A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[JimF-LowBari]

Just now, Jeff Ream said:

sorry misread your intent

Ah #### now I gotta be nice to again.. lol

no problem thanks for the response...

[HockeyDad]

10 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Which brings up the question of how does Dan get a corps to act if they don’t want to. Thinking Pioneer telling members not to call the DCI hot line. Not picking a fight just brainstroming

"Roman, Hi. This is Dan. Pioneer isn't participating in any DCI sponsored events until you're gone."

[JimF-LowBari]

1 minute ago, HockeyDad said:

"Roman, Hi. This is Dan. Pioneer isn't participating in any DCI sponsored events until you're gone."

I like it... also add “and your corps follows DCI policy no matter who runs the corps”.

[Jeff Ream]

46 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

I love you guys and all, but, c'mon. You simply cannot hide behind process. The excuse of - you need to understand, our bylaws don't empower me to act - just doesn't fly today. My point:  even if not specifically empowered by the DCI structure, processes in place, bylaws, whatever you want to call it, action should have been taken. When in charge, take charge. Maybe the corps or person would have thumbed their nose at Dan and said, you can't do that. Who knows. Absent that, the optics today are that DCI will not act unless exposed in a public way, by someone outside the organization. This is a very bad look. 

if no concrete information was brought forth, which you assume was done without facts to back you up, what exactly was DCI to do?

 

Say they go after someone and said we have this accusation thats rumored....but no victim willingly coming forward. So because we heard the rumor, you have to go.

 

Then DCI gets sued out of existence.Your premise is that DCI knows a lot more than they have let on. In some cases, some published and some not, corps let individuals go on their own. DCI didn't have to do a thing. the only case I know of where DCI could have screwed the pooch is Morgan Larson who was discussed here multiple times. Maybe Joel Moody. Technically per the law, Scott Atchison was cleared because his record was expunged. So what exactly was DCI to do if they had no victim coming forward?

 

Thats the thing...everyone wants to #### on DCI's doorstep for inaction....but with no victim coming forward, they couldn't do a #### thing!

[Jeff Ream]

23 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

If the corps wasn't going to act, then Dan should have. Just my opinion. The buck stops at Dan, for better or worse. 

If Dan had verified facts he could use, yes he should have. You assume he had those.

[Tim K]

10 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

If the corps wasn't going to act, then Dan should have. Just my opinion. The buck stops at Dan, for better or worse. 

Actually it does not stop with Dan or DCI administration if the corps do not give them the authority. I am also not certain he has the qualifications to handle this kind of a situation. What I think DCI should do is have a compliance officer of some kind with interstate law enforcement experience in the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA, U.S. Attorneys Office, or the like. They would have the knowledge, credible experience, and where so many things happen while on tour, knowledge of how laws differ in various states. Known offenders would steer clear of the activity. You would also have people who have moved to the non-profit world so they would also be ready to offer practical solutions. 

[Jeff Ream]

13 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Ah #### now I gotta be nice to again.. lol

no problem thanks for the response...

day gig got in the way or i would have replied sooner

[HockeyDad]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

If Dan had verified facts he could use, yes he should have. You assume he had those.

Then why DOES Dan seemingly act every time AFTER being embarrassed by a reporter?  Does the reporter bringing something into the light of day make things verified facts?  No. Then why didn't Dan tell her, sorry, I need verified facts first?  And while we're at it, when there WERE verified facts concerning Joel Moody at Crossmen, why was the Crossmen director on the DCI BOD?  Did Dan not know?  By the way, is Fred Morrison still director at Crossmen?  

[garfield]

36 minutes ago, Lance said:

If DCI bears no oversight responsibility, then why have a DCI code of conduct?  Why does DCI require background checks?

Those are rhetorical questions.  Yes, DCI is the governing agency for their member corps.  Hiding behind poorly worded and enforced policies won't work.  Hiding behind "it's up to the corps to police themselves by our guidelines" won't work, either, obviously.  That's the whole point.

DCI as a governing agency needs comprehensive restructuring, and explicit and transparent bylaws that are consistently enforced from without as well as within each corps. 

The Code of Conduct was developed after the crap hit the fan but, at the time of the incident (presuming it was prior to 2018), it is true that DCI bore no responsibility.

It's the time difference that makes the difference.

 

[Tim K]

5 hours ago, jeffmolnar said:

You are correct. BOA is even less of a governing body than DCI, they simply host the competitions.

There are other important factors we are forgetting regarding BOA. BOA deals with high school programs. Schools both public and non public have strict rules and policies in place regarding hiring and fraternization. A huge number of participants are below the age of consent and many states have laws that state that even if a student is of legal age, no school employee or volunteer is allowed to have a relationship with a student. We’ve seen in the cases of some bad DCI hires what happens when adults who work in public schools violate boundaries. BOA also largely functions during the school year. Remember too, most likely BOA did not create these procedures, state legislatures did.