garfield Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 3 hours ago, dooser11 said: http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/drum-corps-george-hopkins-sexual-misconduct-allentown-20181116.html?fbclid=IwAR3miF7kR6Tcpl9q87_aMdNoJOcoUyaXL8r-PrcMkcnxpQMJtiZSUOzWUUI Wow. Fabulous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Icer said: Do you have any idea what would have happened had the board refused the resignation? Don't forget, there was a Cadets/C2 camp the next day, and the clean break was necessary for the corps to be able to move on. The organization may not have survived, in which case what would have been the point of forcibly keeping GH on the books? I suspect is would have looked less like a mutually agreeable cessation of duties, as the payment agreement mandated. If there was that much derision in the ranks between the BoD and GH, then the BoD had all the time in the world to delay accepting his resignation. They also had the power to restrict him from the premises pending that review. Also, the agreement in question was signed in 2013 so the Not-Rubber-Stamp-Board you say was predominant had the opportunity to say No to the agreement then, and every BoD since then has had the same option. He served at their desire, legally. You undoubtedly know that. Edited November 16, 2018 by garfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 It will be interesting to watch this play out. The real winner will be the lawyers - w/r/t the torts cases anyway. Which makes me wonder - are attorney fees worked into the amount of damages being sued for? Example - hypothetical - Cadets are asking $1.5M. Do they know the actual loss was $1M from GH's actions & that counsel says they will need $500K in fees, so they sue for $1.5M? I know there are lawyers here (drumlaw80 for example) - how does this work? Another observation - this will require GH to have completely different counsel than in the criminal case. Most criminal defense layers are not torts lawyers (although the same law firm may handle both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icer Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 11 minutes ago, garfield said: I suspect is would have looked less like a mutually agreeable cessation of duties, as the payment agreement mandated. If there was that much derision in the ranks between the BoD and GH, then the BoD had all the time in the world to delay accepting his resignation. They also had the power to restrict him from the premises pending that review. Also, the agreement in question was signed in recent years (2013 I think...looking) so the Not-Rubber-Stamp-Board you say was predominant had the opportunity to say No to the agreement then, and every BoD since then has had the same option. He served at their desire, legally. You undoubtedly know that. What you say is misleading. First, if you look at the start dates of the members, you will see that this element of the contract would not have become known to them until such time as it could not be broken except for cause. Second, as you now know from the independent law firm report, the board was unaware of the activities that led to the allegations. Therefore there was no reason to terminate for cause. Termination for poor DCI Championship results, or even for inability to manage the organization, does not qualify as cause. Third, with camp taking place that weekend, all focus was on the kids, and by Saturday the sponsors were demanding the board resignation. If under those circumstances the board placed a hold on the resignation, it would have looked like GH was being protected. And finally, if you read the quotes from Doug Rutherford in the Inquirer (and if you believe Doug is being truthful), he claims GH didn't even officially resign, but rather that the new board fired him. So what was there to accept or not accept? You do not have the facts. Feel free to PM me any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllianaLancerContra Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Icer said: What you say is misleading. First, if you look at the start dates of the members, you will see that this element of the contract would not have become known to them until such time as it could not be broken except for cause. Second, as you now know from the independent law firm report, the board was unaware of the activities that led to the allegations. Therefore there was no reason to terminate for cause. Termination for poor DCI Championship results, or even for inability to manage the organization, does not qualify as cause. Third, with camp taking place that weekend, all focus was on the kids, and by Saturday the sponsors were demanding the board resignation. If under those circumstances the board placed a hold on the resignation, it would have looked like GH was being protected. And finally, if you read the quotes from Doug Rutherford in the Inquirer (and if you believe Doug is being truthful), he claims GH didn't even officially resign, but rather that the new board fired him. So what was there to accept or not accept? You do not have the facts. Feel free to PM me any time. Engaging in conduct that produced beaucoup bad publicity for YEA & a multi-count criminal indictment isn't cause? When he used his position in YEA to commit the alleged crime? Yes he is innocent until proven guilty, but I would hope ANY board would have a higher standard. Edited November 16, 2018 by IllianaLancerContra more better. punctuation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 17 minutes ago, Icer said: What you say is misleading. First, if you look at the start dates of the members, you will see that this element of the contract would not have become known to them until such time as it could not be broken except for cause. Second, as you now know from the independent law firm report, the board was unaware of the activities that led to the allegations. Therefore there was no reason to terminate for cause. Termination for poor DCI Championship results, or even for inability to manage the organization, does not qualify as cause. Third, with camp taking place that weekend, all focus was on the kids, and by Saturday the sponsors were demanding the board resignation. If under those circumstances the board placed a hold on the resignation, it would have looked like GH was being protected. And finally, if you read the quotes from Doug Rutherford in the Inquirer (and if you believe Doug is being truthful), he claims GH didn't even officially resign, but rather that the new board fired him. So what was there to accept or not accept? You do not have the facts. Feel free to PM me any time. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 (edited) 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 Edited November 16, 2018 by JimF-LowBari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 24 minutes ago, Icer said: What you say is misleading. First, if you look at the start dates of the members, you will see that this element of the contract would not have become known to them until such time as it could not be broken except for cause. Second, as you now know from the independent law firm report, the board was unaware of the activities that led to the allegations. Therefore there was no reason to terminate for cause. Termination for poor DCI Championship results, or even for inability to manage the organization, does not qualify as cause. Third, with camp taking place that weekend, all focus was on the kids, and by Saturday the sponsors were demanding the board resignation. If under those circumstances the board placed a hold on the resignation, it would have looked like GH was being protected. And finally, if you read the quotes from Doug Rutherford in the Inquirer (and if you believe Doug is being truthful), he claims GH didn't even officially resign, but rather that the new board fired him. So what was there to accept or not accept? You do not have the facts. Feel free to PM me any time. The start dates of the then-existing BoD members is wholly irrelevant, IMO. They had an obligation to understand the employment agreement that was signed with their employee. Is it acceptable for a viable and active BoD to not have a clear understanding of their employment agreements? I don't believe the then existing BoD members are without responsibility simply because they signed on after the deal was made; most salary agreements are not open-ended and (without the benefit of any proof) I would suspect that GH's salary agreement was reviewed at least once or more in the 5 years since the agreement was signed. Hop knew all about it - why didn't his BoD? My hunch tells me that this is just another example of their fecklessness? The new BoD not have awareness is understandable (except I happen to know personally at least one lawyer who was involved in the initial effort to bring the issue); I would suggest they SHOULD have known before their initial sortie but I wouldn't blame them if they simply said it wasn't an important issue in the bigger picture of the Cadets' future. "Don't count the silverware", is usually sound divorce advice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icer Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 18 minutes ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Engaging in conduct that produced beaucoup bad publicity for YEA & a multi-count criminal indictment isn't cause? When he used his position in YEA to commit the alleged crime? Yes he is innocent until proven guilty, but I would hope ANY board would have a higher standard. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted November 16, 2018 Share Posted November 16, 2018 Like no one has ever been suspended or removed because of allegations under investigation before..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts