“Failure to Protect”

[MikeD]

1 hour ago, Jeff Ream said:

Remember just because something isn't on a record doesn't mean a company/corps has to hire someone. If you are thorough enough in vetting references, you can still find a reason to say no

Oh absolutely true. The issue is if a person applies to corps X for some position, and there is nothing to find online or any official source, and references are good, but the person has been engaging in poor behavior "in private" so to speak, they will look like fine candidates. 

[BRASSO]

4 hours ago, MikeD said:

I agree on the above with the current people  being discussed, but my comment is about more general concepts moving forward. I would bet that state license information is indeed easily seen, but what if the future person being checked was never prosecuted by a victim and never had a license revoked? 

 In such a scenario, I agree, it does become a challenge to properly vett an applicant. Not impossible to do, but a challenge nonetheless.

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, Bluzes said:

Didn't follow the case that close, I wondered how this was allowed in w/o proof? Wonder what the concession was for him to admit that, must have been way worse. GH must be having nightmares over the details of Crosby's case & verdict.

Think he admitted before trial but can’t remember if it was this victim or another one.

as for Mike and Jeff’s discussion true there is no way to find all predators when they apply for a job. But as long as we keep making it harder to slip they the cracks that is progress.

[IllianaLancerContra]

3 hours ago, Bluzes said:

Didn't follow the case that close, I wondered how this was allowed in w/o proof? Wonder what the concession was for him to admit that, must have been way worse. GH must be having nightmares over the details of Crosby's case & verdict.

The admission was part of an under-oath deposition he gave as part of a civil lawsuit by a Temple Univ employee who claimed that Cosby had drugged & assaulted her.  

[Bluzes]

2 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Think he admitted before trial but can’t remember if it was this victim or another one.

as for Mike and Jeff’s discussion true there is no way to find all predators when they apply for a job. But as long as we keep making it harder to slip they the cracks that is progress.

 

1

When they do slip through the cracks dci is recommending social media tracking. This aids camp-tour due-diligence. All dci can do is weed these individuals out in their vetting then if they slip through apply the best and most effective detection tools to keep the MM safe.

Technically the facilities & software are in place today to capture anything. Grooming is done online, a simple store & forward polling system of IP activity between two devices is enough to discover red flags of pairs with unusual activity. From there you have a watch list and put things together. Such as, they do spend a lot of time together, come to think of it they were standing close together the other day. The software gets smarter over time. If all Corps are participating then the software can sniff out staff/MM contact across the Corps. There is a norm and there are highs simple math.

Cracks will always present themselves.

Edited December 24, 2018 by Bluzes
typo

[Brian Tuma]

I’m curious if others on here have gone through a vetting process as a corps volunteer. A few years ago I thought of volunteering on the food  crew for my local corps ( i live in Milwaukee wink wink). Basically, my vetting process consisted of questions about whether I marched and with which corps. My CV and list of references were all but ignored. I had extensive experience in the catering business which didn’t impress my interviewer at all. The same with presenting my state Serve-safe certification. When I asked about a criminal background check the answer was “you seem honest enough”.  Well, in short I didn’t jump at the opportunity. Lol

[Terri Schehr]

15 minutes ago, Brian Tuma said:

I’m curious if others on here have gone through a vetting process as a corps volunteer. A few years ago I thought of volunteering on the food  crew for my local corps ( i live in Milwaukee wink wink). Basically, my vetting process consisted of questions about whether I marched and with which corps. My CV and list of references were all but ignored. I had extensive experience in the catering business which didn’t impress my interviewer at all. The same with presenting my state Serve-safe certification. When I asked about a criminal background check the answer was “you seem honest enough”.  Well, in short I didn’t jump at the opportunity. Lol

Jim was thoroughly vetted for his volunteer service in 2013, 2014, and this past year.  He was just background checked again recently for volunteer work for next year. 

[Jeff Ream]

11 hours ago, MikeD said:

Oh absolutely true. The issue is if a person applies to corps X for some position, and there is nothing to find online or any official source, and references are good, but the person has been engaging in poor behavior "in private" so to speak, they will look like fine candidates. 

well DCI needs to keep a database of bad actors.

[Jeff Ream]

10 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Think he admitted before trial but can’t remember if it was this victim or another one.

as for Mike and Jeff’s discussion true there is no way to find all predators when they apply for a job. But as long as we keep making it harder to slip they the cracks that is progress.

exactly. it will never be possible to keep them out entirely. but we can make it harder, and we can hopefully see the corps feet held to the fire to do the right thing. 

[Jeff Ream]

I said this in another thread, but i'll repeat it here:

 

Funny you mention this. I was talking to someone today who thinks the reporter has some agenda and wondered why I’ve been such a hard ### towards dan, the board, the corps etc.

 

its easy. Whenever there’s been criticism what’s the power brokers standard reply? “ it’s for the kids” “ don’t criticize, you’ll hurt the kids”.

 

well, until May 2018 the collective powers that be, including Dan, the board, the corps boards, and so many others IGNORED this issue and allowed way too many KIDS get hurt by people that shouldn’t have been around. Like we see with the Catholic Church, tell them to leave but don’t block them from being involved. Sweep it under the rug. Teaching license suspended? No biggie I know you can make my horn line better. It’s been the worst kept secret for decades, and enough people had to know specifics, and did nothing. 

We know people reported stuff before last year, and it was ignored or worse, people were threatened to stay silent.

but yet it’s all supposed to be about the kids right? That’s what those at the top have stressed repeatedly. Kids, kids, KIDS!!

 

yet when someone did anything sexual with a kid, either in or out of dci but was allowed to work there, the safety of those same kids was ignored.

 

that is why I continue to demand people be held accountable for past inaction. Yeah it could take down some big names. In fact I’ve been suspicious of some resignations and their rationale the last 18 months. 

I am glad dci is taking steps. I truly believe in any restructuring the inmates should not be in charge of the asylum. None of them have earned that right..... because despite their mantra of “ the kids”, they’ve proven their safety really wasn’t as important as they claimed.

•