Re: Next convention

[Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Karen Randall wrote:

[Houston]
> BUT, and this is a big but...  Who is going to find out whether these people
> are serious, and whether they actually have the resources and committment to
> get the job done?  Was it an offer made in the heat of the moment that they
> are going to re-think in the weeks (and months) to come?  I know it's a
> "business", but it's a small non-essential service business at the beginning
> of tough economic times.  Will they still be there in a year?  Will those
> guys be scattered to new jobs and new responsibilities?  (remember how
> enthusiastic Art Giacosa was?)  Can a committment be obtained from them in
> the next few weeks? Who is in a position to make those deteriminations?  Not
> me.

I have more information to add here.  The Senske's were late on their
entry fees to the contest.  They never answered my e-mails, and when I
called to see what was up, they sent me to their secretary to see to
things.  The check finally arrived three weeks later via "payroll".

Kathy was concerned that they are new and "unproven"... she felt they were
perhaps a little too eager to please and make an impression on important
folks.  She also wondered if they'd be around in a year.  This was with me
just saying the Senske's were offering to hold it in Houston... I did not
show her Karen's message.

Why not have Houston for 2003?  If they're still around and interested, it
should work out great. Houston is a great city, and one can collect
nearby.  Meanwhile, the Boston club has a tried-and-true track record for
putting on shows, and would do an excellent job.

Regarding the name change, I also agree with Karen.  I think what we have
is great.  I do not see the benefit of relabeling it as something larger.
I am very much interested in ACCOMPLISHABLE goals, things that can be
accomplished with the people we have, and things we would LIKE to
accomplish.  Neil likes the idea of the international summit, but he's not
the one who actually has to do all the work getting it together.  There
were many things Charlene did with the convention that annoyed me (might
as well jot them down: lack of communication or taking input about what
she was doing, method of choosing speakers, roping in volunteers at last
minute instead of working out in advance, not making time for AGA business
or recruitment, too short of a time slot for each speaker, etc), but she's
the boss and she gets to run the convention the way she wants.  If I were
running the convention and doing all that work organizing things, the last
thing I'd want is to be dictated to by the steering committee.  Frankly,
that's probably why Charlene didn't communicate as much this year... I
think she got a lot of unneeded flack the first convention.

OK, anyway, what I'm saying is, I think we should go with Boston's offer,
but have the bid formalized, and kindly ask Houston to bid for 2003.

  - Erik

PS: David, Kathy agrees that Dave should give us a heap of back issues
for FREE if we agreed to bail out PAM subscribers by offering them AGA
memberships!  But based on some e-mail I have received from Dave today
(and talking with Kathy at dinner), I think that perhaps we should
distance the AGA as much as possible from PAM now.  Dave is about to do
something (sending N copies of back issues as fulfillment for the
remaining N-issue subscriptions) that will not only piss off his entire
membership, but could possibly bring on a lawsuit against him, and he
seems unconcerned about it.  Hang on, I'd better start a new message...

-- 
Erik Olson
erik at thekrib dot com


  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-sc" in the body of the message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-sc
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-sc", and password "showy".