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:

Robert Sacks nominated Ken Smookler (Central)

Dave Ratti nominated Sue Francis (Central)

‘Zanne Labonville nominated Gary Feldbaum (Eastern)

Perry Middlemiss nominated Stephen Boucher (Rest of World)

All four nominees accepted nomination, provided written consent and confirmed their zones as above.

Kevin Standlee: Committee suggests Tim Illingworth provides Nitpicking report and Kevin Standlee provides Flyspecking report.

[Secretary: See attached for report]

Kevin Standlee: MOVE that Committee be continued for a further year. This was seconded and passed.

Kevin Standlee: 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.

Ben Yalow requested a postponement on Saul Jaffe’s behalf until tomorrow.

Chairman agreed.

2.1 Reports of Past Worldcons

2.1.1 ConAdian (1994)

2.1.2 L.A.con III (1996)

2.1.4 Bucconeer (1998)

2.1.5 (Conucopia (1999 NASFiC)

2.2 Reports of Seated Worldcons and NASFiCs

2.2.1 Aussiecon Three (1999)

2.2.2 Chicon 2000 (2000)

2.2.3 The Millennium Philcon (2001)

Interim Financial report was submitted.

Chairman proposed that following earlier practice, in the absence of objections from the floor each amendment would be allowed six minutes of debate.

Six minutes

3.2 No-Zone Rotation

Six minutes.

Robert Sacks: Six minutes too short.

Ben Yalow: Extend to 20 minutes

Robert Sacks: Seconded

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

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

[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 Clsoe 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.

[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.

This Item was dealt with at the Preliminary Business Meeting

[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

2.1 Reports of Past Worldcons

2.1.1 ConAdian (1994)

2.1.2 L.A.con III (1996)

2.1.3 LoneStarCon 2 (1997)

2.1.4 Bucconeer (1998)

2.1.5 (Conucopia (1999 NASFiC)

2.2 Reports of Seated Worldcons and NASFiCs

2.2.1 Aussiecon Three (1999)

2.2.2 Chicon 2000 (2000)

2.2.3 The Millennium Philcon (2001)

Interim Financial Report was submitted at Preliminary Business Meeting

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 2004 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 Kovalchik: 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.]

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:

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 Kovalchik (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.

[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

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 Kovalchik (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

[Secretary: See Attached for full text of amendment]

Business delayed until after Site Selection business

[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 presentedthe 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.

This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting

This Item was dealt with at the Preliminary Business Meeting

This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting

2.1 Reports of Past Worldcons

2.1.1 ConAdian (1994)

2.1.2 L.A.con III (1996)

2.1.3 LoneStarCon 2 (1997)

2.1.4 Bucconeer (1998)

2.1.5 (Conucopia (1999 NASFiC)

2.2 Reports of Seated Worldcons and NASFiCs

2.2.1 Aussiecon Three (1999)

2.2.2 Chicon 2000 (2000)

2.2.3 The Millennium Philcon (2001)

Interim Financial Report was submitted at Preliminary Business Meeting

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

[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 Kovalchik: 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 Kovalchik (A): Think both of these are bad ideas.

Parris McBride; MOVE to extend debate time by five minutes

George 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 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 Martin: Very appreciated by fans or others involved in our community, no real interest otherwise.

Motion fails

This Item was dealt with at the Main Business Meeting

[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.

[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.

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 Kovalchik (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.

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

Seonded 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.

2.1.2 L.A.con III (1996)

2.1.3 LoneStarCon 2 (1997)

2.1.4 Bucconeer (1998)

2.1.5 Conucopia (1999 NASFiC)

2.2.1 Aussiecon Three (1999)

2.2.2 Chicon 2000 (2000)

2.2.3 The Millennium Philcon (2001)

MOVED, to amend the WSFS Constitution as follows:

In Section 4.1: replace "Voting shall be by mail or ballot cast at the current Worldcon with run-off ballot as described in Section 3.11" with "Voting shall be by written ballot cast either by mail or at the current Worldcon with tallying as described in Section 3.11".

In Section 4. 1: replace "administer the mail balloting" with "administer the voting".

Replace Section 4.3 with the following new Section:

Section 4.3: Non-natural Persons. Corporations, associations, and other non-human or artificial entities may cast ballots, but only for "No Preference". "Guest of" memberships may only cast "No Preference" ballots. Memberships transferred to individual natural persons may cast preferential ballots, provided that the transfer is accepted by the administering convention.

In Section 4.5.1, replace "with two (2) witnesses from each bidding committee allowed to observe." with ". Each bidding committee should provide at least two (2) tellers."

Delete Subsection 4.5.3, and insert the following new Subsections:

4.5.3: "None of the Above" shall be treated as a bid for tallying, and shall be the equivalent of "No Award" with respect to Section 2.9.

4.5.5: If "None of the Above" wins, the duty of site selection shall devolve on the Business Meeting of the current Worldcon. If the Business Meeting is unable to decide by the end of the Worldcon, the Committee for the following Worldcon shall make the selection without undue delay.

4.5.6: Where a site and Committee are chosen by a Business Meeting or Worldcon Committee, they are not restricted by region or other qualifications, and the choice of an out-of-rotation site shall not affect the regional rotation for subsequent years.

Moved: To amend Article IV by:

1. Deleting all of section 4.7 except the last sentence.

2. Replacing "sixty (60) miles" with ""five hundred (500) miles or eight hundred (800) kilometres" in the last sentence of section 4.7

3. Replacing "the North American region eligible" with "North America" in the first sentence of Section 4.9

4. Deleting the first sentence of 4.9.2

Provided that any site which would have been eligible under the old rules will also be eligible in the first three races conducted under these eligibility rules.

Effect:

Section 4.7: Site Eligibility A site outside North America is eligible for selection in any year. A Site within North America is eligible for selection if it is within the appropriate region as defined below. The North American regions shall rotate in the order Western, Central, Eastern region. A site shall be ineligible if it is within sixty (60) five hundred (500) miles or eight hundred (800) kilometres of the site at which selection occurs.

If the selected Worldcon site is not in North America, there shall be a NASFiC in the North American region eligible North America that year. Selection of the NASFiC shall be by the identical procedure to the Worldcon selection except as provided below or elsewhere in this Constitution:

4.9.1: Voting shall be by written ballot administered by the following year’s Worldcon, if there is no NASFiC in that year, or by the following year’s NASFiC, if there is one, with ballots cast at the administering convention or by mail, and with only members of the administering convention allowed to vote.

4.9.2: Bids are restricted to sites in the appropriate region. NASFiC Committees shall make all reasonable efforts to avoid conflicts with Worldcon dates.

4.9.3: The proposed NASFiC voting fee supporting membership rate can be set by unanimous agreement of the prospective candidates that file with the administering Committee the administering Committee and all bidding committees who have filed before the ballot deadline.

4.9.4: If "None of the Above" wins, or if no eligible bid files by the deadline, then no NASFiC shall be held and all voting fees any supporting membership payments collected for the NASFiC site selection shall be refunded by the administering convention without undue delay.

MOVED, To amend portions of Article III of the WSFS Constitution to have the effect of splitting the existing Best Dramatic Presentation category into two categories, Long Form and Short Form, to regulate the administration of such categories, and for other purposes, as follows.

1. Strike out existing Section 3.3.6, "Best Dramatic Presentation."

2. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.3.5:

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM: Any production in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year, with a complete running time of more than 100 minutes.

3. Insert the following section before existing Section 3.3.7

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM: Any production in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year, with a complete running time of 100 minutes or less.

4. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.5:

3.2.x: The Worldcon Committee shall not consider previews, promotional trailers, commercials, public service announcements, or other extraneous material when determining the length of a work.

5. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.6:

3.2.x: The Worldcon Committee may relocate a dramatic presentation work into a more appropriate category if it feels that it is necessary, provided that the length of the work is within the lesser of twenty (20) minutes or twenty percent (20%) of the new category limits.

4.1A The Not So Long and Short of It

MOVED, to substitute for the entire text of the motion titled "The Long and Short of It," the following:

MOVED, To amend portions of Article III of the WSFS Constitution to have the effect of splitting the existing Best Dramatic Presentation category into two categories, Non-Episodic and Episodic, to regulate the administration of such categories, and for other purposes, as follows.

1. Strike out existing Section 3.3.6, "Best Dramatic Presentation."

2. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.3.5:

3.3.x BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, EPISODIC. Any production in any medium of dramatized Science Fiction, Fantasy, or related subjects, which formed a single episode from a regularly scheduled ongoing production.

3. Insert the following section before existing Section 3.3.7

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, NON-EPISODIC. Any feature film, short subject, television mini-series, live theater production, or any other production in any medium of dramatized Science Fiction, Fantasy, or related subjects, not eligible for the Episodic Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo Award.

4. Insert the following sentence at the end of Section 3.2.4:

3.2.4: [...] A multi-part episodic or non-episodic dramatic production shall be eligible for the year in which the final part is first publicly performed.

5. Insert the following sentence at the end of Section 3.2.6:

3.2.6: [...] The Worldcon Committee may relocate a dramatic presentation work into a more appropriate category if it feels that it is necessary.

MOVED: to amend the WSFS constitution as follows:

In Section 4.1: replace "WSFS shall choose the location and Committee of the Worldcon to be held three (3) years from the date of the current worldcon" with "WSFS shall choose the location and Committee of the Worldcon to be held two (2) years from the date of the current worldcon".

MOVED: to amend the WSFS constitution as follows:

In Section 3.2.1: replace "appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year" with "appearing for the first time during the previous two calendar years".

or

replace "appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year" with "appearing for the first time in English OR in the USA during the previous calendar year".

In each case an additional section is required to ensure that a work once nominated cannot be renominated the following year.

In the event that these proposals are unacceptable, then it is proposed that a committee be empowered to research the problem and propose a solution at the next Business Meeting in Chicago.

Moved by Vincent Docherty and Andrew Adams

Discussion:

The proposal reflects the concern that the publication schedules of non-North American books and fiction magazines makes it less likely that most of the voters will have read them in time to nominate them. Often this only occurs after these works have gone out of eligibility. The last Novel by a non-north-American to win the Hugo was The Fountains of Paradise by Arthuir C.Clarke in 1980.

The proposed amendment chosen will affect only the 4 fiction categories - Novel, Novella, Novellette and Short Story, the other categories being specified individually.

[to be conducted at the Site Selection meeting on 5 September 1999]

5.1 Report of the 2002 Site Selection & Presentation by Winners

5.2 Reports by seated Worldcons

5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2003

3.1 Tidying Site Selection (6 minutes debate time allowed)

MOVED, to amend the WSFS Constitution as follows:

In Section 4.1: replace "Voting shall be by mail or ballot cast at the current Worldcon with run-off ballot as described in Section 3.11" with "Voting shall be by written ballot cast either by mail or at the current Worldcon with tallying as described in Section 3.11".

In Section 4. 1: replace "administer the mail balloting" with "administer the voting".

Replace Section 4.3 with the following new Section:

Section 4.3: Non-natural Persons. Corporations, associations, and other non-human or artificial entities may cast ballots, but only for "No Preference". "Guest of" memberships may only cast "No Preference" ballots. Memberships transferred to individual natural persons may cast preferential ballots, provided that the transfer is accepted by the administering convention.

In Section 4.5.1, replace "with two (2) witnesses from each bidding committee allowed to observe." with ". Each bidding committee should provide at least two (2) tellers."

Delete Subsection 4.5.3, and insert the following new Subsections:

4.5.3: "None of the Above" shall be treated as a bid for tallying, and shall be the equivalent of "No Award" with respect to Section 2.9.

4.5.5: If "None of the Above" wins, the duty of site selection shall devolve on the Business Meeting of the current Worldcon. If the Business Meeting is unable to decide by the end of the Worldcon, the Committee for the following Worldcon shall make the selection without undue delay.

4.5.6: Where a site and Committee are chosen by a Business Meeting or Worldcon Committee, they are not restricted by region or other qualifications, and the choice of an out-of-rotation site shall not affect the regional rotation for subsequent years.

3.2 No-Zone Rotation (20 minutes debate time allowed)

Moved: To amend Article IV by:

1. Deleting all of section 4.7 except the last sentence.

2. Replacing "sixty (60) miles" with ""five hundred (500) miles or eight hundred (800) kilometres" in the last sentence of section 4.7

3. Replacing "the North American region eligible" with "North America" in the first sentence of Section 4.9

4. Deleting the first sentence of 4.9.2

Provided that any site which would have been eligible under the old rules will also be eligible in the first three races conducted under these eligibility rules.

Effect:

Section 4.7: Site Eligibility A site outside North America is eligible for selection in any year. A Site within North America is eligible for selection if it is within the appropriate region as defined below. The North American regions shall rotate in the order Western, Central, Eastern region. A site shall be ineligible if it is within sixty (60) five hundred (500) miles or eight hundred (800) kilometres of the site at which selection occurs.

If the selected Worldcon site is not in North America, there shall be a NASFiC in the North American region eligible North America that year. Selection of the NASFiC shall be by the identical procedure to the Worldcon selection except as provided below or elsewhere in this Constitution:

4.9.1: Voting shall be by written ballot administered by the following year’s Worldcon, if there is no NASFiC in that year, or by the following year’s NASFiC, if there is one, with ballots cast at the administering convention or by mail, and with only members of the administering convention allowed to vote.

4.9.2: Bids are restricted to sites in the appropriate region. NASFiC Committees shall make all reasonable efforts to avoid conflicts with Worldcon dates.

4.9.3: The proposed NASFiC voting fee supporting membership rate can be set by unanimous agreement of the prospective candidates that file with the administering Committee the administering Committee and all bidding committees who have filed before the ballot deadline.

4.9.4: If "None of the Above" wins, or if no eligible bid files by the deadline, then no NASFiC shall be held and all voting fees any supporting membership payments collected for the NASFiC site selection shall be refunded by the administering convention without undue delay.

[to be conducted at the Site Selection meeting on 5 September 1999]

5.1 Report of the 2002 Site Selection & Presentation by Winners

5.2 Reports by seated Worldcons

5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2003

3.1 Tidying Site Selection [Business disposed of at the main Business Meeting.]

3.2 No-Zone Rotation [Business disposed of at the main Business Meeting.]

4.1 The Long and Short of It (20 minutes debate time allowed)

MOVED, To amend portions of Article III of the WSFS Constitution to have the effect of splitting the existing Best Dramatic Presentation category into two categories, Long Form and Short Form, to regulate the administration of such categories, and for other purposes, as follows.

1. Strike out existing Section 3.3.6, "Best Dramatic Presentation."

2. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.3.5:

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, LONG FORM: Any production in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year, with a complete running time of more than 100 minutes.

3. Insert the following section before existing Section 3.3.7

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, SHORT FORM: Any production in any medium of dramatized science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has been publicly presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year, with a complete running time of 100 minutes or less.

4. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.5:

3.2.x: The Worldcon Committee shall not consider previews, promotional trailers, commercials, public service announcements, or other extraneous material when determining the length of a work.

5. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.6:

3.2.x: The Worldcon Committee may relocate a dramatic presentation work into a more appropriate category if it feels that it is necessary, provided that the length of the work is within the lesser of twenty (20) minutes or twenty percent (20%) of the new category limits.

MOVED, To amend 4.1 by substituting the following:

To amend portions of Article III of the WSFS Constitution to have the effect of splitting the existing Best Dramatic Presentation category into two categories, Theatrical and Non-Theatrical, to regulate the administration of such categories, and for other purposes, as follows.

1. Strike out existing Section 3.3.6, "Best Dramatic Presentation."

2. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.3.5:

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, THEATRICAL: Any production in any dramatized science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has been presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year in a medium intended for theatrical presentation, such as a motion picture or stage play.

3. Insert the following section before existing Section 3.3.7

3.3.x: BEST DRAMATIC PRESENTATION, NON-THEATRICAL: Any production of dramatized science fiction, fantasy, or related subjects, which has been presented for the first time in its present dramatic form during the previous calendar year in a medium other than theatrical.

4. Insert the following section after existing Section 3.2.6:

3.2.x: The Worldcon Committee may relocate a dramatic presentation work into a more appropriate category if it feels that it is necessary.

5. Insert the following section before existing Section 3.2.7:

3.2.x: Previews, promotional trailers, commercials, public service announcements and similar extraneous material shall not be considered to be all or part of a dramatic presentation.

4.2 Return to two-year bidding [Business disposed of at the Main Business Meeting.]

This proposal was referred by the Preliminary Business Meeting to a committee chaired by Vincent Docherty to report back. They have reported the following proposed amendment.

MOVED: To amend the WSFS Constitution as follows:

In Section 3.2.1: replace "appearing for the first time during the previous calendar year" with "appearing for the first time during the previous two calendar years".

Add Section 3.8.x: "No nominee shall be eligible which has already appeared on a final ballot."

Moved: To amend the altered 4.7 by replacing "five hundred (500) miles or eight hundred (800) kilometers" with "three hundred (300) miles or four hundred and eighty (480) kilometers".

5.2 Reports by seated Worldcons

5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2003

5.2 Reports by seated Worldcons

5.3 Presentation by bidders for 2004