Life In 19x19

direwolf wrote:One of the reasons for congress not breaking even or turning a modest profit was because of no shows. Usually when you register for a conference there is a drop dead date when you have to pay or else you will be deregistered. If this typical process was followed, there should have been red flags indicating there were not going to be enough people attending. This would have allowed the leaders to work with the venue to reduce costs. How did the organizers allow at least 50 people to slide on payment and get themselves into this issue?
...

Many years ago, when I was helping run chess tournaments, we would contact for minimal costs way ahead of time, and include a clause that we could add more later. For example, six months ahead we would tell the caterers that we needed food for fifty or more. We were only committed to paying for fifty meals. So we had food costs at a guaranteed fixed price, and we had the caterers guaranteed for that weekend. Then, as registration increased above fifty, we would give the caterers weekly updates so they knew exactly how many meals to bring.

We did have a no-refunds-after-this-date day. When that day arrived, we did a balance sheet, and made sure that all of our expenses could be covered. If they were not, we had a list of expenses that could be trimmed back ( such as making the trophies smaller with plastic bases instead of marble ).
By that date, we knew if things were going badly and we could make changes. And occasionally we did. WE NEVER LOST MONEY. Although, I must admit, there were a few years that the trophies were kinda small and ugly...

I was going to push on these items (slow minutes and no statement about 2011) at tonight's board meeting, but it did not take place as scheduled due to some having written it down on the wrong date. So I wrote some emails; it sounds like a statement is in the works and I'm reasonably confident we'll get something published soon.

daniel_the_smith wrote:I was going to push on these items (slow minutes and no statement about 2011) at tonight's board meeting, but it did not take place as scheduled due to some having written it down on the wrong date. So I wrote some emails; it sounds like a statement is in the works and I'm reasonably confident we'll get something published soon.

BUMP. Any news on this?

Joaz Banbeck wrote:BUMP. Any news on this?

Sorta. The email thread I started went on to make life on the board very exciting for a week or so. Unfortunately there's little in the way of tangible results as of yet. Hopefully I will have more news later today.

EricBackus wrote:Well, my perspective on all this is different:

I thought that the Congress in Santa Barbara was so good, I think we should keep doing it there every year. The weather was fantastic. The food was fantastic. The ocean views were fantastic. The walking/jogging trail around the lagoon was fantastic. The logistics of getting there were easy. The go was fantastic. Why not go back?

I would be happy to pay $125 more to do it again, if that's what it takes. And presumably, we could learn from the loss that we took last year, and find a way to do things again without that loss and without having to charge significantly more.

I know the locals who helped organize last year won't want to do all that work again so soon, so we'd need to find a way for the rest of us to somehow organize it, but majority of the groundwork was done last year. We just need to find a way to leverage that and learn how to not lose $22000.

Thank you to all who worked on the 2011 Congress, I really enjoyed it!

I haven't been yet to a single Go congress. Im not an AGA member either, so this is a voice without any kind of vote.

I believe that it is better to provide a better experience than a cheaper one. California is much nicer than North Carolina. I've been to both states and my experience was vastly different. I think its a much better long-term bet to go for a nicer place even if it was more expensive. The more people it gets the easier it will be to get sponsors.

In general, i think its better to have fewer hardcore fans, than a lot of "meh's". And a great venue makes a lot of hardcore fans. Plus it can be a decent familiy vacation with all the beaches and the sort.

Kaya.gs wrote:California is much nicer than North Carolina.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like uh your opinion, man.

Kaya.gs wrote:
I haven't been yet to a single Go congress. Im not an AGA member either, so this is a voice without any kind of vote.

I believe that it is better to provide a better experience than a cheaper one. California is much nicer than North Carolina. I've been to both states and my experience was vastly different. I think its a much better long-term bet to go for a nicer place even if it was more expensive. The more people it gets the easier it will be to get sponsors.

In general, i think its better to have fewer hardcore fans, than a lot of "meh's". And a great venue makes a lot of hardcore fans. Plus it can be a decent familiy vacation with all the beaches and the sort.

its a question of priorities.

Kaya.gs wrote:The more people it gets the easier it will be to get sponsors.

Kaya.gs wrote:In general, i think its better to have fewer hardcore fans, than a lot of "meh's"

This is in particular. you really can't have it both ways. in the current economy, cheaper will probably be better with regards to getting more people.

The strange thing about the USGC is that the AGA does not organize it on a national level. It is dependent on local chapters to organize and host the event. This is why it is in N.C. again this year, and why Seattle is proposed for 2013. No other chapter has stepped up to the plate with a viable plan.

In this system, each year (with the exception of repeat locations) the congress is built from the ground up with local volunteers, working in their spare time, who may not have organized a large convention before. With this in mind, it is not surprising that some years there are big cost overruns and some years there is a surplus. It is dependent on the the organizational and accounting skills of the local chapter's volunteers.

Personally, I think that the AGA should take over organizing the event, using people experienced with the process. That would prevent overruns like we are discussing and open the convention up to locations that are not based on strong local chapters. However, that would also be dependent on volunteers and/or funds that the AGA does not have.

Redbeard wrote:... I think that the AGA should take over organizing the event...

In 2011, Prez Abramson did that.

Redbeard wrote:... using people experienced with the process...

But they brought in people with no experience running congress.

It was the worst of both worlds: no local familarity, and no Congress experience.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Redbeard wrote:... I think that the AGA should take over organizing the event...

In 2011, Prez Abramson did that.

Redbeard wrote:... using people experienced with the process...

But they brought in people with no experience running congress.

It was the worst of both worlds: no local familarity, and no Congress experience.

This is really getting annoying. You actually started this thread by bringing some discussion from another thread - starting with your post indicating that you were happy about the loss.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you were one of the locals providing that familiarity but you quit. Clearly you were missed, as an attorney, it was truly bizarre that the Chief Judge of the Missouri Supreme Court made my coffee every morning.

My understanding is the organizers found out you quit when you posted it here, not with any personal communication with them. You were asked here what your concerns were - with months to go before Congress - and you did not respond.

Only now in this thread do you refer to failures of outreach with the local Asian population as your concern.

And now you attack the directors for their lack of local familiarity and lack of experience, while touting your own running chess events.

Did you, with your experience and local familiarity, volunteer to direct the Congress?

All I know is the event was well run in the sense of it was a delightful venue and everyone had a good time.

I have no doubt that people made mistakes. I am pretty confident they were honest ones. It would certainly be useful to have an understanding of what they were, and maybe even who made them.

I just would like to understand why you are taking such delight in it, and such pride that you saw it coming and jumped ship.

If it were me, and I believed the Congress failed because of lack of experience and lack of local knowledge, I would not be bragging about how I had both and was smart enough to quit.

HKA wrote:
This is really getting annoying. You actually started this thread by bringing some discussion from another thread - starting with your post indicating that you were happy about the loss.

Nevermind how much I disagree with the rest of what you are saying but how on earth did you interpret this to mean that he was happy about the loss ?! obviously he is talking about the first part.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Feng Yun wrote:...
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent... The AGA lost tens of thousands of dollars at the 2011 Go Congress without explanation to members...

I like this part.

Feng Yun wrote:...
I want to make AGA decision making more transparent...

Joaz Banbeck wrote:

Redbeard wrote:... I think that the AGA should take over organizing the event...

In 2011, Prez Abramson did that.

I'm not sure that is correct. My understanding of the 2011 congress is that it was organized by a coalition SoCal of AGA chapters, not directly by the AGA. There were AGA board members involved in the congress planning, but they acted as members of the host chapters and not as representatives of the AGA board. Is this not right?

You are correct that it was not directly run by the AGA. Andrew Jackson and I (Lisa Scott) came to the AGA in 2009, before either of us had any official position with the AGA other than occasional chapter heads, and volunteered to run a Congress somewhere in the country at an undetermined time. We were asked if we would be interested in running it in the LA area in 2011, and after brief consideration we said that we were interested.

While this Congress was intended by some AGA officials as something of an experiment with leadership that was not entirely local, it was not intended to be an experiment with running a Congress entirely by the AGA. The Congress directors were not local, but many of the volunteers were, and it was run similarly to how Congresses put on by local organizers had been run, with the exception that more meetings were made virtually rather than in person. (This change was due in part to the geographic distance between organizers, but at least as much to the age and technological inclinations of the organizers--more than half of the key volunteers, including the directors, were and are under 30.)

Let me know if you have any more questions of this kind.

Lisa

HKA wrote:...
This is really getting annoying...

It is probably easy to get annoyed when you have a bunch of incorrect facts - even easier when you misunderstand a simple English sentence. ( Thanks, speedchase! )

You weren't there.

I don't recall you being at the table in 2009 in Portland when we did the initial planning. I don't see anything from you in the 20 months worth of emails that I have when we did the planning. I didn't see you at the group meeting at Cotsen in 2010, or the meetng at Cotsen in 2011. I don't recall riding with you to any of the numerous trips made to potential venues.

You were not involved, and think that explains why you misunderstand so much.

HKA wrote:...
My understanding is the organizers found out you quit when you posted it here, not with any personal communication with them. You were asked here what your concerns were - with months to go before Congress - and you did not respond.
Only now in this thread do you refer to failures of outreach with the local Asian population as your concern.

I made my resignation - with reasons, in detail - to AGA officers. I guess they didn't forward it to you ...because you weren't involved.

HKA wrote:...

Did you, with your experience and local familiarity, volunteer to direct the Congress?

No. I was too old. AGA policy was don't trust anyone over 30. BTW, I hear that they have changed that policy.

My 7 year old son and I attended the Santa Barbara Congress. He thought it was the 2nd best vacation we have had, after Disney World. It was a wonderful week and a well run congress.

As a long time AGA member and former congress director (with no recent AGA political activity, meetings attended and rare 19x19 posts), I would judge a congress primarily by whether the congress helped the strategic goals of the organization. This congress achieved 4 goals.

1. It was a beautiful congress in a lovely place - a refreshing moment in rough economic times.
2. It deepened AGA ties with Southern California
3. It tested again mixed AGA and local support
4. It gave experience to a younger generation of leadership.

In the larger scheme of things the economic outcome of a congress is fairly minor. Over time the Congresses should have a positive economic contribution to the AGA. That has occurred over 25 years. The 2012 congress and likely the 2013 will return to prior locations, so budgeting will be easier. Any one year loss will be easily compensated over the next year or two; projections conservative, expenses less, charges a bit higher. There is no great lesson to be learned.

I am pleased the AGA in planning congresses can take some risks, take a breather with a couple of conservative choice of locations and then on to Canada.

Lastly, while I liked the beaches of Santa Barbara, once the tar has worn off the heels of ones feet, I would not trade them for the hills of Appalachia or glacial till of the Northwest.