EAGx Boston 2018 Postmortem

EAGx Bos­ton 2018 Postmortem

This is a be­lated post­mortem for EAGx Bos­ton 2018, for the benefit of any fu­ture or­ga­niz­ers in­ter­ested in our ex­pe­riences.

We took three months to plan this con­fer­ence. We be­gan plan­ning in late Jan­uary 2018, and it took place on Satur­day, April 21st, 2018. Videos of the speaker pre­sen­ta­tions can be found here.

Gen­eral recom­men­da­tions for or­ga­ni­za­tional pur­poses and gov­er­nance:

  • We recom­mend that you first check out this doc­u­ment, and pay spe­cial at­ten­tion to the timeline.

  • Make sure it is clear who is re­spon­si­ble for each task, pos­si­bly des­ig­nat­ing lead­ers for cat­e­gories like food and speaker out­reach.

  • Make sure some­one is tak­ing notes when­ever your team meets. Pos­si­bly as­sign this role to a spe­cific per­son.

  • Meet at least weekly to keep ev­ery­one ac­countable, in per­son if pos­si­ble.

  • Sub­stan­tively, do not be overly sen­si­tive to cost; re­turns to amenity qual­ity are large.

Contents

  1. Venue

  2. Speaker Outreach

  3. Funding

  4. Web Presence

  5. Au­dio Vi­sual Services

  6. Food

  7. Mar­ket­ing and Design

  8. Presentations

  9. Day-of Execution

  10. Fi­nan­cial Breakdown

Venue

CEA’s ad­vice to se­cure a venue many months in ad­vance of a con­fer­ence is well heeded. That was im­pos­si­ble on our time frame, but we did se­cure some early, though less than ideal, op­tions on Har­vard’s cam­pus. Th­ese were unattrac­tive spaces with up­front fees (~$1,000) for us­ing them, which we thought we could avoid since we knew at least a few grad schools that offered free, high qual­ity spaces (e.g. Har­vard Law and Busi­ness Schools, MIT Sloan). Our fi­nal venue choice — MIT Sloan’s Tang Cen­ter — came through rather late due to difficulty get­ting a hold of any Sloan stu­dents. We ul­ti­mately chose it be­cause there was no reser­va­tion fee and it was our best aes­thetic op­tion. The main draw­backs of the space were its small size and lack of ac­cessibil­ity.

Tick­ets sold much faster and with much less ad­ver­tis­ing help that we ex­pected, and we reached our ca­pac­ity of 144 at­ten­dees very quickly. We ad­vise con­fer­ence plan­ners with CEA back­ing to be pre­pared to ac­com­mo­date 200+ at­ten­dees. Do not be pes­simistic about your abil­ity to ad­ver­tise; peo­ple are look­ing for these events.

On the ac­cessibil­ity front, the Tang Cen­ter is tucked be­tween two one-way streets and a ma­jor high­way and sur­rounded by con­struc­tion. Many at­ten­dees had difficulty find­ing us, es­pe­cially since our space was on the third floor. We recom­mended fa­vor­ing ground-floor spaces in build­ings which are easy to lo­cate by both car and pub­lic trans­porta­tion in rel­a­tively well-trav­eled ar­eas.

Take­aways:

  • Choose a venue to ac­com­mo­date at least 200+.

  • Fa­vor cen­tral, rec­og­niz­able build­ings eas­ily ac­cessible to both cars and pub­lic trans­porta­tion.

  • Fa­vor ground-floor spaces to min­i­mize in-build­ing nav­i­ga­tion is­sues.

  • Be more con­cerned about size, lo­ca­tion, and qual­ity than fees.

  • Seek­ing out uni­ver­sity-based EAs to help se­cure spaces will ex­pand op­tions.

  • The ear­lier you search for spaces, the more high-qual­ity spaces will be available.

Speaker Outreach

Se­cur­ing and ac­com­mo­dat­ing de­sir­able speak­ers is likely the most im­por­tant and lo­gis­ti­cally challeng­ing in­put to con­fer­ence suc­cess. Know­ing ap­prox­i­mately what your speaker lineup will look like is also a pre­req­ui­site for mean­ingfully ad­ver­tis­ing your event and plan­ning its sched­ule and for­mat. Get­ting enough highly-sought-af­ter pre­sen­ters to all come to the same place on the same day was very difficult. Achiev­ing rea­son­able race and gen­der di­ver­sity among pre­sen­ters was also a ma­jor challenge for us, but one which is in­cred­ibly im­por­tant to CEA and the en­tire EA com­mu­nity-build­ing effort at the mo­ment.

Our pro­cess be­gan by scour­ing the EA speaker database, available from CEA, and nar­row­ing our op­tions to re­gional speak­ers with broad ap­peal. We limited our fo­cus mostly to lo­cals to avoid can­ni­bal­iz­ing up­com­ing EAG events in Europe and Cal­ifor­nia, and to limit the costs of speaker trans­porta­tion and hous­ing. We ini­tially hoped to plan our con­fer­ence around a theme, but were quickly dis­abused of the no­tion that we would be able to con­form speaker pre­sen­ta­tions to it. At least on our timeframe, speak­ers were go­ing to pre­sent what they had pre­pared, and get­ting speak­ers to adapt their re­marks to some pre­scribed theme is a hard sell gen­er­ally. We en­listed the help of all or­ga­niz­ing team mem­bers and some out­side EAs to get a bet­ter sense of who was ap­peal­ing and rated speak­ers from 1 to 4 based on qual­ity be­fore di­vid­ing them by sub­ject mat­ter in or­der to as­sure a va­ri­ety of EA-rele­vant top­ics would be rep­re­sented. We then sent out emails us­ing this tem­plate, mak­ing sure not to leave more than 10-12 out­stand­ing at a time so as not to over­book or get too lop­sided in terms of con­tent. An al­ter­na­tive — and very fruit­ful — means of se­cur­ing speak­ers was work­ing through our own schools and net­works. If you have a large plan­ning team, some of whom have been in­volved in EA for a while, it’s likely you have ac­cess to more, and more flex­ible, pre­sen­ters than you think!

Once a given speaker agreed in prin­ci­ple to par­ti­ci­pate, we be­gan a more per­son­al­ized cor­re­spon­dence in which we first tried to get a sense of how flex­ible their sched­ule was on the day of the con­fer­ence, then asked about their po­ten­tial in­ter­est in al­ter­na­tive for­mats to a generic talk. We were hop­ing to mix up pre­sen­ta­tion for­mats to make the con­fer­ence more stim­u­lat­ing for at­ten­dees, but were limited here by what our pre­sen­ters were will­ing to do. Still, we were able to suc­cess­fully run an in­ter­view, anti-de­bate, and two work­shops along with with stan­dard pan­els and solo talks. Ne­go­ti­a­tion about time slots and for­mat con­tinued un­til very close to our event date in part be­cause some speak­ers were difficult to get and keep a hold of. CEA also needed them to e-sign re­lease forms and provide a head­shot and bio. We found it easy and stress-re­liev­ing to pull head­shots and draft bios our­selves and sim­ply ask the speaker to ap­prove, but it seems most had some­thing of their own ready to go any­way.

Take­aways:

  • Divide out­reach re­spon­si­bil­ities over sev­eral peo­ple. As­sign each speaker a point per­son on your team who is re­spon­si­ble for com­mu­ni­cat­ing with them.

  • Use your net­works to ex­pand your speaker op­tions in both num­ber and flex­i­bil­ity.

  • Front­load speaker out­reach as much as pos­si­ble be­cause it will con­strain a lot of your next steps. Ex­pect it to take at least 5-6 weeks be­cause of re­jec­tions and com­mu­ni­ca­tion lags.

  • Suggest Skyp­ing in to highly valuable speak­ers who are not oth­er­wise available, if this is tech­ni­cally fea­si­ble at your venue.

Funding

The con­fer­ence was pri­mar­ily fi­nanced by ticket sales and an un­so­lic­ited dona­tion from an at­tendee. CEA’s full back­ing as­sured us that we be able to cover any ex­penses which might arise in our short plan­ning timeframe. We made tick­ets available for $25 each with $15 early bird pric­ing for the first two weeks of sales (we only sold tick­ets in the four weeks lead­ing up to the con­fer­ence). Most at­ten­dees paid the early bird price and pro­cess­ing fees av­er­aged a lit­tle un­der 5% of gross sales.

Our short time-frame and full back­ing from CEA made seek­ing out­side grants a lower pri­or­ity with rel­a­tively low chances of bear­ing much fruit. We sur­veyed the or­ga­niz­ing team for knowl­edge of available school-based grants within the timeframe and ap­plied for nine of them with one of those ap­pli­ca­tions be­ing suc­cess­ful (COOP Gives). A com­plete list of our ap­pli­ca­tions is pro­vided here. As shown in the fi­nal fi­nan­cial break­down, how­ever, most of what we needed came from ticket sales and pri­vate dona­tion from an at­tendee.

Har­vard: IOP, Re­gan Fund, UC

MIT: ODGE, Sloan Se­nate, COOP Gives, Sand­box Fund, LEAP Grant, Com­mu­nity Ser­vice Funds, UA Fresh Fund

Web presence

The email ad­dress boston@ea­globalx.org was a G Suite ac­count man­aged by one per­son. This worked okay, al­though it might have been prefer­able to have a col­lab­o­ra­tive in­box in­stead.

Our Face­book pres­ence con­sisted of the EAGxBos­ton page com­bined with the EAGxBos­ton 2018 event. We didn’t do much with it, but it worked well enough as some­thing for peo­ple to share. A few peo­ple mes­saged the page with ques­tions.

We used ti.to for tick­et­ing. This turned out to be a prob­lem for our ca­pac­ity-con­strained event be­cause its wait­list man­age­ment fea­tures were not very good: wait­list re­leases had to be done man­u­ally, which slowed things down es­pe­cially near the end, and chang­ing the num­bers of seats while there was an ac­tive wait­list caused prob­lems. It would prob­a­bly be a good idea to look into al­ter­na­tive op­tions be­fore do­ing this again. An ad­di­tional prob­lem was that CEA gave us a pre­ex­ist­ing ac­count which we didn’t re­al­ize un­til later was already con­nected to the Stripe and PayPal ac­counts of EA groups in Aus­tralia and the Czech Repub­lic, which meant we had to work with those groups to get our money back. This was es­pe­cially an­noy­ing when deal­ing with re­fund pro­cess­ing.

Our event web­site was on CEA’s Con­tent­ful site. Ini­tially we were un­able to pub­lish up­dates due to tech­ni­cal prob­lems with the sys­tem, and pub­lish­ing in­for­ma­tion about speak­ers took even longer be­cause of per­mis­sions prob­lems. It turned out to be im­pos­si­ble to pub­lish the event sched­ule there, so we had to set up and link to a sep­a­rate site pow­ered by Netlify. How this should be han­dled for fu­ture events re­mains an open ques­tion.

Take­aways:

  • Have a Face­book pres­ence and email for easy at­tendee ac­cess and shar­ing.

  • CEA’s offi­cial site and tick­et­ing sys­tem will be some­what un­re­li­able, but can ul­ti­mately get the job done.

  • You can con­sider build­ing or us­ing a differ­ent sys­tem, though this might be more trou­ble than it’s worth.

Au­dio­vi­sual Services

For us, AV was largely an ap­pendage of venue choice. CEA wanted all of our ses­sions recorded, so we needed mics and cam­eras. We con­sid­ered search­ing our net­works for am­a­teur pho­tog­ra­phers who might be able to take charge of record­ing, but we de­cided against this be­cause of our short timeline and un­cer­tainty as to qual­ity. MIT gave us a quote for pro­fes­sional videog­ra­phers that ran about $4,000-$6,000, which was more ex­pen­sive than we could jus­tify. It was eas­ier and more re­li­able to use the class­room cam­eras and have MIT’s for­mal AV provide mics and tech­ni­ci­ans, the lat­ter of which they re­quired based on the num­ber of mics we needed. A six-mic rental pack­age was about $180, and the tech­ni­cian time as­so­ci­ated with it was about $600. It should be noted, how­ever, that as of Jan­uary 2019, we still have not been billed the amounts es­ti­mated and it is pos­si­ble MIT cov­ered this ex­pense for us ei­ther by er­ror or gra­tu­ity. We’ve re­ceived no re­sponse on our at­tempts to fol­low up on this. Your mileage may vary.

The hand-held mics we rented gen­er­ally achieved their pur­pose, but were ob­vi­ously in­con­ve­nient and unattrac­tive for speak­ers, who would some­times fail to hold the mic close enough to be picked up. For this rea­son we strongly recom­mend se­cur­ing lapel mics for all pre­sen­ters. Hand­held mics work best for au­di­ence ques­tions.

Rob Mather’s Skype call-in was our biggest AV challenge, but with the help of MIT’s tech­ni­ci­ans and the in-room con­fer­ence call soft­ware and pro­jec­tor, all his slides and the man him­self ap­peared as de­sired. We were happy with the clar­ity, lag, and abil­ity to get live ques­tions back to Mather. Our dry run with Mather two days ahead of the con­fer­ence was es­sen­tial to mak­ing sure ev­ery­thing went well.

Ul­ti­mately, our choice to use the class­room cam­eras had costs and benefits. It was much cheaper than our rele­vant al­ter­na­tive, and the record­ing equip­ment didn’t get in the way of at­ten­dees watch­ing pre­sen­ta­tions and mov­ing in and out of the class­rooms. The qual­ity was lower, how­ever — con­sider this sam­ple. Also, the record­ing win­dows had to be pre­set re­motely, so they were not very flex­ible in terms of chang­ing stop-start times. For­tu­nately we man­aged to build in buffers large enough to pre­vent miss­ing any con­tent. After the con­fer­ence, the record­ings them­selves were sent di­rectly to MIT’s STS office. They sent us the raw files, which we sent to CEA for edit­ing. Be ad­vised that CEA took at least sev­eral months to edit our files, so if quick pub­li­ca­tion is im­por­tant to you, con­sider re­cruit­ing your own video ed­i­tor.

Take­aways:

  • Start ex­plor­ing AV op­tions early to give your­self more op­tions on cost and qual­ity.

  • Make sure your venue has sim­ple, ac­cessible PC con­nec­tions to pro­ject slides and video that or­ga­niz­ers can use with­out need­ing lo­gin cre­den­tials they don’t have.

  • Always pretest AV el­e­ments more com­pli­cated than sim­ple record­ing, such as speaker Skype calls.

  • Lapel mics are strongly prefer­able to hand­held mics.

  • Con­sider re­cruit­ing your own video ed­i­tor for faster pub­li­ca­tion.

Food

Choice, de­liv­ery, and va­ri­ety of food op­tions was prob­a­bly our sec­ond largest lo­gis­ti­cal item, and it prompted more in­tense at­tendee feed­back than any other item on our agenda. This is the area where our mon­e­tary cost aver­sion hurt us most, and was prob­a­bly our biggest mis­take.

Our full day of pro­gram­ming called for three meals: a wel­come break­fast, lunch, and af­ter­noon snack. Lunch was fully catered and break­fast was or­dered from Rosen­feld’s Bagels, but we put to­gether the snack our­selves from gro­cery store sup­plies and sup­ple­mented the bagels with Trader Joe’s ve­gan cream cheese and Dunkin Donuts coffee. We recom­mend cater­ing as much as pos­si­ble to all fu­ture or­ga­niz­ers.

Break­fast: 320 Rosen­feld’s Bagels, 36 Trader Joe’s Ve­gan Cream Cheese, 18 Dunkin Donuts Boxes o’ Joe. Two bagels per guest was a con­sid­er­able over­es­ti­ma­tion, as were 1.5 cups of coffee per guest. We re­ceived com­plaints about the lack of gluten-free op­tions, tea, fruit, and op­tions other than carbs. Pick­ing up bagels and coffee was not all that difficult, and given the sort of hack­ing one might have to do to get a good ve­gan break­fast catered, we think it wouldn’t have been too difficult to fo­cus our per­sonal efforts on pul­ling off break­fast and leav­ing the rest to pro­fes­sion­als.

Lunch: Rhythm ‘n Wraps, a ve­gan food truck and caterer. We very severely un­der-or­dered lunch, which was oth­er­wise tasty, if de­liv­ered sig­nifi­cantly too early. The un­der-or­der can be put up to hav­ing one per­son man­ag­ing food solo. Our food lead mis­calcu­lated based on the EAGx 2016 or­der and we failed to fol­low through on con­cerns about the low price point. Rhythm ’n Wraps was also very con­fus­ing to com­mu­ni­cate with and there may have been a mi­s­un­der­stand­ing by one party or the other at some point.

Snack: Bread, chips, pret­zels, baby car­rots, ve­gan but­ter, hum­mus. This was an area where cater­ing would have been a vast im­prove­ment. Our pre­sen­ta­tion and va­ri­ety were lack­ing here, and again we had some com­plaints about over­load­ing on carbs. A school or ad­ja­cent caterer prob­a­bly could have made a nicer spread for ev­ery­one.

We bought 320+ bot­tled wa­ters and 150+ so­das, which we kept available through­out. At­ten­dees had difficulty keep­ing track of their drinks while mov­ing be­tween events, so we recom­mend fu­ture or­ga­niz­ers buy stick­ers or mark­ers for at­ten­dees to mark their drinks with.

Co­or­di­nat­ing shop­ping times, car ac­qui­si­tion and fridge space proved to be time- and la­bor-con­sum­ing pains that weren’t worth only mod­er­ate cost sav­ings, hence the ad­vice to cater more — es­pe­cially for food served later in the day, since cold stor­age then be­comes an is­sue. Food qual­ity and quan­tity seem likely to have a sig­nifi­cant im­pact on peo­ple’s en­joy­ment of, and en­ergy lev­els dur­ing, the con­fer­ence, so we recom­mend that fu­ture or­ga­niz­ers be less afraid to spend for bet­ter qual­ity.

Take­aways:

  • Here is a break­down of what we pro­vided.

  • DIY food is more ac­cept­able at break­fast.

  • Cater as much as pos­si­ble.

  • Have a wide va­ri­ety of both food and drink op­tions.

  • Do not skimp on food, this ap­pears to greatly af­fect at­ten­dees’ ex­pe­rience.

  • Have mark­ers or stick­ers for keep­ing track of drink own­er­ship.

Mar­ket­ing and Design

Our con­strain­ing fac­tor on at­tendee num­ber turned out to be fa­cil­ity space, not in­ter­est. Mar­ket­ing for the event was rel­a­tively min­i­mal be­cause of how fast ticket sales ac­cu­mu­lated once we opened them. The best mar­ket­ing is get­ting CEA’s spon­sor­ship, a place on their web­site, and an email ad­dress from them. Prag­mat­i­cally, build a Face­book page for your event and get in touch with school- or area-as­so­ci­ated EA groups for mailing lists.

We origi­nally ex­pected to fo­cus on uni­ver­sity stu­dents, be­cause we had our most re­li­able EA net­work con­nec­tions with them. Our mar­ket­ing lead searched out and con­tacted some col­lege groups more than a month in ad­vance of the con­fer­ence to see about or­ga­niz­ing group trips to Bos­ton. A few of these par­tially ma­te­ri­al­ized, but out-of-school pro­fes­sion­als who learned about us through CEA dom­i­nated our at­tendee pop­u­la­tion. It may have been rele­vant that we held the con­fer­ence just be­fore fi­nals sea­son be­gan for many schools, and we ad­vise fu­ture or­ga­niz­ers to keep aca­demic cal­en­dars in mind when choos­ing a date.

Our de­sign lead here cre­ated her own vi­sual theme, which you can see in the Face­book page and event, and which we tried to be con­sis­tent with in our on-site imagery. We printed out some nicer 17x11 posters to mark the rooms where talks would be held and placed similar ones el­se­where in the build­ing to di­rect guests to the main con­fer­ence space.

Lan­yards were our other ma­jor de­sign piece. Cus­tom­lan­yard.net al­lowed us to up­load our de­sign and got printed lan­yards with card hold­ers to us in about a week for $1.11 per lan­yard. We cre­ated, printed, cut, and in­serted the pa­per nametags our­selves. This was some­what time-con­sum­ing, es­pe­cially given the fact we left reg­is­tra­tion open un­til the last minute and had to ac­count for changes.

Take­aways:

  • CEA’s en­dorse­ment will make mar­ket­ing easy.

  • On your end, have a Face­book pres­ence and ac­cess to EA mailing lists.

  • Do not as­sign some­one ex­clu­sively to mar­ket­ing too early in your plan­ning pro­cess, or they may have lit­tle to do.

Day-of Execution

Our ma­jor tasks on the day of the con­fer­ence were de­liv­er­ing and dis­tribut­ing food, di­rect­ing and reg­is­ter­ing guests, man­ag­ing tran­si­tions be­tween rooms and events, and clean­ing up.

We had a re­li­able team of 10-12 vol­un­teers to help move food from cars to fridges and our event space. For a con­fer­ence of our size, man­ag­ing food dis­tri­bu­tion could eas­ily be a 4-5 per­son job all day. Our fridge space in the build­ing was sev­eral floors away and the coffee shop was a few blocks down the street, so food trans­port and man­age­ment was a ma­jor pro­ject. Hav­ing lunch catered re­duced this bur­den, so again we recom­mend cater­ing as much as pos­si­ble to min­i­mize com­pli­ca­tion, ex­ces­sive la­bor, and in­crease food qual­ity. We also sug­gest that you put some thought into cleanup be­fore your event starts: we did not have a plan for what to do with ex­cess trash and had to sim­ply stack it out of the way.

We had ad­di­tional vol­un­teers in the build­ing’s main lobby to di­rect guests up to our third floor space, and some signs to help with this. Given our event size and hour-long ar­rival win­dow (“break­fast and reg­is­tra­tion” 9-10am), one per­son at a time was able to man­age the reg­is­tra­tion table. This task con­sisted of helping peo­ple find their pre­made badges, mak­ing some new badges for last-minute ticket pur­chasers, and field­ing at­ten­dees’ lo­gis­ti­cal ques­tions.

Once the pre­sen­ta­tions got started, some vol­un­teers were re­spon­si­ble for short in­tro­duc­tions of our pre­sen­ters and an­nounce­ments be­fore and af­ter events. Our open­ing re­marks pro­vided a link to the day’s sched­ule for guests to ac­cess elec­tron­i­cally, along with a de­scrip­tion of the rooms and the gen­eral plan and goals for the day. We also pointed out who the vol­un­teers were so that guests knew where to di­rect con­cerns. We tried shar­ing a hastily-made and untested Google Sheet with nearby restau­rants so guests could sign up for din­ners to­gether at lo­cal veg-friendly restau­rants with­out over­whelming any few des­ti­na­tions. Un­for­tu­nately, this ended up failing to come to­gether. We also used the open­ing re­marks to an­nounce our next-day meetup. It would prob­a­bly have been bet­ter to an­nounce both the din­ner plans and the mee­tups ear­lier via email to get bet­ter turnout and stim­u­late more post-con­fer­ence en­gage­ment.

From then on, our main tasks were in­tro­duc­ing speak­ers and an­nounc­ing breaks. At the end of breaks, guests also re­quired a con­sid­er­able amount of goad­ing to take their seats for the next events. We had one fif­teen-minute break and two 25-minute breaks apart from our 50-minute lunch. Th­ese were shorter than guests wanted. Mak­ing peo­ple go to talks dur­ing each block may have been a mis­take, since net­work­ing is such an im­por­tant com­po­nent of EAGx and con­ver­sa­tions with other at­ten­dees may have been higher-value than speaker pre­sen­ta­tions. We ended up stick­ing quite close to our for­mal sched­ule and never got more than 10 min­utes be­hind, but we had to be the bad guys (and re­duce guest value!) to do it.

It was un­clear what Sloan ex­pected from us in terms of clean­li­ness, so we erred on the side of cau­tion and spent about an hour tidy­ing up. Again, our ex­cess trash was a prob­lem, but we ap­par­ently kept it tidy enough that we re­ceived no com­plaints. The prob­lem of ex­cess food was eased by MIT’s free food mailing list, which pro­duced a few hun­gry stu­dents to carry away some of our lef­tovers.

Take­aways:

  • Have a team of sev­eral un­com­mit­ted vol­un­teers to han­dle food man­age­ment and odds and ends that can­not be cov­ered by or­ga­niz­ers with other re­spon­si­bil­ities.

  • Cater as much as much as pos­si­ble to min­i­mize lo­gis­ti­cal strain.

  • Have peo­ple with food and sup­ply lists to make sure ev­ery­thing you want at the con­fer­ence is be­ing de­liv­ered.

  • Allow longer breaks, and don’t coop guests up in talks for too long.

  • Have a plan for on-site food stor­age if needed.

  • Have a plan for how to move waste quickly and neatly away from your event space through­out the day.

  • An­nounce post-con­fer­ence events in ad­vance of the con­fer­ence and make sure your plans are func­tional.

Fi­nan­cial breakdown

Income

Ticket Sales: $1,915.00 Pri­vate Dona­tion: $2,000.00 COOP Gives: $500.00
Direct CEA re­im­burse­ments: $370.91
To­tal: $4,785.91

Expenditures

Food: $1,551.91
Speaker Travel: $669.91
Pro­cess­ing Fees (tick­ets and dona­tion): $192.44
AV: $780.00
Lan­yards: $177.63
Posters: $9.81
To­tal: $3,381.70

Net In­come: $1,404.21