Jump to content

“Failure to Protect”


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, garfield said:

I'm not surprised that you wrote it the way you did

Since half of DCI world class corps have been proven to hire people who have gotten in trouble for inappropriate contact with minors, I'm relieved that you didn't find it surprising.  

To the corps that keep their noses clean, good for them.  They have nothing to worry about.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, garfield said:

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

Oops missed the operative word “not” my bad and yes I have an eye Doctor appt tomorrow. Time to crank up the bifocals. I will remove the screw up. Thanks for letting me know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lance said:

Since half of DCI world class corps have been proven to hire people who have gotten in trouble for inappropriate contact with minors, I'm relieved that you didn't find it surprising.  

To the corps that keep their noses clean, good for them.  They have nothing to worry about.

 

Really?  11 corps (or more!) have been proven?

I'm hoping you're exaggerating for effect or you can provide substance to your claim of "half".

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Oops missed the operative word “not” my bad and yes I have an eye Doctor appt tomorrow. Time to crank up the bifocals. I will remove the screw up. Thanks for letting me know

Well now I have a better excuse for screwing up. My sister just got back some legal paperwork for my dads estate. Due to a Sr/Jr mix up I’m now listed as dead in the paperwork.

as she put it nice knowing ya

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 However, what we do know is that DCI HQ has indeed " policed the individual Corps" in the past. On several occasions.

 DCI HQ has unilaterally put membership Corps on Probation (  2009, Troopers, Cadets 2018 ).... Disqualified Corps from participation at Championships for not following the rules of competition ( Bridgemen, Crossmen, Muchachos.. 70's/ 80's ) One Corps, the Bridgemen, had to go to Court before a Judge and convince the Judge to grant the Corps Injunctive Relief in order to perform at Championships. Thats how pro active and quick DCI HQ was " policing " that individual Corps back then. DCI HQ took punitive measures mid tour with Teal Sound a few years back.... DCI HQ also put the Cadets on Probation back in the spring of this year.  DCI HQ mandated what steps the Cadets needed to take to have the DCI HQ Probation lifted. DCI HQ demanded, and presumably received, the Financials of the Cadets, for DCI HQ people to pour over and make determinations regarding their suitability to have their Probationary Status lifted by DCI HQ, DCI HQ even had a hand in making the Cadets alter their Competition scheduled appearances.... DCI HQ also  made demands on Pioneer, and sanctioned them, and demanded personnel changes there too.... DCI HQ has also put out Press Release Statements lately that states that " abuse and misconduct "in their membership ranks will ( their words) "  not be tolerated ".  Given these statements from DCI HQ, coupled with their unilateral decisive and quick decisions in the past from DCI HQ,... spanning decades.... it certainly appears that DCI HQ does indeed believe it is their job to " police the Individual Corps" when they see fit and without DCI Corps membership votes on any of these decisions either. What must seem confusing to many is that it would appear that DCI HQ seems ambivalent on their authority and powers when asked about it. That said, there can be little doubt that DCI HQ can move swiftly and unilaterally to " police the individual Corps "..... when it wants to.

I agree DCI has in fact policed, and in the situations where they have, it has been the correct action, but it has been on a pick and choose basis, at least based on some of the posters here, some of whom their knowledge of the activity is extensive. However policing is not what DCI states in the rather vague mission statement and at times ambiguous bylaws. 

Since I wrote the post you quoted, George Dixon reminded us with a link DCI knew of allegations regarding GH in 2003, Jeff Ream mentioned ramifications of a person involved dating back to 2006 I believe. The bylaws need to be amended and DCI needs a person whose job is compliance. If the cost of a compliance officer was divided among each corps, we would be looking at $2,000-3,0000 each. What happened in the past can’t be repaired. This point forward is not rocket science to fix. Others organizations have done it, are more than willing to share insights. What is more difficult is the commitment necessary and the vigilance needed. If it turns into “We have to do this because of society pressure” as one former director infamously said about firing an employee who was a sex offender, it’s dead before it starts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 OC 's recent press release using the societal pressure, and stating they acted in part... " in light of the the metoo movement environment".., was cringeworthy, imo. Corps need to do the right thing because... well...  because its simply the correct,, and responsible thing to do. Not because of any national outfit out there, as worthy an organization as they may even be. Whoever put that OC Press Release wording together should have scrubbed any invoking of outside organization's name before its release to the public. Its a minor point, but it still was unneccesary, imo, as it implies to the reader that OC in part acted here out of societal pressures, not due to their own strongly held beliefs. it may not have been their intent, but invoking the words  " given the metoo environment " in the wording as some justifications for their action sure made it seem so to some of us.

Edited by BRASSO
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 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.

 

I dont know if they lost or made....the point is once this issue came to a head with police involvement the day of the show, the school president said "buhbye" to anything drum corps. it's been documented on here before, you blew it off defending Dan and the board.

 

making or losing money wasn't even a consideration...the venue decided to never do anything with drum corps again. I believe the show was tied to the Cavaliers too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BRASSO said:

 OC 's recent press release using the societal pressure, and invoking the name of the... " the metoo movement".., was cringeworthy, imo. Corps need to do the right thing because... well...  because its simply the correct, moral,, and responsible thing to do. Not because of any national  outfit out there, as worthy an organization as they may even be.

Just remember they said their biggest mistake was publicly thanking the predator. 

Think about it....

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, garfield said:

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.

 

DCI didnt run the Hershey show, which that cancellation ended up in a huge lawsuit, and Dan testified via phone ( i was in the courtroom). So it's quite clear losing any venue, regardless of who runs the show, is a concern for Dan right? or just certain ones cause he liked the promoter?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, garfield said:

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

 

all new. did you read the article? The show staff resigned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...