busted for having sex with the drum major in his high school band.     So yes, I don't have a problem calling for DCI and every member corps to institute an appropriate policy in black and white explaining what prior actions will disqualify someone from employment.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Eleran

[mingusmonk]

26 minutes ago, garfield said:

Again, you're applying your version of the law and penalty.  Your version is not the law and you can't hold any other in contempt if they believe differently than you.

What you're really saying is that you're ticked off at Cadets for hiring this guy because you have a personal opinion about how this guy should be punished that is different than the law, and different than Cadets' viewpoint.

Again, I'm not taking a position contrary to yours regarding the incident.  But I am holding firm to exactly what the law says; doing anything else invites and inflames a crowd mentality against a person who, according to the law, has paid the penalty required.

I don't believe Jim said anything about the law. People in charge of youth-serving organizations should have a higher standard than the the bottom line "time served" via the courts. Recidivism rates for adult sex offenders do not bode well enough for leaders of these organizations to simply shrug their shoulders and say "welp, it is no longer part of his record."  I asked (and answered) this in the old deleted thread and I will again here. Do people deserve second chances after paying their lawful debt? Generally, yes. Are they entitled or owed the right to work a career of their choosing after conviction ... say their dream job? No. It is a consequence.  There are plenty of employment options out there for sex offenders of the youth.  I am absolutely OK with, and would encourage leadership, not hiring them to work in these organizations. 

I understand a lot of the parsing on DCI's role vs the individual corps' role. We have seen recently how the NCAA shied away from punishing North Carolina for significant issues that were simply "out of their scope." It would be great to see corps come to an official agreement on the handling of staff backgrounds. But I'm not sure how it would fall on DCI from a legal standpoint. I'm not a lawyer. 

[Kamarag]

5 hours ago, Stu said:

Again, all DCI needs is an official statement maintaining that every corps using their banner must comply with all laws of the State in which the corps is traveling. That would suffice.

 

Why do they even need to do that? All corps follow the laws of the state in which it is based. DCI releasing a statement would me utterly meaningless.

[Terri Schehr]

4 hours ago, Stu said:Please note that she posted earlier that she had a traumatic experience as a child, so I for one will give her a pass on the quip.

Stu and I are good.  He understands that when something like this happens to a young person, it is a bit traumatizing.  I apologize to all for making a blanket statement.