Editorial Board 2000-2001
When the University Students' Council convened last night to discuss its behemoth-blunder called Operation Massive, the mistakes involved in the Western party came to light.
Organizers of the event have publicly stated how remiss the results have been and an analysis of Operation Massive's shortcomings were presented for the entire council's information.
And now, almost two weeks after the massive meltdown, students are left to ponder what went wrong with almost $32,000 of their cash and what, if anything, the USC will now do to right the wrongs.
Since the USC is considered a business, it goes without saying that sound business decisions are in the best interest of its shareholders the students and ultimately its own survival. Students should bear in mind that there are risks involved with any business venture such as this, but the USC must simultaneously ensure that a financial loss of these proportions does not occur again.
Is an apology akin to last year's $3.60 opt-out fee fiasco in order? Going back on its word in this case seems unnecessary given the circumstances. Theoretically, Operation Massive could have succeeded with flying colours.
As well, the gist of the event was something that would have invariably provided students with something valuable. Although an apology at this point would indeed acknowledge the council's disappointment with the event, it is a point that would prove moot at best.
Instead, the USC should focus on the determining factors in Operation Massive's ultimate demise and focus on applying lessons learned to future events of this sort.
For example, London night life does not exactly lend itself to a $15 cover charge. Most Western students are flabbergasted at the thought of having to pay cover at an entertainment venue at all, since they will undoubtedly dispense significant chunks of cash and eventually chunks of other things.
The success the USC was looking for would have been something along the lines of the Orientation Week party held at Thompson Arena, where the venue proved itself to be a great place for a party. However, the difference between Operation Massive and its O-Week counterpart is that the September gathering had a more mandatory element and costs for the party were embedded in O-Week activity fees.
Organizers of the event should have attempted smaller parties as a preliminary step to a gathering on the scale of Operation Massive. This is clearly a case where the USC bit off more than it could chew and is now choking on its own financial entrails.
Hopefully, it won't be a case of once burned, twice shy for the USC and gatherings of this size. It is just as important to fail as it is to succeed, but students will not stand too long for the former, before they begin demanding the latter.