"HMGS East 2009 Election Outcome" Topic

BTC,
That could have caused some of the problem.
I know there were several smaller groups around the South that had to change their schedules to survive when East started Fall In.
But to see that large of a decline, in a program as stable and Strong as Historicon, there must have been other factors involved.
Gamers get accustomed to certain patterns in the organization, promotion, and executions of convention programs.
Just a thought.
chuck

I didn't get the results mailed to me, but I did get my nifty new member card and a reminder about the member meeting on Saturday. I even had previously built my gaming schedule so I could go. I think I like going just to see the board wonder who the heck I am. Plus occasionally you actually get some information, like on the moves and stuff.

One of the 311!

An even 300 would have been better than 311.

YouTube link

"This is Spartaaa!!!"

Yes, Fall In would be a problem perhaps if we moved Historicon back to Lancaster but who says it's coming back?
Maybe that's why the membership should have a little more input into the process, not to hamstring the BOD but to guide them into what the membership would like to see done.

The problem with the membership "guiding" the board are numerous. For instance, you could have a straight up or down vote on moving to a specific venue, but what if more were in the offering than just one? Does the highest vote getter win? What if more people vote to move than to stay at a location, what does that tell you? Also, how do you have something like the 311 that just voted in the election determine the best venue for the 3,400 that attend? That is less than 10%. Also, what if a specific group was disproportinally represented within the vote, and voted its interests instead of the overall good? How would you compensate for that? I'll tell you.

You vote the best people possible on the board. That means that you should vote for people who have already volunteered for the organization – as they have already displayed that they have more than just their own, or a particual group's interest at heart. If they have actually worked at some of the conventions, even better, as then they know some of the problems, issues, and challanges associated with running a convention.

It kills me when I see people come out of the blue to run – as they usually have some sort of pet agenda they are running on – and if elected, usually do little other than protect that agenda. I have no specific person in mind here, just a long list of people like that.

The BCC has its challenges, and may be good, or may stink. I don't know. If it works out, then great, but if not, I would think we would want people with first hand experience in helping to run things to make a considered opinion of what to do next then.

By 2012 there should be some more option than are currently out there for consideration, but a decision will need to be made by 2011, and I suspect we'll really need two iterations of the convention at the BCC to give it a full chance to be as good as it can be.

In the mean time please elect people who have already volunteered their time prior to running, as I think that gives us the best chance at a good board. Judging from the recent vote, I would say that is excactly what people are doing.

Correct me if I'm wrong but has the BOD ever expressed a clearly defined reason for moving Historicon. Was it growth, bad facilities at the Host,more room, make more money?
I have yet to see anything definitive from the BOD on this matter other than they kept us informed, it's for the good of the organization (why?), life will be better in Baltimore, the naysayers lost (post move decision). I would still love to know what actually precipitated this move and how that decision was arrived at. Still haven't heard and if I don't, fine. I just think the membership is owed a clear logical explanation and I'm sorry but I don't think it has ever come forth from the BOD.

One more thing, historygamer the 311 that voted had nothing to do with the move to Baltimore. That decision was made months ago. Informal polls that probably mean zip indicate a less than majority approval of the move which doesn't matter legally speaking. That's why I still say on a major move, the membership requires more input and a thorough discussion or vote before moving. I don't care which way it goes, because it is not about me, but I have felt the angst of many people on TMP and at cons over the way it was done. And I'm not trying to change this decision either.

The problem with the membership "guiding" the board are numerous. For instance, you could have a straight up or down vote on moving to a specific venue, but what if more were in the offering than just one? Does the highest vote getter win? What if more people vote to move than to stay at a location, what does that tell you? Also, how do you have something like the 311 that just voted in the election determine the best venue for the 3,400 that attend? That is less than 10%. Also, what if a specific group was disproportinally represented within the vote, and voted its interests instead of the overall good? How would you compensate for that?

It seems to me that the biggest complaint that I see is this move was done in "secret". I think we, the members, should have voted on the move. This way the board could have had a clearer picture as to what all the members want.

You vote the best people possible on the board. That means that you should vote for people who have already volunteered for the organization – as they have already displayed that they have more than just their own, or a particual group's interest at heart. If they have actually worked at some of the conventions, even better, as then they know some of the problems, issues, and challenges associated with running a convention.

In theory, this sounds like the best plan. However, in real life, too many people have their own agendas – even those that volunteer. There should be some sort of check and balance on the board so nothing like this can happen again without the majority of the members knowing.

My hope is that we all learn something from this.

I really don't understand the whole, "this was done in secret" thing. I think most of you just ignored it and were in your own little worlds. Few want to take time out from their fun at the cons and attend meetings. This issue had numerous meetings, and I readily admit to being one of the many who did not attend for the same reasons listed above, but I would hardly label it a secret. If you think it was a secret, then I would suggest you weren't paying attention to begin with.

As to the membership having their say, I refer you to the 311 that had their say. This actually is pretty average for a vote in HMGSE. Not all who attend are members of HMGSE, so how do you account for them? What do you base the vote on, and why does it not apply to all of the conventions then? What about voting for any changes in the conventions? How about who gets in? Who puts on games? Where does such voting end?

It was once suggested that only those who volunteer their time should be actual members and get to vote. Interesting idea.

We elect a board to make such decisions, as do all organizations. If you want to change that, then propose a constitutional amendment and see how far you get with support from the "members." Somehow, I bet you don't do that though.

HG:

I think the whole "secret" thing, while not specifically factual, reflects the notion that the BOD didn't really care what membership or attendees thought.

I'll be the first to agree that no organization with several thousand members can run like some commune with everyone voting on everything. I, for one, would have felt better if the BOD had done two things, neither of which I felt they made the slightest effort at.

1. To gauge the opinion of members and attendees. It would have been simplicity itself to have a questionnaire at registration for a couple of the cons. They could have done polls on a site like this or on the HMGS site at no cost. I am not saying that such efforts would be the sole determining factor, nor that the results would be binding. But it should have been done and it wasn't and it certainly leaves the feeling that opinions of members and attendees were viewed as an irritant rather than useful.

2. To really do some information gathering and give the impression that this was well thought out and conceived. Again, I appreciate that these are part time volunteers but there is no reason a move couldn't have been pushed back a year if the homework was not done. Instead, the impression at the time of the decision was that parking, hotels, hours, access for vendors/Gms, rules/regs, and just about everything but the actual commitment to the venue was still up in the air. Had a reasonable amount of all this been addressed more specifically I might have been in favor of a move. In fact, it seems that months later very very little of this has been nailed down.

So secret may not be the word, but there is plenty of reason for people to be upset at how this was handled and if they choose the wrong word to express it I think everyone understands what they mean.

As far as apathy on voting, seriously, what do you expect? Short of staging some sort of a coup and trying to get a new slate elected, why would anyone in the society feel like anything will change? We do poorly enough with government for real offices, when billions are spent to promote candidates and most voters still have no idea what they are voting for. HMGS candidates have no budget to reach people, no platform to get information out in a way that most people are going to get and act on. Why don't members receive an email or two from each candidate spelling out their case in a reasonable number of words? This would hardly overload anyone's inbox nd maybe people would get more involved. As it is now disgust leads to apathy and no one really cares.

It is all well and good to say go out and amend the bi-laws, etc., but most gamers have jobs and lives and other pursuits. The fact that none chooses to become a wargaming governance Adams or Jefferson doesn't strip them of the right to complain and call it like they see it when those in office conduct themselves poorly.

Hear! Hear! CD

Funny I live in Kansas and have heard about the BOD looking for a new location for a number of years. I try and stay up on the latest news about the cons so I can plan vacations ahead of time, hard for me to get time off. I saw plenty of polls and arguements for the move over the last couple of years. I just dont see way people are surprised by the move, its been in the works for years. Not very hard to find debate on the different locations mentioned as possible sites.

I have been in favor of move since the 1st Historicon I attended back in 97 or 98. The Host was the worst place I have ever attended a convention in the US. Trust me I have attended cons from Michigan to Florida and from the EAst coast to Colorado. I have never gotten sick attending a con until I spent time in the Host. I thought maybe it was a one time affair, but heck if I didnt get sick the next time I went. Plus the layout of the Host is not ideal for a con. I remember trying to get to some of the dealer tables and not being able to, due to the press of bodies. Too many games in odd corners of the building that are just impossible to find. I always felt guilty too, about how hard it would be for anyone with a handicap to get around to play any of the games off in the boondocks of the Host.

Oh well, my opion will mean nothing to the down with the BOD mob.

"Let's see, now Pat Conray is passing judgement on a a former BoD"

Who better qualified to pass judgment on a former BOD than a Wally's Basement guy who launched the HMGS Convention program in 1983, and HISTORICON in 1984?

"As far as the 30% drop in Historicon attendance, it was still a great convention, the dealers made money, parking was adequate…we just were trying to avoid the mindless arguments about moving to Baltimore"

So your dysfunctional BOD of which you are so proud lost 30% of attendance between 1998 and 1999. But you take great pride in not having absolutely destroyed the program. You seem to think you and your colleagues were so demented that had you not been conducting a witch hunt of major and obscene proportions you would inevitably have wound up moving HISTORICON to Baltimore. But you are remembering wrong. Instead you nutcases ran a witch hunt supervised by secret meetings of the star chamber. Repeatedly the newsletter announced that a full accounting (of the witch hunt) would be provided to the membership. I'm still waiting. But not holding my breath.

In defense of your dysfunctional BOD's decision not to honor its promises to the membership, there were apparently extenuating circumstances. A later BOD member with a legal background told me he had seen the witch hunt papers, and they were pure crap and shouldn't be released.

Someone wrote in that perhaps the loss of attendance between HISTORICON 98 and 99 was due to the establishment of FALL IN. Actually, FALL IN! began in 1997. It was the following HISTORICON which hit the record, and the one after that in which it dropped by about 30%. Pete Panzeri's propaganda blitz at ORIGINS 98 was a contributing factor, though since Dave and his colleagues did next to nothing to promote the conventions he prefers to believe it was sunspots or something. Between 1998 and 1999 the prospective witches for the most part departed either laughing or cursing. The only one catching flack was James E. Thomas, the HISTORICON director. And you guys were driving him nuts.

And you were so self important about your role in the fiasco that when you were asked to send a check to the custodian of the left over MILITARY FORUM publications.
You reduced the amount of the check you were supposed to send, prompting the custodian to dispose of the material and return the check.

The FORUM, by the way, was a valuable program, a symbiotic relationship between HMGS, which claims to promote historical miniatures gaming and the study of military history, and academic historians who need to publish instead of perish.

So while the dysfunctional BOD of which you were a part only damaged the convention program, it was able to destroy another HMGS program altogether.

Congratulations.

"…things must have gotten slow in his attempts to destroy the Florida chapters of HMGS. "Star chamber" proceedings…let's see, no minutes, no financial reporting and no accountability to the membership, sound more like the current BoD."

Me? First of all, there is only one certified chapter of HMGS in Florida. HMGS SOUTH. What did I do to destroy it? Actually the un-elected BOD which seized control over HMGS SOUTH in the wake of HURRICON 07 has been as successful as the CYABOD of which you were a part. Well almost. They reduced attendance by 27% by the next convention. After that they have been careful to avoid revealing the attendance.

Prior to HURRICON 08 there had been some concern that HMGS SOUTH had not filed its corporate papers. So it isn't what it is supposed to be. It looked as though they might replace the treasurer with a professional accountant. So when they put out an appeal for room nights I offered to donate enough for three room nights for someone who couldn't otherwise attend. Turned out to be the Paint and Take Lady. They guy making the appeal offered a receipt for tax purposes.

Then the legal adviser came on and announced that even though both sets of ByLaws talk about being a 501. c. 3, that status is "aspirational" (fraudulent) and donations could not be deducted. He didn't know if HMGS SOUTH was a social club (or perhaps a continuing criminal enterprise), or whether or not it had a tax liability.

I'd have honored my commitment at a cost of around $400, plus two vendor tables, and stayed at the convention hotel. But I was saved from myself.

Ed Baldridge (who issued the call for room nights) and Leon Mason (President) had been haggling with me on an obscure corner of the web site (Members Only) started ranting that I had quit as newsletter editor. Apparently they remembered too late that they had posted on the same message boards months earlier that I had been fired without notification. Having proven themselves not only vicious liars, but transparent ones, they did what came natural. They told the webmeister that I was not to be allowed to post "for administrative reasons." Then at the meeting where I had hoped they would take action to secure the legal position of HMGS SOUTH, they instead solved a personal problem by removing me.

I was formally notified that I could not attend HMGS functions (later amended to HMGS SOUTH functions.) Since I was not there to sign for my credit card they had to pick up the tab for Paint and Take. I didn't take booths or a room at the hotel. In short, their temper tantrum and fear of being exposed as liars cost HMGS SOUTH over $500 USD and saved me a corresponding amount. In addition several customers left the convention early and came to my salt marsh factory to make their purchases, so I had the best cash flow I've had in years at a SOUTH function.

But there is hope. Of the original dysfunctional BOD that went on a temper tantrum following HURRICON 07, one member (Ray Phillips) dropped out at RECON 08. Since then Leon Mason stepped down. And recently Rickey Grice, who submitted, I think, one financial statement in his 10 years or more as treasurer, has also retired.

I commend Ray, Leon, and Rickey for what they have done to improve the governance of HMGS SOUTH. And at RAPIER I got the impression that attendance will probably pick up from 25 to 50 because of it.

Pat Condray

Historygamer, you are not paying attention. The current vote again had nothing to do with the move. Maybe future moves, maybe.
Also for my proposed "constitutional amendment" see page 1 of this thread. I have already proposed an amendment to the by-laws for membership input on future moves with a couple of exceptions. This is not written in stone and could be modified if proposed. But to propose it without some backup would be meaningless. So membership please read it and comment. If the membership thinks it's necessary then they should say so. If they don't we keep the status quo unless we are 100% certain that BOD candidates are truthful in their campaign statements. They also have to tell you their positions. And Finally- Go get em, PAT!

Hear! Hear! doug redshirt

From Pat: "Who better qualified to pass judgment on a former BOD than a Wally's Basement guy who launched the HMGS Convention program in 1983, and HISTORICON in 1984?"
Not you Pat – as evidenced by your constant selective memory and vitriolic rantings which combine to invalidate you as a fair and reasonable voice. I would like to remind everyone that Pat was privy to the "star chamber" investigations he refers to. He knew right from the beginning who did what, to what extent and what monetary values were involved, and who was innocent. (The innocents were announced for obvious reasons.) If he feels that the membership, himself included, has been so cheated these many years then he should release that information which he has long had in his possession.

From vonLondon: "The current vote again had nothing to do with the move."
I have to respectfully disagree. The East BoD made the decision to officially move Historicon to Baltimore before Cold Wars. (To be more precise about it the contract with the BCC was signed just days before Cold Wars and only 3 of the serving members were pushing for it by then.) They did not have to sign before Cold Wars and were advised by many not to. For those on the BoD wanting to move the con to BCC it was a tactic designed to negate any further membership involvement – a done deal. (The evidence is the low meeting turnout at Cold Wars and thus the weak vote count. The "done deal" pulled the rug out from any membership say in the matter) A brilliant hard core tactic perhaps but it turned out to be a political misstep; one of those three was not up for re-election. The other two who were up for re-election were defeated outright by the vote count. One was let back in by the BoD to fill a vacated seat from one of the two resignations from earlier in the spring. Rather I think it was the other way around – the move had everything to do with the vote count and the results.

I will say this – At Historicon, one of the dealers told me that HCON was moving to Baltimore. I spoke with George Nasfiger (sorry if I misspelled his name) and he knew about this. It was no mystery then.

Maybe the documents were finalized right before Cold Wars, but the board made up their mind that HCON was moving to BCC LONG before that.

LIG:

I think the board has discarded all the other sites that had been looked at.

VL – The vote was indicative of membership apathy, and that was my point you missed. Good luck with your motion. You need a second, and I suspect it is already too late to get on the agenda for Hcon as there are deadlines for such motions to give the board and membership fair warning, and inlcusion in the agenda.

Civil: While I cannot fault you for your suggestion on how to go about sensing the attendees, I seem to recall a number of past efforts at collecting information on such matters, though I thought the efforts were very faulty in how they were composed. I really don't know what your results would have indicated as you would have to offer shades of gray in such a poll, and offer a number of alternative sites. The criteria for selecting such sites kind of guaranteed the setting and city location that would be chosen, so honestly, you'd have to go back and re-examine that.

Finally – Pat is the man. :-)

Toby

You wrote:

"I would like to remind everyone that Pat was privy to the "star chamber" investigations he refers to. He knew right from the beginning who did what, to what extent and what monetary values were involved, and who was innocent. (The innocents were announced for obvious reasons.) If he feels that the membership, himself included, has been so cheated these many years then he should release that information which he has long had in his possession."

I hope that you are merely deluded and actually believe that nonsense.

I certainly had not attended or received minutes of the meetings of the BOD (less suspected Witches) in the period from 1997 through 1998 when you were in charge of the investigation, nor thereafter when Rick Egtvedt took over.

In the wake of the COLDWARS 97 fiasco you undertook a thorough investigation of that convention. You provided me, among others (including the rest of your BOD), with the results. Basically the convention director had gone stark raving nuts. Among other details, you found that he had not reported several thousand dollars of expense to the treasury. And for some weird reason he had told the Host to send some bills to Bob Coggins, who had resigned as HISTORICON Director and from the BOD following HISTORICON 94. Moreover, COLDWARS, which had been the big money maker for years, lost I think $4,900 or more.

Amended activity financial reports were actually published in the newsletter. It was also found that excluding membership dues, HISTORICOn 96 had lost money.

That was a good job on your part. You uncovered actual facts. And probably 90% of the potential irregularities were associated with the previous two or three COLDWARS-most in COLDWARS 97.

I also received from Dick Sossi, who was still the treasurer, a Quicken Disk as of April 1997 which covered expenses and income (with relatively little definition) going back a few years. The transactions were noted but not explained or categorized.

The Quicken data told me, among other things, that the month I left the BOD and the Consensus BOD of 1995-97 took over there was over $60,000 in the bank. After 18 months of "fantastic" management by the Consensus BOD, there was around $31,000 in the bank. For all that time the BOD had focused on member benefits, give away programs, and assumed that the convention program would pay all bills.

But those documents were the only ones I received concerning the witch hunt.

There were rumors. Secret evidence you would show the then President that someone had embezzled $10,000. A persistent effort was made to prove that the insanity of COLDWARS 97 represented a pattern of abuse widespread in the convention program for years. That, however, was not true.

The big loss of profitability in the post 1995 era had to do with a 200% increase in per capita staff costs which outweighed even the cancellation (by J.T. in 1995) of the air conditioning contracts that marginalized earnings from HISTORICON 93 and 94. That ratio I base on the financial statements for HISTORICON 94 compared to those of COLDWARS 96.

The witch hunt continued from 1997 through 2000 with no facts, no reports, no official word that it was over reaching the membership-including, after the two reports cited, myself. Perhaps the material I received in April 1997 was "everthing." If the rest of the witch hunts really discovered nothing, what you say may be true.

As for who was innocent, you did announce at a Membership Meeting that nothing had been found to incriminate Walter Simon or Pat Condray. That came as no surprise since the records on disk did not go back to the end of my tenure as treasurer(1988). And Unca Wally had never controlled HMGS EAST funds. Nor had he ever run a convention.

As Wally and I were the only ones I recall being found innocent (for obvious reasons) I must assume that everyone else doing useful work in HMGS EAST was guilty in your eyes?

Pat Condray

Pat speaking about me,
"That was a good job on your part. You uncovered actual facts. And probably 90% of the potential irregularities were associated with the previous two or three COLDWARS-most in COLDWARS 97."
Thought that worth repeating and will probably be the best I'll ever get out of you. I'll take it. But you don't name names either….again.
For all post 1998 affairs and "secret" determinations – since I left the Board that year – you will have to inquire about such matters from your friend Jay Hadley, particularly about this matter. He's your real target.
One error you make; immediate "operating" funds may have gotten to the low point of 31k immediately before a convention in the day-to-day account, but we always had multiple CD's to draw on if needed in other accounts. And we never had to do that. To my knowledge, and especially during my 3 years on the Board, HMGS East funds have never reached the overall low you would leave folks to believe.
See you next year when you bring this all up again, or in between times too,,,,,,,,,

PS
You still are not qualified to pass judgement on any former, or present, BoD member in my opinion.

doug redshirt 06 Jul 2009 7:46 p.m. PST
Funny I live in Kansas and have heard about the BOD looking for a new location for a number of years. …..

Oh well, my opion will mean nothing to the down with the BOD mob.

*NJH: I live in Seattle and I've also watched the BOD struggle with the issue of a new venue for some years. The pros and cons have been debated endlessly, I guess they finally decided to decide.

HG:

I agree with you that it would probably been desirable to collect opinions on a number of specific options – shades of gray as you put it. I also agree that it was probably not possible to collect this detail level.

However, this does not explain why no effort was made to collect any opinions (or, I suppose more accurately, a miserable, pathetic, half hearted effort has sort of made).

1. Do you feel that Baltimore is a good potential location for Historicon?

2. Would you be willing to accept a somewhat higher overall cost of attending to:

a. Have a larger, higher quality venue?
b. make an effort to increase the size, profile, and exposure of the convention/hobby?

If you answered yes to either a or b how much additional cost would be the maximum you consider reasonable (follow with several range bands – e.g. 1-10%, 11-20%, etc)

That would fit on half a page to be handed out at 2 or 3 cons (we keep hearing how ling this plan has been discussed) and dumped in boxes.

Very easy and inexpensive. Not complete information but certainly useful data if considering the opinions on a move.

Now I'm confused. I thought we just elected new BOD members so how could they affect the move outcome? It seems to me and if someone would definitively answer this question for me that I have asked a bunch of times on our discussions of moving HCON; if the site selection committee is LOOKING at possible move sites; how does that translate into start the negotiations? Once a negotiation is ongoing at what point is the membership notified it's ongoing- after the rumor gets out? This is the part that has led to the "secrecy" argument by some of the dissenters and I would think it could be easily cleared up by the BOD telling us how it went down. After all if they spent such a long time checking out Inner Harbor security, when were they going to tell us about it? This is the part I don't get and is constantly danced around. Just tell us. What difference is it going to make now. Now that this year's election has already affected the BOD election according to some of you here on this thread.

I cannot explain the BoD's approach, other than to say that they held a series of briefings to the membership to discuss search criteria and perhaps possible locations. I say perhaps as I didn't attend those meetings, like most didn't.

A survey is useful in gathering information, but perhaps not so much in making business decisions. For instance, it would be more useful to know what aspects of the conventions are more important (on a graded scale), say close in parking, more space, more dealer space, nicer hotels, etc. That would then help determine the search criteria and give it weighted factors (for instance, if close in parking were more important).

However, my understanding (which may be incorrect) is that the BoD was after people who had attended, and then never come back, or people who had never come to begin with. How to do survey them? You can't, and have to make a series of assumptions.

I have always said I have my reservations about the BCC (not Baltimore in particular), and that the devil will be in the details.

1. Do you feel that Baltimore is a good potential location for Historicon?

2. Would you be willing to accept a somewhat higher overall cost of attending to:

a. Have a larger, higher quality venue?
b. make an effort to increase the size, profile, and exposure of the convention/hobby?

After some of these more recent post-I'm leaning more towards maybe we are doomed!

Toby- are you going in 2010?

If the BOD strategy is to ignore and crap on the regular attendees who make the con work to chase after disinterested people who never came back then things are much worse than I thought.

foxfoxfox
Yes, God willing and the James River don't rise, I'm planning to attend as a vendor.
I'm also confirmed for Historicon 09 so
see you all next week.
Toby

Would not be the same without you- 2009 and 2010.

See you next week- I will be the one who looks like he has not slept in a couple days.

This was sent out from the HMGS Yahoo group. It appears to be from Bob Gigalo – interesting reading (NOTE – I removed most of the people in the "to" line since it contained email addresses):

From: ECWCAPTAIN@aol.com <ECWCAPTAIN@aol.com>
To: Drye, John;
Sent: Tue Jul 07 07:04:53 2009
Subject: Re: Draft Outline – Hcon 2010 PROMO NL "The BCC GREEN BOOK"

All,

I won't go into all the detail about things right now (too busy doing last minute Hcon09 things), but what is written in this is not what is needed; what is needed is NOT justification of the process (that should have been given before). What you are saying John, is basically the wrong thing to say at this point. Instead, what is needed is a REAL detailed statement of what is right about the site the *Board* chose and why they were led to believe it will work.

However, if you study the criteria that is listed in this document, the BCC doesn't actually some of that criteria. For example, the biggest foul is parking. Just look at what is written about the parking criteria, and that is a big lie (or mis-statement, if you will :). How did BCC pass the criteria in paid parking and have 1,000 spaces within a quarter mile? [We're talking about the main lot -- not the hotels -- being at Oriole Park, parking lot C, which is about a half mile from the entrance to Pratt Street Lobby.] The lack of parking around the site (adjacent) leads to a MAJOR problem with the GM load in, as well as the Flea load in, which leads to requirement for more "good, able bodied, able to move things" staff (which we don't have), more hotel rooms, more vouchers, etc.

More later, but has all of the BoD actually seriously studied all the details and ramifications of this move yet?

Regards,

Bob

Just like they thought about Timonium.

Gee… when there is internal annoyance of the deal and the BoD dropping the ball (parking & hotels etc.) you KNOW something smells in all of this. Some one did a 'boo-boo'. And what have we been saying all along… parking and hotels?! Duh.

"The lack of parking around the site (adjacent) leads to a MAJOR problem with the GM load in, as well as the Flea load in, which leads to requirement for more "good, able bodied, able to move things" staff (which we don't have), more hotel rooms, more vouchers, etc.

More later, but has all of the BoD actually seriously studied all the details and ramifications of this move yet?"

Toby

I've never failed to give credit for your efforts to find out what happened to COLDWARS 97. If it didn't name names there is is out of respect for the general principle "De mortibus nil nisi bonum."

But let's get real. You say that my before and after treasury status for the Consensus BOD is flawed for two reasons:

1.It was at a different point in the revenue cycle. However, it was the status after HISTORICON 95 and the status after COLDWARS 97. You investigation revealed not only that COLDWARS 97 lost money, but that HISTORICON 9 lost money.

2. It didn't matter. Because there was money left over, and besides, HMGS EAST had CDs, and didn't have to go out of business.

That last indicates a mental disorder of major proportions. Your CONSENSUS BOD didn't wake up to the problems with the treasury and convention program until COLDWARS 97 made it obvious to anyone with a quarter of a brain. Losing 49% of a treasury which had been accumulated over the years by the much maligned "Old Guard" was OK because there was 51% left.

Sounds like Dave Bonk's proud assertion that while HISTORICON lost 30% of its attendance during the reign of the CYA BOD, so what! It was still a good convention.

So the proudest achievement of the CONSENSUS and CYA BODs was a loss of 49% of the treasury and 30% of HISTORICON attendance respectively.

Well, I guess that was the best you oculd do.

Pat

"If the BOD strategy is to ignore and crap on the regular attendees who make the con work to chase after disinterested people who never came back then things are much worse than I thought."

There is some method to the madness of trying to get past attendees to come back on a more permanent basis. But it begs the question, why didn't they come back? Perhaps as many answers as there were people, but clearly, for some, the Host was the issue. Add to that the out of space problems and you have some compelling reasons to want to move. But then that leads you to the question – where to go?

The problem is that if the BCC does not work out, then that question becomes valid again. But who knows what the options will be in 2011 when the board starts looking again. In the mean time, I hope they come up with solutions to the problems the BCC will have – noting all facilities have problems to overcome, including the Host.

The still unresolved issues with the hotels and parking (and MORE) were the very reasons that Don Manser said he voted against the move when he was on the BoD. He felt it should have been cleared up in writing before the contract with the BCC was signed.

Pat & Toby
Your tet-a-tet has nothing to do with this thread. Don't know the latin Pat so I'll try French. Is there anyone in HMGS land or on this thread that still cares about what happened or didn't happen over eleven years ago?

"More later, but has all of the BoD actually seriously studied all the details and ramifications of this move yet?"

No, they haven't. Hence the problem.

"There is some method to the madness of trying to get past attendees to come back on a more permanent basis."

I wouldn't argue against that. However I would argue against subordinating the wishes of loyal attendees in the vague, undefined hopes of luring back people who were so lukewarm in their interest that they never came back before.
I think the BOD feels that regular attendees will come no matter what they do so it is ok to ignore them. This is inappropriate conduct, whether or not technically allowable per the bylaws.

Buddy Boy 2

HMGS is not the corporation to entertain the idea that anything 11 years old doesn't matter and must be ignored.

The period from 1995-2000 involved cyclic behavior which, though not as disasterously, has been repeated in the history of the corporation since.

Basically, the new government that took over in 1995 had become accustomed to assuming that there was more money coming in from the convention program than any idiots could possibly spend.

Then the director of COLDWARS 97 proved them wrong. They went into a cover your ass mode and spent three years trying to blame their predecessors.

Since then the BOD took off on the great Timonium adventure confident that the money coming in was enough to cover anything. The even spent thousands on the "Theme From Hell" (crusades etc.)

Predictably the confusion of money with the fecal matter of whales led to problems. When the $22,000 loss on Timonium caused a $4,000 negative cash flow for FY04 there was another simple minded panic followed by a wave of cost increases.

The cycle is "money is no object" followed by "the sky is falling."

In 2005 the BOD raised prices to accumulate a quarter of a million in the treasury as cash reserves. That seems to have made them feel so secure that this year they actually budgeted for a $21,000 loss (it is in the published budget.)

And that is without Timonium II (the Next Level in Baltimore.)

It isn't ancient history. It is a clear and present danger.

Pat Condray

Condray,

First, how ironic that you seem to be critical of the "director of COLD WAR 97"…where were you when the aformentioned individual passed away and there was something approaching a deification of the man at the last couple of East Conventions??? I found it unseemly because it reflected an attempt to rewrite an unfortunate chapter in East history but your were silent.

Second, I'll try and respond, once again, to your mispresentation of history,

"And you were so self important about your role in the fiasco that when you were asked to send a check to the custodian of the left over MILITARY FORUM publications.
You reduced the amount of the check you were supposed to send, prompting the custodian to dispose of the material and return the check."

Here is the real story. Longtime East members will remember the Military Forum, which was the brainchild of a couple of academics who apparently used it to pad their publishing resume…it was a series of articles and book reviews that focused on military history, very little of it of interest to East members. East underwrote the cost of publishing the Forum, I think starting out either quarterly, then perhaps twice a year. At first East charged a modest fee but then when we couldn't sell it we offered it free…even at that price no one wanted it and we had hundreds of backissues siting in the basement of one of the editors.

In an effort to make the Forum more relevant we told the editors that in order for East to continue funding the Forum we would like to have a hand in the editorial decisions about what was to be included in the publication. To our surprise the editors threw a fit and rejected any outside oversight. At that point the BoD told them we could not continue underwriting the Forum. In a fit of pique the editor in possession of the back issues told us that we needed to take possession of the back issues or he would dispose of them. We determined that the cost of mailing was excessive and the value of the Forum didn't support any further investment. To whit, I hope they were at least recycled.

As far as I can remember there was no check sent in any amount for the back issues, but we did pay for the last issue of the Forum, which I believe we told the editors not to publish until we resolved this issue and they ignored us and got it printed anyways…the final issue might have exceeded the adopted budget and we refused to pick up the overrun.

"The FORUM, by the way, was a valuable program, a symbiotic relationship between HMGS, which claims to promote historical miniatures gaming and the study of military history, and academic historians who need to publish instead of perish"

Pat, I'm surprised…for being such a budget watchdog how you could possibly support throwing money down the drain for a "symbolic relationship" that was dysfunctional…the Forum was worthless in its final form, we couldn't give the darn thing away and only benefited two academic historians. How far the mighty have fallen.

db

I see Pat has taken his usual low road to name calling. It's very sad but not surprising as it has always been one of his poorer tactics. I don't have any mental disorders, but both Pat and I shall promise to take our meds and take a mental health day off from this thread.
db good luck – I hand him off to you.

Well some of the past losses and the price increases really woke me up since the price increases affect me directly, but the tie in lies with the Timonium move in that a group of our members have stated in articles in MWAN just before its demise, I don't buy the new rag, stated that we could do much better in bigger facilities, make more money, have better attendance and sleep in better hotel rooms. To me this is an elitist attitude and the attitude of a small number of people, some of whom are movers and shakers in this organization no doubt. So we can accept the more is better approach and really go with it; it hasn't worked so far if past history is an indication; or we attempt to appeal to our own membership with fair fees and prices and 3 nice cons a year. I think overall since I have been attending, they have all been nice cons almost w/o exception. It's funny but the two that were the least attractive to me were the two around the Baltimore area. Things improved greatly when we moved to PA in my opinion. I'm not going to predict Baltimore. I'm going to go and have a good time. Perhaps it will be a very nice con which is all I ask. Oh and fair prices too. Thanks.

For what it's worth, I remember getting at least one survey on moving Historicon, what I was looking for in parking, airports etc. and attending at least two meetings covering the results of both the surveys and how those compared to actual sites at Fall-In and/or Cold Wars.

The announcement of the move did come as a surprise but if the BOD truly wanted to dodge the issue, the announcement would have been made right after Cold Wars and not right before which allowed for plenty of face to face fussing.

There are some things I really like about the move such as airport proximity and the location amenities (Inner Harbor), some I could care less about (cost of hotel room) and some that are probably a real problem (parking, cost to the dealers) and a few that are just red herrings or silly such as fear of crime (it's a city, there are people not your color, grow up) but all in all, I'll give the BCC and the BOD that chose to institute the move a shot. If HCon doesn't work, I will wholeheartedly support a move somewhere else in 2012.

I would have to agree with db (see, I am open minded) about the Forum. I am a huge history wonk, down in the weeds type. I never attended any of these and really don't see much benefit from a tie in with the academic community -other than the obvious "it supports military history" thing. Personally, I like wargaming for its own experience and don't need it to do that – though sometimes it does. But the forum is dead so why beat on it now? Better left alone.

I would point out to all the price conscious that $5 USD of your dues are directly roped off and go to an untouchable history education fund that has never been realized. If you want to reduce prices, start by doing away with this, or at least allow it to go to the general account of HMGSE to be spent with the rest of the dues money.

One other thing on the idea of military history. In case you hadn't noticed, but a number of states are slashing their budgets and throwing their military historical parks to the wolves. Monmouth almost went last year, and PA just dumped a bunch, including Fort Pitt Museum, Bushy Run Battlefield, Flagship Niagara, and Brandywine. A lot more significant than anything contemplated here. :-(

Gee, with all this infighting, it's no wonder nothing ever gets done! I really am considering canceling my membership and boycotting conventions. I've attended almost every Historicon since 1984, missing perhaps 4 or 5 over the years. I am getting really sick of all this . I thought I left people exhibiting this type of behavior when I graduated High School. Politics does not belong in gaming. It's supposed to be recreational, not confrontational.

Historygamer…perhaps we can disagree on the following and get back into our comfort zones.

One of the pet projects I brought to the BoD when first elected but was unable to follow up on was to focus the East "education" effort on combining military history with what we do best, which is miniatures. I still believe the BoD should provide funding for the development of diorama's at battlefield/historic sites. First among the various motivations I had to become interested in miniatures and wargaming were the diorama's I saw at various museums.

Sadly the art of diorama's fell into disrepute in the 70's-90's and even now they tend to gravitate to the lifesize scenes, which if done correctly, like the ones at the USMC musesum, are great but limited in scope.

I think a well done diorama can both educate and motivate. To do it right you've got to spend money and that's where East could help. Pick a project and provide funding over a 2-3 year period and then move on to the next one. The funding agreement would require that the historic site agree to identify East as the funder and provide promotional information to the public on East. Over time if we sprinkle diorama's along the East Coast we do ourselved a great deal of good.

ALternatively, as you point out several sites are having funding problems. I saw a story a couple of weeks ago about the D Day site at Bedford, VA. It is privately funded and facing problems…why not have East partner with that site or a similar site and provide some funding in exchange for exposure.

db

db:

Like you I love a good diorama (it is why I enjoy looking at your games too!), and like you, I agree they have fallen into disuse at museums, probably for a variety of reasons, and perhaps with some studies behind them. I am not sure, but I suspect so.

Museums rightly also want to jump on the bandwagon of using cutting edge technology, especially interactive, computer, and video, as such exhibits tend to be more alive and… interactive.

To build upon your idea, the VA Military History Museum now partners with the Company of Military Historians and houses their uniform collection – a worthwhile endeavor. The museum gets to display some of the most outstanding historical uniforms in existance, while the CMH gets to permanently house and display what it has acquired over the years instead of storing it away somewhere out of sight. The downside to this is that the museum is off the beaten path in Norfolk, and I have no idea what their gate is a year, nor what shape they are in financially.

As you know, we have no national military museum, such as Canada and the UK have. Shame on us.

I think your idea has merrit, but the question would become which museum do you support? I don't know, but it is worth exploring, and yes, perhaps even a diorama could be "donated." I seem to recall gazing at one in Ottowa a number of years ago inside a replica of a Normandy beach bunker, looking out over the invasion. On an aside, I seem to recall seeing something someone sent me on Utube, on the making of an "invasion scene" using something like four soldiers shot multiple times and thru the magic of video editing it appears like Omaha Beach – thousands of men, not just three or four. It was jaw dropping and far out did any still diorama I could think of.

Also, having been to the new museum in Gettygburg, I recall them being short on dioramas, and more so on uniform displays, hands on stuff (always a nice touch), and the new Cyclorama sound and light show (spectacular). I think they finally did away with the old electric map that explained the battle so well in an entertaining fashion, in favor of a video narrated by Morgan Freeman. It was impressive too.

So to recap my wanderings here, I too grew up on dioramas, but think they have been overtaken by newer technologies that appeal more to today's audiences. I still like the dioramas though. :-)

Dave

"First, how ironic that you seem to be critical of the "director of COLD WAR 97"…where were you when the aformentioned individual passed away and there was something approaching a deification of the man at the last couple of East Conventions??? I found it unseemly because it reflected an attempt to rewrite an unfortunate chapter in East history but your were silent."

Your Latin really is quite deficient. "De mortibus nil nisi bonum" means, based on my rather rusty High School Latin, "Speak only good of the dead." Now you are getting bent out of shape because I failed to rant and rave against a man when his friends and family were newly bereaved.

"Second, I'll try and respond, once again, to your mispresentation of history,"

"Here is the real story. Longtime East members will remember the Military Forum, which was the brainchild of a couple of academics who apparently used it to pad their publishing resume…it was a series of articles and book reviews that focused on military history, very little of it of interest to East members. East underwrote the cost of publishing the Forum, I think starting out either quarterly, then perhaps twice a year. At first East charged a modest fee but then when we couldn't sell it we offered it free…even at that price no one wanted it and we had hundreds of backissues siting in the basement of one of the editors.

In an effort to make the Forum more relevant we told the editors that in order for East to continue funding the Forum we would like to have a hand in the editorial decisions about what was to be included in the publication. To our surprise the editors threw a fit and rejected any outside oversight."

Dave, one feature of the FORUM which made it both a worthwhile HMGS Educational project and valuable for the publish or perish crowd was genuine peer review by qualified academics.

Having the material reviewed and edited by a group of infantile and demented, not to mention incompetent witch finders would have made a bad joke out of it.

" At that point the BoD told them we could not continue underwriting the Forum. In a fit of pique the editor in possession of the back issues told us that we needed to take possession of the back issues or he would dispose of them. We determined that the cost of mailing was excessive and the value of the Forum didn't support any further investment. To whit, I hope they were at least recycled."

As I understood things, the BOD had told you to pay the man what he called for, and you lowered it unilaterally. But to be honest, contrary to Mr. Barrett's claim, I didn't and still don't have the details on the inner workings of the dysfunctional CYA BOD.

"Pat, I'm surprised…for being such a budget watchdog how you could possibly support throwing money down the drain for a "symbolic relationship" that was dysfunctional…the Forum was worthless in its final form, we couldn't give the darn thing away and only benefited two academic historians. How far the mighty have fallen."

From 1995 until 1997 the CONSENSUS BOD pursued a feel good program which had nothing to do with promoting the hobby or the study of military history. It was a scholarship program budgeted at $6,000 a year which provided money for a member or dependant of a member to study any thing-basket weaving, rocket science, whatever. The FORUM, on the other hand, provided a respecatable scholarly program which could, when properly distributed, represent HMGS goals in libraries and on campuses all over the country. It was originally done annually at COLDWARS. At some point it was being done at both CW and HISTORICON. It cost from 10% to 20% of the bill for the CBOD's randomized member benefit.

Killing the MILITARY FORUM because the convention program had lost a couple and the scholarship was a misconcieved boondoggle is typical of the "Drunken Sailor" school of financial management followed by "the sky is falling."

By HISTORICON 97 the problem was over. I asked Dick Sossi a few questions about costs, and based on my knowledge of the finances of conventions, I told Dick Sossi that we should clear between $7,000 and $8,000. At the SCRUBY banquet (for Phil Barker) I asked Dick "are we out of the red ink?" to which he replied in the affirmative. At the NOVAG convention the following month J.T. told me I was right on the money (he must have heard my estimate from Sossi) we had cleared $7,900."

In short, the financial crisis had been solved before you nut cases went into the panic mode.

Pat

I rest my case.

I rest my case

John for the win.

I do absolutely agree with Pat that the scholarship program was a waste of money, no matter how well intentioned. To point:

1. One did not have to be a history major to get the money

2. It benefitted few, not many, which should not be the point of HMGSE as it should always go for a wide audience/benefit/visiblity.