Leaderboard

On the actual rule breaking , I'll generally play Devil's advocate on that side of the argument, purely because I've had to make that kind of call and I realize it's a bit ambiguous when you have stakeholders who are angry. But, to the defense that it wasn't an official rule violation, when DCI's own media partners literally publish an article praising the offer (referring to FloMarching, can't find the article link), and when the brass caption head of one of those named organizations literally posts a thank you to Arsenal for the offer to those members, maybe it's a good time to weigh out whether or not the rule-violation-decree should be so damning.

Royal decrees never apply to the monarchy.

To paraphrase: We have spent the past several days working with Arsenal to move forward... into the exact same place we stuck them back on Monday.

They had open lines of communication before. We have the emails to prove it. :) Sorry. DCI had all week to admit they made a mistake in judgment. Instead, they issued two press releases - one to lie and smear the ex-director, and one to try and gloss over everything by saying they are working together to move forward and learn... as long as DCI gets to keep their heels precisely where they dug them in from the start. Are these behaviors consistent with the values of DCI ethics guidelines? And how do we move forward on the greater challenges DCI faces when their own office cannot set an example of ethical behav... , oh, ####, even abide by their own guidelines?

DCI has rules in place. DCI does not have pre-outlined punishments in place. No one's arguing that a rule was broken, they're arguing that the punishment does not fit the crime. A guy is doing 5 MPH over the speed limit. He gets a ticket, and a judge ultimately decides to give him life in prison, because the speed limit is a rule that was broken. Most people would assume that's not just, and would argue that the law has clearly-defined punishments for specific crimes, and this decision is outside of that. DCI doesn't have those prescribed punishments, so instead the organization defaults to the decision of the CEO. In this case, many of us view that the CEO did not act within the best interests of all involved. That's an opinion, sure, but it's one we're all very entitled to have.

Would have more sympathy if it were anyone but Cartman.

2019 will be my son's 6th year in DCI, 4th at Cadets.

Strongly disagree. They badly damaged their credibility in the way they chose to interpret and enforce the rules. No one was crying out for them to take this action. Practically everyone saw the statement as positive rather than disparaging. Handling the matter reasonably and quietly would have not have hurt their credibility to any significant extent. Handling it the way they did has further damaged their credibility. Acknowledging they made a bad decision and correcting that decision would do wonders for their credibility. Everyone makes mistakes. It's what we do about them that defines our character.

Exactly. This was Acheson sending a message. Know your place. Don't rock the boat. I decide what gets said about these issues, if anything. His refusal to ever be interviewed by Tricia only drives that message home. People refuse interviews when they don't have good answers to important questions. What does Dan have to hide?

But DCI HQ's method of handling this, in this fashion, clearly had a motive. The motive apparently is to silence critics affiliated with Corps of saying disparaging things about other Corps publically that DCI HQ disapproves of. By publically admonishing this young Corps Director, and deep sixing the Corps quest for DCI Open Class participation for this seaason on the spot, it sends a clear signal to other Corps personnel to keep your trap shut and your fingers off the keyboard when it comes to speaking about other Corps in any negative light that are put on penalties by DCI HQ. Had DCI HQ said and done what you've suggested here, it would not have had the desired effect by DCI HQ that DCI HQ wants.

After three years in the SCV organization my son took off from So Cal today for Blue Stars camp in Indy...any other 2019 WC parents out there in DCP Land?

True. Thats where a reader's assessment of her claim can be either accepted or rejected. This reporter is unconnected to Drum Corps through affiliation, participation, interest, etc. I find her reporting.. so far... to be thorough, professional, and detailed. At the moment, I find her investigatory reporting credible. Her revelations are disturbing, and DCI's responses, inadequate, incomplete, and frankly not as credible. DCI has much work to do to turn this all around, imo

Okay, I read it. So they got a flat tire. I have had that happen to me, more than once. It happens. It is not a sign of administrative incompetence. So they had a credit card placed on hold due to "suspicious activity". I have had that happen to me, more than once. It happens, especially in this day and age. It is not a sign of administrative incompetence. So they had a bus breakdown. I do not have a bus, but I have had a rented vehicle break down on me, more than once. It happens. It is not a sign of administrative incompetence. But none of that matters, anyway. Whether they are ready for open-class or not, it would still be a good thing for DCI to perform an honest evaluation, pass/fail them on their merits, and provide feedback to help improve their organization whether they go open or SoundSport.

No rulebook is ever perfect, and no rule is enforced in a vacuum. There's a big difference between wanting them to act quickly on matters of sexual assault and abuse of minors, and thinking they should probably look the other way when a courageous young director reaches out to try and help the young people who were affected by abusive administrations. ...or better yet, reach out to the guy and ask him to modify his statement to conform to the rules instead of flat-out denying his corps' application to open class. You know, enforce the rules without being heartless monsters. The way Dan handled it speaks volumes about his character.

Yup. I have got one at BK.

Here is the whole timeline, from Spenser Lotz's facebook, with emphasis added: January 14th 4:38pm: Receive email from Dave Eddleman, the Open Class Coordinator, notifying Arsenal of Suspension 6:11pm: I respond via email to Dave. I state that I am willing to take the post down, but ask for the terms of the suspension. 6:21pm Opting to move quicker than email, I call Dave. Dave instructs me to email Dan Acheson as he does not have the details to the suspension. We do not discuss removing the offending post. 8:13pm I email Dan Acheson, requesting the terms of the suspension. January 15th 9:17:am: Having received no response, I email Dan Acheson again. 12:14pm: I call Dan Acheson's desk at DCI, having gotten his number from another DCI employee. I leave a message on his voicemail. 12:40pm: I receive an email response from Dan Acheson, notifying me of the policy I broke and declaring that Arsenal's 2019 OC application has been suspended, but that we can re-apply for 2020. 3:00pm: I formally issue my resignation. January 16th: 11:21 pm: DCI issues an official statement regarding the suspension, in which they fraudulently claim that they "offered Arsenal an opportunity to correct the issue, but the organization's leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward." I want to clarify; at no point did DCI make such an offer. They did not discuss Arsenal issuing an apology, or removing the post. Although I initially stated that I would remove the post, I did not because I was looking for clarification from DCI and because I understood that removing the post at that point would be a meaningless gesture as it had already been shared over four different social media platforms by a variety of drum corps influencers.

That is what happened though, regardless of how DCI wants to spin it. A director reached out to try and help the displaced members from corps that had scummy people running them. DCI banned his application because they didn't like that he named the other two groups specifically. Groups that already weren't fielding corps this year due to the issues the Arsenal director mentioned in his post. DCI punished his group (and the OC/Pio kids he was trying to help out) because they thought he was being too mean to groups that actually were abusing kids. Of course his board is paying lip service now. They have no choice but to kiss DCI's ### if they want to keep the door open for next year. The fact is, the rulebook doesn't say that DCI has to suspend any open applications for a social media violation. They could've just slapped him on the wrist or asked him to remove the Pio and OC names from the post. The rules didn't FORCE them to take action like they did. Dan Acheson did that. He decided that was the best course of action. Just him.

DCI in its statement said they "offered Arsenal an opportunity to correct the issue, but the organization's leadership chose not to discuss options for moving forward". However, I am unaware of any evidence they have offered to back that up, or even any details of what and how they communicated, what the response was, etc. that would bolster the credibility of their claim. Perhaps we will get that if they ever release, in the future, the statement they promised to release yesterday.

Most agree.. including the former Arsenal Corps Director himself... that in retrospect he should have made the helpful offer, but left out the comments in his post about these 2 Corps ( things that had already been stated by many when DCI HQ levied their penalties on these 2 Corps.) However, there was no " lets have a talk " offer by DCI. Thats untrue. From reports, Dan Acheson made this decision and without a personal contact and communication with this Corps Director AT ALL. It was Dan Acheson that can be assessed as acting prematurely and " emotionally " some might argue. The Corps Director was not even afforded a contact by the person that pulled the Organization's review application. Its like you were hired by someone, and without proper explanation and notice, you are abruptly fired, and notified of your abrupt firing by an underling to your boss. Your Boss never " had a talk with you " before abruptly firing you. He fires you because you said something about another fired person ( that was true ) but he did not like that you spoke about that fired person he fired, so he fires YOU !. Who exactly is the mature adult in this ? The Corps Director admitted he made a mistake in a portion of comments in his offer that on the face of it was helpful to parents and MM's left in the lurch by a DCI membership Corps that screwed up and was penalized by Dan Acheson for their actions. But Dan Acheson overreacted in this situation to a portion of that post by this Corps Director, imo and pulled the Organization's quest for Open Class status on something that could have easily been " talked out ", imo. But it wasn't " talked out ", now was it. And now we read in the newspapers the aftermath, Read their headline. Now tell us who the media and much of the public that reads this believes " overreacted " again ?

My son will be with BAC this summer -- his second year, and his age-out year.

I haven't red all the pages and I might be behind the latest developement. However my impression is, the way the offer was writen, it was a mistake based on age and experience. Just wait 1-2 hours before you press "send" on something you wrote on behalf of an organisation. Read it again and make the obvious ajustment that you would have seen if you waited 2 hours and re-read yourself! When I red the original offer, I was surprise that everybody here were on board with that. I thought it was a terrible way to make an offer. I also thought that DCI answer was fine. To me, their answer was: "Wooooah... hold on. We need to talk. Your evaluation in on hold until we have a talk". I felt there were an over reaction from the corps director who refuse to take the post out until he get personnal attention and became almost harcelant calling and writing 3-4 time in less than 24 hours. I don't know for you, but we all have a life, duty and task. This could have wait a few more hours. Yes it is important and yes there is also 50 other important things going on at the same time. It was minor until someone decide to burn the house down. And it wasn't DCI. It is only after that, that I see a second reply stating 2020. Even then, when you put yourself in a corner, there is nowhere else to go. A suspension is just what it is. Suspended until further notice... until we study your case. In YEA! case, suspension was what everybody here propose as the right course of action when suspicion arise on other employee and staff. Once clear, everybody find is job (evaluation) back on track. The final overaction of the corps director was by droping everything, quitting the job, cancellation of the next camp, and washing his hand of all this... after publishing internal emails. That was the perfect way to make sure that you will never be welcome anymore. Being in charge of an organisation is full of frustration along the road. I would be worry to send kids on the road knowing that the person in charge might overact and leave everything there when things don't get his way. Tour is difficult. Everybody get tired, none on tour think the same way, conflict of personality happen all the time. All that happen between any of these: volunteers, drivers, staff, admin, members, housing host, stadium and parking personal, etc. Transportation problem, even with brand new vehicules might happen, so does housing problem, rain, stadium difficulty, no AC in gym, etc. Really, I would be worry to go on tour with an emotional person at the helm who can't stay calm, cold head and bring others down when needed. And it is obvious to me that DCI cannot reply and tell their side of the story. Whatever that say will only give new flesh and open new argumentation they are sure to loose. Even saying exactly what people want them to say will be met with: "yes but it came too late, lets fire everyone", "yes but it is insuffisant", "that would have been a good answer yesterday but not anymore, what a bunch of morron", etc. I am happy I am not in DCI shoes. I could never do the job they do. Not half of it. And I don't know many that could. It is easy to fire everyone, but be cautious of who's gonna be the replacement. You may find it worse than what was there in the first place. Just my 2 cents.

Read the article. *whistles* sad, very sad. This stuff is really making me lose a lot of faith in DCI's administration. A whole lot.

True. None of us do. DCI HQ does not have a lot of remaining credibility at the moment however on such issues when compared with a reporter than has no known ties at all to DCI and the Drum Corps activity in general. Her investigative reporting so far seems believable to me. So until shown otherwise, given the fact that neither Fred Morrison , nor Dan Acheson (or anyone else at DCI HQ) have denied the findings by Ms. Nadolny, I'm inclined to believe her findings re. Fred Morrison.

Then I'm in!

Exactly. I don't see any rules that say DCI had to handle it the way they did. Although I don't think everyone agrees with their interpretation of the rule (so some may argue that, in their opinion, it was not broken) particularly given that those in the supposedly disparaged organizations appeared very appreciative of what he said. But no one is arguing over whether they have the authority to make the decision. This is about their judgment in how they used said authority.

Ya, its like bulldozing a guys house to the ground, giving the owner 2 in the hat, and dropping him in the dumpster out back. Then returning a couple of days later to tell the wife and kids " We're here to give you the moral support you need moving forward to put your home and life back together again. Good luck, and call us if we can help you any further. We're here to assist you in any way we can. "

While I appreciate hearing that the relationship between DCI and Arsenal is still in-tact, with room and desire to grow in the future, my main concern is on the damaging impacts from the change from 2019 to 2020 in the evaluation. The corps was planning to do an actual tour this summer (short tour, but a tour nonetheless), and had paying members traveling from out-of-state to participate. That's all part of the package they sold this year, that unfortunately cannot be. To DCI, maybe, a year off isn't a huge deal, but looking at any corps that's ever taken a year off - heck, even what we anticipate 2019 is going to do to OC - we all know that taking a year off can be permanently detrimental to any corps' future recruitment efforts, let-alone a startup. That, combined with any rumor-mill products from CMMs re: the DCI/Arsenal relationship come next season, and Arsenal has a much more up-hill battle for recruitment in 2020 than they ever did for 2019.

This is a garbage response. Obviously you are anti-business/anti-c I think Mike D offered a good response this this post. I will add that is impossible to enter a discussion with someone, in this case you, that refuses to be factual in their responses. People can disagree with the actions that DCI took and still agree that they rightfully had a reason to and a right to act.

Witness John Doe: "I saw an invoice from "Internet Scrubbing Corporation" to "Crossmen, Attn.: Fred Morrison" which said "for cleaning sex offender's online record" That is NOT hearsay. [Note: the above is a fictitious example illuminating a rough summary of what it appears the reporter's source indicated he/she would be able to testify, offered merely to contradict an incorrect usage of a legal concept, and it is not an attempt to accurately depict any actual document or event, about which this author has no actual knowledge]

i don't have an issue with the rule. I'd prefer the punishments be a) less severe and b) clearly spelled out

Proposed: the non-disparagement rule is a bad rule that never should have been on the books in the first place.

Sort of puts to bed once and for all the silly notion advanced here on DCP ( not you, Jeff ) last March/ April by a couple of DCP posters that DCI HQ is merely a " show scheduler " and they have little to no control over what their membership Corps do or say..

The thing that bothers me the most is that he is blaming people who are outraged by sexual assault and harassment in the activity for “destroying an activity I’ve loved since I was a kid”. Imagine being so small-minded that his personal enjoyment of drum corps takes precedence over the safety of members. I just can’t.

...uh, exactly. That's the point I've been making this entire time. Just because something is a rule (or law), doesn't make it morally right. The fact that DCI put out a "statement" at all regarding Arsenal is due to social media. They wouldn't have published anything in the first place if they weren't getting dragged on Twitter. Social media creates awareness. "#####ing on the Internet" created awareness. Drummie McDrummer might bring something up to a director later on which influence a particular change, but he only became aware of the issue in the first place from people on social media. "The conversation" is an important part of the process. "#####ing on the Internet" is an important part of the process. DCI isn't some magical organization that is immune to social media power dynamics. It still relies on corporate sponsors, private donors, and the general goodwill of the fanbase. Social media has the power to destroy those things.

Drum corps is one of the few things I actually like about summer so I won’t be boycotting DCI in any way, shape, or form. In fact, if anyone would like to sell me their Finals tickets, hit my inbox.

I actually marched with her. If they have additional information, put out a statement.

Let me think: If you are a SoundSport group applying for open class, even a slight on another corps in a social media post gets your entire corps a full year sentence. If you are world class, but at the bottom competitively, multiple instances of member maltreatment gets you special assistance from DCI personnel to complete your season, but then either your director must go, or the whole corps goes. If you are high ranking world class, a serial rapist and a BOD intent on knowingly keeping him there earn you special assistance from DCI personnel to complete your season, including bending over backward to move your tour from one coast to the other to accommodate the needs of the corps in their time of crisis. Is that fair?

Unfortunately, an unresponded to allegation in a major city newspaper gives added life to it, imo. DCI should have at least offered up a denial that this happened. DCI HQ could have stated that to the reporter and/ or put out a press release statement that" we looked into the matter and found no evidence of wrongdoing with this", or some such. DCI HQ had put out previous denials of knowledge of things before in what the Press uncovered, MikeD. Also, why are you " suspicious " that the reporter's sources ( 2 ) with this allegation re. Fred Morrison is apparently bogus, in your opinion ? You disbelieve her account on what she found in her investigatory report, MikeD ? That maybe the reporter just made up the story re. Morrison, or that she had no sources ? or her sources are lying ?

No, IMO DCI would be crazy to respond to an unproven anonymous allegation that was noted in one single article. I've been suspicious of that one since I first read it. Just MHO.

DCI acts swiftly on some things, and drags its feet on other things. Even the Press picked up on that observation, MikeD. There's no " two ways about it ". I believe most people want DCI to respond appropriately, as each event naturally requires a different response. DCI states that " not speaking badly about another Drum Corps is of PARAMOUNT importance " to them. I'll say. But how about reports in the Press that a current DCI Director payed a firm to bury his past sexual deeds with minors ? Do we want DCI to not even have even a statement regarding this allegation that was published in a large city newspaper ? Do we want DCI HQ "to act " swiftly" with harsh penalties imposed on Corps Directors that might have utilized a few unadvisable, late night, words on Social media ( that was truthful ), but " not to act " when its alleged a current Corps Director allegedly attempted to hide the past sexual offenses with minors from public knowledge and scrutiny by paying off a firm to bury that info from parents. public ? Do not overly criticize fans here that you think are confused in stating " DCI should act" and then " DCI should not act ". The fans are not confused here on all this, imo, MikeD. Its DCI HQ itself that seems confused on when and how to act, and what priorities there should be on what is heavily penalized, and what should not be, imo.

You are certainly free to think that as well. We stand on the outside and are free to say whatever we wish, since we have no responsibility. Our end is easy.

That is certainly a possibility. As I stated in a different post, I probably would not have made the decision Dan made, but even the Arsenal director stated that he broke the rules. We can't really have it both ways. We want DCI to act, unless we don't want them to act. We raise holy heck when they do nothing, and we raise it when they do something, because it is not in line with our wishes.

One of the transformations we have learned here on DCP the last year or so in our discussions was what power DCI HQ had over its member Corps. We recall a few posters believing at the time that DCI HQ was nothing more than essentially a " show scheduler ". That phrase, comment is still on here from less than a year ago. We had good debate and discussions on this point, ie just what authority did DCI HQ actually have. Since that time, we have witnessed DCI HQ exert considerable unilateral power over membership Corps... from Suspensions, to Probations, to Financial Books scrutiny, to Corps Director rebukes and punishments, to withdrawal notices for both application to Class, and revocation rights to competition. DCI HQ we have learned... if we had not already.... is far more than just a toothless, "show scheduler ". The question still remains however, do they apply their " rules and regulations " in an even handed, consistent faction across the board, and irrespective of a person and Corps status in DCI ? There is real concern that DCI HQ's implementation of penalties for violations of its policies and procedures is perhaps arbitrary, capricious, and inconsistent.... and its penalties metered out show that its priorities needs fine tuning, to say the least.

Expressing disappointment that adults were putting kids are risk is NOT "bashing and posting negative things." Period.

DCI survived 2009-2010, record lows for modern times in terms of attendance and often show popularity was low too. and this...since i joined drum corps forums online, i remember seeing boycotts called about Bb brass, amps ( I myself attended only 3 shows from 2004-2008), more electronics, show design, the G7.......and yet here we are. And I do think in most cases, DCI is trying to do the right thing. And sometimes the getting to the right path has some pitfalls. Given that DCi told Roman to step down or be gone, Cadets to ditch Hop and the board or else ( and psst, they are still on probation), forced Morrison off of the exec board....they are starting to take some good steps. Many more good steps are needed, but stuff like this doesn't change overnight, an it'll never be perfect. But I at least see some baby steps. now for the love of God, will they hire a person that actually understands PR?

Look, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the actions Dan took. What I will stand on, however, is once the Arsenal Director typed the posting as an official representative of a DCI SoundSport corps applying to become a DCI OC corps, the DCI Director had every right to apply that posting to the standards set forth in the published 2018 DCI Code and act on it the way he saw fit. I may not like the decision, but I will stand firm that it was Dan's to make.

Hi ... I'm a relative of an Oregon Crusaders member, and a friend of several former OC members. I've followed the past two seasons very closely and I have to say, that there is -- and continues to be -- a LOT of posts and commentary coming from what you describe as the "usurp camp." Whether it be on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, here, and many other places, there's a lot to read and digest and process from "their" side of the story. I don't know if we family members / friends / supporters of OC, who don't march and haven't experienced what the members and staff have experienced, will ever know the "whole" and/or real truth. We're outsiders. We haven't "lived" and gone through what they have. We can only read and listen to and digest and process what we can, and (hopefully) interpret things as rationally and fairly as we can. And, based on everything I and others I know have read and heard, we can't help but come to the conclusion that some very bad things have occurred, some (or much?) of which were largely ignored by those tasked with the safety and security of our loved ones and friends participating in OC. And there is absolutely no excuse for that. Period. That being said, we can't help but notice that there's an almost-deafening silence from "the other side" -- "your" side. And I don't count the obviously PR-spun corporate responses from the OC organization. I'm talking about the silence from the folks who know more than what the "usurp camp" has been, quite effectively, communicating. After all, it's said that in all situations there are "two sides to the story," yes? I, and others, believe there's something to be said about the effectiveness -- whether for good or bad -- of social media. And, how a "mob mentality" can sway opinion from one extreme to the next, regardless of what the facts may be -- or regardless of whatever "gray areas" there may be. I believe that there was a very bad person / some very bad people at OC. I also believe that there were people who didn't do all that they could to help. I also believe that for the most part, many of the folks at OC were very good people. As much as I'm disgusted by the actions of those who, basically, ruined it for OC as a whole ... I also feel that the "usurper's camp" story isn't telling the entire story. (If I were them, I wouldn't, also.) But that's the thing. I/we only see/read/hear that story. And from the other side, we get ... corporate PR-speak. There's been a few -- people like yourself -- who've hinted at "the other side," but for various reasons haven't shared very much. At all. I can understand taking the higher road ... moving on ... putting the past behind you. I wish for the organization to heal, get stronger, and come back better than ever. I also understand the legal process. I'm sure there's a lot going on behind the scenes, some of which may involve legal repercussions -- for whatever side. But for those of us who want to continue supporting, and who only have heard one side of the story ... there's always that lingering doubt -- or more specifically, lingering questions about whether or not ALL of it was true. But if all we see are corporate responses (ugh) or allusions to different possibilities (hmmmm), we're really not getting a clear picture. While the other side continues with what has been, whether they realize it or not, a very effective communications and public relations plan. Your last line, "they were ready to take over the corps" give me -- and others I've spoken to -- pause. We just don't know what to do with that thought, now that you've shared it. To put it bluntly, if what we've been reading and hearing is entirely true, and that there were a ton of things that were ignored by the higher-ups, and that member safety and security were constantly jeopardized, then, well, frankly, why would we want to consider supporting this organization under the current leadership? But, if part of that is true, and another part of that involves something else, then, well, it still doesn't excuse what happened. But it does reflect a new light on those who are perpetrating this crafted version of the "truth." The "usurper camp," as you call them. So ... I/we're kind of in limbo here, in that respect.

I'm just not entertained by 8 minutes of jazz dancing, body emoting, running instead of marching, all while playing the same 8 measures over and over at the same volume. That was at least half the shows I've seen in the last two years. I get that that's what today's kids want to do... I just don't call it drum and bugle corps. I call it "Summer Guard International." I will go to my grave stating that SCV 2016 was the last DCI show ever. Everything after that is SGI. Again, just my opinion, but I'm not the only one saying it.

So, showing up at any shows (including Indianapolis) and supporting the thousands of marching members who work their butts off is to be looked down upon? What would y'all suggest we tell all of these members who show up to empty stadiums, or shows are cancelled because WE, the supporters of this activity stayed home? I'm all for pointing out what DCI has done wrong in all of these situations, but what about the members? Isn't that what it's all about?