“Failure to Protect”

[garfield]

Dan Acheson

Dan Acheson

Dan Acheson

We used to mockingly use someone else's name in this same way.  Videos were made.

We know what the other one did.  What did Acheson actually do to deserve it? 

I wonder who it will be after Dan Acheson.

 

(And, no, I'm not comparing or contrasting the two, or equivocating their respective rolls.)

 

[Terri Schehr]

9 minutes ago, garfield said:

I think there will be a resolution for unanimous support for DCI's ED.

Just wordsmithing...

 

 

I wasn’t passing judgment either way.  

[garfield]

Serious question and looking for input:

The issue that Jim keeps making is that "...in PA..." it is this way or that, and he doesn't speak about other states.

Some here have said that different jurisdictions have differing rules regarding reporting, among other requirements.

The notion of centralizing and coordinating all of the various jurisdictions (down to the individual school districts) seems like a nearly-insurmountable obstacle.

How would such a program work at DCI (or whatever central office is chosen to execute it)?

I'm just looking for some visions of how such a thing would look and operate is all.

[garfield]

2 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

I wasn’t passing judgment either way.  

Didn't mean to suggest it.  Just my opinion, and not worth $.02 really.

 

[Tim K]

 

I understand the anger and frustrations many are feeling. As I said in an earlier post many want to see heads roll. There are also calls for independent investigations. Maybe these are solutions, but many are split in whether DCI needs new leadership and if there is no paper trail leading to DCI, an investigation independent or otherwise will yield very little. 

What I would like to see is each corps in DCI today looking at themselves. Make certain current staff has no reasons why they should not be involved with drum corps, the two major areas being sexual harassment and providing alcohol and drugs.  While I do not know of cases where staff have provided drugs and alcohol to marching members, in many cases sexual misconduct and substance abuse can often be linked. I’d recommend putting staff on notice that boundary violations will be carefully watched for since this is often testing the waters for misconduct and red flag any who seem suspicious. I would like to see in employment contracts that any substantial accusation of sexual misconduct will be reported to DCI, DCA, WGI, the band circuits. While some may see problems with false accusations, they key word is substantial and most studies place the likelihood of false allegations between 4-7%. 

Corps should also be looking at their history. Where corps can have frequent staff and leadership changes, it might be likely there are no written record of misbehavior, personnel  files, or the like. There is the lore and I think this is where the “everybody knows” comes from. Try as best to look at the issues. Were minors violated? Were there relationships between marching members and staff? Were there allegations  from one marching member against another? This would help identifying the exact scope of the problem.

 

[JimF-LowBari]

1 minute ago, garfield said:

Serious question and looking for input:

The issue that Jim keeps making is that "...in PA..." it is this way or that, and he doesn't speak about other states.

Some here have said that different jurisdictions have differing rules regarding reporting, among other requirements.

The notion of centralizing and coordinating all of the various jurisdictions (down to the individual school districts) seems like a nearly-insurmountable obstacle.

How would such a program work at DCI (or whatever central office is chosen to execute it)?

I'm just looking for some visions of how such a thing would look and operate is all.

I don't speak about other states because I only know about PA. And what I have talked about is who has to report only. Others from PA have picked up on how the state handles getting the word out via website or whatever.

As for the school districts I'd think they would be governed by state law so down to 50 jurisdictions plus Puerto Rico and Guam (working with them this week so can't forget them).  

I'd start by looking at Indiana law as DCI hq is there. But problem is the ones that slip thru the cracks due to not tripping the right switch to be reported. Not sure at that

 

[garfield]

4 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

My favorite Temps song and title says it all.... 

DCI needs an outside audit of who knew what and when followed by what did each person did or not do. Then let the cleaning begin. And any new BoD member goes under same scruntity. DCI needs to start regaining trust more than just saying “well we have this policy now” and hope the corps follow them.

This idea sounds really good, so good in fact that I liked it with a thumbs-up.

But then I got to thinking: What would this "audit" look like?  In reality?

Is this a questionnaire that everyone has to answer (truthfully)?  Is this a casual interview or an online quiz? 

Or is it more?  Is it LOOKING for reasons to be outraged and, "...by God, we'll not stop until we find it!"-kind of inquisition?

Would a simple attestation with severe penalties if a nefarious link is connected to the staff member work as a cleanser and threat of penalty if they lie?

I'm really trying to understand how you have an "audit" of who knew what, when, and what they did or didn't do about it.  It sounds far-fetched.

 

[JimF-LowBari]

6 minutes ago, garfield said:

This idea sounds really good, so good in fact that I liked it with a thumbs-up.

But then I got to thinking: What would this "audit" look like?  In reality?

Is this a questionnaire that everyone has to answer (truthfully)?  Is this a casual interview or an online quiz? 

Or is it more?  Is it LOOKING for reasons to be outraged and, "...by God, we'll not stop until we find it!"-kind of inquisition?

Would a simple attestation with severe penalties if a nefarious link is connected to the staff member work as a cleanser and threat of penalty if they lie?

I'm really trying to understand how you have an "audit" of who knew what, when, and what they did or didn't do about it.  It sounds far-fetched.

 

Replace the word audit with investigation and my meaning might be clearer. All I know about these type of investigations is bunch of people get asked a lot of questions. What is looked for or how the answers determine which way the investigation goes is beyond my job scope. 

IOW been investigated for my job but never did it myself

Big piece is group with no DCI ties doing the work

Edited December 16, 2018 by JimF-LowBari

[garfield]

4 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Replace the word audit with investigation and my meaning might be clearer. All I know about these type of investigations is bunch of people get asked a lot of questions. What is looked for or how the answers determine which way the investigation goes is beyond my job scope. 

IOW been investigated for my job but never did it myself

thanks

EDIT:  And I didn't really need clarification of your word, I know what you mean.

But still, how would THIS investigation be structured?  A bunch of people are asked a bunch of questions?

I'm sure there's something more scientific than that.  Dear God, I'd hope so.

I've never been a part of one, and now Thank God!

 

Edited December 16, 2018 by garfield

[JimF-LowBari]

44 minutes ago, garfield said:

thanks

 

I speak government-ese and confuse people lol... no problem

To answer your edit best guess is people with DCI and some corps are asked questions, records including meeting minutes and those pesky emails are obtained. Checking what information was out there to be checked and if corps filed to request those background checks or not. Any pattern to where the prediators went or who was at those places. Expense would be a question if scope of the investigation grows. 

Edited December 16, 2018 by JimF-LowBari