The ITA Link's recent editorial raises a number of interesting questions - as always - thanks David.The suggestion, mooted by Ian Westrip of the WA Music Theatre Company, to establish a $2 million fund, the interest from which would go towards the costs incurred of hiring technicians and employees of venues engaged as a condition of hire, left me personally quite cold.Most of you are probably aware that crippling hire costs are not the only factors dissuading any company without full funding from using one of our professional venues. The hire fees are often nearly eclipsed by the cost of employing a team of technical and other theatre staff that MUST be used as a condition of hire.Ok, so I've been frustrated on more than one occasion when a technician has been paid to turn up a couple of days before we open and push a few buttons to run a show. And I do mean that literally. I don't accept that the training and skills of the technicians employed in these venues so far exceeds the expertise of the artists performing there that the techs are the only ones deserving of payment. But when the conditions of hire require you to pay an unskilled junior to stand in the aisle and wave a torch!Here's an example for you. The joint GRADS/UDS production in the New Fortune Theatre every year spends a fortune hiring the venue and in-house equipment. We then have to pay a technician to be "responsible" for the venue and operate the equipment. We may have a team of skilled and _qualified_ volunteers that are prepared to do the duty, but it must be an employee. We also have to employ front of house staff to wave torches around for the audience. We actually have volunteers working alongside these paid staff performing the same duties that have been doing this for years and they have to tell the paid staff what to do!You've got to wonder what is going on here. A large team of volunteers works for several months putting in countless hours. Is the club or group the beneficiary? No. Most of the income goes to the theatre operator.Are we stuck with this kind of system? Apparently yes. Hence Ian's proposal to establish a fund so that some groups can afford to pay these staff bills.Brilliant isn't it. Rather than drawing a line in the sand and saying, "no, we shouldn't have to pay these charges when we have skilled, experienced and qualified volunteers that will do the work" we establish a benevolent fund that ensures this inequity will continue.But there is another alternative. David Crewes mentions in his editorial that our professional theatres are spending an awful lot of the time dark because community groups can't afford to use them. Why try and perpetuate a system that has brought us to this situation? Don't setup a fund so that you can pay the fees. They will just continue to increase as more and more staff become "essential" to the operation of the theatre.It's time to make a stand. The ITA has discussed in muted whispers before the notion of taking over one of our "professional" venues and running a continuous program - let's offer to do this with our own staff.CheersGrant