Drain The Swamp, Dan

[HockeyDad]

1 hour ago, Slingerland said:

I'm curious - do the OP have credible information and evidence that there are specific people with backgrounds that would disallow them from working at individual corps who are, in fact, working today with a corps? If so, have you contacted that corps' Board of Directors directly, passing on the information you have?  

DCI, even with the changes put in this year, was not designed to be a policing agency for the individual corps. That role is primarily, as it always has been, with the individual corps in question. IF a specific corps' Board of Directors is unresponsive to your contact, then I could see escalating to the DCI level, with full documentation of exactly when and where the conversations took place. I would CC Kathy Black, the DCI Board President, on any all all claims of impropriety or illegal activity

I'm hearing that there's movement for a complete overhaul of the DCI Governance model (no directors on the DCI Board, and a stronger ED role in policing backstage elements of how the corps do business). I'm hoping that information is accurate, since it's time for DCI to modernize the oversight and financial structure of their organization to be in a better position to promote the activity and safeguard the members and the staffs with firmer, enforceable policies.  If DCI's voting membership ever had a reason for supporting this notion, you'd have to hope that this past 6 months would be all the evidence they need.

 

 

I invite you to get out of the 1970s. This tired, oh poor DCI they really don't have any power, is a lame excuse that doesn't cut it anymore. Do I have credible evidence?  Does DCI know?  Yes to both questions. 

[George Dixon]

1 hour ago, xandandl said:

At championships, I spent some time with a friend of mine, a co-founder of one of the top 7 corps. He hadn't seen Dan in person since Indy '17.  My friend's comment was "Dan has aged tremendously. Is he well?"

ouch!

[Slingerland]

4 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

I invite you to get out of the 1970s. This tired, oh poor DCI they really don't have any power, is a lame excuse that doesn't cut it anymore. Do I have credible evidence?  Does DCI know?  Yes to both questions. 

Totally in the 2010s, my friend. Have you contacted the Board for the corps where you have evidence that they're employing someone whose past should disqualify them? Have you done it using your name so that they can contact you for more information as to the specifics? If you've done this, and gotten no response, then absolutely, escalate it to DCI along with the evidence you have that this person(s) are well-known to be problems to the activity and be prepared to back it up.

The reality is that DCI's operational structure WAS designed in the 70s. If you'd read the post, you'd have seen that I personally think it's in need of an overhaul. But realists work with the world as is, and DCI's ability to hunt down undesirable elements from the activity and get rid of them by fiat is much more limited than the pitch fork brigade ($1 to Garfield) would want to believe.

It is primarily THE INDIVIDUAL CORPS' responsibility to make sure that everyone working with them is someone who doesn't bring baggage to the room, and to fully investigate the people they're hiring. I've suggested before that everyone seeking staff positions sign a document that lists their former employers in the drum corps, band, and scholastic world and giving their potential new employer the right to ask their previous employers detailed questions about that individuals time on staff, including passing on information that would indicate a problem recognizing boundaries with the members, volunteers, and other staff members. Right now, most states' employment regulations severely limit a company's ability to seek out this information, because it could be seen to be defamatory.

Even more to the point, a criminal background check (which most corps run on every hire) will not turn up some of the information that would prove useful - for example, if a staff member has a history of hitting on or having relationships with adult members of his or her previous corps: that behavior wouldn't be breaking any laws, but could be seen as violations of ethical protocols that would put up a red flag. Do the corps do this now? No, because in most states, they can't. But this activity should aim to hold up a higher standard and those who want to teach in this activity should know that their behavior on staff will be open for discussion for any new corps they want to work with. 

If you want to change something you start by being proactive, not by being retributive. 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Slingerland

[xandandl]

7 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

ouch!

I know how my blood pressure boils reading what has been going on with GH, Pioneer, Oregon Crusaders, and several other corps or staffers named on other social sites. I can only imagine how the stressors of day to day dealing with these matters would bother the health of someone charged with executive supervision and leadership. Tack on that he is a Madison Scouts alum and all the discussion on that front this year especially, who could not be affected? 

[George Dixon]

the composition of the DCI board (like the corps BOD) is the key - there are companies out there that evaluate and then make recommendations on board composition and structure/policies

DCI should hire someone to evaluate this IMO

[George Dixon]

1 minute ago, xandandl said:

I know how my blood pressure boils ...

I don't think "boy someone has really aged!" and supposing "health issues" is particularly constructive 

[Spatzzz]

19 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

I invite you to get out of the 1970s. This tired, oh poor DCI they really don't have any power, is a lame excuse that doesn't cut it anymore. Do I have credible evidence?  Does DCI know?  Yes to both questions. 

I invite you to the world or reality where you can't take actions as you describe with out proper documented evidence. I get that things need to be cleaned up but if you think that DCI can just run roughshod over the activity and kick people out based on hearsay evidence you are bonkers. They have to follow a process that includes investigating all allegations of abuse/neglect and reach a finding before they can act. If they don't they will get sued off the face of the earth. 

[GUARDLING]

Boy am I sick of hearing this lame phrase (the title of the thread ) All I'm going to say on the subject is draining the swamp often just caused an even bigger swamp or even a sewer. SO the ones in charge of draining ( which is needed )  need to be under the microscope as strictly as those so-called being drained.

[Liahona]

I saw this on Facebook and thought it might be appropriate to this thread...PRIORITIES a bit misguided...

Edited August 24, 2018 by Liahona

[GUARDLING]

2 minutes ago, LabMaster said:

Uh uh .  Leave politics out of this.  No political talk here please.

at least keep it to drum corps politics..there's enough there..lol