Sharon, you're engaging in the politics of distraction. You keep
broadening out the argument...now it's drink chits, and the green room, and
programs. Let's deal with one thing at a time, shall we? (And I think most
pros would be happy to let go of the $2 drink chit in exchange for the $100
admission fee, don't you?)

Perianne just gave us a very good breakdown: 200 program participants at
$100 apiece being $20,000. Are you saying that worldcons are so fiscally
unstable that they can't handle this? What happens to the ads paid for in the
program booklet from book companies and movie studios and TV shows and authors
and artists? Where is that money going? When the studios and the publishers
and others pay for booth space and exhibits, doesn't that go into the kitty?
If you were *just* making the money on ticket sales, then maybe you might have
an argument...but there are revenue streams coming in from a LOT of places,
from institutions with big bucks, who are there because the pros are there.

Here's a question...when was the last time a WorldCon was audited?
Because if they're that financially unsound, maybe something should be looked
into about their books. There's probably a great deal of waste in there. I
bet we could find out where the problem is...or, perhaps, determine that
they're not this fiscally unstable after all, which would certainly be in
everyone's interest, would it not?

The reason I bring this up is that, well, I work in *Hollywood*, and out
here we've learned that ON PAPER, the studios make absolutely sure that
nothing ever shows a profit, to avoid paying participants. I know full well
how figures can be balanced, juggled, cross-referenced and buried. So the
question becomes...if the WorldCon is a function for the SF and fan
contingents, to whom is the WorldCon accountable (literally and figuratively)
for its fiscal activities? Is it just WorldCon folks monitoring WorldCon
folks? Is each separate division allowed to monitor its own books without
supervision by any other WorldCon? If so, then we enter the "Who Watches the
Watchmen?" scenario.

If you say, "The WorldCon can't afford to comp participating pros," then
it seems to me not unreasonable to say, "Okay, I will accept that if you will
show me that this is the case." Otherwise why should we take anyone's word
for this? You are eliciting $20,000 in fees from pros who would be comp'd at
*virtually any other convention in the country*. This is truly extraordinary.
One of a kind. I see nothing wrong with asking for support, evidence and
proof as to why this is necessary.

A proper audit would compare actual fees received, plus revenue from t-
shirts, programs, exhibit space, and other areas, with "soft" revenue in the
sense of hotel facilities provided free or at reduced cost as part of a
package deal, trade-offs, barter, and real costs on facilities, free rooms for
various individuals (convention top organizers doubtless get free rooms under
the package deal), and so on...and in so doing put this issue fully and
completely to rest.

So...to whom *are* the WorldCons answerable...?

jms