Sign in to follow this  
DCI Petitioner

Sign the Petition

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, garfield said:

The votes in DCI's BoD come from the member corps and at-large members.  The decisions that are the public face of DCI are made by those people.  In that regard, DCI "is" the corps.

They have the ability to ratify the power to police the various social issues that are raised today, and choose not to.  The corps choose to do that themselves.  Just like they handle fundraising, and tour fees, and equipment contracts on a local level.

This isn't the Air Traffic Control system, or a military defense system, or even a social-welfare system.  It's a fraternity of drum corps who choose to use a centralized entity for the tour and general promotion of the activity.

It's pretty straight-forward.  The problem is that many people (possibly the OP, and maybe Stu) don't understand the dynamics of the "governing and promotional body" in Indy.

 

Oh I understand. Yep, I get it. A real life farce of governance where the inmates running the asylum is not just a fictional play but the actual governance structure of DCI.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The OP's concern can easily be addressed by contacting each drum corps' BoD and asking to see the policy.  Some corps, two I know of, post their policies on their websites.

DCI's mission is NOT to address this, and it's just this type of suggestion on which DCI pushes back very hard.  Of COURSE DCI, and its staff and volunteers, are in favor of the highest standards of assurance that the kids are not harmed.  

But it is the member corps, not DCI, that are responsible for having a policy that they actively follow.  Having DCI, the org, be some watch-dog for social policy is exactly not the type of central control that the member corps want to endow in DCI or its staff.

Each corps survives and thrives on their own, independently.  DCI's role is to organize the tour and promote the activity.  If the OP has a particular concern with a particular corps, it should be addressed first at the corps.  Not on DCP or in DCI.

Either the OP is attempting to create a movement for change of something that's not now a problem, or he/she is too lazy to do the work to contact the corps directly.

This is a black-eye post no matter how it's sliced.  I've never known a more progressive activity than performance art and it's true of DCI as well.

OP,  there's nothing to see.  The petition is for DCi and the member corps to do, WHAT, exactly?  And Dan Potter - what's his role in your contention for change?  

You clearly haven't thought this through and are likely simply a rabble-rouser trying to make smoke where there's no fire.

IMO, and with all due respect.

 

Your points are valid, and I do not question that most corps have a policy, but if DCI does not see it as part of their mission, they should still consider it. I do believe ethically it is important, but there are also liability issues. In our sue first, ask questions later society and in these matters, guilty even if proven innocent, DCI could find itself in trouble if you ever had an offender jumping from corps to corps. Who knew what and when, and negligence are usually where civil suit lawyers base their case. 

As I say this, I agree with you that the activity is progressive which would include not just performance but taking these matters seriously. My guess is the OP is responding to what is happening in the news which may have been fueled by posts on Reddit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu said:

I never named anyone; and if CA law sees sexual offense which is deserving sexual offender registration as merely a misdemeanor that certainly does explain the attitude in Hollywood over the years. So, I will slightly amend and ask George if there has ever been a convicted sex offender 'knowingly' secured by a corps as a staff member who interacts with the youth performers. If not the answer is no; if so the answer is yes.

Now, you know you're just baiting him...

The answer is "Yes" and you know it.  And your point is that you don't believe an offender of this type should ever be allowed to be among kids in an educational role again.  Ever.  And I get and respect your opinion.

I, on the other hand, believe differently and our system of judgement and penalties agrees more with me than with you.  IMO, once an offender has done the time for the crime, he/she is entitled to a second chance to prove he's changed his ways when around students (not a third, IMO, although some disagree).

Again, you're belief is yours and I'll not try to take it away.  This is a basic belief set that makes up part of the "stripes on the zebra" - they don't easily change, and I get that, too.

Share this post


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

Now, you know you're just baiting him...

The answer is "Yes" and you know it.  And your point is that you don't believe an offender of this type should ever be allowed to be among kids in an educational role again.  Ever.  And I get and respect your opinion.

Of course I am baiting him, but what you post here is not my point concerning George. He blasted the OP with this statement: "...do some research before you write a petition on a topic you clearly know zero about." I want to know if George himself knows more than zero about the topic by answering my simple question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tim K said:

Your points are valid, and I do not question that most corps have a policy, but if DCI does not see it as part of their mission, they should still consider it. I do believe ethically it is important, but there are also liability issues. In our sue first, ask questions later society and in these matters, guilty even if proven innocent, DCI could find itself in trouble if you ever had an offender jumping from corps to corps. Who knew what and when, and negligence are usually where civil suit lawyers base their case. 

As I say this, I agree with you that the activity is progressive which would include not just performance but taking these matters seriously. My guess is the OP is responding to what is happening in the news which may have been fueled by posts on Reddit.

I hate to sound trite - I don't mean to...

DCI did consider it and, apparently, besides publishing their own belief as an organization, they chose to not act any further without direct guidance from their BoD, I suppose.

But, on a very basic level, what exactly can DCI, the org in Indy, DO about the subject besides state publicly their no-tolerance policy?  DCI doesn't act with kids. 

Edited by garfield

Share this post


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

IMO, once an offender has done the time for the crime, he/she is entitled to a second chance to prove he's changed his ways when around students (not a third, IMO, although some disagree)

Let's be clear on this. If an adult rapes, mollests, and sexually abuses a child, then spends a little time incarcerated, i say the privalige of being around children again is lost forever. However, you want that adult, when released, to have a second chance by allowing that person ample opportunity to be alone with another child. And if that person happens to be rehabilitated, great; but if that person rapes, mollests, and sexually abuses the next child during that second chance he/she should not have a third chance. Is that correct?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Let's be clear on this. If an adult rapes, mollests, and sexually abuses a child, then spends a little time incarcerated, i say the privalige of being around children again is lost forever. However, you want that adult, when released, to have a second chance by allowing that person ample opportunity to be alone with another child. And if that person happens to be rehabilitated, great; but if that person rapes, mollests, and sexually abuses the next child during that second chance he/she should not have a third chance. Is that correct?

Nope, you inserted that whole part about "...ample opportunity to be alone...".

I didn't say how the offender would be allowed around kids and, if I were checking on some org that did hire such a past-offender, I would want to know that his/her access to children is monitored and controlled.

I'm usually pretty careful with words here.  Usually.  I think I have this one right.

 

Share this post


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

DCI doesn't act with kids. 

Is DCI self-governed by the corps, which by default also means that they act with kids, or is DCI a governing body independent of the corps? If the latter then DCI does not act with kids, if the former then DCI certainly does act with kids.

Share this post


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

Nope, you inserted that whole part about "...ample opportunity to be alone...".

I didn't say how the offender would be allowed around kids and, if I were checking on some org that did hire such a past-offender, I would want to know that his/her access to children is monitored and controlled.

I'm usually pretty careful with words here.  Usually.  I think I have this one right.

 

There is no way an organization that travels with youth 24/7, where sleeping quarters are fluctuating night by night in school gyms/hallways/classrooms, where there are also free-days where staff and students are dispersed over a wide area of a town or amusement park, with a trust that a registered sexual member on staff can be completely monitored and controld with limited access to youth 100% of the time. That is just not possible. And since there is no way to monitor 100% of the time the risk of a second chance in that situation is too great. Ergo that is why I say they should lose the privalige of access forever.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Stu said:

Is DCI self-governed by the corps, which by default also means that they act with kids, or is DCI a governing body independent of the corps? If the latter then DCI does not act with kids, if the former then DCI certainly does act with kids.

"Yes" to your first question but no, that does not mean they work with kids (beyond the young adults they employ as paid or volunteer help).  Again, should DCI have a policy for itself and its own staff and volunteers?  Yes, of course.  Should DCI set and police a policy across all corps across all parts of the country?  Absolutely not.  As was already demonstrated, one state's rules on policy and compliance doesn't match another's, and DCI would have to set the most-stringent national policy which may not even be enforceable in some states.

 

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.