Drain The Swamp, Dan

[Hdrumdad]

9 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

 

Genesis published a lengthy response to questions about their staff member under question. It's findable on Reddit. Hard to question the seriousness with which they undertook the process of evaluation, and (for me, anyway) to doubt that they made a decision on that staffer that was reasonable under the circumstances.

It's not DCI's primary responsibility to dive deep in background checking individuals hired by each member corps; it's still the corps' responsibilities at this point, until such a time as the member corps give DCI that authority to sign off on that individual and own responsibility for their actions - which any attorney DCI would hire will tell them is a terrible idea, given the inability of DCI to be monitoring and managing individual staff members on a day to day basis.

Ultimate responsibility will always be at the individual corps level. DCI can institute policies designed to provide guidance and standards, but it will be up to each corps and their Boards of Directors to maintain oversight.

People want to drain a "swamp"? Put pressure on the corps who are hiring the swamp monsters, and be prepared to have solid intel to back up your claims. 

The article clearly states Genesis thoroughly investigated the situation. There really was nothing to the accusation and the investigating body stated that. No trash here to pick through. 

[MikeD]

3 hours ago, karuna said:

Really?  I said that early on and you even quoted me saying it

 

You asked this:

"When you hear rumors about sexual misconductt and member mistreatment in drum corps, don't you have a duty to investigate them?"

I guess you just forged ahead as though we are supposed to agree that Dan/DCI is supposed to "investigate" every rumor that they come across, or catch wind of via Social Media or other places.

Personally, I do not agree with that. If they receive concrete evidence via their stated process, absolutely. They had better follow through. But anonymous third hand rumors? 

 

 

[BRASSO]

1 hour ago, Slingerland said:

Ultimate responsibility will always be at the individual corps level. DCI can institute policies designed to provide guidance and standards, but it will be up to each corps and their Boards of Directors to maintain oversight.

 

 Except that lots of large organization's headquarters have been successfully sued, and lots of $$$  award damages allowed by Juries over the years when the defense's claim of " well, it really was not our responsibility, but that little " independent " franchise downstream's responsibility for all that wrongdoing ".. falls apart in Court.

 Organizations don't get to decide where their responsibilities begin and end, no matter what their Charters, or By Laws they adopt for themselves state.

 Courts, Judges and Juries decide this when things go terribly wrong in any Organization.

Edited August 26, 2018 by BRASSO

[MikeD]

5 hours ago, garfield said:

I am not qualified to calculate the moral value of anyone besides myself.

My glass house windows are clean and transparent, and not everyone likes what they see.

 

Please put on a robe!      

[Bluzes]

It would make good business sense for all the corps to agree on the same background check agency for economies of scale. They can't pull this off themselves so them going at this individually not having a standard and paying more? It is not in anyone's best interest.. Does not need to hosted by dci but some form of coordinated safety clearing house, reporting committee.

[Slingerland]

15 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

It would make good business sense for all the corps to agree on the same background check agency for economies of scale. They can't pull this off themselves so them going at this individually not having a standard and paying more? It is not in anyone's best interest.. Does not need to hosted by dci but some form of coordinated safety clearing house, reporting committee.

A background check will NOT discover patterns of sexually inappropriate comments, racist jibes, having sexual relationships with adult marching members, etc. None of that rises to the level of criminal activity, so even if known, would not wind up on a background check.

As previously suggested, the only way to really clean out the stables will be to have the corps start talking to each other, with any prospective employee's permission, about their behavior at any previous gig. This will require that prospective staffers sign a waiver allowing their previous employers to disclose whether there were any issues that the prospective  hiring org could be concerned about. 

It doesn't take DCI - it will take the corps and those who want to work with them - to agree that full disclosure and frank discussion is the first step toward cleaning up the ranks of adults who want to work with the members. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Slingerland

[Tim K]

2 hours ago, soccerguy315 said:

So it seems like we are still waiting on happenings from Oregon Crusaders, Genesis, and Vanguard.

DCI is not out in front of any of these either.

And I'm sure there are others...

Based on what we know from Reddit, Genesis took a risk and hired someone questionable. Based on their defense, it would have been better for them to wait, but they did not, and given the uproar, the decision is imprudent at best. I have said before that if a public school would not hire someone, and at this time I don’t think a school system would have hired him, a drum corps shouldn’t either, so I do not think Genesis made the best decision, but I’m not sure I understand what we expect DCI to do to get in front of this story.

As far as I can piece things together, Oregon Crusaders had a staff member that alienated other staff and marching members. His actions were reported, some at OC responded as Pioneer did by blaming the whistle blowers, and there was an exodus. We don’t know the actual issue, though I’m sure it will be discovered soon,  but unless it involves criminal wrongdoing, I wonder again, what is DCI expected to do and what does be outfront mean? 

The third situation involves all sorts of rumors, and again, based on rumor, people who know but are not willing to go on record. Again, what does getting out in front mean? 

As has been said numerous times, DCI only has the authority corps directors give it, so the question should be what are the corps directors doing and when will they give DCI the authority it needs to check into these matters.

[karuna]

1 hour ago, MikeD said:

You asked this:

"When you hear rumors about sexual misconductt and member mistreatment in drum corps, don't you have a duty to investigate them?"

I guess you just forged ahead as though we are supposed to agree that Dan/DCI is supposed to "investigate" every rumor that they come across, or catch wind of via Social Media or other places.

Personally, I do not agree with that. If they receive concrete evidence via their stated process, absolutely. They had better follow through. But anonymous third hand rumors? 

 

 

Or... they could just use good judgment ? You know Naldony is doing research via Twitter.  It’s pretty simple and not time consuming. You think there are just two categories?  Concrete evidence and 3rd hand rumors?  

The staff could also report issues. You think maybe they might be useful resource?  How about tour staff?   

Besides you know very well that DCI is a very small community.  Lots of people are very aware of many of these issues.  Not hard to pick up a phone and call someone.  

This whole “we can’t investigate things” is just an excuse to do nothing .  If a parent calls and say my kid needed medical care and the corps gave him Advil and said suck it up maybe that’s something that’s worth a call?  

In any case you’re suggesting doing nothing is the correct choice.  I thinks it’s not.  

 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by karuna

[MikeD]

11 minutes ago, karuna said:

Or... they could just use good judgment ? You know Naldony is doing research via Twitter.  It’s pretty simple and not time consuming. You think there are just two categories?  Concrete evidence and 3rd hand rumors?  

The staff could also report issues. You think maybe they might be useful resource?  How about tour staff?   

Besides you know very well that DCI is a very small community.  Lots of people are very aware of many of these issues.  Not hard to pick up a phone and call someone.  

This whole “we can’t investigate things” is just an excuse to do nothing .  If a parent calls and say my kid needed medical care and the corps gave him Advil and said suck it up maybe that’s something that’s worth a call?  

In any case you’re suggesting doing nothing is the correct choice.  I thinks it’s not.  

 

 

You are mixing up people reporting issues to DCI versus anonymous postings on social media. If a staff member, tour staff, MM or parent calls/notifies DCI....of course DCI should check into whatever has been reported to them. That is what I have been saying.

That is not the same as Twitter or Reddit or FB postings. 

[xandandl]

2 minutes ago, MikeD said:

You are mixing up people reporting issues to DCI versus anonymous postings on social media. If a staff member, tour staff, MM or parent calls/notifies DCI....of course DCI should check into whatever has been reported to them. That is what I have been saying.

That is not the same as Twitter or Reddit or FB postings. 

But as we are in the 21st century, this is how many generations now communicate and raise issues. Should not DCI be monitoring the social sites for such warning flags? I know when I was in school admin and classroom work, the faculty always let the principal (and parents) know what the tom-toms were saying in the halls and cafeteria BEFORE major problems erupted. Good policing in the schools do the same for interrupting drug trafficking and gang activities. I am not challenging first amendment rights of free speech, etc. when using the computer, but I think there are ways we can be more aware. Use the DCI Ambassadors program for another avenue relative to peer power and pressures.