Jump to content

Update from the Philadelphia Inquirer


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

Oh well.

don't get me wrong...not complaining. but in today's HR/litigious society, it's tough for companies to justify the hire

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

First of all... I think it is clear that Moody was forthright in sharing his background with the corps and the director. I believe that the director has given him a second chance. In the article it does not appear there was any reported instance of negative conduct that was ignored. There is insinuation followed by "it was never reported." He was hired knowing his past mistakes and given a second chance. As far as we can see he has not done anything to require his removal. If he did, I am sure that Mr. Morrison and the board would. But this is an eight year old story. What is new here that is actionable? And I agree, everyone should be held to the same standard. But the Cadets issue and this issue with the Crossmen are in no way the same thing. In my opinion.

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?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

First of all... I think it is clear that Moody was forthright in sharing his background with the corps and the director. I believe that the director has given him a second chance. In the article it does not appear there was any reported instance of negative conduct that was ignored. There is insinuation followed by "it was never reported." He was hired knowing his past mistakes and given a second chance. As far as we can see he has not done anything to require his removal. If he did, I am sure that Mr. Morrison and the board would. But this is an eight year old story. What is new here that is actionable? And I agree, everyone should be held to the same standard. But the Cadets issue and this issue with the Crossmen are in no way the same thing. In my opinion.

Did you read the article?  Two different staffers, in 2013 and in 2014, talked to the corps director about this person's conduct and actions that made them uncomfortable. So, third chance?  Fourth chance?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JKT90 said:

I heard more names are being researched, and in about 3-5 weeks expect another article. 

I would not be surprised seeing what has been shared with the reporter via twitter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

First of all... I think it is clear that Moody was forthright in sharing his background with the corps and the director. I believe that the director has given him a second chance. In the article it does not appear there was any reported instance of negative conduct that was ignored. There is insinuation followed by "it was never reported." He was hired knowing his past mistakes and given a second chance. As far as we can see he has not done anything to require his removal. If he did, I am sure that Mr. Morrison and the board would. But this is an eight year old story. What is new here that is actionable? And I agree, everyone should be held to the same standard. But the Cadets issue and this issue with the Crossmen are in no way the same thing. In my opinion.

The way they are handling this issue is what leads to the Cadets' issue.

 

The ones that did not report are straight-forward as to why they didn't report. They knew it would fall on deaf ears.The lack of response and clarity by the Director at this time only goes to support those claims.

 

And, it is OK to say "we made a mistake in hiring this guy." If you want to say they didn't have claims before, then they do now. Why would you wait for him to become "actionable"?!

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

10 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

First of all... I think it is clear that Moody was forthright in sharing his background with the corps and the director. I believe that the director has given him a second chance. In the article it does not appear there was any reported instance of negative conduct that was ignored. There is insinuation followed by "it was never reported." He was hired knowing his past mistakes and given a second chance. As far as we can see he has not done anything to require his removal. If he did, I am sure that Mr. Morrison and the board would. But this is an eight year old story. What is new here that is actionable? And I agree, everyone should be held to the same standard. But the Cadets issue and this issue with the Crossmen are in no way the same thing. In my opinion.

I'm sorry but those texts he sent was just too creepy. It was not like it was asking her for a date. It was sexual predatory sounding and has no place in a youth activity. Nobody is saying he should not be given a chance. I just would not want that chance to be in a activity where young people are paying to be there. And according to the article...he was hired two years after being STRIPPED of his teaching credentials. So why hire someone who will be in a youth activity after 2 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mingusmonk said:

The way they are handling this issue is what leads to the Cadets' issue.

 

The ones that did not report are straight-forward as to why they didn't report. They knew it would fall on deaf ears. And the lack of response and clarity by the Director at this time only goes to support those claims.

 

And, it is OK to say "we made a mistake in hiring this guy." If want to say they didn't have claims before, then they do now. Why would you wait for him to become "actionable"?!

Better to put out the fire when it’s a spark rather than waiting until it’s a raging forest fire.  This is how we’ve gotten to this point.  If things had been handled in a professional manner internally, we wouldn’t be where we are now as an activity.   Putting out forest fires with a squirt gun.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some professionals, such as teachers, doctors, etc., that are entrusted with a privilege, to perform their job duties in an ethical, non-harmful manner. That trust evaporates when something like this occurs. Without that trust, how can they still perform their job? It has nothing to do with forgiveness or declarations of good intentions.

Edited by year1buick
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mingusmonk said:

The ones that did not report are straight-forward as to why they didn't report. They knew it would fall on deaf ears.The lack of response and clarity by the Director at this time only goes to support those claims.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, year1buick said:

I would’ve flipped out if I found out that someone with that kind of history was working one-on-one with my daughter in a performing group, regardless of how long ago the incident occurred.

Me too.

Mike

  • Like 2
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...