Hi Rich,

I'm always trying to understand people points of view, especially based on what (to the casual reader) are presented as facts. Can you help me understand some of your points?

- "The membership is confused" - I agree, I think there is an opportunity to get messaging clearer and more concise on what the MOGH is, what it does, and why people (maybe) should join. I think Doug's post helps clarify a lot, Charles' post adds a couple of good points about other aspects of the MOGH.

- "let’s get rid of all of this fat and waste" - from Doug's post it seems like MOGH is financially self sufficient. To quote Doug "If we were to completely do away with the MOGH, the CCA would then pick up all these expenses so it saves the club really nothing." Can you help me understand what specifically you are thinking would be reduced without the MOGH?

- "why do we spend money promoting the museum of game history" - see previous items, CCA doesn't spend any money (except the initial seed money from a few years ago)

- "when they barely mention the casino collectibles association" - I haven't see the displays myself. But if it doesn't mention CCA clearly enough, that seems like something that can easily be remedied

"all of these advisers that we pay" - I can understand about the advisor that was paid $15k (with the entire CCA BOD's approval) a few years ago. Is there something like that still happening or is being proposed?

Thanks,

- Bob