YEA Board of Directors

[MusicManNJ]

41 minutes ago, BigW said:

Any board of directors/trustees that fails to act as a proper check and balance deserves serious criticism. I could care less what organization they claim to serve. After reading the Inquirer articles, The old BoD deserve whatever brickbats come their way. Rather than acting as a robust group that would act fairly, they appeared to the victims as a group of enablers. Subsequent events proved that the victims were pretty much correct. I just can't find any sympathy for the old BoD and have a serious disconnect with the implication that I should find them to be some group of tragic figures.

 

I would feel sympathetic had they spoke up and tried to really do something to hold GH accountable, but it's clear they really didn't for many years.

This!

[garfield]

I find this whole subject of "Money and Power" to be laughable.  Even as crappy as, apparently, the Cadets' BoD was in function, I can almost guarantee you that GH, being the "world's greatest non-profit ED" (just ask him at trial, he'll tell you!  Tee-hee) knows full-well that most successful NPs have a "give-get" policy for all BoD members (which, if unfamiliar, requires BoD members to either "give or get" a certain level of financial contribution to the NP as a show of support and example for others).

I have a sneaking suspicion that Cadets' BoD members were hounded for money more than most, required to hold their noses and look away, and never brag about having any modicum of control or impact on the way the org was run.

I can't imagine any position more unsatisfying than what it must have been like to be a Cadets BoD member.  They weren't even allowed to attend the DCI BoD consortium meeting in January with the other 50 or so BoD members in the room (and this last not being the only example of such).

A cloistered, abused, misinformed, money-soaked, legion of yes-men and yes-women who were pleased to be doing a favor for an undeserving man.  How miserable to be the Cadets' BoD for all these years.

Do I feel sorry for them?  Not in the least.

"Non merda dove mangi" requires that you know what you're eating.  I'm betting the Cadets' BoD was fully unaware of what they were being asked to swallow.

 

[OldBones]

46 minutes ago, garfield said:

I find this whole subject of "Money and Power" to be laughable.  Even as crappy as, apparently, the Cadets' BoD was in function, I can almost guarantee you that GH, being the "world's greatest non-profit ED" (just ask him at trial, he'll tell you!  Tee-hee) knows full-well that most successful NPs have a "give-get" policy for all BoD members (which, if unfamiliar, requires BoD members to either "give or get" a certain level of financial contribution to the NP as a show of support and example for others).

I have a sneaking suspicion that Cadets' BoD members were hounded for money more than most, required to hold their noses and look away, and never brag about having any modicum of control or impact on the way the org was run.

I can't imagine any position more unsatisfying than what it must have been like to be a Cadets BoD member.  They weren't even allowed to attend the DCI BoD consortium meeting in January with the other 50 or so BoD members in the room (and this last not being the only example of such).

A cloistered, abused, misinformed, money-soaked, legion of yes-men and yes-women who were pleased to be doing a favor for an undeserving man.  How miserable to be the Cadets' BoD for all these years.

Do I feel sorry for them?  Not in the least.

"Non merda dove mangi" requires that you know what you're eating.  I'm betting the Cadets' BoD was fully unaware of what they were being asked to swallow.

 

What was done was done.
Im not a supporter of The Cadets but I have to say that the new BOD looks to be working hard to upright their ship.
Giving the town hall speech I'm sure was not easy and Mr Rutherford did an excellent job giving his report to all the members of both corps.
I wish them a lot of luck. This will not be easy.

[One n Done]

1 hour ago, garfield said:

I find this whole subject of "Money and Power" to be laughable.  Even as crappy as, apparently, the Cadets' BoD was in function, I can almost guarantee you that GH, being the "world's greatest non-profit ED" (just ask him at trial, he'll tell you!  Tee-hee) knows full-well that most successful NPs have a "give-get" policy for all BoD members (which, if unfamiliar, requires BoD members to either "give or get" a certain level of financial contribution to the NP as a show of support and example for others).

I have a sneaking suspicion that Cadets' BoD members were hounded for money more than most, required to hold their noses and look away, and never brag about having any modicum of control or impact on the way the org was run.

I can't imagine any position more unsatisfying than what it must have been like to be a Cadets BoD member.  They weren't even allowed to attend the DCI BoD consortium meeting in January with the other 50 or so BoD members in the room (and this last not being the only example of such).

A cloistered, abused, misinformed, money-soaked, legion of yes-men and yes-women who were pleased to be doing a favor for an undeserving man.  How miserable to be the Cadets' BoD for all these years.

Do I feel sorry for them?  Not in the least.

"Non merda dove mangi" requires that you know what you're eating.  I'm betting the Cadets' BoD was fully unaware of what they were being asked to swallow.

 

From what I understand, two of the former board members had been serving for less than a year when this came to light.  One of them just 6 months.  Another, a lawyer, evidently lost his job with his firm due simply to his position on the BOD once the news broke.  It WAS correct that the former board be replaced, for multiple reasons.  It’s simpler, and perhaps more satisfying for some, to lump things together and burn all in effigy.  The truth probably runs along the lines that a couple of them knew or strongly suspected that GH was dirty and absolutely didn’t do what they could and should have done.  Similarly, it is likely that a portion of them were not aware and were there with the best of intentions and a clean conscience.  None of this excuses the abuses that took place, nor the former board’s initial tone deaf response to the story breaking.  But, there were decent and well meaning people among that group that were hurt.  While nowhere near as awful as what the women abused have suffered, the collateral damage to many others in the organization has been real and painful.  The new board looks to be off to a good start.  They have shown transparency, purpose, and compassion.  Would that we all could do so as well.

[Icer]

3 hours ago, One n Done said:

From what I understand, two of the former board members had been serving for less than a year when this came to light.  One of them just 6 months.  Another, a lawyer, evidently lost his job with his firm due simply to his position on the BOD once the news broke.  It WAS correct that the former board be replaced, for multiple reasons.  It’s simpler, and perhaps more satisfying for some, to lump things together and burn all in effigy.  The truth probably runs along the lines that a couple of them knew or strongly suspected that GH was dirty and absolutely didn’t do what they could and should have done.  Similarly, it is likely that a portion of them were not aware and were there with the best of intentions and a clean conscience.  None of this excuses the abuses that took place, nor the former board’s initial tone deaf response to the story breaking.  But, there were decent and well meaning people among that group that were hurt.  While nowhere near as awful as what the women abused have suffered, the collateral damage to many others in the organization has been real and painful.  The new board looks to be off to a good start.  They have shown transparency, purpose, and compassion.  Would that we all could do so as well.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Well said.  

"None of this excuses the abuses that took place, nor the former board’s initial tone deaf response to the story breaking."

Reading this forum one would think the two were equivalent acts, when in fact the former is an accusation of criminal behavior, and the latter is evidence of an ill-advised communication.  They are not the same.

[MusicManNJ]

With today's announcements coming on the one month anniversary of the new board taking control of YEA they seem to be making a lot of great decisions for the organization. This may be the strongest sign of better days ahead.

[xandandl]

18 minutes ago, MusicManNJ said:

With today's announcements coming on the one month anniversary of the new board taking control of YEA they seem to be making a lot of great decisions for the organization. This may be the strongest sign of better days ahead.

I am biased as I know Drew, Scott, Doug, and Eric Sabach (who's been heading alumni giving since the change over) personally since their first camps years ago auditioning at Cadets.

While all of them (and Tom Aungst) are Cadet alums, the depth and variety of corps for which they have held key administrative and faculty positions brings a wealth of experience and difference in approach, corps personalities and management styles. (Bloo, Blue Stars, Carolina Crown, Cavaliers, Crossmen, Dutch Boy, Phantom Regiment, to name but a few.) The combined aggregate of wisdom learned here and elsewhere can only enrich the Cadets and is already shown in the key decisions being made. It's one thing to sing "For Holy Name Shall Always Be."  It's quite another to make it happen by work, dialogue, discernment, and decision. So far they have done very well.

Edited May 11, 2018 by xandandl