# Three problems in a 91-task gala board

The board for a 17 October fundraiser is 91 tasks deep. The seating chart has two owners, the venue task has no date on it, and the catering line still prices last year's headcount.

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Status | IN PROGRESS · 10 WEEKS OUT |
| Source | notion:gala-2027-run-of-show |
| Workspace | Showcase |
| Tags | fundraising, event-planning, nonprofit, budget, dependencies |

## What it is

**Two people own ninety-one tasks for one evening, end to end.**

The Lantern Ball is the annual fundraising dinner for Harborlight Family Services. This is the working board for the 2026 event, and most of it arrived already written.

The event is on Saturday 17 October at Mercantile Hall, the third year running at the same venue. The board holds 91 tasks across five lists (Venue and Logistics, Development, Guest Experience, Marketing, Auction), 38 of them closed, split between Delia Moreau, who manages events, and Trevor Quinn, who coordinates them. There is no third person on it.

The board was duplicated from the 2025 board on 6 July. Duplication carried the task names, the list structure, and the budget table on the overview page, including the note field under each budget row. Dates were retyped. Owners were reassigned. The budget was not.

- **One date that cannot move.** 17 October is contracted with the venue and printed on the save-the-date that mailed 21 July. Every other date on the board is a choice somebody made.
- **Dependencies are a text field.** Each task has a Blocked by field naming other tasks by title. Nothing checks that a named blocker has a due date, or that it exists.
- **The budget lives on the overview page.** A nine-row table pasted into the plan's overview, each row carrying a status and a note. The note is where the arithmetic behind the figure sits.
- **Two owners, no backup column.** Every task is assigned to Moreau or Quinn. The board has no second-owner or escalation field, so a task nobody is chasing looks exactly like a task somebody is.

## Why now

**The gala grew by ninety guests in July; the budget it is measured against did not.**

The board approved a larger net goal in June, and the plan absorbed that almost everywhere. The one place it did not is the second-largest expense line.

| | Lantern Ball 2025 | Lantern Ball 2026 plan |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Guest target | 430 | 520, raised 28 July |
| Net revenue | $248,000 raised | $310,000 goal |
| Ticket price | $175 | $195 |
| Tables to assign | 43 | 52 |
| Catering and bar line | $38,700 | $38,700, unchanged |
| Staff on the plan | Moreau and Quinn | Moreau and Quinn |

```text
Overview page, Assumptions
  Guest target: 520 (raised from 430 on 28 Jul to support the
  $310,000 net goal). Seating: rounds of 10, 52 tables.

Overview page, Budget table, row 4
  Catering and bar service        $38,700     Confirmed
  Note: = 430 x $90 per head. Coreza Hospitality 2025 agreement.
        Copied from Lantern Ball 2025 workbook, 6 Jul.
```

_These two sit on the same page, about forty rows apart. 520 at $90 is $46,800. Confirmed, per the legend above the budget table, means a signed quote is on file. The quote on file is for 430 people._

## Plan

**The critical path starts at a task with no date on it.**

Nothing on the board renders this sequence. It is reconstructed from the Blocked by field on each task, read together with the due dates.

1. **Get a load-in window out of Mercantile Hall.** Owner Delia Moreau, due date empty, sitting in Waiting on venue since 14 July. Four dated tasks name it in Blocked by, which puts it ahead of the rentals, the lighting hang, the kitchen access, and the flowers.
2. **Place the rental order with Ardent Party Rentals.** Due 4 September. Quantities come from 52 tables of ten. Delivery and pickup times come from the load-in window.
3. **Drop the invitations at the mail house.** Due 8 September, with a note saying the drop is booked and cannot move. The 2 October RSVP deadline is measured back from it.
4. **Send the program to Copperline Press.** Due 30 September, on a press hold. The program carries the sponsor listing.
5. **Close sponsor commitments.** Due 5 October, five days after the program goes to press.
6. **Produce the table assignments.** Two tasks, due 6 and 8 October, different owners, different consumers downstream. This is the step the board describes twice.
7. **Give Coreza Hospitality the guaranteed count.** Due 10 October. The catering agreement requires a guaranteed headcount seven days before service, and 10 October is that day.

**Diagram: One task with no date, named in the Blocked by field of four tasks that have one**

- Confirm load-in window (no due date, waiting since 14 Jul) [bad]
- Place rental order (due 4 Sep, Ardent Party Rentals) [neutral]
- AV plot and lighting hang (due 11 Sep, Kestrel Audio) [neutral]
- Caterer kitchen access (due 18 Sep, Coreza Hospitality) [neutral]
- Floral delivery timing (due 25 Sep, Thistlebrook Floral) [neutral]
- The Lantern Ball (17 Oct, contracted) [accent]
- Confirm load-in window --> Place rental order : blocks
- Confirm load-in window --> AV plot and lighting hang
- Confirm load-in window --> Caterer kitchen access
- Confirm load-in window --> Floral delivery timing
- Place rental order -> The Lantern Ball
- AV plot and lighting hang -> The Lantern Ball
- Caterer kitchen access -> The Lantern Ball
- Floral delivery timing -> The Lantern Ball

> **A task with no due date cannot be late**
>
> The board's Timeline view orders tasks by due date, and its At risk badge is computed from due date against today. A task with an empty due date appears in neither. The weekly review is run from the Timeline view, filtered to Due this week and overdue, which is stated in the working agreements on the overview page.

## Receipts

**Everything above comes from a field somebody filled in, or left empty.**

Each task on this board carries five fields: Owner, Due, Status, Blocked by, and Note. Those are what is quoted here.

- **Claim.** Two tasks produce the same table assignment.
  - Evidence: "Build seating chart (all tables). Owner: Trevor Quinn. Due: 8 Oct." and "Assign donor tables by giving level. Owner: Delia Moreau. Due: 6 Oct."
  - Where: Guest Experience list; Development list
- **Claim.** Neither seating task names the other.
  - Evidence: Blocked by on Quinn's task reads "RSVP deadline (2 Oct)". Blocked by on Moreau's task reads "Close sponsor commitments (5 Oct)".
  - Where: Blocked by field, both tasks
- **Claim.** They feed different things.
  - Evidence: "Send final seating chart to Mercantile Hall. Due: 12 Oct. Blocked by: Build seating chart (all tables)." and "Print place cards and table numbers. Due: 13 Oct. Blocked by: Assign donor tables by giving level."
  - Where: Venue and Logistics list; Guest Experience list
- **Claim.** The venue task has no due date.
  - Evidence: "Confirm load-in window and vendor access with Mercantile Hall. Owner: Delia Moreau. Due: (empty). Status: Waiting on venue, set 14 Jul."
  - Where: Venue and Logistics list, first task
- **Claim.** Four dated tasks are blocked by it.
  - Evidence: "Blocked by: Confirm load-in window and vendor access with Mercantile Hall" appears on the rental order (4 Sep), the AV plot (11 Sep), kitchen access (18 Sep), and floral delivery (25 Sep).
  - Where: Blocked by fields, Venue and Logistics list
- **Claim.** The guest target changed on 28 July.
  - Evidence: "Guest target: 520 (raised from 430 on 28 Jul to support the $310,000 net goal)." Edit stamp: edited 28 Jul by Delia Moreau.
  - Where: Overview page, Assumptions block
- **Claim.** The catering line still prices 430 guests.
  - Evidence: "Catering and bar service. $38,700. Confirmed. Note: = 430 x $90 per head. Coreza Hospitality 2025 agreement. Copied from Lantern Ball 2025 workbook, 6 Jul."
  - Where: Overview page, budget table, row 4
- **Claim.** The program prints before sponsorships close.
  - Evidence: "Send program to Copperline Press. Due: 30 Sep. Note: press hold, cannot move." and "Close sponsor commitments. Due: 5 Oct."
  - Where: Marketing list; Development list

## Risks

**Every one of these is already written down on the board, and none of it is flagged.**

What follows under each item is what the plan itself does about it, which in two cases is nothing.

- **The table assignment has two producers** (high)
  - Quinn's chart goes to the venue on 12 October and becomes the floor plan. Moreau's assignment goes to the place cards printed on 13 October. Both describe a full allocation of 520 guests across 52 tables. If a table moves in one and not the other, the failure shows up on the night as a guest holding a card for a table that is not where the card says.
  - Mitigation: The plan does nothing here. Neither task lists the other in Blocked by, and no task on the board compares the two outputs before the place cards print.
- **The venue dependency has no date** (high)
  - Four tasks with real dates cannot be finished without a load-in window, and the task that would produce one has been in Waiting on venue since 14 July with an empty due date. It never appears in the weekly review, because that review is filtered by due date.
  - Mitigation: The plan records the dependency in the Blocked by field on all four downstream tasks, which is the only reason it is traceable. It sets no date, no reminder, and no named contact at the venue.
- **The catering line prices last year's dinner** (medium)
  - The $310,000 net goal is computed against a budget in which the largest food line assumes 430 guests. At the stated rate, 520 guests is $46,800, so the goal is overstated by $8,100 before anything else moves. The row is marked Confirmed, which on this board means a signed quote exists.
  - Mitigation: Nothing on the board reconciles the budget to the July change. The note field under the row does say where the number came from and when it was copied, which is why the gap is visible at all.
- **Sponsor names print before sponsors are final** (medium)
  - The program goes to press on 30 September under a press hold. Sponsor commitments close on 5 October. Anyone who signs in those five days is not in the printed program.
  - Mitigation: The plan has no task between the two. What each sponsorship level is promised sits in a deck referenced by two tasks and not attached to the board.

## Open questions

**Nobody has decided who produces the table assignments.**

The unresolved items are all ownership or a missing date, and each of them lives in a field that is currently duplicated or blank.

- **Which seating task is the real one.** One is due 6 October and one is due 8 October, they have different owners, and each has a downstream task that depends on it by name. The board does not record which of them defers to the other, and both are open.
- **What Mercantile Hall has actually agreed to.** The overview lists the venue agreement as countersigned on 2 February. Load-in is governed by Exhibit B, which is not on the board. Whether the venue has already sent a window that nobody entered is not knowable from here.
- **Whether $90 a head holds at 520.** The budget note cites the 2025 Coreza Hospitality agreement. Nothing on the board says whether that rate was quoted for a headcount range, for a single number, or for a season that has ended.

> **The board reports on what has a date**
>
> Completion here is 38 of 91 tasks, and the Timeline view is green. Both of those numbers are computed only over tasks with due dates. The three items above are an empty date field, a duplicated owner, and a stale note, and none of those is a thing this board can count.

## What this brief could not check

- Exhibit B to the Mercantile Hall agreement, the house load-in and vendor access schedule, is named in the venue task and is not attached to the board. Whether a window has already been issued could not be checked.
- The Lantern Ball 2025 budget workbook is linked from the overview page and was not opened, so the $90 per head could not be traced past the note in row 4.
- The sponsorship deck that defines what each level is promised is referenced by two tasks and not attached, so what the printed program owes a sponsor is not established here.
- This brief was written by hand as a design fixture. It is modelled on real work, but no model read a diff to produce it, and its claims should not be relied on.