scheherazadesghost

If the community knew the state this org and activity left some of my fellow alum in, this angry sentiment might better understood, if not forgiven. For example, perhaps you'll recall that one alum reported to me that they developed a Rx drug addiction on tour from the pain of marching. The possibility of that happening again during the opioid crisis is COMPLETELY unacceptable to me. Am I supposed to be nice about any of that? Reamy, I'm practically Spider-Punk in this situation. I don't do vengeance. I do however help lend power and voice to folks like me that the org apparatus has tried to silence over the decades, if they want it. If that's perceived as vengeance then we have really big problems. Sadly, this seems to be the stance too many of my fellow alum have taken. But again, I have less than no control over the others. Few of them seem even know I exist, let alone want to listen to me. We're not likely to agree on this. Suffice to say that the thing they have in common is a staffer. One like many other staffers in the activity, that struggle to integrate the robust safeguarding practices so desperately needed. And the result of lax safeguarding has been reports that range in severity from: SCV, Cadets, Pioneer, Phantom, Cavies, BD..........etc.... and those are the ones only fairly commonly known. What about the others too impacted to speak up? This is not a personal attack on her. If anything I'm extending grace to her by saying she's not alone in this issue... especially if, as you said, WGI didn't have protocol for intervening earlier in the event. It's just further possible evidence that the pageantry arts as a whole must do better to protect the young people they claim to serve.

Everyone here would be gobsmacked at the span of years marched by the reporters who've disclosed to me. This is not something they've given me consent to disclose tho. None of them. May also be surprised that even some of our crowd favorites stemmed from seasons that featured abuse, neglect, harassment, etc... ... allegedly. I'm sure Vanguard isn't alone in this. But I can't realistically investigate or validate. Only Vanguard can do that... but few of the reporters have decided to step forward for their own reasons. And I've already reported VMAPA for a broken whistleblower system, so I really hope they improve. 04 should be enough of an example to stir everyone but apparently it's not. 🤷🏽‍♀️ I'd like to think that alum pushing through these unreasonable challenges to give y'all those excellent performances would mean something to the community too. GR rolling in his grave? I care waaaaay more about the alum that were harmed like me, what they think and feel, and whether they feel reconciled with it all.

.

Not only have you responded to me in the past, but your harmful comments were deleted without a trace. That string of comments, initiated by you, ended in the ban of another member for attacking my mental health after a loved one just died, which I disclosed. (That loved one made quite the trek to see me perform in 04, by the way. It was the only time he saw me perform. Ever.) Fortunately I brought receipts: https://postimg.cc/sMr8Lg5D 'Cause that's what I have to do to not be gaslighted on DCP by strangers who seem to only want to troll. I will not be responding to you in the future.

The poster you're responding to has eerily claimed to know me in now-deleted comments without substantiation or followup. Who does that? Grain of salt situation.

I'll keep saying it. The defining nature of non profits is transparency whether they are good at it or not. They are supposed to be constantly under scrutiny, especially if their board has little to no administrative experience in the nonprofit world. (You simply cannot apply for-profit concepts to the nonprofit world and expect them all to work. The business models and their tax codes are different for very important reasons.) The strongest nonprofits lean into that transparency factor hard and often reap the benefits, cause again, that's how they're supposed to operate. (Looking at you Boston and Colts, as they have the trappings of transparency from what I can read at a distance.) But even the strongest, and I've worked for some, are often plagued by high turnover and burnout that boards should be prepared for... as an example of what for-profit folks may not know. Diminishing the comments of competent alum professionals in the military, nonprofit and education industries who scrutinize Vanguard only contributes to the problem. Not to mention it verges on gaslighting. Three alum in this thread have all claimed to work for the org in some capacity as well as having marched as badasses in some of your favorite corps. Some are former board members that enabled your favorite show. We've all also publicly disclosed that we've been in contact with leadership in the last year. Can other DCPers who cry witch hunt say that? If so, out with it and tell us where we're wrong with, like, facts and stuff.

.

That's on y'all if you think this is a witch hunt. It doesn't help the situation at all though. Why is no one asking what is making alum so upset? Because it's easier, momentarily, for everyone's peace of mind, to dismiss us. And if OP or others are out for blood then there's nothing I can do about it, despite trying since finals in 04. This is not my way, so I differentiated my intentions and I won't be lumped in willingly. No one wants to know what it would be like if I were approaching Vanguard with that kind of nasty intention. I've had kid gloves on and the patience of a saint since I first contacted Vanguard leadership 2 years ago. So have many of the reporters I've spoken to. Those are great questions for WGI.

I can't speak for OP but I don't agree to my two years of advocacy and my professional perspective being characterized this way. I also won't be further responding to "nuh uh" comments with no substantiation.

The whole lesson around Salem stems from the fact that the witches they were looking for weren't ever real and the teenage girls were making it up all along for entertainment. None of that applies here. The things that actual alum, former board members and former employees are trying to tell you are valid. And we are expressing our worry on the last forum available to us that doesn't delete what we say. Y'all can anonymously agree with leadership across every forum available to you. Great. But alum that express genuine concern grounded in fact, not so much. Not without retaliation. ... and most crucially, we're trying to explain our worry for the future safety of members, especially since the Vanguard machine is full speed ahead for 24. Sure, perhaps some alum are haphazardly out for blood but they're only making things worse. We've been at each other's throats since Gail passed. That's my theory anyway. Things are unlikely to improve until that part stops. Also out of my hands.

Bro. How did we get here? 🫠 Don't feel pressure to answer that. Just something I wonder often.

No. 😞 You're thinking of the CFO. 😞😞

I mean, they're adults. (Is Infinity all 18+? Bigger issues here if not.) They shouldn't need constant supervision by leadership. Ideally, young adults should be self monitoring up into the point of policy violation level activities. Beyond that, the next closest to them, volunteers and instructors, should've seen this risk of violation a mile away before they got to the floor. Finally, you can guarantee that if any of my former students had ever been seen by me acting like that at a group function, I would have personally, lovingly scruffed and removed them the second I'd been made aware. No muss no fuss, you busted the policy you signed so don't act surprised. And you put the organization at risk. The job at that point involves eliminating risk for everyone, including for the member who thought this was a good idea. Who knows? Perhaps they're the most at risk at that moment... of self harm. Care in that moment is just as important as a good warmup, making sure the food is good, and high fiving the members before they go on. It should be in the leadership dna. This includes the hypothetical situation that I'd been around for Vanguard's 87 post finals run thru antics, or any of the other examples that've made their way to me. It's not just leadership. The whole org gets a tomato in the face because the probationary period reflects on the whole org whether they like it or not. In fact, I'll go further to say that WGI and other groups might consider beefing up their policies regarding how to respond to bullying from other groups. Rumor has it we have another group to thank for reporting this behavior in the first place. Group accountability is what helps me maintain my compassion for my fellow alum, even those who I disagree with, or who have expressed their displeasure with my choices. I can compassionately hold the cognitive dissonance between us because I consider us a team. It's when they, and other groups disown those who disagree with them or make a youthful mistake that problems arise. Some of those young people made your favorite shows and experiences possible... and, in most cases, are more than worthy of forgiveness. When they get full blame, the staff and leadership don't have to improve. Sorry Infinity. These are your members and they helped you score higher than ever before. You, and too many of these educationalish orgs, are missing an opportunity to listen and learn from mistakes you made regarding member experience. Disowning us is easier though. Cause this work is difficult and there's no manual for it.

Nobody is saying this...

I was a perfect angel, definitely no lived experience to pull from here. 😉👍🏽 I won't get into the weeds. I wasn't there. I just would've thought someone, anyone, close to the org would've caught the policy violation and told staff to save embarrassment... if not, that's a breakdown in procedure. No procedure written? Hmmm... Part of their job is monitoring for risks and policy violations. There are ways to do that without hovering.

Is there a scenario in which you would accept current leadership?

This is quite generous of you, but I'd reckon few people, especially my fellow alum, would agree. I don't even feel comfortable in alum meetings despite efforts on all sides. Besides there are many more deserving who are quieter than me. And I knew some of those inductees once upon a time. Good people. As to your other points, that's all out of my hands. Always has been.

.

Same problem, different resource: https://thecpsu.org.uk/media/445556/web_cpsustandards.pdf Code of ethics, linked procedures spelled out for staff... this is all stuff I've been harping on about for the last year. And yes, I'm aware this is a resource that pertains to minors. The pageantry arts must do a better job of customizing their safeguarding strategies because they serve hybrid age groups. College and pro athletes have pretty strict conduct to follow and, because more money is on the line, stricter penalties. Teams and coaches are culpable for their rowdy individual team mates. Or... the military has this down to a science, even if imperfect. And while none of these systems will apply to drum corps apples-to-apples, they're all further along in development and no one has to reinvent the wheel to drive improvements. It starts at not placing full blame on the individual member. Ultimately, they're still the young customer who violated policy and they should have been fully informed of exactly what would happen as a result. However, the staff also have a responsibility to act in the best interest of member safety immediately and always. Why weren't these members pulled? Wasn't that in the policy and procedure? So sure, they can either comply to requiered training or show they've done it themselves. At this point, video training is rock bottom minimum, given the industry's history. Better to seek the advice of those with real world safeguarding experience than rely on canned training videos. Ya know, like some of us who have been blowing the whistle or others who express concern to me more quietly. I'm waaay not the only one. Just from Vanguard alum alone. Employers should seek this skillset out and prospective or current employees could both benefit professional development in this area. More importantly, the members benefit. Personally, I wasn't worried for my safety at retreats. We were often cat called in 04 by other corps though. Staff just let it happen, it seems.

She has been with the org for a while now. I won't personally defend her here cause I have zero connection, but I get the sense that many alum would. Specifically for her role last season. That said, I literally can't paint a clearer picture of Vanguard's legacy of risking staff and member safety (substances included or not, take your pick) without being censored. Everywhere. The board has never been held accountable for this, nor staff, because there is no governing body with drum corps in its jurisdiction. Thus, retaining a staffer who directed a group that is now on 2 years' probation for risking their own and others' safety requires a closer look at policy and procedure everywhere. At least, that's what any responsible leader's reaction to this should be. If she enthusiastically complies with all required training, that's a great first step. Again though, the video training doesn't prepare anyone for dynamic, real world scenarios. Period. That's not what they're designed for. Are staffers prepared to pull a star performer who violates policy? Is there a written policy and procedure for what to do in that case no matter the location? Are all staff and members informed of this policy? Does the org have signed agreement of said specific policy? Etc. Future Vanguard members deserve at least that. I personally argue they deserve more, given our history.

I'm definitely not diminishing individual responsibility. I know and care for alum who made bad, youthful decisions when we were younger. It just doesn't strike me as good leadership to place greater accountability on the young adult member than the full adult staffers, especially when safety was at risk. Are we seriously saying everyone nearby on staff thought the grocery cart was a good idea or somehow just didn't see it at all? Either way, accountability goes beyond training and most corps could use a thorough update to their substance use violation policies and protocols. The activity has quite a legacy on the matter and continuing to shuffle accountability never helps.

I've spoken to the intersection between substance misuse and Vanguard members/staff/alum before. It's not good if any of the too-many reports are to be believed. So you'll forgive me, I hope, if I wince at reading this. WGI wrote in their public statement that safety was at risk at a live event. The buck stops with staff somewhere.

🤷🏽‍♀️ Ain't my corner of the sandbox.

Here's the only mention of it so far.

Vanguard hires BB, is called out for hiring someone with his track record on youth safety. BB out in less than a year. Vanguard later hires RCA, whose previous employer folded after accusations that a long time instructor violated a member. RCA out in less than a year. All in the last 5 years. Shall I go further back for more examples? I'll probably be censored again so I'll save the mods some work and not. Anyway, the concern is valid.