I hereby refuse to support DCI in 2019... who's in?

[George Dixon]

Man I keep reading all these various threads and assume everyone wants what’s best and safe for the activity and the marching members 

But there is so much naivety, so many jumping to assumptions it is hard to take some of this as seriously as it deserves 

There are so many legal implications, employer liability concerns etc around these situations and most here seem entirely clueless about the possible liability and privacy rights it’s alarming 

generally speaking, terminations must be kept quiet 

generally speaking, if you are going to “announce” a reason for separation you better darn well have full proof evidence - such as multiple witnesses and or a conviction - otherwise you open yourself up to civil liability 

generally speaking, if you’re aware of possible criminal activity you report it to local law enforcement- you don’t post the news on DCP

independent strong boards, an anonymous tip line, background checks, some structural changes (elimination of minors? Number and qualifications of tour chaperones, shortening touring, use of same sex sleeping and or buses, separate touring arrangements for minors etc) is the way forward  - most of these are being implemented or considered as we speak 

as far as Dan - I would support his departure, for all we know that’s under consideration as well. For no other reason than a fresh start and fresh set of eyes

 

 

[MikeD]

21 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

Good grief. Care to enlighten me? 

He was showing why he would NOT join the "leaving DCI" side of things....moments like this are priceless.

[George Dixon]

Just now, MikeD said:

He was showing why he would NOT join the "leaving DCI" side of things....moments like this are priceless.

Ok thanks 

no way of knowing I guess without reading the whole thread 

[George Dixon]

9 minutes ago, George Dixon said:

generally speaking, if you are going to “announce” a reason for separation you better darn well have full proof evidence - such as multiple witnesses and or a conviction - otherwise you open yourself up to...

Obvious example is YEA! Being sued by Hopkins for wrongful termination. Some of theee judges are extremely liberal in terms of employee rights. It helps their case that their is a criminal investigation, multiple accusations etc. It badly hurts their case IMO that the Cadets did poorly competitively the past few seasons (looks possibly retaliatory). That’s Hopkins only play really other than the details in his employment agreement or contract if one exists 

[Weaklefthand4ever]

1 hour ago, George Dixon said:

Man I keep reading all these various threads and assume everyone wants what’s best and safe for the activity and the marching members 

But there is so much naivety, so many jumping to assumptions it is hard to take some of this as seriously as it deserves 

There are so many legal implications, employer liability concerns etc around these situations and most here seem entirely clueless about the possible liability and privacy rights it’s alarming 

generally speaking, terminations must be kept quiet 

generally speaking, if you are going to “announce” a reason for separation you better darn well have full proof evidence - such as multiple witnesses and or a conviction - otherwise you open yourself up to civil liability 

generally speaking, if you’re aware of possible criminal activity you report it to local law enforcement- you don’t post the news on DCP

independent strong boards, an anonymous tip line, background checks, some structural changes (elimination of minors? Number and qualifications of tour chaperones, shortening touring, use of same sex sleeping and or buses, separate touring arrangements for minors etc) is the way forward  - most of these are being implemented or considered as we speak 

as far as Dan - I would support his departure, for all we know that’s under consideration as well. For no other reason than a fresh start and fresh set of eyes

 

 

I don't disagree George. It's a slippery slope and to your point, yes, direct terminations generally have to be kept quiet. However, general accounts of actions taken to improve the environment can be shared openly so that people see that change is being implemented. 

I can't technically say "We terminated employee x for attendance" in a public setting. That's between employer and employee. But I can say "We (insert company) terminated x number / percentage of employees for attendance and here is what we are doing moving forward to improve, change culture etc." 

But I do absolutely get where you're coming from. And I think we could probably all agree that there has to be a balance of transparency and anonymity and what that formula is can be a difficult nut to crack. 

Edited January 27, 2019 by Weaklefthand4ever

[George Dixon]

48 minutes ago, Weaklefthand4ever said:

I don't disagree George. It's a slippery slope and to your point, yes, direct terminations generally have to be kept quiet. However, general accounts of actions taken to improve the environment can be shared openly so that people see that change is being implemented. 

I can't technically say "We terminated employee x for attendance" in a public setting. That's between employer and employee. But I can say "We (insert company) terminated x number / percentage of employees for attendance and here is what we are doing moving forward to improve, change culture etc." 

But I do absolutely get where you're coming from. And I think we could probably all agree that there has to be a balance of transparency and anonymity and what that formula is can be a difficult but to crack. 

brilliant post - thanks.

[Toby]

Unless there is confirmed reporting of things, rumors will be hidden

[Stu]

3 hours ago, George Dixon said:

Obvious example is YEA! Being sued by Hopkins for wrongful termination. Some of theee judges are extremely liberal in terms of employee rights. It helps their case that their is a criminal investigation, multiple accusations etc. It badly hurts their case IMO that the Cadets did poorly competitively the past few seasons (looks possibly retaliatory). That’s Hopkins only play really other than the details in his employment agreement or contract if one exists 

The competitive rankings over the years  under his watch have been cyclical. Cadets have went from first to sixth to first to fifth to first to seventh, and the year he was let go they stayed in seventh. So how can the poor performance retalitory defense be plausable when there is a record of the corps under his watch moving back to first at some point after every dip in ranking?

[skevinp]

4 hours ago, George Dixon said:

Obvious example is YEA! Being sued by Hopkins for wrongful termination. Some of theee judges are extremely liberal in terms of employee rights. It helps their case that their is a criminal investigation, multiple accusations etc. It badly hurts their case IMO that the Cadets did poorly competitively the past few seasons (looks possibly retaliatory). That’s Hopkins only play really other than the details in his employment agreement or contract if one exists 

His poor performance would be a basis to argue he should NOT have been fired?

[BigW]

26 minutes ago, skevinp said:

His poor performance would be a basis to argue he should NOT have been fired?

I know what you mean.... the thing is, I know of School District Superintendents supposedly fired for sheer and utter incompetence yet had to be bought out. One is a cautionary case study on the PSSBA website or was last I looked. Worked for him and he was indeed horrid, inept, and everything short of touching anyone arguably more inept than GH in every way possible in running things. Still got a quarter million plus.