Westercon 64 Business Meeting
July 4, 2011

Call to Order

The meeting of the 64th Westercon was called to order at 11:38 a.m. on July 4, 2011. Kevin Standlee, chairman, presiding, and Linda Deneroff, secretary, recording. Eric Larson and LaMont Jones were Sergeants-at-Arms. Lisa Hayes was the official videographer of the meeting, and Sharon Sbarsky was the site selection administrator. Knowing that this would be a contentious meeting the Chairman began by asking that members restrain themselves from showing how clever and witty they could be and to show respect for their fellow members. The complete text of the Chairman’s statement is included as an appendix to these minutes.

Committee Reports

There were no committee reports submitted to the Business Meeting.

Bylaw Amendments and New Business

There were no amendments passed on by the Westercon 63 Business Meeting and no new business submitted to the Business meeting.

Site Selection

The site selection of the 66th Westercon fell to the business meeting as a result of an ineligible bid receiving the most votes. Preliminary to this discussion, it was determined that the discussion was to operate under the default debate time limits in Robert’s Rules since the Westercon Bylaws do not address the issue. With that resolved, Site Selection Administrator Sharon Sbarsky reported the results and thanked her election staff. A total of 92 ballots were paid for (83 cast with preferences), and the results are tabulated below. (Although 92 ballots were paid for, only 91 were actually cast; the one uncast ballot was effectively an additional No Preference vote but does not appear in the totals below.)

*First Ballot*
*Place*	*Mail In*	*Friday*	*Saturday*	*Total*
Portland	5	6	28	39
Granzella	0	4	37	41
Both	0	0	1	1
Unolakleet, AK	1	0	0	1
None of the above	0	0	1	1
Total with preference	6	10	67	83
Needed to elect (majority of ballots with preference)				42
No preference	0	2	6	8
Total ballots	6	12	73	91
No bid having received a majority, the ballots for None of the above and minor candidates were redistributed according to their second preferences.
*Second Ballot*
*Place*	*Redistributed Ballots*			*Total*
Portland	+2			41
Granzella	+1			42
Total with preference				83
Needed to elect (majority of ballots with preference)				42

When results were certified, the Chairman congratulated Ms. Sbarsky for her efforts but asked her not to destroy the ballots until so instructed. He then read Sections 3.16 and 3.1 of the Westercon Constitution, which are hereby incorporated into these minutes by reference, as a jumping off point for the ensuing discussion.

Rick Kovalcik then made a motion to hear from all those desirous of making a presentation before any vote were taken. It was seconded and passed by two-thirds vote.

Procedural material concluded, the Chair recognized Gene Armstrong from the Portland in 2013 bid. Mr. Armstrong reported that the bidders: want to run a convention and have the facilities to do so. He has a staff willing and able to run a convention—the people who work hardest at Orycon. “We came down here to bid a Westercon; we are passionate about this and want to run a Westercon. Give us a shot. We’re ready to go. Yes, we made mistakes; has no one not made mistakes? We will fix the mistakes.” Mr. Armstrong also reported that he had a contract with hotel ready to be signed at a moment’s notice and that he had thirty years’ worth of attending conventions. “We know how to run a convention; we know what to do.” His bid has a passion to keep Westercon going. Members of his bid committee ran Orycon and made it solvent. Among other things, Mr. Armstrong co-chaired Orycon 27 and founded a RainFurrest in Seattle, which is the largest furry con in the world. “I don’t do anything small and I don’t let anything slow me down.”

Kevin Roche and Andy Trembley spoke about their bid, Granzella, aka Olive Country. Mr. Roche: “Yes, the Olive Country bid started as a joke. But Westercon is not a joke.” He and Mr. Trembley saw problems with the election process, with its focus and with its promotion. They have a lot of con-running experience: they ran CostumeCon 26 in 2008, which was the second-largest CostumeCon and the largest one in eighteen years; they are currently working the masquerade at Renovation [the 2011 Worldcon], and they created the masquerade half time at Glasgow. They also have vast convention-running experience outside of fandom. At one World Fantasy they ran the hospitality suite. They have also run Registration IT at World Fantasy 2009, SMOFCon 2010 and Westercon 64. In his professional career, Mr. Roche worked on Image 2009 and 2010 – international IBM conferences. They understand infrastructure and have experience in running events well. Mr. Roche acknowledged that Williams [their hoax bid’s site] is not suitable for a Westercon, and they will look at other venues. There is an airport is in Sacramento and there are lots of sites there in which to hold a convention, including the Capitol. For the next six weeks, he and Mr. Trembley must concentrate on Renovation, but Dave Gallagher is excellent hotel contractor and will find a suitable hotel if the Olive Country bid wins. They have a huge network of fans across the western U.S. to help develop the convention.

Charles Galway from Salt Lake City, representing the 2014 Westercon bid, said that that bid was willing to change its year to 2013. They have over 30 years of experience with conventions such as Conduit (which has run for over 21 years) and CostumeCon 23, which was held in Ogden, Utah. Salt Lake City has an excellent airport location, close to the city. There are plenty of places to eat. Mr. Galway has worked with convention committees of varying sizes and has support from the Midwest, California and Northwest fandoms.

James Stanley Daugherty represented the fourth bid, for Hawaii. He offered that location as an alternative to those not wanting Portland or California. Mr. Daugherty has convention-running experience in Hawaii and Nevada. Can’t do it without your help.

The chairman then suggested a vote be taken in the order the bids were presented. Ari Goldstein objected to voting in that order. A motion was made, seconded and passed to vote in reverse order of the presentations, at which time Tovi Schneider asked for a 20-minute question and answer session. Before that could be considered, the the meeting recessed at 12:25 p.m. and reconvened at 12:35 p.m.

When the meeting resumed, Mr. Yalow made a motion to go into Committee of the Whole for 30 minutes for the purpose of discussing the bids. At 12:36 p.m. the meeting went into a Committee of the Whole, with Ben Yalow presiding.

The Committee of the Whole rose at 1:11 p.m. with no report. The chairman explained that in order to pass, a vote to select a Westercon bid required three-quarters of those actually voting (absentees and people present but not voting do not count), and that each vote was separate, to be debated independently in favor of or opposed to selecting the committee to host Westercon 66. Votes would be counted either by uncounted show of hands or in a serpentine formation, as necessary.

Mr. Kovalcik made a motion to reconsider the vote on the selection order, which was seconded and passed with 59 in the affirmative to reconsider the vote order and 46 in opposition to reconsideration.

On the question of “Shall Hawaii be first in the voting order?” a two-thirds vote being required, the vote failed, which meant Portland would be first in the voting order.

Glenn Glazer made a motion to use a secret ballot on votes to select specific sites, but the motion failed, and the meeting started voting on which committee to choose.

On the question of “Shall Portland be selected?” a motion was made to close debate, seconded and passed. With less than three-quarters of those voting in the affirmative on a vote by show of hands, the motion failed.

On the question of “Shall Granzella/Olive Country be selected?” a motion was made to close debate, seconded and passed. The chairman called for a serpentine vote and counted 83 people voting in the affirmative and 29 voting in the negative. Thus, the motion, requiring three-quarters of those voting to be in the affirmative, failed.

A motion was then made to declare a deadlock, which requires only a majority vote. Before that vote could be taken, there was a motion to recess for ten minutes. The motion to recess failed. Next, a motion was made to close debate on declaring a deadlock. That motion failed and discussion regarding whether to declare a deadlock resumed.

Tom Veal spoke in favor of deadlocking, because it would give Granzella time to find a hotel. Arlene Satin spoke against, preferring the business meeting to resolve the question. Mr. Kovalcik worried that LASFS doesn’t care and would kill Westercon and that it was dependent upon the business meeting to resolve the question. Bobbie DeFault spoke in favor of a deadlock because there are lots of hotels available. Terry Terman opposed deadlock and asked that the sergeant of arms to check the credentials of those present in the room. The motion to check credentials failed.

Todd Dashoff moved to call the question on whether to declare a deadlock, and the motion to call the question (close debate) passed. On the question of “Shall we declare a deadlock?” the vote failed.

Corey Cole moved to suspend the rules and hold a preferential vote. However, the chair ruled that this would violate Section 3.16 of the Westercon bylaws, and the Business Meeting cannot suspend its own bylaws.

The Orders of the Day were called for (a request to return to the business at hand), and discussion regarding the Utah bid would have commenced, but a motion was made to close debate on that bid and passed on with a two-thirds vote.

The question “Shall Salt Lake City be selected?” failed with less than a three-quarters vote.

Mr. Dashoff made a new motion to declare a deadlock, which was seconded. However, the vote to declare a deadlock failed.

The final bid, Hawaii, came up for discussion, but a motion to close debate on Hawaii was quickly made, seconded and passed.

The question “Shall Hawaii be selected?” failed with less than a three-quarters vote.

At this point, with all four bids failing to obtain the necessary three-quarters vote, Mr. Veal made a motion to reconsider the Granzella/Olive Country bid. A motion to reconsider may be made only once on any particular main motion, which the business meeting had just done. This motion was seconded, and with only a majority vote necessary to reconsider the Olive Country bid, the motion passed, and the question “Shall the Olive Country bid be selected?” was once again before the meeting as if the earlier, vote rejecting it had never happened.

A motion was made to close debate, but the motion failed, and debate began on the selection of the Olive Country bid. Mr. Yalow spoke first, in favor of the bid. He believed it was the overwhelming desire of the body that Olive Country be given a chance to produce a Westercon.

Alex von Thorn spoke against Olive Country, questioning whether 2013 is the correct year for them since Mr. Armstrong had worked hard to bring Westercon to Portland.

Sandra Childress spoke in favor of Olive Country. She felt, as someone who has worked on many Westercons and other conventions, that Portland had not produced much for their bid and that she had seen a lot in three weeks from Messrs. Roche and Trembley.

Mike Stern spoke against Olive Country, saying that joke bids should never be considered real bids. They suck votes away from real bids and are malicious. (During Mr. Stern’s speech, in response to a Question of Privilege raised by the chairs of the Olive Country bid, the Chair cautioned speakers to not personally insult other members and to grant everyone the same respect they would wish to have if they were speaking; however, the Chair ruled that Mr. Stern’s statement that “those people who voted for Olive Country should be ashamed of themselves,” did not violate the rules of decorum.)

Mr. Kovalcik spoke in favor of Olive Country, saying that this was a referendum on getting the most qualified committee to bid now and in future.

Mr. Goldstein spoke against Olive Country. He said Westercon 50 was his first Westercon. We need to attract people who will stay, and the only problem with Portland was their website. He would love to get to know Messrs. Roche and Trembley, but he did not believe that 2013 is the year for a Westercon from them, and he wondered what effect this vote will have on future fans coming to Westercon.

Leigh Ann Hildebrand spoke in favor of Olive Country. She is an elections inspector and believes it is important to enfranchise voters. She was not originally concerned about Westercon, but the more she delved into the issues, the more she became concerned about Portland’s bid. The Olive Country bid jolted her out of complacency and made her examine what she should expect from a Westercon and that this discussion has revitalized the importance of the convention.

Mr. Roche spoke against his own bid. “Take this vote seriously. Do not change your vote because Olive Country is popular. Think about your vote. This has been about voter education.”

Ctein sympathized with Mr. von Thorn and the Portland bid, “but the reality is that getting in early doesn’t anoint the concom.” He appreciated that Messrs. Roche and Tremley were concerned about creating divisiveness.

Mr. Glazer believed everyone cared about this vote, no matter what side they were on. “They really care, and we should remember that.”

Adrienne Foster said, “Yes, Olive County started off as a joke but, but when they saw the concern over Portland, they stepped up to the plate.” Their motivation in doing their hoax bid gave her more confidence in Westercon than the Portland bid. They gave her the confidence to do another writer’s workshop and believes it will revitalize Westercon.

Mark Linneman moved to close debate, which was seconded and passed.

On the reconsidered question of “Shall Granzella/Olive Country be selected?” the chairman again called for a serpentine vote. This time, the motion passed with 93 in favor of Olive Country and 27 against. With more than three-quarters of those voting in favor, Olive Country, a committee chaired by Kevin Roche and Andy Trembley, will host Westercon 66 in a place yet to be decided.

With all Site Selection business resolved, by unanimous consent the Site Selection Administrator was instructed to destroy the ballots and thanked for her work.

Adjournment

At 2:38 p.m., the Business Meeting of the 64th Westercon Business Meeting adjourned.

Kevin Standlee, Chairman
Linda Deneroff, Secretary

Appendix A: Chairman’s Statement to the Westercon 64 Business Meeting

[Read by the Chairman at the beginning of the meeting.]

This meeting is being conducted under the Westercon Bylaws and Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised. However, the Chair understands that not everyone knows the exact technical rules. You can ask a question about proper procedure by being recognized (I’ll talk about that in a minute) and asking your question, and the Chair will help you, and the Head Table Staff will do our best to put your proposals in the correct technical form.

This meeting will be conducted with a higher degree of formality that most Business Meetings, due to the potentially contentious and complicated matter before us. This means that in order to address the meeting, you must be recognized by the chair, and to do so, you must stand up (unless you are physically unable to do so, in which case you need to sit in a place where the Chair can see you easily.) Raising your hand is not sufficient. Also, you may not interrupt other speakers unless you are raising a point of order due to a breach of the rules. Attempting to correct another speaker’s error of fact is not a valid point of order in most cases. If you want to correct someone else, you must your own debate time for it.

When speaking, you must address the Chair, and you must not speak directly to any other member. All comments must be addressed through the Chair.

Because there are so many people present, if you wish to speak, you need to come to the microphone after being recognized.

The Chair is aware that many of you are highly witty and clever people. The Chair suggests that you attempt to restrain yourselves from showing just how witty and clever you are, and to show some respect for your fellow members.

No eligible bid gained the needed majority. The Granzella’s bid did not file the necessary paperwork to be an eligible write-in. This means that this Business Meeting may select a committee to hold Westercon 66 at any site in the Westercon eligibility region, which is North America west of 104 degrees west longitude (that’s the eastern boundary of New Mexico) or in Hawaii. (Yes, there are words in the Bylaws about Australia. They aren’t applicable here, and the members are asked to restrain themselves from obsessing over irrelevant provisions and discuss them elsewhere.) Hereafter, assume when we say “Western North America” or “Westercon Region,” we mean “including Hawaii.”

None of the usual rules about bid committee filings apply here. There are no paper filing requirements, hotel or site requirements, or corporate organizational requirements. What we are voting on here is to select a committee that promises to hold a Westercon somewhere in the eligible region and that is all. We can vote to award the bid to any bid that filed or any other bid, but it takes a three-fourths majority to select any site, whether they filed for the ballot or not.

Should the meeting decide that it is deadlocked, you can pass a motion saying so and punt the selection to the LASFS Board of Directors. A motion to declare the election deadlocked is in order when no motions are pending, and if it fails, it can be made again (or “renewed”) later after any additional discussion.

The way the Chair proposes to handle this selection is to entertain motions in the form of “That X be selected to run Westercon 66,” where X is any particular bid committee. We can then debate whether we should select that bid, and then take a vote; if that bid gets a three-fourths majority, it wins. If it does not, then we can either take up a Deadlock motion, or another bid proposal. If you are in favor of some bid other than the one currently being discussed, you can vote against the currently-discussed bid with the intention of proposing your favored bid later.

An important principle here: Nobody may be awarded a Westercon against his or her will. You are welcome to introduce motions in the form of “At Kuma Bear’s cave,” but unless Kuma Bear agrees to run the Westercon, the Chair will rule the motion out of order. You may propose a bid run by people not present here, but those people must somehow make it known to us immediately by some means that they are prepared to accept this nomination.

You must be present at this meeting to vote and you must be a member of this convention to vote. No proxies are permitted.

There are debate limits. On any particular question, nobody may speak a second time until everyone who wants to speak a first time has had an opportunity to do so. We can also adopt time limits, but that takes a two-thirds vote, as does a motion to shut off debate entirely on a given question.

Motions to amend the Westercon Bylaws are not in order at this time, but you can make them later in the meeting once all Site Selection Business is complete.