Sign in to follow this  
DCI Petitioner

Sign the Petition

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Stu said:

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.

OK, and I said I understand your point.

I still disagree with your premise, though.  And I think there are solutions that don't take away the freedoms of one to assuage the concerns of another, no matter how justified.  If an offender is regulated by state or federal laws, those laws supercede any policy that a corps installs.  If a court says that an offender is allowed to teach after a conviction, the BoD of a drum corps will have a hard time winning such an argument in court or arbitration.

But again, there is not a problem of sexual harassment in DCI, only the fear that something might happen.  The OP's petition is misleading at best, IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, garfield said:

"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.

 

DCI is 'not' Dan, Sue, etc.... They work for and answer to DCI: and during their work-day they do not interact much with kids. But DCI is the corps; and the corps do work with kids 24/7. This is not Symantecs; but the actual structure of DCI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushing this and maybe some other changes could lead to an eventual decision that no one under 18 can participate in DCI.  I will leave it to others to debate whether that would be good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skevinp said:

Pushing this and maybe some other changes could lead to an eventual decision that no one under 18 can participate in DCI.  I will leave it to others to debate whether that would be good or bad.

Kind of like throwing a Molotov Cocktail gets a similar reaction...

 

:thumbs-up:

Share this post


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

DCI is 'not' Dan, Sue, etc.... They work for and answer to DCI: and during their work-day they do not interact much with kids. But DCI is the corps; and the corps do work with kids 24/7. This is not Symantecs; but the actual structure of DCI.

And, actually, "the corps" on the DCI BoD are the BoD's of the corps, not their directors necessarily.  DCI is not the corps.  DCI is run and managed by the corps.  So, you're saying that the corps BoD's should charge Dan & Co with coming up with a policy that is applicable under each and all state laws of both domicile and performance?

Is this a more-effective way of dealing with a potential problem than requiring each corps to have a policy that suits its circumstances and domicile best?

Kind of reminds me of the days of single-box stereo systems - pre-amp, amp, and tuner in one box.  "You get all of the bad and very little good from each device when you pack it into a single unit".  Ditto here, IMO.

 

Edited by garfield

Share this post


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

OK, and I said I understand your point.

I still disagree with your premise, though.  And I think there are solutions that don't take away the freedoms of one to assuage the concerns of another, no matter how justified.  If an offender is regulated by state or federal laws, those laws supercede any policy that a corps installs.  If a court says that an offender is allowed to teach after a conviction, the BoD of a drum corps will have a hard time winning such an argument in court or arbitration.

But again, there is not a problem of sexual harassment in DCI, only the fear that something might happen.  The OP's petition is misleading at best, IMO.

 

If a corps is from a State that allows registered sex offenders to teach youth, and they stay within the boundaries of that State, they are obeying the law. But once the corps travels out of State they have to abide by the sexual registration laws of the State they are currently in not the State where they are from.

But then again, just like DCI, untill recently there was apparently no sexual offense problems against youth in Hollywood either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most states have reciprocity laws that prevent offenders from simply crossing the state border to avoid their crime.

Come on, Stu, this is 2017, not 1917.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, garfield said:

And, actually, "the corps" on the DCI BoD are the BoD's of the corps, not their directors necessarily.  DCI is not the corps.  DCI is run and managed by the corps.  So, you're saying that the corps BoD's should charge Dan & Co with coming up with a policy that is applicable under each and all state laws of both domicile and performance?

Is this a more-effective way of dealing with a potential problem than requiring each corps to have a policy that suits its circumstances and domicile best?

Kind of reminds me of the days of single-box stereo systems - pre-amp, amp, and tuner in one box.  "You get all of the bad and very little good from each device when you pack it into a single unit.  Ditto here, IMO.

 

Simple solution: DCI makes an officially policy that every corps competing across their own State lines must abide by the applicable laws within the State in which they travel. That one official sentence would be sufficient.

Share this post


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

Most states have reciprocity laws that prevent offenders from simply crossing the state border to avoid their crime.

Come on, Stu, this is 2017, not 1917.

But they are not crossing State lines to avoid their crime, they already have served time for their crime. They are crossing State lines from a State that allows sex offenders to teach youth over to a State that does not allow that to happen. Once they cross into that State the are committing a different crime not avoiding one.

Edited by Stu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morally, I'm with Stu.  Legally, I agree with you G. 

There's a misconception about what "DCI" really is.  It's not the NFL, with a central league office owned by the stakeholders.  The office itself is just a sanctioning body that runs contests.

DCI's obligation to the corps is to provide them a basic framework for what happens on the field and secure (some) venues for them to perform.  Everything else that happens the corps decide on DCI's behalf.  "DCI the organization" tries very, very hard to stay out of each individual corps' operations, except for the basic audit of "do we think this corps can afford to compete?" The corps want it that way, and they've structured the org that way.

If you have a beef and want to create a petition, make it towards the Cadets corps we're trying to avoid naming. 

Mike

p.s. Sorry to echo what's already been said - started my reply and got called away, then y'all said pretty much the same things while I was gone...

  • Like 1

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.