WESTERCON 52 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES

Held at EmpireCon, DoubleTree Hotel, Spokane WA.

Session 1: Saturday July 3^rd 1999

The following people signed the Attendance List: Roger Wells (Chair) Kevin Standlee (Parliamentarian), Cheryl Morgan (Secretary), Crickett Fox, Judith C. Bemis, Patrick M. Connors, James S. Daugherty, Christian McGuire, Ruth Sachter, John Lorentz, Leroy F. Berven, Linda Deneroff, Bob Daverin, Robert Verne, Sharon Sbarsky, Tony E. Parker, Gary Keith Faldbaum, Bhroam Mann, James M. Briggs, Bruce E. Pelz, Mike Willmoth, Nicholas C. Schumacher, Dean Koenig, Brenda Daverin, David George.

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 12:03 pm.

2. Committee Reports

2.1 Report of the Neep Committee

Seth Breidbart, the only member of the Committee, being absent, the Chair said he would postpone the report until later in the meeting.

2.2. Report of the Neep Squared Committee

This committee was formed at Westercon 51 (San Diego, 1998) with the remit of investigating the differences between Robert’s Rules of Order and Sturgis’ Rules of Order, and recommending which rules Westercon should use.

Mr. Wells and Mr. Standlee, being members of the Committee, stood down from their posts at the head table. Mr. Lorentz was chosen to preside.

Mr. Standlee apologized for the lack of a majority report but mentioned that a panel had been held immediately prior to the Business Meeting, in the same room as the Business Meeting, to explain the differences between the two rule systems. (The Westercon 51 Business Meeting requested this be done.) Empirecon was thanked for providing facilities for this panel.

Mr. Standlee presented a minority report in favor of Westercon adopting Sturgis’ Rules. Mr. Wells presented a minority report making general comments about both authorities and making no recommendation. Mr. Yalow, the other member of the Committee, was unable to attend due to travel delays but had sent word that he recommended that Westercon stick with Robert’s Rules.

Mr. Pelz moved that the reports be filed and that the committee be discharged. Mr. Standlee observed that "filing" a report had no meaning under either parliamentary authority. The motion to discharge the Committee was passed without objection.

The meeting then moved to discuss the motion to amend section 2.4 as follows:

Mr. Verde, Mr. Feldbaum, Mr. Pelz and Ms. Sachter spoke against. Ms. Deneroff and Mr. Standlee spoke in favor. Ms. Bemis then moved to close debate; after confirming that nobody else wished to speak to the main motion, the motion to close debate passed without objection. The motion to amend the bylaws passed by a vote of 12 – 6; this being at least a 2/3 vote, the amendment takes effect immediately at the close of Westercon 52.

Matters arising from the change in rules

Mr. Wells and Mr. Standlee having resumed their positions at the head table, the meeting continued. Mr. Feldbaum inquired as to the status of Westercon Standing Rule 1, which affects the way in which the motion Previous Question ("Close Debate" in Sturgis and in common usage) is put to a vote. Mr. Wells replied that it was unaffected by the change in the parliamentary authority.

Mr. Standlee pointed out that some motions (Previous Question/Close Debate being the most apparent) have different names in the two sets of rules and moved that the meeting assent to the appropriate housekeeping changes being made where necessary to Westercon official documents. Mr. Pelz asked that someone be given the responsibility for making these changes. Mr. Standlee volunteered himself and Ms. Morgan. The motion was passed without objection. [Mr. Standlee and Ms. Morgan intend to show such changes in the copy of the Westercon Bylaws passed on to Westercon 53 by distinctive typography.]

3. New Business

3.1. The Parachute Clause

Mr. Pelz, Mr. Feldbaum, Mr. David W. Clark and Ms. Kathryn Daughtery (the latter two members being unable to attend the meeting) moved the adoption of the following Bylaws amendment adding a new section as follows. [Title added by staff after meeting.]

Mr. Daughtery asked how it would be determined that a Committee was unable to fulfil its duties. Mr. Wells ruled that the only unambiguous way to determine this would be if the Committee announced that it was unable to fulfill its duties.

Ms. Deneroff proposed an amendment, seconded by Mr. Daverin, so replace "be unable to fulfill its duties" with "disband". Ms. Deneroff spoke in favor. Mr. Pelz and Mr. Connors spoke against.

Mr. Connors proposed to amend the amendment to replace "disband" with "declare itself unable to fulfill its duties". Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Verde spoke in favor. Mr. McGuire spoke against. On a count of 12 for and 6 against the secondary amendment passed.

As a result of this secondary amendment the substantive effect of Ms. Deneroff’s primary amendment was then to replace "be" with "declare itself".

Mr. Feldbaum, on a Question of Privlege, asked the Parliamentarian to explain the difference in procedure between Robert’s and Sturgis’ rules as the meeting progressed. The request was put to a vote, and was defated on a count of many to two.

The meeting then moved to a vote on Ms. Deneroff’s amendment. On a count of 13 for and 10 against the amendment passed.

Further discussion then took place as to the precise meaning of the main motion. Mr. Standlee observed that if the rule were invoked and the parties involved were unable to agree the matter would probably end being decided by a court of law rather than by a Westercon Business Meeting.

A vote by show of hands was taken and substantially more than 2/3 voted in favor so the motion to amend the bylaws passed and takes effect at the close of Westercon 52. The final wording was:

2.1. Report of the Neep Committee [Reprise]

Mr. Breidbart being still absent, Mr. Standlee suggested that the Neep Committee be discharged. Ms. Sbarsky moved that the report be postponed until the Sunday session as Mr. Breidbart was busy running site selection. Ms. Sbarsky’s motion was passed without objection.

3.2. Badges

Ms. Sachter moved that the Meeting commend EmpireCon for its wonderfully readable badges. This was passed unanimously.

3.3. Badges Again

Mr.Verde moved that the Meeting commend EmpireCon for the security aspects of the badge, namely that the real name of each member was printed on the back of each badge. This allowed members to use a fan name at the convention but remain identifiable to convention staff. This motion was also passed unanimously.

3.4 Objection to Consideration

Mr. Lorentz noted that the motion "Objection to Consideration", or any motion with a similar effect and precedence, is not part of Sturgis’ Rules. He moved to add a Standing Rule that would have exactly the same effect as Objection to Consideration as defined by Robert’s Rules.

Mr. Standlee asked to refer this motion to a Committee consisting of himself and Mr. Lorentz to report back at the Sunday session with appropriate wording for this motion. This passed unanimously, and the motion was referred to committee.

4. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:03 pm.

Session 2: Sunday July 4^th 1999

The following people signed the Attendance List: Roger Wells (Chair) Kevin Standlee (Parliamentarian), Cheryl Morgan (Secretary), Mike Glyer, Ben Yalow, Doug & Kim Bissell, Thomas Luke Wilsow, Eric P. Scott, Janice Gelb, Sue Ellen Adkins, Eric Weber, Larry Baker, David Clark, Arthur Aldridge, Marie Ellen Wilson, Marjorie Rosen, Seth Breidbart, John Hertz, Judith C. Bemis, James S. Daugherty, Christian McGuire, Ruth Sachter, Leroy F. Berven, Linda Deneroff, Bob Daverin, Robert Verne, Sharon Sbarsky, Tony E. Parker, Gary Keith Faldbaum, Bhroam Mann, James M. Briggs, Mike Willmoth, Nicholas C. Schumacher, Dean Koenig, Brenda Daverin, David George.

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 12:03 pm.

2. Committee Reports

2.3. Site Selection

The Head of the Site Selection committee, Mr. Breidbart, presented his report. He noted that, due to an error in the ballot papers, many ballots had been completed incorrectly using an "X" or check mark instead of preferential balloting. He continued:

Much hilarity resulted. Mr. Wells commented that whilst Mr. Breidbart’s results were highly entertaining it was normally better for Business Meetings to be boring. Mr. Breidbart was then prevailed upon to present the results correctly:

Portland won on the first count.

Mr. Standlee moved that the results be accepted and the ballots destroyed.

Ms. Gelb moved an amendment to commend the Site Selection Committee for a most entertaining report for an unopposed bid. Mr. Briedbart pointed out that Chico and Both bids had filed papers with Westercon 52, albeit after the deadline for appearing on the ballot, so the Portland bid was not unopposed.

Mr. Standlee’s motion was passed without objection.

Mr. Breidbart thanked his assistant, Ms. Sbarsky, for doing most of the work.

Portland, in the person of Mr. Verde, presented its Westercon 54 Progress Report Zero. The Guests of Honor will be Tim Powers, Mike Glyer, Terri Windling and Frank Lurz. The convention will use the Double Tree Hotels Jantzen Beach and Columbia River (which are opposite each other). The dates will be July 5^th-8^th 2001.

2.1. Report of the Neep Committee

Mr. Breidbart presented three separate suggestions for wording for a motion to mandate the size of lettering for badge names. No copies of the report were available.

Mr. Yalow moved to recommit the question to the Neep Committee, which would bring a motion to next year’s meeting when the text of suggestions could be published in advance (and by implication to continue the Neep Committee). Mr. Breidbart spoke in favor. Mr Verde spoke against due to the expense of going to Hawaii. Mr. Daugherty said the Conolulu would send a copy of the report to all members, including supporting members. On a vote of many to four, the motions previously referred to this committee were referred to it again and the committee was thus implicitly continued.

3. New Business

3.4. Objection Sustained

The committee (Mr. Lorentz and Mr. Standlee) formed to draft wording for a standing rule that would duplicate the functionality of the motion to Object to Consideration found in Robert’s Rules but not in Sturgis reported the following:

Mr. Lorentz spoke in favor.

Mr. Breidbart and Mr. Standlee moved to amend to add the following:

The amendment passed unanimously. The main motion as amended passed unanimously, and the new standing rule will take effect at the close of Westercon 52.

3.5. Standing Rules

Mr. Yalow moved to adopt a new set of Standing Rules, the effect of which would be to make the debating rules of Westercon identical to those of Robert’s Rules of Order.

Mr. Standlee and Mr. Breidbart moved to Object to Consideration. Less than two-thirds opposed consideration, so the objection failed.

Mr. Standlee proposed that the motion be referred to a committee consisting of Mr. Yalow to report back with precise wording at Conolulu. Ms. Gelb proposed to add Mr. Standlee to the committee, but Mr. Standlee declined the honor. Mr. Yalow spoke against on the grounds that the report would need to contain copies of both Robert’s and Sturgis’ Rules, thus making it very large. The Chair said that would infringe copyright and thus Mr. Yalow’s point was out of order.

Mr. Breidbart moved to amend the motion to refer to specify that the report must be no more than one page long. Mr. Glyer spoke against.

Mr. Verde moved to amend to require Mr. Yalow to attend all future Westercon Business meetings to explain the operation of his proposed new Standing Rules. The Chair ruled that the motion placed an undue burden on Mr. Yalow and was out of order.

A vote on Mr. Breidbart’s amendment was taken by the Serpentine Method. The amendment passed by 25 to too few to bother counting.

Mr. Hertz asked what would happen if Mr. Yalow was unable to summarize the changes in a single page. The Chair ruled that was up to Mr. Yalow to decide. Mr. Yalow disagreed. Mr. Daughtery said that Conolulu would produce the report regardless of the size.

Mr. Standlee moved to close debate ("Previous Question" under Robert’s terminology). On a count of 18 for and 8 against (>=2/3), the motion to close debate passed.

A vote was then taken on the motion to refer to committee. The referral failed, 14-17.

Mr. Yalow spoke in favor of his main motion.

Mr. Standlee moved to adjourn. (With business pending, a motion to adjourn is highly privleged, but may not be amdended or debated.)

Mr. Yalow moved to Fix the Time To Adjourn [that is, schedule another meeting which would legally be a continuation of this meeting] to 1 minute after the adjournment of the current meeting. [This motion is the only thing that can take precedence over a privleged motion to Adjourn under Robert’s.] On a count (taken by the Serpentine Method) of 15-15 the motion failed [a majority vote was required; ties lose].

On a count of 17-13, the motion to adjourn passed. There being no further sessions scheduled at this Westercon, the pending standing rule amendment "falls to the floor" [fails].

4. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 1:56 p.m.

Cheryl Morgan
Secretary