"Should Panzeri resign from the HMGS BOD?" Topic

I asked a simple yes/no question, with room for "because…"

The amount of vitriol spewed at me by persons who indicate they are part of the HMGS bureaucracy is informative.

Yet another reason ancients tournaments are not my cup of tea.

………. Hey Historygamer … At Cold Wars come on down to the tournament room and I'll change your mind.

Mike B

He said that one of the issues to be addressed by HMGS was scale creep among figure makers.

They have certainly been derelict in THAT duty, haven't they? Off with their heads!

The amount of vitriol spewed at me by persons who indicate they are part of the HMGS bureaucracy is informative.

"They have crucified me. Thay have villified me. They have even CRITICIZED me!"
Hon. Richard Daley, Hizzoner da Mayor of Chicago

Well, I for one have never been part of the HMGS bureaucracy.
I still want to know what your agenda is. Martyrdom? picture

Jim, you can enter into the debate if you wish.

I won't since I was there (along with other reprobates,
ne'er-do-wells, misfits and grumpy gamers) and
perhaps have a quite different understanding of the
reasons for organizing than others may.

The charter of which you write indeed contains that
language.

And it isn't the original.

Perhaps a better question to pose than "should Pete go" might be what sort of conduct should lead to a member of the BOD being ejected? Not what the charter of the organization says, but what do you, individually, believe?

Rick Caras is correct. Nobody posting to this really knows what happened. This process should play out, and, fortunately, without Pete as president, he cannot control what is done in the way of investigation and action upon what turns up, so the confidence we can have in the outcome should be pretty high. We already have seen the hmgs yahoo group become open and unmoderated again -- as soon as Pete stopped controlling it. No doubt a coincidence.

I do not conflate this with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That is a unique paradigm strictly limited to criminal prosecutions, where the government seeks to deny a citizen his liberty. Rather, I suggest it is unreasonable and foolish to go off half-cocked, since there is an ongoing investigation.

Now the kicker. I suggest, however, that this construct applies most especially to the ignorant or willfully blind among the prior posters to this thread, who either refuse to acknowledge the damage that Pete has wrought in the past, in nearly tearing HMGS asunder in the exercise of his ego, which prior conduct tracks the very rumors about what has happened this time. What, a half dozen persons, lacking any information whatsoever, or worse, having heard only Pete's side, leapt to his defense. My personal favorite was the one about knowing Pete in high school and he was OK there. Are you kidding anyone but yourself? That was the '80s, or before, and means exactly what?

No, if there are persons out there who truly care about HMGS, and therefore the health of the hobby in the US, they appear to be sparsely represented here. Unfortunately, this kind of unreasoning affirmation of Pete is exactly tht which could lead to further similar conduct, which could have led to the problems we are seeing. Who knows, yet?

I am sure the Pete-puppets will again leap to his defense and defame me as they did PBN, but that does not change the facts, which will come out.

But that's all OK, because he seemed like a nice guy. Well, I hear tell that George McClellan was a crackerjack businessman in the 1850s, and Sam Grant was a failure before 1861. Well, hell, lets get that McClellan guy. And the troops love him too.

So, I ask, what would incline you to demand a BOD member be removed? Would any or all of these suffice for you?

1 spending HMGS funds without authorization
2 spending HMGS funds beyond authorization levels
3 spending HMGS funds on personal items and travel, and in excess of authorization
4 failing to follow BOD directives to negotiate contracts
5 failing to provide contracts to the BOD for review
6 misrepresenting the existence of contracts
7 misrepresenting the contents of contracts
8 misrepresenting the contents of negotiations/discussions
9 failing to get crucial contract terms in writing
10 failing to heed BOD requests for information
11 deliberately misrepresenting and misstating other venue parameters, so as to focus positive attention on a specific venue
12 signing contracts on behalf of HMGS without BOD authorization and
13 without a second BOD member's signature
14 refusal to consult with the designated BOD member who was to be participating in the search and negotiation process
15 accepting gifts or items of value, personally, from the other parties in negotiations while engaged in negotiations with them and without notice to the BOD (shorthand version: accepting inducements, also known as bribes)
16 entering contracts on behalf of HMGS which contain clauses which could lead to penalties measured in the tens of thousands ($10,000s) of dollars in the event of breach or cancellation
17 deliberately withholding information from convention officials regarding the above -- negotiations, contracts, terms, costs
18 deliberately misrepresenting information, etc, as in #17
19 deliberately ingoring input from the convention officials relative to costs, contract terms, etc.

Are any of these enough for you? How many? How about all of them?

Now, who knows what happened? But, any reasonable person who has watched Pete in action over time would have little trouble forecasting that these might well be issues, as their existence would track his prior conduct and consistent elevation of self over society. So we should wait to see what happened, and should keep an open mind when it comes time to analyze what the facts are and what they mean. Without facts, we cannot accuse anyone of anything, nor should we. Just remember this includes accusations of innocence as well as guilt, and we should all be prepared to confront with an open mind what we will eventually find out.

Choosing to ignore history is to repeat its mistakes, and the "Pete is a mensch" crowd is doing nothing else. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt, based upon his history, but am prepared to wait to see what the facts are. BUT I DO ASK, if the facts do suggest the litany of woes set forth above is true, in whole or in part, will the pre-apologists come back here and start a new thread? I have a proposed title: How does mea culpa taste?

When will the "draft Condray" campaign start?

Right now. Draft Condray!!!

Ed:

I would most likely agree with your ideas on what it is really about (wargaming with historical miniatures), but I didn't write the charter either. :-)

Mike:

Actually, I like the ancients period. Always had an interest in Rome. But, I am such a history wonk, tournament rules don't work for me because they don't look like what the battles looked like (I feel the same about FoW). If there is a Marian legion on the table, I want to see 10 cohorts, with supporting auxiliaries. I understand what you guys do, think it is great you are there and having fun. Whatever floats your boat. My take is that PBN is an angry tournament guy, who apparently thinks he has a score to settle. Not sure why he feels that way, so perhaps he can explain himself, as he has started a gazillion threads attacking HMGSE and its members.

In regards to other accusations, I don't know all the details, but I will say that at any given time there were seven members of the BoD, who all volunteered to do the job, and each of them should be held accountable, whether they resigned or not. To say one person could run rampart conveniently ignores the fact of the other six, or excuses their lack of due diligence.

I guess we'll see what happens and I hope for the best for all of us, including our tournament friends.

Captain Danjou 16 Nov 2009 5:57 p.m. PST
Perhaps a better question to pose than "should Pete go" might be what sort of conduct should lead to a member of the BOD being ejected? Not what the charter of the organization says, but what do you, individually, believe?

*NJH: The Bylaws of the organization (and the law of the land) are the only devices whereby a person may be removed from the BOD. People can't be wished off the board.

Rick Caras is correct. Nobody posting to this really knows what happened. This process should play out, and, fortunately, without Pete as president, he cannot control what is done in the way of investigation and action upon what turns up, so the confidence we can have in the outcome should be pretty high.

*NJH: So it's time for the HMGSE routine of "round up the usual suspects," or the "we're shocked, shocked to learn of such behavior," or the periodic "witch-hunt" that consumes resources but produces no results, or the perfunctory "we'll investigate and determine the facts." None of these routines have ever been conducted or concluded with any degree of confidence. If the President did what he is accused of doing, then why should I expect those folks who were asleep at the wheel to confess their own complicity in the excesses?

We already have seen the hmgs yahoo group become open and unmoderated again -- as soon as Pete stopped controlling it. No doubt a coincidence.

*NJH: Just wait, it will be bricked up again.

I do not conflate this with the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That is a unique paradigm strictly limited to criminal prosecutions, where the government seeks to deny a citizen his liberty. Rather, I suggest it is unreasonable and foolish to go off half-cocked, since there is an ongoing investigation.

*NJH: I quite agree, however, I have no confidence in the results of any investigation (witch-hunt).

Now the kicker. I suggest, however, that this construct applies most especially to the ignorant or willfully blind among the prior posters to this thread, who either refuse to acknowledge the damage that Pete has wrought in the past, in nearly tearing HMGS asunder in the exercise of his ego, which prior conduct tracks the very rumors about what has happened this time.

*NJH: Facts?

What, a half dozen persons, lacking any information whatsoever, or worse, having heard only Pete's side, leapt to his defense. My personal favorite was the one about knowing Pete in high school and he was OK there. Are you kidding anyone but yourself? That was the '80s, or before, and means exactly what?

*NJH: Why savage a man before he has been decreed guilty of any offense?

No, if there are persons out there who truly care about HMGS, and therefore the health of the hobby in the US, they appear to be sparsely represented here.

*NJH: I care about our hobby, but HMGSE is NOT our hobby. Our hobby will continue regardless of what happens to HMGSE, or its BOD, or its conventions. There may be a ripple effect, but the harsh truth is that 98% of the hobbyists don't care what happens to HMGSE.

Unfortunately, this kind of unreasoning affirmation of Pete is exactly tht which could lead to further similar conduct, which could have led to the problems we are seeing. Who knows, yet?

*NJH: An unreasoning condemnation is not the answer.

I am sure the Pete-puppets will again leap to his defense and defame me as they did PBN, but that does not change the facts, which will come out.

*NJH: I doubt it, you haven't started scads of HMGSE threads.

But that's all OK, because he seemed like a nice guy. Well, I hear tell that George McClellan was a crackerjack businessman in the 1850s, and Sam Grant was a failure before 1861. Well, hell, lets get that McClellan guy. And the troops love him too.

*NJH: Gen McClellan was detailed to the Crimea as an observer, and he had some early success in Western Virginia against the rebs. His name wasn't pulled out of a hat.

So, I ask, what would incline you to demand a BOD member be removed? Would any or all of these suffice for you?

*NJH: Yes.

Now, who knows what happened?

*NJH: I have no idea what happened, but as a reasonable person, I'll await the results of the blame game.

So we should wait to see what happened, and should keep an open mind when it comes time to analyze what the facts are and what they mean. Without facts, we cannot accuse anyone of anything, nor should we. Just remember this includes accusations of innocence as well as guilt, and we should all be prepared to confront with an open mind what we will eventually find out.

*NJH: Seems reasonable to me.

Choosing to ignore history is to repeat its mistakes, and the "Pete is a mensch" crowd is doing nothing else. I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt, based upon his history, but am prepared to wait to see what the facts are. BUT I DO ASK, if the facts do suggest the litany of woes set forth above is true, in whole or in part, will the pre-apologists come back here and start a new thread? I have a proposed title: How does mea culpa taste?

*NJH: Interesting. You say wait for the facts, but you plow ahead with your "Guilty, Guilty, Guilty" theme. Should we wait or just hang him on your say so?

Tsk,tsk. I did not condemn Pete for anything other than his prior conduct, going back to 2006 and before. I would not be alone in this. I specifically stated that the facts are not there, yet, and request that people keep an open mind for them. This thread began with a suggestion that mismanagement was involved, a reasonable prediction based upon Pete's history and his resignation and his role in the BCC move. This led to numerous people telling us how nice a guy he is, which is beside the point, and excoriating PBN, which is exactly the point.

I submit that this defense before charge is exactly why problems could have continued, as they had existed before with Pete, a direct result of the "unreasoning affirmation" of his conduct.

Say what you will, the words guilty, responsible or liable do not appear in my post relating Pete to the problems. I asked reasonable questions based upon publicly available docs, and clearly have my personal doubts. With facts, any accusation or defense is indeed "reasoned." Until then, we ought to discuss what to look for, especially if prior investigations were whitewashes. I attempted to advance the discussion in the direction I believe it ought to track, to protect HMGS's interests. So how is this measuring rope for the lynching? But if a lynching is required after the investigation, should we not all volunteer a hand? It is our organization, after all.

Lots of stuff to consider.

Ed, I'm pretty sure promoting the historical miniatures gaming hobby and its relationship to the study of military history was discussed at Wally's Basement, but I did't take comprehensive notes. If nothing else it strengthened our claim to being an "educational" corporation. I'm also pretty sure that the articles of incorporation filed in 1986 had that in them and we had provision for the treasury, if it outlived the corporation, to go to the Smithsonian Institution's Military Histroy Program. From the first we were involved with the Smithsonian Associates, and entertained historical lectures (Cliff Sayre comes to mind.)

Also, in those primitive times there was a much stronger anti-dark side bias than now exists. The first HMMC was billed, I think, as an "all historical" affair. In the current age of decadence there has been a tendency to admit dark side participation, at least nominally to attract them to the light.

NJH: I'm sorry you were suckered out of your $5 USD by the story about making manufacturers standardize their millimeters. That goal was discussed at Wally's Basement, but I knew immediately that it was a lost cause.

As for 98% of the historical gaming public not giving a damn about HMGS EAST, I'd like to know the parameters of the poll on which that opinion is based.

Had it not been for HMGS (now EAST) it is unlikely that there would be an HMGS PSW, NHMGS, MIDSOUTH, MIDWEST, etc. etc. There seems to have been something about what we were doing that inspired others between 1984 and 1998.

At this point, however, HMGS EAST is in deep trouble. One BOD, believing that more space was needed, authorized the President to negotiate for BCC. There have been problems with those negotiations. The Membership reacted to the decision by removing as much of that BOD as they could.

We now have a tricky contract with BCC, and a BOD which feels no responsibility for making it work, and probably a convention director who would rather move HISTORICON to Valley Forge or Hell in protest about BCC.

For the record, the BOD which decided to move to BCC planned to lose $21,000. But both that BOD and the modified one which took office at HISTORICON this year have approved all kinds of really looney increases in costs. And the Directors of our largest conventions (COLDWARS and HISTORICON) have contrived to achieve record low profit margins.

I'm not sure what can be done short of Baker Acting the lot of them. And even then the pieces would have to be picked up.

However, lynching Pete would be at best a partial solution. HMGS EAST has a tradition, especially in the last ten years, of authorizing its agents, usually the President at the time, to sign contracts. So the BCC costs will not go away. If Pete had acted without authority (and custom) the problem could be settled by having him move to Florida where retirement pay cannot be garnisheed (which is why O.J. Simpson moved here.)

There is a push on to encumber HMGS EAST with two overpriced contracts with two overpriced convention centers for the same convention.

We won't know until the financials are posted, but the $240,000 or so on hand at the beginning of last year will probably be more like $170,000 at the end of this year.

Next year will probably make this year look like a model of financial management.

It is not good for HMGS EAST, and it is not good for the hobby.

Pat Condray (WKPP)

Capt D & NJH,

My concern right now is whether or not ANY of the "facts" will come out. That is why I am more interested in how the BOD proceeds now and what their "investigation" reveals and what actions they take.

As NJH said: "If the President did what he is accused of doing, then why should I expect those folks who were asleep at the wheel to confess their own complicity in the excesses?"

if they feel the need to go into CYA mode, whats the chance the "facts" will come out?

In your list, you present some that given circumstance could be "explainable" but others that cast the BOD & PP in conflict. Mike, you know an effective attorney can argue both sides of the allegation persuasively. And it is difficult to prove "intention" [deliberate action] as opposed to mistakenly doing something.

But if many of those items were occurring, I would hold the BOD equally accountable for allowing it to continue after the first instance. And yes, I would have thrown the culprit out.

But if it is shown that they tried to exercise their responsibility and were thwarted by the deliberate actions, not only would I throw the culprit out, I'd look to see if there are any other remedies.

Pat,

It's always interesting to read your summaries of the situation.

The Membership reacted to the decision by removing as much of that BOD as they could.

Only one director (John Drye) was removed and there were two candidates that were not on the BoD that didn't get elected, while 2 or 3* directors were retained.

* Jim McWee was appointed to replace Dan McDonagh on the HMGS East BoD, after the vote to contract with the BCC.

I think it's hard to say how the membership reacted to the decision based on the election results.

I have two brief questions:

1) Pat, what does "WKPP" mean?

2) What happened with HMGS East, allegedly or otherwise, in 2006 that people are referring to in threads here and elsewhere.

I apologize in advance for any crapstorms that may develop due to these questions, but you know what they say about curiosity and the cat. . .

I Jim I

Pat,
It's always interesting to read your summaries of the situation.

"The Membership reacted to the decision by removing as much of that BOD as they could."

Only one director (John Drye) was removed and there were two candidates that were not on the BoD that didn't get elected, while 2 or 3* directors were retained.

Sadly, one board member removed IS as much as they could.

iPat

cmsciulli
2) What happened with HMGS East, allegedly or otherwise, in 2006 that people are referring to in threads here and elsewhere.

At a May 2006 BoD meeting the subject person of this thread, in a fit of indignation, instigated the removal of another BoD member on grounds that amounted to less than 1/10th of what is charged here regarding H10. In executing the removal, process was, shall we say, improvised. At H06 some factions used the deposed BoD member as a martyr, created a crapstorm, put the martyred BoD member back on the BoD at the points of their bayonettes and passed a bunch of self serving motions amounting to not much. Oh, and along the way they voted in three new BoD members sworn to save HMGS from the evil forces that had taken control. The first action of those avenging new BoD members was to reelect the subject person of this thread as president. They went on to reelect him two more times and two of the avengers voted for BCC (the third had found the avenging business boring and had quit after a year.)

Captain Danjou points out that he did not use the words guilty, responsible or liable. True enough. I have another word -- Karma.

iPat

Pat: '…promoting the historical miniatures gaming hobby
and its relationship to the study of military history'
isn't on any of the tapes recorded in Wally's Basement
(I still have them). It is of course possible that a
fleeting mention was missed.

The first reference to any linkage is in notes I took
at a meeting we had at HMMC #1. Wally brought it up
as an enhancement to the potential to incorporate and
bolster the potential for IRS blessing as an 'educational
non-profit.'

That's why it's in the 1986 AOI, and probably why
it's in the current charter.

The most common theme from the original Wally's Basement
meeting is 'how to grow the HM hobby', followed by
'What are we gonna do for US ?', meaning that we'd
been supporting multigenre cons to little or no
benefit, so how are we going to do something for the
HM crowd ?

They went on to reelect him two more times and two of the avengers voted for BCC (the third had found the avenging business boring and had quit after a year.)

Oh, and I almost forgot -- both of the avengers were chucked out this year for voting for BCC. One was reinstated by the BoD to fill a vacancy.

iPat

I would hope that in the future all "resumes" for those running for the HMGS-E BoD will put into it information regarding their positions on such things as dues and admission fees, "extracurricular" payments, Convention locations, and other points that are brought up here but never seem to addressed by those individuals running for office. I could give a care about how many years you've been gaming, or that you were in the military, or that you are the VP for a marketing company, or you've been to Las Vegas twenty times. I want to know what the person's position is on topics critical to this organization. And if that person starts doing things counter to their promised positions, they can be held accountable the next time they are up for election.

That seems to be at least one way to help prevent people from bending the organization's charter to their own will.

Ed

I'm pretty sure that lip service was given in some fashion to history at Wally's Basement. After all, we were pretty fanatical about historical versus dark side stuff (or even historical board games.) However, if you have the tapes and they still work, what would it take to get them transcribed? They would be a valuable reference.

Concerning the elections and the run up.

Some time between FALL IN! 08 and COLDWARS 09, HMGS EAST contracted with the Baltimore Convention Center to run HISTORICON 2010 at that location. This was not a sudden secret move. The HMGS EAST BODs had been looking for a bigger and theoretically better better location for years.

It was announced at COLDWARS. For those who believe that Pete Panzeri acted independently with no authority from the BOD, it was clear at COLDWARS that the action was not independent of the BOD. Period.

Heather had abstained on the BCC vote, and got the most votes. Dudley Garidel, the CPA from Louisiana who had played a big part in getting HMGS EAST through the IRS audit, and John Drye, who ran HISTORICON 04 and 05, as a minimum, lacked plausible deniability and were voted out. Jim McWee made it in.

Since the elections Don Manser dropped out, letting Dudley Garidel get back in. At some point George Nafziger dropped out. And later Jim McWee dropped out. We've picked up Orest Swynstun and Jim Petrie.

The current BOD seems to have deluded itself into believing that Pete Panzeri acted independently, and will be responsible for the cost of the BCC contract, leaving them free to move HISTORICON 2010 to another location, probably XXXXXXXXXXXX.

The latter facility didn't stand comparison with any other location except possibly Hell. The BOD years ago tried to sell it as the ideal location for going to "The Next Level." It didn't wash.

As stated, Pete did not act alone. He acted for the then BOD. HMGS EAST is legitimately on the hook for BCC.

So now HMGS EAST may be on the hook for two overpriced contracts on overpriced facilities.

Pete's departure will not cure the problem. The BODs for the last couple of years, the BORG in Heather's terms, have been totally dysfunctional. They've parlayed a $250,000 cash reserve into a $170,000 surplus, and have signed one contract for an overpriced and unsatisfactory facility, and they are going for two, for the same convention.

I can't wait for them to announce the second bad contract for HISTORICON 2010.

Pat Condray (WKPP)

1. I think future BOD candidates will think twice about whether they have the ability to perform as a BOD member, given the apparent drastic situation the Society is in. You realize your in/action could actually threaten the existence of the organization you were elected to lead & nurture. I wonder if any of the recent BOD[s] actually understood that possibility?

I know as a voter, I will be looking for more tangible content in their resumes as to why they should be voted to be stewards of the society. I agree with 1stvarty1979, it had been frustrating in the "officially controlled communication environment" of the old regime to find out where candidates stood vis a vis "hot button" issues of the time.

Reading between the "unofficial" lines posted on TMP, the suggestions that the contracts associated with H'con 2010 threaten the financial viability of the society…do I read that the correctly?

How this came about is one story I would like to see revealed some day, if only as a lesson to prevent a re-occurrence to future BoDs.

Mr. Condray…

Can you tell me what was announced at Cold Wars?

Can you tell me if the contract with the BCC was reviewed and by whom?

Can you tell me whose signatures are on the contract?

Orest Swystun

Heather had abstained on the BCC vote, and got the most votes. Dudley Garidel, the CPA from Louisiana who had played a big part in getting HMGS EAST through the IRS audit, and John Drye, who ran HISTORICON 04 and 05, as a minimum, lacked plausible deniability and were voted out. Jim McWee made it in.

Since the elections Don Manser dropped out, letting Dudley Garidel get back in. At some point George Nafziger dropped out. And later Jim McWee dropped out. We've picked up Orest Swynstun and Jim Petrie.

Don Manser dropped out before the election.

Dudley Garidel was not voted out, he was elected by the membership to fill the open half-term.

At Cold Wars 2009 the HMGS BoD unanimously passed a motion to appoint the 5th place BoD election candidate to fill Don Manser's vacated BoD seat, term ending July 2010.

hmgs.org/bod.htm#election

BoD minutes from Cold Wars:
PDF link

I love Pat Condray. I really do. How can we not love any of the founding fathers. After all, they didn't put slavery in the HMGS constitution.

I love him in spite of having been skewered by his famous, er, well known poison pen (WKPP), and notwithstanding it having been inappropriately pointed in my direction on those occasions. But he and the rest of them have done more for the hobby than most of us and deserve our respect. And I consider him a friend, so I am obligated to correct him.

(OK, d'you think the anaesthetic has taken effect?)

But when he's wrong, it's a howler. Follow along, mon ami.

"Tradition" means nothing, the corporate charter does. Whatever prior boards have done, when we remember the lack of continuity in membership over time, it is more than a stretch to talk tradition, custom or practice. The correct word is for this is nonsense. The fact is, as the posted minutes from Jan 2009 make clear, Pete was detailed to negotiate, no more. If he went further and without authorization, this is the responsibility of the BOD exactly how, oh corporate maven?

If Pete exceeded the payment limit of $1K on the corporate debit card to make an unsanctioned deposit, when anything over that amount required a check from the treasurer (file this under checks and balances), it was OK because of what, and the BOD is responsible because…..? [listen to the crickets].

And when he did this a second time?

And if he withheld information and docs from the BOD, keeping them in the dark, they are responsible why…..?

Or misrepresented the status, or terms, or conditions, or parameters (Pat, can I buy a noun?)….?

Or deliberately ignored input from an experienced HC director who was raising alarms over the proposed contracts which put HMGS on the hook for $100,000s. THIS IS NOT A TYPO. I must assume Pat's not seen Giglio's 9 page letter on this from the summer which still is circulating.

So, "legitimately on the hook" is it? Pete was acting for the BOD by not responding to their requests for info, which he was obligated to provide without request. Well, that's your story, and you're sticking to it, I guess. No reason to clutter your views with contrary facts.

Since the necessity for information and facts, as I referenced in my lengthy post yesterday, is both clear and unquestioned, and since those facts are not yet clear or available (except to Pat?), it is curious to me at least that he finds it so easy to condemn everyone on the BOD, old and new, but treads so lightly on Pete -- who, it cannot be argued, was indeed at the epicenter of this.

Well, I've been an attorney for 25 years, and when the BOD came to me for help, instead of offering the trenchant and incisive analysis Pat provided in his post, I put them in touch with an exceedingly well-reputed firm full of damnyankee experts. Had I only known, I could have just had them speak to Pat.

Or, maybe, my observation that we need to find out what happened, really happened, might just be all we need to say for now? Note to Pat: stay out of the deep end until you learn to swim.

Seriously, I am not out to carry water for anyone, or abuse anyone. I really want to see the facts underlying what happened out in the open, believing that sunlight is the best disinfectant. But I cannot ignore our experience with Pete. And, if what it appears happened did happen, the old BOD was careless, or too trusting, but not in cahoots. I cannot but tip my kepi to I Pat Cod's observation about karma from re-electing Pete as President. Of course, who was the bunch of morons who elected Pete to the BOD? Raise your hands. Don't be shy.

And Rick is correct to be skeptical about the course of the investigation. Except that this BOD has already been more transparent than any in recent memory, and will continue to be so, I suspect, because the facts will make clear that like Obama, they are in their first year of cleaning up a mess created on someone else's years-long watch. Pete's no longer president, remember? Nobody to cover for him no more. The new BOD at least deserves the opportunity to try to save the ship someone else put on the rocks.

The events of 2006? An attempted power grab by Pete, without basis, actually in contravention of the rules, to toss someone off the BOD (what goes around….), abetted by some of his munchkins. A few brave souls opposed him, drawing a line in the carpet and abetted by more than half of the members. Yes, we should have learned. But, since this is a hobby organization, and we are friends of a sort, he got more chances --- more than I gave my first wife [Earl Weaver joke]. No more. When the rubble stops bouncing, there will be hell to pay -- and maybe some other kinds of bills. Stay tuned, its going to be a bumpy ride. But the truth will out.

Capt. Danjou

I Jim I

Thanks for the correction. Dudley Garidel did not make the top four. But as you pointed out, the BOD voted to accept the 5th place candidate to fill Manser's unexpired term.

I'm pretty sure Dudley correctly took it as a defeat. And had he not been associated with the BCC decision it is a safe bet he would have been elected. He has kept professionalism in the accounting end of HMGS EAST's otherwise insane financial practices. I'm sure he treated his 5th place finish as a defeat. Before he stopped talking to me over a remark I made about a KSG consultant I heard him state that he didn't plan to run again after the voters rejection.

Incidentally, the BOD Meeting Minutes you cited make it abundantly clear that the BOD as a whole recognized the validity of the contract. It was clearly and absolutely obvious that the BORG at that stage of its dementia did not regard the BCC contract as the work of a maverick member exceeding his authority.

Orest

If you were at the meeting you know that the BOD less one or two stand outs, probably Heather and George, presented the BCC decision to the disgruntled membership.

No, I didn't see the contract. However, I've heard over the years that HMGS EAST has had BOD members, usually the President sign contracts. Fred Hubig left office with four years of contracts signed by himself. They were, to the best of my knowledge, honored by HMGS EAST and the facility.

It was quite clear at COLDWARS that while Heather recused herself due to a potential conflict of interest, it was clear that the contract had the blessing of a BOD majority. No member stood up and said "Pete did it without our approval."

It was all about "We've made this decision, and we are trying to make it work."

Those BOD members known to have been supporting the move (and the contract) who were up for re-election weren't elected. At least not in the first four. Heather Blush, who recused herself, got the most votes.

The idea that the contract was the act of a maverick BOD member is, as you know if you've been paying attention, phony as a three dollar bill. It was a conscious decision by the BOD. The contract was treated as valid from some time before COLDWARS 09 until some time after the GED. The BOD met with the management. Deals were arranged. The GED was held. We are now within a year of the convention.

Is there an escape clause which authorizes HMGS EAST to bail out of a valid contract when it has been treating it as valid for months, and you've been working with the facility to get ready for it (e.g. the G.E.D.)

Have you seen any HMGS EAST facility contracts from the past five years? Are you sure they were signed by more than one agent?

Do you have a lawyer who garauntees that the contract is not valid and cannot be enforced by BCC? Is it unequivocal? If the contract is enforced will the lawyer(s) pay the bill? Better yet, if the BORG is unable to simply walk away from a valid contract, will the dysfunctional BORG pay for the loss?

Or will it bankrupt a corporation which many of us worked for years to build to a point where the BORG could squander tens of thousands of dollars more than it took in and make a half baked effort to break a valid contract.

Maybe they won't sue to enforce the contract. Apparently if they find another customer for the slot they can't charge for it. But the economy isn't great.

Why would even the dysfunctional BORG think it could treat a contract as valid from before COLDWARS until after FALL IN! then simply walk away from it?

You got a lawyer who thinks he can make it go away for you, by all means get him (or her) to commit to pay if it doesn't work.

I know, it doesn't work like that.

Okay Orest. If you….XXXXXX (I don't want to get Dawghoused for describing you guys accurately) opt to sign a second contract for the same convention before the first one is ruled null and void, you richly deserve to be sued by the membership for destroying a not-for-profit educational corporation you have done XXXX little to build.

Has the BORG taken the precaution of insuring itself against being sued for malfeasance?

Better see to it.

Pat Condray (WKPP)

PS: I don't think that the BCC management is bound by HMGS EAST ByLaws, even if they had been routinely observed by HMGS EAST. It was clear to them that HMGS EAST regarded the contract as valid-at least until after FALL IN ! 09.

The Board of Directors Meeting Minutes for 24 JAN 2009 states:

John Drye, seconded by Pete Panzeri motioned:
"HMGSE BoD authorizes CONOPS and President to contract the Baltimore Convention Center (BCC) for
Historicon 2010 and 2011."

The motion passed with a vote of 4 – 1 – 1, with J. Drye, P. Panzeri, D. Garidel, D. McDonagh voting in favor,
D. Manser voting against, and H. Blush abstaining.

President and CONOPS accepted the Board Tasking to initiate contract proceedings by 1 Feb 2009, and report
to the BOD NLT Cold Wars 2009.

PDF link

John Drye and Pete Panzeri were the CONOPS and President, respectively.

From the Board of Directors Meeting Minutes for 27 July 2008:

The BoD, by unanimous consent tasked Pete Panzeri and John Drye to negotiate a contract with the Baltimore
Convention Center & other necessary businesses for Historicon 2010. Report prior to the next offsite BoD meeting.

From the Minutes for Board of Directors TELECON August 17 2008:

Convention Site Committee
Pete Panzeri reported on Convention Site activity to include:
• The BoD can conduct a "Site Visit" of the BCC at our September BoD meeting in Baltimore.
• The BCC should have a new contract for HISTORICON 2010 by the September BoD meeting.
• Pete Panzeri accepted the BoD tasking to solicit hotel room blocks for Historicon 2010, and to
• The BCC will give dates available price options for a possible Fall-In 2009 options.
• Pete Panzeri accepted the BoD tasking to continue to survey other sites.

hmgs.org/bodminutes.htm

Cap'n "Woody" D'Anjou – ok clearly you [and others] are aware of much more material/documents/events about this episode. I was not aware of any 9 page letter from the CD of H'con. I wonder what the circulation of said letter and the reaction from the recipients?

Guess I'll have to call you Mike and get caught up. I suspected your list of possible transgressions was too specific to be entirely speculative.

Out in fly-over country, I have been blissfully ignorant.

With regards to contracts and complicity of individuals and boards, I wonder if the BoD as a group was aware of ALL the associated contracts? I get the sense that the risk to the society may be from related hotel room guarantees vice the BCC contract itself???

The link to the BOD minutes of January, 2009 was approval to negotiate [not necessarily conclude]. It didn't detail what the review process if any was to be. Are those details documented in some other minutes? I also noted with irony agreement to produce 4 newsletters for the year. Anyone see those?

…..like I said, I am starting to appreciate how little I really do know of the situation. I do look forward to the report to the membership when it is made.

Captain Danjou

I voted for Pete. Also for Dudley and John Drye, and, of course, for Heather though not all in the same elections.

I also, as I left the Membership Meeting at HISTORICON 09 improperly responded to a member query as to the reason for the move to BCC by attributing it to "Delusions of Grandeur."

As for the power grab in 2006, it was a doozie. The BOD, in accordance with the ByLaws, removed the CONOPS. Details were forbidden on grounds of "Executive Session." They could not be revealed until the Friday before the lynch mob rioted at the Membership Meeting. The revelations were so muddled as to be incoherent.

I was amazed by the assertions at the lynch meeting to the effect that while the ByLaws provided for a BOD to remove a member, doing so was in direct violation of page 731 of Roberts Rules of Order and numerous Maryland Corporate Laws to be named later.

Curiously, the main charge against Fred Haub (an old sailing buddy of mine) was that he virtually went to war against Bob Giglio on behalf of the Tournament Types, who were later somewhat ably represented by Don Manser as well. The BOD minority had voted for Walt O'Hara to run HISTORICON, while the "Gang of Four" headed by Pete opted for Bob Giglio. Bob has since proven what his oldest enemies, including myself and Bob Coggins, had long known. He is an exceptional convention director. His choice of facilities is however, open to question.

I did get some of the byplay between Bob Giglio and Pete on the contracts with the hotels. In the main I agreed with Bob Giglio. I still have no idea what the current status is, but since Bob seems to have opted to walk away from the BCC contract, I suppose they were left up in the air. Having dealt with hotels myself and observed others in that work, I was inclined to agree that Bob was on the right track in his objections to Pete's negotiations.

There was no such problem with the BCC contract. Minutes have been cited in which the BOD gave Pete and John Drye authority to make a deal with the BCC. A deal was made. The BOD reported it to the membership at COLDWARS.

At that time it was reported that the BOD could not make a deal with the local hotels in the absence of a signed contract for the BCC. Note that the BOD, the BCC, and everyone else at that time recognized the validity of the contract. And certainly the BCC and its attorneys will if necessary argue that failure of HMGS EAST to follow its internal protocols in no way invalidates its obligations to them. Especially since the evolving BORG treated the contract as valid between the date it was signed and FALL IN! 09.

Had it been up to me, I would have recommended in favor of conducting the negotiations simultaneously. If necessary the hotel contracts could have been signed the day after the BCC contract. But I would have found it very scary to commit to the meeting space with no idea what the hotels would impose.

Anyway, your referring them to the damnyankee lawyers was probably a good move. But it would, I think, be a breach of fiduciary responsibility (which is the BORG's favorite sport) to rush off and sign a contract with Site X until some lawyer promised that BCC would go away and not try to enforce the contract.

I'm a layman. Number #2 son is a lawyer, so I don't want all lawyers killed. They are a necessary evil, but in the United States ten times as evil as necessary.

But the best sense I can make of the "one signature" defense is that HMGS EAST would owe BCC, and Pete would owe HMGS EAST. Or, if it were determined that in being the only signatory, Pete had deluded the BCC, perhaps (but this is stretch) he would owe them and the BOD could walk away to sink a pile of money in another bad deal.

The reason I think it would be a stretch is, of course, the fact that Pete was authorized by the BOD to make the deal, the BOD voted 4-1-1 to approve it, and the BOD (or BORG) jointly reported the decision to the membership at COLDWARS. Also, HMGS EAST accepted the offer of the facility for the GED in September. The hypothesis that Pete snuck off in left field and usurped the decision making authority of the BOD is undadulterated blue smoke.

It was a bad decision made by the elected BOD. Now we are getting a worse decision made by a somewhat elected BOD.

Whoever asked what WKPP stands for, it is of course Well Known Poison Pen. It was conferred by Dick Sossi as President of HMGS EAST when he wanted me to submit all newsletter material to him for censorship back in 1992 when I was editor.

Captain Danjou 17 Nov 2009 4:36 a.m. PST
Tsk,tsk. I did not condemn Pete for anything other than his prior conduct, going back to 2006 and before. I would not be alone in this.

*NJH: If I drop an apple, my wife doesn't condemn me for my prior dropping of oranges.

I specifically stated that the facts are not there, yet, and request that people keep an open mind for them. This thread began with a suggestion that mismanagement was involved, a reasonable prediction based upon Pete's history and his resignation and his role in the BCC move.

*NJH: The speculative hint of mismanagement doesn't justify leaping to any conclusion as to who is or is not responsible for something that may or may not have happened.

This led to numerous people telling us how nice a guy he is, which is beside the point, and excoriating PBN, which is exactly the point.

*NJH: People attack irrationally, people defend irrationally, it's the nature of the world.

I submit that this defense before charge is exactly why problems could have continued, as they had existed before with Pete, a direct result of the "unreasoning affirmation" of his conduct.

*NJH: There should be no charge or defense until an offense has been discovered.

Say what you will, the words guilty, responsible or liable do not appear in my post relating Pete to the problems. I asked reasonable questions based upon publicly available docs, and clearly have my personal doubts.

*NJH: You cleverly and deliberately used a valid rhetorical device to do the very same. Please, don't backtrack, it detracts from your previous post, and it insults my intelligence. You made your point, let's not pretend you didn't.

With facts, any accusation or defense is indeed "reasoned."

*NJH: Without facts, nothing is reasoned, it's just gossip.

Until then, we ought to discuss what to look for, especially if prior investigations were whitewashes.

*NJH: If whatewashes have occurred, then present the facts.

I attempted to advance the discussion in the direction I believe it ought to track, to protect HMGS's interests.

*NJH: The discussion/should follow the facts, not any person's particular direction. Protecting HMGS's interests is the responsibility of the BOD and its officers, or are you joining PBN in calling for all their heads?

So how is this measuring rope for the lynching?

*NJH: Let's not be coy, please.

But if a lynching is required after the investigation, should we not all volunteer a hand?

*NJH: No. I'd prefer to know what happened, how it happened, and what, if any, corrective action is necessary to prevent such in the future. I prefer answers and solutions, not guilt and blame.

It is our organization, after all.

*NJH: Yes, I agree without reservation.

Pat Condray 17 Nov 2009 5:52 a.m. PST
……..
NJH: I'm sorry you were suckered out of your $5 USD USD by the story about making manufacturers standardize their millimeters. That goal was discussed at Wally's Basement, but I knew immediately that it was a lost cause.

*NJH: I've lost tons more buying overpriced cookies from the Girls Scouts.

As for 98% of the historical gaming public not giving a damn about HMGS EAST, I'd like to know the parameters of the poll on which that opinion is based.

*NJH: I said hobbyists not historical gaming public. However, if we just take a peek at TMP barely 17% of those here are HMGSE members. If we should include all miniaturists everywhere, the number tumbles further. That's the problem with a parochial view, it's always limited. The historical miniatures hobby would go on even if HMGSE disappeared, and took its three cons with it.

Had it not been for HMGS (now EAST) it is unlikely that there would be an HMGS PSW, NHMGS, MIDSOUTH, MIDWEST, etc. etc. There seems to have been something about what we were doing that inspired others between 1984 and 1998.

*NJH: Puuullleeezze, give that a rest, there was a strong and vibrant historical gaming group in the Portland, OR – Vancouver, WA area in he early 70s. Seattle had a miniature gaming group then also. There were gaming groups everywhere. Columbus didn't discover America, it was already there and inhabited. He just claimed it for Spain, ignoring all those already there.

At this point, however, HMGS EAST is in deep trouble.

*NJH: So, how does it get out of trouble?

We now have a tricky contract with BCC, and a BOD which feels no responsibility for making it work, and probably a convention director who would rather move HISTORICON to Valley Forge or Hell in protest about BCC.

*NJH: What's the solution?

For the record, the BOD which decided to move to BCC planned to lose $21,000. But both that BOD and the modified one which took office at HISTORICON this year have approved all kinds of really looney increases in costs. And the Directors of our largest conventions (COLDWARS and HISTORICON) have contrived to achieve record low profit margins.

*NJH: The economy is in the crapper, why shouldn't HMGSE be affected by market forces?

I'm not sure what can be done short of Baker Acting the lot of them. And even then the pieces would have to be picked up.

*NJH: The first step is always the hardest.

However, lynching Pete would be at best a partial solution. …..

*NJH: That's not a solution, which fixes anything.

There is a push on to encumber HMGS EAST with two overpriced contracts with two overpriced convention centers for the same convention.

*NJH: Bad idea.

We won't know until the financials are posted, but the $240,000 or so on hand at the beginning of last year will probably be more like $170,000 at the end of this year.

*NJH: Was it well spent?

Next year will probably make this year look like a model of financial management.

*NJH: The economy is in the crapper, HMGSE is not immune.

It is not good for HMGS EAST, and it is not good for the hobby.

*NJH: The historical miniatures hobby will endure, even if HMGSE slides a bit, or disappears altogether.

DJC
Coy? Moi? You cannot be serious. Based upon Pete's history, I have my doubts. His prior conduct is that which, in my view, easily could underlie this kind of problem. I have not been at all shy about confessing that. The doubts are based upon what I perceive the friction points in what has happened, based upon my understanding of the available materials, and how those friction points could have been made critical, in this problem, by conduct of both Pete and the former BOD.

And, lest it be said that I was being, uh, coy, I did not vote for Pete. So, if you want to think that I am carrying on my agenda, how about Poison Pat, who did vote for Pete, and whose lengthy posts want only to talk about the BOD's connivance in Pete's contracting, without speaking either to the scope of his authority, which appears to be much more limited than his actions (we will learn more about his over time), or to his full and complete disclosures to the BOD to ensure that any decision they might have made was indeed fully informed. Instead he wants to beat up on the new BOD's efforts at damage control This does sound like complaining about the ER doc who left a scar, when he saved your life with emergency surgery.

Similarly, you want to be cutesy with my posts, nickel and diming my language and imagery [your observation about McClellan's Crimean experience was entirely pointless, as Pete's current position is more like that of McClellan in the autumn of '62, and being defended then based upon his personal attributes, not his record], without speaking to the crucial aspects of my post, which is that it is very possible, if not likely, based upon the limited number of persons involved and the available documents, that Pete acted beyond the scope of his authority, that the BOD was kept in the dark by "executive session Pete" (when I was on the BOD for 4+ years, we NEVER had an executive session -- not one), that there was additional input from Conops which was ignored, and this led to our present situation.

Instead, try addressing the underlying rational basis for what I said, at least rational to me, that is ….
1 that we need facts
2 to ensure that our representatives performed their duties
3 in an appropriate fashion
4 and asking questions is appropriate to establish these
5 but conclusory condemnation or absolution is pointless, while finding out what happened is what we should do

Pat's deliberate choice to continue to mix a smidge of fact with a raft of suppostion, conclusion, suspicion, surmise, and guesswork does little to advance the argument. In my view it is counterproductive, and may serve to obscure what happened. Maybe that's Pat's purpose. It is beyond irrational for a member of HMGS from the founding to so blithely declaiming that HMGS is liable, based upon what he does not know. Is Pat on retainer to the BCC?

I understand and accept that you and many will not like the way I've phrased it. It may smack of Mark Antony's funeral oration, perhaps. But I have yet to go as far as PBN's post which initiated this thread. The questions are the obvious ones, and the BOD (former) and its president who negotiated and signed these contracts has made their asking entirely appropriate and necessary, regardless of their tone. As the messenger, I don't much care if you want to shoot me. But the questions still exist, unanswered. Try addressing them, and leave my opinion out of it -- I have.

"Pat's deliberate choice to continue to mix a smidge of fact with a raft of suppostion, conclusion, suspicion, surmise, and guesswork does little to advance the argument."

Captain Danjou – I agree wholeheartedly. There was a time I respected some of what Pat said and disagreed with a bit, but that all changed recently when I learned what WKPP meant that he uses with his name. Now I realize this has been the gist of his tactics all along and his credibility is totally shot with me.

In answer to this thread I'd say it's entirely up to Pete if he wants to resign from the HMGSE Board. The fact that he is no longer the president is a moot point now although the question may arise in what order did this come about. I've heard there was a vote by the Board to replace him, and I have also seen a copy of his resignation. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
If the vote came first then I would perceive this as a very bold move by members of the Board and a strong indication Pete's influence has been checked – assuming of course that it needed to be checked. Details may follow as Captain Danjou predicts.

Danjou, or should I say Mike?

Your statement below is .

"Pat's deliberate choice to continue to mix a smidge of fact with a raft of suppostion, conclusion, suspicion, surmise, and guesswork does little to advance the argument."

You seem to have a dishonest position to defend, and you are doing your ethical duty.

Your attack on Pete in regard to the sacking of the CONOPS and Election Official in 2006 was weird. The Bylaws of HMGS EAST seem to state in English that the BOD can remove a member. I didn't think it was a good idea, but a listened to one XXXXXXXXXXX after another declare that it was illegal according to page 731 of Roberts Rules of Order (the number sticks in my mind) or, and I think this was yours, one or more articles of Maryland Corporate Law to be named later.

If the provision in the ByLaws is in violation of Maryland Corporate Law did the Avengers act to change the ByLaws to comply? As a legal wizard did you urge them to do so?

Those are not meant to be rhetorical questions.

We have seen posting about BOD meetings at which Pete Panzeri and John Drye (the certain victim of the BCC decision) were authorized by the BOD by a vote of 4 for, 1 opposed, and 1 abstaining, to negotiate the contract with BCC.

True or false?

At COLDWARS 09 the BOD (acting as a BOD, and not as 6 strangers and a maverick President) announced to the membership and the dealers that a contract was in place with BCC and that hotel negotiations were being undertaken.

True or false.

It will take world class professional liar (lawyer) to convince a judge or jury that HMGS EAST did not commit to the contract. The BOD was convinced that the contract was valid, and the membership was so convinced.

I won't ask true or false because the question calls for a conclusion.

Moreover the BOD arranged to use the facility for a dry run (the G.E.D.) in September. They even held a BOD meeting and re-arrangd the BRC to eliminate objective critics.

So the BORG clearly had no idea that the contract was invalid until long about November. Then after 8 months of treating the contract as valid, the BORG decided it didn't want it to be valid. I still don't see how the BCC could be held responsible for the fact that the CONOPS approved the signing by e-mail but didn't sign it physically.

The Greatest Convention Director of All Times (has a nice ring to it doesn't it-kind of like Grossesterfeldherrallerzietung) seems to have become fixated on Valley Forge(?not publicly released.) So the BORG is trying to wish its way out of the BCC contract and is pouring pots of money into the coffers of your damnyankee lawyers.

Valley Forge, if that is indeed Plan B, has been roundly rejected by BODs and memberships alike over the years since a previous dysfunctional BOD tried to sell it around 2002.

Basically it is overpriced (about equal to the expanded BCC contract, which has grown from $26.5K to around $50K to meet escalating requirements from the convention director.) Even with two attached hotels, nearby reasonably priced hotels are lacking. The traffic is worse than Lancaster and the public transportation access worse than BCC.

But the clincher was always the reputation of the local revenuers for requiring a temporary business license and local sales tax of not only vendors but flea marketers.

I think that if the BORG and the Greatest Convention Director of All Times will take up a collection of their own money to offset the impact on dealers and flea marketers it will be worth attending-at least if you can get into one of the attached hotels. Otherwise no.

But why are we talking about this on here? Lets take it to the announcements forum and see if it is really wide open?

NJH: You are entitled to your opinion that HMGS is of no consequence and a couple of guys will still play with toy soldiers if it self destructs. I of course don't agree. If HMGS made no difference why did NHMGS become an HMGS instead of just a social club?

During the Golden Age (Volume II) HM gaming conventions cropped up all over the country in imitation of the original HMGS program.

So I'm against having the BORG destroy HMGS EAST.

Pat Condray (WKPP)

Pat Cod wrote:

The first action of those avenging new BoD members was to reelect the subject person of this thread as president.

Wrong: See BOD minutes of 7.19.2006

They went on to reelect him two more times

Wrong: See BOD minutes of 7.25.2007

(the third had found the avenging business boring and had quit after a year.)

Wrong: Served from 7.19.2006 to 2.2.2009

Next time do proper research before you post.

Pat Condray wrote:

Since the elections Don Manser dropped out,

Wrong: Don Manser resignation 2.2.2009

Historygamer: Spare us your personal attacks. Gets boring from a guy who continually criticizes certain members of the BOD but has also stated he would never run for any of the positions.

Sigh. Predictable. Pathetic. Pat.

Why bother addressing the post, and the specific suggestions I made, when it's so much easier to attack me? And more fun, too, I'd guess, especially when you can live in the fact-free zone.

Though nobody's ever had any questions about my tenure on the BOD, or my conduct as a member, you want to tee me up, along with the present BOD, without even a breath of a question about Pete. Funny, but Michelle and Frank and Orest (and I) had nothing to do with the contract. They're just stuck with it, sort of. And I offered to help when asked -- for free (how depraved and self-serving). But we understand, like we do when . (Still ed over losing control of the Minicon in 1988? At least that would be some kind of reason. Liar. Lawyer. Clever. )

So be it. The world will always need lawyers – long as . Talk about a recession-proof business.

Wow. I think a gross of Oval Reddenbacher's best needs to get shipped here ASAP.

This is better than Ali-Frazier although Condray v. Master Caster was great. Caster by decision

Now it's Condray v. Danjou.

Remember its left with the facts and right with the opinions. My money is on Danjou.

Again, I hate when mommy and daddy fight!

Kind of an interesting take there, BD88. If you are referring to the HMGS Historical Issues thread, seems like just about everything Pat said has proved out. Problem is, he was wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy understating the numbers, if any of the Fall-In rumors turn out to be true.

chuck

Mike (or Captain Danjou)

It is the duty of a lawyer with a guilty client to deceive the judge and jury to the best of his ability.

True or false.

All right, enough with the lawyer jokes. The best ones I get from #2 son and his ex, also a lawyer.

But if the American judiciary understood the concept of Res Ipse Loquitur nowhere near as many of you could make a good living at it.

I'm sure you've pitched in to help me a time or two. And you ran a great Wednesday night game at HISTORICON.

Your time on the BOD caused no scandals that I know of. And I rather admired your participation in furniture moving at your last COLDWARS. It reminded me of early days when moving furniture was routinely an executive function.

I do well remember you going into a righteous indignation rant at HMMC 6 because I was so successful at building the convention that it had crowded the Remada. I actually solicited and received a letter from one of your cohorts a few years back in which he explained the theory that it was clearly time to replace all the old leadership, possibly including Wally (who resigned a year later) and bring new ideas and life to the organization. It will enrich Volume II if I ever get around to it.

I've seen you do it on a couple of other occasions, and concluded that you probably learned the technique in the Moot Court at law school. Hope it works for you in your profession.

But no, I certainly don't resent your seizing control of the HMMC. As you may recall, when it became apparent that HISTORICON had outgrown any reasonably priced facility in the DC area, and we got an offer from Joe Pfadt in Harrisburg I asked Bob Coggins to take it over. I had a rather time consuming job and a sizeable family at the time and I didn't want to try to run something outside the metro area.

Your manners were atrocious but I'm pretty thick skinned. I ignored the "revolt" for a month or so while I looked around the DC area (actually from Columbia to Fredericksburg) without finding a suitable facility. When I didn't find any I handed it over and you guys took it to..well, the less said about that the better. Bob later told me that you were about to treat facility management to one of your Moot Court tirades at the end of the convention, but he persuaded you to leave.

Apologies to the Witch Finder General and others about getting the sequence of resignations wrong. I will be more careful when (and if) I get to Volume III.

But for practical purposes, what we are faced with goes well beyond any real or imagined sins of Pete Panzeri.

Clearly the BOD supported by a margin of 4 for, 1 against, and 1 abstaining, the decision to move to BCC.They announced it as a done deal at COLDWARS, though the contracts were bouncing back and forth and to hear people tell it, nobody had the faintest idea what was going on except Pete, and we aren't sure about him.

By that time the BOD (evolving, per Heather's apt description, into the BORG) has deliberately budgeted to lose $21,000 for the year. Our new President and Secretary managed to achieve probably the lowest positive cash flow, and certainly the lowest return on investment of any COLDWARS since the late Bob Watts wrecked CW97. So the budget predicated on $10K (very low in itself) profit had only $4k.

More shocking, Bob Giglio, a skilled convention director who had managed to clear $39,506 in 2007, and $27,293 in 2008, and was budgeted to clear $18,000 this year, actually cleared $4,000.

The GED was a futile gesture which lost money. FALL IN! may be a bright spot, but it has historically been almost revenue neutral in good years. Several small fortunes were approved and spent on dubious promotional schemes vaguely targeted at HISTORICON 2010.

Next year, if the massive legal expense to get out of BCC suceeds, Plan B seems to be a trip to Valley Forge, which venue was panned by the membership when the 2002 BOD tried to pursue it as "THE NEXT LEVEL."

Not much has changed. This year, facility infrastructure for HISTORICON 09 came to $11,009 (under budget.) Next year, if Plan B is executed, that element of expense will amount to $45,000 or so.

The problem isn't the economy. HISTORICON actually took in $7,232 more than expected. But it also spent $21,070 more than expected.

The traditional banes of Valley Forge remain. Worse traffic than Lancaster, alternate hotels a bit farther away, less public transportaion than BCC. Oh yes, and revenuers from hell.

The BORG, having freed itself from Pete Panzeri, has come up with a brilliant and innovative solution-raise all the prices!

Of course, the vendor area at the Host hasn't actually been filled to capacity the last few conventions. Do we expect more vendors to pay higher prices to come take out local licenses and help finance King of Prussia PA?

Do you understand what I am saying?

There are all kinds of rumored motives for the peculiar actions of various players, including Pete Panzeri and Bob Giglio. Some of the motives ascribed are pretty far fetched. But the motives that are becoming easier to understand are the motives of the people who resign from the BOD.

Shouldn't we be posting this stuff on the official"Announcements" forum?

Pat Condray (WKPP)

Captain Danjou 18 Nov 2009 4:34 a.m. PST
DJC
Coy? Moi? You cannot be serious.

*NJH: I have two years service on the State Bar Association Disciplinary Board, and one to go. I've heard all sorts of denials, evasions, diversions, justifications, and rationalizations from folks who are trained in the art. You can snow the snowman, but you can't the bird! As I said, you made your point.

Based upon Pete's history, I have my doubts. His prior conduct is that which, in my view, easily could underlie this kind of problem. I have not been at all shy about confessing that. The doubts are based upon what I perceive the friction points in what has happened, based upon my understanding of the available materials, and how those friction points could have been made critical, in this problem, by conduct of both Pete and the former BOD.

*NJH: Pete was fairly elected by the membership. Whatever arguments you offered in opposition, which I'm sure you did, weren't convincing to the electorate, that's democracy in action. You've said your, "I told you so." No need to keep doing so, it doesn't advance the conversation. Perhaps it would more efficacious to focus on how to fix the current situation?

And, lest it be said that I was being, uh, coy, I did not vote for Pete.

*NJH: I did vote for Pete, along with others on the BOD. It seemed a good idea at the time and I know of no reason to apologize for my votes.

So, if you want to think that I am carrying on my agenda, how about Poison Pat,

*NJH: I don't care about agendas, your's or his. My only agenda is to make the hobby safe for HMGSE. The hobby will persist, even if HMGSE should implode, which is highly unlikely. Personally, I'd prefer a healthy HMGSE be around, it does provide excellent conventions. SO how do we correct the problems you perceive.

Similarly, you want to be cutesy with my posts, nickel and diming my language

*NJH: I addressed each issue as you raised it, that's hardly nickeling and diming, it's called discourse.

and imagery [your observation about McClellan's Crimean experience was entirely pointless,

*NJH: You chose the imagery, not me. I merely pointed out that Little Mac wasn't a rabbit out of a hat. There were reasons for his elevation, unconnected with his later failure as an Army Commander. There were reasons for Pete's election, and that of other BOD members, unrelated to the current situation.

without speaking to the crucial aspects of my post, which is that it is very possible, if not likely, based upon the limited number of persons involved and the available documents, that Pete acted beyond the scope of his authority, that the BOD was kept in the dark by "executive session Pete" ….

*NJH: Anything is possible, Hell someone might actually write a simple but elegant set of rules for Napoleonic Warfare that will receive good press and wide acceptance! Possibilities are what attorney use to discredit expert witnesses. What is more important is the probability of such things happening. Because we lack crucial information it is not possible for us to determine the actual events. We could speculate on all sorts of possibilities, it's possible that you and Mr Condray could sing Amazing Grace together at Historicon 2010 in Lancaster. But what are the probabilities?

Instead, try addressing the underlying rational basis for what I said, at least rational to me, that is ….
1 that we need facts

*NJH: No argument from me.

2 to ensure that our representatives performed their duties

*NJH: No argument from me.

3 in an appropriate fashion

*NJH: No argument from me.

4 and asking questions is appropriate to establish these

*NJH: No argument from me, but could we avoid the "How long have you been beating your wife?" questions?

5 but conclusory condemnation or absolution is pointless, while finding out what happened is what we should do

*NJH: No argument from me, as long as we avoid the "He was always a scoundrel before and he's still one now." type of statements. I wouldn't know Pete if he fell dead on my doorstep, we're not friends, and as far as I know our paths have never crossed. I'm not his defender, but I do not see any purpose in verbally scourging him, or any other BOD member, before relevant facts are known.

Pat's deliberate choice to …..

*NJH: Mr Condray will have to answer for himself.

Is Pat on retainer to the BCC?

*NJH: Anything is possible. ;-)

I understand and accept that you and many will not like the way I've phrased it. It may smack of Mark Antony's funeral oration, perhaps.

*NJH: LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking!

But I have yet to go as far as PBN's post which initiated this thread. The questions are the obvious ones, and the BOD (former) and its president who negotiated and signed these contracts has made their asking entirely appropriate and necessary, regardless of their tone.

*NJH: Questions are appropriate, but they can be asked more gracefully with the same amount of effort.

As the messenger, I don't much care if you want to shoot me.

*NJH: I don't shoot the messenger, I've too often been the messenger.

But the questions still exist, unanswered.

*NJH: The information needed to answer your questions does not yet exist. Patience is a virtue.

Try addressing them, and leave my opinion out of it -- I have.

*NJH: I did. You put your opinion in the questions, not me. Your opinions/perceptions color the questions, that's a fact no one can get around. I assert that the questions could/should have been asked more gracefully.

Pat Condray 18 Nov 2009 9:41 a.m. PST
…..You are entitled to your opinion that HMGS is of no consequence and a couple of guys will still play with toy soldiers if it self destructs. I of course don't agree.

*NJH: The historical miniatures hobby endured for nearly a century before HMGSE. Taking the position that the hobby will disappear if HMGSE goes toes up is logically indefensible. Surely you jest?

If HMGS made no difference why did NHMGS become an HMGS instead of just a social club?

*NJH: Some members have suggested we should tell people that NHMGS means "NOT HMGS," especially for recruitment purposes. ;-)

IIRC, I was informed, the affiliation was to basically facilitate the movement of information about the hobby between organized groups around the country. I suspect that if HMGS came about today, the internet would make that linkage unnecessary.

During the Golden Age (Volume II) HM gaming conventions cropped up all over the country in imitation of the original HMGS program.

*NJH: So did disco-dancing and tupperware parties in imitation of the originals. I see the events as inevitable, as steps on the evolutionary path of the miniatures hobby. You see it as intelligent design by HMGS.

The characters and personalities of HMGS had nothing to do with the rise of the miniatures hobby in the Northwest, it was and remains a local endeavor.

So I'm against having the BORG destroy HMGS EAST.

*NJH: Quite. I would have thought you'd use an historical analogy rather than a SciFi analogy?

As much as I respect the individuals who have commented on this topic and appreciate the information they have provided, I'm concerned that this subject has reached the point of diminishing returns and devolved into personal attacks which discredit all involved. I'm not sure how I feel more offended by some of the recent comments: as a member of HMGS East or a member of the bar in several jurisdictions.

I've been fortunate to know both principals in this exchange either in person or by reputation for many years. Each, in his own way, has made significant and lasting contributions to HMGS East and the hobby as a whole. On this topic, however, they strongly disagree. I view this as the internet version of a bar brawl about to happen between if not friends, then at least members of the same team. If further damage can be prevented from taking place, it's worth someone stepping in between them. Now I know why the Duke of Wellington banned dueling between his officers. Perhaps HMGS should adopt a similar rule.

Given the fact that the parties to this discussion are unlikely to arrange a cease fire anytime soon, I respectfully suggest that the moderator consider putting an end to this discussion. I'm a relative newcomer to TMP, so I don't know the grounds (if any) for calling a halt to this exchange. Although I consider myself a supporter of free speech on this forum (and others), I'm concerned that continuation of this discussion along its current lines will do more harm than good. As has been pointed out, many facts are unknown and may not become known for some time (if ever). Furthermore, events are likely to overtake this discussion given the HMGS BOD's self-imposed deadline of Nov. 23 to come to a decision on the matter of what to do about Historicon 2010. Further heated exchanges between now and then may do serious harm to all involved.

Sorry to those who ordered all the extra popcorn. Knowing TMP as I do, I'm sure you'll get to use it elsewhere, and soon.

Don Manser
Pat Cod wrote:
The first action of those avenging new BoD members was to reelect the subject person of this thread as president.
Wrong: See BOD minutes of 7.19.2006

They went on to reelect him two more times
Wrong: See BOD minutes of 7.25.2007

(the third had found the avenging business boring and had quit after a year.)
Wrong: Served from 7.19.2006 to 2.2.2009

Next time do proper research before you post.

I was referring to the BoD class of 2007. The class of 2006 had little little time to organize, the removal of the BOD member (May) having occurred after election nominations (March). It was the class of 2007 that billed itself as avenging angels.

iPat

159 positings. I wonder what the record is for postings on TMP.

159 postings.

way more than 160.

but, Ronin is correct. The discussion has departed from the tracks of useful discourse at this time.

And when the facts are presented, it should be at the HMGS-E issues/announcement group, not here.

over and out.

Okay, I am lost. What, or who, is BORG? When it first popped up I could not find it defined. It now keeps popping up.

Also, does all this mean that the Pete 25mm figure which was to be given away at Historicon is now off?

Borg – link