I don't know anything about this from this distance, but sometimes maybe there's a role for an ignorant outsider.

I wouldn't have thought that $300,000 is all that much. Even on financial grounds I'd imagine that, if the effect of going ahead with this conference is to alienate a whole mass of members and patrons and so forth, that's likely to be even more destructive. Doing that is the kind of thing that destroys organisations - financial crises are the kind of thing that can waken them up and give them renewed vigour.

The National Folk Festival in England had to be cancelled this year, because of the Foot and Mouth epidemic. These things happen. I'd have thought the sensible thing for the Folk Alliance would be to cancel, and throw efforts into organising a fund-raising benefit or benefits to cover the cost.

And I know you're a litigious lot in the States, but why should there be any court case about it? The booking is cancelled, there's a penalty to pay, presumably covering the cost involved in renting the facilities, less the money which the company will presumably make by letting some of them out to other people. How it that different from any of us cancelling our holiday bookings because we've changed our minds? Or go the whole hog, don't cancel the renting, just cancel the conference and nobody goes. And of course, if the management of the FA (great initials) don't want to do that, presumably a lot of the members will do that themselves anyway.

(And I don't want to make a thing of it, because it goes round in circles - but I make it 15 posts by GUEST plus the one that started it. Is it correct to assume that there is one GUEST so far on the thread? Or 16? Or something in between.)