Jim Schehr Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 I forgot about that ignore feature. Thanks for reminding me. He’s gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Kamarag said: Not for clearances they don't. I did not say 'clearances', I said they have to follow and abide by the laws of the State in which they are traveling in not the laws of the State in which they are based from. It matters not if they live in State A, get a clearance by State A, and work in State A. The moment they cross the State line and step foot into State B they have to abide by the laws of State B or risk being arrested (and rightly so). And when a corps is traveling in multiple States, and DCI sanctions events in multiple States, both the corps and DCI better darn well know the differences in the various State laws; particularly on subjects like the one at hand here in this thread. Edited November 2, 2017 by Stu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, garfield said: DCI has no ability vested in it to police the sexual harassment policies of the individual corps. Criminal liability, no. Civil liability, yes? Why? Because DCI has membership criteria in order to become a member corps in DCI, they sanction events in multiple States for those member corps, they oversee and evaluate the financial stability of the corps, and DCI IS the member corps. That makes them liable in civil court if a corps does something stupid while under the banner of DCI!!! Edited November 2, 2017 by Stu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 45 minutes ago, danielwdunn said: The law isn't the end-all-be-all for ethics. The law doesn't outline exactly how we ought to conduct ourselves. For example, there's an inordinate amount of reprehensible, but legal things a person can do. DCI and its member corps should hold members, staff, and the audience to a higher standard than just whatever is legally required. Luckily most corps do. Ok, and that's your opinion. I respect it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 50 minutes ago, danielwdunn said: The law isn't the end-all-be-all for ethics. The law doesn't outline exactly how we ought to conduct ourselves. For example, there's an inordinate amount of reprehensible, but legal things a person can do. DCI and its member corps should hold members, staff, and the audience to a higher standard than just whatever is legally required. Luckily most corps do. Baloney. When all else breaks down, when all opinion seems at odds, it's the law the separates and defines us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 15 minutes ago, Stu said: Criminal liability, no. Civil liability, yes? Why? Because DCI has membership criteria in order to become a member corps in DCI, they sanction events in multiple States for those member corps, they oversee the financial stability of the corps, and DCI IS the member corps. That makes them liable in civil court if a corps does something stupid while under the banner of DCI!!! BS No, it doesn't. Only in Stu's world does that make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skevinp Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 19 minutes ago, Stu said: I did not say 'clearances', I said they have to follow and abide by the laws of the State in which they are traveling in not the laws of the State in which they are based from. It matters not if they live in State A, get a clearance by State A, and work in State A. The moment they cross the State line and step foot into State B they have to abide by the laws of State B or risk being arrested (and rightly so). And when a corps is traveling in multiple States, and DCI sanctions events in multiple States, both the corps and DCI better darn well know the differences in the various State laws; particularly on subjects like the one at hand here in this thread. Are you suggesting there are State B's that have laws requiring background checks meeting the requirements of State B to be performed by organizations from State A based on nothing more than such organizations physically entering into State B on a temporary basis? I had not heard of that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 27 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said: I forgot about that ignore feature. Thanks for reminding me. He’s gone. If this is directed at me, I wish you'd not. I think we insult the intention of civil debate by ignoring each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) On 11/2/2017 at 7:43 PM, Jim Schehr said: I’m never amazed by the actions of those who claim to be all about the member experience. Self-serving in more ways than one. You need to spend more time with drum corps staffs and executives. I swear, as cynical as I can be, I continually hear, year after year, that the kids' experience is what drives the people who power this activity. Edited November 4, 2017 by JohnZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, danielwdunn said: The fact that there exist multiple corps who have hired either sexual offenders, people who have become sexual offenders while under the employment of the corps or a person convicted of peeping Tom law against a minor. That makes me think either the protections in place aren't sufficient, or aren't being employed properly. Why? Because certain drum corps have elected to follow the law and still attempt to benefit from the experience of certain talented staff member while, potentially, giving another human being a chance to improve their life? Not sufficient? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.