“Failure to Protect”

[garfield]

1 hour ago, Beren Erchamion said:

Even with more powerful bombs, unless they're infinitely powerful there's going to be an area of total devastation, an area that's effectively untouched (by the blast, at least...radiation is a different matter), and an area in between where the destruction declines on a gradient from total to imperceptible.  For more powerful weapons the fringe area may be pushed farther back, but still it's there--there's not a cutoff between "it's hopeless" and "nothing to worry about," that's just not how energy dissipation works.

Good post for a rookie.

You'll fit in well.

[garfield]

58 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

Have you contacted the Crossmen and their Board of Directors? I don't disagree with you that Morrison should step down because of how he handled this, but rather than shouting at DCI, shout at the Crossmen first. 

Wow, "Good minds..."

 

[Bluzes]

47 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

and in todays HR world, a growing majority of companies will only tell you the dates they worked there and that's it. it's a legal CYA

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Bluzes
delete

[garfield]

8 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

but now, we see he paid for the bad stuff to get removed from anywhere it could possibly found. Gee, to me....that's kinda, well...####....deceptive? Aka, if I pay to make it disappear, it won't cause me future problems?

Not defending him at all.  The decision to suppress his record is beyond my understanding, but I imagine it was a personal favor or, even, part of a contract agreement, or maybe even Crossmen wanting to cover their own butts.  But, at least, it confirms he knew the guy's record would be perceived as such so he had to suppress it

Inexcusable in any day or age, IMPO. 

I don't really have enough data, info, context, or understanding to pass judgement, but this seems like a potentially fireable offense, IMO, by a BoD that wants to reflect the current societal norms and demand the highest participant safety.  An action to suppress is contrary in an activity that relies on transparency, honesty, and forth-rightness for a significant part of their member-safety practices between corps.  And frankly in its intertwined relationship with HS and Indoor, too.

I don't think it's out of bounds for fans, sponsors, Friends members, and others to ask the CORRECT powers that be why this situation exists with Crossmen and Morrison.

 

 

 

[Terri Schehr]

1 hour ago, Fran Haring said:

There was an obituary story, a few years back, of a Japanese man who survived both atomic bombings.  He had passed away at age 93.

He was in Hiroshima on business that fateful day. He was injured in the first blast, but then traveled back to his hometown... Nagasaki.  You can't make this stuff up.  LOL.

Here's the Wiki link to his story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

Wow. 

[Jeff Ream]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

Not defending him at all.  The decision to suppress his record is beyond my understanding, but I imagine it was a personal favor or, even, part of a contract agreement, or maybe even Crossmen wanting to cover their own butts.  But, at least, it confirms he knew the guy's record would be perceived as such so he had to suppress it

Inexcusable in any day or age, IMPO. 

I don't really have enough data, info, context, or understanding to pass judgement, but this seems like a potentially fireable offense, IMO, by a BoD that wants to reflect the current societal norms and demand the highest participant safety.  An action to suppress is contrary in an activity that relies on transparency, honesty, and forth-rightness for a significant part of their member-safety practices between corps.  And frankly in its intertwined relationship with HS and Indoor, too.

I don't think it's out of bounds for fans, sponsors, Friends members, and others to ask the CORRECT powers that be why this situation exists with Crossmen and Morrison.

 

 

 

yeah given a name on here, I don't see that happening. After all, they supported hiring Moody

 

Board of Directors
 

Mark Chambers
Vice President

Caitlin Hall
Board Member

David McIlvoy
Board Member

Maureen Morrison
Treasurer

Mark Purnell
Board Member

John Schock
Board Member

[JimF-LowBari]

3 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

Wow. 

Think years back I read a young adults book about a couple of people who were in both. Sad ones were kids who were sent to Nagasaki to be with other family for safety after Hiroshima. Will have to google sometime 

[Bluzes]

42 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

and in todays HR world, a growing majority of companies will only tell you the dates they worked there and that's it. it's a legal CYA

Your response to my post is right on, my bad I worded it wrong. It's on Personal References you can ask the question would you rehire these individuals may or may not be involved with former employer.

[BRASSO]

37 minutes ago, garfield said:

 

DCI doesn't have the power to remove a corps director; they only can lay down requirements under which the org can continue their affiliation with DCI and performance in their shows.

 

 

 

 

  Technically, this is correct. This is how it works ( real world ) : . DCI HQ does not like the manner in which a Corps Director in its DCI membership is running its operation... financially, or otherwise.. So they tell the Corps " you can no longer participate in DCI future shows so long as your current Corps Director is your Corps Director there ". Now... such a Corps is under no legal requirement to remove such a Corps Director. They CAN legally keep that Corps Director and take no action with him at all. However, they can't keep him AND participate in future DCI competitions. Its one or the other. So in order to stay in DCI and participate in future show competitions, the Corps BOD there does what they HAVE to do.. they follow the DCI HQ " recommendation ", and they remove that Corps Director, and replace him with another. They then contact DCI HQ and show he has been removed through their " recommendation ", and that Corps is then allowed to future compete in DCI Competitions.

 This is precisely what the DCI HQ BOD did in 2005 with the Troopers. DCI HQ suspended the Troopers from DCI competition for non compliance with membership rules. The Corps was made to go inactive for the 2006 season, while they reorganized. Troopers interim Director was Mike Ottoes during the transition period where the Troopers removed the previous Corps Director DCI was displeased with. Ottoes met with DCI HQ and layed out a plan to come into compliance with DCI HQ. DCI HQ was pleased, and later Fred Morris was installed as the Corps new Corps Director there at the Troppers. After DCI HQ saw that new Management was in place, and that back taxes owed to the IRS was paid, and that the Corps put their financial house back in order under new Mgt, Troopers reapplied for the removal of their Suspension Status with DCI HQ,, and the Corps was fully reinstated and allowed by DCI HQ  to return to competition again for the 2007  season.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by BRASSO

[garfield]

9 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

  Technically, this is correct. This is how it works ( real world ) : . DCI HQ does not like the manner in which a Corps Director in its DCI membership is running its operation... financially, or otherwise.. So they tell the Corps " you can no longer participate in DCI future shows so long as your current Corps Director is your Corps Director there ". Now... such a Corps is under no legal requirement to remove such a Corps Director. They CAN legally keep that Corps Director and take no action with him at all. However, they can't keep him AND participate in future DCI competitions. Its one or the other. So in order to stay in DCI and participate in future show competitions, the Corps BOD there does what they HAVE to do.. they follow the DCI HQ " recommendation ", and they remove that Corps Director, and replace him with another. They then contact DCI HQ and show he has been removed through their " recommendation ", and that Corps is then allowed to future compete in DCI Competitions.

 This is precisely what the DCI HQ BOD did in 2005 with the Troopers. DCI HQ suspended the Troopers from DCI competition for non compliance with membership rules. The Corps was made to go inactive for the 2006 season, while they reorganized. Troopers interim Director was Mike Ottoes during the transition period where the Troopers removed the previous Corps Director DCI was displeased with. Ottoes met with DCI HQ and layed out a plan to come into compliance with DCI HQ. DCI HQ was pleased, and later Fred Morris was installed as the Corps new Corps Director there at the Troppers. After DCI HQ saw that new Management was in place, and that back taxes owed to the IRS was paid, and that the Corps put their financial house back in order under new Mgt, Troopers reapplied for the removal of their Suspension Status with DCI HQ,, and the Corps was fully reinstated and allowed by DCI HQ  to return to competition again for the 2007  season.

 

I only read the first pgh...

Let's be clear, it's not a "recommendation" at all, it's a firm requirement.  I'll say it as it was literally said to me:  "So long as XXXX is a part of the XXXX organization, XXXX will never participate in DCI events.  Period."

Now, I'll go read the second pgh...