“Failure to Protect”

[Fran Haring]

35 minutes ago, garfield said:

My card used to have the name of your bank on it, too.  Different division, and you were forced to buy us, but "The Wells Fargo wagon is a-comin' down the track..."

The Music Man!!!  Great show, great song.

And now back to our regularly-scheduled disagreements.

FYI... the lyrics are "is a-comin' down the street"... not "the track."

Please don't be so careless. One might think you're trying to denigrate a great musical.

Edited December 14, 2018 by Fran Haring

[karuna]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

And you keep repeating that phrase as if by repeating it often enough it will become true.

Nobody said he was hamstrung by a Board.  His Board established a procedure and he followed it.

All of these accusations occured at the individual corps level. 

To blame DCI is diverting attention away from those responsible.

 

Following the "procedure established by the board" does not absolve him of his responsibility to the victims.   In fact it's irrelevant.   Did the board specifically preclude Acheson from reporting suspicions of sexual misconduct to the proper authorities?  I don't think you'll find that in the board minutes.

In any case I haven't seen anyone here (or in the paper) trying to absolve any individual corps.  The only absolution being dispensed is your absurd defense of Acheson.  

[garfield]

10 minutes ago, Lance said:

You’re saying what Acheson has put out for the past couple of months. 

It’s just regurgitating the problem. 

Rational adults are arguing that it’s a dangerous situation for kids.  It’s not one or two corps that have done this, and they aren’t going to govern themselves, obviously.  Congrats to the corps that have kept their noses clean.  They won’t be affected by the institution of a legitimate governing agency that mandates procedures to protect minors.  If there’s no oversight about personnel hiring, especially for a youth education activity, then DCI is a dangerous activity.  Period. Anybody who reads the PI’s deeply-sourced article and uses their ability to reason will understand.

I'm sorry that you don't think that people with that point of view are advocating for the betterment of the activity. 

In the context of the rest of my post, I'm defending DCI for the betterment of the activity.  I never said any others' opinion was not taken for the betterment of the activity.  It was a justification of my comment, not a condemnation of others.

Your rationality is appreciated.  Don't lose it now.

DCI is NOW responsible for these issues; back when the accusations occured, DCI was responsible for notifying the corps of these issues, not acting on them itself.

Dan's office should not be scalped because its BoD wrote policies that are not acceptable today.

 

[garfield]

3 minutes ago, karuna said:

Following the "procedure established by the board" does not absolve him of his responsibility to the victims.   In fact it's irrelevant.   Did the board specifically preclude Acheson from reporting suspicions of sexual misconduct to the proper authorities?  I don't think you'll find that in the board minutes.

In any case I haven't seen anyone here (or in the paper) trying to absolve any individual corps.  The only absolution being dispensed is your absurd defense of Acheson.  

Yes, yes it does. And I'm sorry if you can't comprehend corporate legal authority.

And, I'll repeat, it's NOT Acheson I'm defending, it's the DCI office and their ability to manage the tour VERY successfully.

Taking them down without a shred of evidence of culpability is an unnecessary and damaging action that is not in the best interest of the activity or the participants it attracts.

 

[karuna]

16 minutes ago, karuna said:

As leader and chief executive of the organization,  Acheson gets to take all the credit and all the blame.  If he knew and did nothing,  he's culpable morally and ethically.   

 

 

9 minutes ago, garfield said:

And you keep repeating that phrase as if by repeating it often enough it will become true.

(treating this separately).

I repeat because it is so obviously true.

So it's your contention that a CEO who becomes aware of sexual abuse within his independent member organizations has no moral or ethical duty to report those suspicions to the appropriate authorities?    

[JimF-LowBari]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

In the context of the rest of my post, I'm defending DCI for the betterment of the activity.  I never said any others' opinion was not taken for the betterment of the activity.  It was a justification of my comment, not a condemnation of others.

Your rationality is appreciated.  Don't lose it now.

DCI is NOW responsible for these issues; back when the accusations occured, DCI was responsible for notifying the corps of these issues, not acting on them itself.

Dan's office should not be scalped because its BoD wrote policies that are not acceptable today.

 

DCI was responsible for telling the corps they had issues that the corps already knew about? Talking about corps heads hiring people they knew were not supposed to be around young people. 

And after years of living near Penn State ready to hurl if I again hear “we did what we had to legally, even if legally meant they didn’t have to do anything including call legal authorities”.

[MikeD]

19 minutes ago, karuna said:

Copy the link from the address bar.  Open an Incognito window.  Paste address and go.  

Thanks, but that still did not work! It opened the article, and with,in 10 seconds I got the limit screen. Oh, well, thanks for trying.

[karuna]

Just now, garfield said:

Yes, yes it does. And I'm sorry if you can't comprehend corporate legal authority.

And, I'll repeat, it's NOT Acheson I'm defending, it's the DCI office and their ability to manage the tour VERY successfully.

Taking them down without a shred of evidence of culpability is an unnecessary and damaging action that is not in the best interest of the activity or the participants it attracts.

 

Again this is absurd.

Acheson is not DCI.   

 

[garfield]

Just now, karuna said:

 

(treating this separately).

I repeat because it is so obviously true.

So it's your contention that a CEO who becomes aware of sexual abuse within his independent member organizations has no moral or ethical duty to report those suspicions to the appropriate authorities?    

No, the CEO is responsible for following the protocol that his BoD has laid down or resign.  He chose to follow the direction of his BoD.

You might not like it, but he'd likely win any lawsuit claiming he should have acted differently.

[JimF-LowBari]

4 minutes ago, karuna said:

 

(treating this separately).

I repeat because it is so obviously true.

So it's your contention that a CEO who becomes aware of sexual abuse within his independent member organizations has no moral or ethical duty to report those suspicions to the appropriate authorities?    

I keep using the example of if I drive by an accident late at night I don’t have to legally call 911 even if someone is dying. I’d say that makes me a urine poor human being and Christian if I keep on going. But some defend lack of action saying “well they didn’t HAVE to do anything legally”. See my Penn State gripe above.

 

Edited December 14, 2018 by JimF-LowBari