"HMGS-EAST Board of Directors Announcement (as promised)" Topic

Re; frequently slung about term "due diligence"; As an attorney with 25 years experience, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Leave the carefully- parsed near-slander to us professional vulturine bloodsuckers, please, or I'll have to set the Union on you.

Any reference to Ynigo Montoya, his heirs, relatives, assignees, delegees, or successors in interest is merely coincidental. No participation by the Dread Pirate Roberts is suggested or implied.

peru522000…I'm already there pard….

where do I drop off the extra camera and microphone batteries for you Kyote? I've got a truckload of them straight from the home office to be delivered directly to you and your news team.=)

nikator,

As all professionals some lawyers are excellent, most are okay, to the extent they can fake it, and some just plain stink.

As a criminal investigator who investigated white collar crime and violations of the Civil Code you can well imagine I dealt with the term due diligence almost every day. The shorthand version is, it is the process of gathering "objective" information by acquiring the relevant facts before making an important decision.

The questions I asked myself is did Pete know what he was signing and did the board review the contracts prior to okaying them. Considering the current situation, by the preponderence of evidence, both answers are most likely no.

Even were the board not capable of understanding the agreements, and you can easily sell me on that, they had a fiduciary responsibility to exercise "due diligence" by hiring an attorney to explain the agreements. To my understanding they did not!

Now I've answered your question, I have a few:
1. Have you ever given advice to this or any previous HMGS board?
2. Are you currently representing this board?
3. If yes, have you been paid?

Bob Coggins

>we are all working diligently to resolve the issues surrounding Historicon 2010
>

I don't see how a list of the issues being considered can't be published.

The membership deserves to know what the issues are. Then they can rationally wait for the answers.

He's baaaaaaack!

Then they can rationally wait for the answers.

My nomination for funniest line of the week at TMP.

Whatever BNN or TMP is paying you is way too much.

>My nomination for funniest line of the week at TMP.

I've been working on my one-liners.

Back to Cake: There was also free beer, donated by Yuengling, right? So the investment of $5k would be less of a net loss after adding the value of all the donated stuff.

It is always good to see someone come out of the big house with a marketable skill.

Wait, there was free beer? And I didn't know? Now someone needs to be punished!

YouTube link
I can wait a week. I think it is a grave insult to attack someone without any particular evidence. And while I briefly joined the Potomac Wargamers and enjoyed Wally Simon's games in the 80's while attending a Cold Wars along the beltway, I do not have the audacity to call myself a founder. Bob is I am positive a member of the Wally's basement gang, that is only minorly relavent to the issues at hand.

Bob C wrote in part…

…board's Baltimore decision based on my belief the board had done its fiduciary (that's legal btw) duty. Now it is shown neither Pete nor the board did

My questions:
1. Where is it "shown" what neither Pete or the Board "did"? [in fact where is it shown what they did vice didn't do?]
Do you have evidence that the rest of us have only seen intimated, alluded to, suggested etc. I am waiting to see this. What do you know for a fact?

Bob C also wrote in part….

The questions I asked myself is did Pete know what he was signing and did the board review the contracts prior to okaying them. Considering the current situation, by the preponderance of evidence, both answers are most likely no.

The term "most likely no" would imply you do not have definitive information?

But what is your "preponderance of evidence"? You do not present it. So I cannot judge for the appropriateness of your assertion.

and also…

Even were the board not capable of understanding the agreements, and you can easily sell me on that, they had a fiduciary responsibility to exercise "due diligence" by hiring an attorney to explain the agreements. To my understanding they did not!

again, you do not present what you base your "understanding" upon.

I asked these same questions Bob, probably in another thread. I dunno, they all seem to run together now.

a. Was Pete/POC "team" [not sure as two people were mentioned to negotiate in the motion] actually authorized to SIGN the contract? [beyond just negotiating] and…

b. was Pete/POC team authorized to do so without ANY oversight or review by the BOD nor without REQUIRED expert [legal] assistance?

Unlike you though, I will wait, hopefully that the details that emerge will answer these two critical questions for a start and take it from there.

Happy Gobble Gobble Day to one and all….

The preponderance of evidence necessary to assign liability in a civil action is 51%. There is no such standard as definitive information and it is not necessary to "know for a fact."

As a founder of the Society and as a member of the board for over 10 years as well as one of the members who moved Historicon first to Harrisburg then to the Host I have observed with concern the tendency of the members of the board over the last 10 years to treat the Society as a sipping and singing club dealing with problems and decisions more in a cavalier manner than with the gravity they require.

This concern was reinforced by information provided to me by former members who resigned in what they characterized as frustration because Pete and the other members isolated them, and their acolytes smeared them online, when they disagreed with the majority.

Thus, by the preponderance of evidence it is reasonable to believe Pete created a board which was subservient to his desires. Indeed until Baltimore it all worked so wonderfully well. Pete was the great leader and every little private in his army of acolytes had his rice bowl, courtesy of HMGS. Then in Baltimore, the wheels came off the cart.

It is known Pete negotiated and signed the agreements then presented them to the board as a fait accompli at which point the board ratified them, with what I believe was little or no examination. Had there been its most probable they would not have ratified them.

Had the agreements proven beneficial and acceptable, we would be headed to Baltimore and Pete would still be president. We are not and he is not! Rather the board has hired lawyers and is considering other convention sites.

Thus, by the preponderance of evidence the board and Pete did not meet their fiduciary duty to protect the corporation by exercising due diligence regarding the Baltimore Contracts and neither would the board be covering its tracks by ignoring its bylaws and not making the contracts public.

Had the board previously consulted an attorney before ratifying the agreements the board would not now be consulting attorneys. Thus, by the preponderance of the evidence, the board did not exercise due diligence by consulting a lawyer before ratifying the agreements.

Ever since Pete was first elected to the board he has occasioned one drama after another, beginning with his attempt to remove Fred Haub which included the betrayal of the best man at his wedding to Jodi including his acolytes smearing of recalcitrant board members on line and ending with his Baltimore escapade. I call it "Four Weddings and the Death of HMGS."

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

Bob Coggins

Bob Coggins makes some excellent points. He has a right to be heard.

I personally tend to think the board didn't perform a thorough due diligence before jumping also. Seems painfully obvious from the current lack of information and the truly horrendous numbers that we all heard bantered about at Fall In. If they did it would be very easy for them to prove that they did.

I said in the beginning I had serious misgivings about Baltimore but I would go. What I find most interesting though is the number of folks that screamed to have the board lynched for putting the convention in Baltimore that now rush to defend them as saviors of the hobby. It might be too late kids. For the record, I have even more serious misgivings about the apparent lack of leadership and direction that is currently being shown by the board.

At this point I'm trying to decide if I should bother to renew my membership in HMGS, much less attend any convention including ColdWars which was, is and always has been my favorite. Frankly the rancor exhibited over this latest silliness is just one more reason why I mostly sit at home and paint. It's one more reason I find TMP to be not worthy of my support dollars as well. This hobby has entirely too many self important cantankerous little loud mouthed s.

It's just toy soldiers, folks.

Just looked at Brother Bob Coggins reply to my post. Np, no, and no. Never MET any of the Board members, much less represented them, much less got paid. Honestly, Brother Bob, isn't posing such a question to a complete stranger on a wargaming forum a shade paranoid? Do you see us all as potential sock puppets?

I admire your passion, and I think your heart's in the right place, but yeesh! Lighten up! And I still say the term "Due Diligence" is abused far more often than used correctly. For all I know, you are an expert. The concept is one of marginal utility (as is the concept of fiduciary duty) when applied to a bunch of unpaid volunteers in a hobby group. As the eloquent Mr. Hauser says above,

It's just toy soldiers, folks.

"someone should develop a boardgame on the subject"

It's been done, though in minatures. It was called the Amish Fork Rebellion (or some such) and it sort of mocked the BOD after one of the previous coups. Brother Walt, complete with his red beard lead the Amish fellowship against bikers, property developers, and some mysterious men in black trench coats. I, Sister Cleo, in my proper Amish bonnet utilized a small, handmade cowaput to fling a plastic cow at the police/news helicopter. AND HIT IT!

Ahh…that were the way battles should be fought, on tables with pitchforks and dice….

What I find most interesting though is the number of folks that screamed to have the board lynched for putting the convention in Baltimore that now rush to defend them as saviors of the hobby.

Some folks are more publicly critical of the policies, than the people. Others are more critical of the people. In rare cases, a policy and the person behind it are indistinguishable. This presents a conflict for people dead set against a policy but who have a relationship with the person.

The BoD is also not the same BoD that did initial surveys of possible locations, drove the move to BCC, and are dealing with it now. Those 3 separate processes share little in the way of commonly involved BoD members. I'd guess most of the current BoD members are or were involved in only 1 or 2 of those activities.

What should be obvious is that a number of people posting on these topics know more than what they're saying and a number of people know less than what they're saying. A few have repeated what I knew, but what I know is an incomplete picture, so I've kept it to myself. I'm mostly in wait and see mode at this point, as I'm only indirectly affected at this stage.

It's just toy soldiers, folks.

Agreed.

nikator,

No, I don't think the posters are sock puppets but I've been around lawyers too long not to ask the question. Bluntly, I am surprised you as a lawyer would even question such a line of questions but its not the questions that are dangerous its the answers.

I don't know what kind of law you practice but in the day before I retired, I saw men lose their livelihood for the lack of due diligence.

As for unpaid volunteers, I was unpaid and so were all of the founders but we took what we were doing somewht more seriously than the current and recent crews.

It assuredly is not just toy soldiers and I am surprise you as a lawyer would write such a thing. When you have a Quasrter of a Centrury old 501c3 founded to "promote the study of military history and the hobby of historical gaming with $300,000 in the bank which gives events where noted historians give talks it aint just toy soldiers.

And therein is the problem because a significant number if not the majority of members are entirely unaware of the corporate charter which makes the Society significantly different than a wargaming club. This also includes the members of the board who alas acted as if the Society were a club.

Goldwyrm,

Read my posts, I supported the Baltimore move – blindly. Your logic about responsibility is born out of the old if everyone is responsible then no one is responsible.

So, Schlieffen had a plan to defeat France, Molkte changed it and Germany lost the war. According to your thinking Schlieffen was also responsible.

Based on the little I know, I seriously doubt anyone on the board was involved in sny of the so called processes. Certainly George Nafziger was totally uninvolved. He was in Ethopia advising its military and while he requested an opportunity to review the proposal and speak to the board in person, the board acted in his absence and he "resigned." Given he was in the hobby for over 30 years, is a Captain in the U.S. Naval Reserve and advises foreign military establishments at the highest levels one would think the board would have been interested on his assessment of Baltimore.

But then perhaps they didn't want to hear what he would have said.

Bob Coggins

Many, many valid issues here (on both sides), but I thought I'd chime in on one.

Bob isn't being "paranoid" about opponents of certain political "blocs" being smeared online, or other places. I've seen it myself. It isn't pretty. And that should have set off warning bells a long time ago…

Instead, we all got to hear about how great the "Dear Leader" was.

Anyway… *roasts a marshmallow*… did anybody bring stuff for S'Mores?

-A.

I love S'Mores, but they mess up my sock somethin' FIERCE.

"Certainly George Nafziger was totally uninvolved. He was in Ethopia advising its military and while he requested an opportunity to review the proposal and speak to the board in person, the board acted in his absence and he "resigned." Given he was in the hobby for over 30 years, is a Captain in the U.S. Naval Reserve and advises foreign military establishments at the highest levels one would think the board would have been interested on his assessment of Baltimore."

My understanding is that there were some issues with George from the get-go that perhaps undermined his postion. It is my understanding he really did not want to be the Secretary, and suggested they hire someone to perform at least some of the tasks. I also heard there were some real foul ups with the membership data base too – which made some mailings late and incorrect – which costs money.

As stated, I believe he was often away on travel, which makes you wonder why he ran in the first place. I'm not saying he isn't a good fellow, but especially during a time of proposed location change, the board needed all of its members fully engaged, and to my understanding, all seven were not. But then again, even if they were, you only need four to vote the same anyway, so perhaps in the end, it made little difference.

I also suspect the process of multiple contract negotiations, perhaps with implied deadlines played a part too. It might be worth an investigation, but from an outside (non-costing) BoD authority, otherwise the Lessons Learned aren't learned. IIRC, the same issues happened with the organization resigned with the Host, as only one person signed, and it was a done deal without review. In part, that cost that then president his spot on the BoD come the next election.

I guess what I am saying here is that the process is perhaps flawed, though the people may mean well.

Goldwyrm,

Read my posts, I supported the Baltimore move – blindly. Your logic about responsibility is born out of the old if everyone is responsible then no one is responsible.

So, Schlieffen had a plan to defeat France, Molkte changed it and Germany lost the war. According to your thinking Schlieffen was also responsible.

I have read your posts. Much of what you say resonates, but I think you're drawing an incorrect conclusion from my observations. I wrote-

"The BoD is also not the same BoD that did initial surveys of possible locations, drove the move to BCC, and are dealing with it now. Those 3 separate processes share little in the way of commonly involved BoD members. I'd guess most of the current BoD members are or were involved in only 1 or 2 of those activities."

Here I've made an observation that BoDs of different membership composition have presided over the course of separate processes that culminated with where we are today. I do this because people throw the word BoD around without knowing who, what, where, or when.

I'm not assigning responsibility, but neither am I saying that responsibility can't be assigned.

At this point I'm trying to decide if I should bother to renew my membership in HMGS, much less attend any convention including ColdWars which was, is and always has been my favorite. Frankly the rancor exhibited over this latest silliness is just one more reason why I mostly sit at home and paint.

Ditto…I haven't gamed since last December…
Amen….

Interesting that no one pointed out that "fiduciary" doesn't exactly mean "legal".

Sundance,

I thought I was getting senile so I looked it up

According to USLegal Definitions:

"Fiduciary duty is a legal requirement of loyalty and care that applies to any person or organization that has a fiduciary relationship with another person or organization….
A fiduciary duty is one of complete trust and utmost good faith. While fiduciaries take legal title to assets, the assets do not belong to them. Rather, legal title allows fiduciaries to administer and manage the assets for a temporary period and for a specific purpose."

What in Heaven's name are you talking about?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Bob Coggins

Historygamer,

I am always amused when characterizations of resigned members find their way into the general public. It means someone or more than someone on the board had to be leaking the private business of the board.

Now, lets see over the years George has written numerous Napoleonic Histories which were so detailed as to be almost pedantic. After being voted Secretary by the board he told me he was enthusiastic about filling the position. Comparatively we have one or more members who regularly attempted to change the minutes to reflect well on him, including changing how he voted.

So, who has credibility? A man who over the years has devoted his life to getting it right or an unnamed leaker on a discredited board of directors, desperately attempting to preserve his/her reputation.

Now we are talking no evidence and what you wrote is a second hand smear based on a self serving rumor designed to protect someone on the board.

Bob Coggins

Bob:

Let's look at your originating post on the subject:

"Certainly George Nafziger was totally uninvolved."

Well, from my understanding, you seemed to have gotten this part right. But why was he uninvolved, and how does that give him a pass in what transpired?

"He was in Ethopia advising its military and while he requested an opportunity to review the proposal and speak to the board in person, the board acted in his absence and he "resigned."

So the then BoD was supposed to wait until he got back? How long what that? Was there a time limit on the decision making process? I seem to recall you were faced with a similar time limit when you moved Fall In from the Ike to Timonium some years ago and you certainly didn't wait a second. Have your standards changed then?

"Given he was in the hobby for over 30 years, is a Captain in the U.S. Naval Reserve and advises foreign military establishments at the highest levels one would think the board would have been interested on his assessment of Baltimore."

While all interesting and impressive résumé material, but it hardly qualifies him as a convention expert that they couldn't do without, now does it?

Look, by all accounts, George is a good man, but it seems like he was not able to fully commit as a BoD member right from the get go – so why would the other six have turned to him then, as besides from not being there for long stretches at a time (and perhaps being out of communications), he possessed no special convention knowledge or expertise (not a smear, just what appears to be a fact based on the qualifications you listed), and his ability to even vote on any new venue was in doubt since he is a vendor and thus has a conflict of interest – which is why Heather Blush reportedly did not vote herself.

He may be your friend, but good or bad, he too played a role in all of this.

historygamer,

He was away for a number of weeks. Are you now representing time was of the essence? It was not. If you knew the Baltimore as I know it you would realize the BCC is mostly empty and the weeked of 4th of July week wasn't in demand. So, a delay of a few weeks wasn't going to make a difference.

I have never known George not to carry through with everything he ever committed to. Are you now alleging with nothing more than rumor and innuendo that a man who is a US Naval Captain did not know the nature of serving on the board prior to running for the board?

He wasn't there, those who "committed" to Baltimore were. How precisely is George responsible?

And, if I may, who are you Historygamer and what benefits do you get from the board? Without identifying yourself your unsupported allegations have no credibility.

Bob Coggins

I lay the blame firmly and squarely upon THE PERSON responsible for everything that has transpired:

H. G. Wells

Yep, it was him, if he hadn't written Little Wars, none of this would be happening.

Little to be gained with stirring the pot and throwing blame until we know what the repercussions will be.

Bob:

I am not going to go into this any further as he resigned and I respect that. He did the right thing for himself and, I suspect, the rest of the BoD. I think that says it all.

If you wish to find out further history, then I suggest you check with some of your own sources, or look at the minutes on attendance, motions, counter-ideas, etc. It is all easily found out.

Benefits I receive from the BoD? None. I pay my dues, pay my admission, and volunteer when and where I can. One previous BoD member, who also resigned, took me to task for not running, but I know and understand what the demands are of serving on the BoD. That is why I don't run. Man's got to know his limitations.

Finally, all I'll say is that the notion of moving was priority #1 for the then BoD. They all knew it, and knew what venues were being considered. So yes, they are all responsible in one way or other. That said, it is hardly the crime of the century, and to me, the important thing is where do we go from here. The horse is out of the barn, and arguing over who left the gate open seems rather pointless now.

Finally, all I'll say is that the notion of moving was priority #1 for the then BoD. They all knew it, and knew what venues were being considered. So yes, they are all responsible in one way or other. That said, it is hardly the crime of the century, and to me, the important thing is where do we go from here. The horse is out of the barn, and arguing over who left the gate open seems rather pointless now.

I agree with you to a point that a witch hunt isn't going to do any good.

At this point I think we can all agree the BCC affair wasn't handled properly. Once we're out of this mess, an RCA (Root Cause Analysis) and\or "Lessons Learned" document should be prepared and made available. There should also be rules drawn up so we never have to go through this nonsense again.

I agree, but I am not sure the BoD is the proper body to conduct such an investigation upon itself. There would be a conflict of interest, and I am not sure BoD member investigating each other would make for a smooth working group.

From my perspective it is only important to understand what happened so that a better process may be created for next time – and there will be a next time, as there always is.

LongIsland gamer wrote in part…

At this point I think we can all agree the BCC affair wasn't handled properly. Once we're out of this mess, an RCA (Root Cause Analysis) and\or "Lessons Learned" document should be prepared and made available. There should also be rules drawn up so we never have to go through this nonsense again.

Exactly what I have been saying, probably less elegantly, for some time on these threads.

HistoryGamer wrote in part…

I agree, but I am not sure the BoD is the proper body to conduct such an investigation upon itself. There would be a conflict of interest, and I am not sure BoD member investigating each other would make for a smooth working group.

My concern also. Will the findings be finessed to protect any interests especially as several of the current and recent BoD members were & continue to be involved in leadership positions?

I think we will have to wait & see how the communication develops. I will trust the new BoD members to want to be transparent, comprehensive and forthcoming on all this.

You cannot, will not, gain a full disclosure until certain individuals are no longer in a position to influence the BOD.

All they're doing right now is playing a big game of Junta, so far as I can tell… The President is now Admiral, and stuffing money into his Swiss bank account. The Admiral is now in charge of the Army. The General is President, and some poor schmuck got stuck with what's left of the Air Force..;)*

*munches S'mores*

Can't wait to see who makes it out of the Bunker.

-A.

* And for once, it isn't me.

From ratisbon: "And, if I may, who are you Historygamer and what benefits do you get from the board?"
Most are sure he is Jim McCaughey (check my spelling).

Absent a willingness to identify yourself your unsupported allegations regarding Nafziger's service on the board are not credible.

To clarify, I was not against moving to Baltimore, though for various reasons, including demographic, I preferred the Hampton Virginia Convention Center. My concern was not the choice of Baltimore but the board led by Panzeri would not approach the move with the seriousness it deserved. I like the term cavalierly due to ignorance. Nevertheless when the decision was made I supported the board. After all I live in Baltimore.

Because I am not brilliant, I never did anything without asking questions in order to get as much information as possible before making a decision. And therein was my major concern, neither Pete nor the board understood the gravity of the agreements they were entering into, so they did so with their eyes wide shut. It stands to reason something went wrong, horribly wrong, but till I have additional information I will withhold further comment.

Save this, Pete and the board failed to get advice from those familiar with the city and the facility. Certainly Don Greenwood, one of the founders of the wargaming convention who actually ran an Origins at the BCC would have been valuable to consult but he was not.

Once committed, the board had the obligation to sell the facility and the city to the members. It did not, even to the extent of not identifying the hotel which would be convention headquarters. Neither did anyone on the board bother to explain to a concerned membership how the convention would work.

Given the board's less than stellar performance to date, I am concerned that even if the Society is delivered from its obligations to Baltimore the board will walk into another unsatisfactory agreement.

Absent more resignations the Society is stuck with this board till July. As I live and breathe, my only hope is its members will raise their game as well as reach out to former members and founders for ADVICE and not just lawyers (due to health I am not a candidate).

Bob Coggins

I agree, but I am not sure the BoD is the proper body to conduct such an investigation upon itself. There would be a conflict of interest, and I am not sure BoD member investigating each other would make for a smooth working group.

I'm not asking that they point people out, simply document what happened, where the mistakes were made put and rules in place so this cannot happen again. If they cannot be honest and document what went wrong then I wonder if we have the right people on the board.

"… your unsupported allegations regarding Nafziger's service on the board are not credible."

Or, you just can't handle the truth. Give a pass to whomever you wish then – it makes no difference. You know better than I that the BoD is a collective and is only as strong as the members want to be. If you like, I'll be happy to look up his attendance record and post it, but no doubt you'll question that as well. I know, those darned facts keeping getting in your way.

You know yourself that these things often come down to one or two people actively engaging and making the decisions. That is how you did it when you pulled the plug on the Ike the first time. You got tired of waiting for the hotel POC to get back to you when she was suffering the loss of a loved one. You were also enamored with Timonium (now widely regarded as a really bad move – except by you), and thus we ended up there. The then BoD went along with you, for a variety of reasons. My point being, the same problem existed then, as it did when Fred H signed the last contract with the Host (no BoD review, he was the only one who signed the contract, did the negotiations by himself – which contained some harsh provisions that led to the Ike being dumped), as we also now find ourselves in the current situation once again, only more serious. There is no formal process to work out possible moves, so the BoD does the best (or worst) they can given the people who are on the board at the time – at least from those participating.

My point about your friend was that he often could not participant as his job kept him away for periods of time. I note how you conveniently side stepped your previous statement about him fulfilling his commitments then resigning, as it makes your statement look ridiculous. You can't fulfill a commitment by resigning – unless your commitment was to resign. Granted, that is your explanation and not his, so I will not hold him responsible for such an illogical statement.

For the record, I wouldn't have chosen Baltimore for many of the reasons posted, but if it was the venue of choice, I wanted to see it get as much support as it could. It may still be, who knows at this point?

Also, the current board is not all up for election come the next vote either – only some. I am sure the current members are doing the best they can – given the circumstances. I wish them well, but of course, the clock and the situation are working against them.

whst of pressing importence was the board dealing with till the decision to move to Baltmore?

Its not that Pete signed its that he presented the agreement as a fait accompli. I often was the only signer of an agreement but only after it was reviewed and okayed by the board.

Personally I think Baltmore with advice of old hands may be the best solution. My concern is not time or the situation but the willingness of the board members to apply themselves and to seek advice.

Bob Coggins

You know yourself that these things often come down to one or two people actively engaging and making the decisions. That is how you did it when you pulled the plug on the Ike the first time. You got tired of waiting for the hotel POC to get back to you when she was suffering the loss of a loved one. You were also enamored with Timonium (now widely regarded as a really bad move – except by you), and thus we ended up there. The then BoD went along with you, for a variety of reasons. My point being, the same problem existed then, as it did when Fred H signed the last contract with the Host (no BoD review, he was the only one who signed the contract, did the negotiations by himself – which contained some harsh provisions that led to the Ike being dumped), as we also now find ourselves in the current situation once again, only more serious. There is no formal process to work out possible moves, so the BoD does the best (or worst) they can given the people who are on the board at the time – at least from those participating.

This is the reason the BoD needs better documentation and procedures. If this is not the first time something like this happened then we need to make sure this is the LAST time something like this can happen.

"whst of pressing importence was the board dealing with till the decision to move to Baltmore?"

Sorry Bob, I assumed (dangerous thing) you were better informed on these matters.

There were all sorts of issues that took place in the last 4 years or so, and I'm not going to open old wounds to educate you on them. I suspect you are aware of many of them if you stop and think about them, or go over the minutes and newsletters, and online chatter.

Suffice to say the process of choosing a new place is haphazard at best. And you will never please all of the people anyway. I would not have chosen the BCC, but honestly, I am not sure where else I would have chosen.

Again, the most pressing point for the board seems to be figuring out what its options are and establishing some drop dead dates to make decisions. We may be in Baltimore yet, I don't know, but neither does anyone else.

Need a special board for former BOD members to insult and attack each other without the need for the kind of personal attacks we see

Historygamer,

You post but I do not hear you for the lack of your willingness to identify yourself.

Bob Coggins

The selection process may be haphazard, but following that selection, the marketing message needs to be precise, factual,timely and official. The information must get the widest circulation in the proposed market area. The "Green Booklet" published in July and available at this years Historicon never made to Northern VA game stores that I have seen. There appears to be no effort to announce the Games Day that would make it in front of the eyes of a casual gamer. After an hour+ Web search, I still was not able to confirm Free Admission & Free Parking rumor.

My hat goes off to Walt O'Hara and the poor fellow who got the ticket after parking in the "correct" lot without the necessary dashboard display. Both did better searching out information than I, but it was not a free trip for either. However, they both had to go on site before the information was made available to them.

This marketing effort was so haphazard it failed to successfully market free parking in downtown Baltimore to its members let alone to people of the Baltimore area. Let's see:

1. Commodity much in demand – parking near the Inner Harbor.
2. Extremely reasonable price (Come see us and pick up a pass – no charge).

Result : Not much.
Wonder why : Oh, yeah, Secret Squirrel wouldn't let us tell anyone about the details of the arrangements.

My advice to the BoD: Keep 2010 in Baltimore. You're completely dependant on external sources for any useful information distribution.

If you do make a change get it to Kyoteblue @ BNN, he has a higher readership than the official Yahoo Announcement board.

If you want real success beg Bob and Cleo to do one serious news letter with the information (and the BoD along w/ Secret Squirrel should stay out of it). I have read every word I have recieved under their By-Line.

And by all means post the info here.

R. Fisher

>Also, the current board is not all up for election come the next vote either – only some.
>

Which is why I previously asked Should the Entire BOD Resign. Perhaps all should resign, and try to get nominated for re-election.

>Secret Squirrel

Don't ya'll hate it when people try to prevent everyone from knowing what they are talking about, by using cute pseudonyms that only the person they are whispering-in-public to know?

Bob:

If you can't hear me then turn up your hearing aid. ;-0 Just kidding (he doesn't wear one as far as I know)

Who I am has no bearing on this discussion. I have no agenda other than to set the record straight. I will tell you what is my opinion versus what I know to be the facts. I'm not defending anyone as what happened is pretty apparent, and yes, they should all be held accountable – though in this situation that doesn't mean much, now does it.

What matters are facts – which you seem to be lacking. I won't do your homework for you, check for yourself. And as I said, what matters more is where we are, not how we got here. At leat right now.

And good gaming to you. (I just played in a great game today myself!)

"Which is why I previously asked Should the Entire BOD Resign. Perhaps all should resign, and try to get nominated for re-election."

The board is formatted to run in three open, then four open positions. There are very good and obvious reasons for that. To undo that you would have to make a motion to rewrite the by laws. Then, you would be on an all seven running cycle, which is not good for obvious reasons.

>The board is formatted to run in three open, then four open positions. There are very good and obvious reasons for that.
>

Yup, but the principle of Avoiding the Appearance of Impropriety would justify offering resignations. The new board could then determine the length of term of each member to bring it back into the cycle.

Yup, but the principle of Avoiding the Appearance of Impropriety would justify offering resignations. The new board could then determine the length of term of each member to bring it back into the cycle.

I'm not sure so I'll ask, is this supposed to be a serious post or are you just pulling everyone's chain.

Resignations allow the membership decide what reaction the facts (once publicized) warrant.

BeenThere
This marketing effort was so haphazard it failed to successfully market free parking in downtown Baltimore to its members let alone to people of the Baltimore area. Let's see:

1. Commodity much in demand – parking near the Inner Harbor.
2. Extremely reasonable price (Come see us and pick up a pass – no charge).

Result : Not much.
Wonder why : Oh, yeah, Secret Squirrel wouldn't let us tell anyone about the details of the arrangements.

Two reasons to have hope that this will work out in the end:
1. The Secret Squirrel isn't president any more.
2. It is no longer a secret that he's squirrelly.

YY