Jeff Ream Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 hour ago, garfield said: Question: What percentage of all member corps are corps who are voting members? (Hint: not all directors would have been consulted. Only a few vote and likely would have been contacted.) And so I understand, you called some people who said "Oh, yea! Had Dan contacted the Board I would have been told!" Were you talking with one of the voting members? And if the board chair and the secretary were the only ones that Dan was required to consult for Executive action, and he did that, would you be satisfied that Dan did the right thing and your contact was wrong? See, that's the way many Boards work. Especially this one. i'll start with #2. yes, I spoke with people that had a voice in the room. And an issue like this would have been brought to the body at large as I understand it. So in essence, to also answer #1, this kind of issue wouldn't have just lagged with the executive board, but the board at large with all voting members. Why to the full board? because it would have a potential impact on the activity at large as we have seen since April. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 52 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: I thought I was being clear, but evidently not clear enough. This thread began discussing Dan Acheson in a "what did he know, and when did he know it" context. Several of you appear to have made up your minds. I have not, for lack of facts. Maybe you are privy to facts that I have not yet seen. I am asking questions to try and put facts together. I also try to contribute facts to the discussion, such as what I find in DCI policies and the legal system. Some of these facts are not pretty. I do not like them any more than the rest of you do. Just because sex offenders could march prior to 2018, does not mean they should have. Just because certain sex offenders can get second chances in the staffs of DCI corps, does not mean they should. Just because the DCI CEO was not required to address a particular questionable hire, does not mean he should not have. I am not an advocate of any of these things. Instead, I advocate for change - for example, ethics guidelines that are 20 times stronger and more specific, and enforcement by a compliance officer instead of the DCI CEO so as to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Until these changes come, the imperfections of our current and past systems make an ugly message. Try not to shoot the messenger. I agree with you mostly, which is why I have defended Dan on many of the accusations made. like with Rice calling him...where's the proof? Oh hearsay...yeah not happening. But with Larson, there was proof. There was contact made, it was easy to verify he participated at shows, on school grounds, in both DCI and DCA, both violating the law. if there had been an incident, the damage to the activity could have been huge. And While I realize the rules in play at the time helped them "wash their hands" so to speak, the impetus was there to get way ahead of this issue 6 years before DCI and incidents of issues with minors made the national AP wire. It could have prevented the issues that happened at Pioneer this summer, as well as the legions of rumors of issues that may have occurred since 2012. That's the issue...the chance to change was there, and it was ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 28 minutes ago, OldBones said: After reading through this thread, it seems to me there is another way to stop the insanity. Facts so far: As with any non profit or for profit publicly owned businesses, Dan A is bound by the wishes of the board. The board is made up of member corps (conflict of interest) The board will not impose harsh penalties that will effect their corps in any way (fact) (There should be equal punishment for ALL organizations under the DCI umbrella. Punish Pioneer, a good punishment in my opinion, and not punish Cadets in any way is a real issue) They only respond to the effects of their pocketbook That being said, the only way to stop the insanity, is to NOT support ANY corps that knowingly breaks policy. Do not donate, do not buy their merch, do not support any member who wants to march there. Once the corps collectively do the right thing, start supporting again. I'm hearing the article that is suppose to come out is more about the culture of drum corps from possibly pre DCI to today. This could be damaging to all corps if the stories come out as rumors say. One last thing, should investigations be made on the DCA All Age side as well? 15 year olds marching with 38 year olds and older. I know this is for DCA to decide but should they do background checks on any members over 21? Ive heard there is 1 corps that does. for the most part, even 20 years ago many DCA corps started implementing policies to nip this in the bud. The policies and procedures have ramped up over time to be more thorough, and of course it varies corps to corps. But Even what I saw when I last taught in 2001 was pretty ahead of its time for policies in drum corps relating to interaction with minors. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: i'll start with #2. yes, I spoke with people that had a voice in the room. And an issue like this would have been brought to the body at large as I understand it. So in essence, to also answer #1, this kind of issue wouldn't have just lagged with the executive board, but the board at large with all voting members. Why to the full board? because it would have a potential impact on the activity at large as we have seen since April. "...a voice in the room"? Does that mean your contact was in the room? Every decision the voting members make impacts the whole activity, that's why they are selected to be voting members. Not every member is alerted and involved in every decision; in fact, most aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 51 minutes ago, garfield said: "...a voice in the room"? Does that mean your contact was in the room? Every decision the voting members make impacts the whole activity, that's why they are selected to be voting members. Not every member is alerted and involved in every decision; in fact, most aren't. i'll stick by what I said so no one is outed by junior sleuths. and I'll trust every one of them as they have yet to lead me astray. We all appreciate you questioning our integrity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 56 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: I agree with you mostly, which is why I have defended Dan on many of the accusations made. like with Rice calling him...where's the proof? Oh hearsay...yeah not happening. But with Larson, there was proof. There was contact made, it was easy to verify he participated at shows, on school grounds, in both DCI and DCA, both violating the law. (sigh) It is not quite that simple. If Larson did not comply with the permission/supervision requirements for being on school property, and there were minors present, then you are correct. Armed with that information, even a 2012 DCI official should have been able to get something done. On the other hand, if Larson had permission/supervision from the school, or if no minors were present, then what? Dan Acheson could rail on about how indefensibly stupid it was to have him on board, but he would have had no legal or procedural means to STOP it in 2012. Quote if there had been an incident, the damage to the activity could have been huge. If there had been an incident, damage to the activity would not be my foremost concern... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 10 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: (sigh) It is not quite that simple. If Larson did not comply with the permission/supervision requirements for being on school property, and there were minors present, then you are correct. Armed with that information, even a 2012 DCI official should have been able to get something done. On the other hand, if Larson had permission/supervision from the school, or if no minors were present, then what? Dan Acheson could rail on about how indefensibly stupid it was to have him on board, but he would have had no legal or procedural means to STOP it in 2012. If there had been an incident, damage to the activity would not be my foremost concern... if police removed him from the property, I'd say he had no permission. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cixelsyd Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 20 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: if police removed him from the property, I'd say he had no permission. So far, no one who was there has connected those dots. For all I know, his whole corps was directed to leave the campus for a noise curfew issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 44 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: So far, no one who was there has connected those dots. For all I know, his whole corps was directed to leave the campus for a noise curfew issue. For all you know the whole corps could have flown to the moon. But I have yet to read that the whole corps left, only this person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 hour ago, cixelsyd said: On the other hand, if Larson had permission/supervision from the school, or if no minors were present, then what? Dan Acheson could rail on about how indefensibly stupid it was to have him on board, but he would have had no legal or procedural means to STOP it in 2012. Which, I hope we can all agree, is a bad thing. And it's something that I hope we can all agree should be prevented from happening. It'll be interesting to see if this is the subject matter of the article that's coming, and if Acheson/DCI take measures to prevent it in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.