Evaluate the following, which is an email I sent to Otakorps BoD to try and resolve a matter.

"Thank you for reaching out. I'll be answering most of the questions you've taken the time to ask and addressing the board as a whole. I believe you need this by a certain time, because the board will review it and potentially resolve the entire matter.

1. This issue began when I filled out the hotels form in a timely manner. I took the time to notate the use of the Hotels Policy two person credit within the fourth room member slot, and commented to contact me if there was any issue implementing it. The Hotels team never reached out, and the deadline passed. I was not expecting an invoice, and did not receive one. All seemed well.

I received an invoice late, with a deadline to resolve it in less days than invoices were supposed to have. I'm a volunteer staffer that went to the meetings as a Voting Member, provided free and optional labor to Otakorp for the process of switching offices, and should have never been in this situation to begin with. I reached out, expressing that the Hotel Teams had failed in their responsibility to handle the situation appropriately, creating an issue for me. I expressed displeasure, for a multitude of reasons. I've had hotels issues for multiple years in a row, and multiple issues with Brooke. I did my part, short of checking to make sure my attendance was properly recorded.

The reason I didn't check the results of my attendance being recorded, despite a past recording issue one of my prior six (I think it's six) years with Otakorp, was the way Mr. Graves approached me on multiple occasions. He proactively came to me, and initiated conversations about attendance at the meetings we both attended. He vocally let me know that he wanted me to know he was aware I was in attendance and would record it... each time. There was small talk beyond that, for 20-120 seconds per approach. This is a human being I never spoke with in any capacity before he ran for the position. This is important to understand my position on the attendance aspect of my invoice issue, because; Otakorps Leadership has insisted that it was solely my responsibility to not take him at his word, and that I have a greater duty than him concerning the recording of my attendance. The entire duty, and responsibility for any mistake he made seems to fall on solely my shoulders in the eyes of Leadership. I did not run for a position that includes that duty, get voted in, and gain a Board Member Vote and Leadership position. Mr Graves did, and he approached me with absolute confidence and reassured me he was doing his duty on multiple occasions. I was never alone when these instances occurred, and I feel that I fulfilled my personal duty concerning a Voting Member needing to be concerned with their attendance being recorded, because; the party responsible for doing it directly reassured me it was done. Leadership seeking to punish me as a result of these logistics, and blame me; is a bad precedent.

When the email chain for this issue reached Brooke, things should have been resolved. My issues with her are many, based on past interactions, past decisions, and her failure in her duties concerning this current issue. Brooke wears many hats, at various times within this convention. I do not mean literal hats, but; that she handles a varying set of responsibilities, as various leadership positions year to year. It's my understanding that she's currently the appointed Convention Chair for the annual event Otakon. Regardless of the exact "philosophical hat" Brooke was wearing when she responded to my email, she had a duty to resolve the issue ethically. Instead, Brooke took offense at my position on the issue and vented about it in her second reply to me. She excused both Mr. Graves for failure in his duty, and herself for failure to record my attendance in the May meeting. Brooke shouldn't have touched the issue, given her conflict of interest; and instead readily attempted to use her power to resolve the issue in what I see as a bad faith action.

Brooke claimed I believed the Staff had malicious intentions concerning my initial hotel issue, when I did not believe that. My belief is that her intentions seemed malicious when she attempted to punish me by misusing her power to unfairly rule on the issue that she had no right ruling on due to her conflict of interest. I initially apologized to her, because it honestly didn't occur to me that I could simply have her "conflicted of interest" out of the policy, despite her conflict of interest. I am just a volunteer, and she was very forceful in her second email while wielding her authority. I do feel I was abrasive, but within the code of conducts expectations during past issues that Brooke was involved in, due to the frustrating nature of the issues. The apology for that is valid, but; it was otherwise an effort to appease her and prepare to redirect the discussion to a viable solution that wasn't clouded by her bias. When I realized she had no right to be involved in the decision making process for my logistical issue, that's when I sent that last reply to her; where I made it clear and asked her to inform the board. To my knowledge, she chose not to inform the board, so I did so two days later.

Harsh Pandya contacted me with a potential resolution that I had predicted would be Brookes initial offer, prior to reading her first email. I wasn't surprised to read that Otakon wanted to have me agree to switch to a public room, because this solution benefits Otakorp, resolves the invoice, but is still against my interest. The reason I didn't accept Mr. Pandya's deal is because I came to 7 meetings that qualify for recorded attendance for Otakorp Voting Members, and I qualify and feel I am entitled to the incentive that is the two room credit under the hotel policy. The Voting Membership voted that policy in, and I was a part of that vote. I recall the idea being to incentivize more Otakorp staffers to become Voting Members, and to reward those who give so many hours of their time to this convention for free. That time includes meetings, option tasks like the labor I provided for Otakorp, and the hours I give at the annual meeting Otakon. I want to revisit that train of thought in a moment, for the Board to understand my motivation and why I've taken such a hard stance.  At this point in the process, I already faced Brooke making it clear to me that Otakorp was willing to justify cheating me out of the room, under the thinly veiled guise of it being my own fault. I felt she had a duty to resolve this in good faith and was acting in bad faith and that is behavior I DO NOT TOLERATE FROM ANYONE. I regret that I had to take a hardline stance with Mr Pandya, but; it was clear to me that Otakorp Leadership needed to understand all of the logistics in play. Duties, Legalities, and that I'm not going to let someone else punish me under a false narrative and justification or accept a sub par offer in the wake of Brookes attempt to harm my interests.

Otakorps Board is volunteers that win popularity votes, and typically get reappointment in various positions; where they instill their friends into leadership positions where some members on both ends of this spectrum seem to slowly grow comfortable with misusing power, or being able to resolve any issue thru the use of that power or making a decision that could have legal consequences. I've seen a few issues get out of hand in the past, and each time; I feel it's because Leadership didn't take the liability of Otakorp and their other duties seriously enough. I felt I had a duty to be incredibly clear about how I would defend my interests in the wake of any bad faith motivation, or decisions; because Otakorps liability was and is at stake. That cannot and should not be punished under the Disciplinary Policy as it's written.

What ensued beyond the point of Harsh Pandya's brief involvement has been somewhat unsettling. I expected him to reply, with a counter offer or a decision. It was clear from how he wrote and formatted his email that he likely has some type of professional experience in negotiations, or a natural talent for how to word things like a Claims Adjuster or Agent of a big company would negotiate in the professional world. Neither has occurred to this point and the issue was placed in limbo. I was contacted by the board, about the hotel decision and my conduct being reviewed. The brief message informing me of these "TWO" issues over this single issue, read like retaliation in the guise of duty. I realized I had to make it very clear what would happen if an unofficial set of communications was leading to a decision to attempt to remove me from Otakorp thru misuse of that Disciplinary Policy for the Code of Conduct. As I said earlier in this reply, you're all Volunteers that won positions on the Board. It's easy to forget there are rules, laws, ethics, responsibilities and duties to uphold. Bad faith decisions and actions can remove the protection that keeps each and every one of you from also being legally liable. I know my strong defense of my interests, and what I believe is right; probably made many of you uncomfortable. It was productive and necessary given the tone of the correspondence I've received over the course of this entire issue. Just now, someone; Kimberly Merani decided it was wise to ask me what's happened from my point of view (paraphrasing.) Doesn't that feel really late in the issue, and like something that obviously should have occurred sooner?

I'm not some vile villain that's here to harm Otakorps interests or make your lives super difficult. I'm a Volunteer Staffer and Voting Member of Otakorp, that's asking Leadership to do their duty and resolve this issue. It's your responsibility to navigate the issues here and resolve them in a way that protects Otakorp from any liability. It also seems incredibly easy for Leadership to successfully do so, if they're aware of the facts of this issue, and potential resolutions available. The issue is the hardline stance to justify cheating me out of the $ 300 dollar credit. I put in the time, and went ABOVE AND BEYOND what is required to receive this credit. The wording of the Hotels Policy for the credit, as screen shotted and broken down in a previous email, shows that it would be very easy to resolve this based on interpreting it as it is written and required to be interpreted and granting me the credit without even addressing the recorded attendance issue. The fact that Otakorp changed the wording slightly on the staff site, without updating the "Updated 3/2023" tag is very concerning and seems like a sloppy cover up to what was a viable solution to resolve the entire issue and save face.

We've reached a point now where I feel my case was solid, and the inevitable outcome was a victory in the end. The new issue I faced was whether or not the pride of leadership would yield to the ethical duties that existed. The conclusion I've reached is that due to complacency, emotionally charged views, and pride; the decision to resolve the issue wasn't going to be made. From my perspective, it seemed probable that Leadership would instead choose to "screw me over" and fail in their duties instead of doing the right thing... and deny me the hotel space. As a compromise to avoid a reality where liability exists for Otakorp, and those involved in this resolution; I've offered to lose this easily winnable matter. It's not in the way certain Otakorp Leadership may want me to lose, over the potential misuse of the Disciplinary Policy, but; I've offered to concede more than I had to and it seems like acceptable of my potential concession would benefit Otakorp.

2. While I have a lot of documentation, most of it is and was meant for a legal battle; if this devolved to that. I have no interest in sharing that documentation, short of a discovery process in a legal battle. I will defend my interests if that's what it comes to and I believe I can successfully refute any issue ranging from the invoice, to an attempt to remove me from the convention or simpler issues like a claim of libel. I have everything I need, and more, but; it does not benefit me to share that at this time. I believe Leadership has sufficient information to accept my offer, or; decline it and come to a proper resolution. I would gain a newfound respect for all of you if you choose to reject my offer today, and instead grant me the credit I earned. The hotel credit should have never been dangled like a carrot I didn't deserve to grasp, or have been allowed to grow into the issue it's become.

3. I respectfully decline to answer this question, at this time.

4. I think perspective is a huge part of this issue. From my point of view, this entire issue stems from a failure of duty to resolve the issue in good faith. I don't believe any member of leadership should be outraged that I dug my feet in, and was willing to go the distance. The pivotal moment for all of this was when Brooke chose to interact with me, and handle the issue the way she did. It was her duty to conflict of interest herself out, and not even reach out to me on the matter. If the conflict of interest did not exist, it was Brookes duty to resolve the issue in good faith when she reached out to resolve it. Instead, I perceive Brooke as using her authority to attempt to punish me, and deny me the credit. If she felt my conduct violated any policy, she had a duty to pursue that separate from the resolution of the original invoice issue... through proper protocols. Do any of you really think it's acceptable that she tried to present me with a harsh solution, that seems to be in bad faith. A decision that creates liability for Otakorp and is a breach of her duties?

Does the Board want to create a precedent where Leadership fails in their duties, handles issues in bad faith, and let personal feelings guide Corporate decisions? Every member of this Board should approach this situation unbiased, and ask themselves the following. "If I were in this volunteer's shoes with this invoice issue, would I have found Brooke's decision making process acceptable?" The moment this whole issue escalated to something else, was the moment she acted in bad faith and I felt I needed to make it clear that I would not abide by any unethical, or illegal decision making. Think about why this hotel policy credit was created, and what it's supposed to incentivize in the membership. Now, think about the results of my experience with the credit, and how the situation was handled incentivizes me, and even others if they were to learn about the issue as a whole. The spirit of this motion was never meant to dangle a benefit for involvement, then crush someone that did their part and applies. The example that sets is terrible, and that's without considering the issues of ethics, duty, and liability.

Do you know what I actually give this convention? No one outside of my circles has ever bothered to ask, and I've never felt the desire to brag. Beyond my attendance at meetings, I have dealt with a variety of issues at the annual event Otakon. For example, during my first year as an Assistant Department Head for Evening Loss Prevention, a pair of my staffers were accused of racism for following convention center cleaning staff. This accusation was aggressive, and delivered to be confrontational. I was radio'd, and immediately went to the scene. The angrier of the pair of con center cleaning staff tried to refuse to speak to me, and insult me. I disarmed him with some empathy, and humor; and requested his manager come meet with me. His manager and I discussed the situation and the logistics...  resolving the issue for the manager, the convention center staff and our two staffers.  During a tour of the dealers room before first shift, Lee Fenner had asked our staffers to follow cleaning staff at 50 foot+ distance, if they noticed them interacting with vendor booths  in ways that could be perceived as suspicious. Our staffers were Caucasian, and their staffers African American. One of the staffers, Joshua Fissel, oversaw an inner city youth center and devoted a lot of his time to helping youths and giving them opportunities they otherwise didn't have. The other staffer, Ryan Meehan, had just finished 8 years of Military Service and it was his first year as Otakon Staff. He was just following Lees directions. I cleared both of their good names, and navigated those tricky waters of liability with ease, in the best interest of the con.

Last year, I spent almost $ 100 dollars of my own money buying extra snacks for my staff within my department. We work evenings, and sleep during the day; causing us to miss most of Otakon itself. We give our time, and our effort; on a schedule that harms our own self interest, for the sake of this convention.  My point here is that despite what I give and have given to this convention, the official stance on my erroneous $ 300 hotel invoice was that I should pay it, despite meeting the requirements for it to have never been created or sent to me. It didn't matter that I attended the meetings, provided physical labor going above and beyond, that I do my duties at Otakon, go above and beyond, that I look out for other staffers improving their experience ect. Otakorp instead told me that despite my circumstances, I was going to be denied in bad faith and possibly persecuted for daring to want what I was entitled to. Leadership mind as well have told me that my contributions, my time and my effort mean nothing and to eat ****. The sentiment I would have felt would have been the same as the sentiment I've felt from this experience as a whole.


I'm done answering the provided questions. This is and always was a battle of principles, in addition to being a logistical nightmare. I've never meant to seem unapproachable, and have operated with the intentions of making the stakes clear to everyone involved. It's been frustrating and disappointing to see the choices made, and values reflected as a result of these negotiations. Please make a decision and deliver it to me soon. Thank you."

The BoD rejected my offer, and suspended me from staff in a thinly veiled attempt at retaliation. Otakon is incorporated in the State of PA. Suggest options for me to remedy the situation, outside of the appeals process or Roberts Rules of Order.