The 2024 WSFS Business Meeting Agenda published today by the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon contains the text of 12 amendments passed at the Chengdu Worldcon that are up for ratification; 20 newly proposed constitutional amendments; and the full text of 12 resolutions – but not the text of two other resolutions described by the committee as calling for the “censure of certain groups and named individuals over the administration of the 2023 Hugo Awards”.
The titles of the two resolutions are:
- “Statement of Values for Transparency and Fair Treatment” submitted by Chris Garcia, James Bacon, Frank Wu, Chris Barkley, Steve Davidson, Kirsten Berry, Chuck Serface, Paul Weimer, Andrew E. Love, Claudia Beach, Nina Shepardson, Bonnie McDaniel, Tobes Valois, and Linda Robinette.
- “Chengdu Censure” submitted by Terri Ash, Kevin Sonney, Cliff Dunn, and Kristina Forsyth.
The resolutions will still be brought to the floor of the Business Meeting, but the substance of the charges will not be allowed to be discussed. Instead, Glasgow 2024, availing themselves of procedures in Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, will treat the censure resolution as “a motion to form a committee on investigation as the first step in disciplinary proceedings.” This committee will be elected by the meeting to conduct an investigation into the allegations contained in the resolutions — including a reasonable attempt to speak with the members accused — and report back to the 2025 Business Meeting in Seattle, USA.
Glasgow 2024 has assumed the authority to say the Business Meeting will be placed in executive session while all of these proceedings are handled, and that session will be exclusively focused on the formation of an investigative committee into the charges. Glasgow 2024 says they will suspend livestream coverage during the related portion of the Business Meeting. The details of debate will not be published in the publicly available minutes, nor will this section of the meeting be shown in the posted recording of the Business Meeting.
The committee says this procedure has been formulated after taking “legal counsel to ensure adherence to Scottish law.”
We are concerned that publication of these items, as well as public debate about them in Glasgow 2024 spaces, will bring us out of compliance with Scottish libel and defamation law and expose Glasgow 2024, the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS), and/or its members to significant legal liability.
But their statement in the agenda also says, “The World Science Fiction Society also has the clear right to hold its members accountable for their conduct and do so as transparently as possible.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I understand that people in the Business Meeting can be primed to introduce specific items, and if the presiding officer so chooses they can be immediately called on to give those items the floor. But I’m missing the part where the Glasgow Worldcon committee can command the Business Meeting to do anything.
@Mike
I’m sure you’re right. And yet. Perhaps there were voices that had no right to command but could muster a LOT of social pressure.
My understanding from reading the agenda this morning is that it was the head table staff of the business meeting – probably the presiding officer, deputy presiding officer, and parliamentarian specifically – who consulted with a solicitor or barrister (as appropriate for the situation) to help reach this decision. For what it is worth, the deputy presiding officer is a practicing U.S. based lawyer, so is aware and sensitive to legal maters, if not specifically Scottish and U.K. law.
I suspect that naming the charges publicly could potentially get you walloped for defamation in the rather more brutal legal climate of Scotland.
Of course, since they’ve banned the individuals in question from attending the con, and they won’t be streaming the debate, nor including the debate in the minutes, the members who might be censured will have no way to find out what happened or to defend themselves. I’m not particularly comfortable with this.
UK libel law is quite different from US libel law. Most importantly, truth is not an absolute defense, hearsay is libel, and the members of the Glasgow Worldcon committee would be personally liable and could potentially lose all their assets. I mean, aside from the cost of defending the lawsuit.
We don’t have enough information about what exactly the persons involved actually did, in the kind of detail necessary to defend against a libel lawsuit under UK law.
Do you really believe that the Glasgow Worldcon committee, the responsible party in the UK for what the Business Meeting there does, doesn’t have the right to tell them not to do something which is illegal in the UK, and which potentially puts all the assets of the individual committee members at risk? Seriously?
It’ll go to committee, and Chicago can take it up next year, under US, not UK, law.
Lis Carey: Let’s remember that someone doesn’t need a winnable case to file a defamation suit in the U.S. They just need to be willing to file. By kicking the problem down the road Glasgow 2024 only transfers their exposure to Seattle 2025. The 2025 committee could just as well be sued.
@Perrianne: If I understand correctly, the substance of the censures is not going to be debated at the business meeting. Rather, the executive session regarding the censure will be to debate forming the committee to investigate the accusations.
Once the committee on investigation is formed, its members will be elected, and the identities of the members of the committee will be publicly announced.
Mike, a censure is an expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism. And there is a clear procedure in Robert’s Rules of Order for doing so which it is a debatable main motion that could be adopted by a majority vote.
I’ve seen a political committee censure a member once. Not a pleasant experience but that’s where it ended. It’s a civil matter, not a legal matter.
I don’t understand how the Glasgow Worldcon could be liable for what individuals choose to say at a Business Meeting. Is a convention in Scotland legally responsible for everything said at the convention during any panel?
The Statement of Values for Transpatency and Fair Treatment is still available here, a couple of weeks ago?
https://file770.com/a-resolution-by-chris-j-garcia/
As I understand the matter (from what I’ve read, I’m decidedly not a lawyer), British libel law verges on the barbaric from an American viewpoint. One very much does not want to get into a British libel suit. I strongly sympathize with Glasgow given the situation, but maybe this is a reason that future Business Meetings should not be held in the UK. British reluctance to update their libel law puts them in odd company with other countries where it seems unwise for the Worldcon to get too deeply mired in local law for other reasons.
Well, that is disappointing to say the least.
Patrick McGuire: It’s definitely ironic to crash into this legal barrier in Scotland just before the very meeting where people will be discussing a measure designed to prevent the Worldcon from being held in countries with poor human rights index ratings.
Christopher J Garcia: Sure. Can you confirm that is the final text you submitted to the Business Meeting?
(And I hope they don’t have the internet in Scotland.)
@rcade: I’m guessing that the risk to the Glasgow Worldcon is that if a censure resolution were to pass at the business meeting there, then the Glasgow Worldcon would need to publish the content of the censure as an official statement of the Worldcon. (There may be other legal risks to them too, but that could be the biggest source of legal risk.)
That creates a more significant legal risk to the Glasgow Worldcon committee, compared to what an individual might say on a panel at the convention, which should not reasonably be perceived as a statement by the Worldcon itself.
If that is the problem it seems like it could be solved by referring people to the WSFS website for any content that Glasgow Worldcon is not comfortable publishing.
litigants from all over the globe file their libel suits in the UK because it’s the most punitive jurisdiction they can find for that type of legal action.
The degree to which their system is unreasonable by American (or Canadian) standards cannot be overstated.
@rcade–
The Glasgow Worldcon is a nonprofit corporation similar to a 501(c)(3) in the USA. It is legally responsible for actions of the business meeting, which is a function of the corporation. The things said on panels are not official statements or actions of the corporation.
@Mike Glyer and Patrick McGuire–I don’t think it’s plausible to argue that greater protection of individuals against libel is a human rights violation. And I would not assume, without advice from someone with a real knowledge of EU law and the libel laws of other European countries, that much of Europe would disagree with the UK on this.
Patrick McGuire says As I understand the matter (from what I’ve read, I’m decidedly not a lawyer), British libel law verges on the barbaric from an American viewpoint.
No, British libel law is decidedly not barbaric. What it says is that you must prove that libel actually happened otherwise the aggrieved party can indeed sue for having been libelled. We have a much looser definition of what libel is, that’s all.
There is no legal definition of censure in Britain. It’s used primarily to discipline Members of Parliament and other members of Government. In the way it’s used, it follows the language in the Robert’s Rule of Orders more or less:
Members can be censured for misconduct at meetings, violating confidentiality, moral misconduct outside the meeting, absenteeism, bribery, fraud, lying, disloyalty, working against the organization, conspiracy, and violating other values that an organization holds dear.
Is my memory correct, that when I posted these resolutions here in the past couple weeks there was not a single comment in the nature of “Chris, if you put that resolution in the Business Meeting you could be sued”?
@Mike Glyer–I had not been reading the resolutions, for the most part. After all, I’m not going to be able to vote on them. I don’t think I noticed that there was a censure resolution.
If what Chris’ resolution says about the Chengdu Worldcon’s handling of last year’s Hugo Awards is actionable, then so was what the Glasgow 2024 chair sent out as a press release in February.
Saying you have to apologize for damage done by Chengdu is a form of censure.
Lis Carey: I understand. I’m not asking people who didn’t read them why they didn’t respond to them.
I don’t understand how failing to stream or record the meeting offers any protection. If a BM attendee makes a slanderous statement about someone during the meeting, it doesn’t suddenly become “not slanderous” because the cameras were turned off. It’s still said in front of third parties; they just happen to be in the room instead of at the other end of an internet cable.
I’m left wondering if a motion of censure technically needs details or claims attached? Could the floor move a motion to “censure X, Y, and Z”, and simply push it through like that? Even under the most baroque interpretations of RRoO a majority of the floor can push through anything it wants if it’s willing to overrule the chair enough times.
Unfortunately I think there are other possible legal problems apart from defamation
Anyone subject to a disciplinary procedure in the UK might be able to insist that they have the right to certain principles of natural justice (note that IANAL and how this applies to our complicated governance arrangement is unclear to say the least). One of those principles is that the subject of any such procedure should be given the opportunity too answer any allegations made against them in person. While this is inconvenient it does seem to be a reasonable and fair requirement.
The unfair disqualifications seem to have witnesses and the refusal to explain things is a matter of public record. Most of what went on in China is a mystery, except for the work of Liz Batty, famed forensic mathematician. Speculating on what did happen there without further information or witnesses is something that probably shouldn’t be done without lawyers we can’t afford.
Now for the bad news. The link below is to the rules of the Club “Mountaineering Scotland”
They seem to have done a lot of work to turn the local law into a comprehensible guide for running such procedures as a voluntary society (Again IANAL so someone more knowledgeable needs to look at this). Unfortunately it is a much longer and more complex process than we envisioned but I’m not sure what steps we could legally and ethically omit.
https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/media-upload/Club_advice_-_Natural_Justice.docx.pdf
Ryan H: Such a motion appears to be allowed under Robert’s. But why would you think that strips the motion of all risk of liability?
It is unclear to me how the WSFS Business Meeting can censure someone who is not a member of WSFS, which may well be what the substantive motions would do.
Also, people should remember that the Business Meeting is not like the US Congress, whose members are constitutionally protected against prosecution for defamatory speeches. (Article 1, Section 6, the “speech and debate” clause.)
Kevin Standlee: Well played. Now that the dynamic duo have had their memberships cancelled and refunded, they’re not members of the current convention, so not members under Section 1.4.
However, anywhere the resolutions refer to the “Chengdu Worldcon Hugo subcommittee” or the Chengdu Worldcon generally, those terms still encompass some people who are WSFS members.
@Kevin Standlee is there something that would require the WSFS to restrict its motions to members? Organizations release statements and make motions regarding individuals or other organizations who are not members or otherwise formally affiliated with themselves all the time.
Or, put another way, what’s procedurally stopping the membership from formally passing a censure on Santa Clause, should they so choose?
Kevin> It is unclear to me how the WSFS Business Meeting can censure someone who is not a member of WSFS, which may well be what the substantive motions would do.
According to the Glasgow member page as of 06:00 UK time on Saturday 20th, two of the censured individuals are still listed as WSFS members – #0195 and #0314 respectively – albeit downgraded to supporting status.
You only have to look at how much money San Jose spent on Jon Del Arroz to see that US Worldcons might also have to balance legal considerations with specific statements of censure…
Just to remind folk that defamation law is different in Scotland than the rest of the U.K. and was codified, simplified and updated to reflect The Digital Age in The Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. According to that act, ‘ a defamatory statement is one that causes harm to a person’s reputation’ where ‘its effect is to tend to lower the person’s reputation in the estimation of ordinary persons.’ It must have been published to a person other than the one who is the subject of the statement, where by ‘published’ is meant either written or verbally (there is no distinction here between libel and slander as there is in English law).
Significantly ‘ no defamation proceedings may be brought against a person unless that person is the author, editor or publisher of the statement which is complained about or is an employee or agent of that person and is responsible for the content of the statement or the decision to publish it.’ So it may be that the legal advice was that the Glasgow folk were at risk of falling foul of this clause; ie that they could be deemed to be the publisher of defamatory statements.
Details here (but also all over the legal web!): https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/10/notes/division/3/1/1?view=plain
I love the irony that the Worldcon has to consider local law in this case.
@Cam Indeed. We are being told yet again that these are the rules we must follow.
Facetiously one might wonder if there is a legal get-out via the claim that the reputation of those-to-be-censured could not in fact be any lower ‘in the estimation of ordinary persons’.
One for Rumpole methinks … (or his Scottish equivalent – maybe Max McCall from Guilt, as played by Mark Bonnar. Or maybe not …)
Camestros Felapton says I love the irony that the Worldcon has to consider local law in this case.
What irony? Being called Worldcon is completely irrelevant. Everyone abides by local law who isn’t a diplomat.
@Cat
Situational irony. Dave’s excuse for what they did was “the rules we must follow”. Now we can’t censure them for doing it because of “the rules we must follow”.
No. There’s a big difference, and your comparison is disingenuous.
In the case of Glasgow, they’re pointing to specific written legislation and saying “this specific law is one that we must follow.” There’s clarity and transparency here.
At the Chengdu Worldcon we were told “there are rules we must follow,” but we weren’t told what those rules are. The reasons were left nebulous.
@Laura (and Camestros)–
Oh, ffs.
McCarty et al. said “the rules we must follow,” and repeatedly and consistently refused to specify what exactly those rules were, except to cite a section of the bylaws which said nothing like what they actually did–while those actions directly violate the actual rules governing the Hugos.
The Glasgow Worldcon is telling us exactly what law the censure of the members of the Chengdu Hugo subcommittee would violate. It’s a real law, and could potentially have rather dire consequences for the people you think should blithely ignore it, for the sake of satisfying the (quite natural, I agree) desire to censure the people who made such a mess in Chengdu.
But the censure would not really accomplish anything, as the persons bearing the most responsibility have already made themselves persona non grata with regard to Worldcon. No further consequence is necessary. It would feel good, but not at the expense of putting the Glasgow committee at real legal risk.
@Olav and Lis
No argument here. Still find it ironic and disappointing.
Should have just said “local laws” instead of Dave’s stupid expression. And as you say, in his case, unspecified local laws or just his personal interpretation.
@Laura–
You’re disappointed that the Glasgow committee is refusing to do something that a) is illegal, and b) could result in all their personal assets being attached in a lawsuit they would probably lose?
Why? Please explain this to me. Both individuals have clearly gotten the message that they are not welcome, that they have been Judged, and they will not be allowed to attend. A censure vote, at this point, will have zero effect. And they’re not even members of Worldcon because their money has been refunded. Censure is something you do to a member of the organization, not someone who used to be a member.
So, what exactly disappoints you about Glasgow refusing to do something that would have zero effect, be dubious at best under Robert’s Rules or any similar rulebook, and would expose the Glasgow committee members to the risk of a really damaging lawsuit?
This isn’t remotely similar to what the Chengdu Hugo subcommittee did, either substantively or in terms of transparency. Glasgow is being completely transparent, and specific, about why they can’t let the censure motion go forward.
A reminder that I am not a member of the staff of the 2024 WSFS Business Meeting, nor do I have any official position with Glasgow 2024. I’m just another member of WSFS. I am speaking for myself, and only myself, not for anyone else.
Ryan H on July 19, 2024 at 9:20 pm said:
Chapter XX of Robert’s Rules of Order. A society cannot discipline someone who is not a member of the society.
WSFS doesn’t have disciplinary procedures written into its constitution. Few organizations do so. We rely on principles of parliamentary law and in this case an adopted parliamentary authority that goes into specific detail about how the process works.
John S / ErsatzCulture on July 19, 2024 at 10:20 pm said:
That’s different, and if Glasgow 2024 did indeed leave them their WSFS memberships, they’re still subject to WSFS actions. However, members have the right to be able to answer any charges against them, and forbidding them from being able to do so doesn’t seem right to me. There is a formal disciplinary process laid out in Chapter XX, and the Glasgow Business Meeting appears to be trying to follow it.
Lis Carey: “they are not welcome, they have been Judged, and they will not be allowed to attend”
Think for a moment why you know that.
Glasgow hasn’t announced it. Glasgow won’t admit they’ve done it when questioned. Glasgow certainly hasn’t explained under what law or authority or procedures it acted.
You only know it because I got confirmation from the people who were told they can’t attend.
And if the answer is “oh, the UK libel laws!” then how did the UK Eastercon arrive at a different result where they could announce their actions against these two (announcing the actions, not their names).
Kevin Standlee: Just to expand on a point of your discussion. Chris Garcia’s resolution, for example, references the Chengdu Worldcon Hugo subcommittee and the Chengdu Worldcon committee. Those groups encompass other people who still are members of Glasgow 2024.
Robert’s Rules of Order should not be treated as a set of rules that must be followed for everything not spelled out in the WSFS Constitution. It should be treated as guidelines for how deliberation and voting take place, not as limits on what can be deliberated or voted on. If we want to consider the censure of people who used to be members for what they did as members, or the censure of people who’ve never been members at all but harmed the organization, or the censure of Han Solo because he shot first, that should be our prerogative.
A Worldcon changing how a resolution is presented and discussed at the Business Meeting and unilaterally altering what it would accomplish — by making it a motion to form a committee without the consent of the resolution authors — is taking power that was not granted to that con by anything in the WSFS Constitution. It is a terrible solution that creates more problems than it solves.
This post should have been an announcement by Glasgow Worldcon that it does not feel it can legally permit the presentation and deliberation of two resolutions, describing the basis under Scottish law for this interpretation. It should not have included newly concocted Business Meeting powers that allow the con to alter resolutions without member consent.
Rcade: This is a good time for people concerned about WSFS governance to think about what “Do not obey in advance” would mean in this situation.
@Lis
I am disappointed and frustrated that Scottish laws are requiring Glasgow to kick this on to Seattle. There is another new business proposal which is still on the agenda called “When We Censure You, We Mean It” which if passed would make any censure have specific consequences.
They are still WSFS only/Supporting members according to Glasgow’s membership list. Only the attending supplement was revoked. (And Ben is still on the Mark Protection Committee/WIP Board of Directors.) They could be members of Seattle and potentially even the 2026 Worldcon if they have voted in site selection already. They were certainly members when they wrecked havoc with the reputation of the Hugos.