cixelsyd Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, Stu said: Ummmmm.... unless there is an altruistic person out there the former corps director in fact did say he would help pay off debt upon the dissolution of the corps by selling assets. The implication there is that a need would exist, and as a director he would be in a position to know, and he likely would not have typed those words if a need would not materialize. Now this could mean he personally owns the assets, and help pay off debt, but that we do not know. No, he said he would help them sell stuff. Drum corps equipment does not sell itself. Someone has to take inventory, put the word out, find prospective buyers, close purchase agreements, ship or deliver the items, etc. The implication was that if a corps opts to dissolve, that is what they do with their assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 36 minutes ago, BRASSO said: Thats the risk that Corps Directors take.... and DCI HQ allow under their watch.... when high risk individuals with known violations are hired in Corps. The fact that DCI and its membership Corps are willing to take or retain, ( or attempt to bury that past with offenders it hires ) does not mean school districts are willing to take on these risks. Its knowledge now that Corps have taken on lots of high risk individuals, that schools were so convinced they remained high risks to the schools, that they were disallowed to be on any school grounds anywhere in the state during the terms the offender agreed to with the State the violation(s) occurred. if Schools decide now they want to share in the risk with these Corps traveling overnight onto their school grounds, I'm ok with it. If it was me however, I would never have hired these people, nor retained them as I'm a " one strike and you're out " kind of guy when it comes to sex abuse incidents by adult instructors. supervisors with minors. If DCI Corps find that school housing sites become a future issue fior them, well, I suppose they understood the risk the hire presented here with this, right ? It is knowledge to us in the activity "that Corps have taken on lots of high-risk individuals". But is this information known by the decision-makers at the school districts that are being asked to allow the Corps to bed-down at their facilities? If I found out after-the-fact that this info was well known and available but not presented as part of the decision-making process I would be irritated. Really irritated. And there would be no way I would allow a DCI - affiliated unit to use the facility in the future. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluzes Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 9 minutes ago, Spartans87 said: Personal relationship? That's ridiculous. Tricia asked a question, for which she received an answer. She does not want a personal relationship with DCI. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me. Because it is commonplace for any business to have a personal relationship with the press. They are invited as guests to all kinds of company functions. In the real world, it is called a press pass it gets them into conferences/meetings all over the world except dci events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 minute ago, IllianaLancerContra said: It is knowledge to us in the activity "that Corps have taken on lots of high-risk individuals". But is this information known by the decision-makers at the school districts that are being asked to allow the Corps to bed-down at their facilities? If I found out after-the-fact that this info was well known and available but not presented as part of the decision-making process I would be irritated. Really irritated. And there would be no way I would allow a DCI - affiliated unit to use the facility in the future. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Problem here is that most school districts are in similar if not identical situations as DCI finds itself in. ISDs and states are just NOW starting to institute rules and in some cases laws pertaining to the sharing of information regarding issues surrounding student contact with dismissed teachers. This is in no way shape or form a problem exclusive to DCI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoC Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, IllianaLancerContra said: 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? Definitely not mine! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VoC Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, BRASSO said: Thats the risk that Corps Directors take.... and DCI HQ allow under their watch.... when high risk individuals with known violations are hired in Corps. The fact that DCI and its membership Corps are willing to take or retain, ( or attempt to bury that past with offenders it hires ) does not mean school districts are willing to take on these risks. Its knowledge now that Corps have taken on lots of high risk individuals, that schools were so convinced they remained high risks to the schools, that they were disallowed to be on any school grounds anywhere in the state during the terms the offender agreed to with the State the violation(s) occurred. if Schools decide now they want to share in the risk with these Corps traveling overnight onto their school grounds, I'm ok with it. If it was me however, I would never have hired these people, nor retained them as I'm a " one strike and you're out " kind of guy when it comes to sex abuse incidents by adult instructors. supervisors with minors. If DCI Corps find that school housing sites become a future issue fior them, well, I suppose they understood the risk the hire presented here with this, right ? I will say most firmly that as a high school band director I will NOT host a corps being run by Fred Morrison. Edited January 17, 2019 by VoC extra word... 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 One person’s “disparaging public statements” is another person’s “stating the obvious”. For those of you good people who still feel Arsenal’s director “clearly” violated that rule, well, I still disagree. This rule is just as vague and arbitrary as the rest of their rules. If only Dan was as quick to deal with the harassers and enablers in dci as he is in dealing with a guy criticizing the harassers, things would be a lot better. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeD Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour 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. She is a reporter, not a friend to build a "personal relationship" with. Her job is to dig in and find out the information she needs for her stories. DCI is not going to scattershot answers just because she wants them to. Creating a reasoned response, vetted through the DCI legal team, is the proper way to go, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spatzzz Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: One person’s “disparaging public statements” is another person’s “stating the obvious”. For those of you good people who still feel Arsenal’s director “clearly” violated that rule, well, I still disagree. This rule is just as vague and arbitrary as the rest of their rules. If only Dan was as quick to deal with the harassers and enablers in dci as he is in dealing with a guy criticizing the harassers, things would be a lot better. Hypothetical: Let's say you work for Exxon. You go out on social media and blast the energy companies on climate change and how the whole sector of energy production is to blame. You sign you name and your title and company name to said post. Many people will applaud you for you "speaking truth to power" but Exxon will still, and rightfully so, can your butt in about 5 minutes flat if not sooner. You are living in a fantasy world if you think otherwise. Edited January 17, 2019 by Spatzzz 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, MikeD said: She is a reporter, not a friend to build a "personal relationship" with. Her job is to dig in and find out the information she needs for her stories. DCI is not going to scattershot answers just because she wants them to. Creating a reasoned response, vetted through the DCI legal team, is the proper way to go, IMO. And the vetting may include the phrase “how the #### do we dig ourselves out of THIS one?”. 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.