A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[BigW]

8 hours ago, BRASSO said:

the best thing that DCI could do to " look better ", is to simply tell the truth

Amen, brudda.

[garfield]

10 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 Facebook ? My goodness. 'Talk about " the pot calling the kettle black ". Their Company executives at the highest levels certainly do not have clean hands themselves here when it comes to attempts to manipulate political elections. What is happening to DCI has virtually nothing at all to do with election interference, real or imagined. I don't see anything to connect, nor link the two here at all, frankly. Besides, imo, the best thing that DCI could do to " look better ", is to simply tell the truth, early and often .. and tell openly what they knew and when they knew it. If DCI or any social media outlet is primarily interested in how they are perceived,  or asking themselves " who can we spread rumors about " as some sort of devious defensive or vengeful strategy, then they are likely headed down the wrong path.  They'd be missing the time honored tradition that telling the truth and being upfront and transparent is the best long term successful strategy for ethical organizations to take in a free society and has been since the birth of the Republic.

Not directed at you, Brasso, but...

It apparently is not enough to tell the truth, early and often as Dan's last video produced calls of "inflaming speculation" and "hiding more than he's telling".

And, when the story broke, they took a cautious route and held off commenting until they had a chance to show sincere deliberative discussions and consults with counsel.  They were skewered.

"...what they knew and when they knew it...", about what, specifically?  The reporter wanted unfettered and spontaneous discussion, on the record, to address specific situations that DCI was not allowed to prepare for.  When DCI did a rational thing (asked for written questions so they could respond appropriately to each), the reporter refused and the discussion came to an end.  My understanding is that DCI has always welcomed written questions from this reporter or anyone else.

I'm in full agreement with seeking justice from those who violated others under the banner of the activity.

Leadership would require significant consideration of the strategies available for what's left after the torch-bearers "burn it down".  

Edited November 15, 2018 by garfield
significant snip for those who say "it's just arguing". No it's not.

[cixelsyd]

7 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

The parallel I was making was between two companies that, when informed by a reporter who was working on a negative story, decided to preemptively issue a statement meant to make the company look better. Facebook did that. And DCI did that.

Given that similarity, I thought it might be worthwhile to look at other strategies that Facebook adopted in their effort to make bad news go away. I thought it was obvious I was being tongue in cheek!

I also missed the tongue-in-cheek aspect.  Thank you for clearing that up.

I hope DCI can focus on more important things than "getting ahead of the story".  They need to get ahead of the whole situation - in other words, try to prevent abuse, and prevent the types of dysfunctional systems in which abuse becomes prevalent (i.e. one person controls the corps, BOD does not perform oversight, no P&P in place for harassment, poison pill severance packages).

For a more apt analogy, what DCI needs to do is "build a wall".  Not a physical wall, but a wall of ethical guidelines that stop predators from entering our activity to begin with.  The guidelines currently in place are a start, but we need more specifics to close a few key loopholes.  For example:

- Instead of merely requiring background checks, spell out what must be done when background checks reveal a record of criminal abuse/harassment.  Define which offenses are unacceptable, and provide "border security" by banning new hires with such a record.  Define "deportation" policy for suspension/dismissal of current corps admin/staff who commit offenses, either with the corps or elsewhere.

- Define policy regarding second chances for past offenders who have completed their sentences, regained suspended teaching licenses, had their records expunged, etc.  Preferably, that would mean no second chances - do we want deportees re-entering the activity?  But if exceptions are to be made, they should only be for "work that Americans won't do", tasks that have no contact with minors.

- Define a minimum size for a BOD (three is not big enough), and a limitation on conflicts of interest between BOD members and corps administration related via family or external business ties.  (Maybe not an absolute prohibition, but if the entire BOD sits at your kitchen table every morning, you are not doing it right.)

One other thing DCI can do is train corps administrators regarding the whistleblower procedure.  There is an understandable concern about misuse of that system.  What may seem like "responsible reporting/investigation" to one party may seem like a "witch hunt" to another party.  Regardless, the corps director cannot use their authority to interfere with the process (even if their complaint is legitimate), as even the perception of "obstruction of justice" is unacceptable.

[JimF-LowBari]

Don’t forget training of staff and corps members on whistle blowing procedures including who to go to if you don’t trust the people you are supposed to go to first. Huge part of my annual training for Uncle Sam. 

And by whistleblowing I am including sexual harassment and assault.

Edited November 15, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[garfield]

46 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

I also missed the tongue-in-cheek aspect.  Thank you for clearing that up.

I hope DCI can focus on more important things than "getting ahead of the story".  They need to get ahead of the whole situation - in other words, try to prevent abuse, and prevent the types of dysfunctional systems in which abuse becomes prevalent (i.e. one person controls the corps, BOD does not perform oversight, no P&P in place for harassment, poison pill severance packages).

For a more apt analogy, what DCI needs to do is "build a wall".  Not a physical wall, but a wall of ethical guidelines that stop predators from entering our activity to begin with.  The guidelines currently in place are a start, but we need more specifics to close a few key loopholes.  For example:

- Instead of merely requiring background checks, spell out what must be done when background checks reveal a record of criminal abuse/harassment.  Define which offenses are unacceptable, and provide "border security" by banning new hires with such a record.  Define "deportation" policy for suspension/dismissal of current corps admin/staff who commit offenses, either with the corps or elsewhere.

- Define policy regarding second chances for past offenders who have completed their sentences, regained suspended teaching licenses, had their records expunged, etc.  Preferably, that would mean no second chances - do we want deportees re-entering the activity?  But if exceptions are to be made, they should only be for "work that Americans won't do", tasks that have no contact with minors.

- Define a minimum size for a BOD (three is not big enough), and a limitation on conflicts of interest between BOD members and corps administration related via family or external business ties.  (Maybe not an absolute prohibition, but if the entire BOD sits at your kitchen table every morning, you are not doing it right.)

One other thing DCI can do is train corps administrators regarding the whistleblower procedure.  There is an understandable concern about misuse of that system.  What may seem like "responsible reporting/investigation" to one party may seem like a "witch hunt" to another party.  Regardless, the corps director cannot use their authority to interfere with the process (even if their complaint is legitimate), as even the perception of "obstruction of justice" is unacceptable.

I absolutely LOVE the analogy you're using.  Well done, sir.

 

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

I also missed the tongue-in-cheek aspect.  Thank you for clearing that up.

I hope DCI can focus on more important things than "getting ahead of the story".  They need to get ahead of the whole situation - in other words, try to prevent abuse, and prevent the types of dysfunctional systems in which abuse becomes prevalent (i.e. one person controls the corps, BOD does not perform oversight, no P&P in place for harassment, poison pill severance packages).

For a more apt analogy, what DCI needs to do is "build a wall".  Not a physical wall, but a wall of ethical guidelines that stop predators from entering our activity to begin with.  The guidelines currently in place are a start, but we need more specifics to close a few key loopholes.  For example:

- Instead of merely requiring background checks, spell out what must be done when background checks reveal a record of criminal abuse/harassment.  Define which offenses are unacceptable, and provide "border security" by banning new hires with such a record.  Define "deportation" policy for suspension/dismissal of current corps admin/staff who commit offenses, either with the corps or elsewhere.

- Define policy regarding second chances for past offenders who have completed their sentences, regained suspended teaching licenses, had their records expunged, etc.  Preferably, that would mean no second chances - do we want deportees re-entering the activity?  But if exceptions are to be made, they should only be for "work that Americans won't do", tasks that have no contact with minors.

- Define a minimum size for a BOD (three is not big enough), and a limitation on conflicts of interest between BOD members and corps administration related via family or external business ties.  (Maybe not an absolute prohibition, but if the entire BOD sits at your kitchen table every morning, you are not doing it right.)

One other thing DCI can do is train corps administrators regarding the whistleblower procedure.  There is an understandable concern about misuse of that system.  What may seem like "responsible reporting/investigation" to one party may seem like a "witch hunt" to another party.  Regardless, the corps director cannot use their authority to interfere with the process (even if their complaint is legitimate), as even the perception of "obstruction of justice" is unacceptable.

and background checks need to be more than just what the criminal database would show. They need to search for suspended teaching licenses as well.

As for second chances....Honestly, in a youth activity, thats a VERY slippery slope.

[JimF-LowBari]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

 

As for second chances....Honestly, in a youth activity, thats a VERY slippery slope.

Thinking the legal and public relation ramifications of telling/not telling members there is someone with a record being given a second chance.

[N.E. Brigand]

4 hours ago, garfield said:

I absolutely LOVE the analogy you're using.  Well done, sir.

Agreed. That was quite clever!

[BigW]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Thinking the legal and public relation ramifications of telling/not telling members there is someone with a record being given a second chance.

It's already happened with Pioneer and the Kilties.

[JimF-LowBari]

7 minutes ago, BigW said:

It's already happened with Pioneer and the Kilties.

Forgot about Kilties. Has anything legal hit the bricks anywhere yet? Thinking someone going after a corps for failure to protect members.