JimF-LowBari Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said: 61. Never mind he hadn’t hit his 62 yet... was making comment about 1957 people Edited November 16, 2018 by JimF-LowBari 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 14 minutes ago, garfield said: Ughh. The key is "Mutually Agreed Cessation". Any other older folks here reminded of MAD Mutually Assured Destruction? 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 12 minutes ago, JimF-LowBari said: Never mind he hadn’t hit his 62 yet... was making comment about 1957 people I’m a 1957 baby and I just turned 61 Tuesday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 1 hour ago, Icer said: No one can know for sure, but it is my belief that the sponsors and bands that left would have done so merely because of what is alleged to have happened, not because of the mechanics of the initial investigation. There are a lot of places to spend money, and you don't want your contribution to be tainted. Remember, there have been no allegations of recent misconduct, so every act of which GH has been accused took place years before. So whatever mis-steps may have been made in getting to the truth, it didn't change the allegations. And as for picking the board, I don't think you understand how nonprofits work. Getting people to serve (especially when there are mandatory donations involved) is a challenge. Obviously the both the CEO and the existing board are going to be the ones most heavily involved in the board recruiting process. So that is not a convincing argument. As for history of inaction or desire to protect the director, I suppose it is possible that for the one or two board members who may have had a close personal friendship with GH, there may have been a reflexive reaction in his favor. But if you look at the people who made up the board at the time, they would be no more likely to have taken a bullet for GH than Doug Rutherford himself. In fact, given that a bunch of the board never marched, they would be LESS likely. When you get right down to it, the real inaction that had people upset up to April 4 was the board's unwillingness to address the deterioration in the Cadets' competitive results after 2013. Remember - in 2011 when they won their last championship, all of the alleged abuses had already taken place, and as far as I can tell everyone in Cadetland was canonizing George. The combination of the poor results and #MeToo created the environment where these allegations, which had been festering in the dark for decades, could finally come to the surface. i'm very aware of how non profits work, i was on the board of a corps that failed because too many of the board members were cronies that refused to put enough constraints on the director. I tried to stay on the board after it was reconfigured, but the newer embers and director were more worried about revenge and lawsuits than trying to right the ship with the corps and build for the future....I left and watched the corps go from world champion to dead in 5 years. I'm aware thanks. Oh an I also remember seeing ads in DCW for board members as has been mentioned many times on here. I wish I had kept those issues. as for prior to April, I would have had a huge issue with the revolving door of employees, because I know what it costs to onboard someone as an employee, then turn around and re-hire someone else at best a year later. That the board got no exit interview information from why they left is also negligent and quite frankly, that practice had been going on since pretty much day 1 of YEA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, Terri Schehr said: I’m a 1957 baby and I just turned 61 Tuesday. if it helps you only look 51 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: if it helps you only look 51 Thanks. I feel like 100 today, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 58 minutes ago, garfield said: No, not that. Another "triggering event" is GH retirement on or after age 62. With any luck, on April 5th, 2018, he was months away from 62. The only "triggering event" he could win on would be "disability", but only if it included total mental disability. Good point about the "triggering" thing, age-related. I certainly hope he doesn't try for "age discrimination." In his case, there probably are even some ambulance-chasers who wouldn't touch that one. LOL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, Fran Haring said: Good point about the "triggering" thing, age-related. I certainly hope he doesn't try for "age discrimination." In his case, there probably are even some ambulance-chasers who wouldn't touch that one. LOL. Saul Goodman would run the other way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, Terri Schehr said: Thanks. I feel like 100 today, At an indoor concert I emceed a few years back, I joked that I was 50-something years old... but my liver was 70. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Haring Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Just now, Terri Schehr said: Saul Goodman would run the other way. Saiontz & Kirk is one of the firms here in Baltimore. "If you have a phone, you have a lawyer..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts