After a problem is reported… what?

[IllianaLancerContra]

6 hours ago, Jeff Ream said:

if it can even become public. HR policies and all.

It may become public that there is a database that DCI keeps locked in a room at their secret chalet in the Swiss Alps, kept under heavy guard 24/7 by former Navy Seals.  But seeing who is in the database is highly unlikely.  

[scheherazadesghost]

So I haven't done an exhaustive search of corps policies, but I have taken a serious glance. SoA is the only entity in the field that summarizes and publishes their reporting process here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/623653a05116d4602aa6880b/t/63487fb41f8ba61283a6bfe4/1665695697355/SoA+Reporting+Tiers+2022 It's available under their SpiritSafe link. So, while the policy is clear, what is ideal about this is that it's published and available for all parties involved. That means informed consent of this policy and procedure is possible. Not so with other entities.

Am also curious whether MAASIN/PAASIN is still providing whistleblower services. I couldn't find a link to it anymore on their website... or even mention of it. Would love clarification, 'cause they were gonna be the other entity I'd include here as an example. Well, whether they continue or not, what I appreciated about their process was communication and control. They were always very clear about next steps and who they recommended including in the conversation. No surprises. They also have me, as the whistleblower, some control over those next steps. It was very refreshing, given the sensitive nature of the info I was sharing. Sad to see that go if that's what happening. I'm also unclear as to any formal affiliation they may have with DCI. Everyone here on DCP has continuously indicated how much DCI cringes at their very existence. Curious.

 

[JimF-LowBari]

9 minutes ago, scheherazadesghost said:

So I haven't done an exhaustive search of corps policies, but I have taken a serious glance. SoA is the only entity in the field that summarizes and publishes their reporting process here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/623653a05116d4602aa6880b/t/63487fb41f8ba61283a6bfe4/1665695697355/SoA+Reporting+Tiers+2022 It's available under their SpiritSafe link. So, while the policy is clear, what is ideal about this is that it's published and available for all parties involved. That means informed consent of this policy and procedure is possible. Not so with other entities.

Am also curious whether MAASIN/PAASIN is still providing whistleblower services. I couldn't find a link to it anymore on their website... or even mention of it. Would love clarification, 'cause they were gonna be the other entity I'd include here as an example. Well, whether they continue or not, what I appreciated about their process was communication and control. They were always very clear about next steps and who they recommended including in the conversation. No surprises. They also have me, as the whistleblower, some control over those next steps. It was very refreshing, given the sensitive nature of the info I was sharing. Sad to see that go if that's what happening. I'm also unclear as to any formal affiliation they may have with DCI. Everyone here on DCP has continuously indicated how much DCI cringes at their very existence. Curious.

 

Thinking it’s like DCI is ashamed that these services are needed so nothing is said unless necessary. Including the info of what types of info DCI uses to protect members.

Note: I said “types of info” not the information itself

[scheherazadesghost]

5 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Thinking it’s like DCI is ashamed that these services are needed so nothing is said unless necessary. Including the info of what types of info DCI uses to protect members.

Note: I said “types of info” not the information itself

That sounds feasible. This all goes back to informed consent, to me at least.

If the types of info (or info itself) is not available, then young members and their loved ones are signing onto a situation that's tenuous at best. One in which DCI and corps can't be held accountable for not following their own policies. It looks like Spirit was genuinely putting in more effort anyone else to rectify this, but still too late. They remain the new standard in policy/procedure though. Still wish there was time/energy available to report out about how their policy/procedure played out in 23. I assume there just isn't.

[MarimbaManiac]

Well let's see, if we're thinking like any other large organization (higher-ed, etc).

Immediate action:

• The accused offender is immediately removed from the field, bus, gym floor, and separated from all corps members while an investigation takes place. 
• Senior staff/admin immediately convene to discuss the issue with the reporting member and/or their advocate. 
• If the allegation is direct abuse, the offender is removed from tour, period. The corps eats the cost of flights home unless the behavior is egregious. 
• If the allegation is less direct regarding abuse (racist/sexist remarks, crossing the line during rehearsal, inappropriate conduct etc.), the staff/admin discuss with the accuser different avenues of appropriate action. 
• If it's staff, and not clearly crossing the line into abuse, the staff member may just be reassigned and given a PIP as well as close supervision. Either way the ability to retaliate or continue the behavior is removed. 
• This can be handled quickly and quietly, while an investigation takes place.

Long term action:

• After the offender's removal and/or after the season concludes (if they are not removed), a more lengthy investigation follows to ascertain the extent of the offenses. 
• If the allegations are egregious, or deemed to be repetitive, DCI must be contacted to place that staff member/marching member on a "do not contract" list that will be shared with every member corps each fall. 
• If necessary, police will be called to report abuse that crosses the line officially into assault.
• If through an investigation, it's determined that the offender was falsely accused, action may be taken to remove the reporter from future seasons with the organization (this is ONLY if it is determined to be a flagrantly false report, and not merely a misunderstanding). 

 

The immediate response MUST be to assume that the reporter is telling the truth. The corps MUST assume that what is being reported is accurate, and take action based on that. In the long-term, a more thorough investigation can follow, but the safety of the members, and legal liability that comes with ignoring a report, is too important to twiddle your thumbs assessing guilt on the spot. If the reporter is straight up lying, it will eventually come out and can be dealt with later. However in the meantime, remove the offender quickly and quietly and move on.

Edited November 15, 2023 by MarimbaManiac

[IllianaLancerContra]

53 minutes ago, MarimbaManiac said:

Well let's see, if we're thinking like any other large organization (higher-ed, etc).

Immediate action:

• The accused offender is immediately removed from the field, bus, gym floor, and separated from all corps members while an investigation takes place. 
• Senior staff/admin immediately convene to discuss the issue with the reporting member and/or their advocate. 
• If the allegation is direct abuse, the offender is removed from tour, period. The corps eats the cost of flights home unless the behavior is egregious. 
• If the allegation is less direct regarding abuse (racist/sexist remarks, crossing the line during rehearsal, inappropriate conduct etc.), the staff/admin discuss with the accuser different avenues of appropriate action. 
• If it's staff, and not clearly crossing the line into abuse, the staff member may just be reassigned and given a PIP as well as close supervision. Either way the ability to retaliate or continue the behavior is removed. 
• This can be handled quickly and quietly, while an investigation takes place.

Long term action:

• After the offender's removal and/or after the season concludes (if they are not removed), a more lengthy investigation follows to ascertain the extent of the offenses. 
• If the allegations are egregious, or deemed to be repetitive, DCI must be contacted to place that staff member/marching member on a "do not contract" list that will be shared with every member corps each fall. 
• If necessary, police will be called to report abuse that crosses the line officially into assault.
• If through an investigation, it's determined that the offender was falsely accused, action may be taken to remove the reporter from future seasons with the organization (this is ONLY if it is determined to be a flagrantly false report, and not merely a misunderstanding). 

 

The immediate response MUST be to assume that the reporter is telling the truth. The corps MUST assume that what is being reported is accurate, and take action based on that. In the long-term, a more thorough investigation can follow, but the safety of the members, and legal liability that comes with ignoring a report, is too important to twiddle your thumbs assessing guilt on the spot. If the reporter is straight up lying, it will eventually come out and can be dealt with later. However in the meantime, remove the offender quickly and quietly and move on.

I would add something like ‘If actual assault or other crime is suspected, local law enforcement is contacted immediately so evidence can be collected, witnesses interviewed, and proper legal jurisdiction established’.   

[rpbobcat]

20 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said:

I would add something like ‘If actual assault or other crime is suspected, local law enforcement is contacted immediately so evidence can be collected, witnesses interviewed, and proper legal jurisdiction established’.   

I'd go a step further.

I'm sure every corps has legal representation.

In addition to what you suggest, I would like to see any allegation, of any type of direct abuse, be reviewed by the corps' legal council and he makes the call whether law enforcement should be contacted.

Edited November 15, 2023 by rpbobcat

[JimF-LowBari]

1 hour ago, scheherazadesghost said:

That sounds feasible. This all goes back to informed consent, to me at least.

If the types of info (or info itself) is not available, then young members and their loved ones are signing onto a situation that's tenuous at best. One in which DCI and corps can't be held accountable for not following their own policies. It looks like Spirit was genuinely putting in more effort anyone else to rectify this, but still too late. They remain the new standard in policy/procedure though. Still wish there was time/energy available to report out about how their policy/procedure played out in 23. I assume there just isn't.

Of course Spirit got their act (apparently) together after they got hit big time and BoD was changed (IIRC).

Still think it would be a deterrent if DCI would have a database of (suspected and proven) harassers/abusers so corps could check when looking at a potential new hire. Of course it would only be a deterrent if people know it exists.

Database could also include status of any investigation, IOW accused, being investigated, found innocent, found guilty, etc. I worked databases for 25+ years and biggest hurdle IMO is making sure people who know the contents keep their mouth shut unless a corps makes a valid request.

[Tim K]

17 hours ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Agree MAAS wouldn’t release info to general public. But brings up the question if someone applies for a job with a corps, how would that corps find out if that person had problems elsewhere? Other than background check how could a corps find out? 
And if the corps where problems occurred keeps their mouth shut about it.🤔

Right now, it would seem as if there is no means to let someone know of problems other than the grapevine. That being said, drum corps can often be the hardest place to keep a secret. In the past, random strangers sitting in my vicinity have  shared information which turns out to be true. While I’ve never heard of abuse rumors from conversations in the stands, my guess is that drum corps is too small a community to keep things secret. 

There is one way information could be shared. It would have to be drawn up with specific language and lawyers would have to check the legality, but an employee or volunteer could sign an agreement that if they are dismissed for specific reasons, their name will appear on a database kept by DCI which can be viewed by member corps. I believe Boys and Girls Clubs have such a policy. However if an allegation turns out to be false and someone is denied employment, the liability for both the corps and DCI could be huge.

[JimF-LowBari]

23 minutes ago, Tim K said:

However if an allegation turns out to be false and someone is denied employment, the liability for both the corps and DCI could be huge.

That’s why I had “under investigation” in my database example. Corps could see that and go at their own caution. 
Never worked with an employer that dealt with youth. But would think they wouldn’t be hired until cleared or hired with understanding if found guilty they would be fired.
Different world but worked DoD with a security clearance. If my record was clear I would be hired. But if I didn’t pass the security checks… bye. And of a potential employee had problems with those conditions then don’t bother applying.

edit: and chance to do pull my “this ain’t the first time it happened” line. Anyone know what other youth groups do if someone accused of wrongdoing (but not found guilty/innocent yet) wants a job? Sure it has happened before.

Edited November 15, 2023 by JimF-LowBari