Get email alerts on the Jurisdiction Promoter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Promoter–fairboard split over security could force event changes, board warns
Summary
Board members said the promoter often lacks control over the fair's security rules and that the fair—not the promoter—may reap rental revenue even if the promoter bears penalties; staff suggested copying the fair board and requiring a backup security company.
Members described a recurring dispute: promoters hire security, the fair board often requires use of a specific security company, and the promoter ultimately bears the operational pain when security staffing falls short.
Board member (S2) said the promoter will be the one "that's gonna get hurt by all of this" while the fair would still collect rent. Board members recommended informing the fair board directly and allowing or requiring subcontracting or a backup security company so organizers can meet minimum guard counts. Staff emphasized that the liquor board controls licensing for alcohol sales at the event but not the private security firms.
The board asked staff to copy the fair board in written standards and to recommend contractual language that forces a promoter to produce verified staffing numbers the morning of the event. Members also discussed potential impacts to fair revenue if permits were denied and whether promoters would simply encourage BYOB outside the fair if alcohol sales were restricted.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
