“Failure to Protect”

[N.E. Brigand]

47 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm sorry, I've read this with an open mind several times trying to understand the world you think exists.  

If I could just get you to see that you've created a "reality" about DCI that didn't exist prior to 2018, I think you'd have a breakthrough and take a different position.

The Board Member corps established practices and policies decades ago that stripped DCI  - Dan's office - from all major decisions.  Intentionally, and directly.  I have not seen actual documents, but I've been told by several people in the know that it was, essentially, "...Stay out of it.  Don't do anything except forward it on."  The Board as a whole, or to a director himself, only and largely dependent on the issue.  That was then when policy dictated "escalation" and not, necessarily reporting to law authorities.  Today, you'd be absolutely right in your base connection between these decisions and Dan's office.

But, before 2018, DCI was almost exclusively an event management and promotion non-profit. It's BoD, the directors, picked it clean every, single year so that there was never a fully-funded realistic budget. 

If the policy that Dan was charged to follow was wrong for the day, the fault should be directed at the BoD member corps directors (and minority outside directors).  Dan and his office had no reason to suspect that the policy they were charged with following was NOT being effective at the corps level. There was NO reporting mechanism that went back UP to Dan's office, as I'm told.  And it wasn't a mistake in management, it was intentional.

In today's world, he'd be accountable for acting as you want because they have granted teeth and enforcement ability.

All the participating corps were NOT his "responsibility" in any way you're suggesting!  Please, change this one assumption you've made!  The corps voted that THEY were responsible in the way you're suggesting and specifically stripped all such decision-making from the CEO's role.

Neither Dan A nor his office staff let anything happen as you describe.  There was no reason for them to suspect that the issue was not being handled as planned by the individual corps, and there was no power available to him that didn't risk his career to go outside of the P&P established by the BoD and approved by their counsel.

Now it's different.

Dan may not be up to the task of managing the tour and his office's new role.  Only he and time will tell that.  But I do know for certain the the mountain of recruiting a new CEO, getting him/her up to speed on just the governance is a long process.  Expecting that person to run the tour as successfully as Dan's office apparently has (NO COMPLAINTS - ZERO - ABOUT THE TOUR), forces a debilitating learning curve that will potentially and unnecessarily hobble the activity at the very time that organizational clarity and reliability is critically important.

What you're saying should be done is tantamount to the proverbial baby and the bath water.

OK. Can Acheson, or DCI's board, tell this to the press?

[Terri Schehr]

25 minutes ago, Fran Haring said:

Don't forget 1971. That #### circus production, and also Alice in Wonderland.

A T-shirt from '71 said  "The Year Drum Corps Died."

I think those T-shirt sales died first.  LOL

People wore the #### out of those in ‘72.  

[N.E. Brigand]

How would the situation be different if there never was a DCI?

[karuna]

27 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm sorry, I've read this with an open mind several times trying to understand the world you think exists.  

If I could just get you to see that you've created a "reality" about DCI that didn't exist prior to 2018, I think you'd have a breakthrough and take a different position.

The Board Member corps established practices and policies decades ago that stripped DCI  - Dan's office - from all major decisions.  Intentionally, and directly.  I have not seen actual documents, but I've been told by several people in the know that it was, essentially, "...Stay out of it.  Don't do anything except forward it on."  The Board as a whole, or to a director himself, only and largely dependent on the issue.  That was then when policy dictated "escalation" and not, necessarily reporting to law authorities.  Today, you'd be absolutely right in your base connection between these decisions and Dan's office.

But, before 2018, DCI was almost exclusively an event management and promotion non-profit. It's BoD, the directors, picked it clean every, single year so that there was never a fully-funded realistic budget. 

If the policy that Dan was charged to follow was wrong for the day, the fault should be directed at the BoD member corps directors (and minority outside directors).  Dan and his office had no reason to suspect that the policy they were charged with following was NOT being effective at the corps level. There was NO reporting mechanism that went back UP to Dan's office, as I'm told.  And it wasn't a mistake in management, it was intentional.

In today's world, he'd be accountable for acting as you want because they have granted teeth and enforcement ability.

All the participating corps were NOT his "responsibility" in any way you're suggesting!  Please, change this one assumption you've made!  The corps voted that THEY were responsible in the way you're suggesting and specifically stripped all such decision-making from the CEO's role.

Neither Dan A nor his office staff let anything happen as you describe.  There was no reason for them to suspect that the issue was not being handled as planned by the individual corps, and there was no power available to him that didn't risk his career to go outside of the P&P established by the BoD and approved by their counsel.

Now it's different.

Dan may not be up to the task of managing the tour and his office's new role.  Only he and time will tell that.  But I do know for certain the the mountain of recruiting a new CEO, getting him/her up to speed on just the governance is a long process.  Expecting that person to run the tour as successfully as Dan's office apparently has (NO COMPLAINTS - ZERO - ABOUT THE TOUR), forces a debilitating learning curve that will potentially and unnecessarily hobble the activity at the very time that organizational clarity and reliability is critically important.

What you're saying should be done is tantamount to the proverbial baby and the bath water.

You're still whitewashing the entire matter under the cover of "responsibility outside my mandated duties".    How sad.

I'll try again.

It does not matter whether the BOD officially told him to not report.  In many (most) jurisdictions anyone directly involved with a youth activity has a legally mandated duty to report any suspected abuse.  Furthermore an ethical and moral leader would NOT stick his head in the sand and fail to report suspected abuse EVEN if the result was against the explicit direction of the DCI BOD (which I seriously doubt ever occurred.  In fact to the best of my knowledge no such official directive was ever given to him nor was it written into his employment contract) even if the result was his resignation or termination as CEO.  You can find another job;  you can't undo/repair what the abusers were breaking.

You're so confused on this issue. 

It just doesn't matter what the corporate structure at DCI was.  It doesn't matter what the BOD told him to do.   In the face of suspected abuse in a youth activity, he had a moral, ethical (and probably legal) duty to report those suspicions.  

End of story.  

No amount of "BUT THATS NOT HOW DCI WAS STRUCTURED" can change that. The structure is irrelevant in the face of suspected abuse.  

It doesn't matter how successfully Acheson has been at the rest of his obligations including managing tour.

It just doesn't matter.  

His ability to lead the organization has evaporated. 

Because he stood by and did nothing.  

The only possible justification for not acting would be complete and willful ignorance.   Again this leaves him completely unsuitable to lead an activity so clearly running off the rails. 

As for "throwing the baby out with the bath water" ,  that's just not true.  DCI can find another CEO.  And the staff that manages to square away tour (more or less) every season can do their job without him.  Acheson is not DCI.   When the alternative to finding an interim CEO until a new one can be found is keeping the guy who stood by and said nothing,  clearly the best course is to suffer the consequences and give the organization a legitimate chance to right itself.  

Sadly enough,  reporters are eventually going to find enough people willing to say "yeah Dan knew about that" on the record.  And then -- instead of a CEO stepping down because the abuses occurred on his watch -- you're going to see "DCI CEO was aware of X, Y and Z  say  P, Q, and R."   And make no mistake -- he's target number one (and rightfully so).  

[George Dixon]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

Nope, too much.  Too sweeping and unnecessary.  Destructive for no justification and doesn't preserve talent and relationships that are tangential to the problem yet integral in the successful reincarnation of the Governing Body, which has to come first. Tour Structure, Sponsorship dollars, centralized supervision, purchasing, and much more comes AFTER proper governance and leadership is in place.

Dan's office's value in managing the tour is a key component in the revenue stream that will keep the activity alive in whatever form it takes.  Unless he's directly implicated, it's too valuable a mistake to make to fire him because of what "should have been" back then.

IMO, and I know you're thoughtful about it.

cool - I respectfully disagree. Dan's "office value" doesn't matter. It's the perception. We live in the world of perception, the feeding frenzy will continue until it gets a pound of flesh. Dan is toast. The liability of keeping him on at this stage is too high IMO. Value or not. Someone else can set up a tour schedule - he's done well, but it's time for change.

if something (rape of a minor etc) happens anytime going forward and Dan is still in charge DCI would be toast from a liability standpoint. IMO.

[Hook'emCavies]

I do not think this will be the end of drum corps. But I can imagine that there will be a lot of concerned parents and I actually do not blame them. Moving forward, I hope each corps can create a system that will protect the members of the corps. Let's hope for a better future!

[JimF-LowBari]

38 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

OK. Can Acheson, or DCI's board, tell this to the press?

Or potential members and their families.... DCI is a safe healthy activity.... now

[Toby]

Unless you have irrefutable proof, any mention of names is considered rumor. 

[Bluzes]

Been lurking here for a while since I stopped posting and most of the time you (regular posters) get things right for drum corps. This thread has hit all the hot buttons except honing in on the root cause, the high schools. Not much has changed here, some still calling for Dan's head while others defend. I stopped posting because I am just a fan and there are many that use drum corps as their livelihood and are the only ones that can right the ship, I was not doing any good.

What is needed is a grassroots effort at the high school level where these bad actors breed. If Dan needs to go then so does the Principal or School Superintendent if a teacher under them is accused of sexual misconduct.
See how fast the vetting and supervision changes, how much more is noted how many more students are taken seriously, removing Dan would not have this effect.

[garfield]

1 hour ago, N.E. Brigand said:

OK. Can Acheson, or DCI's board, tell this to the press?

Well, I suppose!

I don't know that they haven't.