Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, garfield said:

What, EXACTLY, have "The Crossmen" done in this instance?

What, EXACTLY, might come back to bite DCI?

 

Make it harder to find housing and show sites. Schools take the issue dead ###ed serious. If DCI or any corps seem like they don’t take it as seriously it could make finding sites even harder than it is now. Should be an easier NO to sell than denying a site because the turf would be torn up. Someone refresh my memory why the Univ of PA show is no more. 

As for the Crossmen question has anyone determined what if anything the corps board knew?

Edited by JimF-LowBari
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 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?

First, thanks for this thoughtful response. I appreciate it. But I would reemphasize what I said when asking it: I very seriously meant you to feel no obligation to answer. Your reasons outlined here for wishing not to do so seem perfectly sound to me. I only raised the point after you had introduced that personal note, because it seemed like an angle by which we could further the discussion, but now I regret having done that.

Second, I apologize for overlooking your earlier reply to my question in the other thread. (In fact, I still can't find your response--maybe it was deleted?) And I apologize for any discomfort my question may have caused you. That was not my intention, but intentions only go so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, garfield said:

Yes, yes they did.  And we're all pretty certain that you'll never work for him or buy him a beer.  And that's OK.

You are a great guy with a deep passion.  I would never hold that against someone, even if we disagree.

 

I would if my kid decides to march there. Trust is huge

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dans said:

Given the current environment, I'm shocked that DCI is giving the Crossmen a pass on this. This may come back to bite DCI and further harm the activity we all love!

Yup

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, 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?

 

 

 

Well you dodged it when I asked. I would have trusted Fred right up until we found out he did not ONCE publicly disclose this to parents or students.

 

thats an issue that doesn’t deserve trust. You continuously gloss over that point

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Well you dodged it when I asked. I would have trusted Fred right up until we found out he did not ONCE publicly disclose this to parents or students.

That's an issue that doesn’t deserve trust. You continuously gloss over that point.

No, I think you're wrong about garfield here. In his most recent response, he does not gloss over that point. He says explicitly that if he were a parent in a situation like this, then the director should "have the opportunity to explain to me both why he hired this person and why he felt comfortable not informing me" (emphasis added), and that, depending on what the director said, and on how the past offender had behaved since being hired, he very well might be satisfied that giving someone like Moody a second chance was the right decision.

I disagree--and I would point to the fact that most schools would not hire someone with Moody's history (if they were aware of it), but garfield answered the question fairly and deserves credit for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

what’s going on in a distraction to DCI would it not be the same with the corps?

It may turn out to be.  But to answer your question, here is the distinction. 

DCI is in the midst of a significant change, where they will take on a new oversight role for the corps that participate in DCI events.  Policies and procedures regarding harassment, whistleblower, etc., will no longer be left to the unfettered discretion of each corps.  The job of spearheading the DCI approach to this new responsibility belongs to the chairman of the DCI board of directors.  Obviously, that person needs to be someone whose own judgment on such matters is widely accepted.  Since Fred Morrison does not fit that bill, he has stepped aside so that someone better suited for the task can take over.

Meanwhile, back in San Antonio, Morrison made a decision regarding "second chances" back in 2012 that is no longer acceptable under the newly developing standards.  Moody is now gone.  Whether or not Morrison deserves a second chance is a matter for debate.  Also up for debate is whether anyone else is better suited for the task of Crossmen executive director.

Edited by cixelsyd
accuracy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's a thought.....are all corps in DCI AND DCA taking a look at their staff and management team? If I were a parent I would be calling for that! You can't tell me there are only 2 issues in drum corps! We all know things like this have been happening for years/decades!

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KeithHall said:

So here's a thought.....are all corps in DCI AND DCA taking a look at their staff and management team? If I were a parent I would be calling for that! You can't tell me there are only 2 issues in drum corps! We all know things like this have been happening for years/decades!

But here's the issue, KeithHall:

You asked a fine question: "...are all corps...?"  Present tense.   Yes, I believe they are and the evidence I saw among the corps board members in January would support my belief.

However, you then went to past tense to days ("years/decades") in a review of "...things like this..."

Is it possible that there are only two events in the history of drum corps that will now be brought up and reviewed?  Unlikely, IMO.

Is it possible that there are only two events in current, modern-day drum corps?

Drum corps have been working to protect kids for far longer than this issue's half-life in the press.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

It may turn out to be.  But to answer your question, here is the distinction. 

DCI is in the midst of a significant change, where they will take on a new oversight role for the corps that participate in DCI events.  Policies and procedures regarding harassment, whistleblower, etc., will no longer be left to the unfettered discretion of each corps.  The job of spearheading the DCI approach to this new responsibility belongs to the chairman of the DCI board of directors.  Obviously, that person needs to be someone whose own judgment on such matters is widely accepted.  Since Fred Morrison does not fit that bill, he has stepped aside so that someone better suited for the task can take over.

Meanwhile, back in San Antonio, Morrison made a decision regarding "second chances" back in 2012 that is no longer acceptable under the newly developing standards.  He has adjusted his stance on that issue, and Moody is gone.  Whether or not Morrison deserves a second chance is a matter for debate.  Also up for debate is whether anyone else is better suited for the task of Crossmen executive director.

Like the DCI portion of your response. I would call it something more serious than a distraction like he did but that’s just me. 

As for Crossmen potion think a lot depends on the response of corps members and parents. Some may think allowing someone in like Moody and not telling the members makes him not suited to be a ED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...