MikeD Posted December 25, 2018 Share Posted December 25, 2018 29 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: well DCI needs to keep a database of bad actors. Which would apply to those that are found, not those who have zero evidence of bad behavior. It would be a database of those who have already been exposed. Not sure if DCI would agree to be in the business of tracking individuals like that, but maybe they would. What are you thinking the process might be for DCI to create and manage this type if information? Certainly the corps who actually perform the vetting of personnel certainly need to be cognizant of those who are looking to participate with their organizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 On 12/25/2018 at 12:01 AM, MikeD said: Which would apply to those that are found, not those who have zero evidence of bad behavior. It would be a database of those who have already been exposed. Not sure if DCI would agree to be in the business of tracking individuals like that, but maybe they would. What are you thinking the process might be for DCI to create and manage this type if information? Certainly the corps who actually perform the vetting of personnel certainly need to be cognizant of those who are looking to participate with their organizations. correct, but it would eliminate the pass the trash mentality we have seen. And it doesn't need to be NASA level science. Hell, an excel spreadsheet would do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 10 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: correct, but it would eliminate the pass the trash mentality we have seen. And it doesn't need to be NASA level science. Hell, an excel spreadsheet would do. Been thinking about the mechanics of how that would work, especially in a day and age of labor law when many employers can only give dates of employment and nothing else. Just one potential headache - how would someone challenge the information DCI has if they feel it's incorrect? Who do they appeal to? If Dan A. denies the appeal, can they take DCI to court to get the information thrown out? How do you deal with multiple instances of state privacy law and 50+ employers? My two-seconds-of-reflection proposal - approach it from the other direction (build up rather than tick scoring, if you will). Make all potential staff obtain a DCI educator badge. Can't get hired without one. You have to re-up every 12 months, background check, references, etc., take continuing education on outdoor health and safety as well as music and movement, define clear rules about how you can lose the badge, appeal it, etc... heck, after a few years, I can almost guarantee school districts will be including on band director/tech applications "DCI certification preferred." Plus, DCI could charge for it - that'd pay for the back-end work, right there... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 8 minutes ago, MikeN said: Been thinking about the mechanics of how that would work, especially in a day and age of labor law when many employers can only give dates of employment and nothing else. Just one potential headache - how would someone challenge the information DCI has if they feel it's incorrect? Who do they appeal to? If Dan A. denies the appeal, can they take DCI to court to get the information thrown out? How do you deal with multiple instances of state privacy law and 50+ employers? Yep and what if the information is correct but is considered private and DCI did not get it in a legal manner (web, email, etc). If DCI releases that the person was dismissed for ... reason then DCI could be liable for releasing private info. DCI needs more and better lawyers to navigate this mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 In lieu of all the pitfalls, shortfalls, errors and omissions of background checks and database populating and maintenance, here’s a completely different idea: A strictly enforced policy of NEVER allowing one-on-one interactions between staff and MMs. There must at all times be at least TWO staff members present if there’s any interface with one MM. Let this policy be broadcast and frequently discussed with staff and MMS until it becomes second nature. There is no reason for one-on-one private interaction between staff and MM. I think that by removing the opportunity for malfeasance, you will greatly reduce the actual malfeasance. And don’t say it’s not possible. Of course it’s possible. Do it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 11 hours ago, Jeff Ream said: correct, but it would eliminate the pass the trash mentality we have seen. And it doesn't need to be NASA level science. Hell, an excel spreadsheet would do. Forget the recent past stuff in the news articles for a moment. Look at how the vetting process might work moving forward. Corps A hires: XX staff who have contact with MM. XX support people, such as admin, cooks, prop staff, drivers, other volunteers. The corps perform all of the new background reporting requirements, which need to have zero tolerance and/or wiggle room: Criminal Licenses Other avenues of investigation (such as online searches and references) No issues are discovered What are you thinking that corps A will do regarding DCI? Send DCI information at the individual person level? Sign off that everyone complies with the DCI requirements? Sending DCI information on individuals certainly raises the risk of PII being released/misused, so just keeping an "Excel spreadsheet" may not be the best idea if you want DCI to maintain personal information at the individual level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 52 minutes ago, MikeN said: Been thinking about the mechanics of how that would work, especially in a day and age of labor law when many employers can only give dates of employment and nothing else. Just one potential headache - how would someone challenge the information DCI has if they feel it's incorrect? Who do they appeal to? If Dan A. denies the appeal, can they take DCI to court to get the information thrown out? How do you deal with multiple instances of state privacy law and 50+ employers? My two-seconds-of-reflection proposal - approach it from the other direction (build up rather than tick scoring, if you will). Make all potential staff obtain a DCI educator badge. Can't get hired without one. You have to re-up every 12 months, background check, references, etc., take continuing education on outdoor health and safety as well as music and movement, define clear rules about how you can lose the badge, appeal it, etc... heck, after a few years, I can almost guarantee school districts will be including on band director/tech applications "DCI certification preferred." Plus, DCI could charge for it - that'd pay for the back-end work, right there... Mike well if someone has a record, or a license revocation that you can have a paper trail of, no need. i do like your second idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 33 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: In lieu of all the pitfalls, shortfalls, errors and omissions of background checks and database populating and maintenance, here’s a completely different idea: A strictly enforced policy of NEVER allowing one-on-one interactions between staff and MMs. There must at all times be at least TWO staff members present if there’s any interface with one MM. Let this policy be broadcast and frequently discussed with staff and MMS until it becomes second nature. There is no reason for one-on-one private interaction between staff and MM. I think that by removing the opportunity for malfeasance, you will greatly reduce the actual malfeasance. And don’t say it’s not possible. Of course it’s possible. Do it. Speaking from first hand knowledge, there are indeed corps that already have this exact policy in place - you are right, it protects the student, and protects the adults. Mike 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 23 minutes ago, MikeN said: Speaking from first hand knowledge, there are indeed corps that already have this exact policy in place - you are right, it protects the student, and protects the adults. Mike Agree. We had that with the bands I have taught, for nearly 30 years. It is not a new concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted December 26, 2018 Share Posted December 26, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, HockeyDad said: In lieu of all the pitfalls, shortfalls, errors and omissions of background checks and database populating and maintenance, here’s a completely different idea: A strictly enforced policy of NEVER allowing one-on-one interactions between staff and MMs. There must at all times be at least TWO staff members present if there’s any interface with one MM. Let this policy be broadcast and frequently discussed with staff and MMS until it becomes second nature. There is no reason for one-on-one private interaction between staff and MM. I think that by removing the opportunity for malfeasance, you will greatly reduce the actual malfeasance. And don’t say it’s not possible. Of course it’s possible. Do it. When child protection training was started at my old church this was pounded as a basic rule. Even if nothing happened having a witness protects both sides. Yep agree for minors even if it is two (teenage) minors and one staff. Edited December 26, 2018 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts