Bluzes Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, N.E. Brigand said: The line you quoted (with "fraudulent") is his not mine. I know that I commented on this last night, why would the ex DIRECTOR be using that term. Where is dci's response to being called fraudulent in the national press? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bluzes said: Does this statement ring true or is he reading more into this then he should? Fraudulent is a strong word that sometimes leads to legal action. Where do you think this is headed? Good point. Last fall the New York Times used "fradulent" in a long expose on some famous person's finances, and legal commenters whose writing I follow (I'm no lawyer!) all said that there was no way the Times used the word without thorough vetting from their own lawyers. But where is this headed? Probably nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Just now, Bluzes said: I know that I commented on this last night, why would the ex DIRECTOR be using that term. Where is dci's response to being called fraudulent in the national press? He may not have checked with a lawyer first. And as Jeff says, we still don't have all the information. Maybe when we do (if we do), DCI's reticence now will seem just and wise. But the facts we do have weigh heavily against DCI, in my opinion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcibrando Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 noticed a well known percussion staff member in the activity just called out Dan on fb asking him what he and DCI are doing and that the world is watching 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rileydog Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 18 minutes ago, Stu said: This type of situation has played out in other sanctioning bodies. NASCAR for example has a policy that any team owner, crew member, driver can approach the governing body directly and discuss any grievence; NASCAR will listen intently and respectfully to that grievence. However, NASCAR also has a media policy; if the team owner, crew member, driver mouths off to the media as airs out a grievence that could harm the brand they are whacked hard with a fine or suspension. The difference here is that NASCAR punishes the individual person who did the media thing not the entire team like DCI just did. NASCAR also punishes other infractions within days of discovery. They also spell out tiers of punishments in relation to severity and repeated offenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barneveld Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 16 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: I'm quite serious: (1) Shouldn't DCI take into account that the offending employee is no longer at the corps? (2) That said, would Arsenal have any interest in fielding a corps without their founding director? (1) This seems like a reasonable compromise. And correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there something like this (director gone) a part of a potential reinstatement of Pioneer (prior to their ban)? Let the review continue and if they pass muster, great! If they don't, at least the opportunity was allowed. (2) Would they even be able to, financially? The impression I got was that finances were tight. They were counting on money from an increased membership. And it appears the corps relied, in part, on the personal finances of the former director. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, Rileydog said: NASCAR also punishes other infractions within days of discovery. They also spell out tiers of punishments in relation to severity and repeated offenses. True, but the way things are handled now in that organization have been refined through years of trial/error. They once were a rumble-tumble whack first danged be the protocol group. But now they are a multi-million dollar household product and have learned a few things about rule regulation and PR. Since the DCI code book is a new publication in 2018, I suspect this was the first trial based on that book, and DCI will hopefully refine adjustments based on error as things move forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Barneveld said: (1) This seems like a reasonable compromise. And correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't there something like this (director gone) a part of a potential reinstatement of Pioneer (prior to their ban)? Let the review continue and if they pass muster, great! If they don't, at least the opportunity was allowed. (2) Would they even be able to, financially? The impression I got was that finances were tight. They were counting on money from an increased membership. And it appears the corps relied, in part, on the personal finances of the former director. I agree here with (1). I do not see why the Organization could not have been evaluated on its own merits, and that evaluation gone forth. As for Arsenal's current financial situation ( as of last week ), Its unclear what financial situation they were in, and whether they would have passed financial muster with DCI with that aspect of the evaluation process or not. We really don't know this now, regrettably. DCI's statement made it unambiguously clear that the withdrawal of the upcoming evaluation was not financial in nature. It was punitive in nature. Their current Corps Director at the time violated the DCI's media policy, and as result of that alone, the entire Organization's upcoming scheduled evaluation on all the other required criteria was withdrawn it its entirety by Dan Acheson at DCI HQ for the 2019 season. Edited January 17, 2019 by BRASSO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 5 minutes ago, Stu said: True, but the way things are handled now in that organization have been refined through years of trial/error. They once were a rumble-tumble whack first danged be the protocol group. But now they are a multi-million dollar household product and have learned a few things about rule regulation and PR. Since the DCI code book is a new publication in 2018, I suspect this was the first trial based on that book, and DCI will hopefully refine adjustments based on error as things move forward. This. Yes, DCI has been a wreck in this area for a long, long time. The expectation by people that it will change over-night and get EVERYTHING right on the first swing is unrealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 43 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: I'm quite serious: (1) Shouldn't DCI take into account that the offending employee is no longer at the corps? (2) That said, would Arsenal have any interest in fielding a corps without their founding director? As i suggested elsewhere if they want to try, the board chair should reach out to Dan under the radar and not make it public Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.