Re: MCM - Digest V1 #313

[Karen Randall <krandall@world.std.com>]

Neil wrote:

>I REALLY like David's idea about paying a flat fee. I suggest keeping it 
>simple this year and charge $1 per bag for all items which are not 
>donations. 

I'm not sure how this is any easier than a split.  You still would need to
keep track of individual vendor totals, and send them checks after the event.

At 03:12 AM 5/29/2000 -0700, Erik wrote: 

>Splits are definitely a larger pain to track on a normal auction.  When we
>do this locally, it requires at least one other person, and the total is
>always different on our sheet than it is on the seller's (thankfully, most
>aren't grumpy about it .... but there's always one person).  I don't know
>how a silent auction runs from a technical perspective, maybe it's easier
>to track everything, but if Mary says "I would need X other people to help
>run the table" and X other people don't volunteer, then we should let her
>run it any way she wants.  Bottom line.

I agree with _that_ completely.  After the discussion is over, the final
decision rests with Mary, unless someone else wants to do it.

>That said, I might be able to contribute some auction software I wrote for
>running our local club's auction.  It tracks splits quite nicely.  It
>would probably need to be slightly modified for silent auction use, but
>I'll bet it could work if I knew the rules.

We could probably use that whether it's "buck a bag" or a split.  The
reason I asked David if he'd help is that I know he has used something
similar at our club actions.

>I am in
>agreement with Neil that we certainly don't need the money at this point,
>and if the object is to get plants traded, then a split is nice.  And
>advertising a nice split like 80/20 is a very good enticement.

Just remember that if we do it this year, we set a precedent, and people
will grumble if in future years we find that we _do_ need the money, and
change the split.  If we do a 60/40 split, we are still looking generous,
since _many_ clubs still do 50/50, and we don't have to look like the bad
guys next time.

Please remember that _any_ time we start chipping away at our reserves to
fund a project like this, we should be asking ourselves, "Is this a
_sustainable_ expense?"  If it isn't, I would hope that it would be an
expense that would benefit more than a tiny percentage of our membership.

>PS: Everybody, PLEASE remember to either trim the rest of the digest from
>your reply, or just compose a new message.  Thanks.

Yes please!  It's bad enough when people don't trim when responding to a
single post.  But it's _really_ hard to figure out what's new and worth
reading when the whole last digest is imbedded in the next. 

Karen