Jump to content

DCI Shares Important Information on Hiring & Vetting Processes


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

To me,DCI being a "facilitating" vs. a "governing" organization is what has contributed,at least in part, to a lot of the activity's ongoing problems.

Seems odd that  Drum Corps does not have an true governing body.

In fact,it seems like DCI has done its best not to be one.

Personally,I believe that Drum Corps needs an independent  governing organization with legal  authority over all members.

To me,the word "should" not "shall" in your post shows a weakness in DCI, as it currently exists.

You need an organization that will,as necessary, enforce policies,standards,etc. that apply to all members.

Otherwise, DCI is just "the inmates  running the asylum".

 

but then does that not also require how every corps is operated as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCI is saying they can't control who each corps hires. 

But once they are hired, there's the "community code" thingy they came up with in May of 2018. 

In short, nobody can control if a corps hires convicted felons, including sex offenders.  That's a big problem.

Having a "community code" isn't a solution to that problem.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

Agree they need to be defined.  Immediate is what YEA did w/r/t the individual on the 'PA clergy list'

The individual was let go from C2 as soon as the news of the investigation surfaced. 

Remember, he passed background checks because he was not charged with a crime. His name popped up when someone else was being investigated and he cooperated with authorities to avoid prosecution. He was also employed as a public school teacher at the same time he instructed C2. This did turn out to be a bad hire, but it was not due to failing to do background checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim K said:

The individual was let go from C2 as soon as the news of the investigation surfaced. 

Remember, he passed background checks because he was not charged with a crime. His name popped up when someone else was being investigated and he cooperated with authorities to avoid prosecution. He was also employed as a public school teacher at the same time he instructed C2. This did turn out to be a bad hire, but it was not due to failing to do background checks.

My point is that it took 45 min from YEA finding out name to him being let go.  In today's environment there isn't time to say wait - lets think about this - esp at YEA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

If DCI wants a copy of the corps clearance checks that could open up a can of personal information worms. First off no idea anymore if social security and birth date are on the forms that get returned to the sender. Second the person who whose info is on the forms is agreeing to let the corps (potential employer) see that personal info. But will that person also have to agree to having that info shared with a third party (DCI). No idea if a clearance is considered personal info but the PII (personal identifiable info) of the birth date and SSN may have to be redacted

yrah time for my PII training for the way too many years

It would take a checkoff statement on the  corps application form for anybody requiring a background check that they would be OK to pass their information along to DCI. If the person does not sign off...they can't be hired. PII is something that needs to be considered, so perhaps items like SSN could be held back...or maybe the checkoff is for ALL information. It does place an added burden on DCI to safeguard staff/volunteer/etc information that is passed along to them.That is a big responsibility.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, garfield said:

"Immediate", "Corrective", "Action", and "credible" all seem to be subjective words.

Hard to agree on what "muster" is if the metrics are all subjective.

 

Hopefully the upcoming meeting referenced will clarify those sorts of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MikeD said:

It would take a checkoff statement on the  corps application form for anybody requiring a background check that they would be OK to pass their information along to DCI. If the person does not sign off...they can't be hired. PII is something that needs to be considered, so perhaps items like SSN could be held back...or maybe the checkoff is for ALL information. It does place an added burden on DCI to safeguard staff/volunteer/etc information that is passed along to them.That is a big responsibility.

 

 

Thought along same lines just wasn’t sure how Corps could protect themselves by showing person agreed to share with DCI. Check off or signature to show agreement might work.

And safe guarding PII at DCI level is big question mark. IOW who would see SSN and the like? High level DCI people only or lower level or even volunteer people who handle (file, copy, data entry, ????) paperwork. And saying higher level people only is not a 100% safeguard either. Oh too many years of this training...

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lance said:

DCI is saying they can't control who each corps hires. 

But once they are hired, there's the "community code" thingy they came up with in May of 2018. 

In short, nobody can control if a corps hires convicted felons, including sex offenders.  That's a big problem.

Having a "community code" isn't a solution to that problem.

 

 

 

 

That's right. DCI CAN'T Control corps hires.  But a corps would have to provide documented proof of compliance to DCI guidelines before they would be allowed to participate in a show sanctioned by DCI.

The corps have to be diligent about vetting  hires and about volunteers.  Anyone who comes in contact with MM's.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

My point is that it took 45 min from YEA finding out name to him being let go.  In today's environment there isn't time to say wait - lets think about this - esp at YEA

I understand, and if it sounds as if I was disagreeing with you I’m sorry. My intention was to point out the importance of not only the background and also reference checks because even when you dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s,” people can still unintentionally slip through the cracks. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Thought along same lines just wasn’t sure how Corps could protect themselves by showing person agreed to share with DCI. Check off or signature to show agreement might work.

And safe guarding PII at DCI level is big question mark. IOW who would see SSN and the like? High level DCI people only or lower level or even volunteer people who handle (file, copy, data entry, ????) paperwork. And saying higher level people only is not a 100% safeguard either. Oh too many years of this training...

I think the idea of DCI gathering and "owning" PII on individuals is part of the reason for the initial part of the statement about what DCI can and cannot do at the person-level. I know what you mean! I had lots of training and exposure to the gathering and dissemination of PII in my IT career. It is a headache. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...