Re: [AGA-sc] Convention Plans

["S. Hieber" <shieber@yahoo.com>]

Great summary. Seems like a lot of agreement (or concurring resignation? ;-)   
).  Well, as old Uncle Silas used to say, "If we had more sense, we'd be more 
embarrassed."  
 
Definitely, we should talk and again at Connecticut in April. However we 
arrange it, an agenda distributed before-hand could help everyone sort their 
thoughts and focus discussion. Great, who is drafting the agenda?
 
Using Local clubs -- or - Help! I've fallen and I can't get Up!" -- or - I 
don't know where we are but we don't want to be here:
I think it's looks likely the pricing for the SF convention might work such 
that break even or better is likely. Everything with SF has looked sorta 
likely, probably will work . . . Yet, it depends on the final hotel contract(s) 
and the how organized the auction and auction preparation are, and whether we 
get a few big draw speakers -- *all of which are unknowns at this point!*  But 
what we lack in confidence we bolster with a healthy abundance of hope and the 
firm belief that, if SF starts to veer off course, we will grab the reins and 
steer things straight. Actually, SF doesn't have any big shining things in its 
favor, at least, so far -- speakers, pricing, work crew, work crew leadership 
-- these are poorly performing or unknowns even after more than a year. Yes, I 
know that the location has some attraction (SF area is interesting and one of 
my two favorite cities) but it's also expensive for many folks to reach. While 
I think we have to remain with the SF club, there's a limit -- I don't think we 
should do a convention unless a big loss is very unlikely. So far that remains 
a possibility -- I think it's even probable, but I don't want to whack the 
champagne across the stern unless I'm much more sure the ship can at least 
float. Although there is always *some* unavoidable risk of a big loss when we 
undertake a convention, the probability should be very small . Unless it's 
likely that we will break even, we shouldn't do an SF convention. However, we 
don't have that choice. We never formally married SFBAAPS; in fact we always 
insisted we weren't officially joined -- we could always back off. But the 
longer things went on; the less we could pull away. Our common law marriage 
would be just as difficult to dissolve as any formal one. So we're going to do 
a convention in SF whether we want to or not and whether it is likely to lose a 
lot of money or not. We could see this as being charmed by the two or three 
people in the SF club that have been involved (so to speak) in the convention 
planning but the truth is, we 

(all of us) let ourselves get too far into this relationship without getting a 
ring, flowers, or even a decent dinner -- we accepted be taken to MacDonald's 
several times as a good sign that someday SFBAAPS would actually propose.Yet, 
iIt's not as if SFBAAPS romanced us, seduced us, got us drunk and drove us up 
to Overlook Point -- we weren't blinded with passion. Truth is, we have had 
many expressions of interest, but few suitors. And then we latched onto the 
first real date to come along in a while and got more committed than we really 
meant to. We hoped for more and kept settling for less. This situation is not 
desirable. I think the only way we reliably can avoid it is if we remain 
single, i.e., if we don't use local host clubs to produce conventions. Sure, a 
DFWAPC might ome along someday and be worth a one-time deal -- but it's not to 
be expected and certainly it's not something we can drum up, at least, not 
without risking painting ourselves into a corner.
 
 
Recruiting labor resources -- or - If I knew about the job benefits, I'd have 
gotten sick sooner: 
Each time someone offers to help, we hope it is a sign that they will do 
something helpful. Small tasks are a good way to bring people in for small 
tasks. Bringing folks in long term for bigger tasks has been more successful 
for covering small tasks but we have probably reached our limit on those folks, 
which leaves small task volunteers as the remaining potential additional 
resource. It has worked in the past: selling Tshirts, helping with "The Table," 
shooting the convention (well, maybe not quite so small) -- and sometimes the 
little-task involvement leads to greater participation -- Hey, I was invited to 
sit in on *one* meeting, which seemed like a nice easy task ;-) .
 
We need to determine the tasking for 2007 and think about tasking for other 
future conventions -- or - Suppose everyone came to a party and you didn't 
threw one: 
We don't have a full crew for producing a convention in 2007. Yes, it's still 
early, but the number of long term working staff isn't likely to increase when 
it's late. So filling out a convention crew, probably means trying to assign 
lots of little tasks to various small task volunteers that are yet to 
volunteer. But more so, it means many of the tasks will be covered by the 
handful. Perhaps we should sort all the tasks that way (to the handful) so we 
know up front what we're facing and add small taskers as we get them.
 
Passive-Aggressive AGA control of 2006 convention and beyond -- or - Please 
take control and do as I say: 
The way a group behaves is a function of all the members but is not simply an 
adding up of the individual personalities -- how the group behaves can be 
unlike how each of the members behaves individually.. What I'm about to say, I 
say about the Board, not any one of it's members (except myself, for better or 
worse).  I think the AGA is slightly schizophrenic in how it sees 
decision-making for conventions. It has wanted others to take responsibilities 
and workload for producing conventions, has sought others (local clubs) to take 
on a high degree of responsibility. Yet it has tended to underestimate the 
amount of control it tries (or wants) to exert over convention decisions. It 
recognizes its disappoint later with things and often, I my admittedly limited 
experience, it sees increased control as the resolution for its disappointment. 
Whether through liaisons, reviews, or mandatory approvals, we want in on all 
the big decisions. This was my take after the first AGA Board meeting (the 
first I attended) in Houston and it's continued to look that way to me since 
then. The AGA wants (or believes it needs) lots of control, at least on all the 
major decisions. This is just one thing that makes using local host clubs 
difficult -- not the biggest thing, but one of the things. It is a reason that 
local club model will only work in certain circumstances -- circumstances that 
now appear to be exceptional. It confuses accountability; it discourages 
ownership of decisions; it deflates "buy-in," and is a source of friction and 
dissatisfaction. I think this is going to be an issue for 2006. I think it also 
means that the chair for 2007 has to be the right person -- someone that 
doesn't expect authoritative control but who can operate independently whenever 
allowed to do so. I.e., someone that can operate on their own initiative, with 
a high degree of responsibility, and with authority and accept the oversight of 
the the Board, yield to its will at its discretion, and do all of this without 
substantial regret. I'm not suggesting

 that this is how it should (or should not) be.
 
As soon as we have the core staffing worked out for 2007, we can begin 
developing the plan for 2007.
 
sh, who never metaphor he didn't like
 
 
----- Original Message ----
From: Erik Olson <erik@thekrib.com>
To: aga-sc@thekrib.com
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 8:30:04 PM
Subject: [AGA-sc] Convention Plans


I talked with most of you last week on the phone, to get input (as the 
folks who are most likely going to do all the work for the convention) on 
what you thought we should do for 2006 and 2007 conventions, and here is a 
sort of outline summary.  Everyone pretty much thinks we should stick with 
SFBAAPS for this year.  Some of us think we should do so even if it's a 
monetary loss for the AGA.  We all think that we need to "take over" parts 
of the convention to insure that it happens, and that we're justified in 
doing so by being the only financial backer of the event.

I think we should pick out a time and all talk together fairly soon so 
we're on the same page (Larry had a link to a free trial or something of 
that ilk, or we could use cell phone conferencing).  At any rate, could 
you review the outline below, add any further comments.  I think the 
biggest action item right now is for Larry and Scott to talk with Jim and 
then take over the hotel negs; second biggest is for me to talk to Jim and 
find out who's organizing speakers & how far they are.

   - Erik

-------------------------------------

2006:

   * Tough it out with SFBAAPS
       - Unless they initiate the pullout
       - Much bad blood would ensue otherwise
       - About the same work as trying to do it ourselves at this point
       - Monetary loss won't kill AGA this time

   * Take more direct role in three key areas
       1. Hotel
     - They've all but said "you take over this"
     - Larry and Scott talk conference with Jim, get permission, run
       2. Speakers
          - Who is heading the committee?
     - Who is planned, if any? (If not, we insure good speakers booked now)
       3. Auction
          - Who is heading the committee?
     - Are arrangements being made with FAN and other donors?
     - Is the committee head familiar with running big auctions?
     - Do they have a system that has been tried and true?

   * Plan needed to account for lack of backing by SFBAAPS
     - First $X profit goes directly to AGA, above that split 50/50
     - AGA board allowed to step in and override if it feels decision
       being made (or inaction) leading to convention disaster

2007 and Beyond:

   * AGA should host the conventions, not local clubs
     - DFWAPC more the exception than the norm
     - Not enough established clubs
     - Board ends up doing just as much work as if self-hosted
     - If a competent local volunteers, we could still accept
       a bid.

   * Committee heads from board and other proven folk
     - Jobs get easier when repeated
     - AGA board and hand-picked folks are trustworthy, competent, hard-working
     - All expressed concern over burnout from yearly repeat, though

   * Locations
     - Several specific sites were suggested as 2006 backup plans, and might 
make
       decent post-2006 locations:

       * Houston at Senske's rather than hotel (small seating)
       * Dallas, same conract as 2003
       * Hartford (NEC site)
       * Portland (Erik and Kathy know some people, hotel used for annual 
convention)

     - Keep in same location, or move around?

       * To rotate, we need a skeletal ground crew made up of local
       volunteers to do scouting, report back to board.

       * Keeping in same location makes field trips less interesting

       * Larry said something about trying to get a national contract
         with Marriott that would guarantee a given rate in any city.

       * Larry also mentioned that it's a lot of work to select the hotel
         when it's done right.  Many many field trips.

     - Non-hotel locations?  Have people fend for themselves with hotel?

   * GOAL: Announce 2007 convention at 2006.



We Need a process to bring in new volunteers

   * Current model of giving high-profile jobs to "whoever" is not very 
effective.

   * Need to note when small, not-so-important tasks "come up" and offer these 
to new
     volunteers as tests.  Some examples that came up:

     - Hotel scouts (local folks, onetime job, but could turn into convention 
volunteer)

     - Secretary.  Sits on mcm, keeps track of all topics, replays them as 
notes on monthly basis.
       Very important job, and one we could try people out on trial basis.
_______________________________________________
AGA-sc mailing list
AGA-sc@thekrib.com
http://lists.thekrib.com/mailman/listinfo/aga-sc