George Hopkins Charged with two Counts Sexual Assault

[Icer]

12 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

What does start date of the members have to do with not knowing what is in a contract before their time? As BoD they would be able to look at the contract. No idea if they did but as BoD they should be able to see contracts signed by... the BoD.

second... board unaware of THESE allegations so terminated without cause. Ahhh there was enough other #### he could have been fired for

I take it you have never served on a board.  I have served on multiple boards, both for profit and non-profit.  In the case of the latter, these are unpaid positions, and it is not typical to go through every contract unless there is a reason.  You don't just ask to see every contract.  CEO compensation is typically handled by an executive committee, and key clauses reported to the board when they become relevant (such as in a renegotiation) before a vote.  That's when stuff like this becomes known.  And all of the other #### would qualify as termination for convenience.  It's really easy to terminate for convenience (except in the case of a union labor agreement).  It's really hard to terminate for cause.

[JimF-LowBari]

2 minutes ago, Icer said:

I take it you have never served on a board.  I have served on multiple boards, both for profit and non-profit.  In the case of the latter, these are unpaid positions, and it is not typical to go through every contract unless there is a reason.  You don't just ask to see every contract.  CEO compensation is typically handled by an executive committee, and key clauses reported to the board when they become relevant (such as in a renegotiation) before a vote.  That's when stuff like this becomes known.  And all of the other #### would qualify as termination for convenience.  It's really easy to terminate for convenience (except in the case of a union labor agreement).  It's really hard to terminate for cause.

That’s why I said I wasn’t sure if they did read it. The way you stated things it sounded like BoD members are not allowed to see contracts before their time. 

But thinking common sense here, if BoD is discussing termination of GH contract it would be a real smart idea to READ the freaking thing before acting.

[Icer]

20 minutes ago, garfield said:

Not sure why I would want to PM you for your opinion.  It seems you've shown it here quite clearly.

You're, of course, right that I don't have the "facts", but I do have a claim from GH's attorneys that states GH tendered his resignation on 4/5, the BoD accepted and acknowledged the fact the next day then published it on 4/10 (the day before they resigned), and their claim that such tender and such acceptance constitutes "...any other mutually agreed cessation of employment".

That's their claim, not mine. If the facts prove this claim wrong, the judge will rule in favor of Cadets.  If the judge agrees with their claim, she'll rule in favor of GH.

Do I have that right?

 

The facts I am referring to are things that have not been reported, without which some of the assumptions that are being made by you and others are incorrect.

Moving to opinion...  It's not as simple as you make it out to be.  First, I quoted Doug Rutherford in saying that GH had not resigned.  I made no such claim, and I don't necessarily believe what Doug says.  Second, if a person resigns and then information comes out that they committed acts that would have resulted in termination, it is not obvious that such a person can escape the consequences.  Third, the countersuit by YEA is almost certainly a hedge against the possibility that GH did attempt to skate by resigning ahead of the posse.

 

[garfield]

24 minutes ago, Icer said:

The suggestion was made that the board could have terminated GH previously.  At that time, the only conduct that produced bad publicity was deteriorating corps results.  The anonymous allegations were under investigation, but as of the publication of the article, there had not yet been corroboration.  Even with the article, it took the second law firm more than 6 months to come up with their findings and for the DA to file charges.  So I stand by my original statement - at the time in question, cause had not yet been established.

Just so we don't end up arguing a falsehood, if you're referring to me comments above, I never suggested that the then-board "could have" or should have terminated him early.  What I said was that they had the opportunity to renegotiate his contract if they believed settling that contract as they are now would be detrimental to the overall health of the corps.

I'm guessing, but I'd bet that GH is the one who designed the severance package in his own favor and brow-beat his board into signing it.  But that doesn't negate the fact that he served at their desire and they had the power to renegotiate his contract at any time.

 

[Icer]

10 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said:

That’s why I said I wasn’t sure if they did read it. The way you stated things it sounded like BoD members are not allowed to see contracts before their time. 

But thinking common sense here, if BoD is discussing termination of GH contract it would be a real smart idea to READ the freaking thing before acting.

You have the sequence wrong.  It's not that BoD members are not necessarily allowed to see contracts that were put in place before their time.  It's that they would have no reason to see them until the contract became relevant.  In the case of the CEO, that would be at the time the contract was up for renewal.  That's when all of the board members who joined after the original negotiation would have discovered the situation.  But this would have BEFORE the allegations came up.

By the time the anonymous allegations surfaced, the contract would have been known to all the board members.  But still, allegations are not the same as provable actions.  If the DA is not successful in getting a conviction, then the lawyers will have to argue whether it is sufficient to either (a) avoid the payout in the first place, or (b) recoup the payout in the countersuit.  Let's face it - as much as you like to heap abuse on the board, they were stuck in the middle of a situation that was going to turn out badly no matter what they did.  When the CEO of an organization has allegedly been abusing people for 30 years, it's going to be a disaster for the organization and everyone involved at any level.

[Icer]

5 minutes ago, garfield said:

Just so we don't end up arguing a falsehood, if you're referring to me comments above, I never suggested that the then-board "could have" or should have terminated him early.  What I said was that they had the opportunity to renegotiate his contract if they believed settling that contract as they are now would be detrimental to the overall health of the corps.

I'm guessing, but I'd bet that GH is the one who designed the severance package in his own favor and brow-beat his board into signing it.  But that doesn't negate the fact that he served at their desire and they had the power to renegotiate his contract at any time.

 

As for how the original contract was written, negotiated, whether any brows were beaten, you would have to ask the people who were there at the time.  However, there are two relevant tidbits here:  1) According to news reports, the previous contract had expired in 2017.  That should tell you that the negotiation process was underway, and this would certainly have been a major point in the negotiations. 2) If the parties could not reach agreement on a new contract, the employer cannot simply void the severance clause in the old contract.  So regardless of how that clause came to be (and I am willing to bet $100 to our respective favorite charities that you will find it was put in long before 2013), by 2017 it would have represented some serious leverage in any renegotiations, especially given the magnitude and the state of YEA's balance sheet.  This is why I say you are looking at the situation incorrectly.

[JimF-LowBari]

10 minutes ago, Icer said:

You have the sequence wrong.  It's not that BoD members are not necessarily allowed to see contracts that were put in place before their time.  It's that they would have no reason to see them until the contract became relevant.  In the case of the CEO, that would be at the time the contract was up for renewal.  That's when all of the board members who joined after the original negotiation would have discovered the situation.  But this would have BEFORE the allegations came up.

By the time the anonymous allegations surfaced, the contract would have been known to all the board members.  But still, allegations are not the same as provable actions.  If the DA is not successful in getting a conviction, then the lawyers will have to argue whether it is sufficient to either (a) avoid the payout in the first place, or (b) recoup the payout in the countersuit.  Let's face it - as much as you like to heap abuse on the board, they were stuck in the middle of a situation that was going to turn out badly no matter what they did.  When the CEO of an organization has allegedly been abusing people for 30 years, it's going to be a disaster for the organization and everyone involved at any level.

This post makes a lot more sense than what i replied to before except..... “much as you would like to heap abuse on the board” is total bull. 

[Tim K]

The lawsuit and counter lawsuit are both interesting.

First: The former director's lawsuit. He's foolish for even filing such a lawsuit. There have been many comments that it was too generous. There were some comments about the amount. According to the article, it is one month salary for every year he worked for Cadets and YEA. While there are no hard rules about severance, the typical policy in the non-profits I know best is you take annual salary at the time of departure, divide it by 52, and you give one week's salary for every year of employment, capping it off at either 20 or 25 weeks. Benefits are usually not included, nor is insurance, though in many states you have to be able to keep the insurance but you pay for it on your own.

YEA's counter lawsuit is significant as well. When news of GH's departure hit, after what was by all accounts a successful late April camp where many thought there could be a major marching member departure, I thought the difficulties and that the greatest challenges moving forward would be financial. No one closely associated with Cadets and their most knowledgeable fans believed that removing GH would be the end of their issues and may even be just the tip of the iceberg. Losing donors and sponsorships is not surprising. My hope would be that the music companies revisit their decisions.  The YEA lawsuit shows just how much damage he did to the corps, not to mention the human toil of the victims. 

[Terri Schehr]

I thought he was fired for cause by the new board for suspending background checks in 2016 and 17.  

[JimF-LowBari]

As for Tim’s remarks about GHs suit... I smell angling for a agreement. IOW come out with something ridiculous and expect the other side to start bargaining.