George Hopkins Charged with two Counts Sexual Assault

[garfield]

33 minutes ago, Icer said:

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.

The 2013 contract expired in 2017?  There was not a signed agreement about severance?  The GH lawyer's claims are not factual?  

If the prior contract "expired" to use your term, then there is no severance clause to void, correct?  

I have no doubt that GH "negotiated" this severance package long ago and, agreeing with you, its numbers represented serious leverage.  So why make a claim that the BoD was reasonably not aware of the severance until it was triggered?

I still don't think I'm looking at it incorrectly because you've not presented any information to countermand my contention that, according to the claimant's lawyer, a signed agreement was in place, and severance was agreed to as "mutually agreeable".  I can't read the Cadets claim; does it claim there was not a signed agreement in place or that the BoD didn't accept his resignation when they, in fact, published that they had?

 

[Fran Haring]

I can't predict the future... but I wonder if this all might come down to which party has the deeper pockets... or which party blinks first.

And those two things might be related.  LOL.

[garfield]

51 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.

But you alluded to ongoing negotiations so it'd be reasonable to presume that, at least, the compensation committee (do you REALLY believe Cadets had such a committee?) would be aware of the current contract and, per your description of "most" boards (I've served on a few, too), pertinent information would be brought to the whole board.

Further, had anyone on the old board done the math of what GH's severance package might be, and they STILL agreed to it knowing the impact (10% of YEA! REVENUES, not net income!), they were bigger idiots than they initially appeared.

The BoD has the ability to amend any employment contract in negotiations and is not required to carry over any provisions of past agreements into current negotiations.  Bottom line:  The BoD had the chance to prevent the "mutually agreeable cessation of employment" and protect the corps.  It did not.

 

[Tim K]

JimF- LowBari and Icer's exchanges are interesting and I would agree severance deal being negotiated in earlier contracts is possible but there were probably ways out too. 

First, I want to state I did not think GH would be removed for sexual misconduct charges. I assumed it would be due to financial mismanagement, or perhaps poor management would be the better way of stating it. I thought the handwriting as on the wall after the black uniforms of 2015. It seemed more likely in 2016 and a less than popular show combined with erratic activities in 2017 made it seem more like a reality. A deal that would get him out of the way  would make sense, even if it was expensive. However, when accusations came to light, GH no longer had the upper hand, the board did.

One key would be whether the original contract had an ethics clause. People in authority have been let go and severance has been paid, but when criminal charges have been filed, the severance had to be paid back. Now if GH's contract did not have an ethics clause, that would not be a surprise, but I do think there were ways out of paying a huge settlement.

[Icer]

1 hour ago, JimF-LowBari said:

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. 

I was not referring to you in particular. Should have said "as much as many on this forum..."  My apologies.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours 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 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.

 

if there was that much derision, the board at the time would have allowed for an outside investigation when the claims started to surface last winter.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours 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 board was unaware because they refused anyone outside of their legal team to investigate the claims. they tried to keep it an inside job, which the victims refused to have anyone tied to YEA in any way to look into.

 

so really, he was being protected or they would have been totally transparent when the claims were first brought to their attention.....January earliest, probably before. because the rumor about the claims started right around the time of the Januals

[Icer]

29 minutes ago, garfield said:

The 2013 contract expired in 2017?  There was not a signed agreement about severance?  The GH lawyer's claims are not factual?  

If the prior contract "expired" to use your term, then there is no severance clause to void, correct?  

I have no doubt that GH "negotiated" this severance package long ago and, agreeing with you, its numbers represented serious leverage.  So why make a claim that the BoD was reasonably not aware of the severance until it was triggered?

I still don't think I'm looking at it incorrectly because you've not presented any information to countermand my contention that, according to the claimant's lawyer, a signed agreement was in place, and severance was agreed to as "mutually agreeable".  I can't read the Cadets claim; does it claim there was not a signed agreement in place or that the BoD didn't accept his resignation when they, in fact, published that they had?

 

I'm not a labor lawyer, but my understanding is that allowing an employment contract to expire is the same as triggering severance.  Otherwise the contract would state "early termination" rather than severance.  So whether the contract was active or terminated should be irrelevant from that standpoint.

I never made the claim that the BoD was not aware of the severance until it was triggered.  What I said was the BoD (except for the executive committee) would not necessarily have been aware of the severance when they joined, and only became aware of it when the renegotiation started.  By then it was too late to do anything, which is how it would become serious leverage.  By the time the separation occurred, ever BoD member would have been aware of the clause in the original contract. 

As for the claims/counterclaims, the news reports specifically quote Doug Rutherford as saying there was no resignation.  I don't know on what basis he says that.  I also do not know if a press release which mentions "mutually agreeable" constitutes a legally binding step, who would be authorized to issue such a statement, etc.  Do you have a link to that document, because I don't think I have seen it.  And I still maintain that if crimes were committed of which the board were unaware, it may well be possible to terminate after the fact.  Again you would have to check with someone who understands the specifics of PA employment law.

[Icer]

7 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said:

the board was unaware because they refused anyone outside of their legal team to investigate the claims. they tried to keep it an inside job, which the victims refused to have anyone tied to YEA in any way to look into.

 

so really, he was being protected or they would have been totally transparent when the claims were first brought to their attention.....January earliest, probably before. because the rumor about the claims started right around the time of the Januals

You are mistaken.  The board's job was to protect the organization, not an individual.  When the anonymous claims surfaced, one of two things could be true: (a) the claims were accurate, in which case protecting an individual would be suicidal, or (b) the claims were false, in which case acting in error would have been fatal for the organization.  So the only thing that mattered was getting to the truth.  There was no obligation to be transparent with the public when, if the allegations turned out to be a hoax, a person's life could be ruined without justification.

You don't think the right law firm was hired to investigate the claims because the one that was hired already had familiarity with the organization?  OK, that's a point of fair debate.  But it doesn't mean that the objective of the investigation was anything other than trying to figure out what may or may not have happened 10-30 years earlier.

[Jeff Ream]

2 hours 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.

actually public comments on Glassdoor were pretty damning by former employees and well known