MikeD Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 4 hours ago, BRASSO said: George Hopkins even hired ( with the former YEA Board rubber stamping the hire ) as recently as 2 years ago an individual found guilty by a Jury of his Peers of secretly videotaping a female minor in a school shower with his hidden camera. .....The GH hire was eventually let go. But what got that to happen ? It was " public opinion " that came to the fore, when DCI and YEA failed to do what needed to be done in the 1st place, ie not hire a guy that previously had been found guilty in a jury trial of deviant sexual behaviors around minors on school grounds. There is no Statute of Limitations with Crimes visited upon minors by adults when it comes thinking about rehiring them. Wow, that is a total misrepresentation of what took place with the guy. Not to mention, since the misdemeanor conviction was not for a crime the level you state above, it was later set aside, as any misdemeanor may be upon successful completion of any imposed sentence. The verdict was this... "…guilty of unlawfully attempting to view, by means of any instrumentality, to wit a camcorder, the interior of an area in which the occupancy has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside…" The statute broken was not a sex-based crime at all, actually, but could have applied to filming a custodian going about his/her daily duties. Plus, after the case, the person was both the Troopers and Cavies brass caption head before the verdict was set aside, and was also a college band director at two different universities in that time. He passed the PA credential check performed by YEA, as he has no record. I've never met the man, and I have no idea why he was taping in the closet, but your description does not fit the actual situation in this case. There is enough real stuff to fill page after page in the thread. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManNJ Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 50 minutes ago, Tim K said: There may be valid reasons why Dan Acheson does not speak to reporters, but there are also valid reasons why he should, and it’s likely not speaking is at the advice of legal counsel. However, DCI has good public relations folks that I believe do a good job at promoting the activity, and professional public relations people would know how to word things and handle reporters. Most people would view not addressing reporters as either covering up or just as bad, not caring. Hunkering down is never a good strategy. The optics are bad. Most professional communications people would never recommend what was communicated to the reporter. They may be good at promoting DCI and the activity but the strategy on handling a simple request for interview regarding a DCI news release on new policies with a "not gonna talk to you... submit your questions in writing" is really misguided. No lawyer would suggest this either... unless there was something the attorneys were concerned about. None of these scenarios are good. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 6 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said: Hunkering down is never a good strategy. The optics are bad. Most professional communications people would never recommend what was communicated to the reporter. They may be good at promoting DCI and the activity but the strategy on handling a simple request for interview regarding a DCI news release on new policies with a "not gonna talk to you... submit your questions in writing" is really misguided. No lawyer would suggest this either... unless there was something the attorneys were concerned about. None of these scenarios are good. This^^^^ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MikeD said: Wow, that is a total misrepresentation of what took place with the guy. Not to mention, since the misdemeanor conviction was not for a crime the level you state above, it was later set aside, as any misdemeanor may be upon successful completion of any imposed sentence. The verdict was this... "…guilty of unlawfully attempting to view, by means of any instrumentality, to wit a camcorder, the interior of an area in which the occupancy has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside…" The statute broken was not a sex-based crime at all, actually, but could have applied to filming a custodian going about his/her daily duties. Plus, after the case, the person was both the Troopers and Cavies brass caption head before the verdict was set aside, and was also a college band director at two different universities in that time. He passed the PA credential check performed by YEA, as he has no record. I've never met the man, and I have no idea why he was taping in the closet, but your description does not fit the actual situation in this case. There is enough real stuff to fill page after page in the thread. The fact the victim was not present in the appeal process, and that as a result, the guilty verdict was expunged, does not mean such a person is fit to be rehired in a setting that involves minors in the future... especially one that involves presumably school shower facilities on tour. The fact that other Corps/MB's likewise hired this guy only bolsters how safety lax the activity had really become, imo. Shockingly so, imo We don't have to debate whether it was legal or not for schools to expose other people's children to a person found guilty of secretly videotaping a female minor in a school shower. The sad thing is that the laws of California allowed such expungement. So it was legal. But thats not whats at stake here, nor the question. The fact is that this guy never should have been hired ever again in settings similar to what had him become untrustworthy before in those settings. Why ? Because such a guy with a checkered past does not belong around female minors in organizations that embark on 9 week summer tours, thats why. Its interesting to note that when the info came to light on his hire, he was let go . Why was he let go ? It reportedly was not because he could not perform his duties. It was because people found out about this hire, and pressure was brought to bear on the guy that hired him, George Hopkins, to let him go. George Hopkins complied and terminated him. Had the info on this hire become public knowledge in Drum Corps circles before, its likely that this guy would not have been allowed to work in environments where he most egregiously violated a parents trust by violating their child's right to shower without that trusted adult acting so shamelessly in a shameful act of what can only be called deviant, despicable, and a betrayal of the parent and the public's trust. Its indefensible the act. The fact that he found his way back to youthful settings similar in some respects to the one he broke the law on is equally indefensible, imo... even if his shameful hire was deemed " legal " and it " all checked out ". No. I don't think such a guy gets a 2nd chance with minors. When its minors, the threshold is much higher, imo... as they are our most vulnerable. Such guys who do deviant things like this, should not be allowed around Drum Corps ever again, imo. Let them go work in some adult office some where, or whatever. Keep them forevermore away from working with youth groups/ schools ever again. Lord knows , organizations can find good, decent, honorable, young talent that won't abuse their trusted position like this creepy guy did. And... look who found and hired the guy.... George Hopkins.... and finally, to equate what this guy did to something like " filming a custodian in a school without their permission " is beyond the pale. MikeD.. You are better than this. You are a good poster on DCP. But the analogy to what this guy was initially found guilty of in a trail jury with that of the filming of an adult " school custodian going about their duties in a school " is shockingly insensitive to the female minor that he violated in her moment of expected privacy in a school shower by videotaping her there. The Jury did not find this former school employee guilty of using a camera to videotape an adult school custodian going about their duties one day. Com'on MikeD. You are far, far better than this. Edited May 3, 2018 by BRASSO 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, BRASSO said: The fact the victim was not present in the appeal process, and that as a result, the guilty verdict was expunged, does not mean such a person is fit to be rehired in a setting that involves minors in the future... especially one that involves presumably school shower faciclities on tour. The fact that other Corps. MB's made mistaken hire only bolsters how lax the activity has become. We don't have to debate whether it was legal or not for schools to expose other people's children to a person found guilty of secretly videotaping a female minor in a school shower. The sad thing is that the laws of California allowed such expungement. So it was legal. But thats not whats at stake here, nor the question. The fact is that this guy never should have been hired ever again in settings similar to what had him become untrustworthy before in those settings. Why ? Because such a guy with a checkered past does not belong around female minors in organizations that embark on 9 week summer tours, thats why. Its interesting to note that when the info came to light on his hire, he was let go . Why was he let go ? It reportedly was not because he could not perform his duties. It was because people found out about this hire, and pressure was brought to the guy that hired him, George Hopkins, to let him go. George Hopkins complied and terminated him. Had the info on this hire become public knowledge in Drum Corps circles before, its likely that this guy would not have been allowed to work in environments where he most egregiously violated a parents trust by violating their child's right to shower without that trusted adult acting so shamelessly in a shameful act of what can only be called deviant, despicable, and A betrayal of the parent and the public's trust. Its indefensible the act. The fact that he found his way back to youthful settings is equally indefensible, imo... even if " legal ". He wouldn’t have been teaching my drum corps. Ever. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 13 minutes ago, BRASSO said: The fact the victim was not present in the appeal process, and that as a result, the guilty verdict was expunged, does not mean such a person is fit to be rehired in a setting that involves minors in the future... especially one that involves presumably school shower faciclities on tour. The fact that other Corps/MB's likewise hired this guy only bolsters how safety lax the activity had really become, imo. Shockingly so, imo We don't have to debate whether it was legal or not for schools to expose other people's children to a person found guilty of secretly videotaping a female minor in a school shower. The sad thing is that the laws of California allowed such expungement. So it was legal. But thats not whats at stake here, nor the question. The fact is that this guy never should have been hired ever again in settings similar to what had him become untrustworthy before in those settings. Why ? Because such a guy with a checkered past does not belong around female minors in organizations that embark on 9 week summer tours, thats why. Its interesting to note that when the info came to light on his hire, he was let go . Why was he let go ? It reportedly was not because he could not perform his duties. It was because people found out about this hire, and pressure was brought to bear on the guy that hired him, George Hopkins, to let him go. George Hopkins complied and terminated him. Had the info on this hire become public knowledge in Drum Corps circles before, its likely that this guy would not have been allowed to work in environments where he most egregiously violated a parents trust by violating their child's right to shower without that trusted adult acting so shamelessly in a shameful act of what can only be called deviant, despicable, and a betrayal of the parent and the public's trust. Its indefensible the act. The fact that he found his way back to youthful settings similar in some respects to the one he broke the law on is equally indefensible, imo... even his shameful hire was deemed " legal ". 17 You mean people slip by and get back into the activity? WOW! 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 12 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said: He wouldn’t have been teaching my drum corps. Ever. We all know ( well most I think ) how this happens , don't we 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, GUARDLING said: We all know ( well most I think ) how this happens , don't we Oh yeah. Unfortunately, I do. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUARDLING Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 1 minute ago, Terri Schehr said: Oh yeah. Unfortunately, I do. yup.....I hear ya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted May 3, 2018 Share Posted May 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, GUARDLING said: You mean people slip by and get back into the activity? WOW! Bigger issue than just Drum Corps. Maybe lawyers could come up with a clause in the contract that requires the hire-ee to swear that they have never been convicted of these kind of offenses, whether the record was expunged or not If individual lies and is found-out, immediately fired & has to pay back any monies paid by the Corps since they were hired (to give it some teeth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts