In The News – Drum Corps Chairman Resigns Amid Scrutiny Of His Hiring Of Disgraced Teacher

[Jeff Ream]

15 hours ago, Eleran said:

And yet, over in WGI ...

interesting tidbit....read the voting results from the Advisory Boards. Crossmen abstained on every Winds vote.

[Jeff Ream]

15 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 Oh ya... the house cleaning has just plugged the vaccum cleaner into the wall socket, imo. The house is by no means clean yet, imo.

 Lots of vaccuming probably still remains throughout DCI/ WGI. 

and probably DCA, BOA....on down the ladder

[Jeff Ream]

14 hours ago, garfield said:

In this climate Moody is no longer there.

 

i know you arent dense, but you refuse to acknowledge a key point of my argument:

 

yes he is gone NOW. from 2012 til 5/1, he WAS there. And nothing was disclosed. Why is this so ###### hard to acknowledge, especially as this came out, how colossal of a blunder this was? This could have solved the issue provided he behaved himself, which apparently he didn't.

[Jeff Ream]

9 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Can I be the only who seriously doubts that we know the whole story about Moody?

(Surely someone else has read or seen How I Learned to Drive?)

oh i have serious doubts. I am sure the story may have caused others to reach out to the reporter

[ftwdrummer]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

i know you arent dense, but you refuse to acknowledge a key point of my argument:

 

yes he is gone NOW. from 2012 til 5/1, he WAS there. And nothing was disclosed. Why is this so ###### hard to acknowledge, especially as this came out, how colossal of a blunder this was? This could have solved the issue provided he behaved himself, which apparently he didn't.

I'm not sure on your bolded part. I'm reminded of (in a much lower-stakes situation) the discussion of suspected PED users in baseball where "if you just admitted it, it would be fine"...and then when McGwire admitted it, everyone came down on him with a "how DARE you?"

I'm less confident that people wouldn't have reacted poorly even if it had been disclosed and he'd behaved.

[N.E. Brigand]

27 minutes ago, garfield said:

Isn't it reasonable that, since Morrison was directly involved with negotiating and drafting the new policy and, therefore, he knew that it would prevent Moody's hire, Morrison told Moody what was coming and Moody resigned from Crossmen for the same reason Morrison resigned from the DCI Board Chair position?

I know you'd like to view it as some spurious admission of guilt, but maybe it's not.

I don't know for sure what I'd "like", actually--and I do appreciate your pushing back.

Here's what I'm wondering: does Morrison not really believe in DCI's new policies? If they would have prevented him from hiring Moody, shouldn't he, if he is consistent that it was right for him to give Moody that second chance, feel that DCI is making a mistake by putting in place rules that prevent second chances?

[BRASSO]

10 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

But even after the Inquirer story, why didn't Morrison stick to his guns and say, "Moody stays, and anyone who wants him gone is wrong"?

Would DCI have punished Crossmen if that happened?

Would Crossmen parents have told their children, "I'm not paying anything more for you to participate"?

In other words: if Morrison didn't think it was wrong to keep Moody on, why cave?

Does he think, deep down, that he was wrong to have hired Moody in the first place, and not told anyone?

 

 Too many questions ( 5 ), too little time. I'll keep it simple with the same reply to all 5 : " I don't know ".  However, they're good questions to wonder about imo

Edited May 22, 2018 by BRASSO

[N.E. Brigand]

18 minutes ago, ftwdrummer said:

I'm not sure on your bolded part. I'm reminded of (in a much lower-stakes situation) the discussion of suspected PED users in baseball where we heard, "If you just admitted it, it would be fine", and then when McGwire admitted it, everyone came down on him with a "How DARE you?"

I'm less confident that people wouldn't have reacted poorly even if it had been disclosed and he'd behaved.

Maybe it depends on the timing? If Morrison had told members and parents six years ago (and new members/parents each year since) that Moody, the new assistant he was then hiring, had had his teaching license revoked for sending sexual texts to a student, but that (1) Morrison believed everyone deserves a second chance and (2) all the staff had been instructed to report any least bit suspicious behavior to him, then at least no parent could claim they didn't know their children were interacting with someone like Moody.

(The Mark McGwire analogy would work if McGwire had told everyone in advance that he was using steroids. But of course, then he wouldn't have been permitted to play.)

Now garfield's argument is that, because Morrison has devoted a long impeccable career to drum corps, that it was reasonable for him to have made the executive decision to keep that information private. I think that would depend on Morrison's reasons for doing so. Has he said why he didn't tell anyone?

[Eleran]

43 minutes ago, garfield said:

Isn't it reasonable that, since Morrison was directly involved with negotiating and drafting the new policy and, therefore, he knew that it would prevent Moody's hire ...

Can you point to the provision of the new policy that would specifically prevent a hire similar to Moody's 2012 hire?

I'm not trying to be snarky - I just didn't see it in there, though I only looked briefly, and I'd like to review it.

[E3D]

 

On 5/20/2018 at 8:07 PM, garfield said:

Nawtghhh...echhh...ecchhh...  Now hold on young whipper-snapper...

You jumped into a comment meant to be very nice between Ream and me with a baited trap thrown at my feet as if I have no choice but to step in it.

That's your mistake.

I've already answered your question but, apparently "I'd observe the circumstances and data at the moment" is not good enough, and not with any presumption that what I believe should replace what anyone else believes, and although I reserve the right to believe your position wrong and work to undermine its widespread adoption...

First, I trust my daughter's band director.  And, through years of direct contact, I've seen him and his co-director work.  I have every reason possible to believe that every, single one of the people I know involved with my daughter is a 100% outstanding and upstanding individual.  I and you know ALL of them involved, including the very prominent person of a Top-2 DCI drum corps who interacts DIRECTLY with her, who you know personally.  I trust, I TRUST that this group (akin to the executive and governance staff of a corps) would not introduce an unnecessary danger to my kid.  That's number one.

Number two, I would ask the person who made the final decision for the basis of his decision.  THIS is the piece you can't conceive (which is bothersome to me).  This person, my daughter's band director in this case, would have the opportunity to explain to me both why he hired this person and why he felt comfortable not informing me.  Not that I would blame him; I'd rather try to see his position from his side.  If he had a rational reason and, in particular, if he had been proven correct for six years by lack of incident of the accused (convicted in this case), then I would judge the circumstances at the time.  I tried to explain this earlier.  Circumstances matter to me.  There is very little black and white in my world, but your mileage may vary.

Now, if you were attempting to bolster your case by boxing me into a seemingly obvious question and answer, again, you're wrong.  I cannot and will not submit to speculation, especially when it comes to my daughter.

Now, I hope I've fulfilled your moral quota, and I'd prefer that we leave my family out of these discussion until, and unless, they choose to enter them themselves.  OK?  After all, until you have kids of your own, it is a bit of an unfair sparring field, is it not?

 

 

 

Yeah you handled that a little better than I would have. 

The trouble with the interwebz Message boards / social media's is that when you mention something about family details - sometimes that is taken as cart blanch to speak about another's family. Not saying that is what was done in the post that you replied to but it can and does happen.