How much booze will $8,204 buy at an open bar.

[rn79870]

Perhaps this is better viewed as an expose on life in Washington...

July 31, 2008

Missed spring break this year? Get a job at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Roughly 100 employees of the business association ran up an $8,204 tab this week at The Exchange, a sports bar just blocks away from its prime real estate opposite the White House.

The party was to celebrate the end of the "Chamber Bowl," the association’s internal softball tournament.

It was certainly not a victory for the Chamber's top brass.

Chamber COO David Chavern sent out an email chiding the partiers for their spending spree.

"Fundamentally, this shows a lack of responsibility on a number of people’s part including Chamber personnel and management at The Exchange,” Chavern wrote in an e-mail to more 50 employees, including softball players and top managers. ”I will have to reevaluate a post-Chamber Bowl celebration next year.”

Chavern detailed where the money went: One-hundred-and-fifty-five pitchers of beer, 37 bottles of beer, 208 mixed drinks, 111 shots, 43 margaritas and 11 open bottles of liquor.

Sources who attended the party described it as something akin to a Cancun booze cruise. They reported that drinkers ordered multiple pitchers of vodka and Red Bull and full bottles that they drunkenly left behind at the end of the night.

The Chamber, they said, had set no limits on the open bar.

The bill, attached to Chavern's e-mail, was reportedly several pages long.

Party-goers put some of the blame on the bar, saying that the waiters who served them had – among other things – slapped an 18 percent gratuity on the bill.

While we’re waiting for a response from management at The Exchange, we’ll note that the saloon’s online menu clearly states that an 18 percent tip will be added to checks for parties of six or more -- and that even without any tip, the total tab for the party still would have been almost $7,000.

The Chamber can certainly afford to pick up the check. It has spent more on lobbying than any other association or company over the past decade, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Last year, the Chamber’s lobbying total neared $52.8 million.

But it appears that The Exchange won’t be getting a cut of the Chamber’s budget in the future.

In his e-mail, Chavern asked staffers to contact The Exchange to say that the Chamber will not be patronizing the establishment for the foreseeable future.

Chavern downplayed the flap Thursday night, describing it as a silly internal matter. “It wasn’t a terribly huge amount of money,” he said. “One of the things people in the office do is complain about bills.”

Anybody have any thoughts on this "not a terribly huge amount of money?"

http://www.politico.com/blogs/....html

[srellim234]

Why is this even here on the political forum? This is an internal matter that happened within a private company and has nothing to do with a political matter or situation. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is not a government organization.

You definitely can't fault the bar. They are in business to sell and adding a 15-20% gratuity for a party larger than 6 or 8 is very standard practice in the restaurant/hospitality business. Absolutely nothing out of line there. In that respect, the Chamber is totally out of line threatening to keep members away based on a gratuity charge that the Chamber accepts as standard practice by its own members!

I worked for an $11 billion/year company through the '90s that went through a similar situation. Special event (moving a location to a new warehouse) that brought the group together from around the country. Big bar tab and rowdy group (about 50 people). The Senior V.P. of Operations was present and involved. Company handled it internally, policies were changed, Nobody got fired but a couple of mild reprimands for poor judgement were issued since there was nothing fraudulent that was clearly against company policy on those expense accounts. End of incident and the situation obviously never repeated.

That's what's going to happen here. And absolutely nothing political about it, unless you are complaining about the company spending the money on a small business instead of using that $8,000 to try to buy off another senator. Personally I'm glad the money wasn't slipped under the table up on Capitol Hill.

[rn79870]

I posted it here as an expose on life in Washington. Where a $70.00 per person bar tab is not considered outrageous in a time of economic troubles.

[srellim234]

An incident like this can occur anywhere, particularly a big business that doesn't doesn't micromanage and someone exercises poor judgement in one situation. Our case happened in Philidelphia.

That the CEO admonished his partners indicates it wasn't taken lightly and considered normal. Their reaction indicates it's not a normal bill.

I'm much more concerned with how out of touch with reality the executive and legislative branches of our government are than a private business.

[Cold_Zero]

I had business travel to Reston back in August 04 and I can tell you my company paid up to $75 per day for food and entertainment. Alcohol was not included. I think I got screwed out of cab fair to Falls Church, but they comp'ed my Nationals Ticket so I didnt get too bad.

These guys are way out of control. I remember the first time my company had free alcohol at a moral boosting event on company grounds. I nearly **** a brick. Indiana is very conservative and the whole drinking thing while/during at work is a big no no in a lot of peoples' eyes.bud

[rn79870]

An incident like this can occur anywhere, particularly a big business that doesn't doesn't micromanage and someone exercises poor judgement in one situation. Our case happened in Philidelphia.

That the CEO admonished his partners indicates it wasn't taken lightly and considered normal. Their reaction indicates it's not a normal bill.

I'm much more concerned with how out of touch with reality the executive and legislative branches of our government are than a private business.

Sure it can, but when it occurs in the nations capital, by an organization that seeks to represent the "US" it's news. Someone had to approve it, and I hope no tax dollars were involved, but I'll bet if you dig deep enough, you'll find out that there is federal support at some level or in some degree for the US Chamber of Commerce.

[srellim234]

Funny you should mention Indiana. My company was headquartered in Indianapolis. Tough to make a blanket statement about every company or every state.

[srellim234]

From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce website:

About UsRepresenting your ideas—and interests—in Washington for nearly a century.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business federation representing more than 3 million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions. It includes hundreds of associations, thousands of local chambers, and 106 American Chambers of Commerce in 94 countries.

Whether you own a business, represent one, lead a corporate office, or manage an association, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America® provides you with a voice of experience and influence in Washington, D.C., and around the globe. Our core mission is to fight for business and free enterprise before Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, the courts, the court of public opinion, and governments around the world.

From its headquarters near the White House, the Chamber maintains a professional staff of more than 300 of the nation's top policy experts, lobbyists, lawyers, and communicators. The Washington staff is supported by eight regional offices around the country; offices in New York and Brussels; an on-the-ground presence in China; and a network of grassroots business activists.

Our members include businesses of all sizes and sectors—from large Fortune 500 companies to home-based, one-person operations. In fact, 96% of our membership encompasses businesses with fewer than 100 employees.

The leadership is equally diverse, with more than 100 corporate and small business leaders from all sectors serving on the board of directors.

If your organization is not a member of the U.S. Chamber, there are plenty of reasons it should be.

In no way do they seek to represent the U.S. Only U.S. businesses and organizations.

[srellim234]

I had business travel to Reston back in August 04 and I can tell you my company paid up to $75 per day for food and entertainment. Alcohol was not included. I think I got screwed out of cab fair to Falls Church, but they comp'ed my Nationals Ticket so I didnt get too bad.

These guys are way out of control. I remember the first time my company had free alcohol at a moral boosting event on company grounds. I nearly **** a brick. Indiana is very conservative and the whole drinking thing while/during at work is a big no no in a lot of peoples' eyes.bud

We had a limit, too, but some of the bill went under entertaining for business purposes, not per diem. We always had to list who the people were and looking at who was listed went into changing the corporate policy.

We used to have open bars a lot in Indianapolis when we would bring in employees from around the country. People pretty much controlled themselves or each other, but a few got out of control and that's when limits were placed or no bar at all depending on the group. For the most part nobody wanted to bite the hand that fed them (or filled their beer mug).

They had to put in a waiver to the food policy because of me, too. I would travel to a division for a week or two at a time and don't care for eating out a lot. I would stay at a hotel with a kitchen, go to the supermarket the first day and spend over the daily limit. No food expense for 5 or 6 days after that as I cooked my own meals. My choice. Company waived the limit for me at the supermarket because they recognized I was saving them a ton of money in the long run and handled it responsibly.

[rn79870]

Funny thing...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code. IRC Section 501(c)(6) is reserved for business leagues, chambers of commerce, boards of trade or other similar organizations.

Which sheds a little more light on the subject of whether or not the taxpayers are supporting the organization.

More examples...

WASHINGTON, D.C. –The United States Chamber of Commerce won a $400,000 Commerce Department grant to help small and midsize businesses take advantage of new international trade agreements.

***

The Chamber's TradeRoots website is billed as "the nation's leading sustained grassroots education program dedicated to raising public awareness of international trade on a local level."

The Trade Toolbox, a "resource to help in the trade export process, ... includes trade statistics, country and market reports, best market reports, frequently asked questions and trade contacts." The Toolbox was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce.[17]

[Cold_Zero]

Pretty much everyone at work controls themself. I have been pleasantly surprised at the restraint that people show. My biggest worry at the start of providing free alcohol at company functions was the fact that our functions are typically later in the afternoon and people soon after get into their cars to driving home.

[srellim234]

Good point. We always made sure the open bar was in the same hotel where everyone was staying and we reserved a couple of extra rooms for the locals to stay and sleep it off if they wanted. The company also would pick up cab fare home for locals.

[smockers83]

Funny thing...The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) tax-exempt organization under the Internal Revenue Code. IRC Section 501(c)(6) is reserved for business leagues, chambers of commerce, boards of trade or other similar organizations.

Which sheds a little more light on the subject of whether or not the taxpayers are supporting the organization.

More examples...

WASHINGTON, D.C. –The United States Chamber of Commerce won a $400,000 Commerce Department grant to help small and midsize businesses take advantage of new international trade agreements.

***

The Chamber's TradeRoots website is billed as "the nation's leading sustained grassroots education program dedicated to raising public awareness of international trade on a local level."

The Trade Toolbox, a "resource to help in the trade export process, ... includes trade statistics, country and market reports, best market reports, frequently asked questions and trade contacts." The Toolbox was funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce.[17]

So? What's your point with all of this. Your local chamber functions in the same manner. They aren't "funded" by the government because they're a tax-free entity. I guess that would mean churches are funded by the government, too? Or by what you posted, the CBOT, NYSE, etc. Or because they receive grants, there are grants out there for a lot of things.

Things like this usually start with a small, overly enthusiastic group, probably the people who won the tourney, and it slowly picked up on everyone else as the drinks kept coming. Hey, it sounded like a good idea at the time. I hope they didn't have to work the next day--all the hangovers, beer farts, beer ****s--that would be a nasty day at work.

[rn79870]

My point shouldn't be that hard to grasp. Take a tax exempt organization, add federal grants, and then have that organization waste 8 grand on alcohol. If they have the funds to party then they don't need federal grants.

[smockers83]

Yes, but those grants are then funneled out of the chamber such as your 2nd example. A local chamber will help acquire grants for local businesses for research or just to start a business or something. The chamber is funded through membership fees of the businesses and probably donations as well.

[srellim234]

You're missing OUR point. This was a single incident in which the corporation did not allocate to waste $8,000 on alcohol. They were not aware of it at the corporate level until the bill arrived.

If your kid leaves the water running and you go away for the weekend does that make it your family policy to waste water? Does that mean you are so rich you have the funds to waste money on the water bill? Absolutely not. Your kid made a mistake. You address it so it doesn't happen again and pay the bill.

There is a disconnect between your assumption that this is intentional and tolerated all the time and the fact that as of now this is a one-time incident that has been addressed.

Since this is an incident that happened outside of corporate approval or knowledge it is really irrelevant to the federal money part of it.

[rn79870]

You're missing OUR point. This was a single incident in which the corporation did not allocate to waste $8,000 on alcohol. They were not aware of it at the corporate level until the bill arrived..

It doesn't bother you in the least that a corporation who accepts tax payer funds allowed this to happen? Someone had to plan it and get it approved. Someone with the authority to "spend" money had to approve it. Someone had to be there to sign for the drinks. How can you call that an accident?

And, apparently, a tax exempt organization has enough "profit" to spend 8 grand on a party celebrating a softball game?

Sorry, but both of those points bother me. If your appropriation wants to spend the money it earns that way then fine, no problem, but don't ask America taxpayers to feed a monster when that includes free alcohol.

Take away their grants, take away their tax exempt status and let them drink themselves into oblivion, I wouldn't care.

[smockers83]

It was approved as it was essentially an open tab because they weren't expecting it to come to $8,000. Its one incident, who cares because guess what? It sure isn't going to happen anymore. Taxpayers DID NOT pay for that alcohol. If we're going to complain about this, we have a lot more abstract things to complain about.

[rn79870]

It was approved as it was essentially an open tab because they weren't expecting it to come to $8,000. Its one incident, who cares because guess what? It sure isn't going to happen anymore. Taxpayers DID NOT pay for that alcohol. If we're going to complain about this, we have a lot more abstract things to complain about.

I would have thought you, of all people, would understand the concept of "Opportunity Cost." That money had to come from somewhere. And yes, anytime the taxpayers subsidize an organization to any extent, the taxpayers are paying, in one way or another, for a portion of that corporation's expenses.

[smockers83]

What exactly does this have to do with opportunity costs? Tell me that and we'll talk about it because I don't really see it, probably because I'm still young and don't mind too much if someone had fun for a night. Companies have parties all the time and because a company had a little too much fun we should get our underpants all bunched up? I guess if I have too much fun one night, you might as well complain about me for spending my tax rebate money for doing so, even though I probably just used the money that I worked for.

If you're a non-profit org and you have some excess profit, you gotta get rid of it don't you, so why not blow it off in celebration that you made a profit? That was a joke.

[rn79870]

...If you're a non-profit org and you have some excess profit, you gotta get rid of it don't you, ...

I'm not a tax guy but I think that non-profit entities are not suppose to have a "profit."

Opportunity cost = the loss of an opportunity due to the expenditure of money. IE, the opportunity cost of buying a new house is not driving a new car for some time. The opportunity cost of an 8500 dollar bar tab means that somewhere a program is short 85oo bucks. I hope they don't replace that from fed grant money - which is likely with a non-profit company.

[smockers83]

Haha exactly, so that's why they spent $8,000, to get rid of that profit. But in all seriousness, non-profits are sort of non-profits, a better term would be not-for-profit. They can make profits in a restricted sense, but they are able to hold investments and what not, can save revenues to be added to something like a general fund in which they can grow, among other methods.

In your example, what you're saying is the opportunity cost of having a party is to have no party. Maybe the opportunity cost is $2,000 in what should have been a limited tab? The unlimited tab is slightly irresponsible but the higher ups are obviously not happy about it and weren't expecting it to come out this way. You can't say that because they spent $8,000 here means that some program over there is short $8,000. Could $8,000 have been spent elsewhere? Sure. One could also think of this as internal investment, in that happy employees work well together and tend to be more productive. In that sense, we cannot determine the opportunity cost just quite yet. The opportunity cost may even be $1 if the next highest-value alternative was $8,203, which could have been some program or a drink. Opportunity costs are the values foregone to produce or obtain compared to the next highest value opportunity, which can be measured in time, value, utility, units of output, etc.

[Cold_Zero]

Haha exactly, so that's why they spent $8,000, to get rid of that profit. But in all seriousness, non-profits are sort of non-profits, a better term would be not-for-profit. They can make profits in a restricted sense, but they are able to hold investments and what not, can save revenues to be added to something like a general fund in which they can grow, among other methods.

Our company use to be a Not for Profit. Typically, profits would be reinvested back into the Company or Employees. 8 grand in liquor is one cool investment I wish we had!

[smockers83]

That's what I'm talking about!

He brings up another point of NPOs in that profits made aren't handed out to shareholders or whatever, they're plowed back into the business.

[srellim234]

I would have thought you, of all people, would understand the concept of "Opportunity Cost." That money had to come from somewhere. And yes, anytime the taxpayers subsidize an organization to any extent, the taxpayers are paying, in one way or another, for a portion of that corporation's expenses.

Absolutely correct. HOWEVER,

It was not brought to the corporation until AFTER the fact that an employee or employees used that $8,000 for the party. The "party" got out of hand and obviously the expenditure was the result of either spontaneous growth and/or lack of control and supervision at the party.

..."Fundamentally, this shows a lack of responsibility on a number of people’s part including Chamber personnel and management at The Exchange,” Chavern wrote in an e-mail to more 50 employees, including softball players and top managers. ”I will have to reevaluate a post-Chamber Bowl celebration next year.”...

....Sources who attended the party described it as something akin to a Cancun booze cruise. They reported that drinkers ordered multiple pitchers of vodka and Red Bull and full bottles that they drunkenly left behind at the end of the night....

That type of waste is not something that is planned, condoned, or even the result of someone who is sober when making the decision. It's something that gets addressed when it happens by upper management (it has), not allowed in the future (it won't be) and you have no idea what internal disciplinary action is resulting from this.

Face it: at this point all we know is that some non-executive level employees got out of control and the bill wound up being sent to the company. That's what this issue is about.

If you want to talk about grants, fine, but this $8,000 was not corporately planned. They did not intentionally substitute this for another so yes, it affects the company as a lost opportunity cost but not a planned or even easily accepted one. I'm pretty sure that if someone went to the executives and told them what was going to happen it never would have been approved.

[ishkabibble]

Perhaps this is better viewed as an expose on life in Washington...

It's not. If you want to talk about non-profit waste, just start looking into the salaries of some of their executives. Many of the organizations are not-for-profit on an organizational level, but are very for-profit on an individual level.

I agree with the other posters. This is a one-time incident that they were admonished for.

[rn79870]

Maybe there is another answer that would sit well with everyone. Perhaps the party goers should be forced to pay their $70.00 share? Thoughts?

I wonder how they will list that $8,204 on their books, and how it will be reported to the IRS.

[ishkabibble]

Maybe there is another answer that would sit well with everyone. Perhaps the party goers should be forced to pay their $70.00 share? Thoughts?

Sounds pretty reasonable. Though I hate splitting a bill evenly because the thrifty people always end up having to cover the gluttons.

[srellim234]

Usually when these events happen the tab is picked up by the highest ranking person there and the bill can't be sorted out by individual. In our case the high ranking person saw it and just about panicked. He asked a subordinate to pick it up and then signed off on the expense report. The processor in accounting thought it looked wierd and turned it over to her supervisor. Instant policy change: the senior person at the event WILL pick up the tab so someone higher ranking and other than attendees will have to approve the expense report.

Payback would be nice but I don't think you can realistically expect everybody to pony up $70. $20-25 per person would be reasonable. In this case I don't know how senior anyone was at the party but if it's a 6-figure income person he should pick some of it up for his subordinates. The company does bear some responsibility and should pay for allowing an open bar, unsupervised event.

If they were all rank-and-filers with no management present I think the company is going to have to eat it all.