garfield

Members
  • Content Count

    12,674
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    79

garfield last won the day on November 29

garfield had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,555 Excellent

About garfield

  • Rank
    DCP Fanatic

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Central Ohio

Recent Profile Visitors

2,271 profile views
  1. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Now I think you’ve got it. New policies, new governance. And if Dan A has to go, then every DCI Board member does to, and every corps director out on their ear, too. But new policies and governanance doesn’t have to mean everyone gets fired, does it?
  2. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Thanks, Jim. You just made 90% of my argument for me. Today it WOULD be different. In many ways.
  3. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Thanks for this. But isn’t this just more evidence of factless hearsay?
  4. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    I’ve been stating facts from the very beginning. You just aren’t versed well enough in the reality of DCI to see that fact, let alone the ones I’ve been stating. Your ignorance of the facts isn’t my fantasy, it’s yours.
  5. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    When was it not allowed? Anyone who knew and hasn’t spoken is guilty of enabling him. And anyone who knew is a mandatory reporter and has an obligation to notify both the law and the non-profit he now works for. Also, don’t forget the BoD that hired him. They have to go, too. Immediately. So who’s going to make those calls? Lots of folks apparently KNEW his story and haven’t spoken up.
  6. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    It is only for optics if the wrong person is held accountable. The men “ in charge” of DCI are the corps leaders who sit on the Board, not the one scheduling the tour.
  7. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    I’m pretty sure he meant under the responsibilities of Dan’s office. But I think you know that. You’re right about the misinformation, though.
  8. garfield

    Callback camps

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ And that is all.
  9. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    I did not get all "pissy" with you last time you brought up Larson, I got all pissy with you because you insist that Dan A had some obligation to do something that he didn't do. That's been my contention against your Larson discussion; the man sounds like a pig to me (and looks like one, too) and I wouldn't defend him or his actions in any way. I'm focused on the morbidly mistaken and foolhardy notion that getting rid of Dan for optics reasons makes any sense at all. You keep saying he ignored you and didn't act. He did act. He just didn't act in the way you think he should have. I don't think many people take into count how small our activity is and how difficult it would be to replace Dan and his staff for the money they are now being paid, train them, then expect them to both step into tour management AND pull off the season just beginning. Hobbling DCI's ability to hold a tour and generate revenue is not the solution to holding Dan accountable for Larson's participation OR not doing what you think he should have done.
  10. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    He did nothing of the sort. Your presumptive obfuscation of facts is well-developed.
  11. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    And, once again, you made up a whole bunch of crap and lay it forward like it's fact. That's what is shameful on this issue, IMO. You have no idea what "directive" was given, or if there was even a specific directive given in this case that can be identified. "...knew about Larson, knew about Hopkins, knew about Fiedler..." One person claims that are not corroborated is not "documented", it's a single claim. You hit it on the head: All those "good ole boys" did, in fact, marginalize and minimize Dan's role but, for some reason, you can't seem to accept that as fact. "If he resigns now...", that's all just crap. Your opinion is valid, but it's just an opinion. Keeping Dan and his staff in place until and unless he's proven culpable in the heinous acts by his ACTUAL inaction (not his purported inaction, and not the action that would be demanded if the acts happened today) is the best way to assure that the remaining drum corps have a tour on which to perform and attract members. It's a hard business decision, but it is just a business decision and the right answer is to attack the guilty and the enablers that hired them.
  12. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    Once you have his head on a pike, then what? What about Morrison's board of directors? When they don't fire him, will you go after them with the same vigor and vitriol?
  13. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    I can guarantee you that, even without this recent article, this subject will be top-of-agenda next month. "...no choice but to make changes...". Curious, what changes are you expecting to happen during the meeting?
  14. garfield

    “Failure to Protect”

    What I wrote is fact and follows exactly the chain of responsibility/command. There's is no "if" here. I'll mark you down as calling for the removal of all DCI board members, all directors from their corps, and all corps board members because of their enablement of Dan A and his office. And, for the record, I was being sarcastic; I presume you weren't. Am I correct?
  15. garfield

    The Cadets 2019

    Wow. Just wow. Such an unbelievably strong young lady. I had the pleasure of sitting next to her last January when, in open combined session with Board Members, Directors, Drum Majors and all DCI staff we were made aware of the member exit surveys that brought much of this to a head. Afterward while we ate, she and her two other friends regaled the table with stories of abuses that had come to her attention. "We have to do better", she said, "it's gone on long enough". I don't think even she had any idea what was about to happen to her corps.