"Should entire HMGS BOD resign for an election now?" Topic

What is the level of trust in the current BOD?

If it were not for the possibility that fixing the BCC situation requires action right now, it might be a good gesture for the entire BOD to offer their resignations so that there can be a new election in a short time frame.

Sorry for the wording of the subject but there aren't enough characters allowed to write a proper sentence.

Would it end the ceaseless whining!?!?

Who knows, if we fix this, health care reform would be a breeze!

No.

Probably not, but likely a new and different set of people would be doing the whining.

You are kidding, right? For 10 years we've seen one incompetent, well meaning, nonentity after another get elected to the BoD or get appointed to fill a seat quit by some other nonentity. They get there like deer in the headlights, shocked to find there is actual work expected of them and stumble along through their two year term -- or they bail early and yet another nonentity is appointed. Is it any wonder that Major Pete could lead them around by the nose without any of them asking hard questions.

Now you want to chuck this batch out and start over. What in the world makes you think that there are seven people out there who ARE competent AND willing to mount their chargers and ride to the rescue. And no, having shrieked and whined about BCC is not a guarantee of competence. Not that any of the chronic whiners is likely to show any willingness to step up and actually do something.

iPat

iPat, you're onto something.

Imagine a world where whining ceased and the energy was transformed into action! Now that would be something!

I'd like to at least see it turn into painting :)….

NO

I haven't been happy with a number of things done in recent years, but that's a silly idea. Whose gonna run an election if the room is emptied??

Whatever adjustments need to be made for HMGS-E to get through the convention season of 2010 will need to be made by the people recently placed in charge. I can't imagine additional persons jumping in late being able to do anything other than throw their hands up in the air.

Edit-I also wanted to add that a majority of the current BoD had nothing to do with the decisions that led to where things are today.

No

No.
From and administrative consultant hat, Maybe changes to board guidelines on purpose, oversight and etc.

Maybe the board should expanded in number to prevent a domination by a few. It would also give more input from members.

Maybe the board should expanded in number to prevent a domination by a few. It would also give more input from members.

There was a proposal of moving from 7 to 9 BoD members if anyone remembers the 9 Nazgul Ringwraiths references from a few years back. There were several reasons against it at the time, but for the life of me I can't remember them at the moment.

Maybe several geographic representatives, to be subject matter experts on what it takes for people their locality to attend a con at a particular location, or their ability to host a con.

NO.

Good God, what is the issue, not enough figures to paint to occupy your time?

Let it rest buddy.

If you were at Fall In you heard some information from the revised BOD which as I recall has been repeated here on TMP.

I will reiterate: There are already several changes to the members of the BOD and a switch of positions. Members have been told that we will have news about Historicon by the end of the month. Once that problem is dealt with, they will move to the issues with CW and Fall In. Based on what I heard, I am willing to give the members of the new BOD the benefit of the doubt as they continue to try to unravel and correct the current situation. As far as I am concerned, it is quite an unenviable position.

If anyone thinks they can do a better job they should run for the BOD.

I am not sure what the issue is with elected club positions. You tend to have some that do a majority of the heavy lifting, a few that keep to themselves and only perform their own specific responsibilities and a few that actually do very little. In most cases this does not cause any problems (not desired but OK) but couple that with a double check system for major decisions that isn't working and it can become a problem.

Here come Bod

Big bad Bod. [/bass voice]

No. It's hard enough to get anyone to run. At least they CARE. From the news form Fall-In, at least they have seen the light. Well, some kind of light.
It's like the argunemt against term linits. Do you want a dog who knows where the bones are buried, or do you want a new dog who will dig up your yard?

I would rather have a BOD who want to clean up a mess, than one with a new agenda.

"From the news form Fall-In, at least they have seen the light. Well, some kind of light."

That's the thing, I think it's even less clear what's going on. As I posted on another thread:

The truth is, nobody knows what's going on. We don't know what the issues are with the contracts. Only the BoD knows what was allegedly promised. Some can assume the BoD decided to can the BCC because of costs (or an upset membership), but it could very well be driven by the personal choices of the new directors as well.

If it's a simple matter of breach of contract as the BoD suggests, I would be hard-pressed to figure out why a change of venue would be better than a renegotiation. If they change the venue, they are potentially on the line for twice as much money. I mean, let's say you're buying a house and the parties disagree about the oral agreement on the addition of stairs, would you then go ahead and enter into another contract to buy another house? Probably not, you'll eat the $500 USD USD or so for a few stairs, or split the cost. As far as I know, the decisions that are supposedly being made on alleged issues that nobody knows about is just making things worse.

As a result, the anti-BCC camp, as the OFM suggested in another thread, believes that the BoD is finally coming to its senses, being fiscally conservative and listening to the membership. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. When I see it, I'll believe it.

Steve (who is hoping that Historicon is just as good as last year)

Then again the assumption of the ant-BCC is all screwed up. and the bod are making very responsible choices.

Rich

Yes, as already mentioned, there are four new members, versus three debacle members on the BoD. There is only one that I think should have resigned altogether rather than just step down as president only to be reassigned on the BoD. The person most responsible for the fiasco should be the one who goes – not the people who were duped by him. If they don't demonstrate that they've learned something from that, then they can be ousted in the next election.

What did grandmother used to say about a new broom?

I've got to say that would be a new one for me, Allen.

Steve

If it were not for the possibility that fixing the BCC situation requires action right now, it might be a good gesture for the entire BOD to offer their resignations so that there can be a new election in a short time frame.

After the meeting at Historicon, that's exactly how I felt. I walked out of the members meeting feeling disgusted. Nobody had facts – just a bunch of… Ummm… I think…. I'm not sure…. look at the pretty pictures.

After Fall In, however, I felt better about BoD. More direct answers. I think they might be able to actually get us out of the disaster that is BCC.

I'm opposed to any special elections because they cost money, and would potentially introduce a whole new cast of characters to an already confused situation. Give the folks there now a chance to screw up, or succeed, and take it from there next election cycle.

we are dooommmmed!

Thing is, as members, we elected the BOD to do the work of the club. They told us that there are legal issues right now that preclude them saying much until the end of the month when it will all be resolved. I guess if one really wants the full picture all the time one needs to run for the BOD and win a seat at the table. Personally I am willing to wait and see what comes of it. There is a certain amount of privacy required to run any organization.

If a cancelation of the BCC contract is what is being negotiated, anyone with experience with professional convention centers knows that the contracts are pretty ironclad. If it isn't written in the contract, it doesn't exist. If the con is moved, I am sure HMGSE will owe a bunch of money. I think that the difficulty for the BOD is weighing that cancelation penalty vs going forward and having poor attendance and a larger financial obligation. Obviously, if the con is moved, the potential for a good con at least helps the club treasury recover some of the hit it will take on a BCC move.

As some others said above, I too felt better than before after the words from the new president and BOD members. We may actually be seeing a new era of openness which would be refreshing.

No. I've seem more communication in the past three days than the past two years, why on earth screw that up?

>If anyone thinks they can do a better job they should run for the BOD.

It follows that they should have that opportunity ASAP.

Seems some people think they have never made any mistakes in their lives….

The worst possible thing to do now to HMGS would be to decapitate the leadership. At least they know wnat happened. Would you replace them with people who haven't a clue as to what happened? That would be foolhardy in the extreme.

">If anyone thinks they can do a better job they should run for the BOD.

It follows that they should have that opportunity ASAP.'

PBN, interesting coming from someone who doesn't even have their name in their profile or sign their posts. Must be nice to hide behind a curtain and throw mud.

Are you even a member of HMGSE?
Did you go to Fall In?

Please give it a rest.

Real simple on this one!

There are currently only 3 members who were on the BOD prior to H-Con, and the elections. One was reelected, one was appointed to fill a vacancy just prior to the elections, and the third is a Lame Duck! The rest were either elected in the latest elections, or recently appointed to fill the numerous vacancies resulting from resignations!

I think you're a little late on this one!!

And getting re-elected in a special election would prove that the membership approves of them. No carping allowed afterwards.

Seems some people think they have never made any mistakes in their lives….

And some never have made mistakes, having never done anything.

iPat

And getting re-elected in a special election would prove that the membership approves of them. No carping allowed afterwards.

"No carping allowed."
What a dreamer!

iPat

"And getting re-elected in a special election would prove that the membership approves of them. No carping allowed afterwards."

You mean the 5 people in the membership that actually get off their butts and vote?

How about we first make a rule that no member of HMGS can complain about the BoD, Convention Directors, Conventions, etc unless they actually vote. . .

No that's a dream, iPat!

>How about we first make a rule that no CITIZEN can complain about ANYTHING unless they actually vote. . .
>

Fixed your typos

How about let's get familiar with the HMGS Bylaws so you know what the hell you can do or not do with or to the BOD. It is obvious that some past BOD members took full advantage of the situation and others flubbed it. Let's get educated and read the bylaws, including myself. Let's have a discussion once in a while on which bylaws do what for the membership and which give full advantage to BOD members.
Then I think we all can ask some make them shiver in their boots questions at meetings and we won't seem like a bunch of hicks at a carnival. And oh yeah, let's attend a few meetings en masse and make them shiver in their boots.

That would be more than 20 or 30 members. Let them start looking at 10-1 odds.

Nope, 21 "members" could steal the organization if they wanted to. The trick is getting 40 members to the meeting to begin with (and that includes board so figure 33 attendees outside the board).
VR
James Mattes

At Historicon, there may have been 30 members, I don't know for sure but the BOD, the Convention Directors, and the committee chairmem almost outnumbered us.

Also, everyone should reacquaint themselves with the following definitions:

Representative Democracy
Democracy

Then ask yourself, "Which definition fits the leadership structure of the HMGS East?"

What vonLoudon is suggesting, however, that more people read the Bylaws and attend meetings, is a good idea, no?

>let's attend a few meetings en masse and make them shiver in their boots.

Right. I've elsewhere suggested the meeting be 2-4 PM on Saturday in the Distelfink, with the dealer area closed. Force them to do their duty.

Eh why not. We'll get the same number of complaints regarding the new BOD actions as the present one, so at least the names will change (presumably).

Yes.

I don't understand where you chaps get this notion that the "new" BOD is any more open or forthcoming than the old one was.
Once again, a recap:
In the first dealer meeting at Fall In, we were told that HMGS lawyers were deployed, but when I asked specifically what for, all they would say was that there was a dispute with the BCC. They refused to describe the issue and what was at stake.
In the second dealer meeting at Fall In, we were told (ironically enough) that if we had any questions, we should not hesitate to ask.
We were told that the magic day of truth is November 23. On that day we are supposed to learn what the issue is, but don't hold your breath.
Meet the new BOD, same as the old BOD.

At the risk of violating the current prohibition on repeating stuff from the official site…

Wait. Nothing in this discussion is from the official site. In addition, what I'm posting here has to do with the ByLaws in the various forms they have taken since 1995.

You can no longer get control of HMGS EAST by packing a membership meeting. The best you can do, if a majority of the members present disagree with the elected BOD (well, the mostly appointed BOD at this point) is compel a referendum of the entire membership by mail.

But that doesn't make any difference at this point. There will be no membership meeting until COLDWARS 2010. At that point there will be nominations for the election, and the next BOD will take office until HISTORICON 2010-provided such a convention is held.

I don't want to give away the farm here Pat and I am generally staying away from HMGS and posts so email me off list and I will tell you what I am afraid will / could happen one of these days at either CW or Hcon.
VR
James Mattes

>Meet the new BOD, same as the old BOD.

Careful, you are infringing on the lyrics to a Who song !

Sounds like you guys need a few hanging chads or something

James Mattes: "Nope, 21 "members" could steal the organization if they wanted to. The trick is getting 40 members to the meeting to begin with (and that includes board so figure 33 attendees outside the board)."

Anything's possible but it wouldn't be quite that simple. Per HMGS bylaws the only motions that can be made from the floor – and that's only at the Annual Meeting of Members (open mike session during new business) – are procedural motions which can only a) mandate Board action on something (That is, demand the Board address something, NOT demand a particular action be taken on it) or b) mandate a corporation-wide referendum on some topic within 90 days (which, by definition, opens the motion up to the entire membership). Any other actions would need to appear in the meeting notice sent to the membership pre-meeting.

It would be possible for those 21, by appropriately announcing their cunning plan to the membership in the meeting notice, to "steal" the organization in some manner (at either Historicon or at Cold Wars in this case) but I suspect it wouldn't be likely because for every cabal with an agenda in HMGS, if they're given advanced notice (like publishing something in the meeting notice) another cabal will rise to oppose them.

Check out Article IV on hmgs.org/bylaws.htm

- Bill Rutherford