Sign the Petition

[Jeff Ream]

19 hours ago, MikeD said:

I don't know of any current corps who have felons on their staffs. 

one who had "charges dropped"

[Fran Haring]

3 hours ago, garfield said:

Let's just be clear about what the petitioner is asking:

"This petition is for DCI and its Board of Directors to create a set of standards for each corps to meet, to require each corps to submit a plan detailing how they protect their students, for all corps to maintain records of complaints of sexual harassment, misconduct, etc., to make these records available to DCI and other corps, and for DCI to exclude any unit from performing at DCI events that cannot demonstrate how their members are protected."

It is NOT about DCI adopting a policy that corps follow state laws.  It's requiring DCI, the org, to be the writer, reviewer, record-keeper, and monitor for compliance and enforce penalties for non-compliance. 

Heck, the member corps can't even agree on centralized purchasing or who's playing what at finals retreat!  It's not likely that they will agree to either centralize the duties or craft a single policy of action with students that's acceptable to all member corps.

 

Exactly. Good luck with that. LOL

A question I don't have the answer to... perhaps someone here does, and forgive me if this has been asked and answered, I haven't had time to read this whole thread...

If... and I mean IF... NOT accusing any corps of anything here, so this is a hypothetical wrapped up in a theoretical... a given corps is found to have a registered sex offender on its staff, can DCI (by that, I mean the front office) step in and take any action to have that staff member removed?  I guess by "take action" I mean... does the front office have the legal means/right to do so? Or can they act solely on moral grounds?  And yes, I know "moral grounds"  can be open to interpretation, and might open an entirely new can of worms.

 

 

[garfield]

57 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 I seriously doubt it. Unless you believe that the thousands of  Girls Softball All Star teams ( aged 13-18) that travel on buses, take showers, or stay overnite on travel tournaments, etc will similarly have " no one under 18" participating in the future. I see no value in overreacting to a simple petition for DCI to be vigilant here either. I think this all gets its proper airing now, and then proactive measures adopted  by both Corps and DCI itself that will limit any future reoccurances of problems. But maybe I'm being too optimistic, naive with this too.. who knows. But I see little to no harm with this petition drive, frankly.

This is all practical and level-headed.

You seem a little too-anxious to encourage flame-throwing, but I don't hold it against you.

[garfield]

It's the process: someone throws a can of gas and makes a claim and, before long, a crowd forms and starts burning things demanding justice for fictitious wrongs, forcing change in some placation that makes a few feel better and the rest feeling guilty.

This thread is a can of gas.  I'm here with a fire extinguisher to say: If the petitioner has a claim, bring it forth and don't hide behind the crowd-bating techniques of well-practiced antagonizers.  Do the homework to elicit a well-founded accusation and be ready to present facts to either the corps boards, DCI, or the very protective and cynical members of this board.

Don't throw your cans of gas here.  I'm going to challenge every single accusation that crowd-agitation elicits, and I'm not going to stand by and let fear-mongers demand change and reform in an activity where it's documented to be progressive, accepting, inviting, accommodating, encouraging, and WELCOMING to all kinds and forms of people and personalities.

I demand facts, and I will push back hard on straw-men accusations of potentialities.  Straw-men burn hot once you ignite them.

 

[Terri Schehr]

As someone who had a brush with a sex offender as a nine year old, and I was sexually harassed by my former boss in my early twenties, I don’t care what drum corps it is.  I signed the petition because the very thought of it makes me sick.  

[garfield]

30 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

and I'm not going to - Stu is on my ignore and will remain there lol

No, honest to God, I wish you'd not.  Just ignore him and don't take his bait.  That's cool.  But read what he says and choose what you respond to.  We're living up to the expectations of civil debate if we don't give up on one another.

IMO, anyway.

[BRASSO]

39 minutes ago, skevinp said:

I didn't mean to suggest such as a reaction to the petition, just that some of the things people were saying DCI could be liable for or should be accountable for, in addition to other complexities associated with minors in addition to this one issue, could lead to consideration of such in the future.    It could be class specific or and/or corps-specific (by their own choice).  And unlike your girls softball example, I think minors are a pretty small minority at least in some corps.

 I hear you, but the fact that Corps are on tours away from home with adults for several weeks on end, does make for extra cautionary due diligence when it comes to hiring adults who are with them in close quarters for weeks on end. I'm unapologetically tough on this. I'm a first strike and you're out kind of guy when it comes to convicted sex offenders.  I don't take that " risk ", when it comes to minors, or even young adults. No matter my expected belief that the sex offender  might... in my assessment... have a low likelihood of a repeat sex offense to take place again while in my employ. I don't take on that risk. Not on my watch. But if some Corps Director decides too, thats their choice.

Edited November 1, 2017 by BRASSO

[garfield]

23 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

... and " others ( who ) would not make that choice " more than likely involves the Insurance Carrier for this Corps too. Corps Directors can and do take " risks ". Often times, those " risks " are transferred to an Insurance Co for an agreed premium charge to the Corps in case something goes wrong. Insurance Companies annually evaluate such " risks " and assign a premium for talking on that " risk " transferred to them with the premium payments. Sometimes Insurance Companies do not want to take on the " risks " and alert the Insured they will no longer insure them for that new"  risk ". In the case of a person with a sexual offender conviction in their background, there is the natural and legal requirement on the part of the employer ( the Corps ) to inform their Insurance Carrier that they have this person now in their employ. That legal obligation to notify the Insurance Carrier one assumes has been made by the Corps in question here, and the person solely responsible for hiring him and as you said... " take on the risk " with the hire. One does not want to find out what typically happens when a sexual offender hired by a Corps fails to inform its current Insurance Co, that it has knowingly decided to hire a convicted sex offender, but the first time the Insurance carrier finds out about this is when an Insurance Claim is filed should this hire have a reoccurrance, and  the Corps wants the Insurance Carrier to pay their Legal costs, Court costs, legal damages. etc to the victim(s). Sure, Corps Directors can take on new " risks ". And of course too, Insurance Carriers need to know what those new risks are that they've decided to take on for themselves, and by extension, their Corps.

TLDR

I'm exhausted just scrolling.

Dood, you challenge me! and I write some long sentences!  Break up the thought into manageable bits. 

All of the legal requirements have been met by the subject and checked by the background check procedures in place at each organization, including personal interviews and history searches.

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by garfield

[garfield]

8 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

As someone who had a brush with a sex offender as a nine year old, and I was sexually harassed by my former boss in my early twenties, I don’t care what drum corps it is.  I signed the petition because the very thought of it makes me sick.  

I have high respect for the stuff you write here, generally, so I'm a little surprised that you allowed your understandable emotion express itself in a manner that demands policy change to solve a problem that hasn't been identified.

This is how mad crowds get started.

I understand your pain and disgust, really.  But what, exactly would you like the petition to address that DCI and its member corps aren't now addressing actively?

With all due respect and no desire what-so-ever to enflame the passions of a woman with claws.

 

[BRASSO]

8 minutes ago, garfield said:

.

You seem a little too-anxious to encourage flame-throwing, but I don't hold it against you.

 Quite the contrary... as a matter of fact, a simple PM to the mods here will help you understand that I was not in favor of this thread topic being posted on here as a matter of fact, and asked that it be removed. Once the decisiin was made however to allow the thread topic, I agreed with that decision, as tough as it might have been for DCP mods.  My comments here are far from " encouraging flame throwing ".. its a complete mischaracterization here on my remarks on here. Totally. But you are entitled to your opinions  as well.