direwolf wrote:having a Role in this along with a financial loss at the same time trying to negotiate the monies with the pro league could have be embarrassing at the time don't you think?
Not really. Do not get me wrong - I am not trying to dismiss this issue, but I do not think Mr. Okun is to "blame" here, and to his credit, in the minutes, he steps up to the plate and acknowledges his role.
But this begs the question - what is the role of the US Go Congress? Should it be the primary funding source for the AGA, or should it be a tool for helping the AGA strengthen around the country?
I have always been of the view that the Congress should first, makes sure it does not lose money and second make sure it is affordable enough so that as many folks can come as possible.
We have had so many Congresses, and yet we had NEVER had a Congress in Southern California - a region where go players have always been thick on the ground, but AGA efforts to corral them had been not as successful. The AGA decided, despite cost concerns, despite the need to import directors from the other side of the country, that is was important and about time that the Congress flew its flag in So Cal. I think this was a reasonable decision, a laudable goal, and it was not like they turned down other bidders to do so. It was certainly a great Congress, and while it was an expensive one, the organizers tried to keep it as inexpensive as possible.
So if there job was to deliver a $30,000 profit - well, they needed to charge attendees $125 more per person. Not only would that have been really painful, it would have meant less people to cover fixed costs and a need to charge even more.
I think the organizers did a great job. I think having a Go Congress is important, and having one in So Cal was a great idea, and the volunteers there, and the ones that travelled in made it happen. As Chris K. alluded to, this was a risk - the costs were high. There was an expectation that many more local players would swell the numbers, and that a Congress in this part of the country, for the first time, would be a nationwide draw.
In case you have not noticed, from the time the decision to make this congress was made, our economy has had major issues, and certainly this dampened attendance.
So yes, Andy Okun had "a role in this". A role in making sure the Congress happened, in a new part of the country, and it was a lot of fun for those who attended. He should be commended for that role.
Yes, it is certainly wrong that 400 of us had a $50 better time than we should have had, and the AGA as a whole has to take that hit. Philosphically, however, normally those of us who attend Congresses essentially overpay $50 for the time had, and the AGA as a whole reaps the reward. Too me, both outcomes are not ideal, and, unfortunately, it is very difficult to hit the price point exactly.
