JMS1995

In regard to Yea! hiring the Chicago law firm of Franczek and Radelet, with Jennifer Smith leading the investigation: Now, with the luck that Yea! has had so far in appointing various people and boards, we aren't going to find these names in the annals of Cadets' history, are we... like Jen's mom's cousin marched 3rd kazoo in 1956? Then we might need the law firm to get a lawyer... and heck, we've already got enough of that going on, right?!

In thinking about how far back GH's misdeeds go, I began wondering... assuming the allegations are true, what if he had been caught and ousted long ago... decades ago? Certainly fewer victims. But, also, what would DCI look like today... the butterfly effect. GH was a pivotal force in shaping the way drum corps has changed in the last couple decades in regard to electronics, amplification, new instruments, etc. I don't want to open up a debate on the controversial changes he pushed for, but rather just to note that his presence or dominance in the activity has taken it on a certain path to where it is now. It is interesting to me just to hypothesize about what shows might look like today if his last year with DCI was somewhere in the 90's.

This is a good point. DCI was and has been as you describe. I think this is now all in question as to what DCI's role should be moving forward, assuming it all moves forward. I think it is odd, though, that even if not out searching for "dirt" on themselves, they didn't hear things. The DCI staff is very small... many of the office staff are the ones who travel out to the DCI shows to run them, and in doing this it seems likely they mingle, talk, listen... did any of what we know today [or other things we don't know yet] every pass by their ears?

An individual who was not a DCI official... not suspended, but maybe just a gut-check. DCI is supposed to be "the buck stops here people" since they are the sanctioning body (whatever that means at this point)... if DCI knew, then they should have investigated to some degree.

??? Hang on... if Acheson [who is now accused of knowing of GH's past] said the "review was nearly complete," it could be that he did not dig deep enough, or cast a wide-enough net on purpose -to avoid revealing what Phily.com just exposed... an allegation that he knew something! In addition, DCI [Acheson] made no immediate statement calling for the Yea! board to resign and did not openly object to SK being installed as interim director until the reporter in Phily dug deep. Are we expected to believe that not one single person has ever notified DCI about these specific RAMD pages, that have been up for 15 years? Not one person said, "Hey, there is something you might want to read." Was the RAMD forum so tightly guarded or closed that no news of it ever leaked out to anyone connected with DCI? There is no "bottom" to something like this... you can never rule out another person coming forward, but "Well, has anyone got anything else to confess... no? Good... looks like we're all done here" is not digging deep enough. Why is it that these people in Phily have been consistently one step ahead of DCI? Further, if the rumors of GH were so widespread or so numerous --as people seem to be saying now-- it seems to point to one of two things... either DCI was very out of touch with the "totality" of GH's persona (and that seems odd, considering how frequently GH had contact with all sorts of officials from DCI) and was being kept in the dark by all these people who new something but said nothing, or [2] they did know something on some level and did not have the guts to stand up to GH or do some investigating to confirm or deny their suspicions. If 1 is true, it shows incompetence; if 2, then it shows negligence. The fact that DCI is now putting into place self-described fail-safe policies, is --again-- only a reaction to the work that someone completely unconnected with drum corps [the reporter] has managed to find out ahead of the expert organization that has overseen it for well over 40 years!

Can we just sign up for messaging service that will text us every 12 hours with a list of those who are NOT facing any sort of allegations? It might be simpler.

Completely agreed. I don't know how you begin to discover the truth of what precisely happened... a legal proceeding would potentially bring witnesses of some sort forward. I'm not saying it will go that direction.

True, of course. I'll revise my point and say that we don't know what will be saved or not. If Murphy is running the internet, it won't be the post we made about making cookies with grandma while watching drum corps on PBS.

On the Acheson article, it can be viewed in two time periods, historically in 2003 and now, 15 years later. Also, the fact that we are all now aware of multiple accusers of GH coming forward can taint our perspective of how believable the source was in 2003. If the phone call happened, let's say hypothetically that --at the very least-- Acheson became aware of a rumor (unsubstantiated or not, first or second hand) that GH was engaging in sexual behavior with a corps member(s); did Acheson break the law by not doing anything with that information (assuming he did nothing with it)? I don't know the legal obligations he would have had then. Rather than directing fire at the person who made the alleged phone call (why didn't you call other people, etc.), the question is should Acheson --even back then-- have done something with that information? Even looking at it through 2003-eyes, I can't find a valid excuse for him doing nothing with it, or dismissing it without doing any follow-up at all. I can stipulate that the cultural norms surrounding sexual-harassment back then are different than they are now, but I think that if you were the parent (then or now) of the victim, your reaction would have been the same: "You had been informed my daughter was possibly being abused and you did nothing?" Therefore, even in 2003, I would think that this phrase would have at some point come into Acheson's mind and once it did, should have been the driving force that would move him to some level of action. What should happen now, with the revelation of this article is that DCI should suspend Acheson while they hire an outside agency to conduct an investigation. We just saw what happened at Yea! when an internal agency investigated itself, "All's well, boss --pay no attention to the men behind the curtain." In this case, though, there is no higher sanctioning organization above DCI. The only thing above DCI is IPD (Indianapolis Police Department), or authorities in Lombard.

Maybe one thing we can all agree on --and this is a good lesson to learn from-- once it is out on the internet it is there for good... just depends on how much digging someone wants to do.

I don't think the idea of cancelling the season would be levied as a punishment but -if it were canceled- it would be due to a lack of leadership to guarantee beyond all reasonable doubt that the corps can protect its members. Regardless of how SK came to be the interim CEO, the fact that they have now dismissed or suspended 2 directors in a row, in just 2 days... the only thing that could make that worse is if it had happened on the same day, or if they had dismissed 3 in a row. I don't know... would you have better job security at Yea! or in the Trump White House --it's a toss up!

When she awoke the next morning, Hopkins was gone. He had left a Cadets T-shirt on the nightstand. This is unreal... not meaning that I don't believe it is real, but just... I. Am. Floored.

The man Beyer said she confided in, Sean King, last week was named as Hopkins’ interim replacement. ...stunned if this is true. OK, board of directors #2 out... time for panel #3!

24 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said: You mean he’d show up at an event? Holy crap. There would be some major league heckling. You mean, "Holy Name" crap!

DCI's ethics and compliance page now shows: This includes ethics concerns, as well as alleged violations of DCI’s values, code of conduct, and policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct, and retaliation. The "code of conduct" is no longer capitalized... but is there an actual written code of conduct? Again until seeing this, I'm unsure of what they are asking everyone to adhere to specifically. Fore example, they indicate that they prohibit discrimination. This is false. They openly condone discrimination by allowing the Scouts and Cavies to deny women access to auditioning for those corps.