Part of an ongoing series, sent today:
Dear Mr Brueggeman,
Thank you for your letter. My name, by the way, is Barford (as in bar - place one might drink beer). I think I have already answered the points you made in previous correspondence with various officers of the PNG.
The blog which Mr Tompa writes is one of the 'opinion-forming' tools he uses to conduct the "specific goal" which you hired him for and in particular to keep your members in touch with what he is doing on their/your behalf as well as elicit their support in achieving whatever that "goal" may be (like opposition to the renewal of the Italy MOU). A personal blog is kept from home, this one appears to also be run from an office computer (presumably his firm's, please ask him).
Both these factors mean that it is a specious argument that this is a "personal blog" (you are copying this to him on his work address, not a 'private' one). In any case your lobbyist Tompa is necessarily one of the public faces of the PNG and the public will judge the Guild accordingly - just the same as they would if you (or any other PNG officer) wrote a blog full of similarly tendentious material even if it is represented as "personal opinion".
I have already sent a (month ago, 18th Feb) to the PNG a copy of a text in which I specified just some of the problematic material in the blog. It was written because the IAPN apparently had problems seeing what was amiss. That tells us a lot about the IAPN, I think. I am now resending it. Take a look please. Perhaps the PNG will see what the IAPN apparently cannot. Does the highly tendentious Tompa blog represent to the wider public the type of professional ideals of promoting "numismatic growth" and standards of "knowledge, Integrity and Responsibilty" which the Guild says it upholds?
As I said, I'd appreciate a statement from the PNG for my own 'Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues' blog on how you see Mr Tompa's more public lobbying activities relating to the aims and ideals of the PNG . Thank you Paul Barford
UPDATE 16th May 2015
A statement explains how Mr Brueggeman and his members see the public writings of their representative here.