Jump to content

Cadets 2020


Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, TwoValves said:

Not necessarily "loans" in the traditional sense.  But DCI owes corps money each season and many corps owe DCI money each year if the present shows during the season, buy blocks of tickets for resale, etc.  It could be very plausible that DCI granted an org and extension to pay what they owed,  which some might call a "loan"

That is true that it could be related to the fees owed to or from the corp. But when they also borrowed from another corp to finish their season and offered the sale of US Bands as collateral. The RED flags get raised!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HockeyDad said:

Here’s the thing, just from an outsider observing perspective:  this is the exact mantra that was repeated on DCP endlessly during the Hopkins years. Just wait. You will know when the information comes out. Until then, shut up. We say we’ve learned from the GH experiences. The need to speak up and be more open for example. I wonder, because based on the same old same old sniping here from all the same people, some things haven’t changed one bit. 

i never said shut up. i think people will be pleasantly surprised

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread keeps following the cycle of someone implying that something could have happened, then people getting angry over The Cadets hiding the fact that something did happen without ever connecting the dots between could and did.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Slingerland said:

They absolutely had power. Under the laws that govern non-profits, they had the ultimate power to intervene however they wanted. They chose not to use it. 

 

 

Not exactly. Non-profits have to have a board, and that’s about it. Non-profits can have juridical boards with power, boards that advise only, or a combination, but the only requirements are that a board exists, it has to meet at least once a year, and that minutes are kept. How much authority a board has depends largely on the charter or bylaws of the organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tim K said:

Not exactly. Non-profits have to have a board, and that’s about it. 

Their Board was able to fire Hopkins following publication of the stories of his history of harassment and worse. They could have replaced him when he was running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Unless you have specific proof that they had a unique situation where the Board served at the pleasure of the CEO, rather than the other way around, there’s no point in trying to excuse their failures of fiduciary responsibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Slingerland said:

Their Board was able to fire Hopkins following publication of the stories of his history of harassment and worse. They could have replaced him when he was running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Unless you have specific proof that they had a unique situation where the Board served at the pleasure of the CEO, rather than the other way around, there’s no point in trying to excuse their failures of fiduciary responsibilities.

I’m not excusing the board and I’m certainly not excusing the behavior of GH. I also agree there are things the board could have done much earlier, and had if not a legal, an ethical responsibility to do so, but the original poster spoke of laws that governed non-profits, and that was what I was speaking about, as someone who has served on all kinds of boards, some juridical and others advisory. While I have never read the responsibilities of a board under GH, it does seem that his board was a rubber stamp that tuned a blind eye until that was no longer possible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Slingerland said:

Their Board was able to fire Hopkins following publication of the stories of his history of harassment and worse. They could have replaced him when he was running up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Unless you have specific proof that they had a unique situation where the Board served at the pleasure of the CEO, rather than the other way around, there’s no point in trying to excuse their failures of fiduciary responsibilities.

the original yes-man stacked board did NOT fire Hopkins. The new board did. The old board were hand selected and approved by GH - everything I understand now is that there was zero oversight. DCI should insist on independent boards at all member corps

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...