cixelsyd

Sounds good to me, but I have no vote in it. What matters is what the judges (and copyright holders) think.

The severance payments you describe were, at the very least, disputed. However, a news article claims that employer matching contributions to the retirement account were a valid claim. Per the Morning Call, January 30, 2019: "According to an order filed in federal court Tuesday, Youth Education in the Arts and Hopkins have reached an agreement on his claim that the nonprofit failed to make a matching contribution to Hopkins’ retirement account, as it was required to do. An attorney for YEA, Paul G. Lees, said he was not at liberty to discuss the settlement. Anthony Andrisano, who represents Hopkins, did not return a call. YEA board Chairman Doug Rutherford said YEA has never denied Hopkins was entitled to the organization’s contribution to his retirement account." (Reading this now, though, I have to wonder how that could happen. Since Hopkins was CEO/CFO, it must have been his own failure to make those employer matching payments to himself. So he should sue himself.)

Okay, then. My "agenda" is that I want nothing but the best for ALL CORPS. Since the Cadets are a corps, I want nothing but the best for them... as long as it is not at the expense of the other corps. For those of you who support the Cadets specifically, we will usually be on the same side of issues, but not always. Since I want the best for all corps, I also want DCI and DCA to succeed. I have a funny way of showing that sometimes, though, because IMO they continue to make decisions that are not best for all corps, and probably not even in the best long-term interest of the member corps. But if I seem critical, it is because I want them to succeed on behalf of as many corps as the activity can sustain. As far as who is running the Cadets, I have no "alignment" with past or present corps directors. As far as current issues hypothetical discussion regarding debt and reorganization, you can see why I take the positions I do. Any debt a corps incurs with DCI or with other corps should be the most important debt to be honored, as that directly affects other corps. After that, I would hope that any other creditors are sufficiently satisfied to preserve their working relationships with the activity, so as not to burn bridges. I am not as concerned about debts owed to former employees fired for cause.

I think in this case, it has to be the Cadets. The DCI relationship is with the corps. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the corps to maintain that relationship. The alternative would be to claim that the spun-off Cadets are a new entity, and that the debt belongs to the old entity. That may be fair play, but the new entity would have to be treated as a new corps. That would mean that the spun-off Cadets could look forward to spending the 2020-2021-2022 seasons in SoundSport and 2023-2024-2025 in open-class while jumping through all the hoops to make a case for promotion to world-class. Parent organizations are not third parties that DCI member corps can use as scapegoats to evade their DCI obligations, any more than you could split yourself and claim that the new you (Field) is debt-free, and it is that good-for-nothing Gar that needs to pay up.

But the contention is that YEA! owes money to Hopkins because they were obligated to make matching contributions to his retirement account, and failed to do so.

Maybe that is the point. My crystal ball shows a couple of key departures from YEA! in the near future (Cadet alumni). Shortly thereafter, it would not be surprising to see YEA! go down in bankruptcy, with the GH retirement plan going down along with them.

You forgot appearance fees from DCI participation, and revenue sharing from being a DCI member corps.

Sure. But which side is the rat?

or that the show was not "Madison" enough or why it took so long for this management team to get a win or that their average placement over their 13 years in charge is still not top six

Judging from this thread, Madison could win the 2020 DCI title and some here would not be satisfied. (A few would be, though, provided the corps can repeat as top six every year.)

Of course. Continuing to speak hypothetically... If this "shell game" causes the golden parachute retirement payments to a certain ex-director to be held up or lost in a bankruptcy proceeding - well played. On the other hand, any debts owed to DCI or other corps need to be satisfactorily settled for me to feel right about the whole situation. Compared to that, the shells, names, mission statements and what-not are secondary. They can call the new org Kids Learning About Artsy Stuff (KLAAS) for all I care (with the associated fall MB circuit, "Band KLAAS".)

Great idea! Let the organization know that your donation is contingent on their self-reported state of health. Wonder what their response will be?

Groundhog day?

Yes, or no, depending on the corps. But never both.

YEA! is not a typical parent organization. - Usually, parents create children, not the other way around. In this case, YEA! was created over 50 years after the Cadets. - Both parent and child were run by the same person for almost their entire time of coexistence. - From the perspective of DCI, a member corps is a member corps. The non-profit entity or parent org is just another limb of that same body.