"Time to Vote, HMGS members" Topic

It's election time again at the HMGS. I just recieved my ballot. Not only do we need to elect members to the Board of Directors but there are also some amendments to various By-Law articles.

I'm not interested in telling anyone how to vote or who I'm voting for. I'm simply requesting that all HMGS members take the time and vote for the BoD and the amendments. Please make your voice heard and vote.

Ballots must be postmarked no later than Friday, June 5th. Thanks.

Well Said Sir,

Dropping my votes in the mail this week.

Move historicon north,

Vote for Scott Landis, Neil Brennan, John Spiess, David Waxtel

And most of all vote No amendment 11

Will such a victory ensure that the Con will move north. It is just too far for me now, even with a lifetime membership.

Which folks are the Southern supporters?

So it's official now, the Waxtel slate plans to move HCON north?

With all due respect, this thread was not initiated to push one's own partisan agenda and opinion. I too have my favourites for the HMGS BoD, but this is not the place.

This is to urge all the Membership to actually get out and vote! My understanding is that only about 300 or so, out of the total HMGS membership of 1600+, take the time to vote.

I'd like to change that for the better.

With all due respect, this thread was not initiated to push one's own partisan agenda and opinion. I too have my favourites for the HMGS BoD, but this is not the place.

Agreed. I would encourage all member to review the biographies that were sent out. Take some time to digest what each candidate is saying. Then please vote for the candidates that you feel will bring HMGS in the direction you think it should go.

Best wishes to all the candidates!

Anybody who states they wish to move Historicon yet again will never receive my vote!

The 300 or so who do vote usually capture my preferences so I don't bother voting. It is too hard for me to figure out on my own what shenanigans and abuses the board is up to and I have no idea if a candidate is a or is competent. The "300" seem to be informed and interested of the latest failures and success of the invisible Board, so I trust their efforts.

Wow, "w h a c k j o b" gets bleeped.

Amendment 11 is rather disturbing. There is no well thought out process, policy, etc, on handling of personal private information, or any risk analysis behind it. Collecting personal private information on members seems a bad idea in every sense.

I voted!

Dear History Gamer

the problem with Ammendment 1.1 is it facilitates complete dictatorship. It allows a board member to hold any number of offices. This means that the president could also hold Con Ops and Treasurer and loot the treasury through his convention. The idea of having separate jobs given to separate people is that the power is divided and there is a check and balance. Ammendment 11 makes it possible for one man to have all control.

The private information is a red herring to divert all your attention to your phobia about private information and diffing up dirt on someone, but the real danger is that of embezzlement and malfeasance going unnoticed, and someone simply sucking the society dry and moving on.

The President then could determine that the monies were disbursed as part of the "educational philanthropy" of the organization, that is, putting it all into his daughter Muffy's college fund.

Otto:

I thought Amendment 11 only dealt with asking the membership to approve or disaprove background checks?

A few points in response:

+1 to what historygamer said. Vote No on 11.

Well said, Otto.

HMGS, like other institutions (The Fed?) could probably use an outside audit, with copies of the results to the members/shareholders. Not because I'm one of those who believes that there have been abuses in the past, but because it removes the stigma of such allegations going forward. If you are doing things properly, an outside report that says so only improves your credibility with your membership. If there have been past improprieties, disclose them, correct them and move forward. (HMGS is not the first non-profit that I have seen up close.) And don't tell me that an audit would cost too much. HMGS has plenty of money in the bank. Spending some of that cash to insure that the rest of that cash is being handled properly is money well spent.

But you will never get any reforms like that if you let the same 300 decide. Of those 300, fewer than 25 members regularly attend the membership meetings at conventions. Most of those 25 are current or past BOD members, convention directors and staff.

If you are a member and don't care on how HMGS is run, don't vote. But then don't complain when you don't like how things are done.

If you do care, vote.

Them's that know what you are voting for, vote. Them's that don't know, don't vote, you just muddy the water.

What we need are informed voters rather than mice pushing buttons randomly. The 300 include some informed, some uninformed, some sane, some crazy. Statisitcally though, the 300 seem to be enough to ensure a responsible polling result from my view. If it got down to 100 or stuff was getting approved that I felt detracted from the conventions, then I would get off my ass and make an attempt at an informed vote.

I too would agree that we need more informed voters. "Voters" I don't believe are the problem but a lack of trustworthy information is the problem.

Like John Snow, I know nothing of HMGS shenanigans. So I don't vote. If someone makes an effort to speak truth, someone else comes along with a different message or twist. Just like the example above in this thread. It is humorous actually. There is no official source or responsible media to consult. Just opinions so I use the 300 as my "truthiness" indicator.

If HMGS is ruined because of a lack of informed voting, then I'll start an organization to replace what was lost. No complaints here.

Losing HMGS is not a big deal as long as wargamers want to game and dealers want to deal.

I am a write in candidate for Master of Coin.

Otto:

I'll have to take a look at 1.1 again. Thanks for calling that to my attention.

This is what the official information sheet that came out with the ballot says.

1. DELETE ARTICLE VII, Officers, Section 1 in its entirety and replace it with:

SECTION 1. The Board of Directors will elect a President, Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Director of Convention Operations, and such other officers as they may determine. ANY TWO OR MORE OFFICES MAY BE HELD BY THE SAME PERSON EXCEPT THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONENTION OPERATIONS AND SECRETARY (my emphasis) .

The rationale is Removes references to chairman, requires a Director for Convention Operations be a Board member and prohibits the new Director for Convention Operations from holding multiple offices.

NOTE! The president is not prohibited from being the treasurer, NOR is he prohibited from being his own Vice President, that is, sole power of the executive AND has control of the Purse. NOTE also that while the President is prohibited from holding two offices, the Vice President is not. This means that the President can arrogate to himself with BOD approval the control of finances, and thus free from any scrutiny. Further, the Vice President could be secretary and thus prevent ANY communication from the Board to the Membership. Also note that the Director of CON Ops is NOT prevented from being treasurer, nor is the secretary, so one person as secretary could control both the money and the means to report malfeasance of same.

Also note- There is an escape clause in section 2

2. delete article IV, Membership Meetings, Section 3(a) in its entirety and replace with.

SECTION 3.(a) All meetings of the members shall be presided over by the following officers in order of seniority: the President, Vice President, or if none of the following is in office or present at the meeting, by a chair chosen by a majority of the members in attendance. The Secretary of the Corporation shall act as Secretary of every meeting When the secretary is not available the presiding officer will appoint a Secretary of the Meeting.

NOTE NOTE NOTE!!! What does "if none of the foregoing is in office". What does that mean? Does it mean that if the President or VP deighns not to come the meeting is presided over by a chair chosen by the attending members? But what if NO officers are present, can there be a meeting.

5. Delete Article VI, Board of Directors, Section 2(d) in it's entirety, and replace with:

(d) rescinded.

Rational Removes 1995 transition process verbage.

Pleas excuse my nasty little secret policeman's mind, but I am always suspicious when things are deleted but we are not told what is being deleted. They told us what was being changed elsewhere, why not here?

7.DELETE ARTICLE vi, Board of Directors, Section 7 in it's entirety and replace with:

The President shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors. in his absence, the Vice President shall preside and, if there be no Vice President, or in his absence, any other Director chosen by the Board of Directors shall preside.

UMMMMM… WAIT A MINUTE! According to 2 above, the order goes, President, Vice President, or if none of the foregoing is in office or present at the meeting, by a Chair chosen by a majority of the members in attendance.

You may say that 2 regards meetings of the MEMBERS and the 7 is the meetings of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS, but a membership meeting is ALSO a meeting of the Board of Directors ipso facto, OR is it the intent of the officers of the corporation to absent themselves from the membership meeting and let the general members choose someone not on the board and hence with no permanent power. Shades of the Star Chamber.

As I said, the big print giveth and the small print taketh away. This is a conflict within the Referenda. Which one holds? Or are they to be applied at the convenience of the Board?

There are lots more problems. Most of which is the background check and who will have control of it.

Give me a few days more to pick on this and I'm sure I will find lots more.

In my view this is simply an attempt to blur who has what responsibility, avoid fiscal and policy supervision, and make the BOD even more a closed, corrupt, self-selecting agency irresponsible to the membership of the society.

Such vitriol over a group that hosts wargame conventions, truly baffling.

"Such vitriol over a group that hosts wargame conventions, truly baffling."

I think the vitriol is for what allegedly happens on the other 355 days of the year.

"In my view this is simply an attempt to blur who has what responsibility, avoid fiscal and policy supervision, and make the BOD even more a closed, corrupt, self-selecting agency irresponsible to the membership of the society."

Waiter! One tin foil hat for the man over there! Sheesh!

Dear Dynaman 8789

The vitrol is there from the Boards own action from 2003 on. Many gamers no longer trust the HMGS under ANY form, and have seen so many "reform" efforts perverted that we are no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. From the whole "Baltimore" fiasco perpetrated by Major PeePee and the "take it to the next level" crowd right down to fiscal misappropriations and cronyism along the way, the residium of trust in anything the Bod does is non-existent.

Waiter! Make that a double!!

Oschmidt, I agree with 95% of what you said. However, we, as HMGS members, owe it to the people coming in to vote and choose those we feel would be the most responsible.

I've already filled out my ballot and will be mailing out this week. When the results are all tallied, let's see who's left standing. It should be interesting.

I still have not heard what they do other than host 3 cons a year. I have heard rumors they promote the hobby but I have never seen anything outside of the cons. On that basis I became a member and base my value for that membership strictly on how I enjoy the three cons each year. If others did the same they would have a lot less heartburn.

Well, they have amassed nearly $300,000.00 USD on flat to declining attendance. The flagship con has lost over 1/3 of its attendees since its second to last year at the Host, along with a great many dealers. The Host seems to be in severe decline, and FCC is very expensive and can't continue for much longer if the attendance continues to decline.

Given all that, I am a bit surprised the BOD seems so focused on bylaw rewrites and proposals to do background checks on members. If I were on the BOD I would be in a near panic about finding new venues to consider for future cons, trying to figure out how to pump up attendance, and encourage more historical military games instead of adding to the bank account.

History gamer, you hit the nail on the head. Remember when the dealer hall was packed enough to fill the balcony and even overflow into the pro shop… The games were everywhere and awesome you left the con talking about it for weeks. 300,000 is a lot of cash spend it our cons need to return to events. Vote for John Spiess, Dave Waxtel, Scott Landis and Neil Brennan. Give them a chance!!!!!!

My understanding is that 11 applies only to the board members and those with control over the money. I know in my state, anyone who has control over a chartered non-profit has to be vetted (its the law). And, IIRC, the same applies to Maryland (where HMGS is chartered). So whether you like it or not, 11 will probably have to implemented (vote or no vote) or HMGS will be in violation of the law. I'm surprised they just didn't vote it in at board level and be done with it.

"SECTION 1. The Board of Directors will elect a President, Vice President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, a Director of Convention Operations, and such other officers as they may determine. ANY TWO OR MORE OFFICES MAY BE HELD BY THE SAME PERSON EXCEPT THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONVENTION OPERATIONS AND SECRETARY (my emphasis) ."

Otto then commented -
NOTE! The president is not prohibited from being the treasurer, NOR is he prohibited from being his own Vice President, that is, sole power of the executive AND has control of the Purse. NOTE also that while the President is prohibited from holding two offices, the Vice President is not. This means that the President can arrogate to himself with BOD approval the control of finances, and thus free from any scrutiny. Further, the Vice President could be secretary and thus prevent ANY communication from the Board to the Membership. Also note that the Director of CON Ops is NOT prevented from being treasurer, nor is the secretary, so one person as secretary could control both the money and the means to report malfeasance of same.

….. Actually, if my language comprehension skills have not failed me, what this proposed amendment appears to be saying is that, although a person may hold multiple board positions under certain circumstances, no individual holding the post of President, Director of Convention Operations or Secretary may do so.

FWIW.

B

link

link

3. Volunteers and the Law

Does the law require that volunteers be screened?

There is no one law -- federal or state -- that says all volunteers must be checked. Rather, the rules that apply to volunteers, much like employees, are as varied as the duties volunteers perform and the organizations they serve. Whether a volunteer is required by law to submit to a background check depends on many things, but primarily the kind of organization for which the volunteer work is performed.

For example, states may have laws that require background checks for employees and volunteers for activities the state regulates, such as schools and nursing homes. Quite likely, each state will require some sort of screening for all volunteers who work for a state agency or state-funded facility, especially agencies that serve children, the elderly, or the disabled.

Are nonprofit organizations covered by laws that require background screening?

Nonprofit organizations are major users of volunteer hours. Rather than being required by law to conduct background checks, nonprofit organizations are more likely to have adopted an organization policy of screening volunteers. Organizations that operate under the umbrella of a national organization, such as Little League, Boys and Girls Club of America, or the American Red Cross follow policies set by the national organization. Local organizations may be free to institute policies in addition to the minimum background screening set by the national organization.

What laws require or influence background screening for volunteers?

A multitude of state and federal laws regulate health and public safety, some of which would require screening for employees and volunteers alike. In addition, there is a network of other laws that provide protection to at-risk populations, particularly children.

Included among the child protection laws are, for example, state and federal laws that give the public access to information about convicted sex offenders. Such laws are generally prompted by and named after child victims, e.g. the Jacob Wetterling Act, Megan's Law, and the Pam Lychner Act.

While I don't have the exact wording in front of me, the referendum on background checks (if passed) would apply to all people nominated to run for the BOD, and all potential Convention Director candidates.

The first set (BOD nominees) seems to ignore the fact that the people coming into possession of said information are likely to also be running for re-election themselves – thus creating a significant conflict of interest in having such information.

This issue raises a host (no pun intented) of questions – who receives the info, what do they do with it once obtained, whom do they share it with, how is it stored (protected), when is it deleted, how is the deletion verified, who is authorized to receive it, how long do they retain it… on and on. None of that is covered by this rather cryptic referendum – and these are serious questions that needed answered before a person can vote one way or the other.

The reasons listed so far for having this are to protect the money (aren't there already controls in place to do that?) and protect the children – which ignores the fact that lots of other HMGS volunteers come into closer contact with children than BOD members and CDs. How about the Deputy CD? People running games specifically for children? People in Painting U? What assurances do the venues offer they don't have sex offenders on staff? Is HMGS responsible to ask that question?

This is a real Pandora's box to open, and once open, seems unlikely to be shut, or contained to just a handful of people.

I would also note that there are no criteria for what constitutes a relase of the information, or what it means? Would someone be barred from serving on the BOD if they underwent bankruptcy? That rules out Donald Trump and Walt Disney. How about a sex offender – say they were 18 and had a 17 year old girlfriend they had a relationship with? What if some sort of charges were filed, but dismissed?

"Amendment 11 is rather disturbing. There is no well thought out process, policy, etc, on handling of personal private information, or any risk analysis behind it. Collecting personal private information on members seems a bad idea in every sense."

HG- It ONLY, repeat, ONLY applies to the BOD and Convention Directors (people who have a fiduciary responsibility). And its standard practice (and, in most states, the LAW) for chartered non-profits.

That is nor correct Coastal – the referendum would apply to to anyone simply nominated to the BOD (pre-election) and any candidates (not selected yet) for CDs. The way it is worded it could possibly be expanded by future BODs to include other members – even though the current BOD may not intend it so.

The fact this check has no policy or controls behind it is another matter – though greatly disturbing. The fact it won't likely do what the current BOD says it wants it to do (protect the money and/or protect children) is still another.

As president of a non-profit incorporated in MD, I am not aware it is standard, and I am not aware that it is required by MD law either.

Vote for it if you want, but there is no risk analysis behind it, or well thought out policies or controls. Even if its intent is good, this is poorly executed and thought out.

One more thing. What is the chilling effect of this background check (with no parameters e.g.; financail, criminal, etc – as that's missing too) on good people resenting this done by a hobby club, and thus passing on considering putting themselves in for the BOD, CD or any other volunteer position within the organization?

We just don't know, but it seems like another unintended consequence, and not likely to encourage people to volunteer.

I think the information retrieved by these "background checks" could possibly be considered PII (personally identifiable information) and there are definitely laws governing the protection and use of such information. Any individual or organization obtaining such information must protect it. That could involve quite a bit of time and money for information that is not required by law or needed by the organization. This sounds like a lot of trouble not to mention the fact that it is stupid and wrong. What is wrong with these people???

Well, I don't know about MD, but where I live, if you're handling money for a chartered non-profit, you get vetted. If MD's law is different, then malzotoff… Still doesn't remove the fact that its good financial practice.

HG (and others- you know who you are..) You're always soooo forthcoming with 'advice' to the board… So, when are YOU going to run for the BOD? In other words, stop whining and start actually DOING something….

But enough of that nonsense….

As Bowman said, if a you're a member and you care enough, VOTE! Get informed and make a decision (however and whatever that may be…). It is up to you….

There are background checks and then there are background checks. Some are nothing more than a check of open public records (which, since they're, well, 'open', anyone and everyone can see) and there are others which are deeper (like a milspec security clearance which goes back to when you were a zygote). No idea what '11' proposes, but I'll guess the former than the later….

CORI Reports could be easily done.

I do not know how it is done in most states, but in MA a CORI report can be requested and mailed to anyone for little cost.

link

It seems that this is something that could be done for members, and attendees to conventions, with little effort as part of the objective to protect children.

In MA, it looks like HMGS would qualify for a waiver of any fees on MA CORI checks because it is a nonprofit and meets the other requirements for a fee waiver on CORI checks.

Louis J. Desy Jr.
LouisDesyjr@gmail.com

Well coastal2, perhaps you can tell us all about all our volunteer service to HMGS, as I am pretty sure of my own. But you go first since you seem to hold some pretty strong opinions on what HMGS should do, and what others that have done work for the org should say and do. You do still in California, correct?

While I am voting, I do like to wait until near the deadline. It gives more opportunity for interaction on the various fora between members asking questions and the candidates responding.

More info upon which to make a decision.

So I'll be sending mine about about 5 weeks from now.

HG- Actually, I don't have any strong opinions as to HMGS (you and others fill the function VERY well, thank you). And since I've got the whole of the US of A between me and a board meeting, there really is no point in volunteering for events (but you knew that). But YOU are closer…

But, as I said earlier, enough of that nonsense…

To repeat: If you care, get informed and VOTE…

Ok, just sent my ballot in. Five more weeks to get yours in. Just a bump as a friendly reminder.

Voted NO on ammendment 11
How and why this was introduced in the first place is very suspect to me. Also the wording "BoD may ammend from time to time as required" seems intentionally vague and ripe for abuse.

My ballot was executed and sent last week. Hoping to see fresh ideas and innovation from these new candidates!

TRU

Let"s hope the northern mail gets delivered on time.

Also the wording "BoD may ammend from time to time as required" seems intentionally vague and ripe for abuse.

That's what they are doing now, isn't it? These are amendments you are voting on.

I voted for the party that ran on a platform of peace and bread.