Jump to content

Update from the Philadelphia Inquirer


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

Rightly or wrongly I do believe this was done to provide someone who made a terrible mistake a second chance ...This story is eight years old. 

Edit:  Removed to avoid side-tracking discussion

Edited by Eleran
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

true to a point. but in the reading the article, it seems clear there was a level of no trust in the director to do anything. Obviously there was a stink when the guy got hired, and Morrison defended it, and seemed to do so ever since. kinda like the old YEA Board.....why go to people you know will ignore it?

Interesting since I have never heard Fred Morrison described as someone that could not be trusted. He was giving someone a second chance (we can debate if this was wise). If there is evidence that he ignored new infractions reported to him then this would be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Eleran said:

Tell that to Scott-Lee Atchison

Where is the offense the director of the Crossmen did not respond to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MusicManNJ said:

If you have an issue it needs to be reported. If there is anything this collection of stories is showing is that needs to happen. You cannot condemn someone for not taking an action on something that was not reported. My point is he was hired and everyone was aware of the history. Rightly or wrongly I do believe this was done to provide someone who made a terrible mistake a second chance. It is not like it was hidden. This story is eight years old.

It may have begun 8 years ago, but it is absolutely current. You cannot discount these new reports simply because you don't care for the fact that they weren't timely, or within a certain reporting chain. Especially since no such policy or reporting process existed at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

Where is the offense the director of the Crossmen did not respond to?

Edit:  Removed to avoid side-tracking discussion

Edited by Eleran
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mingusmonk said:

It may have begun 8 years ago, but it is absolutely current. You cannot discount these new reports simply because you don't care for the fact that they weren't timely, or within a certain reporting chain. Especially since no such policy or reporting process existed at the time.

Not discounting anything. And certainly agree these need to be investigated now that they are being reported. I think holding the director responsible for something that was not reported to him is not a standard anyone should be held to. Getting a report and taking no action... completely different story.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

If you have an issue it needs to be reported. If there is anything this collection of stories is showing is that needs to happen. You cannot condemn someone for not taking an action on something that was not reported. My point is he was hired and everyone was aware of the history. Rightly or wrongly I do believe this was done to provide someone who made a terrible mistake a second chance. It is not like it was hidden. This story is eight years old. 

I completely agree the lack of response is certainly concerning. Not only here but with DCI as well.  YEA has set the standard for how to approach these issues. You have to own it and show what you are doing to make things right. 

Yep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Federal and state background check for any adult working with minors

2) Verification of all past places of residence included as part of the application.

3) Verification of all past places of employment.

These would be enough for any competent person in charge of hiring to do a quick search of court records and reasons for leaving their previous employers as well as any conspicuous gaps in employment.

No, it's not asking too much. 

As for whether or not to give somebody fired for, convicted of, or even suspected of harming children a "second chance," I guess that will be up to the corps unless DCI implements something draconian. 

In my opinion, for a corps to even think about being an outlet for "second chances" of this kind is beyond stupid.  it was before the Hopkins story came out, and it is now. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

Not discounting anything. And certainly agree these need to be investigated now that they are being reported. I think holding the director responsible for something that was not reported to him is not a standard anyone should be held to. Getting a report and taking no action... completely different story.

OK. I think I understand you better. Thanks. I guess what you are saying is, given what we read in the article, the jury is still out on how Fred handles this recent development. You are OK with the initial hire.  Makes some sense.

 

Although to be saying "everyone knew about it for 8 years" is not reality. Drum corps insiders? Sure. But things have been mentioned on DCP, Reddit, etc and they disappear quickly. And honestly, DCP and Reddit are still just fanatics.  I would think if you polled parents at Crossmen, the awareness would be far short of everyone. I suspect some feet would have been held to the fire a long time ago if that was the case.

 

Thanks again for the civility!

Edited by mingusmonk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...