[nfb-talk] Resolutions and Convention Locations
Debra Baxley
debrabaxley at bellsouth.net
Wed Jul 11 00:29:23 CDT 2007
This is just a thought; should some of us who are not Board members attend
only the Division meetings of interest, and not attend the entire
Convention? Of course, we do not come from other states in order only to
attend Division meetings.
Debra
-----Original Message-----
From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Freeman
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:48 PM
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions and Convention Locations
I don't think it would be ten or twenty dollars a night more -- it would
be thirty or forty dollars more to have other venues.
Moreover, we are too big for small hotels and not large enough for the
mammoth ones. And, as Steve said, Charlotte left a bad taste in
everyone's mouth; I think the problem of shuttling numerous convention
attendants between hotels in a multiple-hotel situation would be much
more difficult than it was in, say, 1985 or 1986 when banquets had
around 1500 attendees and Louisville in 1985 set a record with about
2100 attendees.
I favor examining the possibility of shorter conventions except that
there are some of us who have multiple NFB duties and we have a hard
enough time attending what we wish now let alone if everything were
telescoped.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Miller
To: NFB Talk Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions and Convention Locations
Hi Steve,
I thought several of us here had made our preferences clear. I don't
think
most of us are being naive about what it takes to put on a convention,
or
the myriad logistical issues involved, or the complex variables that
need to
be considered. I've been to countless state conventions, and eleven
national conventions with the NFB, and countless conferences and
conventions
outside the NFB, so I don't think I'm arguing here out of ignorance.
I was there the last time the question was put to the convention about
whether or not people prefered cheaper rates -- I voted against this
rather
simplistic choice for cheapness above all else. Maybe we need to
frame the
question differently -- such as, "Would you be willing to pay $10-20
more a
night if it meant broadening our choices of venues? This might have
illicited a different response -- or maybe not, but I think it would
have
been a more informative vote.
I'm also one of those who thinks we ought to try and shortened the
convention week -- even if only by one day -- to afford us more
opportunities for venues, and, in some cases, to save a little money
and
time.
Why not experiment and see what happens? It took quite a while for us
to
finally get around to pre-registering -- now everybody seems to love
it.
This is a small example, obviously, but I think we always need to be
thinking creatively, because this is the strength of our organization,
and
will help keep us viable for decades to come.
Brian M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Jacobson" <steve.jacobson at visi.com>
To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions and Convention Locations
> I don't have any inside information on this, and the experience I
had with
having the convention here in Minnesota is twenty-five years old, but
I see
a lot of simplistic
> assumptions in some of these messages. I am all for moving our
convention
around and think that would be good for affilliate development and
probably
would
> increase attendance. It is difficult for me to believe, though,
that
those goals are not considered in general, already.
>
> First, someone stated earlier that hotels don't have the right to
tell us
to shorten our convention if we pay their rates. Well, this is simply
not
true. Hotel rates are
> something that is negotiated. If our convention is longer than a
hotel
wants, they simply don't offer us anything. They have no obligation
to take
any particular
> convention at a given time. There are no rights involved at all.
Therefore, the discussion of the length of a convention is very much
relevant, and the length of our
> convention may well reduce our options.
>
> I don't remember when this occurred, but I recall some time back
that
there was a friday afternoon voice vote on which was more important,
rates
or new cities.
> Maybe we need to do this again, but what I recall was that the vote
was
overwhelmingly in favor of going with low rates. I also believe, but
could
be wrong about
> this, that there was a preference for a single main hotel, as well.
People were not real happy with the arrangement in Charlotte, for
example,
as convenient as it was,
> where there were several hotels and a convention center close
together.
Again, maybe thinking has changed, but some of this discussion may
have
preceeded
> people here.
>
> Given these discussions and the unclear vote about shortening
conventions,
our options are somewhat limited. We have a couple of Marriott hotels
here
in the
> Twin Cities of Minnesota, but to my knowledge, none can even come
close to
holding our convention. The size of the hotel is one factor, but so
is a
room that can
> hold a general session or handle our banquet. Another issue is the
cost
of getting to certain cities. Picking a city that tends not to have
low
airfares can be a big
> negative. If one flies to a convention with a family of four as we
do, an
increase in fare of $150 is about equal to doubling our hotel rate.
>
> I don't say all of this to discourage discussion, but this
discussion
seems to be based on the assumption that there are hundreds of ideal
sites
for our convention just
> waiting to be asked, and that we are simply staying within our
comfort
zone as an organization disregarding all of these sites. I just don't
believe that is the case from
> what I have heard and seen, and I truly question what would happen
to
attendance if our rates should jump up $30 per night even in more
ideal
locations.
> Examining how we might restructure our conventions to increase
options is
certainly something we should do, and I thought that it was a positive
sign
that this was
> done this year. Again, this is only a feeling of mine, but from
what I
heard, my guess is that we'll have to discuss this again, especially
if
location options decrease.
> People need, therefore, to make it known as to what they feel is
important. However, we also need to understand the requirements of
our
convention as well, and
> try to frame our preferences within those requirements.
>
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:35:21 -0400, Brian Miller wrote:
>
> >I don't think it is necessarily true that we won't get good deals
in
other
> >cities -- especially given our close relationship with Marriott.
We
would
> >likely not get as good a deal as in the deep south in summer, but
we
could
> >get something we can work with.
>
> >I think there are several things to consider:
>
> >* For many NFBers this is there only vacation all year, and is a
big
outlay
> >of time and money, even at the cheaper prices;
> >* Holding a convention in a state potentially strengthens that
affiliate
and
> >gives the affiliate a chance to shine, to grow, and to attract
attention
> >from the local and state news;
> >* Attendance has clearly flattened over the past decade -- perhaps
a
> >coincidence, but nonetheless worth considering; and,
> >* I think we've become complacent -- when the conventions moved
around,
each
> >year was memorable, exciting, different, and showed how the blind
can
take
> >on any city and make it ours. Now we only take on a few cities
because
it
> >is where we get cheap rates. I think this is selling ourselves
short.
>
> >Just some thoughts.
>
> >Brian M
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Mike Freeman" <k7uij at panix.com>
> >To: "NFB Talk Mailing List" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:27 AM
> >Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions
>
>
> >> Priscilla:
> >>
> >> You'd have to pay quite a bit more to have a national convention
in
> >> Portland or Seattle, let alone San Diego. The NFB of Washington
hasn't
> >> had a convention in Seattle proper since 1987.
> >>
> >> Like someone else, I don't go to convention to bop around the
city; I
go
> >> to get my vote in and influence policies and learn new things.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Priscilla McKinley
> >> To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> >> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:12 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions
> >>
> >>
> >> It's pretty funny...but quite sad...that I'm looking forward to
a
> >> convention
> >> in Detroit, Michigan!. However, compared to years and years in
> >> southern
> >> locations, Detroit will be rather refreshing. Still, I'd be
willing
> >> to pay
> >> more to go to San Diego, San Francisco, Anaheim, Portland,
Seattle,
> >> Denver,
> >> or any number of places that would be new. After all, what
happened
> >> to the
> >> idea of travelling outside of our comfort zones? Atlanta,
Louisville,
> >> and
> >> Dallas have become comfort zones for me, very very hot comfort
zones.
> >>
> >> Priscilla
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Michael D. Barber" <m.barber at mchsi.com>
> >> To: "'NFB Talk Mailing List'" <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>
> >> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 9:37 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions
> >>
> >>
> >> > The convention is in Dallas next year, Detroit in 2009 and
back in
> >> Dallas
> >> > for 2010.
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org
> >> [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> >> > Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
> >> > Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:53 PM
> >> > To: NFB Talk Mailing List
> >> > Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] Resolutions
> >> >
> >> > Actually, it's planned to be in the same two cities for
something
> >> like the
> >> > next several years.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 09:52:15AM -0600, dmgina wrote:
> >> >> Well now,
> >> >> If we are paying the prices the hotel is asking for, then
they
have
> >> no
> >> >> rite to ask us to make the convention shorter.
> >> >> This is planned in a year in advance what is the problem
here.
> >> >> Don't care for this at all.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --Dar
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > nfb-talk mailing list
> >> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > nfb-talk mailing list
> >> > nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> > http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfb-talk mailing list
> >> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >----
>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfb-talk mailing list
> >> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
> >>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >nfb-talk mailing list
> >nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> >http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
_______________________________________________
nfb-talk mailing list
nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk
More information about the nfb-talk
mailing list