• Contact

facebook
linkedin
tumblr
twitter
vimeo
rss

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact



IAVM Files Amicus Brief to Support Industry, Member Venues

July 18, 2013
by R.V. Baugus
amicus brief, carol wallace, IAVM, IAVM Foundation, SDCCC, vicki hawarden
2 Comments

San Diego CCIn a move to support what is best for the venue management industry, IAVM through the generous funding of the IAVM Foundation has filed an amicus brief on behalf of a member venue’s litigation involving anti-trust and government immunity that regardless of the court’s final decision will have industry-wide implications.

IAVM made its decision to support the San Diego Convention Center Corporation and by extension any venue’s right to manage its building by filing the brief backing the venue in litigation between United National Maintenance , Inc., and the SDCCC.

At issue in the litigation is UNM’s desire to utilize its own contracted help for cleaning services at the venue, while the SDCCC counters that while any of its customers may hire a firm of their choosing, due to branding, security and revenue concerns those customers are required to use only the venue’s trained labor force to do event cleaning at the building.

“We appreciate the support of IAVM and the IAVM Foundation,” said Carol Wallace, president and chief executive officer of the SDCCC. “This is something that affects all facilities and we are pleased that the association is standing firm with us.”

Vicki Hawarden, CMP, president and CEO of IAVM, said that Wallace approached her about looking at the issue and garnering the association’s support and backing. Hawarden said that after the Industry Affairs Council and several convention center members offered their perspective it was obvious that this was something that needed to be supported by IAVM because of the potential industry-wide implications.

“They (IAVM Foundation) really stepped up and said it was something they absolutely wanted to fund on behalf of our members.”

“Since this is an anti-trust issue with a huge court record it is not something that can be done relatively quickly,” Hawarden said. “It was something that financially was going to need some support, so at that point we went to the Foundation Board of Trustees to share with them that this was one of the unexpected issues that are of critical importance to the industry but not typically part of an operation’s annual budget.

“They really stepped up and said it was something they absolutely wanted to fund on behalf of our members. It’s particularly important to our convention center members but we see that this could also have an impact if the case were lost for all venues and their ability to manage as they see fit. The Foundation is really the reason that we’re able to move forward and file this brief.”

Wallace emphasized that the primary issues involved for the venue have to do with maintaining the quality of cleaning as well as branding issues where the convention center is known as a top-quality building.

“We don’t want situations where there are security issues when people are often randomly hired and brought in to do cleaning in our building,” she said. “We have had security issues, so we let the client choose any company to supervise but we require them to hire from our staff.”

“This is basically about maintaining the ability to manage the building in the most effective way for not only the customers, such as show organizers, but also the communities the venues serve,” Hawarden added. “They have to balance the two competing demands to take care of the customer and be responsible and good stewards for the community and the stakeholders and whoever their bosses may be.”

The implications of the final verdict will resonate across the industry, something Hawarden acknowledged while citing the importance for IAVM members to contribute to the Foundation as it seeks to endorse major initiatives such as this one.

“It will definitely have implications one way or the other,” she said. “Given that, it was important that our voice was heard in this case.”

(If you are attending VenueConnect, please plan to attend a session on Monday, July 29 entitled “A Candid Debate on Shifts in the Convention Center Industry,” sponsored by the IAVM Foundation and moderated by Hawarden and David DuBois, president of IAEE. As part of IAVM and IAEE’s new partnership, this is the first of a two-part debate centered on the current issues affecting the convention center industry. Part 2 will take place at IAEE’s Expo! Expo! this December in Houston.)

photo credit: Justin in SD via photopin cc

R.V. Baugus
About the Author
R.V. Baugus is senior editor of IAVM's magazine, Venue Professional. Baugus is a 12-time Quill Award winner from the Dallas chapter of the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) and Silver Quill recipient from the Southern Region of IABC. He is devoted in his community by serving as a deacon at his church, a facilitator leading a Grief Share class, high school football public address announcer for the Irving ISD and basketball PA announcer for Nimitz High School.
Social Share
  • google-share
2 Comments
  1. Avatar
    Bob Mayer July 18, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    Would it be possible for members to read the brief so that they are on the same page?

  2. Avatar
    richard simon July 20, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    Mr. Baugus, thank you for your well written article. perhaps if you had contacted UNM for a statement or read the trial transcript you might have had a more factual article.

    to be brief:
    SDCC after competing with UNM for cleaning service and SDCC being rebuffed by the customers for years then SDCC decided to implement the new policy wherein all cleaning companies had to use SDCC empyees for “security concerns” when providing cleaning. (no other trade juust cleaning)

    problem was there were no security concerns, UNM cleaned the fist event in SDCC when it opened and has done so for about 20 years with no mention of a security concern, not once.

    and at trial when it was testified to that the SDCC cleaning employees were not security screened (background check) nor were the food service workers, AV, or any other trade working there background screened it raised the concern of the jury that maybe there was no security concern in the first place. and my favorite is the workers who operate the parking garage directly under the exhibit hall are also not screened. yet SDCC was claimng that they had to provide the cleaning staff for security reasons…further complicating thier calim is that United owns a security and investigation company in CA and we are licensed to preform background checks…we offerd that up to SDCC as a solution and we were rebuffed in favor of the use our people model. (the un screened ones)

    then they also came up with the reason of quality, really? how has UNM been in the business of cleaning trade shows for so many years and why did the customers fight so hard to keep using UNM, because of bad service? SDCC has never had a complaint about the cleaning on any UNM show, again testified to in court by SDCC management.

    Disingenous is probably a fair statement to the claims of security and quality of service. the trial doccuments are filled with SDCC inconsistant statements too many to expalin here.

    what is the issue? revenue, period.

    for many years SDCC has used many tactics to compete with UNM and all failed. not wanting to use the word “exclusive” they said UNM or just about any cleaning company can work in the facility…as long as they use our staff…AND pay us about 100% of the revenue they charge the customer…yes UNM can work there but UNM must pay just about every dime it charges the customer to SDCC. so we work there and lose money but we continue to service our customers…is that fair?

    sir, the member venues in the convention industry spend a lot of time and money soliciting the members of IAEE and SISO yet those organazations who represent the customers of the facility have strongly opposed this and any other scheme that is an exclusive that is not 100% necessary for a valid reason…so how does IAVM file a paper that directly conflicts with 100% of thier customers.
    the only persons that can tell the customer “no” and keep the business are those with a monoploy. is this the direction for the industry… each facility with a monopoly on all services?

    or is the American Free Enterprise system still working where the person with the best price and service wins the business? UNM will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Do you want to receive a Front Row News weekly digest?

Categories

  • Allied (861)
  • Architecture (147)
  • Arenas (750)
  • Career (897)
  • Convention Centers (897)
  • Education (623)
  • Events (1,544)
  • Food & Beverage (193)
  • Foundation (113)
  • Guest Experience (1,497)
  • Industry News (2,270)
  • Leadership (1,888)
  • Marketing (150)
  • Membership (2,001)
  • Music (213)
  • Performing Arts Centers (456)
  • Professional Development (409)
  • Research (128)
  • Safety & Security (442)
  • Sports (764)
  • Stadiums (611)
  • Student (159)
  • Technology (516)
  • Ticketing (92)
  • Touring (82)
  • Trends (365)
  • Uncategorized (666)
  • Universities (218)
  • Video (25)
  • Young Professional (198)

Twitter Feed

  • Twitter feed loading

Recent Posts

  • IAVM Foundation Announces the 30|UNDER|30 Class of 2025!
  • Where Are They Now: 30|UNDER|30 Class of 2019’s Trent Gray
  • Kevin Bruder, CVE, Remembered as Fair and Balanced, Inspiring but Unwavering
  • Where Are They Now: 30|UNDER|30 Class of 2017’s Anna Rosburg, CVE, CVP
  • Welcome to Our Newest Members

Categories

  • Allied
  • Architecture
  • Arenas
  • Career
  • Convention Centers
  • Education
  • Events
  • Food & Beverage
  • Foundation
  • Guest Experience
  • Industry News
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Membership
  • Music
  • Performing Arts Centers
  • Professional Development
  • Research
  • Safety & Security
  • Sports
  • Stadiums
  • Student
  • Technology
  • Ticketing
  • Touring
  • Trends
  • Uncategorized
  • Universities
  • Video
  • Young Professional

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • May 2012
  • March 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011

Recent Comments

  • Frank Bradshaw, Ph.D., CVE on John Meyer, CVE, a Tireless Advocate of Certification for Venue Professionals, Has Died
  • Neil Sulkes on Hilary Hartung, Friend to Many in Venue Marketing, Has Left Us
  • Jason Parker, CVE on The Devastation of Hurricane Helene and How We Can Support One Another
  • Larry Perkins on Touhey Testifies Against Speculative Ticketing Before Congressional Subcommittee
  • Peter Secord on Major Players for Planned Elkhart Amphitheater Were in the Mix at VenueConnect

© 2001-2013 International Association of Venue Managers, Inc.