Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

Yes, Acheson did. DCI suspended them a week ago.

The reporter contacted Roman Blenski earlier this week, then believed him when he told her that DCI hadn't communicated with Pioneer their suspension.  DCI's response followed their own internal investigation in the last weeks of the season, and the decision was made to allow the members to play out the year, with Pioneer knowing full well they were being looked at and communicated with, before handing down the suspension. 

One could speculate he knew in advance the article was coming out. I'd wager Naldony reached out to him for comment before she published.  In any case it's a clear case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. These apparently are not in any way new issues at Pioneer.   Is being reactive better than being proactive?  

Edited by karuna
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 309
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My appeal to Dan Acheson:  Act. Now and Decisively. Get rid of those you KNOW have no business being in this activity. Or get out of the way and let someone else do the job if you aren't up to the tas

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

Dan seems to only make a move when things blow up in the media. Maybe Dan is a part of the swamp itself. I have a hard time he hasn't known about pioneer's issues prior to this season.  It's time

3 minutes ago, karuna said:

One could speculate he knew in advance the article was coming out. I'd wager Naldony reached out to him for comment before she published.  In any case it's a clear case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. These apparently are not in any way new issues at Pioneer.   Is being reactive better than being proactive?  

DCI began their investigation in July, following reports from the members. That's not being reactive to the press, but to the situation, as they should be. 

 

 

Edited by Slingerland
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GUARDLING said:

 

Yeah, we can clearly see where the sludge is daily. and to keep it to drum corps it could happen here too. Sometimes those slinging the mud only come out with it all over their faces. Just saying care must be given all the way around and facts need to outweigh all else. As I'm sure it will.

I’m pretty sure in this case AND that case there is unfortunately plenty of mud to go around and anyone attempting to drain it will end up covered in mud or worse 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, karuna said:

One could speculate he knew in advance the article was coming out. I'd wager Naldony reached out to him for comment before she published.  In any case it's a clear case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. These apparently are not in any way new issues at Pioneer.   Is being reactive better than being proactive?  

Heck even I knew it was coming out

they are lucky the one that was coming out Monday after finals fell apart due to lack of on the record folks 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, karuna said:

One could speculate he knew in advance the article was coming out. I'd wager Naldony reached out to him for comment before she published.  In any case it's a clear case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. These apparently are not in any way new issues at Pioneer.   Is being reactive better than being proactive?  

You seem to be speaking without any actual evidence to support your claims. When you say they were "known" issues where they officially reported issues or issues that were raised anonymously on social media? I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face. DCI can only act on officially reported issues. If you have proof that they ignored officially reported FACTUAL EVIDENCE and ignored it then your cries to burn the whole thing down will carry some weight.

I'm not meaning to defend DCI here at every step but people have unrealistic expectations as to what they can actually do and clearly have no clue about the potential legal ramification if they go about willy nilly banning people and suspending corps without doing their due diligence.

In the Pioneer case it appears that they received complaints via their newly instituted reporting mechanism, they investigated, they spoke with the corps about said issues and laid out a plan to correct. After the season was over more came to light and it was apparent that the corps didn't follow their course of actions and DCI then suspended them. What more do you want them to do?  Seriously. What? Do they need to throw the book at everyone 1 day after an issue is reported without vetting it? An hour? 10 minutes? What?

One could speculate that you robbed a bank. Should you be arrested based on speculation?

Sorry for the rant......LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

You seem to be speaking without any actual evidence to support your claims. When you say they were "known" issues where they officially reported issues or issues that were raised anonymously on social media? I'll say it again until I'm blue in the face. DCI can only act on officially reported issues. If you have proof that they ignored officially reported FACTUAL EVIDENCE and ignored it then your cries to burn the whole thing down will carry some weight.

I'm not meaning to defend DCI here at every step but people have unrealistic expectations as to what they can actually do and clearly have no clue about the potential legal ramification if they go about willy nilly banning people and suspending corps without doing their due diligence.

In the Pioneer case it appears that they received complaints via their newly instituted reporting mechanism, they investigated, they spoke with the corps about said issues and laid out a plan to correct. After the season was over more came to light and it was apparent that the corps didn't follow their course of actions and DCI then suspended them. What more do you want them to do?  Seriously. What? Do they need to throw the book at everyone 1 day after an issue is reported without vetting it? An hour? 10 minutes? What?

One could speculate that you robbed a bank. Should you be arrested based on speculation?

Sorry for the rant......LOL

I'll simply repeat my first post:

What did he know?

When did he know it? 

What did he do or fail to do about that knowledge?  

It's really easy to hide behind "well he can't act on unofficial reports" but that simply pushes to the question to "why was there not already a reporting mechanism in place?"  To suggest that he was unaware of the problem because he hadn't yet created a mechanism for officially reporting the problem is ridiculous.  And sorry. No one is gong to believe "I didn't know".  

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dark-helmet said:

The real problem here is as you said, DCI would need a complete overhaul.  The cooperate structure would have to change.  Dci doesn't own the corps, the corps own DCI.  I'm not trying to stop change, but to everyone that is asking why DCI doesn't step in more, the answer is they can't.  Not yet anyways.  Obviously the press is going to putting pressure on them to change, but the corporate structure will need to change completely to give DCI the power to enforce the rules.   I'm not sure some of the better run corps would want to give up control as it stands, so we may see another g7 type breakaway threat in the future.   Interesting times.

This is one of the bigger problems. DCI and all the corps are separate organizations. DCI's only power play available is to suspend a group's ability to compete in DCI sanctioned shows...and that may even be dubious. "Non-tour" events (pretty much any event that's not a regional or TOC) could potentially allow a sanctioned group to perform. It's not quite like the NFL or NBA in which there are such large amounts of money involved that a league would have that kind of leverage. It's very obvious that DCI has taken a "hands off" approach while the activity has partially cleaned up its own messes in the past couple of decades. Too often though, bad actors such as GH and at minimum, very poor managers such as Blenski were still involved with the activity. DCI could have applied pressure and achieved some change, but I doubt the type of pressure they could apply would dislodge any of these types, outside of ones already on their way out. Each group is its own corporation, with leadership, boards of directors and other officers. Unless DCI groups decide to incorporate formal and legal oversight of their organizations by DCI management, it's probably going to end up that change will happen by internal means, peer pressure (social media) and/or bad press. It's a sad situation, but it's reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, karuna said:

I'll simply repeat my first post:

What did he know?

When did he know it? 

He knew DCI was meeting with his staff to verify concerns related to member safety and general tour operations back in July.  He was aware that they were keeping an eye on him from then through the end of their tour.
He knew he was suspended from further DCI activities on August 16. 
The story broke August 23.

Those are your answers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karuna said:

This is all true BUT... he's also  very clearly a member of the" good 'ole boys club".   Lots of very uncomfortable questions he doesn't want to answer.

What did he know?  

When did he know it?   

What did he do or fail to do about that knowledge?  

Before you say "well he had no powers" that's not quite true.  He could have been the prime whistle blower.  He could have resigned in a very public protest of the corps director's unwillingness to confront all these issues.  He was not powerless.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

why would he? it wasnt his job to answer those questions. it was his job to run the major shows, the tour, and the ancillary revenue streams. he was never intended to be THE guy.

 

I can imagine if someone came to Dan with straight up hard documented proof, he'd have done something. Why? Because, well, look at the last 5 months. Sure, Stuart Rice called him on 2003 about Hop, but had no hard proof. What's he to do? 

Trust me, I firmly believe DCI needs to change a lot behind the scenes and have advocated for a board not run by the inmates for years. But I'm also realistic as to what Dan could or couldn't do without proof.

 

You want somewhere to truly vent your ire?

 

the corps directors, because they refused to change things to get it to where it needed to be. And, they are the ones with the power to tell Dan what he can and can't do. In fact at one point, the board as it was tried to fire Dan. And I can guarantee you it wasnt because he wanted to clean up how they did things.

Edited by Jeff Ream
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • JohnZ locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.