Jump to content

Sexual Assault: Spirit of Atlanta 2021


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Boss Anova said:

 Well, if true ,THAT " other side of the story" needs to come without further delay, as not only is SOA on the brink, so isnt the entire DCI for taking a major PR hit with the now alleged " one side of the story " that the public is currently hearing and reading about here and elsewhere.

I agree, I wish these kids would go public with what they readily shared with me. One even gave me permission to share their messages anonymously but the mods here were against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boss Anova said:

 I believe the year was 2006 when DCI decided they did not like the Corps Manager of the Troopers so DCI banned the Troopers Corps from competition performances for the following season. DCI made them reapply for return to DCI Competition, but only until DCI  found the Troopers replaced their Corps Manager. His transgression ?  He allegedly mishandled how the Corps finances were utilized by the Corps there.  He was canned, and the Troopers got their finances in order sufficient to reapply for return to DCI's good graces and allow them back on the competition field after being booted to the sidelines for a season  by DCI for the financial impropriety.

 So its rather perplexing to learn that apparently financial missteps  will get you removed from DCI, and your Corps sent to the sidelines for a full season, but acknowledgments that sexual assaults, sexual harassment, verbal abuse, victim retributions, took place in a Corps on its youthful marchers is apparently deemed not as severe of bad behaviors by DCI as financial missteps by Corps Mangers, when we look at the SOA penalty meted out by DCI, and with no apparent demand of personnel to be removed from the SOA as one of the conditions of their probation.  DCI needs to rethink their initial probation terms here to SOA.  My guess, they will. And sooner, the better. But... time will tell.

Does DCI actually spell out penalties in their business policies? Or is this “at the discretion of the BoD”? 
edit: this is a general question for anyone who knows. Wasn’t just directing it to BA

Edited by JimF-LowBari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Boss Anova said:

 I believe the year was 2006 when DCI decided they did not like the Corps Manager of the Troopers so DCI banned the Troopers Corps from competition performances for the following season. DCI made them reapply for return to DCI Competition, but only until DCI  found the Troopers replaced their Corps Manager. His transgression ?  He allegedly mishandled how the Corps finances were utilized by the Corps there.  

 

He failed to file their Federal tax forms for several years running, which is counter to the DCI membership agreement that the member corps will observe federal laws. Given the association with DCI, the Feds could have chosen to escalate any issues they had with Troopers, which was a red flag for the rest of the membership.

It had nothing to do with liking or not liking the Troopers.

Edited by Slingerland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

He failed to file their Federal tax forms for several years running, which is counter to the DCI membership agreement that the member corps will observe federal laws. Given the association with DCI, the Feds could have chosen to escalate any issues they had with Troopers, which was a red flag for the rest of the membership.

It had nothing to do with liking or not liking the Troopers.

DCI is non-profit correct? That could have hurt non-profit status as Troopers being connected to DCI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Does DCI actually spell out penalties in their business policies? Or is this “at the discretion of the BoD”? 

 Good question. I don't know. I did read that penalties are not spelled out with any specific penalties for violations, and as such, DCI has wide latitude in the penalties they mete out for infractions But I'm not up on how DCI does things internally. Never have been.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

He failed to file their Federal tax forms for several years running, which is counter to the DCI membership agreement that the member corps will observe federal laws. Given the association with DCI, the Feds could have chosen to escalate any issues they had with Troopers, which was a red flag for the rest of the membership.

It had nothing to do with liking or not liking the Troopers.

 I did not state that DCI did not like the Troopers. I did state they did not like the Corps Manager there in that time period.  I stand by that comment too from my personal observations between him and DCI.  The fact he mishandled the finances and required IRS filings in a timely manner was certainly indefensible and warranted his removal, imo. But for the record, if DCI applied the same standards requiring removal of Corps Managers for mishandling the Corps finances and/ or failure to file IRS taxes in timely manner, we would have had dozens of Corps and their Corps Managers sent to the sidelines by DCI since the 1970's onward to this very day.

Edited by Boss Anova
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Boss Anova said:

...since the 1970's onward to this very day.

Providing proof of compliance on issues like this has been standard practice for a number of years - failure of being able to provide proof of compliance is what brought the issue to the point it was in 2005 when the membership voted to make them ineligible to compete for a year.

Troopers pulled it together and are in sound financial shape these days, so it worked to their benefit..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Boss Anova said:

 I did not state that DCI did not like the Troopers. I did state they did not like the Corps Manager there in that time period.  I stand by that comment too from my personal observations between him and DCI.  The fact he mishandled the finances and required IRS filings in a timely manner was certainly indefensible and warranted his removal, imo. But for the record, if DCI applied the same standards requiring removal of Corps Managers for mishandling the Corps finances and/ or failure to file IRS taxes in timely manner, we would have had dozens of Corps and their Corps Managers sent to the sidelines by DCI since the 1970's onward to this very day.

Was this the same person who bought a full line of G bugles after nearly every other corps switched to B flat? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Brian Tuma said:

Was this the same person who bought a full line of G bugles after nearly every other corps switched to B flat? 

 Not sure. 

 Getting back to the original focus here, ie Spirit if Atlanta.... if DCI can remove Corps from competition due to use of overage members and mishandling Corps finances and IRS filings, it seems perplexing that a Corps can remain in competition status for 2022 and without removal demands of staff for what seems to be much worse transgressions, ie sexual assault, sexual harassment, intimidation, and the non reporting of the incidents to DCI in a timely manner as required by the new policies DCI put on place  by DCI just over a year ago. 

Edited by Boss Anova
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smug Trumpet Guy said:

Not defending spirit but I've messaged multiple people who were in or closely related to spirit last summer. According to them there is another side to this story, especially with regard to the rookie talent night fiasco. 


The rookie talent night is only ONE of a long line of concerns.  
 

A member who was repeatedly harassed and eventually assaulted with little to no action of multiple staff.  An investigation (which was poorly done) was able to confirm this.  
 

Spirit is handling this horribly.  

They blocked an alumni who was brave enough to share her story after MONTHS of them dragging their feet to enact change. It is continuing a culture where they do not want members to speak up.     
 

This is absolutely infuriating.  I don’t want to question your intentions, but it feels like you are trying to deflect from what has and is actually happening.   By saying “there is another side of the story” it feels as if (hopefully unintentionally) you are victim blaming or saying bad things didn’t happen - especially without ANY proof.   If you have any, or if anyone does, please share it.  Otherwise, please don’t take light away from serious problems that just be addressed.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...