"Removal of Louis Desy from HMGS East BoD?" Topic

Has Louis Desy actually been removed from the BoD? I think the reason was because he tried to post the actual complaint from BCC? Is that correct?

Hmmmm… you know… I think we have gone down this road before with Fred Haub a few years ago when the old BoD tried to kick him off. We fought it and the membership must vote whether to have a seated Board member removed. It's probably in the By-laws somewhere. If he was removed without the members voting would Louis Desy be within his right to sue the Board? Someone should look into this. Do we really need another lawsuit?

At what meeting was this done? Who kept the minutes? Who voted for and who against? Was he removed with or without cause?

The minutes of their meetings are stunningly devoid of any information, from the few I bothered to review on-line, so you won't have any luck there.

They just seem to document that a meeting was held, title of any topics of discussion, and are then signed by the secretary.

Mr. Desy was elected this year with 115 votes:

PDF link

The other two BoD members elected in 2010 received 117 and 112 votes. I don't recall the figures, but surely the other elected BoD members received only a few more votes in the past.

All these individuals are in office due to the expressed wish of only a very few HMGS-East members. How many do you seriously expect to become agitated about this disenfranchisement issue, or about any of the recent shenanigans, for that matter? It seems like most anyone likely to have their hair on fire already posts on the pertinent threads.

You could probably buy a round of drinks for the entire membership with a sufficient "give a hoot" factor, and not make a big dent in your wallet.

Allen

Apparently, you have no idea how thin my wallet is now…..

;-(

The HMGS-East wallet can cover it. Or can it?

Allen

If he was removed without the members voting would Louis Desy be within his right to sue the Board?

Sue for what? Wouldn't he need to show harm? If they kicked ME off, I would thank my lucky stars!
Perhaps in 9 years, the case might come up for trial. That is, if you can find a job with time to kill and nothing better to do.

No posting from the BOD on the HMGS Forum to that effect.

Did he ever show up for anything? As of Fall In he apparantly had not attended any Board meetings or conventions since his election.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Desy has not attended any Board meetings since his election. I attended the HMGS membership meeting at Fall In 2010 and he was not in attendance there either.

Having been on the board for over 10 years to the best of my recollection there is no requirement that a board member attend board meetings.

To remove a board member the board is supposed to provide said member with a bill of particulars and a date of the meeting to address the removal.

To my understanding, Mr. Desy has not received notification of a special meeting and is thus still a member of the board.

That said, as best as I can discern he did not attend Historicon or Fall In! or the board meetings held at those events. One would hope he will make a point to attend CWs.

Bob Coggins

Mr Desy was banned from the HMGS Yahoo Group. There is no confirmation that he was removed from the board.

K Kelley

Why not update your figures ? Rebase them or throw some fresh paint on them. You know, clean them up a bit. Then leave them in your Will to someone who's going to appreciate them… or sell them yourself and use the money towards concentrating on the periods you're most intersted in.

PS To Snowshoe, in other words, you're wife is convinced that women are the superior beings on the planet. Don't let her try and fool you about that either. Of course, since about 1973, women have been handed a power superior to any that men have in the US, but what ?!? I thought we were supposed to be equal !?! Call it the farcical rumblings of the great gravy train of Bull which we've haven't had the pleasure to have foisted on us :)

Maryland Code for meeting of BOD of corporations

(a) Place of meeting; remote communication.- Unless the bylaws of the corporation provide otherwise, a regular or special meeting of the board of directors may be held at any place in or out of the State or by means of remote communication.





(b) Notice of meeting.-





(1) Notice of each meeting of the board of directors shall be given as provided in the bylaws.





(2) Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, the notice:





(i) Shall be in writing or delivered by electronic transmission; and





(ii) Need not state the business to be transacted at or the purpose of any regular or special meeting of the board of directors.





(c) Waiver of notice.- Whenever this article or the charter or bylaws of a corporation require notice of the time, place, or purpose of a meeting of the board of directors or a committee of the board, a person who is entitled to the notice waives notice if the person:





(1) Before or after the meeting delivers a written waiver or a waiver by electronic transmission which is filed with the records of the meeting; or





(2) Is present at the meeting.





(d) Telephone meetings.-





(1) Unless restricted by the charter or bylaws of the corporation, members of the board of directors or a committee of the board may participate in a meeting by means of a conference telephone or other communications equipment if all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time.





(2) Participation in a meeting by these means constitutes presence in person at the meeting.

[An. Code 1957, art. 23, §§ 46, 56; 1975, ch. 311, § 2; ch. 520; 2003, ch. 387.]

This is just like looking at a train wreck, you know you shouldn't look but…..

This is a group of guys that play with toy solider remember, lets never forget that. Good luck guys.

i will try be subtle

JUST GO TO THE #%$# MEETINGS LOUIS
no lame excuses
no dumb stories
no fake lawyerese
no chest puffing
no stoopid conditions

simple three step process
1)find out where they are
2)attend
3)actually tell the board you are there(can't believe this had to be added)

once you attend you can be the hound you want to be

thanks
larry

Here is a suggestion… Since Mr. Desy says he recieves no notification of board meetings….and I am inclined to believe that this is true…..why doesn't a board member post the time, place, and details about when the next meeting is on this message board. We know Mr. Desy reads these boards. Then we all will know that he has had notice. Now considering the communication we get from the BOD, I won't be holding my breath waiting to see this happen.

"This is a group of guys that play with toy solider remember, lets never forget that."

Apparently, that's what makes it so deadly serious.

Allen

Can't comment about the pre-con board meetings but I do know that as long as I have been going to Lancaster for the cons, every Sunday of the convention, 9am or so, the board is in the room next to restaurant. Every con, every year, for more years than I can remember. This isn't rocket science.

"This is a group of guys that play with toy solider remember, lets never forget that", but that have access and discretion to spend tens of thousands of dollars of the membership's money, frivolously, if desired.

The situation is like a bad soap opera.

Oh wait, I have an idea for a new "reality" show…..

I admit it is my fault for not knowing in advance that the bylaws list/require two board meetings at each convention but I expected that there would be some of email detailing the room and time of each meeting with an agenda. For the prior ones, this seems to have been being done and I expected for Fall-In that the same was going to continue. When I didn't get any notice, I assumed that there were no board meetings scheduled.

I signed their ethics agreement in advance of Fall-In, even though I still object to it, and I expect to be allowed access to the BOD yahoo group. Instead, I have been banned from the membership yahoo group with no notice or warning. It took me days to figure out what was going on. None of my emails to the group moderator have been answered. None of my requests for information to the other board members have been answered except a reply to my request for information on the lawyer fees. (This email was answered but no numbers have been given.) My request for information on who is the moderator has not been answered. It was not clear for the past several days on whether or not I had been somehow removed from the board at a Fall-In board meeting.

I will look at the process for a referendum on removing the entire board member and try to send this off by next Sunday. When I do send this notice, I will post the letter with tracking in the yahoo group that I have setup. This should give the membership enough time to gather the votes for removal and assemble a full slate of candidates for a new board to fix the problems with HMGS.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

I just got an email (7:45pm Sunday) from Eric (HMGS President) that was sent around 6pm today, Sunday. Two board meetings have been scheduled.

The first meeting will be a teleconference at 8pm on Tuesday, November 16.

The second meeting will be an onsite in in person board meeting on Saturday, December 4 starting at 9am at the Clarion Hotel in Aberdeen, Maryland.

No agenda for either meeting has been sent yet.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

So a group that is going through a law suit would rather spend more money holding a meeting at a Hotel rather than some where more cost effective.

Larry,

Amen.

Mr. Desy,

Un-friggin-believable.

Scott

A notice was posted to the Forum by the Communications
Vice-President that Mr. Desy has been removed from the
Yahoo Membership Forum (NOT the BoD) by unaninimous vote
of the other BoD members.

Now, let me get this straight, and please correct me if I am wrong…
A member of the BOD who cannot be bothered to attend meetings of the BOD wants to remove the entire BOD?

Louie,

What did you think being a member of the BoD entailed?

What exactly is your point?

What are you on about?

Just being the biggest blowhard in the room doesn't count for anything.

"Desy's conduct, particularly the threatening and harassing e-mail messages, strongly suggests dishonesty, poor judgment, and a willingness to misuse the judicial process."
link

I'm sure this has been asked before…but..

What was your interest in joining the HMGS BoD in the first place?! Do you actually play with toy soldiers… or did you just stay at a Holiday Inn Express?

I will look at the process for a referendum on removing the entire board member and try to send this off by next Sunday. When I do send this notice, I will post the letter with tracking in the yahoo group that I have setup. This should give the membership enough time to gather the votes for removal and assemble a full slate of candidates for a new board to fix the problems with HMGS.

Gee, I wonder why they tossed him off the Yahoo! group?

Ah, I get it all now. This is a LARP of Junta… The Air Force is afraid the Minister of the Interior will assassinate him if he plays the "Attend a meeting of the BOD" card!
Meanwhile, he is getting set to bomb the Presidential Palace, as soon as he gets the Student Protestors and Striking Dock Workers cards.

I've checked on the HMGS-East Web site, and do not find anyone assigned to the position of "Minister of Internal Security". The secret police must be even more secret than usual.

Was the assassination more likely to occur at the Mistress's or at the Nightclub, do you think?

Allen

This main issue is whether or not we ever going to get any information on anything. After months of asking, it looks like the people controlling the levers of power within HMGS, are never, ever going to give any information to anyone. The members can verify this by the fact that no one has been told how much money HMGS is into for the BCC lawsuit. This is a simple question that one phone call would answer.

Remember the meeting in March 2010, after the regular membership meeting when everyone was told that some of the $5K retainer was going to be returned from the law firm and that it was expected that HMGS was going to get back the deposit on BCC? Well, it was all wrong. HMGS spent thousands in additional, unnecessary and wasted legal fees. There is no more talk about getting the deposit back, instead the talk is trying to ‘mediate' and it is never, ever anymore mentioned how much any of this is costing with the law firm. Just as an aside, I would not be surprised if the total is up to $20K in fees or retainers.

Even the simplest requests for information, such as how much has been spent with the law firm, are meet with reasons on why the information is not available, why it can't be given at this time or how if one really, really wants to know, they have to travel hundreds of miles because it can only be presented in person at a later date and only to members of the board.

The simple and easy solution, is to fire everyone that is not giving information as requested. For the same amount of effort in getting information a little piece at a time, we can fire everyone and replace them with people that will give information when it is asked of them from the membership.

As far as ‘threatening HMGS', this is from a group of people within HMGS who had no qualms about making up fake board minutes and then falsely leading the HMGS membership down the path of blaming other HMGS officers for doing what they were told to do, even when approved with a board vote! If you read my messages, I stated the reasons I expected the people within HMGS who control the levers of power, would start using a law firm into bullying me into NOT giving information to the membership that the membership has a right to view and what my response would be. I assume that the bullies that really run HMGS did not like my response because not only did I detail what would happen, but I showed them an example, that is available to everyone, that I was not just running my mouth, but that I had the capabilities to counter any legal action they took and had the capability to fight off any lawsuit. But just like all bullies, when faced with a determined response, they looked around for anything else to use. The happy end result is that once I have sent out all of the mailers I expect to before the end of the year and added people to the yahoo group I have setup so I can communicate with the membership, then there will be no need for the hmgs-forum and my being banned will not matter. Then the current group that control the levers of power within HMGS can use it as their own private, HMGS state run controlled media channel to put out whatever ridiculous, science fiction stories on what is going on and why, at least until they all get fired.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

So how are you more informed? Have you attended any of the BoD meetings where information was present because you asked for it?

Oh yeah that's right you did not.

I have brought the information that you have asked, contracts, emails, etc… to every BoD meeting. You were not present.

Brought it to the membership meeting, again you were not present.

So instead you have taken it upon yourself to do damage to an institution, you have in fact declared war on the membership. That is your right.

We aren't hiding anything, we have offered to people more than once. We Won't publish the information in an area were it can be cut and pasted and hurt the organization. Is that so hard to understand?

I guess it is. Unless of course there is another agenda at stake.

Orest Swystun

Desy wrote in part…

As far as ‘threatening HMGS', this is from a group of people within HMGS who had no qualms about making up fake board minutes

This allegation was answered in detail by the current Secretary.

my understanding:

There was never any "false board minutes". At least not as alleged by Desy, formulated after the fact by the current BOD.

There were apparently several versions of minutes created on or about the time of the meetings in question due to at least two people [Secretary Nafziger & President Panzeri] having different versions [not hard to do when they are in electronic form, anyone can open & modify a word file].

How did that happen? Seems the Secretary at the time [Nafziger] and President [Panzeri]had differing views on what/how should have been recorded.

Nafziger eventually quit and gave the files he had [written & electronic?…he wrote about here on TMP] up.

The current BOD, according to the current secretary, attempted to determine which were the official & correct version to be signed and posted as the certified correct version. Since those involved were no longer around, it is my understanding that both/any/all versions were posted to the web site repository. The current BOD felt this was the only course of action since they could not positively establish the "official" correct version.

No where did I read that the current BOD developed, presented or caused to be created a current version….just dealt with versions from that time period without modifying them.

Apparently, Panzeri did not like what or how Nafziger captured & presented the business of the Board in the minutes. Perhaps he developed his own version[s]?

But it is my take that there was no "dark ops" nature to the temporary removal & subsequent re-posting of the minutes.

You do disservice to the Society to paint the situation as intentional deception.

IMO, once again the dysfunction of the Board under President Panzeri is the underlying reason.

John the OFM 15 Nov 2010 11:06 a.m. PST
Ah, I get it all now. This is a LARP of Junta… The Air Force is afraid the Minister of the Interior will assassinate him if he plays the "Attend a meeting of the BOD" card!
Meanwhile, he is getting set to bomb the Presidential Palace, as soon as he gets the Student Protestors and Striking Dock Workers cards.

COUP EXCUSE! COUP EXCUSE! I got the 2nd Brigade armed, fueled, and the engines are running. Uhhh, now who are we going to shoot after the revolution is successful?

I love it when a revolution comes together.

You NEED a coup excuse?

Head for the Swiss Embassy!

because not only did I detail what would happen, but I showed them an example

Oh, so that was an EXAMPLE. An example that ended with you suing HMGS into oblivion. See, that sounded like a threat, but now that you've clarified, it's all good.

So, lets review. You did not go to Historicon, because, by your own words, you claim you are afraid of the membership. You show up, briefly, at Fall In, but do not attempt to speak to anyone you claim is withholding information from you. You use an example to show what will happen if you don't get your way. And you see yourself as Vanderbilt reborn and speak of going to the HMGS lawyers office to "tear the documents from their hands" if they won't be shown to you (sorta sounds like a threat there too).

In summary:
1) you do not care about the membership, and are in fact, afraid of them
2) you do not care about the organization, and will gladly destroy it

Why did you run for office again? Please, enlighten me. Beacuse if #1 and #2 are true (as they so abundantly appear to be based on all your messages), there must be some other ulterior motive.

When you submit that motion to remove the current board, please be sure your own name is on it too.

"If allowed, any player may start a coup, thus becoming First Rebel, by playing a card to place units on the board, moving any unit or bombarding the presidential palace. If no player does this, no coup takes place. The risk a player takes on in declaring himself the First Rebel is that he will also end up being the only rebel, and suffer reprisals in the wake of an unsuccessful coup."

I'm not sure that Louis Desy is entirely right about "fake BOD meeting minutes." But the "New Revised Standard Minutes are nothiing to write home about.

When the minutes were pulled by the current iteration of the BORG one set of accurate and relatively complete minutes, those of 9 January 2009, disappeared. Those minute contained what BOD Meeting Minutes are supposed to contain. They cite a BOD vote, 4 for, 1 against, 1 abstaining to contract with the BCC for HISTORICON 2010.

It was not revised. It was simply removed.

The New Revised Standard Versions do not seem to have contained any votes to to cancel BCC, nor yet to contract with VFCC. They should have. But they damn well didn't.

There was a vote to hire a lawyer. Vague on anticipated costs. No reason given. We can guess that it was to fend off the anticipated BCC lawsuit. But the authors of the farce were careful not to say so.

After a fellow Wally's Basement veteran slipped me a copy of the January 09 and I quoted it on some of these discussions the current iteration of the BORG said "Opps-we inadvertently omitted those minutes!" And, I think, posted them.

The "New Revised Standard Minutes" are deliberately vague and misleading. And if you believe that the only solid minutes were "inadvertently not posted" well, OK, Bill Gray said he already bought the Brooklyn Bridge. But I can probably find some sore of deal for you.

Pat Condray (WKPP)

John the OFM 15 Nov 2010 8:43 p.m. PST
You NEED a coup excuse?

*NJH: Rules require it.

"As for kicking Louis Desy Jr. off the official forum, that is dumber than Pete Panzeri's rigid censorship of the "Announcements" forum. "

Strangely Pat, I agree with you about this one. Below is the official kicking off announcement from HMGS Forum from Nov 14 posted by Heather Blush who, BTW, is one of five moderators with the power to add to or lighten the membership rolls on the HMGS Forum. Since she is also on the Board, I assume she was the moderator to delete L. Desy. Jr.

"On Thursday, October 28, 2010, the HMGS Board of Directors decided unanimously to remove Louis J. Desy Jr. from the Yahoo Membership Forum. This act was not taken lightly, but only after much discussion and deliberation. Membership in the HMGS Forum group on Yahoo is a privilege not a right for every member of the organization. Mr. Desy made several serious threats to the organization as a whole on this forum. The BoD decided that we would no longer stand idly by while Mr. Desy repeatedly threatened to destroy HMGS. This was in our opinion "a bridge too far" and behavior that could and should no longer be tolerated. We believe that this is in the best interest of the membership. All members of the HMGS Forum are held to the same standards of behavior.
Heather Blush
VP, Membership Communications/Outreach
HMGS BoD"

I think Heather and the Board may be expanding the target zone L. Desy Jr. has in mind and thus painting him with a very ugly brush. Whether they are doing this intentionally or not is another matter. There is some inkling in all of this that the target for destruction is perhaps only the HMGS Board and not the membership or the organization in total.
Your turn Louis.

"L'e501c3, c'est moi"

Has a nice ring to it.

painting him with a very ugly brush

Mr. Desy is doing that painting all on his own really.

As much as I want there to be openness and an accounting of what happened the way Mr. Desy is going about it is not the best course of action. In others words his methods to achieve the results don't seem to take into account the consequences of his actions. This makes it appear he's no different that some other former board members. It looks like HMGS is having a Star Wars Opera all on it's own. I'm concerned the Jedi Council have a Sith in their midst. AGAIN.

Col Bismarck:
I will agree with you that Mr. Desy's tactics and reasoning leave a whole lot to be desired. I don't know his objective or his true intentions as he is a lot wobley about both. As a result, the thread and topic about him and his actions, or inactions, has transcended the contract disputes into its own issue sadly. My point earlier was that fortunately for the Board Mr. Desy's methods, or madness, have become a convenient foil that the Board can point to as a distraction. That is unfortunate as Louis has given ample reason for some of the membership to pile on….most of it justified. But he is not doing this 'painting' all on his own so I must disagree with you there on that point. Both sides in this are doing plenty of it.

The BOD held a meeting unannounced to either the membership or Mr Desy on 28 Oct and voted that he be denied access to the HMGS main group. They informed the membership of it 14 Nov, more then 2 weeks later, when pressed by posts in the HMGS Forum.

As far as 'fake' minutes, multiple differing copies of the minutes in question exist and at lest two were officially posted. Since they all cannot be correct some must by definition be incorrect. 'Fake' may not have been the best choice of words.

Mr Desy may be a bit of a loose cannon but were it not for his efforts we would not have the information we have such at it is.

The board met Thursday night before Fall In (Oct 28). They always meet the night before the cons start. I'm sure the discussion to remove Louis from the Yahoo group was just one of many issues on the agenda for a normal, always as it has been done, board meeting.

"a bit of a loose cannon" is a bit of an understatement in my opinion.

I was able to attend the HMGS telecom board meeting on Tuesday night, November 16, 2010 at 8pm. While some of the other members of the board of directors seemed unhappy, I was able to get some important information from the meeting.

While I was aware of the lawsuit that the Baltimore convention center has with HMGS, I was not clear, until this meeting, what was going on with the hotel contracts. It was only mentioned as a side issue to the board teleconference discussion about requesting me to resign from the board, but according to what I was told, all of the hotel contracts, except for the hotel contract with the Sheraton, were reduced in time before Historicon 2010.

Unfortunately, the contract with the Sheraton is a two year contract that covers 2010 and 2011 and was not able to be reduced. HMGS has defaulted on the 2010 Sheraton hotel block and is still under contract for the 2011 hotel block. The Sheraton appears to have taken no action at this time. The HMGS lawyer for the Baltimore case is also being used for the Sheraton hotel block problem.

I believe that the Sheraton is waiting for both contract dates to pass and then will file one lawsuit for the full amount sometime around July or August 2011. It seems that would be the best course of action for them, since they can sue HMGS with just one court case instead of having two and it gives the Sheraton the possibility of benefiting from any discovery that the City of Baltimore does in the case the convention center case that is now running. I looked through my earlier notes from all sources and the best I can tell, at one time, it was mentioned that the liability for the Sheraton for 2010 could be around $48K and $42K for 2011. If this is correct it means that the Sheraton hotel block problem could leave HMGS liable for around $90K.

The total potential liabilities of the Baltimore Convention Center ($33K) and the Sheraton hotel ($90K) could mean that HMGS will face a liability of $123K within the next few years. These two issues override all other considerations, problems or issues for HMGS. I do not believe that any meaningful reduction of these amounts can or will occur and that HMGS is going to need to somehow try to arrange payments over time. While it is possible that maybe paying legal fees to negotiate or fight in court might work, the problem is that approach risks spending additional money that HMGS may not be able to afford and leaves it in a worse position than if nothing had been done.

If there are no more problems, no large amounts of money are spent on legal fees, and the conventions are actually cash profitable, HMGS should be able to survived as long as it is careful about how it contracts for the conventions and how it times it payments for the conventions. However, if HMGS makes a mistake in timing of its payments for conventions (example: prepaying for more than one convention at a time such as paying for a Historicon and then putting a large deposit down for Fall-In at the same time), spends too much on legal fees or the conventions lose money, then HMGS runs the risk that it may find itself in a situation where it needs to make a payment but lacks the cash to do so.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

Hopefully, the problems with the Baltimore convention Center and the Sheraton Hotel with a potential liability for HMGS $123K, will be worked out and/or some sort of repayment plan will be arranged and have no effect on HMGS conventions. However, if complications develop and things do not work out, here are two potential options that have been discussed in the past and how I believe each would play out:

Potential options if nothing works out:
1: Spend all of the money and reform elsewhere. This option has been proposed but I believe that it will run into problems in that if this options starts to be executed, then Baltimore and the Sheraton will stop negotiating and also it ensures that HMGS ends up dissolved. There is also the problem in that this is probably illegal and Baltimore and the Sheraton may be able to make a motion to stop it or pull back the money.

2: Bankruptcy. This has been mentioned in the past as a possible option, but if HMGS does not have the money to run its conventions, it most certainly would not have the money to pay the legal fees for a bankruptcy. Usually for an organization like HMGS any law firm that took such a case would require the fees in advance with a money order. I would expect the fees to start would be at least $10K or $20K and due to the issues, might run higher and be required to be paid at the start of the case. The cost of this option is so high that it a worse option than one above.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

Backstop plan for HMGS in the event of complete failure.

Hopefully, the problems with the Baltimore convention Center and the Sheraton Hotel with a potential liability for HMGS $123K, will be worked out and/or some sort of repayment plan will be arranged and have no effect on HMGS conventions. However, if complications develop, things do not work out and HMGS needs to be saved, I do believe that a backstop plan can be prepared, in advance This plan would only be executed in the event that HMGS was in danger of complete failure and there was no one able to step in.

Hopefully this scenario will never happen, but if it does, then this is what I expect will happen:

1: The scenario starts with HMGS being unable to pay expenses to run. Some event occurs that causes HMGS to be unable to pay a critical expenses, such as a convention hall deposit or such. HMGS being unable to pay means that HMGS conventions would not be able to be run.

2: A plan, that is already in place to backstop the immediate, critical needs for HMGS to ensure that the existing systems and staff are preserved with a planned migration to the new organization that replaces HMGS with as little disruption as possible. It is possible that I might have to front some of these expenses to ensure there is no disruption of HMGS before it migrates to the new organization and I can formalize the amount and nature of the backstop that is needed from the other people.

3: The resources of HMGS are migrated to the new organization. As long as there is an orderly migration, the conventions run with the same staffs with little to no disruption. The people that backstopped HMGS would probably be the actual owners of the new organization but the HMGS staff would continue to do their old jobs for the new organization.

4: Over time once everything is running, there could be another change from the migrate organization back to what HMGS use to be or to another form but the conventions continue to run and the same staff runs the conventions as before.

Under the backstop plan, the main change would be that in the old, failed HMGS the owners where the members elected to a board. The migrated organization would have owners, at least at first, and then other changes could be made. The conventions would still run and the existing staff would still do the same jobs, with the similar conditions, for the migrated organization.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

I have not really made too much of it, but at the November 16, 2010 teleconference meeting, the rest of the board tried to get me to resign. I do not understand why they waited until November 16, since they could have done it when they had their in person board meeting at Fall-In. I assume since I refused to resign on November 16, that they will have a vote at the in person board meeting on December 4. If this is correct, then there is a question of what use there would be to travel to Maryland, only to be at the meeting for a few minutes before I am removed from the board. (I suppose I could have a car or taxi waiting to take me back to the airport since it would only take a few minutes.) Of course, it is possible that they would prefer that I resign instead of voting me off of the board, since some of the members have already indicated that they do not like establishing a precedent of voting off board members that a majority does not like.

Louis J. Desy Jr.

Louis
Don't resign
Go to the meeting
Don't Resign again

if they actually get the 5 votes out of 7 to kick you off the board- if i read the by-laws right it is 2/3 needed

you will at least get to vote them all out when the resolution comes up at members meeting at cold wars

larry

Does YOUR vote count, Dude?