kevingamin

Arsenal Drum Corps Offers Tuition Discount To Pioneer/Oregon Crusaders Vets

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

Sure, but if the inflow of dollars is primarily from one source (member dues) and that one source can only cover the servicing of debt where does that leave them for their other operating expenses? We just don't know that at this time. They could have been in rock solid financial shape or they could have been living "pay-check to pay-check" so to speak. No one knows.

You are correct.  We just don't know.  Or didn't a minute ago anyway.  The mere existence of a loan was no basis to call them extremely irresponsible.  

The fact the director chose to specifically mention it, I will say, did leave me a little uneasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I thought about this more last night, and stand further behind my decision that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

DCI's evaluation for Arsenal was planned to take place soon. As a part of that evaluation, DCI evaluates the qualifications and competency of Arsenal's staff. Considering the breaking of the rules by the Director, DCI does have every right to decide that the corps is not fit because of decisions made by its leadership at the evaluation.

The decision was not that Arsenal wasn't fit for OC; it was that the Director wasn't fit, and the consequence was a punishment to Arsenal. Basically, as I see it, if DCI had repremanded just the Director (request his resignation) that would have been fair, and to decide Arsenal wasn't fit for tour as a result of this would have been fair, but to rescind the entire evaluation as punishment to one individual, that's just malice.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Spatzzz said:

How is that statement cowardly?

How is a statement not dancing around the issue? How is a statement providing transparency, full disclosure all the things that define dci in their new direction?  This is keeping the press at bay she requested an interview and was shot down. Instead of building a personal relationship with Tricia they are keeping her from asking questions that may help mold her story in dci's favor. Statements are twisted and construed to intentionally/unintentionally and miss the point totally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To touch on an earlier side point, the Arsenal ex-director's use of the word "fraudulent" was incorrect from a legal definition, but lay people mis-use legal terms all the  time.  He simply should have indicated that the DCI sentence in question was "false".

Edited by Eleran
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eleran said:

To touch on an earlier side point, the Arsenal ex-director's use of the word "fraudulent" was incorrect from a legal definition, but lay people mis-use legal terms all the  time.  He simply should have indicated that DCI sentence was "false".

Especially libel and slander. People are always getting those two mixed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bluzes said:

How is a statement not dancing around the issue? How is a statement providing transparency, full disclosure all the things that define dci in their new direction?  This is keeping the press at bay she requested an interview and was shot down. Instead of building a personal relationship with Tricia they are keeping her from asking questions that may help mold her story in dci's favor. Statements are twisted and construed to intentionally/unintentionally and miss the point totally.

The request was to speak with DCI about the petition to remove Dan A. They responded directly to the heart of that by stating they stood by Dan A. Now you can disagree with their stance but you in no way can disagree that they didn't answer the question asked and that they did so promptly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eleran said:

To touch on an earlier side point, the Arsenal ex-director's use of the word "fraudulent" was incorrect from a legal definition, but lay people mis-use legal terms all the  time.  He simply should have indicated that DCI sentence was "false".

Like I said sometimes your emotions take over words are used for effect at the moment that comes back at you later, with regret. However, at this point dci should be looking at the comment with concern and make a point in their statement to call that out. I am sure they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, skevinp said:

If the business does not continue, the value of the car itself is the primary way to pay off the loan.  That's why it is called an asset.  You don't need the dues anymore because you don't need the car anymore.  That's how it works for everyone.  

A) Nope, that is not how it works for everyone; in fact most legitimate businesses which take care of youth do not 'rely' on the youth to financially keep the business in the black. B) Moreover, the problem is not the car, nor the loan on the car, the problem is the primary way the car is being paid for (primarily from dues paid by the youth who are supposed to be taken care of by the one who actually took our the car loan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, BRASSO said:

 There is no evidence or info however that DCI HQ is even" looking "into the allegation on Fred Morrison that was reported in the Philly Inquirer months ago. You are speculating alone that " DCI Is looking into it " , let alone is about to take action on it. My speculation is that DCI HQ is simply hoping that sufficient time will pass and that the reporter's claim  in her piece will go away, without DCI HQ " looking into it " any further. All that said, it is not speculation to state that DCI has not responded either on its website, nor to the investigative reporter, on the allegation made re. Fred Morrison.

Well, there IS the option that someone inform school districts hosting Crossmen this summer about the serious actions taken by their director (hiring an instructor knowing full well of his loss of teaching license fr sexual misconduct with a student) as well as allegations against the director (scrubbing this information from the internet).

How many school districts want to open themselves up to this kind of scrutiny?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The request was to speak with DCI about the petition to remove Dan A. They responded directly to the heart of that by stating they stood by Dan A. Now you can disagree with their stance but you in no way can disagree that they didn't answer the question asked and that they did so promptly.

The request was for a personal interview she is getting a statement. Dci is sending a message that they don't want to strike up a personal relationship with her, why. Is that a demonstration of transparency, full disclose who is on the receiving end of all these fancy terms if not the press? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.