The Red Lion at the Quay (in Washington) is not the Red Lion on the River (In Oregon).
The billing issues from 2007 belong in 2007, and not something we need to bring up here because they are heated subject between several people, and I don't wish to breed drama.
No issues, no matter how ill suited, are removed from any table at this point. That means where ever we can find space, and that space has our dates available (or even other dates), is possible. However, all that research is being done by a few people, and reviewed by the board. Though, I assure you, should a change in date be needed, or a major change in venue, that information would be presented to the staff. We've been very lucky to keep our date since the beginning, and our hope is that PAX does not present too much of a drain on our attendee pool.
Billing for convention space is based upon the location. Hotels are generally very accommodating in billing, and allow for payment pretty much anytime up to and including at/after the event (within reason). Convention Centers may or may not be the same way, though I know Sak pays for their space in several installments over the year since their space rental is quite high (just as a number, Otakon pays $10k/day for JUST Air Conditioning (that's $30k in AC). Sure, it's Baltimore, but still... totally different scale. We pay less than that (much less) for all our space, power, etc).
But, if we're wanting to use the convention center for main events, or exhibit hall, we're not talking Sat/Sun, we're talking all 3 days, plus setup and tear down. Exhibitors would not be happy with only having space 2 of the three days, plus having to pay convention center rates. Our AV staff would NOT be happy setting up and tearing down a Main Events space so we could use it for what would amount to 24 hours if we only get it for 2 days.
Many attendees did enjoy the Hilton. Many didn't. Many attendees enjoyed the DoubleTree in 05. Many didn't. Hell, many enjoyed the Clarion in 03, or the Marriott in 04. Most attendees don't overly care about the hotel space as long as the programming is good, and what they want to do is allowed, and easy to do. I assure you, if we had the crappiest hotel on the planet, if we had awesome programming, and friendly staff, they'd still enjoy themselves. =) I would.
Hotel billing is in the contract. It was in 07, and has been every year. But it's a one way thing. It's so they have a way to force us to pay the bill, not so we have a way to force them to give us the bill, or look at billing issues that arise. They're not going to sign a contact that says "You must provide us with a detailed, accurate bill within 14 days of our event, so that accounts can be paid". Because ultimately, the people on their end that sign the contact aren't the people that do Accounts Receivable. Catering Services, or Event Services don't really handle billing. It would be like signing up for a credit card and you stipulating that they have to bill you in a timely manner, or else you can sue them. They're totally not going to sign that... because stuff happens. The accountant is sick, there is a billing question, etc.
From your previous post, it sounded like you were arguing that any member can vote for any thing. If I misread that, I apologize. But ultimately, the point still stands. The vote contention issue in the past hasn't been over the right to vote for a motion, it's been the right to vote for leadership of the con, and therefore the direction the con takes in any given year. Further, most attendees (and therefore non-staff members) have no clue who people are, why they help run the con, or why they want to be in a leadership role, and ultimately, have relatively nothing to loose should bad leadership be elected. They can just hit another con, or lament the loss of our con, but ultimately, get over it. A staff member, or someone that has really put their heart and soul into this con for the year (or several), has something to lose for bad leadership. It's like asking an American to vote for in the Japanese elections. Sure, if we vote for crappy people, and their economy tanks, we're going to lose a lot of really important stuff in our market (Toyota? Sony? etc), but it's not going to kill us. But if we vote for crappy leadership here in our country... see the point?
I understand the law in Chapter 65, and I understand that our current bylaws and policies show a flaw like this. It's going to have to be something that is addressed, but I don't think it's fair to our staff to fix it in the way you are proposing, but rather to change things so that attendees are not members. I guess, in a possible compromise situation, since it isn't exactly fair to the attendees to strip them of an assumed right, we could have one or two board positions that were elected by ALL members, and some that were elected by only staff members. This would satisfy Chapter 65, as well as prevent any excess hardship on either party. Again though, this is something that will need to be discussed and chewed over for a while. But at the moment, I can't see any serious flaws with this option.
And as always, thanks for the interest.
