In The News – Amid Sexual-Misconduct Scandal, A New Code Of Conduct For Drum Corps

[Jim Schehr]

7 hours ago, jasgre2000 said:

Not an excuse.  Requiring background checks and disqualifying non-compliant corps costs nothing.

Maybe it’s me, but after 46 years of no policy, when DCI did introduce a policy they conveniently leave off the consequences for violating the policy.

Perhaps they’re not as serious about this as we are made to believe. Changing the culture may require changing people in charge. 

[c mor]

57 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I would prefer there be a fourth party to report misconduct to, rather than DCI.  

YES!

As an accountant, rule #1 in setting up a control environment for handling the money & financial activity is separation of duties.  Certainly, the same rule should be applied here.

[c mor]

1 minute ago, Jim Schehr said:

Maybe it’s me, but after 46 years of no policy, when DCI did introduce a policy they conveniently leave off the consequences for violating the policy.

Perhaps they’re not as serious about this as we are made to believe. Changing the culture may require changing people in charge. 

I have seen a BD alum, and past BD board member state, "DCI won't change until the BoD is comprised of a variety qualified mix of affiliated and independent people."

It is time to move from "mom  & pop" starting at the top.  

In this day, corps are realizing they need expertise in multiple areas of business operations to produce stability for their own operations, i.e. Boston's path, and recent YEA.

The corps need to agree the same should apply to the sanctioning organization, "DCI".  

[HockeyDad]

37 minutes ago, Jim Schehr said:

Maybe it’s me, but after 46 years of no policy, when DCI did introduce a policy they conveniently leave off the consequences for violating the policy.

Perhaps they’re not as serious about this as we are made to believe. Changing the culture may require changing people in charge. 

This. In order to change the culture you usually need to change the people. 

[Eleran]

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

And background checks alone aren’t enough. A background check wouldn’t have caught moody

And even if background checks turn up relevant info, that still leaves the decision up to the corps whether to hire or not, absent a concise DCI policy on what background events will specifically disqualify a candidate.   

[skevinp]

1 hour ago, Jim Schehr said:

Maybe it’s me, but after 46 years of no policy, when DCI did introduce a policy they conveniently leave off the consequences for violating the policy.

Perhaps they’re not as serious about this as we are made to believe. Changing the culture may require changing people in charge. 

What is this policy people are speaking of, and saying is not enough?  All I see in the article is a link to a newly announced code of conduct and ethics guidelines.  Such things are often written in a broad way and understood not to be the source of all specific details, such as about enforcement, but rather a basis on which more specific rules and actions can be based.  

Did DCI say there would be no more efforts, rules or actions?  People seem to be speaking as if they did, but I haven't seen that.  Can someone provide a link to the policy (not just the Guidlines and CoC initially announced and referred to in the article) that everyone is talking about?

[MikeN]

11 hours ago, jasgre2000 said:

Not an excuse.  Requiring background checks and disqualifying non-compliant corps costs nothing.

Based on what I've heard, that's kind of exactly what they're doing.

Mike

[MikeN]

3 hours ago, Eleran said:

And even if background checks turn up relevant info, that still leaves the decision up to the corps whether to hire or not, absent a concise DCI policy on what background events will specifically disqualify a candidate.   

This is a can of worms that DCI, understandably, may be reluctant to open, especially since violations vary so wildly from state to state.  Felony here, misdemeanor there, not even a crime somewhere else.  I don't think it unreasonable for DCI to require that each corps *have* a policy, and that DCI have a copy of it, but it ought to stop there. 

Mike

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, c mor said:

I have seen a BD alum, and past BD board member state, "DCI won't change until the BoD is comprised of a variety qualified mix of affiliated and independent people."

It is time to move from "mom  & pop" starting at the top.  

In this day, corps are realizing they need expertise in multiple areas of business operations to produce stability for their own operations, i.e. Boston's path, and recent YEA.

The corps need to agree the same should apply to the sanctioning organization, "DCI".  

this is what happens when you let the fox guard the hen house

[Eleran]

5 hours ago, skevinp said:

What is this policy people are speaking of, and saying is not enough?  All I see in the article is a link to a newly announced code of conduct and ethics guidelines.  Such things are often written in a broad way and understood not to be the source of all specific details, such as about enforcement, but rather a basis on which more specific rules and actions can be based.  

Did DCI say there would be no more efforts, rules or actions?  People seem to be speaking as if they did, but I haven't seen that.  Can someone provide a link to the policy (not just the Guidlines and CoC initially announced and referred to in the article) that everyone is talking about?

I believe everyone is primarily referring to the 14 page document recently released by DCI , but DCI does have Bylaws and a "Policies & Procedures Manual" available on its website [Note that DCI  uploaded them in a format where you can view them page by page, but cannot download or print other than through successive screen captures].    Some notes:

• the ByLaws present three enumerated violations for which membership can be terminated (overage members, missing meetings, failing to pay DCI), which do not include general violations of policies/guidelines)
• the ByLaws state that the Executive Director, under "Contest Responsibilities"  will enforce the Eligibility and Code of Conduct Rules, and may assess fines and disqualification penalties as provided in the Contest Eligibility and Code of Conduct Rules.  I would argue that power doesn't extend beyond those two specific documents to general corps' violation of policies.
• the Policies & Procedures Manual includes 3 pages of a Table of Contents of the Appendices, but doesn't include the actual appendices themselves, except for 3 specific items
• the only apparent new addition to the Polices [which reference the date each was adopted] are:
  • an adoption of a Sexual and Other Unlawful Harassment policy, which is attached and mirrors language from the Guidelines, and 
  • a background check policy which says: "Drum Corps International requires participating organizations to obtain a national criminal history background check for those in direct contact with their students.  Such criminal background checks shall be performed at the direction of the participating organization's Executive Director, but in no event less than every two years."

Quick analysis:

• the corps may very well agree to punishment by DCI for general violations, under several documents which are not attached to the Policy Manual, but it probably would be better to clearly specify as much within the ByLaws;
• The new additions to the Policies (a harassment policy and a background check) do not restrict the corps from hiring whomever they want.   As I mentioned earlier, they do not appear to restrict any corps from hiring George Hopkins, or even a convicted murderer out in parole, for that matter.  In my event, this remains a significant gaping hole in their new guidelines and policies.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Eleran