“Failure to Protect”

[Bluzes]

13 hours ago, BigW said:

By "issues from the past" do they mean specifically inappropriate relations with students kinds of issues, or wider than that? Curious as to how sweeping they're trying to make this.

 

The role of the dci's National Vendor is yet to be defined. If could be a one and done process they passed the background check, or it could serve more of an HR role where it administers Saftey and Conduct training online that applicants are required to complete. The completed training course then serves as notarization and dci is ensured that expectations have been communicated prpoerly.

[BRASSO]

21 hours ago, Bluzes said:

 I would go a step further and have the new hires provide a notirized document that there is nothing in the pipeline like known pending accusations, suspended certifications and the like. .

 Your recommendation that all future hires in DCI Corps hires provide a " notarized document"  that includes such things as potential " pending accusations " is not very practical, not much useful to the prospective employer. Some DCI staff hires work with more than one Corps at a time.  The Notary charges a fee for their service to the potential hire, and if a potential hire is untrustworthy with youth in his/ her charge,  they can just as easily be untrustworthy and simply lie to the Notary on the document of no " pending accusations" too. As others here pointed out, a Notary Public does not vouch for the veracity of the info on the document. The Notary Public simply requires proper ID of the signer of the document, and witnesses the signature on the document and states they witnessed the signature on the document by the signatory. 

[Bluzes]

12 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

The only thing Notarizing a document would do is prevent a person trying  to say his signature on the  document he submitted to a corps,wasn't his.

Agree notarization in the traditional sense is not necessary with proper online documentation and acknowledgment. HR departments today employ electronic dashboards where employee records are kept. They have mandatory training sessions and employee completion requirements, checking the I acknowledge box is a binding commitment.   

Edited December 27, 2018 by Bluzes

[rpbobcat]

15 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

IIRC (sister is/was a notary) the person could get a minor charge leveled of making a false statement if they sign that they are clean. Of course if the main charge is abuse then false statement penalty isn’t worth mentioning 

just remembered last thing I had notarized was signing an insurance claim. Basically saying if I lied my butt was grass and Prudential was the lawmower

The charge of making a false statement applies,just by your signing a document.

Same with the Insurance Claim.

Your signature is what "ties" you to the statements in the document.

All the Notary does is confirm  you as of the signator.

Edited December 27, 2018 by rpbobcat

[Bluzes]

5 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 Your recommendation that all future hires in DCI Corps hires provide a " notarized document"  that includes such things as potential " pending accusations " is not very practical, not much useful to the prospective employer. Some DCI staff hires work with more than one Corps at a time.  The Notary charges a fee for their service to the potential hire, and if a potential hire is untrustworthy with youth in his/ her charge,  they can just as easily be untrustworthy and simply lie to the Notary on the document of no " pending accusations" too. As others here pointed out, a Notary Public does not vouch for the veracity of the info on the document. The Notary Public simply requires proper ID of the signer of the document, and witnesses the signature on the document and states they witnessed the signature on the document by the signatory. 

Good points, there are other ways using the internet to get a standardized message out. Although most banks offer free notary services a paper system is not the way to go. All I am trying to get at is the expectations need to be uniformly communicated. 

[JimF-LowBari]

11 minutes ago, rpbobcat said:

The charge of making a false statement applies,just by your signing a document.

Same with the Insurance Claim.

Your signature is what "ties" you to the statements in the document.

All the Notary does is confirm  you as of the signator.

Understood, my meaning was by signing before the notary it’s next to impossible to prove you were not the person signing the doc. IOW you ain’t innocent of making false statement 

Edited December 27, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[JimF-LowBari]

1 minute ago, Bluzes said:

Good points, there are other ways using the internet to get a standardized message out. Although most banks offer free notary services a paper system is not the way to go. All I am trying to get at is the expectations need to be uniformly communicated. 

Ugh electronic signatures are buggers and everyone involved has to have the same software and pc security settings to make them work. The real bugger is password or other method to prove that the sig matches who really “signed” it

[BRASSO]

2 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

Good points, there are other ways using the internet to get a standardized message out. Although most banks offer free notary services a paper system is not the way to go. All I am trying to get at is the expectations need to be uniformly communicated. 

 Your quest for more layers of protection to increase the future safety of MM's in Drum Corps.. especially at the hiring level... is commendable anyway. We all seem to agree that at both the DCI HQ level and at the Corps Level, more needs to be done to provide a safer environment. We are witnessing Corps put in place what they claim will be improvements moving forward. But words are one thing. Observable actions are much more definitive however, imo.

[Bluzes]

1 minute ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Understood, my meaning was by signing before the notary it’s next to impossible to prove you were not the person signing the doc

Right they can't claim ignorance of the policy. Today when facing with HR you are identified by your password into the system and from there your training acknowledgments are binding. The question is can dci afford such a network or how deep is the National Vendor's involvement? On a side note would we want a National Vendor that also works in reverse and scrubs profiles? 

[Bluzes]

15 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Ugh electronic signatures are buggers and everyone involved has to have the same software and pc security settings to make them work. The real bugger is password or other method to prove that the sig matches who really “signed” it

3

I wish that was the case, but electronic signatures are more ironclad than paper documents. I am not recommending that dci needs this level of acknowledgment but it wouldn't hurt. My job was to provision and maintain the bandwidth on the backhaul network the backhaul bandwidth is seriously constrained very hard to get approval for video return. I was not privy to why certain return paths back to HR was necessary. However, it was provisioned for return video. I also know the patent for hidden cameras embossed into a video display was granted 15 years ago. So it is likely that if you are looking at a screen it is looking at you, especially on company workstations and laptops, stickers over the little video peepholes is a false sense of security.