A year ago today

[Jeff Ream]

On 4/6/2019 at 12:29 PM, Stu said:

But I do care. I care if it is a multitude of known convicted sex offenders each year who engaged with a multitude of DCI corps (systemic throughout DCI), or if it was just a very, very, small number of known convicted offenders with only a very small number of corps over a 46 year period (not systemic but isolated). Why do I care? Because I do not want to punish and tarnish the hundred-thousand plus innocent people who have participated in DCI over the years based on the bad actions of those I can count on one hand.

if any schools think it's a problem....it's a problem for drum corps.

[Jeff Ream]

On 4/6/2019 at 1:11 PM, rpbobcat said:

And therein lies the problem.

When this story broke,there were a lot of comments about how Drum Corps needed some type of independence

in its governing body.

Nothing happened.

As long as the activity can keep chugging along,selling tickets,it most likely never will.

DCI  survived the negative stories,without having to make organizational changes,including keeping Dan.

I don't see that as progress.

 

 

 

 

 

thank you for picking up my point

[Jeff Ream]

On 4/6/2019 at 3:28 PM, Stu said:

And I have a gut feeling that sexual abuse of minors, and known convicted sex felons being on staff, was/is very, very rare, or completely nonexistent, in an overwhelming majority of the DCI corps from 1972 to present. Nor were/are there any systemic Cardinal Law type cover-ups from any of the DCI admins or the corps directors/boards either.

any is too many. and i think you underestimate the issue

[Jeff Ream]

On 4/6/2019 at 7:52 PM, garfield said:

Well, I guessed as much.  So there's no way she could show favoritism towards "her" corps and therefore, supposedly, can make decisions in the best interest of the activity overall, is that correct?

I would call that the perfect kind of "Independent" Governance leader.  Someone with a history and love of the activity, with no current affiliation to sway her opinion, and a professional (not corps director or band director) CV that brings with it some presumption of qualification based on education, experience, or both is a far cry from the BoD leadership of the past.

I don't refer at all to my opinion of her efficacy in her position or whether I think she will actually accomplish her goal in an unbiased way.

i think the big issue to many is the number of corps directors on the various boards. 

[Stu]

1 hour ago, BRASSO said:

 I don't don't know about this. There is the requirement, imo, of the PRESUMPTION of innocence, especially in the court of law of the accused that has been arrested and charged with a Crime by legal prosecutors. But there is no requirement by the public for a "DECLARATION of innocence" after the accused has been arrested, charged, detained, and dates set for Trial., People are free to declare publicly what they think of the arrest and charge either way. Its a free country. As such, people are free to state publicly what they think about it, imo...People declared ( both ways ) here on DCP what they thought of the woman's public declaration of sexual assault by GH.  GH, and his attorney's have likewise been given the opportunity to declare the charges true or false too with the public. And they opted to declare their innocence... and a few posters on on here stated that they believe him. Neither Party should be told they have no freedom to declare what they want to believe before the case is tried and/ or settled..  Nor should there be restrictions on the public to declare their thoughts on it either. But the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a Court of Law still remains absolute in the US Jurisprudence System. This fundamental principal is not threatened by the public's comments. Juries are properly instructed pre trial. on the presumption of innocence principal too.  Sometimes, Jurors will even declare post trial they thought the accused was guilty of the charges, but they returned a not guilty verdict because the prosecutors did not establish a breech of the presumption of innocence legal requirement that the Juror( s) were obligated to retain throughout the legal proceedings.. Perhaps you meant to use the phrase of a " presumption of innocence should always prevail " until proven or an admittance of guilt has taken place. . If so, I would agree with you if this is what you meant to say instead here.

My context here is specific. It stems from the discussion of school boards fearing to house all other corps because of the actions of a very few, combined with a poster who said earlier that another possible shoe dropping is enough of a justification to cause pause with actually calling those other corps innocent. Here is an example of exactly what I mean by declare: At this juncture the Board, Director, and Staff of (inject name if a non-accused corps here) should not only be presumed as innocent but moreso should be declaired as innocent. That is unless something specific to them and only them is charged, then it should move from declared to presumed innocent until found guilty. Is that more clear?

[Jeff Ream]

11 hours ago, Stu said:

Because, according to some posters, apparently the people on school boards who are axing housing for all corps are idiots who blame the 50+ innocent corps for the sins of a couple. And in their eyes, BD is just as guilty, just as responsible, and must pay the consiquences due to that.

point of order. i saw no one refer to these people as idiots.

 

However, in the court of public opinion, with any type of collective or league, often times the whole suffers for the actions of a few. When the Ray Rice scandal broke, it wasn't viewed as a Baltimore Ravens issue....it was viewed as an NFL issue. When the whole kneeling for the National Anthem issue exploded, except for one, the individual players weren't targeted, the NFL was.

[Jeff Ream]

10 hours ago, rpbobcat said:

I may have  missed it,but has anyone talked  about the December  "Failure to Protect" piece.

To me,that article was,in a number of ways,more damaging then the story about GH going public.

That article pointed out a number of systemic problems with the activity.

DCI's failure to either have their CEO be interviewed or even answer written questions did not,

based on comments made at the time,put DCI in a very good light.

That article,and follow up posts on sites like Reddit,as unreliable as they can be sometimes,

could give  school boards cause to rethink  housing corps.

I know there are a number of people on DCP with "ties" to corps or DCi.

Does anyone know what DCI has done since this article came out ?

 

it was discussed on here in multiple threads. and it's an extension of the issue as a whole, but a lot of the issues raised happened in the past and weren't current issues ( some were). 

[Jeff Ream]

8 hours ago, Stu said:

Try this on for size y'all. One year ago charges were brought against an individual. If there is a trial, and I would happen to be on the jury, I hold that the accused at the start of the trial is innocent, 100% innocent; irrespective of my opinion of the personality of the individual. And it is the responsibility of the prosicution to prove guilt. If that proof is sufficent I will vote guilty without reservation; if not sufficent, then innocence is maintained, also without reservation. I believe that strongly in the presumption of innocence. Again, this is irrespective of my opinion on the personality of the individual.

actually to be specific, accusations were brought forward a year ago. Actual charges cam much later. 

 

dates matter

[Stu]

17 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

if any schools think it's a problem....it's a problem for drum corps.

Granted, perception impacts behavior. But truth trumps perception. And if it doesn't, then idiotic perception prevails.

[Jeff Ream]

Just now, Stu said:

Granted, perception impacts behavior. But truth trumps perception. And if it doesn't, then idiotic perception prevails.

so then you're the one calling people idiots, not others as you claimed earlier. thank you for finally being honest