“Failure to Protect”

[Tim K]

47 minutes ago, MikeD said:

I'm not sure your definition of a "mandated reporter" is correct, hence my question about Dan. What makes a person a mandated reporter is defined in the laws...that vary by state. Some states define the categories of people who are mandated reporters...some do not specify job categories at all. Some states say that anyone can report abuse; these people are identified as "permissive reporters". Defining a person as a "mandated reporter" needs to be accurate, as the term has legal meaning. 

Yes definitions of mandated reporters vary from state to state, and perhaps I was too general, but the differences are small. However, if we are going to look at the laws of specific states, we would need to be looking at Indiana. I have been trained to give workshops on recognizing abuse (physical, sexual, and neglect) as well as mandated reporting. I know Massachusetts requirements well and am familiar with the laws in the other New England states too. The last time I went to an updating workshop for trainers was 2015, and a guide that summarizes reporting in all fifty states was given to participants. According to this guide,  Indiana defines a mandated reporter as anyone who has knowledge of abuse, stating it takes reporting further than most states. I also looked up what steps DA would have to take if an abuse allegation was made directly to him at DCI headquarters. He would need to file the report, the intake person would then refer him to the authorities in the state where the abuse of a minor took place, and the state would take it from there. This procedure is very similar to Massachusetts and New Hampshire. 

Would he be a mandated reporter in other states, that may be up to debate and legal interpretation,  but where DCI in its mission statement uses the words “governing” and “education,” I would say most likely yes.

As I write this, to the best of my knowledge, we have not heard of one case where DA or DCI was informed of abuse against a minor and did not report it. First such a call would most likely not make it to the office of Dan Acheson, and if it did, DA would have immediately called legal council who would have reported it immediately. 

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, George Dixon said:

well fact is > Dan knew about Hopkins last January and stood silent while the BOD did nothing - right?

who didn't know?

[Jeff Ream]

4 hours ago, karuna said:

Because it fits your fantasy.

The CEO is not the face of DCI?  WHAT?  

lol you're delusional.  

• Acheson's resignation will not destroy DCI.  
• The DCI staff will not all quit when he resigns.
• Tour will proceed as normal.
• An interim CEO will be found from inside the activity.
• The search for a new CEO will find a good replacement.
• The world will continue to turn

THOSE are facts.

When Acheson is FORCED to resign because the reporters put together the right sources to prove he was aware of at least one case of sexual abuse and did not report it,  the scandal will be MUCH larger than otherwise would be the case.  Hiding from the press and pretending everything is going to be just fine moving forward is magical thinking on his(and your) part.  And the BOD will not act to force his resignation because THEY are as guilty as he is and are active participants in this doomed strategy of duck-and-cover.  

 

bravo.

[Jeff Ream]

3 hours ago, garfield said:

Did he?

 

seemed like everyone in Indy knew. hell you and I talked about it then

[BigW]

21 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

 

 

So Dan had a reason to act. he chose not to. 

And the big question is, why.

Edited December 17, 2018 by BigW

[BRASSO]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

seemed like everyone in Indy knew. hell you and I talked about it then

 Dan A.'s response with these people is seemingly either " I have no comment " with the Press, or its something along the lines of............

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by BRASSO

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours ago, Bluzes said:

Here is a tragic story involving sexual misconduct in drum corps that goes back 40 years and was not setteled till 2016. 

http://www.comingforward.ca/donna-bells-trial-its-about-time/

 

 

####

[Jeff Ream]

8 minutes ago, BigW said:

And the big question is, why.

well i'll go with Garfields explanation. the Board didn't want him to or give him the power to do it.

 

two wrongs dont make a right

[Lance]

the great thing about mandatory reporting is that it removes the need for an instructor to investigate anything. we're not supposed to validate suspicions or gather evidence.  we're given training about signs of abuse, and our obligation to act on it begins and ends with reporting our suspicions to the appropriate authorities. 

it's not simply telling authorities after a student tells us first.  it's a lot more proactive than that. 

most states have language that grants immunity to mandatory reporters of suspected abuse, even if it is found to be incorrect, so long as there was no malicious intent on the reporters parts

Edited December 17, 2018 by Lance

[N.E. Brigand]

On 12/15/2018 at 5:27 PM, cixelsyd said:

Problem is, you do not know that.  

####, you even admitted not knowing earlier in this thread.

For all you know, Acheson had the investigators on speed dial, and called them immediately upon receiving a credible claim.  But if the investigation fails to find something, then what?  It is not prudent to publicize claims that do not pan out.  If someone makes a confidential claim against Karuna, and investigation finds no corroborating evidence, there will be no press releases or blogs about Karuna being accused.  It would be wrong for Acheson to leak such information and smear the good name of Karuna, even if it helps unsmear his own name.

Be sure to let us all know when you have proof that Acheson both:

- received a credible claim, and

- did nothing

Until then, it would be appropriate if you continued to use the phrase "if he... " in your accusations.

This seems like an important post to me. We don't know what Acheson knew (or didn't know) and did (or didn't do), do we?