“Failure to Protect”

[BigW]

3 hours ago, MikeD said:

Bands where I taught going back to the 80's required staff to go through the substitute teacher process, which included background checks even then (as much as was possible in those times). 

However, the overall environment was far different. Teachers who messed with students were rarely prosecuted, as the victims almost never pressed charges. The "norm" for decades was for the offending teacher to resign. When that person applied for a new position, and the new district contacted the old district, all the old district could say is that the teacher resigned in good standing. Stating anything else, even if done in private, would have opened the first district up to a lawsuit by the teacher if that person found out what happened. 

I know of many music teachers in NJ, going back to the 70's, who got subsequent jobs after being caught and resigning...sometimes multiple times in multiple districts.

Know of one director who was a corps instructor that got busted from an out of control HS in PA and later ended up getting busted in NJ back in the period you speak. And yes, absolutely, many incidents in PA were quietly handled in that 1975-1985 period, people quietly leaving and moving on. I can think of at least two of them.

[JimF-LowBari]

23 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

Just another enabler.  Probably proudly marched next to the sex offender in Kilties.

Never understood the enabler concept until I saw it in a family with an alcoholic. Two members denied, excused and came up with the weirdest crap to try to convince (me, them, the world?) he was ok. Of course if they could admit to themselves he had a problem they had to face that they helped him be frigged up all these years.

[Fran Haring]

2 hours ago, cixelsyd said:

Actually, the series of articles are about participant safety, not limited to sexual predation.  The Pioneer situation involved numerous issues which were not of a sexual nature.

Not so much, when the lead is "drum corps = haven".  Take away that inflammatory, overreaching headline/lead, and you would have an appropriately balanced article.

I am not casting blame, just reacting to an article.  With the Hopkins article, this same reporter provided the essential reporting that brought an ongoing abusive situation with no oversight (a true "haven") to an end.  This article, with no such current drum corps staff examples, fails to do that.  

You're correct in your first sentence. Other issues have been brought up.  But the bulk of the series seems to have focused on the sexual abuse/predator issue (s).

Don't assume the reporter wrote that headline.  Might be an editor. Some publications have headline writers. (Two well-known ones are the NY Post and Daily News in NYC. Headline writer there... has to be one of the best jobs in America.  LOL.) I don't know what the Inquirer's newsroom protocol is.

Again... every article this reporter writes about this does not necessarily have to have a "means to an end." Could just be another part of the series highlighting various abuses. And like you have said... she did provide balance.

I had a problem with the headline in one of the first articles that came out, about GH.  It highlighted the words "Drum Corps" and "Abuse" in large print...when in fact those words were just part of a sentence or two...don't quite recall the exact details.  I thought it was strictly an attention-grabber... to get people's eyes on the article.

But this one... I don't see that. Sorry... we'll agree to disagree here. Based on what I've heard, what I've read, and some info I've received privately about what might be coming next... I would say that drum corps has indeed been a haven for those predators.

[Weaklefthand4ever]

16 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

I keep using the example of if I drive by an accident late at night I don’t have to legally call 911 even if someone is dying. I’d say that makes me a urine poor human being and Christian if I keep on going. But some defend lack of action saying “well they didn’t HAVE to do anything legally”. See my Penn State gripe above

And this is, IMHO, the key to all of this. There are many who will continuously state that DA is responsible due to a moral / ethical obligation. And though in my heart of hearts I agree with that statement, I can also understand the probability that legally he and DCI as a body could be clear. Howling at the moon will not fix the issue. DCI needs to get off of their collective a**** and make a firm stand and we as fans, former and current MM's and parents need to push them in any way legal to do so. The people who enabled those who abuse (past, present or future,) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just after a mob of us beats them to within an inch of their lives (we can use Ludwig drums. They're heavy and sound too s***** to use for anything else anyways.) The corps who have allowed this to happen and, in some cases, circled the wagons to protect themselves should also be punished. Their main job was to protect these kids. THEY were the first layer of defense...not DCI as a body. If something didn't come back on a background check and they heard rumors, then do another #### check. It's not that hard. I don't want to see DCI burned to the ground. And those who do seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water from what I have read. Maybe that's not the intention but it's the perception. 

[rpbobcat]

51 minutes ago, LabMaster said:

DCI cannot tell corps who or who not to hire.  They can discipline compliance violations within accepted penalties, approved by the BOD.  And we are learning as more visibility to the issues are coming to light, that much strengthening of P&P for each corps is critically needed.  Having improved P&P in place before the season begins would be the smart sensible move.

Currently there is the mission statement that guides DCI as an organization and its operation; as it functions FOR member corps. Corps started DCI to create a "circuit" if you will, in answer to their issues with VFW and American Legion.  It gave corps the autonomy to function as "private" entities.  Which as it turned out to be a huge benefit when seeking sponsors or moving away from sponsors to be their own independent organization.

In my opinion,that autonomy is what led,in large  part, to the situation DCI finds itself in now.

As I've posted in other threads,I believe Drum Corps needs an independent  governing body to "control" the activity.

DCI should have requirements all corps must follow to hire staff or engage volunteers.They must also have the ability to

ensure those requirements are followed ,and impose penalties if they are not.

In the case of hiring staff,corps could provide DCI with verification,like a notarized  affidavit, to confirm that

they have followed all DCI requirements including background checks etc. for all staff and volunteers.

This puts the onus on corps to follow DCI's requirements,without  having to submit all of the background documents to DCI for review any staff member they wish to hire.

 

 

 

 

[cixelsyd]

1 hour ago, LabMaster said:

DCI cannot tell corps who or who not to hire.  

To clarify, are you saying that DCI cannot put a sentence in their ethics guidelines to the effect "corps shall not hire people with felony convictions of a sexual nature on their record"?

[JimF-LowBari]

Hey Fran who ever is the NY Daily News headline writer is they have a snarky sense of humor....

one of the reasons I always get the Sunday paper and check the front page during the week if I can 

[cixelsyd]

5 minutes ago, Fran Haring said:

But this one... I don't see that. Sorry... we'll agree to disagree here. Based on what I've heard, what I've read, and some info I've received privately about what might be coming next... I would say that drum corps has indeed been a haven for those predators.

Oh, we agree that it has been a haven (past tense).  Saying that drum corps "have become a haven", however, suggests both past and present tense.  (And that could still be true, too, regardless of whether this article provides smoking-gun proof of it or not.)

[BigW]

1 hour ago, SoundOfMusic99 said:

Is that what the article stated? Maybe you should re-read where it says he was "dating" ... yet again words twisted around so that people get their jollys off about what they "think" they know about Morgan....

I carefully read the document regarding his legal appeal in the state of Wisconsin for his first conviction and the nature of it that was thoughtfully provided by someone on another thread. I think and believe I know enough about him from reading the detailed nature of his crime contained therein.

Look pal, if you think you're coming in to create more smokescreens and obfuscation like the other idiots did for Larson and assume we're all that stupid, the legal documentation is out there. The State of Wisconsin's appeal document 'twists' nothing. He's a convicted criminal. He's a convicted sexual predator. He's a convicted sex offender. One that the Kilties knew about for years, circled the wagons around, and protected for some insane reason that utterly baffles me. He's a convicted molester that can hit the high notes. You want to keep defending that, you go right ahead, and we'll call you on it.

[JimF-LowBari]

12 minutes ago, cixelsyd said:

To clarify, are you saying that DCI cannot put a sentence in their ethics guidelines to the effect "corps shall not hire people with felony convictions of a sexual nature on their record"?

Corps have to agree to it...