Sign in to follow this  
DCI Petitioner

Sign the Petition

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, danielwdunn said:

This issue is far greater than any one corps. When it comes to the safety of the marching members, there should be no concessions. That applies to things obvious things like props and hydration. And also to the ethics and behavior of the staff.

That should be incontrovertible, no? I don't understand the disagreement on this issue.

What, in God's name, makes you believe that the individual corps do not have protections in place?  Like hydration and props?  LOL!!!

OMG

The disagreement is this:  The petition proffered by the OP demands ...  something (unidentified) ... of DCI, Dan Potter (HA!), an at-large board member and the individual corps.  The contention of which is that the corps don't now have policies in place, and that DCI, the organization, should DO SOMETHING to assure that corps have such policies (unidentified) in place!!!!

First, what's the problem?  Who, besides the OP/Petitioner, suggests or believes that the drum corps themselves don't have policies in place?

Second, the OP/Petitioner doesn't understand that his petition demand is directed at parties that don't regulate the member corps' activities under the policies they have in place!

Third, the petition, and many posters here, believe that DCI has something to answer for, something that they should have stopped (the hiring by a member corps), because they believe a single person doesn't deserve, despite the law, to teach in front of kids ever again, under any circumstances.  Period.

Fine, they disagree with the law.  I stand with the law and reject the pitchforks.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, danielwdunn said:

This issue is far greater than any one corps. When it comes to the safety of the marching members, there should be no concessions. That applies to things obvious things like props and hydration. And also to the ethics and behavior of the staff.

That should be incontrovertible, no? I don't understand the disagreement on this issue.

The petition demands unidentified policy adoption to solve an unidentified problem that is suspected of happening and is addressed at the individual corps level.

Why are we asking/allowing DCI to commit its sacred resources to defending the tacit accusation of one person with a vendetta against an organization that made a decision contrary to one he would make?

Hmm?

Many poster confuse the issue of the OP with personal beliefs, and with the law's interpretation of the actions of other humans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, garfield said:

What, in God's name, makes you believe that the individual corps do not have protections in place?  

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

Agree. The petition doesn’t identify any person or organization. However there seems to be some obvious paranoia surfacing which in itself is interesting. The point of the petition is to bring attention to the governing body of all performing arts activities for consideration.

And therein is the madness of the crowds!

How many times do I have to say it?

DCI has no ability vested in it to police the sexual harassment policies of the individual corps!

The "Governing Body" you reference is a staff that organizes the tour and verifies finance viability before a corps is allowed to tour.  Is has no governance ability beyond that giving it by the member corps, and those corps have, until now, chosen to address the issue of sexual harassment on an individual corps basis.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Your personal beliefs, like your impression of my beliefs (once you know them), are not a consideration in whether or not this person should be hired by Cadets, or whether any person with such a past should be hired by any organization, so long as that organization is following the laws applicable to it and its operation.

You're attempting to skewer a person for actions for which he has already paid his penance under the law.

I'm sorry, you don't have that right.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check this out 

4 hours ago, Eleran said:

Several random points:

  • 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes 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.

And are you suggesting that something coordinated is happening in DCI to intentionally, or negligently, hire recklessly in a way that puts kids at risk?  Really?  What EVIDENCE do you have?  You see, this is how the madness of crowds gets started.

What needs to be changed in DCI?  What needs to be changed at the individual corps?  Do hiring practices of member corps suggest a pattern of willful negligent hiring by drum corps that puts kids at risk?  Do anyone have evidence to make this claim?  Anyone?

I refuse to stand by and allow a single person to be unfairly and unjustifiably attacked by another based upon beliefs they have and they think others should have, too.

I'll say it again:  It's the pitchforks that I object to.

Edited by garfield
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, garfield said:

And are you suggesting that something coordinated is happening in DCI to intentionally, or negligently, hire recklessly in a way that puts kids at risk? 

No. Absolutely not. Nobody is suggesting that. 

If there were specific standards outlined for background checks and staff hires for member corps beyond what is legally required (which DCI may not have the power to do yet, according to you) then that may at least offer a formal protection against this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

judges can screw up.

Ok, so I'm supposed to be magnanimous and say "Yes, they can".  But then I'll follow up with "What is the law?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stu said:

Ummmm... when a corps crosses State lines they have to follow the laws of the State they are 'in' not the state they are 'based from'. 

 

Not for clearances they don't.

Edited by Kamarag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.