[sudo-discuss] [omni-discuss] finance-wg report back

[David Keenan]

Good question - thankfully the answer is no, BYOB shouldn't affect 'private
event' status, provided no one present exchanges such booze for any sort of
in-kind contribution (donation, ticket/token, $, getting in for free, etc).

Just a reminder but given the limits of our current insurance policy
(unless it has changed?), technically speaking for BYOB you would still
want to get a seperate one-off event insurance policy for that date that
includes alcohol coverage - but the whole insurance thing is a seperate
issue from whether it counts as a 'private event'.

On Friday, October 30, 2015, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:

> what about byob?
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 3:18 AM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sf99er at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> good to hear from you, david.
>>
>> a stagehand union member, jon, has been coming around teaching sound
>> training sessions for people at the omni & i've been talking to people for
>> months now trying to figure out the best arrangement for a production
>> collective @the omni. jon is/was very motivated & wants to help us get the
>> ballroom up to snuff w/sound & lights so i think now would be a really good
>> time to restart the push to broaden our capacity for events.
>>
>> only hang up is it will take even more $ that we don't have
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dkeenan44 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>
>>> Oops - last thing, I need to add a correction / caveat to one example I
>>> mentioned:
>>>
>>> "For example, at a 'private' event in a commercial location, If alcohol
>>> is present in any way, there can be no charge, donation, or exchange (for
>>> tokens etc) - or, in the eyes of the state, it is automatically not a
>>> 'private' event anymore, it is technically a 'public' one -- even if there
>>> are only 2 people there and it was invite-only, gated at the door, etc."
>>> ...yes the above would not be a private party, IF there was no ABC
>>> permit pulled or in place for that event.
>>>
>>> Whereas, If there WAS a one-time (aka 'daily') alcohol license pulled
>>> for that scenario, or omni had it's own permanent license that covered the
>>> types of alcohol served at that event, then, yea that event could still be
>>> considered private, provided of course it met other conditions including
>>> the other examples above..
>>>
>>> (There's a lot of caveats to these sorts of things.. Please take my
>>> ramblings more as something written off-the-cuff whilst doing laundry, n
>>> less as somethin comprehensive or even proofread :)
>>>
>>> Dk
>>>
>>> On Friday, October 30, 2015, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dkeenan44 at gmail.com');>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ps. I meant to add that, somewhere, I did have a one-page set of
>>>> specific guidelines I came up with, which, if followed to the
>>>> letter, would ensure most kinds of 'private events' are
>>>> also 'legally' private - and therefore largely protected from cops, ABC,
>>>> zoning citations etc.
>>>>
>>>> It's a short system of sorts for technically ensuring full compliance
>>>> that I came up with out of necessity basically, but the bottomline is, we
>>>> found that even this 'boiled-down' reduced instruction set still required
>>>> just too much hoop-jumping, of ever-changing pool of volunteers / staff /
>>>> renters to be realistically and reliably deployable in real life.
>>>>  (So, it's basically still moot..)
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, October 30, 2015, David Keenan <dkeenan44 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Re: the technical, legal requirements for 'private events'.. seems
>>>>> worth repeating here - I mention only b/c I see these q's are being asked
>>>>> again, to several lists.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tbc I'm not saying the below is what omni has to do per se or in every
>>>>> case necessarily, just saying what the law is at least as it
>>>>> applies in Oakland, if that is helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Technically the term 'Private' here has to satisfy several
>>>>> non-obvious statutory and municipal requirements spread out amongst at
>>>>> least 3 different enforcing agencies that engage depending on the type
>>>>> of complaint, advertising, or city/state application being followed up on.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, at a 'private' event in a commercial location, If alcohol
>>>>> is present in any way, there can be no charge, donation, or exchange (for
>>>>> tokens etc) - or, in the eyes of the state, it is automatically not a
>>>>> 'private' event anymore, it is technically a 'public' one -- even if there
>>>>> are only 2 people there and it was invite-only, gated at the door, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or for ex., If the event is advertised in a way that could be
>>>>> construed 'public', i.e. it is publicly flyered, or it is not
>>>>> strictly invitation-only with the door gated and a real guest list, then
>>>>> the event is technically 'public', not private.
>>>>>
>>>>> An alternate to invite lists is, Private events can stay
>>>>> legally private if they are only attended by verifiable (at the
>>>>> door) members of an organization and their 'bona fide' guests. (And of
>>>>> course, you cannot just let anyone in iff the street)
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether public or private, absent being issued conditional use permit
>>>>> (CUP) to operate what is for us effectively a venue, any social function in
>>>>> a commercial space with 60+ ppl technically requires a one-off special
>>>>> event permit from the city by which I mean OPD, and by convention they only
>>>>> allow a small number per year per applicant depending on several factors..
>>>>> (Small #, b/c if you hold a lot of events, then you are supposed to get a
>>>>> CUP instead). These special permits should be applied for 3 weeks in
>>>>> advance (if you are on good terms you can get them sooner), and dep. on the
>>>>> type & projected attendance of event + premises occupant load, it is very
>>>>> likely OPD can force you to hire a security firm bonded to do business in
>>>>> Oakland at a guard-to-attendee ratio of at least 1:50, with
>>>>> $7.50/hr/guard being a baseline last year, probably more now like
>>>>> $12/hr/guard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also as of this year, for SEPs you need to prove the premises
>>>>> are officially cleared by Fire for assembly occupancy. I pre-paid for that
>>>>> last year while we were fixing things, and someone a little while ago told
>>>>> me that Spencer or another inspector (from BFP) came by in the last couple
>>>>> months and cleared the ballroom for us.. which is great and by the way,
>>>>> almost certainly a favor to us because they usually clear entire buildings
>>>>> if tenant spaces inside them are not properly separated by some fire-rated
>>>>> wall assembly which our building is def. not, and of course the rest of the
>>>>> building still needs compliance outlined in the first inspection.. etc. But
>>>>> anyway if true that is very good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably ppl reading this are like, 'what? I go to events/parties at
>>>>> xyz place, and they don't have to comply with this or that..' Indeed, my
>>>>> fellow skeptics, as you have guessed the reality on the ground (as the omni
>>>>> itself has in a way demonstrated over the last year by operating
>>>>> 'illegally') is that, many many places violate at least one, usually more
>>>>> of the above type of laws.
>>>>>
>>>>> For omni tbh any outstanding noncompliance has been mitigated in part
>>>>> by (at least during the first year) open dialogue with the city powers that
>>>>> be in terms of talking with planning dept, e.d., prepping for
>>>>> city applications, talking with neighbors & local businesses etc etc, which
>>>>> is a reason why they let us slide, ie are giving us (a lot of) time to be
>>>>> able to eventually do things the 'right' way.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again all I ain't saying this is what omni 'should' or shouldn't do, I
>>>>> am only saying what the letter of the law actually is with respect to
>>>>> events, parties etc and how I've noticed it's typically enforced.
>>>>>
>>>>> The truth is, the city lets unauthorized events go 90% of the time --
>>>>> UNTIL there is a complaint, or, eventually, the owner/city/neighbors wants
>>>>> to evict. So Basically, IMO, these particular laws are used as a sort
>>>>> of cudgel when needed, and allows for easy selective enforcement
>>>>> (8pm bougie gallery opening? Hey, no problem, Drink away. Crusty
>>>>> 2am warehouse party? Nah you're busted, because you see, you broke xyz rule
>>>>> re: alcohol or you needed an SEP which now OPD will deny you b/ c there was
>>>>> a complain, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>> So if omni doesn't follow these event-hosting 'rules', well fact is we
>>>>> are completely vulnerable to any official complaint. Im sorta
>>>>> (actually, not really) sure that we'd probably all prefer not to be sitting
>>>>> ducks in this way.. right? Well - anyhow, I at least think that could be a
>>>>> relief, to not have to worry about that. Because if a govt rule enforcer
>>>>> does come to investigate, and they aren't feeling charitable, well there
>>>>> are still so many freakin Use and safety violations that they won't have
>>>>> any problem citing us.
>>>>>
>>>>> The real bite of any such complaint and citation during this current
>>>>> time will still cruelly and profoundly impact any application we might
>>>>> later submit for a real permit, to operate a venue, which if we got one, we
>>>>> would be comparatively untouchable.
>>>>>
>>>>> All told, pragmatically speaking, complying with all the above
>>>>> constraints re trying to make as many events as possible
>>>>> legally 'private' is more than just a pain in the ass - IMO they are
>>>>> simply not practical or realistic for omni full stop, and this has been
>>>>> demonstrated I feel over omni's tenure of event-hosting this far. I mean I
>>>>> think our 'private events' have only legitimately complied a couple of
>>>>> times.
>>>>>
>>>>> If anyone is still reading this long-ass email, IMO, Omni needs to
>>>>> step beyond what was intended to be a temporary state and finally get our
>>>>> MCUP and a cabaret license to boot. Then, we don't have to worry so much
>>>>> about 'private' vs public, alcohol vs no, charging / not charging, or
>>>>> complaints - which can potentially at least presently shut any event down.
>>>>>
>>>>> So IMO, Mari, Robb, Yar & anyone else who may want to work on event
>>>>> production and/or booking, and wants to operate with the confidence of a
>>>>> legal, above-ground venue (not saying this is a must, but if you are down
>>>>> for this), I would approach the use permits again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another thing is acquiring restaurant/tavern insurance (covers
>>>>> alcohol) and a Type 41 or 42 liquor license from ABC. Then we don't need to
>>>>> ask event-throwers to get their own event insurance every time as we are
>>>>> presently supposed to, which, tbh, is often an energy-draining rabbit hole
>>>>> of wasted time and expense for all concerned. Instead, we'd just
>>>>> compute our cost to the event renter's bill in a way that is fair and
>>>>> really help simplify the booking process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our particular application for a CUP is rather complicated to say the
>>>>> least, and beyond anything I'll mention here, but it is essential in my
>>>>> view towards having a financially-sustaining omni.
>>>>>
>>>>> My time is pretty impacted these days unfo, but if anyone wants to
>>>>> talk more just lmk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hugs,
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, October 30, 2015, Laura Turiano <scylla at riseup.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks you, Patrik!
>>>>>> The commons working group meets Sundays at 7pm. Please come if you
>>>>>> would like to help book and produce events. The event production collective
>>>>>> idea is something that we have discussed but haven't reached agreement
>>>>>> about in the past. That doesn't mean that we can't discuss it again or do
>>>>>> something like it to improve our event capacity, quality, and income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Laura
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/30/15 11:03 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Berry Maker <berrythemaker at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Who would best be to advise on the current limitations of
>>>>>> coordinating events at the
>>>>>> > Omni?  Byob for example? Caberet laws, etc.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I'm fairly certain an Omni events collective already exists and it
>>>>>> would be respectful
>>>>>> > to ask about creating one first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an events *working group*, who are doing an amazing job
>>>>>> coordinating all the scheduling, but are also constantly understaffed,
>>>>>> overworked, and underappreciated. I've CC'd them on this email.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've suggested before that it might help if there were some financial
>>>>>> incentive for people who are willing to help bottomline events. I think it
>>>>>> could make sense to set up a collective that has some profit-sharing
>>>>>> agreement with the Omni, and a strong (contractual) commitment to also host
>>>>>> free events.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Autonomous <
>>>>>> autonomous666 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> I don't know the specific codes in Oakland but <100 people
>>>>>> generally means it's a "private party" with no special permission needed.
>>>>>> You could get away with much more if there aren't many people milling about
>>>>>> outside.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> 4 events per month x 99 attendees x $20 cover charge = $7920/mo
>>>>>> gross income.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 8:18 PM, Berry Maker <
>>>>>> berrythemaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> Agreed! Several edm event coordinator friends have asked me about
>>>>>> this. I've heard holding this type of event at Omni is be tricky atm
>>>>>> though. Oakland needs more edm events.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> On Oct 29, 2015 8:07 PM, "Autonomous" <autonomous666 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Hosting EDM events in the ballroom could more than make up for
>>>>>> the cash flow shortage:
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> http://www.sfbayedm.com/
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 6:00 PM, robb <sf99er at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> ugg, $2k additional expenses :(
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> i really feel renting the common spaces is our only sustainable
>>>>>> & viable option at this point...along with hosting our own fundraiser
>>>>>> events.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> maybe if we had a prodution collective responsible for
>>>>>> optimizing teh commons for events, we could get more for them ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> discuss mailing listdiscuss at lists.omnicommons.orghttps://omnicommons.org/lists/listinfo/discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20151031/ff684353/attachment.html>