Terri Schehr

“Failure to Protect”

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Lance said:

What will be done now to make sure, to the greatest degree possible, that DCI corps are no longer a refuge for dangerous people outlined in the article?

Corps won't do it themselves.  And the entity known as DCI that Acheson is CEO of has zero authority to regulate hiring practices of member corps.  So we're nowhere.

The half-baked "code of conduct" was already proven to be very poorly enforced; and even if it were well-regulated and enforced, it still does nothing to keep them from getting their foot in the door in the first place. 

These are the problems.  I want to know the solution.  is there a solution?

 

 

  

 

 

 

I don't know. Still waiting for more info on why OC's staff all walked and what DCI si doing about it

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are public statements and policy changes. Then there are  changes made that will change the mentality that caused the predators to get in.

as frame of reference the Kilties have a lovely statement.... and almost the same board that was on when Larson was there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, garfield said:

They also lost a show in Dublin, OH because they are knuckleheads.  Was the activity negatively impacted by either?

Dan's job is to organize the tour to maximize profit; there would have to be a profit impact to measure what losing the venue did.

I don't know the cross-agreements between DCI/DCA, but I do know that lots of groups perform at DCI shows that are not affiliated in any way with DCI.  Anything outside of WC or OC DCI corps is factually "not affiliated" with the DCI amoeba.

 

 

this show was lost because DCI ran a show, and a known registered sex offender was a part of an affiliate member corps. Not because of maximized profit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm not surprised that you wrote it the way you did, but I think you're wrong in that belief and, if you do a casual search through corps websites (and DCI's), you'll see an almost hyper-focused laser being put on the issue by most corps, creating public statements of policy changes and reviews of existing staff and teaching of not only P&P but reinforcing, again, what specifically needs to be done if anything like this comes up anywhere in the organization.

I know first hand that the BoD of almost every corps is activity establishing, updating, and publicly-displaying their member-protection practices.

I think the activity is in a far better place now on this subject than it's been, probably, ever.

Go look at the corps' websites; they're activity trying to attract kids and make parents and kids confident.  You'll see that.

obviously OC talks a great game, yet their whole staff walked and it seems may vets had no intention of coming back. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

this show was lost because DCI ran a show, and a known registered sex offender was a part of an affiliate member corps. Not because of maximized profit. 

I'm curious in particular:

Did DCI lose money because this show was lost, or was replacement venue found?

My point is that to say Dan's office marks this as a "failure" would require that DCI's profit was negatively impacted by losing the venue.  If Dan's office was able to find another venue to host that show, then Dan's office actually did its job pretty well, if you measure Dan's job from purely a profit position.

That said, one of DCI's other responsibilities is to PROMOTE the tour and the activity.  I would think that promotion was negatively impacted by any bad taste DCI left in the mouths of fans or show hosts by losing the venue due to Larson.  That's a legit claim on DCI's responsibility, IMO. But, if they were not responsible for him being there and creating the negativity, then Dan's office's job performance would be judged on how well, or if, they were able to replace the revenue from that venue.

Same with Dublin.  < I > may have thought they are idiots for allowing that venue to go away but, if they can replace the revenue DCI made from that show and keep their corps reputations intact as a result then, by definition, they succeeded in their jobs.

 

Edited by garfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

this show was lost because DCI ran a show, and a known registered sex offender was a part of an affiliate member corps. Not because of maximized profit. 

Oh, and did DCI actually RUN this show, or did they contract with a local show host to run it?

The difference is key because, if a host ran it, that host signed a contract with DCI to run the show.  I would not say that show host was responsible for knowing who is participating in each unit performing, but DCI may have lost that venue for reasons that only INCLUDED the Larson screw up.

 

Edited by garfield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

obviously OC talks a great game, yet their whole staff walked and it seems may vets had no intention of coming back. 

Who's there this year?  Do they have any staff at these auditions so far?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm curious in particular:

Did DCI lose money because this show was lost, or was replacement venue found?

My point is that to say Dan's office marks this as a "failure" would require that DCI's profit was negatively impacted by losing the venue.  If Dan's office was able to find another venue to host that show, then Dan's office actually did its job pretty well, if you measure Dan's job from purely a profit position.

That said, one of DCI's other responsibilities is to PROMOTE the tour and the activity.  I would think that promotion was negatively impacted by any bad taste DCI left in the mouths of fans or show hosts by losing the venue due to Larson.  That's a legit claim on DCI's responsibility, IMO. But, if they were not responsible for him being there and creating the negativity, then Dan's office's job performance would be judged on how well, or if, they were able to replace the revenue from that venue.

Same with Dublin.  < I > may have thought they are idiots for allowing that venue to go away but, if they can replace the revenue DCI made from that show and keep their corps reputations intact as a result then, by definition, they succeeded in their jobs.

 

Short term thinking: concern is profit/loss comparing show sites for the year

long term thinking: concern is idea that you’ll never get this site back and other sites may think twice about hosting due to this

a

Edited by JimF-LowBari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm not surprised that you wrote it the way you did, but I think you're wrong in that belief and, if you do a casual search through corps websites (and DCI's), you'll see an almost hyper-focused laser being put on the issue by most corps, creating public statements of policy changes and reviews of existing staff and teaching of not only P&P but reinforcing, again, what specifically needs to be done if anything like this comes up anywhere in the organization.

I know first hand that the BoD of almost every corps is activity establishing, updating, and publicly-displaying their member-protection practices.

I think the activity is in a far better place now on this subject than it's been, probably, ever.

Go look at the corps' websites; they're activity trying to attract kids and make parents and kids confident.  You'll see that.

You are correct. Since the end of the season everyone has been working tirelessly so that all corps have in place uniform P&P in place to insure the health and safety of everyone in the activity.  Thousands of dollars have been on attorney fees in the states  where the corps are based as a result.    Membership agreements are now 26 pages long and every word in them has been checked by legal counsel.  Staff agreements have been reviewed and updated also.   In 2019 there will  be no confusion on what the expectations are of everyone involved in the activity are. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Short term thinking: concern is profit/loss comparing show sites for the year

long term thinking: concern is idea that you’ll never get this site back and other sites may think twice about hosting due to this

as for show host not knowing who was in the corps: maybe they TRUSTED DCI to have Corps that did not have issues. Otherwise you are saying it is the hosts fault for not asking Corps if they had any predators.

Jeebus, even when I say specifically, I get an "Otherwise..." when I explicitly countered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.