2006 Westercon Business Meeting

Main Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order

The First Business Meeting of the 59^th West Coast Science Fantasy Conference was held in Salon A of the Marriott Hotel Mission Valley, San Diego CA, on Sunday, July 2, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 12:04 PM, Ed Green presiding and Kevin Standlee recording. An attendance list was circulated and the list of persons attending the meeting is included as an appendix to the minutes. 25 people attended. The quorum for regular business is 15 members of the convention.

2. Committee Reports

There were no committees created or continued by Westercon 58.

3. Pending Bylaw Amendments

The following amendment was passed at Westercon 58 and will become part of the Bylaws if ratified at Westercon 59. Comments, where shown in italics, are those of the motions’ advocates except as noted and are not part of the motions themselves.

3.1. Secondary Ratification

Moved, To amend Section 4.2 of the Westercon Bylaws by ~~striking out~~ and inserting text as shown, for the purpose of modifying the ratification process of bylaw amendments and allowing amendments to such ratification that do not increase the scope of the bylaw amendments:

4.2 Primary and Secondary Ratification

The secretary of the business meeting at which an amendment receives primary (first year) ratification shall submit an exact copy of the amendment to the following year’s Westercon business meeting. The question of secondary (second year) ratification is debatable ~~but not amendable~~ and is amendable only to the extent that such amendments do not increase the scope of the original bylaw amendment.

Comments: Most ordinary societies require “advance notice” of bylaw amendments, to allow members sufficient opportunity to prepare to debate such serious proposals. Parliamentary law allows that amendments given previous notice may, in their final form, be of reduced scope compared to their advance notice, but not increased scope.

Westercon does not require advance notice; however, the requirement that proposals pass at two consecutive meetings is effectively the same thing. A controversy surrounding the “Anti-Zone” amendment has highlighted the problems caused when a bylaw amendment’s scope cannot be reduced, but only re-introduced from scratch.

This proposal brings Westercon practice back in line with that of common parliamentary law, and also parallels the practice of the World Science Fiction Society, which allows secondary ratification amendments as long as they do not increase the scope of an amendment. (WSFS uses different language, but it has the same effect.)

Mr. Standlee clarified the intent and affect of the motion, substantially restating the maker’s argument above. There was no debate against the motion.

The bylaw amendment was ratified on a vote by show of hands and becomes part of the Westercon Bylaws at the conclusion of Westercon 59.

4. New Business

Bylaws amendments passed by the Westercon 59 Business Meeting will be passed on to next year’s Westercon for ratification.

4.1. Repair the Safety Valve

Moved, To amend Section 3.6 of the Westercon Bylaws by ~~striking out~~ and inserting text as shown, for the purpose of proving for situations where no eligible bids file before January 1^st of the year of the site-selection balloting:

3.6 Provisions When No ~~Valid~~ Eligible Bids Are Received

Comments: This “safety valve” provision allows bids from the zone that is otherwise excluded from bidding to file if no bids from the other zones file on or before January 1 of the year in which the site-selection election is happening. This rule existed in the two-zone rotation system that was changed in 2005 to the current “anti-zone” system; however, due to a drafting error, it was inadvertently stricken when the current wording of section 3.2 was adopted.

This year, it was noticed that the “safety valve” clause was missing from the bylaws, and inasmuch as no bids from the non-South zones had filed either by January 1 or April 15, while bids from the South zone had, a minor crisis ensued until the site selection administrator was able to make a ruling that allowed the two bids onto the ballot. This ruling was rather convoluted, however, and all parties involved would prefer to see this explicit provision restored to the bylaws.

The previous wording of Section 3.6, with its reference to Section 3.5, was intended for situations when no bids at all had filed by April 15; in which case the final restriction (a 75-mile exclusion zone around the administering site) was suspended. This 75-mile zone no longer exists, and therefore references to situations when no bids at all file by the April 15 ballot deadline no longer have any relevance, because if no bids file by January 1, all sites, including those in the administering zone, become eligible already.

Note that this only suspends site restrictions, and particularly section 3.3. All other requirements for bidding, such as a facility agreement, organizing document, etc. still apply even if the site restrictions are suspended.

Proposed by: Kevin Standlee, James Briggs, Sandra Childress, Sharon Sbarsky, Seth Breidbart, Mike Wilmoth, Christian McGuire, Darrel L. Exline.

There were numerous technical questions about this proposal, which were discussed informally.

On a question by Ben Yalow, the Chair ruled that the phrase “site restrictions” does not apply to the filing restrictions in section 3.4, affirming the makers’ argument.

Rick Kovalcik spoke in favor of the motion.

Mr. Breidbart, speaking against, moved to insert “location” after “site” in the last line. After some discussion, the chair ruled that this was technically a motion to substitute an alternative wording[1], thus:

The substitute for the main motion passed on a vote by show of hands. From subsequent reaction of the attendees, it appears clear that some of them were unaware that this only changed the proposed bylaw amendment; it did not pass or reject the proposed amendment itself.

Ms. Sbarsky noted that a site could elect itself, and that the “75-mile rule,” which made sites within 75 miles of the site of the convention administering the election ineligible, had also been deleted as part of the changes in site selection ratified at Westercon 58 in Calgary. She proposed a substitute wording that would address this; however, she did not propose specific wording, and the Secretary attempted to compose an amendment “on the fly” that would have the effect desired by the maker of the motion. Under these constraints, the proposed wording was:

~~If no valid bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5,~~ If no eligible bids are received by January 1st of the year of the site-selection balloting, then all sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible, except any site within 75 miles of the administering site. If no valid bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5, then all the sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible and the other site location restrictions in this article shall be suspended.

There was a considerable amount of technical wrangling over the exact wording of this proposal that the Secretary did not record in detail because he was attempting to come up with workable wording at the time. It appeared that Mr. Kovalcik moved, as a second-order amendment, a further substitute that would have substituted “valid and eligible” for all occurrences of “eligible,” thus (additional words shown in bold):

~~If no valid bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5,~~ If no valid and eligible bids are received by January 1st of the year of the site-selection balloting, then all sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible, except any site within 75 miles of the administering site. If no valid and eligible bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5, then all the sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible and the other site location restrictions in this article shall be suspended.

As part of this debate, there was a question over what the meaning of “valid” and of “eligible” is. The Chair ruled that “valid” means “the bid’s paperwork is in the proper order as required by section 3.4, and that “eligible” means “the bid is for a site that is eligible to host a Westercon under the bylaws.” Thus a bid can be valid but not eligible (for example, a bid in the proper form, but for Boston MA, which is not an eligible location), or it could be eligible but invalid (for example, a bid for Chico CA in 2006 – an eligible location – that failed to include a letter of intent or other facility commitment).

After extensive but unstructured discussion, Mr. Kovalcik and Ms. Sbarsky each withdrew their proposals by unanimous consent.

The version which came to a vote, therefore, read as follows:

This proposed bylaw amendment passed on a vote by show of hands and is passed on to Westercon 60 for ratification.

4.2. 75-Mile Rule

Ms. Sbarsky moved to amend the Westercon Bylaws by restoring the 75-mile restriction; again, in the absence of specific wording from her, the Secretary worded the proposal as follows. (This wording assumes that the bylaw amendment in item 4.1 is ratified.)

Moved, To amend Section 3.6 of the Westercon Bylaws by inserting text as shown, for the purpose of restricting the eligibility of sites within 75 miles of the site of the Westercon administering the election:

If no eligible bids are received by January 1st of the year of the site-selection balloting, then all sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible, except any site within 75 miles of the administering site. If no valid bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5, then all the sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible and the other site location restrictions in this article shall be suspended.

After further technical wrangling, Mr. Yalow moved to send this proposal to a committee to be appointed by the Chair, said committee to report back to the 2007 Westercon Business Meeting with a proposal to restore the 75-mile rule.

Mr. Briggs suggested that, in keeping with whimsical Westercon tradition, the committee be named the “Oink-Oink Committee,” and this suggestion was adopted by unanimous consent.

The motion to send the 75-mile rule to the Oink-Oink Committee passed on a vote by show of hands.

5. Announcements

The Chair announced that he would appoint the Oink-Oink Committee at the Monday Business Meeting and that anyone interested in serving on the committee should see him after today’s meeting.

6. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 12:53 PM.

Site Selection Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order

The Site Selection Business Meeting of the 59^th West Coast Science Fantasy Conference was held in Salon A of the Marriott Hotel Mission Valley, San Diego CA, on Monday, July 3, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 12:02 PM, Ed Green presiding and Kevin Standlee recording. An attendance list was circulated and the list of persons attending the meeting is included as an appendix to the minutes. 18 people attended. The quorum for sites election business is those members of the convention attending the meeting.

2. Site Selection Business

2.1. Administrator Report

The Site Selection Administrator, Rick Kovalcik, presented the detailed results, and noted that the numbers printed in the convention newsletter are not correct due to a formatting issue.

Site	Mail-in	Saturday	Sunday	*Total*
Las Vegas	5	21	87	113
Phoenix	5	16	69	90
Write-ins:
Hollister			4	4
Kuberpedy (various spellings)			4	4
Chico		2		2
Iditicon			2	2
ConSeal			1	1
In Hill			1	1
None of the Above		2		2
Total With Preference	10	41	168	219
No Preference		2	5	7
Total Ballots	10	43	173	226
Needed to elect (Majority with preference)				110

Las Vegas, having received a majority of the ballots with preference, is therefore the winner.

Seth Breidbart moved to instruct the Administrator to destroy the ballots. After the Secretary explained to those familiar with Westercon practice that this is a normal procedural motion that technically puts the election “out of reach,” the motion to destroy the ballots was passed by unanimous consent.

Mr. Kovalcik was thanked by the meeting and given a round of applause.

2.2. Presentation by Westercon 61

James Daugherty, Chairman of the newly-elected 2008 Westercon, made a presentation. The convention’s Guests are Kage Baker (Writer), Lubov (Artist), and Milt Stevens (Fan). People who voted in site selection and pre-supported the Las Vegas bid are automatically converted to attending membership. Others may convert with various options that they should discuss with the newly-seated convention. The convention’s parent organization is Conventional Wisdom, a Nevada non-profit corporation.

3. Unfinished Business

The Chair appointed the following people to the Oink-Oink Committee: Sharon Sbarsky (Chair), Seth Breidbart, Scott Norton, Michael Siladi, Kevin Standlee, and Ben Yalow. The Chair also authorized Ms. Sbarsky to supplement the membership of the committee at her discretion.

4. Announcements

Mike Wilmoth, representing the Arizona in 2008 Westercon Bid, announced that their bid is now for Arizona in 2009, and that pre-supporting memberships in the 2008 bid will automatically carry over to the 2009 bid.

5. Adjournment sine die

There being no further business, the Westercon Business Meeting adjourned sine die at 12:15 PM.

Kevin Standlee
Secretary
Westercon 59 Business Meeting

Appendix: Attendance List

The following people signed the attendance list or were observed to be present at the meeting on the day indicated:

Cathy Beckstead (Sun,Mon), Judith Bemis (Sun,Mon), Kent Bloom (Sun), Alex Boster (Mon), Seth Breidbart (Sun,Mon), James Briggs (Sun), Sandra Childress (Sun), James Daugherty (Sun,Mon), Kathryn Daugherty (Mon), Donald Eastlake 3rd (Sun), Darrel Exline (Sun), Glenn Glazer (Mon), Ed Green (Sun,Mon), Stacey Helton (Sun), Lamont Jones (Sun), Mitzi Jones (Sun), Rick Kovalcik (Sun,Mon), Scott Norton (Sun), Tony Parker (Sun,Mon), Ken Porter (Sun,Mon), Nora Rankin (Sun,Mon), Sharon Sbarsky (Sun,Mon), Eric P. Scott (Sun), Elisa Sheets (Mon), Michael Siladi (Sun), Kevin Standlee (Sun,Mon), Joan Steward (Sun), Geri Sullivan (Sun,Mon), Adam Tilghman (Mon), Ben Yalow (Sun,Mon).

[1] This is because, in its most narrow sense, the original motion was “to strike out ‘If no valid bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5’ and insert ‘If no eligible bids are received by January 1st of the year of the site-selection balloting’,” and therefore under the meeting’s parliamentary authority, it would be improper to amend the amendment by adding “and insert ‘location’ after ‘site’.” For a full discussion of the various forms of the motion to amend, see Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 10^th Edition, section 12.