[ACML] Hotel Rooms

[bekkaalice at yahoo.com]

> > This leads to my question.  Wouldn't there be
> > something in the hotel contract  saying that if
> > you violate the rules and laws, the con would be 
> > in trouble?  I am probably misunderstanding
> > liability badly, as I have zilch knowledge of the 
> > law.  

There was an incident reported on the list two or
three years ago about some problems in a hotel room
where a convention did have liability (if I remember
correctly it was an SF con, not one of ours).  Since
then I started specifically written in to every hotel
contract that any person renting a room from the hotel
has full liability and responsibility for all charges
related to their stay - and the convention will not
cover any of those expenses.  The hotel manager often
looks at me funny and says "But it already says right
here that the con only pays for room nights that the
con authorizes."  I smile and ask them to put it in
there just to ease my concerns.  They may not think
about the fact that with the complete phrasing I give
them, it *means* that not only does the individual
have complete liability for their own hotel room cost,
they also have complete liability for any additional
charges they incur - i.e. fines for having too many
people, expenses for cleaning the drapes that have
cosplay makeup on them, expenses for the bureau they
set on fire... but it is their job to think about from
their side before adding it, not mine.  Talk to your
legal counsel about what wording you could have the
hotel add to your contracts (and for new cons, realize
that yes you can request the hotel to modify the
contract, they typically won't take out clauses
they've built because there is some reason for them,
but they are often willing to add clauses to meet your
needs and concerns).

Two notes on this - both relate to legal questions so
I would run them by your legal counsel before taking
my word for it, this is my non-legal opinion:

1) If attendees are just raising holy heck in a room,
the convention may want to step in, because every out
of control noise complaint/etc. that you stop *before*
it escalates to the hotel is a complaint that does not
damage your relationship to the hotel.  But consider
carefully before stepping into anything in any way
that might increase your liability by being involved. 
Don't go into hotel rooms where something weird is
going on as con staff, for instance.

2) There are cases where your con may still want to
help the hotel cover attendee charges (i.e. you *need*
a long-standing relationship to continue with that
hotel), but at least writing in the contract that the
convention has no relation to or liability for
expenses incurred by individual attendees gives you an
option when it comes up.  If you ever do decide to
pay, realize that might be setting a precedent.

-----------------

On room crowding - whatever people decide is
worthwhile to save money, they will put up with.  But
they do run the risk in many hotels of being evicted
if discovered breaking the hotel policy (in the case
of something like a room where many noise complaints
have come in, the hotel might use the contractual
obligation as an excuse to get rid of the party - or
might even boot them in a case where they've
accidentally oversold the hotel, because then they
have no fiscal liability themselves, they can boot the
offenders within policy and not have to use their
interhotel room night trades to accomodate the
overbookings).  

There is also a net effect on the convention itself,
because the fewer room nights are let, the further the
convention may be from meeting room block obligations.
 We have to consider the probability of "cramming"
when we get out the crystal ball for room night
estimation, as the attendees rarely think about
whether their room choice impacts the solvency of the
convention as a whole.  A "died-in-the-wool convention
patriot" who is aware of contractual expenses would
get a room with fewer people if they could afford it,
but in most instances they have no idea it impacts
anything but their wallet.

Becca
*really* not speaking for any con here