Jump to content

Sign the Petition


Recommended Posts

last time we take time to clean up the virtual testerosterone....next time the thread will be closed and folks will be leaving the island.

 

respectful and enlightening discussion in 3.....2.....1...aaannnnd GO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read much of this thread.

Would it be draconian to have a standard operating procedure for all dci corps when it comes to the results of background checks?

Aside from that, what are some precisely articulated ideas about which sources of information should be relied upon to judge the validity of accusations of adult misconduct by adults towards minors that weren't addressed by the criminal justice system?  And again, should there be an SOP that all corps have to follow for those cases? 

Edited by Lance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2017 at 9:34 PM, HockeyDad said:

Anyhooo....any corps that doesn't take this very seriously and take precautionary measures is setting themselves up for a problem. 

One of the very first posts on the first page in this thread which I've only just started to read (skipping around a bit) seems to hit the nail on the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnZ said:

last time we take time to clean up the virtual testerosterone....next time the thread will be closed and folks will be leaving the island.

 

respectful and enlightening discussion in 3.....2.....1...aaannnnd GO.

I will publicly apologize. However i do get really ###### off when self proclaimed experts question me on this matter, as I am a member of the administration in a sanctioning body that has had to deal with this very type of concern.

 

that said....from more than a few calls and emails made today, DCI does have a policy manual in which this is covered. They in fact are contacted frequently about allegations towards individuals, accurate and very false and they do research them. I know the concern over one individual discussed here and elsewhere is this: the legal system cleared them. Pleading to lesser charges, even if jail time is incurred, can wipe the slate clean, which allows them to then participate in the activity. Background checks will be clean.

 

Now...would i take a chance hiring that person? No, and probably end up being sued for saying no. It's the world we live in. One other person mentioned in various forums, while clean legally, was fired.

 

The DCI policy manual, like their rulebook isn't for public consumption. Discuss as you wish. But this topic is being discussed at the highest levels, and in fact will probably come up at the upcoming board meeting.

 

As for why DCI has said nothing publicly? Dunno. I will say this...in my mind, if you do bring it up, while many may applaud, many others may come flying out of the woodwork with accusations. Some so old, it may not be verifiable. So, IMO, DCI is in a ###### if you do, ###### if you don't scenario on that part.

 

But they are aware, and do have a policy. people with a seat in the room confirmed it. emphatically every one.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2017 at 12:29 PM, garfield said:

And it's not being tolerated, is it?  Victims come forward, charges made, the suspect are charged and the guilty serve time and punishment. 

Then others want to impart their own version of justice and demand that a different punishment be delivered despite the applicable laws.  A punishment not meted out in the state in question, despite it having been so in another state.

Or the guilty appeal to their superiors who help to cover it up, or they higher former Mossad agents to dig up dirt on the accusers, or...

Fortunately there's not enough money in DCI that people will go to those lengths to protect the guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2017 at 2:20 PM, Eleran said:

Several random points: ...

  • Yes, DCI, WGI, schools, all seem to have more than their share of people who should probably be restricted from participation within those organizations.

If this is true, I am curious as to why that is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

I will publicly apologize. However i do get really ###### off when self proclaimed experts question me on this matter, as I am a member of the administration in a sanctioning body that has had to deal with this very type of concern.

 

that said....from more than a few calls and emails made today, DCI does have a policy manual in which this is covered. They in fact are contacted frequently about allegations towards individuals, accurate and very false and they do research them. I know the concern over one individual discussed here and elsewhere is this: the legal system cleared them. Pleading to lesser charges, even if jail time is incurred, can wipe the slate clean, which allows them to then participate in the activity. Background checks will be clean.

 

Now...would i take a chance hiring that person? No, and probably end up being sued for saying no. It's the world we live in. One other person mentioned in various forums, while clean legally, was fired.

 

The DCI policy manual, like their rulebook isn't for public consumption. Discuss as you wish. But this topic is being discussed at the highest levels, and in fact will probably come up at the upcoming board meeting.

 

As for why DCI has said nothing publicly? Dunno. I will say this...in my mind, if you do bring it up, while many may applaud, many others may come flying out of the woodwork with accusations. Some so old, it may not be verifiable. So, IMO, DCI is in a ###### if you do, ###### if you don't scenario on that part.

 

But they are aware, and do have a policy. people with a seat in the room confirmed it. emphatically every one.

Then I guess we're done here.  Thanks for the info.  DCI does have a policy.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 pages and people still don't realize that these matters need to be handled confidentially others the liability of lawsuits from false accusations would have the potential to destroy corps and DCI.  Not much more that really can be done...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Sideways said:

49 pages and people still don't realize that these matters need to be handled confidentially others the liability of lawsuits from false accusations would have the potential to destroy corps and DCI.  Not much more that really can be done...

We have to be very careful not to engage in, or promote, false accusations; innocent people are to be protected from having reputations damaged. But to say that the actual 'corporate policy' must be handled in confidentiality is exactly the type of policy mentality which propeled the Catholic Church into hot water.

Edited by Stu
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...