At the Bohemian Hall, Astoria

Let's forget -for a moment- that the Czech Republic is now the owner of the Manhattan's Narodni budova. Just imagine -for a moment- if somebody would drop ten (or more) millions to completely and immaculately restore the entire Narodni budovu and then told the "New York Czech society" (whatever that means), here it is, it's all yours, enjoy !
What would happen?
Perhaps the happenings at the Bohemian Hall in Astoria is a typical example what would happen:

Everybody against everybody! Food and service miserable (as we already published) and then

financial irregularities!
(click here for the original)

was the concern of running the Astorian Bohem Hall.

Mrs. Libuse Kral, Denise Pompl, Pavel Vana, Zuzana Pavlovsky, Ivana Ludvik, Mr. L. Jindra Sr. and Jerry Matejka are members of a special committee to audit Czech Festival Financial Report (elected on Special meeting September 28th). Committee met on October 17th and October 19, 2001.

Resulting investigation produced the following:
1. Report by Denise Pompl - we published here.
2. Report by Zuzana Pavlovsky - long and detailed - not published
3. Comparison sheet by Ms. Kral - not published
4. Statement by the BCBSA Board of Directors - in part here

Everybody against everybody.

In addition of disagreement with all the reports, the Board elected to

discredit Denise Pompl "who was voted from the position of the Business Treasurer in 1995, after she exhibited conflict of interest by forcing the Society to rent the entire Hall at $5,000 per month".

[Probably that is what the Czech Republic intends to do with the Manhattan's Narodni dum - rent part to Plzensky Prazdroj to run a restaurant there -red.]

discredit Ms. Pavlovsky because in 1995 "her husband Paul Pavlovsky was in charge to make [1995] Festival deposits to the bank together with then manager John Forei. Of the $9,988 collected at the Festival, $4,053 was never deposited or accounted for. (this is not to imply that Mr. Pavlovsky participated in any kind of fraud; rather this is to show the lack of his diligence and persistence when it came to the money. This loss was never recovered.)"

discredit Ms. Kral since "she was not tracking the Festival finances in their complexity"

discredit everybody because "the objective here was to discredit the current Board of Directors and its officers, as well as the Hall manager and the accountant"

If all these allegations are true then why the Board permitted these people to be nominated and elected at the Special meeting September 28, 2001?

What Mrs. Pavlovsky investigation has to do with the alleged "lack of diligence" of her (Mrs. Pavlovsky's) husband (Mr. Pavlovsky)?
The BCBSA Board implies Mr. Pavlovsky being involved in allegedly never deposited $4,053 and that "this loss" was allegedly never recovered and then saying "this is not to imply". If the BCBSA Board has no shred of evidence against Mr. Pavlovsky, why to point it out in its Statement and not just shut up? What relevance to Mrs. Pavlovsky's investigation and report?

Why to discredit Mrs. Kral for not being able to track the "complexity" of Festival Finances? If that is their believe, the BCBSA Board should attack Mrs. Kral when she was first nominated and before she was elected to serve on the Committee.

Perhaps this prectice is the reason why many people stay away from the BCBSA activities and don't "sign for a day-to-day Society work and volunteering regularly in Society events" [See end of BCBSA statement.]

Make conclusions from the text yourself:

Since the Board's Statement is overly long, we extracted relevant argumented parts: (*#* indicates lines skipped)

STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BCBSA to the Committee Auditing the 19th Czech and Slovak Festival - November 30, 2001

Two reports and a comparison sheet were submitted at the Society meeting on October 26, 2001. One report was presented by Denise Pompl, and the other was written by Zuzana Pavlovsky, as referred to in the first report. According to one report, the comparison sheet was prepared by Libuse Kral. (*3*)

The first report presented by Denise Pompl was a one page document lacking any details [compare with the document, stating even word-for-word quotation, as we published it.] It used a very strong language such as "Gross Fraud", "Total Nonexistence and Destruction of Documents", and it ["it" = see original saying "Some members suggest . . ." - red.] also calls for the resignation of all officers of the society, and a replacement of the Manager as well as the Accountant. In the light of Ms. Pompl's action in the past, it is clear that her objective was not to help to improve the society accounting, but rather to clear the path for her to take exclusive control of the business of Bohemian Hall, or to rent the hall at her personal profit. The Board would like to remind the membership that it was Ms. Pompl , who was voted out from the position of the Business Treasurer in 1995, after she exhibited conflict of interest by forcing the Society to rent the entire Hall at $5,000 per month - barely 5% of current gross income - and admitted she was to accept a commission from the prospective lessee for her brokerage services.

The second report was more detailed, but the language of the report was also strong and emotionally charged. Ms. Pavlovsky's recommendations are different, however - at the end she asked for clarification of responsibilities of the Business Committee, President and the Board. The Board is raising a question why Ms. Pavlovsky waited with her analyses of Festival finances until this year: Had she analyzed finances of the 13th Festival held in 1995, she would have discovered that her husband Paul Pavlovsky was in charge to make [1995] Festival deposits to the bank together with then manager John Forei. Of the $9,988 collected at the Festival, $4,053 was never deposited or accounted for. (this is not to imply that Mr. Pavlovsky participated in any kind of fraud; rather this is to show the lack of his diligence and persistence when it came to the money. This loss was never recovered.)

(*3*)

The comparison sheet by Ms. Kral had mistakes in itself. When comparing the Manager's and treasurer's Financial statement, the difference was being incorrectly increased by entering numbers, that did not show in either financial statement. The comparison sheet also failed to explain why notes of Daniela Vancurova were reflected, since she was not tracking the Festival finances in their complexity. Had Ms. Kral or anyone else asked Ms. Vancurova, what her numbers scribbled on a scrap of paper represented, the comparison sheet would have to split and amend her working numbers.

The three documents appeared at first glance as objective and well-minded. However, after a more detailed study, the Board realized that the objective here was to discredit the current Board of Directors and its officers, as well as the Hall manager and the accountant. (*11*)

The report failed to acknowledge how very few volunteers from the ranks of the membership were willing to work at the festival.

(*12*)

As we could see recently, volunteers did sign up for a one time review of Festival finances, but members rarely sign for a day-to-day Society work and volunteering regularly in Society events. Until more members participate, the ones that do will struggle to keep up with all the complex requirements of the Society, its premises, its business and finances.

Thank you, For the Board of Directors, Pavel Vancura, Member of the Board.

To more fully understand the BCBS happenings, read the articles previously published:

Financial irregularities at the BCBS astoria * Report by D. Pompl - 11/4/2001
BCBS Astoria

Redakcni poznamka * (J. Schrabal - 5/4)

Diktatoriat Petra Biska v BCBS * (e-mail z 5/5))

Zaznam schuze * Puvodni clanek (5/3)

Vysvetleni Pavla Vancury * (e-mail byv. predsedy - 5/6)

Reakce na dopis Pavla Vancury * Pavel Pavlovsky (5/11)

Reply by Mr. Kutil * links

Budou letos "tajne", "svobodne" volby v Bohemce? * 3/1/2001
Zapis schuze 23. cervna 2000"
Dopis P. Pavlovskeho * 6/23/2000

Back to mail menu