Bluzes Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, MikeD said: . Its not a bad suggestion, imo. As a matter of fact, wise teachers learned long ago not to be alone with a student even in their own classroom if they can help it. If we think about it, such precautions protects them BOTH. 3 3 3 It's a great policy that dci should have adopted a long time ago and the one thing that has a chance of addressing the situation. There are at least 3 elephants in the room. 1. dci itself for lack of action on their part, bad decisions, looking the other way. 2. School systems just sweeping these individuals out the door. Weak tracking, coordination making it easier for them to move on. 3. Altered past through fraudulent means using technology. This should be illegal with a strong warning from dci. That they will be prosecuted if this is discovered later on. Edited December 29, 2018 by Bluzes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigW Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 2 hours ago, Bluzes said: 3. Altered past through fraudulent means using technology. This should be illegal with a strong warning from dci. That they will be prosecuted if this is discovered later on. Should just be a flat out flagrant violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethics at least equivalent to what got Pio suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 6 hours ago, Bluzes said: It's a great policy that dci should have adopted a long time ago and the one thing that has a chance of addressing the situation. There are at least 3 elephants in the room. 1. dci itself for lack of action on their part, bad decisions, looking the other way. 2. School systems just sweeping these individuals out the door. Weak tracking, coordination making it easier for them to move on. 3. Altered past through fraudulent means using technology. This should be illegal with a strong warning from dci. That they will be prosecuted if this is discovered later on. Item 1...That is what got us to the point we are at today. Hopefully, eyes have been opened all over DCI, and moving forward the corps will be far more proactive in stopping these sort of events from happening, and reacting quickly if they do. DCI can exert some level of oversight, and they can provide a framework of what is expected of their member organizations to participate in DCI. The corps themselves, esp their boards of directors, need to create and enforce strict policies. Item 2...Hopefully that too is changing, as it is here in NJ with the new laws, for real offenders. In the schools, when parents of victims do press charges, it is an easier job for schools to pursue license suspensions/revocations. When parents do not, it has been more difficult for districts, legally. Also...that applies to teachers who want to become staff. There are far more people who need the same screening than just teachers, so focussing on just them is short-sighted. Item 3....if by this you are referring to the allegation about Fred Morrison paying to run software that will hide online searches of Moody, I don't think it is illegal to do that. It is not altering the past record, just "hiding" it from online view. That would not be something he (Morrison in this case) could be prosecuted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, MikeD said: Also...that applies to teachers who want to become staff. There are far more people who need the same screening than just teachers, so focussing on just them is short-sighted. Who is short-sighted? What is the OC spoke person Dr. Phil Marshall saying here? "Unspoken Truth" Why didn't background checks on Stevens not bring his past to light? "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." Edited December 29, 2018 by Bluzes typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 2 hours ago, MikeD said: Item 1...That is what got us to the point we are at today. Hopefully, eyes have been opened all over DCI, and moving forward the corps will be far more proactive in stopping these sort of events from happening, and reacting quickly if they do. DCI can exert some level of oversight, and they can provide a framework of what is expected of their member organizations to participate in DCI. The corps themselves, esp their boards of directors, need to create and enforce strict policies. Item 2...Hopefully that too is changing, as it is here in NJ with the new laws, for real offenders. In the schools, when parents of victims do press charges, it is an easier job for schools to pursue license suspensions/revocations. When parents do not, it has been more difficult for districts, legally. Also...that applies to teachers who want to become staff. There are far more people who need the same screening than just teachers, so focussing on just them is short-sighted. Item 3....if by this you are referring to the allegation about Fred Morrison paying to run software that will hide online searches of Moody, I don't think it is illegal to do that. It is not altering the past record, just "hiding" it from online view. That would not be something he (Morrison in this case) could be prosecuted for. Several corps are doing the right thing even if late. As evidenced by some recent statements and silence after the last article some aren’t. id pay to be at the januals 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, BigW said: Should just be a flat out flagrant violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethics at least equivalent to what got Pio suspended. With a simple google search on how to alter your digital footprint, tons of articles appear. Fraud is defined as the crime of obtaining money or some other benefit by deliberate deception, usually for financial gain, so it could be illegal. The how to's, are described, what dci/corps need is training on the warning signs sort of reverse engineering. The sites say fo“deactivate” your account — either temporarily or permanently. A few examples: If the applicant says they don't not have any of these accounts, red flag. Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest LinkedInr instance. You can clear your criminal record through an expungement with the help of online resources. Check your state and district court's websites for expungement forms and guidelines. We don't know the details on how far Fred took this for Moody it could have been illegal, but who is investiging, not dci? Edited December 29, 2018 by Bluzes typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: Several corps are doing the right thing even if late. As evidenced by some recent statements and silence after the last article some aren’t. Agree, we dwell on the bad actors but also believe (know) the marjorty of the folks running these Corps are good people that want to do the right thing. For me, I don't get the same vibe from the folks running dci they are still protecting their own. Like I said before dci is a close nit community, new/old staff did not just pop up as unknows to work in these Corps. What Fred did was to use this in a negitive light instead of using the closeness of the community for good. Edited December 29, 2018 by Bluzes typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 3 hours ago, MikeD said: Hopefully that too is changing, as it is here in NJ with the new laws, I appluad this, NJ is addressing a known issue that has bit them in the past. Do you envision that this database becomes advaiable to NJ's youth orginations? If not for these individuals to continue their livelihood in NJ they may turn to youth oginations as a safehaven to support themsleves since the schools don't want them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bluzes said: If the applicant says they don't not have any of these accounts, red flag. Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest LinkedInr instance. For privacy reasons, or lack thereof, I refuse to give Zuckerberg or any of those like him accss to my personal info. I am not guilty of any crime nor any disgression, but I have plenty of things in my life that I want to stay private to me or to those I love. Thus I would rather rake leaves and mow yards than to have a professional career in a field which would red flag me for protecting my privacy! Edited December 29, 2018 by Stu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted December 29, 2018 Share Posted December 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, Stu said: For privacy reasons, or lack thereof, I refuse to give Zuckerberg or any of those like him accss to my personal info. I am not guilty of any crime nor any disgression, but I have plenty of things in my life that I want to stay private to me or to those I love. Thus I would rather rake leaves and mow yards than to have a professional career in a field which would red flag me for proyecting my privacy! I get that Stu I feel the same way I don't use any of this stuff. So we don't need an Instagram account to groom adolescents into perversion. However, it has been proven that grooming is enabled through social media. That the youth today use these types of services to communicate. That the norm is to have such accounts. For an individual to apply for work in a drum corps today and not have or has recently deleted these is a red flag. A red flag there could mean that if another qualified candidate does not hem and haw over access or the search reveals acceptable behavior they get the job. The list came from a website on how to hide a questionable background. The post was to help the Corps reverse engineer the advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts