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

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

Well, I know most of the people here, and I know personally N.E. Brigand and would trust HIM with my daughter.  He knows that.

Only one time, with another poster, did I have a serious concern that his comments about my family were less than honorable and, thankfully, another poster here (also a friend) felt the same and reported it.

But this subject is too raw, especially when referring to a 16 year old girl, to let my daughter become the focal point of some discussion.  That's why I formally, and strongly, asked N.E. to back off, and he did without hesitation.

My kids don't need me to defend their reputations, but I'll always defend their safety.

(I can see the fire coming out of Ream's fingertips.  ) 

 

 

no fire. i'll probably feel the same way in 10 years when my daughter is 16. maybe not. Hopefully by then this behavior is a lot less common

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

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?

 

well if you read the article, no his gut instinct wasn't correct. if it had been, there'd be no basis for the article.

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

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).

 

if he had no issues, then the article would not have been written. Because he did exhibit behaviors, in a situation where no one felt like they could go to the corps director to raise their concerns...because others had raised concerns previously and been shot down.

[Jeff Ream]

1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

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?

and that he shut down anyone who tried to raise concerns, making it so those with concerns later felt it was of no point to raise their concerns. it's a circle that doesn't end til 5/1

2012 hire a guy with a public record for those who want to search issue with texting kids

post 2012, staff raises concerns, and gets shut down. later behaviors happen, but no one goes to the director because the general vibe and word is don't bother, he wont to listen. Staff then quits or is let go....sometimes by Moody

 

then boom, article comes out about elsewhere, quietly fire/let Moody go, but everyone is supposed to forgive or forget. Remember, in YEA...who could you complain to? The board wouldn't listen. Apparently Sean didn't listen and got suspended for it. Lord only knows if anyone's knocked on Justin's door. But Fred, well, he meant well, so it's all good now that Moody is gone....despite the fact he blatantly shut down any discussion of Moody by anyone who raised concerns.

 

Well, to quote Sherman T. Potter, Horse Hockey!

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jeff Ream

[HockeyDad]

51 minutes ago, garfield said:

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?

Well yes it's clear what my position is. But there is a lot of gray in it (not scarlet and gray mind you). If the activity were not embroiled in its worst public scandal ever, maybe latitude could be given. Maybe we could give him (Morrison) the benefit of the doubt that he's keeping a sharp eye on his staff. But with all that's going on, it's just a bridge too far for me. I do not like that he jettisoned Moody at the first sign of public scrutiny from the Inquirer. Yeah I know he said Moody resigned May 1. I tend to believe it didn't happen that way. I think it happened after the Inquirer started poking around. This tells me Morrison didn't have the courage of his conviction to back up Moody. In other words, Morrison knew having Moody on staff was a bad move.  All my opinion. Mileage may vary based on yours. 

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

no fire. i'll probably feel the same way in 10 years when my daughter is 16. maybe not. Hopefully by then this behavior is a lot less common

I'm pretty sure of both of those and, if your daughter is half as strong as mine is at that age, you'll have nothing to worry about from any future "Moody".

"Dad, don't worry.  I know where his junk is and how to make it hurt.  I'll be fine." 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by garfield

[garfield]

39 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Well yes it's clear what my position is. But there is a lot of gray in it (not scarlet and gray mind you). If the activity were not embroiled in its worst public scandal ever, maybe latitude could be given. Maybe we could give him (Morrison) the benefit of the doubt that he's keeping a sharp eye on his staff. But with all that's going on, it's just a bridge too far for me. I do not like that he jettisoned Moody at the first sign of public scrutiny from the Inquirer. Yeah I know he said Moody resigned May 1. I tend to believe it didn't happen that way. I think it happened after the Inquirer started poking around. This tells me Morrison didn't have the courage of his conviction to back up Moody. In other words, Morrison knew having Moody on staff was a bad move.  All my opinion. Mileage may vary based on yours. 

Ahh, but it was Morrison who was drafting the new DCI policy as a direct result of the Inquirer "poking around", so it's logical that it was he who took it to Moody with the (new) realization that the activity was going to implement a policy that is contrary to his decision in 2012.  And considering the sensitivity of the subject, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that Moody thanked Morrison for his support but realized the activity as a whole was aligned against him and he had nothing left to do except resign and move on.

All speculation on my part but, as is "plausible deniability", my explanation has at least as much veracity as any other posited here.

My Mom taught me that everyone gets the benefit of the doubt the first time and, to my knowledge, this is the first time that Morrison has needed that benefit on this subject.  And your mileage may vary.

I hope when each of us here deserves that benefit that someone will provide it to us.  

 

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

if he had no issues, then the article would not have been written. Because he did exhibit behaviors, in a situation where no one felt like they could go to the corps director to raise their concerns...because others had raised concerns previously and been shot down.

"He" didn't have any issues, did he?  It was others who had issues with him and were the reason the article was written.  Someone else determined, contrary to his opinion, that he had "issues" that needed addressed by the article. 

IMO, it was a hit piece that should never have been written because the policy he was drafting in response to Hop's issue and the hue and cry from other directors would have mandated that Moody be gone anyway.  I think she jumped the gun and wrote an article without giving DCI the opportunity to address it in house with the new policy.

Edit: Beyond the article about Morrison, I think the author has done a wonderful service to our activity that no-one else seemed able to reveal.

Edited May 22, 2018 by garfield

[Fran Haring]

3 hours ago, Eleran said:

 Unless I'm missing something, this policy would not prohibit a corps from hiring Scott-Lee Atchison or Joel Moody.  Or George Hopkins, for that matter.

Thankfully, I had digested my dinner before I read those two sentences. Especially the second one. LOL

[Jeff Ream]

16 minutes ago, garfield said:

"He" didn't have any issues, did he?  It was others who had issues with him and were the reason the article was written.  Someone else determined, contrary to his opinion, that he had "issues" that needed addressed by the article. 

IMO, it was a hit piece that should never have been written because the policy he was drafting in response to Hop's issue and the hue and cry from other directors would have mandated that Moody be gone anyway.  I think she jumped the gun and wrote an article without giving DCI the opportunity to address it in house with the new policy.

Edit: Beyond the article about Morrison, I think the author has done a wonderful service to our activity that no-one else seemed able to reveal.

ah so the issues raised are no concern to you then. And that Fred shot down anyone raising concerns was no concern. Your view is now perfectly clear thank you.

 

and no, DCI shouldn't have had the opportunity because for 6 years, unless people took the time to dig themselves, they had no idea his past, yet he was an assistant director who had the directors blessing with nothing stopping him from feeling that way. yet because some behaviors persisted, while unreported, that makes it all ok to you.

 

the bottom line is lack of disclosure for  years, and an very clear unwillingness to listen to anyone about him show exactly where Morrison stood...and you're ok with that or you wouldn't continue to defend it. You can spin it however you want to, your continued defense shows how you truly feel.