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

[garfield]

23 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

then you are making the same mistake that has caused DCI these, and soon to be more headaches I'm sure. 

Remember, you're talking about from this point forward and, just as Morrison did, I would bend to the will of the majority.

There was not a policy at the time, he followed his gut instinct at the time, his gut instinct was correct for six years, now there is a circumstance not related to his decision that requires him to honor a majority will, and the relationship with Moody was severed.

If I'm still acting like him, then there's no problem here, is there?

 

[garfield]

3 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

I'm sure he is a nice guy too. And that actually makes it all the harder. Nice people can be well meaning etc. and still have a blind spot. That doesn't make you a bad person. But if you refuse to listen when you're being told you've made a large mistake, then maybe you're just not the right person for the position. 

He didn't refuse to listen, Dad.  He did listen, we don't know who he consulted with, if anyone, and he made a decision.  

Maybe you should have written, "If you refuse to arrive at the same answer as I, and refuse to act on that answer the way I expect you to, maybe you aren't the right person for the position."

 

 

[garfield]

31 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

then you are making the same mistake that has caused DCI these, and soon to be more headaches I'm sure. 

Wait, Morrison is responsible for this malaise (and by extension, I am) because he chose to hire a person who had no issues in the time he worked for Crossmen?

How is that?  I thought it was a man who molested girls and women that started this kerfluffle.  I obviously missed some data along the way (/sarcasm).

 

[garfield]

3 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

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?

This is a mischaracterization of my prior post stating Morrison's history.

I expect this from some posters, but not you.

 

[garfield]

31 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

OK, thanks for this.

That still leaves open the question of whether DCI is right to prohibit second chances, though.

I've never contended that DCI is NOT RIGHT to prevent second chances.

I may agree or disagree with a policy (like many here), but DCI doesn't invite me to be a part of their votes (or anyone else here).

It's their little club and they have the right to set policy according to how their members vote.

 

[HockeyDad]

49 minutes ago, garfield said:

He didn't refuse to listen, Dad.  He did listen, we don't know who he consulted with, if anyone, and he made a decision.  

Maybe you should have written, "If you refuse to arrive at the same answer as I, and refuse to act on that answer the way I expect you to, maybe you aren't the right person for the position."

 

 

Oh dear. Now why would you say something like that?  Do we need to take it into the ditch like that?  I am not talking about consultations before the initial hire. I'm talking about the feedback he (Morrison) was given by several sources during the years he (Moody) was at Crossmen.

Edited May 22, 2018 by HockeyDad

[garfield]

21 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Oh dear. Now why would you say something like that?  Do we need to take it into the ditch like that?  And, I am not talking about consultations before the initial hire. I'm talking about the feedback he (Morrison) was given by several sources during the years he (Moody) was at Crossmen.

Sorry if I pushed too far.  But it does seem as though you are expecting him  to arrive at the answer you want him to, or else he's wrong and should be replaced.

I'm not sure how else to restate my sentence above to make it sting less.  His compliance is what you want and expect, else he should be removed as not being right for the job, right?

[JimF-LowBari]

To me it all comes down to a group hiring someone with a sexual harassment history that’s around my kid. If they tell me then I have a choice to keep my kid in or not. But they don’t tell me and keep the checks. Ahhh no...

Edited May 22, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[N.E. Brigand]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

This is a mischaracterization of my prior post stating Morrison's history.

I expect this from some posters, but not you.

Then I apologize. But I am also confused, because that is genuinely how I (mis-)understood your earlier comments about, e.g., Morrison deserving the benefit of the doubt because he has devoted so much of his life to the well-being of young people in drum corps. What am I not getting about your position as regards Morrison and Moody? What was the right thing for Morrison to have done: Should he have ever hired Moody? Should he have told members and parents about Moody before now? Should he have let Moody go? Aren't those the three main questions that have been under discussion for most of this thread?

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, Eleran said:

Thanks - I looked at it again, and I didn't find anything in there regarding hiring guidelines or setting any limits on what backgrounds could or could not be hired.  It all dealt with addressing future behavior.  Unless I'm missing something, this policy would not prohibit a corp from hiring Scott-Lee Atchison or Joel Moody.  Or George Hopkins, for that matter.

i have re-read it and i'm not sure if it does cover that.