The Cadets and GH history of sexual abuse (news article)

[Stu]

3 hours ago, Fran Haring said:

Don't know why this crossed my mind....

but imagine if Stu were still posting here.  This thread would already be 5,000 pages long, with him parsing every single word anyone has said.  

 

 

3 hours ago, DCIat14 said:

Ahh yes, whatever happened to Stu?  

My hope is that DCI recognizes that there are currently 150 members of the Cadets that worked hard and earned their spot in that corps.  If the ax must fall on the corps as a whole, can we please wait until their season is done.  Those members did nothing wrong and deserve the summer they worked so hard for.  If the corps must fold, let it be Sept 1, 2018.

 

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

Was he banned?

 

2 hours ago, Fran Haring said:

I don't know. 

 

38 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

Does it say you’re banned on your profile? 

 

 

32 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

It used to but haven’t checked for Stu. Just noticed it years again with someone I had problems with

 

28 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

True.  He’ll probably be back as we get closer to the season.  He’ll have a lot of catching up to do.  

I’ve never shook my head in disbelief as much as I have the last five days.  And I’m 60. 

Nope, not banned; I just decided that I had better things to do with my time after some posters were defending the Cadets hiring a known offender and also stating that DCI had no business telling the Cadets what to do.  The only reason I perused through this thread was that someone informed me about the nature of the thread content.  And the only reason I am posting now is to respond to a direct question concerning if I was banned.  I find it odd, though, that some of those very posters who defended the Cadets then, and saying DCI should stay out of it then, are now advocating the opposite.

[JimF-LowBari]

Just now, Stu said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nope, not banned; I just decided that I had better things to do with my time after some posters were defending the Cadets hiring a known offender and also stating that DCI had no business telling the Cadets what to do.  The only reason I perused through this thread was that someone informed me about the nature of the thread content.  And the only reason I am posting now is to respond to a direct question concerning if I was banned.  I find it odd, though, that some of those very posters who defended the Cadets then, and saying DCI should stay out of it then, are now advocating the opposite.

 

You little skulker you lol... Funny thing is I just came back after months of more important things going on in my life so know the feeling

[Sideways]

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

Anything G7 is 8 years old and dead in the water. It’s time to stop beating that dead horse

DCP specializes in beaten dead horses.

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, jjeffeory said:

I'm waiting for there to be a call to arms to expand the search to who, boa, and all the local circuits. It might be a witch Hunt.

Last year when word was out a member of my circuit was charged, boom instant removal from everything. No defense of said person, just outta here. 

[BRASSO]

4 minutes ago, garfield said:

4 minutes ago, garfield said:

 

Nowhere in ANY of that did DCI say it has policies regarding harassment that CORPS MUST FOLLOW.  The policies that they discuss in the Indy Star article relate to DCI employees, not member corps.

 

  What ?   Anybody else here think Dean Acheson's comments were confined to " DCI employees " alone today  and not  to DCI participating groups ( Corps ) ? if so, jump right in and confirm what garfield here thinks after reading the entire article ( maybe garfield didn't read it all, and thats why he is alone out on a limb today saying this repeatedly... and incorrectly.)

 

[garfield]

1 hour ago, BRASSO said:

 Well, you read the same article I did, and came away with the same " comprehension level " that Dan A believes DCI HQ has the authority to suspend/ and or dismiss from DCI Membership any " group that fails to follow DCI policy ". Dan Acheson did not say this might/ could occur here ( of course.. its too early in the information gathering stage ) He just said how " seriously " he takes this, and he invoked the phrase " dismissal from DCI membership " as an option available to DCI HQ with a member of the national media today with his response. .

Geesh, read my reply to N.E., please.  You still aren't getting it.

Dan IS taking it seriously.  DCI DOES have the power to expel corps that don't follow DCI policy.  An option IS dismissal from DCI membership if corps don't follow policy.  Gosh NONE of these is in contention, is that clear?

WHERE, in your paragraph above, or in any paragraph that you can produce by you OR by Dan Acheson, does it say that corps must live up to a central, activity-wide harassment policy established for the corps by DCI, at their own request via their board, and supervised for compliance by DCI?  NOWHERE!

DCI requires that each corps have a harassment policy that is applicable to the state and local laws that governs the org.  DCI will check to make sure that corps comply with those laws, and act according to the best policies that the corps develops.  Similar BP protocols are expected, such as giving victims a path to report, etc and DCI can monitor to see that these are included and followed.  If DCI feels the corps' harassment policy is deficient in any of these things, they can choose to expel that corps from DCI events.

But DCI DOES NOT write or otherwise produce for corps a harassment policy for them to follow.

 

[jjeffeory]

31 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

A witch hunt has the connotation of going after innocent people. I don't think anyone here is suggesting setting aside due process.  Even with Hopkins. He resigned. Had he not resigned he should have been suspended as a precautionary measure until the allegations go through legal process. His resignation doesn't automatically mean he's guilty. 

I meant it more in sense of "we're going to go after the marching arts specifically" when what we should be doing is going after the behavior in all aspects of life.  We've already seen a poster extrapolating from Cadets to "drum corps".  It's easy to just slide down the slippery slope and go after  other similar groups and then give the whole marching arts activity a bad name.

We need to go after all the predators.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by jjeffeory
Clarification

[Jeff Ream]

35 minutes ago, garfield said:

Well, except one thing...

Is it untrue that the corps can perform almost every function that DCI performs, better?  Is this situation an example where the corps are better at performing an activity function better than central control and supervision from DCI?  This was a central theme of the G7 corps' presentation and contention.

There is very little enthusiasm among directors for governance from the DCI level, preferring to act themselves as individual corps.

I'm wondering if that viewpoint has provided a level of cloistering among individual corps that somehow provided cover and enabled the actions of one among them.

I'm wondering if the antiseptic of transparency required to meet activity standards - in the light of full disclosure during examination - would have exposed the flaws in Cadets BP that allowed for these victims to not have any avenue to report their abuse.

I believe there is a general lack of respect for edicts passed down to the corps from DCI with many or most directors simply ignoring them repeatedly, almost with disdain.

If we're going to have a full house-cleaning to eradicate the circumstances that permitted the cover under which the accused acted, we have to include an honest discussion about the circumstances that apparently prohibit centralized command and control of issues as important as this one.

IMO.

 

 

I don’t necessarily think some corps can do it better no. The G7 was all about a naked power grab. While I think DCI’s board could use some outsiders and even open class folks, no I don’t have faith every corps can do some stuff better than the mothership 

[garfield]

1 hour ago, mingusmonk said:

Please Lord. No. Just when they had stopped bickering about this. No!

I'm sorry, I really tried to stop myself.  But the contention being made is defaming to DCI and untrue and unfair.

I'm FAR from a DCI apologist, but unfair accusations based on false premises serves no one in this circumstance.

 

A very good friend of mine said that he hopes we can stop "dieseling" this issue when DCI actually does something.  Heh.  "Dieseling".  You have to know poorly-tuned motors to understand that term of...umm..."endearment". 

[N.E. Brigand]

24 minutes ago, garfield said:

Glad, of course, that you jumped in.

Thank you. And now it's time to fisk.

But you miss a critical connection that I just simply can't seem to get through in this discussion. Read your quote again--WHOSE best practices is DCI ensuring compliance with?

DCI's policies. Earlier the article had talked about DCI's review of (1) whether anyone working for DCI knew about the Hopkins allegations and (2) whether DCI's policies for such employees was sufficient, and also noted (3) that DCI plans to make similar policies known to non-DCI employees including "participants, their families or directors".

Drum Corps International also is reviewing policies related to ensuring compliance with best practices and laws around reporting abuse for participating groups, Acheson said. 

Participating groups that fail to meet Drum Corps International's policies can lead to that group's dismissal.

Does each state where a corps is located have actual laws regarding reporting, and is there federal law governing reporting that each org must follow?

Don't know. Doesn't entirely matter, exactly. DCI is a governing body that can put such requirements on its members. (Yes, this might take approval by a majority of the DCI board or full membership first.) DCI can say to member corps: "You must meet the following minimum standards, or the more stringent standards of your state. Failure to do so may lead to your corps being expelled from DCI."

"Reporting abuse"?  To WHOM?

I think you're making this harder than it is. DCI may decide to require, as a condition of membership, that each corps prove that they have a solid reporting system in place and that they are adhering to it.

Nowhere in ANY of that did DCI say it has policies regarding harassment that CORPS MUST FOLLOW.  The policies that they discuss in the Indy Star article relate to DCI employees, not member corps.

There's just no other way to read the reference to the "dismissal" of "groups". That simply cannot mean "groups of employees". That makes no sense. "Groups" = corps.

It is true that DCI can prevent drum corps from participating in the tour if they don't live up to established criteria (financial, food, MM health, etc), and it can EXPEL a corps for not maintaining those minimum standards to tour.

As I said, it would take a vote by either the board or the full membership. But obviously DCI claims the right to expel a corps for egregious misbehavior, even if that behavior is not spelled out. If DCI's member corps believe that YEA's board (A) knew about Hopkins's actions, (B) did nothing about that or even covered them up, and (C) refuses to step down, then those DCI corps have an obligation to the DCI's well-being to remove a corps like that from DCI membership.

Brasso even wants to assert that DCI was made aware of THESE accusations in January when, if you read the words clearly, DCI said they were made aware of THESE accusations when we did.

Yes on that point I agree with you about what we know of DCI's knowledge.

Isn't it possible that DCI was made aware of SOME accusations in January, but they didn't know about THESE accusations until last week?

I hope not. My reading of the article is that Acheson didn't know about the allegations, and that any DCI employee who did and didn't tell him will be in hot water.

It's not semantics and one can't substitute meaning for words that doesn't exist.  Once DCI actually HAS a policy of its own, it can expel corps for not living up to it.  If DCI finds that corps are not living up to local or federal law for reporting, they can expel that corps from the tour until they do.

DCI apparently sees a need to have clearer polices. But DCI, collectively, can decide at any time that a member corps has somehow betrayed the trust of the association and expel them. I'm not saying that will happen! But to ensure that, YEA's board should probably step darn right quick. How many more roofie stories will there be?

That's all there is AT THE MOMENT.  There is not more.

See above.

But, that said, I think it's entirely probable that the other corps directors have already granted power to DCI to make definitive demands of Cadets BoD to ensure compliance with tour requirements, and also to address the general degradation that a prolonged process of transition.

And here you seem to be on the same page as me.

Edited April 11, 2018 by N.E. Brigand