WSFS BUSINESS MEETING

Main Business Meeting, Saturday, August 31, 2002

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:16. Attendance as recorded on the sign up sheets was 121.

1. Committee Reports
   
   1. Mark Protection Committee (Including Nominations for MPC)
      Ballots were distributed and voted on. Lynn Anderson (Central), Stephen Boucher (RotW) and Sue Francis (Central) were elected. Without objection, the ballots were ordered destroyed.
      Voting was as follows:
      Candidate Zone First Count Second Count Third Count Fourth Count Note
      Lynn Anderson Central 8 - 12 45 Elected on Fourth Count
      Stephen Boucher RotW 40 46 - - Elected on Second Count
      Gary Feldbaum Eastern 14 14 23 44
      Sue Francis Central 25 27 50 - Elected on Third Count
      Invalid 4 - 4 1
      Total Valid 87 87 87
      The chair commended the tellers for their work.
      
   2. Nitpicking & Flyspecking - completed at Preliminary Business Meeting
   3. Worldcon Runers' Guide Editorial Committee - completed at Preliminary Business Meeting
   4. Hugo Eligibility Rest of the World (HEROW) Committee
      Chair will announce committee tomorrow.
2. Worldcon Reports (presented in written form and available at the meeting)
3. Business Passed On from The Millennium Philcon
   
   1. Short Title: Perpetual Motions
      Linda Deneroff: Specific works or blanket holdover?
      Chair: General intent is blanket, but we cannot bind hands of future.
      Bob Daverin: Calendar year or convention year?
      Chair ruling: Calendar year.
      Ben Yalow: Clarifies fact that what we do is unquestionably constitutional.
      John Lorentz: Why change constitution if we can do it anyway?
      Perianne Lurie: Additional benefit – works are eligible in year of US publication, rather than just year following publication overseas.
      Andrew Adams: Avoids unnecessary debate during Business Meeting.
      Michael Nelson: Does this apply to BDP?
      Chair: Yes.
      Struan Judd: Allows English publications twice.
      David Ratti: Is a lesser amendment in order?
      Chair: You could foreshadow it.
      David Ratti: In 3.2.Y reword as “it received sufficient nominations to appear appeared on final ballot”
      Chair: Later [Secretary: Amendment was never actually submitted.]
      Linda Deneroff: Is a foreign language work also eligible when first published in English?
      Chair: Yes.
      Glenn Glazer: Japanese language, English Subtitles?
      [Secretary: While this query was never formally answered the Secretary is of the opinion that the Business Meeting felt that English subtitles didn't make a work less foreign.]
      Motion passed many to few on a vote by show of hands, and becomes part of the Constitution, taking effect at the end of ConJosé.<
   >
   2. Short Title: The Long and Short of It
      Neil Rest: Point of Order: Chair should expedite not star in meeting.
      Chair: Chair is chastised and apologises.
      [Chair: This was in reaction to Chair's theatrics in introducing the motion.]
      Seth Breidbart: Is a motion to limit length of individual speeches in order?
      Chair: Yes.
      John Lorentz (F): Committee feels that:
      
      • Dividing is good, there are sufficient items of worth.
      • Should stick to individual episodes.
      • Chose 100 minutes, changed to 80 minutes.
      • There were several examples this year of TV and film. 94% of voters expressed a preference in BDP, 16 different series were nominated.
      Struan Judd: Move to limit speeches to two minutes.
      Richard Russell: Move to amend limits to three minutes.
      John Barclay: 90 seconds.
      Ben Yalow: Move the previous question, using blanks.
      Passed – 90 seconds filled the blank.
      [Secretary: Meeting then attempted to proceed as if the motion to limit individual speeches had itself been passed, rather than just a decision taken on the length of the time limit.]
      Ben Yalow: Point of order: Didn't pass the motion.
      Chair: Point well taken.
      Motion to limit debate passed – debate time limited to 90 seconds per speech.
      Ben Yalow (A): Counter argument: Are there really enough good items for 2 x BDPs?
      Craig Miller (F): Yes.
      Andrew Adams (A): Clarify, Ben.
      Shaun Lyon: What about pilot episodes?
      Chair: Judgement is based on running time and administrators have authority to decide.
      Michael Nelson (A): Have to print the ballots in a smaller font size.
      Alex von Thorn (F): 500 episodes, 60 movies.
      Erik Olson (A): Sturgeon's law.
      Lew Walkoff (F): Only one TV episode on ballot, there were many others that were good.
      Chris Edwards (A): Voters answered that.
      Chris Barclay (F): Not just TV and movies, BDP includes many other forms.
      Rick Kovalcik: Call the question.
      After taking a show of hands of those people who still wanted to speak, the motion to close debate passed.
      Motion passed 96 to 26 and becomes part of the constitution, taking effect at the end of ConJosé.
      Andrew Adams: Point of Inquiry: Could motion be reconsidered if people left the meeting?
      Chair: Yes, those who voted in favour of ratification could do that.
      Ben Miller: Move to reconsider the previous ballot.
      [Chair: What Mr Miller is doing here is known as ‘spiking' the motion to Reconsider by moving it quickly and disposing of it. Once the motion to Reconsider has been ‘spiked', the original matter – in this case The Long and Short of It motion – cannot be legally touched again.]
      John Lorentz: Call the question. [On the reconsideration.]
      Chair: A motion to Close Debate is out of order; nobody has yet spoken to the question.
      Seth Breidbart: Point of Order: Motion to Reconsider was dilatory, not intended to pass, by someone who does not favour it.
      Chair: Not dilatory: that's a matter of opinion
      Carol Alves (F): There was an error in counting the affirmative votes on the vote just taken.
      Mark Olson (A): The Business Meeting has deliberately refrained from using this type of motion, this kind of parliamentary crap.
      Todd Dashoff: Call the question
      This passed: debate on the motion to Reconsider was closed.
      Seth Breidbart: Point of Inquiry: If reconsideration motion passes, what would be the debate time limits on the main motion? [The Long and the Short of It]
      Chair: Excellent question. Setting a precedent – chair's opinion is that we refresh the question and revisit the time limits.
      [Chair: Upon further review, the Chair finds that this ruling is wrong. Per the WSFS Parliamentary Authority, when a motion is Reconsidered on the same day as it originally was considered, the debate picks up where it left off, and exhausted debate remains exhausted. It is only if the motion is reconsidered on the subsequent day that its debate time is refreshed, but that is because any motion that comes up for a second day of debate gets its debate time refreshed.]
      Motion to reconsider failed unanimously.
      Struan Judd: Move to commend the Business Meeting for behaving itself.
      Motion passed without objection.
      Richard Russell: Is it in order to propose amendments to motions before the end of the meeting?
      Chair: Chair's ruling is that amendments to the Constitution become part of the Constitution at the moment of ratification and that they are therefore subject to amendment as any other part of the Constitution.
      Richard Russell: Foreshadow – elimination of 20 minutes as irrelevant, and reduce 90 minutes to 80 minutes at tomorrow's meeting.
      Chair: Remember, new amendments need 200 copies.
      Skip Morris: Was there a report on the effect of the BDP split in last year's Hugos?
      Cheryl Morgan: No such request was made.
      Seth Breidbart: Would this year's Business Meeting be eligible for long form BDP, or the amendment debate by itself for short form BDP.
      At this point, Torcon 3 Hugo Administrator Michael Nelson left the room.
      Kent Bloom: Up to nominators.
4. New Business (none presented)
5. Site Selection Business
   Business Meeting commends ConJosé and Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee for legible badges.
   Chair (In capacity of ConJosé Co-Chair): That was largely thanks to Elaine Brennan.
   Alex von Thorn: Will there be presentation time for future NASFiCs?
   Chair: If required and if time allows.
   Patrick Lasswell: Will there be visual representation of voting?
   Chair: Maybe, but not very likely.
6. Adjournment
   Meeting adjourned at 11:38
   
   

"ConJosé" is a service mark of San Francisco Science Fiction Conventions, Inc. (SFSFC), a California non-profit corporation recognized as tax-exempt under IRC 501(c)(3). The ConJosé logo was created by and is © 2001 David Cherry, and is a service mark of SFSFC. This web site is © 2002 SFSFC except where otherwise noted. "Worldcon," "World Science Fiction Convention," "WSFS," "World Science Fiction Society," "NASFiC," and "Hugo Award" are registered service marks of the World Science Fiction Society, an unincorporated literary society.    ConJosé Privacy Policy