Jump to content

“Failure to Protect”


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

could be a ton of options.

 

wonder if he would name names to try and get off easier?

Don't think naming names is relevant in the criminal case; civil perhaps.

My gut feeling is that if he pushes it down the road it gets closer to discovery, while minimizing lawyer's billable hours.  But I could be completely wrong

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All we really have right now is published reports from Hopkins lawyer saying that his client is innocent and that they are looking forward to a Court Trial. Given that published report, it seems likely that Hopkins and his Attorney are eliminating any steps that preclude that early Trial Date. But, thats just my speculation here too. There could just as easily be other reasons for their strategy to Waive a Hearing today as well.

Edited by BRASSO
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Plankton said:

Bonnie Ott is playing mellophone right next to him in the video.

Big ouch...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BigW said:

Did DCI know he was in JOBE until they stepped on the field that evening? I doubt that would have crossed their minds. If it did or they knew.... eesh. Especially attaching a Drum Corps Hero like Jim Ott's name to the group... :unhappy:

He played with them on the Wednesday before at the hall of fame ceremony.  The video is from Friday.  He played again Saturday at Soundsport. 

He had played with them at the Whitewater show earlier in the season.

Edited by Terri Schehr
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

 

My gut feeling is that if he pushes it down the road it gets closer to discovery, while minimizing lawyer's billable hours.  But I could be completely wrong

This is probably the reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2018 at 12:44 PM, cixelsyd said:

More fact-checking.  (Admittedly, this one is tricky.)

The article says "the instructional staff sent a list of grievances to the Crusaders board, citing in part the corps’ handling of sexual misconduct and harassment claims".  So it is not clear whether they left over that, or over something else... or over the sum total of it all.

It is also not clear precisely how the corps responded. 

Just to give you some idea why this is murky... from what I gather from here, Facebook, reddit, and speaking with real-live people, the issues ran the gamut from the legitimate grievance given in the article, to a complaint over how long it took to hire another cook to deal with an unexpectedly high number of vegetarian/vegan meal requests.  Amid all this, the third-party reporting system was at times being (mis)used as a general complaint box.  On the other hand, the corps director made a fundamental mistake by complaining to the corps about that.

The instructional staff resigned over the sum total of it all. The issues cited to the board related to sexual misconduct and harassment; sexism; negligence of the welfare of corps staff, members, and material resources; general inefficiencies; and general unprofessionalism. (Believe it or not, the lack of vegan meal options was not high on this totem pole.)

The entire instructional staff resigned when it became apparent that the higher administration (read: the BOD, the corps director) would never make the changes necessary for the organization to become a stable, safe place for its students or staff members. In a situation like this, the only solution is to purge any and all higher administrators who actively created these issues and/or were complicit with these issues taking place. As the BOD seemed unwilling to fire or even admonish Mike Quillen, the executive corps director and CEO of OC, the staff chose to leave en masse.

I imagine that the incoming staff had no idea of the scope of these issues prior to signing on. As mentioned by other posters in this thread, DCI jobs are hard to come by. I don't blame anyone for taking such an opportunity.

That being said, these new staff members must realize that their new roles go beyond teaching music and movement. They now have the added responsibility of holding OC's higher admin to the highest standard possible. Honestly, these new instructors would be wise to resign ASAP and avoid this scandal altogether. But if they are set on staying, they owe it to themselves, their students, and the organization to ensure that Mike Quillen and Phil Marshall follow through on the promises of change made in their recent letter

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know a REASONABLE policy for DCI and DCA to come up with is to require each and every corps to perform records background checks on each and every Staff Member and Marching member of the corps. The corps would pay for the Staff Members and the marching members it would be added to the dues and fees at check in. Most states perform these tasks at $35 or less. Seems like a very small price to protect the children and would give both DCI and DCA some protection that they are doing something about this. Its a no brainer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quoting Dr. Phil Marshall from OC's response to the Failure to Protect article:

"There is an unspoken truth in the drum corps activity–the “elephant in the room”–that we need a more thorough method of vetting staff across the entire drum corps activity. Background checks are not enough. Personal local references are not enough. Even reference verification calls to prior employers are not enough, as employment law prevents disclosure of confidential personnel information. We did conduct repeated background checks and reference checks of Mr. Stevens, and they clearly were not enough."

That being said discussions on this thread where Mike D points out that NJ is addressing the same issue and has created a database to help the vetting deficiencies across NJ school districts is something that would go a long way for drum corps. I know there will be a ton of reasons why non-profits could never utilize the database and red tape issues that are impossible to overcome but it would only help if drum corps could. Likely other States have or are planning to have such tools for their own States then maybe national (I don't really know) but it would be nice if non-profit youth orgs could vet their employees there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

Quoting Dr. Phil Marshall from OC's response to the Failure to Protect article:

"There is an unspoken truth in the drum corps activity–the “elephant in the room”–that we need a more thorough method of vetting staff across the entire drum corps activity. Background checks are not enough. Personal local references are not enough. Even reference verification calls to prior employers are not enough, as employment law prevents disclosure of confidential personnel information. We did conduct repeated background checks and reference checks of Mr. Stevens, and they clearly were not enough."

That being said discussions on this thread where Mike D points out that NJ is addressing the same issue and has created a database to help the vetting deficiencies across NJ school districts is something that would go a long way for drum corps. I know there will be a ton of reasons why non-profits could never utilize the database and red tape issues that are impossible to overcome but it would only help if drum corps could. Likely other States have or are planning to have such tools for their own States then maybe national (I don't really know) but it would be nice if non-profit youth orgs could vet their employees there.

It might not be enough but its a start. 

 

Clearly in the case of Larson everyone knew his history and turned a blind eye to it. I think other cases people turned a blind eye to things. Disclosure of Background checks to DCI and DCA would wave red flags in any case. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mint said:

The instructional staff resigned over the sum total of it all. The issues cited to the board related to sexual misconduct and harassment; sexism; negligence of the welfare of corps staff, members, and material resources; general inefficiencies; and general unprofessionalism. (Believe it or not, the lack of vegan meal options was not high on this totem pole.)

The entire instructional staff resigned when it became apparent that the higher administration (read: the BOD, the corps director) would never make the changes necessary for the organization to become a stable, safe place for its students or staff members. In a situation like this, the only solution is to purge any and all higher administrators who actively created these issues and/or were complicit with these issues taking place. As the BOD seemed unwilling to fire or even admonish Mike Quillen, the executive corps director and CEO of OC, the staff chose to leave en masse.

I imagine that the incoming staff had no idea of the scope of these issues prior to signing on. As mentioned by other posters in this thread, DCI jobs are hard to come by. I don't blame anyone for taking such an opportunity.

That being said, these new staff members must realize that their new roles go beyond teaching music and movement. They now have the added responsibility of holding OC's higher admin to the highest standard possible. Honestly, these new instructors would be wise to resign ASAP and avoid this scandal altogether. But if they are set on staying, they owe it to themselves, their students, and the organization to ensure that Mike Quillen and Phil Marshall follow through on the promises of change made in their recent letter

Instructional staffs holding the administration accountable is ideal but not without its consequences.

 

The hiring of design and instructional staff is finalized by administrators. If an administrator hears that the staffer they are hiring can be a pain in the a$$ towards the administration, that staffer has less of a chance of getting hired or rehired. This happens in DCI & DCA regularly. “I heard” or “she has a reputation of” gets more validity than actually doing a fact finding interview nowadays. 

Everyone should focus on giving a great member experience including the administration. Or at least what they agree to in the member contract. Let the staff worry about the competition. Many of today’s staffers are certified teachers and can’t have themselves associated with organizations that are tainted with poor hiring and firing decisions that tie directly to negative member experience.  Let alone recruit for an organization that knowingly hired someone with a documented history of sexual misconduct.

The people who get labeled as pains in the a$$e$ are the ones corps should be hiring not black balling. They have a vested interest in member experience and will likely support administrative initiatives that are geared towards a positive experience. As well as recruiting. 

~Ned~

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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