How Far Is Too Far?

[BRASSO]

1 hour ago, MikeD said:

However, in the case of Moody, he has no conviction on his record and would have, and I am thinking probably did, pass any vetting out of his legal record that might be mandated by the state of Texas.

However, as we can readily see, even the Crossmen's actions unmistakably told us with those actions that they agreed that he was a bad hire in retrospect. Mooney was removed post haste when the outside media brought his hire and retention to the public. The Crossmen made no effort to justify his retention at the Crossmen then. He was gone in a flash. He would NOT have been removed however if his background did not surface in the media. He would thus have remained a future risk hire there at the Crossmen. Morrison freely admitted to the press he knew was taking a high risk with other people's children with Mooney's hire and retention .To our knowledge, Morrison did not bring that knowledge that he knew he was taking a risk on Mooney to the Parents of the Crossmen marchers.. We also have reports that others had brought their concerns to Morrison. What was allegedly Morrison's standard reply ? " Go way. I don't want to talk about or hear any more about it ".

 My comments above are not about known risky hires due to sexual misconduct episodes revealed in the past. They were about " criminal convictions " with those with episodes of sexual misconduct not being hired. nor retained in DCI Drum Corps moving forward now in the future. But if you are asking me in THIS particular case you just brought up, should Morrison have retained Mooney,  I would respond that Mooney should never have been hired by ANY DCI Drum Corps for his previously known sexual misconduct with a High School female student of his, conviction or not. Morrison apparently believes this now too ( but way too late ), as thats why Mooney is no longer involved in any DCI Drum Corps now.

 Background check results ( even if cleared ) do not absolve a DCI Corps Director ( and the former Chairmen of the BOD in DCI ) from the consequences of their knowingly hiring a known sexual misconduct predator  with disgusting repetitive episodes foisted upon a high school female student of theirs.

 The Crossmen ( and DCI ) are finding out the dire consequences that can and do result with such hiring and retention decisions made with these high risk people of dubious character. This is what happens.  Unfortunately,  Its actually pretty predictable that ultimately these irresponsible hires would come back to haunt the organization that took that huge risk, and we find it eventually blows up on them, thus regrettably damaging the entire organization in the process with that decision.

Edited May 21, 2018 by BRASSO

[MikeD]

12 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

However, as we can readily see, even the Crossmen's actions unmistakably told us with those actions that they agreed that he was a bad hire in retrospect. Mooney was removed post haste when the outside media brought his hire and retention to the public. The Crossmen made no effort to justify his retention at the Crossmen. He was gone in a flash. He would NOT have been removed however if his background did not surface in the media. He would thus have remained a future risk hire there at the Crossmen. Morrison freely admitted to the press he knew was taking a high risk with other people's children with Mooney's hire and retention .To our knowledge, Morrison did not bring that knowledge that he knew he was taking a risk on Mooney to the Parents of the Crossmen marchers.. We also have reports that others had brought their concerns to Morrison. What was allegedly Morrison's standard reply ? " Go way. I don't want to talk about or hear any more about it ".

 My comments above are not about known risky hires due to sexual misconduct episodes revealed in the past. They were about " criminal convictions " of sexual misconduct not being hired. nor retained in DCI Drum Corps moving forward now in the future. But if you are asking me in THIS particular case you just brought up, should Morrison have retained Mooney,  I would respond that Mooney should never have been hired by ANY DCI Drum Corps for his previously known sexual misconduct with a High School female student of his, conviction or not. Morrison apparently believes this now too ( but way too late ), as thats why Mooney is no longer involved in any DCI Drum Corps now.

 Background check results ( even if cleared ) do not absolve a Corps Director from the consequences of hiring a known sexual misconduct predator  with a disgusting repetitive episodes foisted upon a high school female student of theirs.. Period.

 The Crossmen ( and DCI ) know this full well now here in May, 2018.

My post was in relation to this comment, nothing more...

"DCI could make it easier on everybody if they simply had a policy that no Corps be allowed to hire a person on its staff that has had a sexual misconduct conviction. "

I would guess (and that is all it is) that individual corps already have this type of thing in place. YEA! did before the Hopkins thing broke out, for example. DCI mandating such checks for all is a good idea, but it doesn't guarantee anything more than what  was in place before these latest events, IMO.

Hopefully Morrison is living and learning and evolving his personal view on these topics as time progresses. 

 

[garfield]

29 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

However, as we can readily see, even the Crossmen's actions unmistakably told us with those actions that they agreed that he was a bad hire in retrospect. Mooney was removed post haste when the outside media brought his hire and retention to the public. The Crossmen made no effort to justify his retention at the Crossmen. He was gone in a flash. He would NOT have been removed however if his background did not surface in the media. He would thus have remained a future risk hire there at the Crossmen. Morrison freely admitted to the press he knew was taking a high risk with other people's children with Mooney's hire and retention .To our knowledge, Morrison did not bring that knowledge that he knew he was taking a risk on Mooney to the Parents of the Crossmen marchers.. We also have reports that others had brought their concerns to Morrison. What was allegedly Morrison's standard reply ? " Go way. I don't want to talk about or hear any more about it ".

 My comments above are not about known risky hires due to sexual misconduct episodes revealed in the past. They were about " criminal convictions " of sexual misconduct not being hired. nor retained in DCI Drum Corps moving forward now in the future. But if you are asking me in THIS particular case you just brought up, should Morrison have retained Mooney,  I would respond that Mooney should never have been hired by ANY DCI Drum Corps for his previously known sexual misconduct with a High School female student of his, conviction or not. Morrison apparently believes this now too ( but way too late ), as thats why Mooney is no longer involved in any DCI Drum Corps now.

 Background check results ( even if cleared ) do not absolve a Corps Director from the consequences of their knowingly hiring a known sexual misconduct predator  with disgusting repetitive episodes foisted upon a high school female student of theirs.. Period.

 The Crossmen ( and DCI ) know this full well now here in May, 2018.

Nope.

And Morrison didn't fire Moody: "Morrison, in an email to parents on Tuesday, said Moody had resigned his position on May 1."

Edited May 21, 2018 by garfield

[BRASSO]

29 minutes ago, MikeD said:

.

"DCI could make it easier on everybody if they simply had a policy that no Corps be allowed to hire a person on its staff that has had a sexual misconduct conviction. "

 

 

  Thats what I said too. ( I did not bring in Mooney/ Morrison to this thread discussion ). Do you agree, or disagree with this comment of mine here MikeD ?

[Eleran]

38 minutes ago, garfield said:

And Morrison didn't fire Moody: "Morrison, in an email to parents on Tuesday, said Moody had resigned his position on May 1."

And the school district didn't fire Moody either.  He resigned.

[BRASSO]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

 

And Morrison didn't fire Moody: "Morrison, in an email to parents on Tuesday, said Moody had resigned his position on May 1."

 Oh please. When this story broke, Mooney could read the writing on the wall, so he spared Morrison the task of doing what was clear to everybody about what was about to become inevitable to Mooney. Mooney was going to go. He had too, now that this hire, retention was about to hit, or already hit, the public national news wire. Morrison was simply spared the embarrassment of having to fire Mooney. Morrison then turned around and saved Dan Acheson and the DCI BOD from ousting Morrison from the Chairmen of the DCI BOD too. Morrison spared them that, by his resignation. it was inevitable once this story went public that Morrison would be gone from his position as the Chairmen of the DCI BOD.  We said that here on DCP too as well before it happened. Bottom line. Mooney was ousted from Crossmen, and Morrison from Chairmen of the DCI BOD by the risk hire of Mooney. The " resignation "explanation was a face saving gesture. ( Richard Nixon " resigned " from the Presidency too, for just one example of what is called a  face saving " resignation ".. happens all the time too... and we all know it here as such too, imo )

 Neither Mooney, nor Morrison " resigned " of their own choice here either. Lets get real. They both " resigned " when  it became abundantly clear to all that they both were going to be ousted if they did not turn in their " resignation ". No point in arguing about the semantics of the ousting's nomenclature here either, imo. 

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by BRASSO

[MikeD]

11 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

  Thats what I said too. ( I did not bring in Mooney/ Morrison to this thread discussion ). Do you agree, or disagree with this comment of mine here MikeD ?

It can't hurt to make it a DCI-wide policy...probably  good idea to make sure it is there in writing. I'm just not sure how much different things would be then they were prior to all of this, that is all. 

[BRASSO]

44 minutes ago, MikeD said:

It can't hurt to make it a DCI-wide policy...probably  good idea to make sure it is there in writing. I'm just not sure how much different things would be then they were prior to all of this, that is all. 

 Being proactive, is WAY better than being reactive, imo

 DCI apparently is not taking a " can't hurt " approach to this regarding new policies and procedures to lessen the risks to the entire DCI activity.. They appear ready to put the hammer down on those who even think of hiring or retaining those adult staffers that have had prior episodes of abusing their trusted positions by having had  sexual misconduct episodes with the young. In this case moving forward in regards to DCI Drum Corps, with those adult staffers with the young in their charge, no matter the age, nor gender of the marcher.  Maybe its just mere words though, who knows. But I'm optimistic that DCI HQ's here is dead serious about this and means business. But.. of course.. only time will really tell us.

Edited May 21, 2018 by BRASSO

[c mor]

Perhaps DCI should make a rule that anyone who is "resigning" for this cause must be fired, and have it noted on their employment record.   They would have to answer the future employment question, "Have you ever been fired from a position?" 

[garfield]

32 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Oh please. When this story broke, Mooney could read the writing on the wall, so he spared Morrison the task of doing what was clear to everybody about what was about to become inevitable to Mooney. Mooney was going to go. He had too, now that this hire, retention was about to hit, or already hit, the public national news wire. Morrison was simply spared the embarrassment of having to fire Mooney. Morrison then turned around and saved Dan Acheson and the DCI BOD from ousting Morrison from the Chairmen of the DCI BOD too. Morrison spared them that, by his resignation. it was inevitable once this story went public that Morrison would be gone from his position as the Chairmen of the DCI BOD.  We said that here on DCP too as well before it happened. Bottom line. Mooney was ousted from Crossmen, and Morrison from Chairmen of the DCI BOD by the risk hire of Mooney. The " resignation "explanation was a face saving gesture. ( Richard Nixon " resigned " from the Presidency too, for just one example of what is called a  face saving " resignation ".. happens all the time too... and we all know it here as such too, imo )

 Neither Mooney, nor Morrison " resigned " of their own choice here either. Lets get real. They both " resigned " when  it became abundantly clear to all that they both were going to be ousted if they did not turn in their " resignation ". No point in arguing about the semantics of the ousting's nomenclature here either, imo. 

 

Sorry, Brasho, I thought we were talking about a guy named Moody.

YouTube is a video platform.  The videos one posts are the important reason people go there to visit.

DCP is a word-based written medium where people come to read others' comments (and once in a while see other media).  The words you use are what's important to those who come visit here.

Use words correctly and in context to describe and disclaim appropriately and you'll find it's much easier to get your point across.