Comments: This amendment would replace the current north-south rotation of Westercons with a multi-zone system, with any site not in the same zone as the zone administering the site selection eligible. For example, if Westercon were in Phoenix, sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and the Pacific Northwest would be eligible. If Westercon were in San José, sites in Southern California and the Pacific Northwest would be eligible. If Westercon were in Portland, sites anywhere in California would be eligible. (This list of examples is not exhaustive, but illustrative.)

The Other zone would consist of Australia should the pending bylaw amendment making Westercon eligible to be held there receive ratification. Should the proposal not be ratified, then the Other zone would have no locations in it barring the occurrence of certain extremely unlikely events.

The current dividing line between the North and South rotation zones is 37 degrees north (the northern boundary of Arizona and New Mexico), which runs about 30 miles south of San José, California, near Gilroy. The cities of Fresno and Monterey are both in the existing South zone, although in Fresno’s case it appears that the specific site within the city would be significant in determining the zone location. This proposal would modify the South zone by moving the dividing line within California south to the northern boundary of San Luis Obisbo, Kern, and San Bernardino counties (approximately 35º30’ north), and by including Clark County, Nevada (Las Vegas) in the South zone. A new Central zone would be created out of the rest of California, the rest of Nevada, and those points east that were part of the previous North zone. The North zone would be the remainder of the previous North zone.

Substantially, this creates a new Central zone consisting of the Monterey, San Francisco-Oakland-San José, Fresno, and Sacramento areas, extending eastward to approximately Denver, while leaving the previous two zones otherwise mostly unchanged. It further provides that instead of sites being selected from the same zone in which the site selection occurs (the substantive impact of the current situation), the zone holding the Westercon would be ineligible, and only sites from the other three zones would be eligible. A zone could never "capture" the Westercon, because it would always have to select a successor from one of the other zones.

The makers of this motion acknowledge the complexity of defining locations by county boundaries and by "anti-zone" methods, but believe that this method increases fairness by giving sites in the central section of the Westercon territory a better opportunity to be selected. This proposal should also increase the number of Westercon bids, by increasing the area eligible to bid for a Westercon in any given year.

This proposal attempts to address the same inequity discussed in the "Anti-Zone" proposal, but does so somewhat more simplistically, by adding all of California (as opposed to only those portions south of 37º north) to the existing South zone. Currently, sites in the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento are part of the North zone, and compete against sites in the Pacific Northwest. The makers of the motion suggest that there is so much geographic bias built into the current rotation scheme that a bid from Northern California is at a decided disadvantage against any competition from the Pacific Northwest whenever the election is taking place anywhere north of California.

This proposal is considerably simpler than "Anti-Zone," but the makers do believe that Anti-Zone is more equitable. The Business Meeting needs to decide whether they prefer equity or simplicity in the Westercon site selection process.