Cadets and bankruptcy

[Terri Schehr]

22 hours ago, Mello Dude said:

.

Edited April 6 by Terri Schehr

[Slingerland]

17 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

Thought Spirit took off a year on their own when they realized they had to clean up things. 

That's the equivalent of "I'm leaving to spend more time with my family." My recollection is that DCI's membership committee or exec leadership specifically told them to sit the year out and fix things. 

[Terri Schehr]

22 hours ago, scheherazadesghost said:

.

Edited April 6 by Terri Schehr

[greg_orangecounty]

57 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:

Bit harsh.  DCI has so little power..even less so BITD.  It's not like they wield amazing executive powers.  They may very well be not culpable according to their very limited powers and scope.

The disconnect I have is that DCI sure had no problem wielding their authority on corps with the suspected HORROR of marching an overage member. Dealing with their own authority figures and luminaries who molested kids in and outside of Drum Corps, not so much. 

If DCI is brought down by this or any other sexual harassment lawsuit I will cry, but at the same time it might be justice finally served. 

[olddrummer34]

15 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said:

I can come to no other conclusion than if a registered sex offender is performing in a Soundsport or alumni corps, they don’t care.  

First of all, you haven't gotten a response and you are jumping,ping to a huge conclusion here

 Alumni groups are ALL ADULTS. Soundsport groups DO background check staff, but the participants are all KIDS. DCI doesn't;t background check the performers either because they are kids. They all complete safesport. What else do you expect DCI to do? 

Do you have anything to do all day rather than stir up drama here? And what does any of your post have to do with the cadets bakruptcy. 

Why do you insist on turning every thread into a "DCI isn't doing enough and doesn[t care".

 

Edited April 5 by olddrummer34

[Terri Schehr]

22 hours ago, olddrummer34 said:

.

 

 

Edited April 6 by Terri Schehr

[jwillis35]

10 minutes ago, greg_orangecounty said:

If DCI is brought down by this or any other sexual harassment lawsuit I will cry, but at the same time it might be justice finally served. 

I don't think it will happen, but if it did I would not cry. Part of me thinks that might be good. I've not been a fan of the "Association" model for governance (directors of the corps run the show). I think we need something new with a real vision for the future. 

[Slingerland]

11 minutes ago, greg_orangecounty said:

The disconnect I have is that DCI sure had no problem wielding their authority on corps with the suspected HORROR of marching an overage member.  

Muchachos and Crossmen both were busted of rules violations regarding age of members, something that was clearly spelled out in DCI's charter. Might as well say "Regiment got a .1 penalty in 1978, but DCI looked the other way on sexual predators." One thing has nothing to do with the other. DCI was not given the right or the responsibility by its founders to mandate background checks of corps staff in the 1970s/80s/90s. You can say "that was stupid" and you'd be right, but the fact is, no one else in American society in that period was background checking either, for anything besides criminal pasts.

 

[FormerXyloWhiz]

39 minutes ago, Mello Dude said:

Well, to be fair they are only given powers that the corps want.  Also, we HAVE laws to protect people at the local level.  The problem is getting those that are wronged to USE those laws.  I would even argue that if it's fixed locally and immediately is a MUCH better solution for everyone.  I can't imagine dragging this out (for the person wronged) does anyone any good.  I would hope the culture of hiding abuse is being reversed and that we start using these laws rather than shaming yourself into silence.  Easier said than done I am sure but even IF DCI had these powers, if it's never looked into by the proper authorities we are back to square one.

There is no remedy for the kind of transgressions we're talking about here that can happen "immediately," be they local or national.  If you're talking criminal it requires investigation, collecting of evidence, charging, trial, etc.  If you're talking civil, it's opening a claim, assessing damages, negotiating money.  None of that can reasonably occur quickly or immediately in any scenario, let alone when something happens on a bus headed west out of Akron that arrives in Indianapolis the next day.  Reporting what happened after you leave the state just muddies the waters and makes things harder.  These processes take longer than any DCI tour does.  And since each DCI drum corps is basically a traveling circus, there is a decent probability that's how it will go. 

Enforcement of safety measures by any organization will always be directly correlated to their potential liability exposure.  The gulf between morally acceptable and legally acceptable can be a canyon sometimes.  That's just the reality of DCI's exposure.  As for criminality, using the local protections under the law is neither simple or easy to do even when a victim clearly knows what happened and immediately wants to take action. Additionally, the final results are often a mixed bag.  Don't assume the authorities usually get it right.  They don't.  Often, unfortunately.

[GUARDLING]

6 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

Muchachos and Crossmen both were busted of rules violations regarding age of members, something that was clearly spelled out in DCI's charter. Might as well say "Regiment got a .1 penalty in 1978, but DCI looked the other way on sexual predators." One thing has nothing to do with the other. DCI was not given the right or the responsibility by its founders to mandate background checks of corps staff in the 1970s/80s/90s. You can say "that was stupid" and you'd be right, but the fact is, no one else in American society in that period was background checking either, for anything besides criminal pasts.

 

This is true...Although it was NEVER acceptable for  sexual abuse what was acceptable back 20 ,30 ,40 years ago is a whole different thing than today. Often, some will apply today' s standards  to what may have been acceptable yesterday . I have found in many aspects ( not this particular subject ) some will do this. Different world , different times different standards , the good or bad of that. Even what may be considered abuse was not considered abuse then, example ( staff to member dating ) etc.