A Message from DCI CEO Dan Acheson

[Jeff Ream]

42 minutes ago, karuna said:

The standard is a reasonable suspicion.   A 9th hand rumor about someone you dislike is probably not a reasonable basis.  OTOH you have no obligation to investigate the matter yourself or even to be certain of the facts.  You clearly never have undergone any training in this area.  It's mandated in most states.

So Stuart Rice in 2002, calling up with no information other than " i heard it through the grapevine" means Dan was negligent in his duties, especially give Rice's track record?

[Tim K]

19 minutes ago, NewToPosting said:

Having a few days to think about this more, I think what Acheson did was even more of a mistake than I originally thought.  Originally, it was just a really bad PR move to break the news like this (mainly because you can't control it).  However, now I see it a different way.

Acheson made the biggest mistake that any leader dealing with a crisis like this can do: he tried to shut down the conversation.  A leader would say, "bring it on, let's find out what's actually going on and learn from it so we can stop it".  I wish he had done that.  I wish he had said, we need to organize some discussions for everyone: directors, staffs, members, parents and we all need to come to the table prepared to discuss ways we as an activity can overcome this to make it a better experience.  

Sunlight is the best antiseptic and is so needed now.  Other organizations who took similar approaches ("we're doing enough!") went through multiple changes in leadership before figuring it out.  There are case studies on this stuff.  Don't shut down the conversation!

Again, until the story is released, we can't say Dan Acheson shut down the conversation. We are assuming it is Ms. Nadonly's story and it involves a significant person in the activity, and given Acheson's statement and her Tweet, this is a strong possibility, but there are other reporters researching DCI, so Acheson's response may be appropriate for another story. We have to wait for the release.

Sunlight  as you call it  (where I live it's murky today so I like your analogy) is more often than not the best way, however  the light needs to be focused. If we really want to shine light on the situation, it needs to be on the corps involved. The cynic in me knows that folks in significant positions in the activity know a great deal more than they let on, but it may be knowledge through rumor. Unless it involves illegal activity, it's better not to rely on rumors and speculate. Regarding a paper trail, my guess is that there is little to no information and anything incriminating has already been looked at by legal counsel. 

Overall I think Dan Acheson, at least appearance wise has handled his responsibilities at DCI reasonably well, though with this current situation it is obvious he's over his head in this area, and lots of people who find themselves in similar situations have likewise been over their heads. I think your point of bring lots of folks to the table to look for solutions is important and since the removal of GH was last April, there has been plenty of time for this to happen, or at least begin preliminary steps for this to happen. This is why I have suggested that DCI has a compliance officer who has a federal law enforcement background. They know the law, how the law differs from state to state, and can offer clear cut solutions. Someone from outside would be more credible to others too. 

[Jeff Ream]

24 minutes ago, karuna said:

Actually where you live not only is suspect enough to report -- it's enough to legally require that you report.    

https://www.pa-fsa.org/Mandated-Reporters/Understanding-Mandated-Reporting/Frequently-Asked-Questions

actually I have seen people go down for reporting suspicions that ended up false.

[cixelsyd]

46 minutes ago, karuna said:

The standard is a reasonable suspicion.   A 9th hand rumor about someone you dislike is probably not a reasonable basis.  OTOH you have no obligation to investigate the matter yourself or even to be certain of the facts.  You clearly never have undergone any training in this area.  It's mandated in most states.

Where in your training did it say that YOU get to decide whether or not Dan Acheson had reasonable suspicion?

[NewToPosting]

42 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

Dan is doing exactly what the lawyers are advising him to do. if there's a blame here, it's the lawyers.

HUGE mistake.  The lawyers will advise him based on what is good for him personally, not what is best for the activity.  Yes, it's important to consult and listen to lawyers ESPECIALLY now, but they alone will not get him through this.  Lawyers can't and shouldn't advise him on PR (within reason).  If he's only listening to lawyers, then I'd have to agree that he really should not be in that position for much longer.

[karuna]

2 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

Where in your training did it say that YOU get to decide whether or not Dan Acheson had reasonable suspicion?

Snark aside I think it's the most reasonable explanation for his refusal to speak to Naldony.   I don't get to decide but I do get to speculate.

If his conscience is clear and he never heard about any of these incidents she (and others) are going to report on ,  he has nothing to fear from speaking to her.  In fact it would clearly be to his advantage.    Sadly anyone who's been in the activity for as long as Dan has heard plenty of things they won't like to admit to hearing.

[karuna]

18 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

So Stuart Rice in 2002, calling up with no information other than " i heard it through the grapevine" means Dan was negligent in his duties, especially give Rice's track record?

I wasn't party to the conversation.  I don't know what was said or how credible the report was.  

[karuna]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

actually I have seen people go down for reporting suspicions that ended up false.

mandated reporters are shielded.   others may not be.  

[Tim K]

45 minutes ago, karuna said:

The standard is a reasonable suspicion.   A 9th hand rumor about someone you dislike is probably not a reasonable basis.  OTOH you have no obligation to investigate the matter yourself or even to be certain of the facts.  You clearly never have undergone any training in this area.  It's mandated in most states.

I have gone through thorough training in this area. It's mandated in most states, if not all, if the misconduct involves a minor, and if what you have heard is a rumor, law enforcement would rather decide the credibility . In cases involving adults, it gets very murky. Usually a tip based on a rumor is not helpful, but law enforcement knows how to handle these situations.  If you have solid information and a crime is involved, you can always give a tip, but If possible, you really need the victim him/her self to step forward.

[Jeff Ream]

8 minutes ago, NewToPosting said:

HUGE mistake.  The lawyers will advise him based on what is good for him personally, not what is best for the activity.  Yes, it's important to consult and listen to lawyers ESPECIALLY now, but they alone will not get him through this.  Lawyers can't and shouldn't advise him on PR (within reason).  If he's only listening to lawyers, then I'd have to agree that he really should not be in that position for much longer.

actually, if the lawyer is hired by the corporation, they will advise him on whats best for the corporation. if Dan is not personally paying them, they have no duty to protect him personally.