All three meetings were held in room Bellarine 5 of the Melbourne Convention Centre. The podium officers were:
|
Chairman: |
Jack Herman |
|
Timekeeper: |
‘Zanne Labonville (Main & Site Selection Meetings) |
|
Secretary: |
Pat McMurray |
[Secretary: The debates in these minutes are not word for word accurate, but every attempt has been made to represent the sense of the arguments made. UK spelling is used throughout, except in some of the attached documents (because that's the way I spell.) Names are deliberately chosen to be the informal versions. These minutes are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and recollection and are based on contemporary notes, transcribed to electronic form within one week of the conclusion of the meeting. Any other comments or notes I have will be marked in this fashion. Comments thus are purely informative and do not form part of the official text of these minutes.]
Minutes completed: 17 September 1999
Pat McMurray
Business Meeting Secretary
Chairman called meeting to order at 9:04 AM. Attendance as recorded on the sign-up sheets for this meeting was 57. The Chairman made corrections to the agenda as handed out and the Constitution as printed in the Programme Book. [Versions with minutes are correct.]
The Chairman also made clear that the purpose of the Special Rules was to ensure the Business Meeting complied with Australian Meeting laws, and that he would only apply them when he felt it was necessary to prevent the meeting being challengable under Australian law.
1.1 Mark Protection Committee
Gary Feldbaum: Mr. Shepherd sends his respects. The Mark Protection Committee asks leave to report tomorrow.
The floor was opened for nominations to the Committee:
All four nominees accepted nomination, provided written consent and confirmed their zones as above.
1.2 The Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee
Kevin Standlee: Committee suggests Tim Illingworth provides Nitpicking report and Kevin Standlee provides Flyspecking report.
[Secretary: See attached for report]
Kevin Standlee (on behalf of Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee): MOVE that Committee be continued for a further year. This was seconded and passed.
Kevin Standlee (on behalf of Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee): MOVE "Rules should follow practice" motion.
Chairman: Before accepting this motion, I ask the advice of the meeting. Does the meeting agree this motion is appropriate?
Robert Sacks: Will result in change in practice.
Kent Bloom: No, it won't.
Robert Sacks: Constitutional amendments are privileged, this is a good description of existing practice.
Ben Yalow: Agree with two thirds of this motion, but not sure it is ratified by past practice as we don't OTC ratifications. Historically the Business Meeting has allowed OTC only to original motions, not ratifications.
Chairman: If SRXX codifies existing practice, then no SR is necessary.
Robert Sacks: MOVE to strike "constitutional amendment"
Kevin Standlee: Don't wish to waste meetings time on this. Want this SR to make situation clear.
Robert Sacks: Adding this to Standing Rules is good. But ratification of constitutional amendment is privileged and should not form part of this motion.
Richard Russell: Second Robert Sacks' motion
Gary Feldbaum (A): Like to see resolution except with OTC, but would prefer to foreshadow an amendment that OTC doesn't apply to ratifying constitutional amendments.
Robert Sacks: Withdraw motion
Gary Feldbaum: MOVE to add: "It shall not be in order to object to consideration with respect to ratification of a constitutional amendment, passed by a previous Business Meeting."
Kevin Standlee: Change text to "An object to consideration shall not be in order against ratification of a constitutional amendment"
Gary Feldbaum: Agreed, but might need to add to constitution
Kevin Standlee: Discuss outside meeting.
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Amendment passed
Ben Yalow: MOVE to amend by substitution: Remove section making this a Standing Rule and direct the Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee to add this to Resolutions of Continuing Effect.
Kent Bloom: Seconded
Richard Russell (A): Rules can be read
Kent Bloom (F): This rule would be confusing and time-consuming.
Robert Sacks (A): Existing situation appears to confuse Kevin Standlee, our customs appear to contradict Roberts and therefore adding this to the Standing Rules would be appropriate.
Herman: If no further speakers, we will move to motion.
Robert Sacks: Inquiry: Are we changing sense too much, is this prohibited?
Kevin Standlee: Precedent from 1994
Amendment fails to pass
[Return to main motion, as amended.]
No further speakers, motion moved and passed.
Richard Russell: Point of Inquiry: What will Secretary do with new Standing Rule number?
Secretary: Unless meeting directs otherwise will follow Nitpicking and Flyspecking suggestion.
1.3 Worldcon Runners Guide Editorial Committee
Ben Yalow requested a postponement on Saul Jaffe's behalf until tomorrow.
Chairman agreed.
Chairman proposed that following earlier practice, in the absence of objections from the floor each amendment would be allowed six minutes of debate.
3.1 Tidying Site Selection
Six minutes
3.2 No-Zone Rotation
Six minutes.
Robert Sacks: Six minutes too short.
Ben Yalow: Extend to 20 minutes
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Motion carried
4.1 The Long and Short of it. (Main Motion)
4.1A The Not so Long and Short of it. (Amendment by Substitution)
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of Amendments]
Robert Sacks: Object to Consideration
OTC failed 19 to 6
Chairman: 12 minute debate
Kevin Standlee: MOVE extend debate to 30 minutes.
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Ben Yalow: MOVE 20 minutes, more than sufficient.
Patrick Molloy: Seconded
20 minute debate after voting
4.2 Return to two year bidding
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
Joni Dashoff: Object to Consideration
OTC fails
Robert Sacks: Point of order. This will disenfranchise one year.
Chairman: Matter for debate, this is in order.
Tim Illingworth: See constitution 2.1.2
12 Minute time set
4.3 Rest-of-the-World Hugo Eligibility.
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
Tim Illingworth: Object to consideration.
Robert Sacks: Point of Information, how does this apply.
Vince Docherty: All other categories are specified as one year, so net effect is only for fiction categories.
OTC failed 18-9
Robert Sacks: MOVE to appoint a committee to report a motion with a single alternative, not the existing three.
James Briggs: Seconded
Ben Yalow (A): Oppose move to committee. Preliminary Business Meeting has right to decide
Gary Feldbaum (F): Motion as stated is not in order, would rather see it put to committee.
Kevin Standlee (A): Agree with Ben, we should presume the first option is main motion and the other two are amendments by substitution.
Richard Russell (F): Drafting is ugly.
Docherty: This amendment is intended to encourage discussion
Chairman: The debate appears to be about making decision here or in committee.
Motion to move to committee was carried 19:11
Chairman: Committee appointed is Vince Docherty, David Ratti, Zanne Labonville, Andrew Adams, Tim Illingworth.
Joni Dashoff: Point of Inquiry: Could motion be stated so that if it fails, it goes to committee?
Chairman: No, but it could be foreshadowed.
Ben Yalow: Point of Inquiry: Would it be in order for committee to report with a recommendation that this be moved to committee.
Chairman: That would be in order
Perianne Lurie: Point of Inquiry: Debate time?
Chairman: Not until committee reports
Chairman: Any other new business?
Ben Yalow: MOVE to suspend rules to use 30 minutes of debate time to consider choice of 4.1 and 4.1A
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Motion Passes
4.1 The Long and Short of it. (Main Motion)
4.1A The Not so Long and Short of it. (Amendment by Substitution)
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of Amendments]
Chairman: Kevin Standlee will talk in favour of 4.1, Robert Sacks will then talk in favour of 4.1A. We will then form a discussion in committee, which will not count against the overall debate time.
Kevin Standlee (4.1): If we decide to split, splitting by length with 20% variance is the simplest procedure.
Robert Sacks (4.1A): Content is more important than time.
‘Zanne Labonville (4.1): 4.1A is vague, and would be tough to administer. What about a series of movies, or long episodes. 4.1 has clear definitions.
Bridget Boyle (4.1A): Quality of TV and Cinema is different
Ben Schilling (4.1): Other fiction categories are by length, this is consistent.
Perianne Lurie (4.1A): Yes, length is easy, but it is a meaningless descriptor
Andrew Adams (4.1): A better motion would be to amend 4.1 to follow intent
Richard Russell (4.1A): Multipart episodes, difficult to exclude ads, 4.1A is more likely to allow sensible nominations
Ben Yalow (4.1): Episodic versus non-episodic is not that clear -- e.g. Star Wars
Robert Sacks (4.1A): 3.3.X version 2, Star Wars wouldn't count
James Daugherty (4.1): Fans will debate anyway. Animations will fit better in 4.1
Gary Feldbaum (4.1A): This will cause endless debate and grief -- we should not risk creating tension and problems
Gordon Carleton (4.1): In general length determines budget, 4.1 better preserves other forms
Chairman: Will only take contributions from people who haven't spoken yet.
Gary Feldbaum: Point of Order: Not proper to rule that people may not speak twice.
Bridget Boyle: Point of Information: Don't think there's that much grey area
Andrew Adams: UK TV Is much more variable than US TV
[Secretary: Note that the Chairman's ruling and Gary Feldbaum's Point of Order were both superceded by Kevin Standlee's Motion to Close debate. This ruling was not resolved.]
Kevin Standlee: Procedural Motion, MOVE to close debate
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Chairman: Does anyone wish to speak to main motion?
Gary Feldbaum: One person wishes to speak
Kevin Standlee: Withdraw motion
Beth Moresund: Clear to me if something is episodic or not.
Vince Docherty: Prefer quality based to time. Point of Information: Hugo winners have included 23 films, 6 TV episodes and the Moon Landing
Kevin Standlee: MOVE to close debate
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Chairman: Show of hands of those who wish to speak to main motion.
Move to close debate passes.
Chairman: Now determine choice of main motion. 18 in favour of 4.1, 12 in favour of 4.1A. 4.1 will be reported as main motion.
Ben Yalow & Robert Sacks: Not now in order to introduce 4.1A as it has been disposed of.
Richard Russell: Point of privilege: Intend to introduce motion based on little budget and big budget.
5.1 Report of the 2002 Site Selection & Presentation by Winner
5.2 Question Time for Seated Worldcons
5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2003 Worldcon
The meeting adjourned at 11:00.
Chairman called meeting to order at 9:02 AM. Attendance as recorded on the sign-up sheets for this meeting was 100.
1.1 Mark Protection Committee
[Secretary: See attached for report]
Report was presented by Gary Feldbaum.
Beth Moresund: Point of Information: What is a Canadian agent? Answer from MPC: No voting right, represents MPC in Canada
In the ballot for the three vacant seats on the committee, Tim Illingworth was chief teller, assisted by Peggy Rae Pavlat (or maybe Sapienza) and Tom Whitmore. Balloting opened at 9:05 and closed at 9:20, when all present who wished to hand in their ballot had done so.
Stephen Boucher, Gary Feldbaum and Sue Francis were declared elected after the count.
1.2 The Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee
This Item was dealt with at the Preliminary Business Meeting
1.3 Worldcon Runners Guide Editorial Committee
[Secretary: See attached for report]
Report was presented by Saul Jaffe. The main item not mentioned in the report itself is that two subcommittees have been set up. One is led by Ben Yalow and concentrates on new articles and different points of view, email crg-submission@sflovers.rutgers.edu, the other is led by Sharon Sbarsky and concentrates on converting existing documents to HTML, email crg-editing@sflovers.rutgers.edu
Ken Smookler: Copyright problems?
Saul Jaffe: Copyright resides in WSFS
Chairman: Perhaps MPC could investigate
Gary Feldbaum: MPC will take note
Andrew Adams: Suggest to submitters that they should transfer copyright to WSFS
Robert Sacks: MOVE to renew committee.
David Ratti: Seconded
Motion Passed
3.1 Tidying Site Selection
Kevin Standlee (F): No significant effects, closes some holes
No speakers against, in favour, or to the motion.
Motion passes
3.2 No-Zone Rotation
Ben Yalow (F): Zone system was brought in to ensure rotation of the Worldcon around the US without capture, but meant 2/3 of North America was ineligible. Worked OK when Worldcons were smaller, but got harder as Worldcons got bigger, and there were fewer eligible cities.
There is also a lot more competition for our space, and this leads to a lot of limitations. This year, without moving to San Jose, we would have had no Worldcon bid.
This change allows more eligibility, more times. It's a change whose time has come.
Joni Brill Dashoff (A): Want to speak against second section, changing 60 to 500 miles (or 800 km). This would eliminate Toronto.
[Secretary: Note that the Toronto bid for 2003 is grandfathered in this motion, and is not affected.]
Robin Johnson: Didn't see maps last year.
Chairman: We have mileage charts
Chairman: Joni Dashoff, do you want to amend distance?
Tom Whitmore: Point of Information: Is it in order to amend a proposal up for ratification?
Chairman: Lesser amendment is in order, and I rule that any distance between 60 and 500 is a lesser change.
Perianne Lurie: Appeal ruling
Tom Veal: Seconded
Perianne Lurie: I believe that less than 500 is a greater amendment
Chairman: Increasing the size of the exclusion zone has a greater effect on this section of the motion.
Tom Veal: Believe this analysis is incorrect, we should consider the impact of any amendment on the total motion.
Rick Kovalcik: Point of Order: Is there a time limit to this debate.
Chairman: Yes there is
Robert Sacks: Any change to radius would be a greater change.
Secretary: [Read from last year's minutes, at the request of the meeting, to investigate if last year's meeting had made any ruling on what constituted a greater or lesser change.]
"Seth Breidbart: Request ruling from the Chairman as to what constitutes a lesser change.
"Chairman [Tim Illingworth]: That's Jack Herman's business, I won't comment on that."
Kevin Standlee: Have sympathy with Chairman, 60-500 seems pragmatic.
Richard Russell: Point of Information: What is effect?
Chairman: Vote to dissent means that no change is allowed.
Trey Haddad: Clauses are not severable.
Chairman: Motion is put in the form: That the Chairman's ruling be sustained. If in favour of the motion, lengths can be changed; if against the motion, lengths cannot be changed.
Motion failed 29-45. Any amendments to distance are a greater change.
Judy Bemis: Point of Inquiry: Difference between 500 miles and 800 kilometres?
Secretary: From last year's minutes:
"Chairman [Tim Illingworth]: 500 miles is almost exactly 800 kms.
"Motion adopted by unanimous consent.
"[Secretary: I understand that the motion as adopted was to amend ""five hundred (500)" miles" to "five hundred (500) miles or eight hundred (800) kilometres" The difference between the two is roughly three miles or 5 kilometres., with 500 miles equal to 804.7km.]"
Robert Sacks(A): We could have had a Boston in Orlando bid against the late San Jose bid this year, this is not an improvement. Local votes are not always in favour of a local bid. Not convinced existing system is broken.
Kevin Standlee: Question of Procedure: Should members wishing to speak rise or raise their hands?
Chairman: Simply catch the Chairman's attention.
Mary Morman: It is not broke, it is broken.
[Secretary: Kevin Standlee then performed a can-can while waving his arms in the air and yodelling, "Mr. Chairman, Oh, Mr. Chairman". This certainly caught the Chairman's attention.]
Kevin Standlee (F): Site selection is not broken but it's rolling home with half-flat tires. We came very close to having no bids on the ballot this year. If there are no bids, the Business Meeting gets to decide. We are too large, there are too few sites, we must increase the pool of sites. No real danger of rotating Worldcons.
Rick Kovalcik (A): Think Kevin is exaggerating, going to a Business Meeting to decide wouldn't be that bad, compared to that large gorilla.
[Secretary: For the benefit of those not present, the suggestion that the Business Meeting might ever have to decide Site Selection was not welcomed by those present at this Business Meeting. The general response to this suggestion was one of horror.]
Becky Thomson (F): At the moment we can't choose our own year, we have to go with the rotation, why can't we choose the best year for our city. If capturing Worldcons was a problem, we could then amend constitution again.
Tom Veal (A): No system will be perfect. The problem doesn't really exist, there is a proliferation of convention facilities and hotels. Smaller cities such as Louisville and Charlotte have plenty of room. The problem is not with facilities, it's with committees and how hard we've made it to run a Worldcon. This amendment will make life harder for second tier and non-N.A. cities.
Andrew Adams (F): I'm involved in bidding a non-N.A. Worldcon, and I object to the implication the UK requires special treatment. However, we do think we've picked on the Western zone too much and our experience is that people will avoid bidding against non-N.A. Worldcon bids if they can.
Alex Latzko (A): Keeping bid and con committee together. Most of committee doesn't change year on year.
Kent Bloom (F): Agree with Tom Veal that problem is committees not sites. But at heart this is still a question of assembling committee and site and keeping bid together for a reasonable period. No fan community, no Worldcon bid.
Gary Feldbaum (A): Foreshadowing a motion for next year, requiring 12 month out filing deadlines. Current system tends to draw out cities and I don't want to see campaigns against bids.
Paul Mantz (F): Would vote in favour if we can amend to 300 miles next year.
Perianne Lurie (A): Removes only advantage non-N.A. bids have.
Vince Docherty (F): This is an outrageous assertion that non-N.A. bids are weak. In almost every case non-N.A. bids have beaten N.A. bids.
Ken Smookler(A): Bids are club based not committee based. Smaller cities are encouraged by a particular year. 4 or 5 cities could dominate the whole process and discourage the smaller cities.
Tom Whitmore (F): I believe progress would be orderly. Smaller cities do get help from experienced people and groups. This makes it easier for people to line up in an orderly fashion.
Time Expired.
Kevin Standlee: Question of Privilege: Serpentine vote if close.
Motion carries 56 - 42
Robert Sacks: MOVE to change 500 to 300 miles
Chairman: That would require suspension of the rules.
Robert Sacks: MOVE to suspend rules.
Kevin Standlee: Seconded
Motion Fails
Joni Brill Dashoff: Point of Inquiry: When would it be appropriate to introduce such motions?
Chairman: At end of other new business, during Site Selection Meeting.
4.1 The Long and Short of it.
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of Amendments]
Chairman: Propose to deal with 4.2 now, and return to Hugo items tomorrow after Site Selection business
4.2 Return to two year bidding
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
Chairman: Robert Sacks wishes to foreshadow that he will introduce two new provisos to this motion.
Vince Docherty (F): Three year running was introduced to make site availability easier and hasn't helped. This three year period does make holding committee together harder.
Todd Dashoff (A): Believe that extra year is necessary for inexperienced committees.
Peggy Rae Pavlat (F): For Bucconeer, that year consumed more than it gained, it was too exhausting.
Morris Keesan (A): Not in favour of this immediately after such a major change.
Kevin Standlee (F): The extra year creates trouble and runs up costs. Also the three year running appears to match the three year bidding. Bidding is expensive and difficult. Facilities empty two years out will be more desperate.
Bridget Boyle (A): Extra time allows new people to understand what's going on.
Ben Yalow (F): Shortening the time from coming out of the bid to when you can do something useful is good
Saul Jaffe (A): Two year running could impact real life job performances
Dave Ratti (A): Who gets disenfranchised?
Robert Sacks (A): Don't want extra year of bidding, don't want to risk losing site.
Richard Russell (A): Three year lead time
Robert Sacks: Point of Order: My foreshadowed provisos would affect motion.
Chairman: Will allow quick debate on these provisos. Second proviso is that the amendment takes effect after the selection of the 2004 Worldcon in 2001.
Robert Sacks (F): Against this without this proviso - want to keep my site
Rick Kovalcik (A): Slippery slope
Gary Feldbaum: Point of Order: Could not take effect until 2004 anyway
Ben Yalow: Gary Feldbaum is incorrect, see constitution
Proviso was voted down
Chairman: First proviso is that members of the Worldcon that does not conduct site selection shall receive a transferable supporting membership, limited to site selection, in the following Worldcon.
Robert Sacks (F): If we lose a year this is what we might do
Beth Moresund: Point of Information: Non-transferable, no.
Ben Yalow (A): Everyone gets two votes?
Proviso was voted down
Original motion failed 29-33
4.3 Rest-of-the-World Hugo Eligibility.
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
Business delayed until after Site Selection business
5.1 Report of the 2002 Site Selection & Presentation by Winner
5.2 Question Time for Seated Worldcons
5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2003 Worldcon
The meeting adjourned at 11:00.
Chairman called meeting to order at 9:02 AM. Attendance as recorded on the sign-up sheets for this meeting was 74.
5.1 Report of the 2002 Site Selection & Presentation by Winner
[Secretary: See attached for full results of Site Selection, ConJosé PR0, Roswell in 2002 congratulations and text of address by Kevin Standlee, San Jose in 2002 bid chair.]
Mark Linnemann presented the results of the Site Selection. San Jose in 2002 were declared winners of site selection.
Tom Whitmore, their Chair, announced that the name of the convention would be ConJosé, that their Guests of Honour are Vernor Vinge, David Cherry, Bjo & John Trimble and Ferdinand Feghoot, with Tad Williams as Toastmaster, and distributed PR0. He also thanked their bid chair Kevin Standlee and presented him with a Railwayman’s Watch, complete with special upside-down Australian engraving. Cheryl Morgan was announced as ConJosé's MPC representative.
[Secretary: I wish to extend my thanks to ConJosé, on behalf of all those who in the decades ahead have to find how to produce an é on their word processor… For those of you reading this in some older Web Browser that doesn't recognise é, it's an e with an acute accent.]
1.1 Mark Protection Committee
This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting
1.2 The Nitpicking & Flyspecking Committee
This Item was dealt with at the Preliminary Business Meeting
1.3 Worldcon Runners Guide Editorial Committee
This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting
3.1 Tidying Site Selection
This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting
3.2 No-Zone Rotation
This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting
4.1 The Long and Short of it.
4.1B The Medium is the Message
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of Amendments]
Kevin Standlee (F): Ambivalent, but think we've probably reached the time to discuss amending the BDP
Richard Russell: MOVE to amend by Substitution (4.1B for 4.1)
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Richard Russell: Trying to find a reasonable division, still uncomfortable with any division, but think real split is that between TV and film.
Kevin Standlee: MOVE to strike "all or" from clause 5
Rick Kovalcik: Point of Inquiry: Was intention to prevent nomination of commercials for the Hugo
Richard Russell: Largely copied from 4.1, no particular preference
Linda Deneroff: Point of Inquiry: Could a commercial be nominated?
Chairman: Yes, if we struck "all or"
Words were struck by agreement
Winton Matthews: Point of Inquiry: Can you nominate one episode or entire series?
Chairman: Motion does not affect clause re single episode.
Alex Latzko (A): Films can be premiered in US on TV and in Europe on film, and vice versa.
Perianne Lurie (F): This is more meaningful, even if still not perfect
Ben Yalow (A): Think both are somewhat premature. It gets harder to decide if something is TV or movie - HBO, direct to video.
Robert Sacks (F): Hollywood has a rule that if something isn't shown in a theatre, then it's not a film
Rick Kovalcik (A): Think both of these are bad ideas.
Parris McBride; MOVE to extend debate time by five minutes
George R R Martin: Seconded
Motion to extend fails
Motion to substitute fails 27-24
[Secretary: Back to 4.1 now.]
Richard Russell (F): Prefer 100 minute split to nothing. Two BDP Hugos are a good idea.
George R R Martin (A): From my experience in Hollywood, I don't think there's enough good work. Shouldn't do this until we have more worthy stuff.
Joni Dashoff (F): There is a lot of good obscure stuff, which has to compete against the better known.
Karl Euvergang (A): Increasing number of categories may reduce level of excellence required to be nominated.
Kevin Standlee (F): Just barely in favour. Poor nominations may reflect poor taste of the electorate, rather than lack of potential nominees.
Andrew Adams (A): Delay in TV shows for rest of the world, may concentrate voting in US.
Bridget Boyle: Point of Information: What does first time mean?
Chairman: First showing – Hitchhikers was refused the ballot in 1980, as it had gone to air the previous year in the UK
Robin Johnson: Point of Inquiry: Feel Hugos are unappreciated by film producers, how much interest is there?
George R R Martin: Very appreciated by fans or others involved in our community, no real interest otherwise.
Motion fails
4.2 Return to two year bidding
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting
4.3 Rest-of-the-World Hugo Eligibility.
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
Chairman: Preliminary Business Meeting did not set a time for this. I intend to set a 12 minute debate time, unless there is objection.
Vince Docherty (F): Quality and fairness issues. Novels and magazines have a different publication schedule in the UK than in the US. Publication in the US can also prevent nomination.
Robert Sacks: MOVE to amend to read "throughout Article 3" so as to affect all Hugos.
Docherty: Maker of motion will not object to this
William Peet: Point of Inquiry: Can we hear this?
Andrew Adams: Point of Information: Careful with Section 3.2.2
Kevin Standlee: What about 3.3.5-3.3.12
Trey Haddad: Point of Information: Doesn't affect Campbell
Ben Yalow (A): Unhappy with underlying thing, unhappy about application to fan Hugos.
Andrew Adams: Fanzines do have slow and secondary distributions
Kevin Standlee (A): Should motion be passed, do you intend to introduce motion to amend 3.8.x…
Ben Yalow: MOVE to commit to Committee to report to Business Meeting at Chicon 2000
Robert Sacks: Seconded
No debate, motion passed.
Chairman: Vince Docherty will chair, may co-opt as he requires.
4.4 Amending No-Zone Rotation.
[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]
Judy Bemis: Point of Inquiry: Would 4.4 need to be ratified next year?
Chairman: Any change of distance would require ratification next year. No-zone goes into Constitution at end of meeting.
Kevin Standlee: Point of Order: Section 6.4. Don't think this is correct.[Secretary: Later, post meeting, Kevin clarified his meaning as follows: "Point of Order: Per section 6.4, amendments do not go into effect until after the close of the Worldcon, but per our parliamentary authority, they are PART of the constitution the moment they are ratified. Thus, you should be able to amend a just-ratified constitutional amendment during the same year they are ratified, even if the amendment hasn't yet gone into effect."]
Gary Feldbaum: Change is in place, but is not enforced
Robert Sacks: Believe this is an abuse of process, if meeting is not allowed to amend.
Ben Yalow: Agree this motion is in order.
Chairman: We will consider this motion, and set a 12 minute time limit
Tim Illingworth: Object to Consideration
Perianne Lurie: Seconded
OTC failed on 2/3
Robert Sacks (F): Thank Mark Olson for his mileage charts. This breaks up mid-West and prevents local fan groups working together.
Kevin Standlee (A): Mr Sacks may be misreading the nature of fandom in California. LA is close to SF as far as local fans are concerned
Alex Latzko (F): East coast distances are considerably shorter - there are at least four distinct fandoms on the east coast
Perianne Lurie (A): Debated this at length last year - driving distance and forcing Worldcon to move.
Rick Kovalcik (F): I voted 500 miles to prevent this passing, we need to consider the ordinary fan
James Doherty (A): Without a 500 mile rule the Worldcon could remain in New England
Joni Dashoff (F): Eight hour drive is my maximum
Andrew Adams: Point of Information: Estimate of how many site selections would not have been possible under this rule
Meeting: Louisville & Winnipeg race at Chicon 3, SF&LA, Brighton and The Hague, Baltimore and Philadelphia
Robert Green (A): Difficult to get Worldcon off East and West coast
Judy Bemis (F): No exclusion zone would probably make no difference
Ben Yalow (A): Difficult to decide what local fandom is
(Debate extended by two minutes)
James Briggs: Point of Information: As a San Diego fan, SF is not the same California
Bridget Boyle (F): 300 miles would take away Boston / Baltimore
Motion Fails
Joni Dashoff: Point of Information: In order to move 400 miles?
Kevin Standlee: MOVE Special Rule. All further discussion of this subject is disallowed at this meeting.[Secretary: Later, post meeting, Kevin Standlee clarified as follows: "MOVE Special Rule to be in effect only for the duration of this year's Business Meeting: All further motions affecting the no-zone exclusion distance are undebatable. (2/3 vote required to adopt Special Rule of Order.)"]
Seconded and passed
Joni Dashoff: MOVE 400 miles or 640km.
Robert Sacks: Seconded
Nays have it. Motion fails.
Kent Bloom: MOVE to commend podium staff for their handling of the no-zone issue.
Seconded and applauded.
Dave Clark: MOVE that this body suggests to the three seated Worldcons that they consider introducing a Hugo to split the BDP
Robert Sacks: Object to Consideration
Gary Feldbaum: Point of Order: There's an overlap in constitution
Mark Linnemann: Point of Information: Special Hugos
Richard Russell: Point of Inquiry: Does reallocating apply to 3.2.6
Chairman: No
Ben Yalow: Point of Information: This would be in order, because work could be in two categories - stupid but not illegal
Todd Dashoff: Point of Information: Is it in order to obligate future committees?
Chairman: No, it's just a non-binding recommendation
Robert Sacks: Object to Consideration
OTC passes
Tim Illingworth: MOVE meeting directs Secretary to move section 4.8 to 1.8 as 1.8.x
Chairman: Appears to be sense of meeting that zonal definition belongs with MPC now.
5.1 Report of the 2002 Site Selection & Presentation by Winner
Disposed of earlier during the Site Selection Meeting
5.2 Question Time for Seated Worldcons
Representatives of both Worldcons are present at this Worldcon and will entertain questions
5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2003 Worldcon
No presentations were made
Robert Sacks: MOVE to adjourn Sine Die
Kevin Standlee: Question of Privilege: Leave to introduce motion commending podium staff.
Chairman: Thank Secretary, Timekeeper, Tellers, and the meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45.
Constitutional Amendments Ratified (Second Year Approval)
Business Passed On Items 3.1, and 3.2 were ratified and now form part of the WSFS Constitution.
The Meeting directed the Secretary to move section 4.8 to 1.8.x
Constitutional Amendments Failed of Ratification
No Business Passed On failed of ratification.
Constitutional Amendments Passed (First Year Approval)
No Proposed Constitutional Amendments passed.
Constitutional Amendments Defeated
Proposed Constitutional Amendments 4.1A and 4.1B were rejected in favour of 4.1. 4.1 was defeated
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 4.2 was defeated.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 4.3 was referred to Committee, chaired by Vince Docherty, to report to Chicon 2000 business meeting.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 4.4 was defeated.
Standing Rules Changes
At the request of the Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee, the meeting approved the following new Special Rule. It is to be inserted before existing Rule 26.
SR xx: Constitutional and Standing Rule Amendments. Motions to Amend the Constitution, to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, and to Amend the Standing Rules shall be considered ordinary main motions, except as otherwise provided in the Standing Rules or Constitution. An Object to Consideration shall not be in order against Ratification of a Constitutional Amendment.
Other Items On Agenda
The following special committees were continued:
Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee (1.2)
Worldcon Runners' Guide Editorial Committee (1.3)
The following special committee was established:
Rest of the World Hugo Eligibility Committee, chaired by Vince Docherty. To consider a proposed Constitutional Amendment on this subject and report back to the Chicon 2000 Business Meeting.