“Failure to Protect”

[HockeyDad]

56 minutes ago, garfield said:

Dan Acheson

Dan Acheson

Dan Acheson

We used to mockingly use someone else's name in this same way.  Videos were made.

We know what the other one did.  What did Acheson actually do to deserve it? 

I wonder who it will be after Dan Acheson.

 

(And, no, I'm not comparing or contrasting the two, or equivocating their respective rolls.)

 

Because he is the executive director. When you are the face at the top of the org chart, and a near disaster befalls your organization, you need to be held accountable. You know that. You just don’t agree. 

[HockeyDad]

Fred Morrison. Knowingly hired a perv who sexted underage school kids. Paid to cover it up. Is Fred still the Crossmen executive director?

Edited December 16, 2018 by HockeyDad

[JimF-LowBari]

32 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Fred Morrison. Knowingly hired a perv who sexted underage school kids. Paid to cover it up. Is Fred still the Crossmen executive director?

He would be a good one to talk to in the audit/investigation....

Edit also OC  staff that quit. Maybe just me but fgind it hard to believe none of them called the head office.

Edited December 16, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Tim K said:

 

I understand the anger and frustrations many are feeling. As I said in an earlier post many want to see heads roll. There are also calls for independent investigations. Maybe these are solutions, but many are split in whether DCI needs new leadership and if there is no paper trail leading to DCI, an investigation independent or otherwise will yield very little. 

What I would like to see is each corps in DCI today looking at themselves. Make certain current staff has no reasons why they should not be involved with drum corps, the two major areas being sexual harassment and providing alcohol and drugs.  While I do not know of cases where staff have provided drugs and alcohol to marching members, in many cases sexual misconduct and substance abuse can often be linked. I’d recommend putting staff on notice that boundary violations will be carefully watched for since this is often testing the waters for misconduct and red flag any who seem suspicious. I would like to see in employment contracts that any substantial accusation of sexual misconduct will be reported to DCI, DCA, WGI, the band circuits. While some may see problems with false accusations, they key word is substantial and most studies place the likelihood of false allegations between 4-7%. 

Corps should also be looking at their history. Where corps can have frequent staff and leadership changes, it might be likely there are no written record of misbehavior, personnel  files, or the like. There is the lore and I think this is where the “everybody knows” comes from. Try as best to look at the issues. Were minors violated? Were there relationships between marching members and staff? Were there allegations  from one marching member against another? This would help identifying the exact scope of the problem.

 

Now this sounds like a very good start.  Lotsa productive thought put in here and not a single pitchfork thrown.

Kudos

[garfield]

25 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Because he is the executive director. When you are the face at the top of the org chart, and a near disaster befalls your organization, you need to be held accountable. You know that. You just don’t agree. 

No, and this is the fine point: I disagree that Dan is the face at the top of anything, that his position as ED or CEO was never meant to indicate the power to control you presume, that, I know that many WC corps, including ALL of the G7 corps, actively worked to undermine him, and that DCIs by-laws totally and completely allow it to be structured as it is.  In fact, it was solidified by vote in the aftermath of the G7 episode.

Otherwise, I agree with your premise entirely.

[JimF-LowBari]

6 minutes ago, garfield said:

No, and this is the fine point: I disagree that Dan is the face at the top of anything, that his position as ED or CEO was never meant to indicate the power to control you presume, that, I know that many WC corps, including ALL of the G7 corps, actively worked to undermine him, and that DCIs by-laws totally and completely allow it to be structured as it is.  In fact, it was solidified by vote in the aftermath of the G7 episode.

Otherwise, I agree with your premise entirely.

Problem is we insiders know that but what about the outside world that deals with DCI? Thinking even if the sponsors know, the people they sell too won't know or evern care. Then it won't matter who is in charge or if there is a head.

When DCI does publicity how much is DAs name or face used? IOW is he the "face of DCI"?

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[garfield]

32 minutes ago, HockeyDad said:

Fred Morrison. Knowingly hired a perv who sexted underage school kids. Paid to cover it up. Is Fred still the Crossmen executive director?

THIS is where the attention needs paid to the extent that it does.

[HockeyDad]

12 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Problem is we insiders know that but what about the outside world that deals with DCI? Thinking even if the sponsors know, the people they sell too won't know or evern care. Then it won't matter who is in charge or if there is a head.

When DCI does publicity how much is DAs name or face used? IOW is he the "face of DCI"?

 

Bingo. To an outsider, Dan is in charge of DCI. And that’s the salient point right there. And it’s why he has to go. Whether he had any actual power or not. Step two is the directors must give the next DCI ED the actual power to act. 

[garfield]

19 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Problem is we insiders know that but what about the outside world that deals with DCI? Thinking even if the sponsors know, the people they sell too won't know or evern care. Then it won't matter who is in charge or if there is a head.

When DCI does publicity how much is DAs name or face used? IOW is he the "face of DCI"?

 

I think there's about 74 people on DCP at any one time, and about 19 of those can be called active (I exaggerate for effect).

Interestingly, sponsorships are largely made directly with corps, so sponsors connected to named corps might run, but sponsors at clean corps and at DCI will remain.

You are getting VERY CLOSE to the bone of this entire issue of DCI's culpability in this mess.

The corps DIRECTORS and, by vote, the activity's leadership specifically and intentionally wanted the function of DCI so marginalized as to demand that it be disbanded and all of its obligations reassigned to specific members of their clan of seven, and specifically for Dan A to be fired for, essentially, incompetence.  The attempt was only saved by the non-G7 corps' fantastic legal maneuvering and guts.

It's incomprehensible to think that DCI has now placed Dan's office in such his responsibility as to be the titular "face" of the activity over their own corps.  They haven't.  The non-G7 saved Dan's job AND DAN because they recognized his value to the activity, but his job was exactly the same in 2017 as it was in 2010: Build the tour, make it make money, and promote the activity.

I think it would be an unnecessary waste of a particular talent (at his price) to justify excision based on optics.

[JimF-LowBari]

2 minutes ago, garfield said:

I think there's about 74 people on DCP at any one time, and about 19 of those can be called active (I exaggerate for effect).

Interestingly, sponsorships are largely made directly with corps, so sponsors connected to named corps might run, but sponsors at clean corps and at DCI will remain.

You are getting VERY CLOSE to the bone of this entire issue of DCI's culpability in this mess.

The corps DIRECTORS and, by vote, the activity's leadership specifically and intentionally wanted the function of DCI so marginalized as to demand that it be disbanded and all of its obligations reassigned to specific members of their clan of seven, and specifically for Dan A to be fired for, essentially, incompetence.  The attempt was only saved by the non-G7 corps' fantastic legal maneuvering and guts.

It's incomprehensible to think that DCI has now placed Dan's office in such his responsibility as to be the titular "face" of the activity over their own corps.  They haven't.  The non-G7 saved Dan's job AND DAN because they recognized his value to the activity, but his job was exactly the same in 2017 as it was in 2010: Build the tour, make it make money, and promote the activity.

I think it would be an unnecessary waste of a particular talent (at his price) to justify excision based on optics.

Ok I learned about sponsors which should get interesting.

When DCI releases publicity or information to show sites, schools that host corps, etc, etc. whose name is on the letters, ads, whatever. I have no idea but if DAs name is on them then he is DCIs "face" regardless of what he is behind the door.