Glasgow 2024 has announced that Los Angeles (LA) in 2026 is the only bid to have been formally submitted by the filing deadline of February 18, 2024 as required by the WSFS Constitution in order to appear on the printed ballot. The required documentation was submitted to Glasgow’s Site Selection Administrator on February 2, 2024 by the LA in 2026 Bid Committee. Their website link is LA in 2026.
To be on the ballot, the WSFS Constitution requires a bidding committee to file the specified documents no later than 180 days prior to the official opening of the administering convention. Write-ins are still eligible provided the bidding committee files the required documents by the close of the voting.
The election to select the site of the 2026 WorldCon will be administered by Glasgow 2024, the 2024 WorldCon. The documents filed by LA in 2026 can be found on the Glasgow 2024 website here. The proposed dates are August 27 to August 31, at the Anaheim Convention Centre and Anaheim Hilton. The Bid Chair and proposed Convention Chair is Joyce Lloyd.
About Site Selection: Worldcon sites are selected two years in advance, by a secret ballot of WSFS members. For this year this includes all full Adult and Young Adult Attending members, Online Members with bundled WSFS Memberships, and WSFS Members of Glasgow 2024.
Any group that meets the technical requirements in the WSFS Constitution and files the necessary documents with the administering Worldcon may bid for the right to host a Worldcon.
Glasgow 2024 WSFS Members who wish to vote in Site Selection will need to buy an Advance WSFS Membership in the 2026 Worldcon, at a cost of £45.00. All members who pay this fee will automatically become WSFS Members of the 2026 Worldcon, regardless of who they vote for (or indeed if they vote at all).
Details on how to vote in site selection will be announced early in April 2024. All Advance WSFS Membership fees received by Glasgow for the 2026 Worldcon will be passed on to the successful candidate.
[Based on a press release.]
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
I’ve presupported LA at a high level, but I’ve also been told that Ben Yalow is (still) on their bid committee. After what happened in Chengdu, I expect I may be voting NOTA. Ben is a very nice person but he has not (as far as I know) publicly expressed any regret for what happened and until he does he should take a step back from being on any bid/convention committees.
@Gray: I don’t think we have “NOTA” as an option – for site selection, isn’t the option called “No preference” (which is “I’m happy with all the choices” vs. “I’m happy with none of the choices”). Before I vote, I hope that LA26 makes some decision about the membership of their committee.
None Of The Above is definitely an option.
I found CoNZealand’s ballot still online.
@JJ: Thank you. A useful option under the circumstances.
Ben Yalow’s name has been removed from the list on their webpage.
eta: It was there as of Jan 30 in the Wayback Machine web archive of the page.
Gray: he has not (as far as I know) publicly expressed any regret for what happened and until he does he should take a step back from being on any bid/convention committees.
Given his complicity at a high level with the Chengdu Worldcon being hijacked by corporate interests, his open admission that the accounting for the Chengdu Worldcon which will be given to the WSFS Business Meeting is fraudulent, and his participation on that disastrous Hugo Admin committee, I don’t think he should be permitted to participate even if he ever does develop enough self-awareness to apologize (as I understand it, to this day, he feels that he has done nothing wrong).
Laura: Ben Yalow’s name has been removed from the list on their webpage.
Which is strangely at odds with the fact that while his name was removed weeks ago, Yalow still attended the LA bid committee meeting last Saturday.
Ms. Lloyd, you got some ‘splainin’ to do.
@Andrew (not Werdna): None of the Above is a constitutionally-required option. There’s also the option to file a silly write-in and second-preference None of the Above, and No Preference also exists…but is effectively an abstention.
This was actually part of the row about the Montreal announcement – someone who signed up early and then “something happened with the bidcom/convention site later” would have the bid making it impossible for them to vote against them.
@Gray: Thanks. For some reason the “no preference” option stuck in my mind but not the “none of the above.”
@JJ
Looking a little further, I see he is on the Board of Directors of SCIFI, Inc. — the non-profit behind the LA bid. Are they hoping they can just remove his name from LA’s site and all this will blow over in a few months? Or by 2026? I certainly hope not.
I hope I never see Ben Yalow in any position again. Glad that LA is running. I am whatever they call a friend.
Ben Yalow is no longer on the L.A. in 2026 Bid Committee. Period.
I say this as a member of the Bid Committee.
Clickity
Craig Miller: Ben Yalow is no longer on the L.A. in 2026 Bid Committee. Period. I say this as a member of the Bid Committee.
Hi Craig, can you explain why Ben Yalow is still attending LA in 2026 Bid Committee Meetings?
Because it looks as though everyone involved is lying to us WSFS members and letting him participate anyway. Which is really not a good look.
@Craig Miller:
And in the absence of meaningful condemnation of his behavior, why would anyone believe him not being part of the committee will continue past the site selection process?
Interesting that the bid is using just the Hilton. The two previous L.A.Cons (1996 & 2006) also used the Marriott.
I’ll repeat:
Ben Yalow is no longer a member of the L.A. in 2026 Bid Committee.
Ben Yalow has also resigned from SCIFI, Inc., the parent organization to the L.A. in 2026 Bid.
Ben Yalow is not going to be on the L.A. 2026 Worldcon Committee.
Those things will not change. But if you’re going to assume everyone is lying to you, there’s nothing I can do about it. (And it says more about you than about me. I don’t think I’d trust someone who assumes everyone else is lying.)
I’ve been involved with Fandom a long time. My word is my bond.
Craig Miller, I’ll ask again: Can you explain why Ben Yalow is still attending LA in 2026 Bid Committee Meetings?
They are using the new north convention center building, which allows them to house the con in the just the convention center and the Hilton.
(From what I was told at Boskone, they will likely use sleeping rooms in the Marriott, but don’t need the meeting space.)
I don’t know why Ben was attending the most recent L.A. 2026 Bid Committee meeting. I’m guessing it’s because this particular meeting was also open to members of SCIFI, Inc. and his resignation from that organization was submitted stating it would be as of March 1st.
Why do you, JJ, know that Ben attended that meeting? This was a meeting where the sole topic of discussion was people we might invite to be Guests of Honor. No decisions were made; it was just a preliminary discussion. Which is why our parent group’s members were invited to take part as well.
But it was a private meeting. People need to be free in such a discussion to talk about pros and cons of inviting someone. As we’ve seen in recent years, some possible/actual Guests of Honor come with unfortunate baggage. But if these meetings are being made public, it becomes impossible to have frank discussions. Unlike Congress, Worldcon committees are not free from libel or defamation charges.
We’re not hiding anything. Why do you know who was attending the meeting? Who told you? Why do you think you should be allowed to keep secrets, deceive, and invade confidences? If you want people to be open and tell you the truth, you should, too.
Craig Miller: Why do you know who was attending the meeting?
Probably because someone is deeply unhappy that LA in 2026 appears to be saying one thing and doing another.
As we discovered with the 2023 Hugo Awards, it’s a good thing when a WSFS member sees something wrong and speaks up about it.
Invoking “privacy” instead of addressing what’s wrong is how the 2023 Hugo Awards turned out the way they did. And I find it really disturbing that you care more about the former than the latter.
You can thank Ben Yalow and Chengdu Worldcon for the lack of trust we are willing to extend to Worldcons and bids from here on.
JJ, so far I’m the only one answering questions and providing honest, truthful answers.
You, on the other hand, are dodging and evading.
Why are you allowed to keep secrets and hide the truth?
I and the rest of the L.A.2026 committee I’ve discussed it with were horrified over what happened with the 2023 Hugos. I believe any of us would have resigned rather than falsify the nomination or vote totals. I know I would have.
But you seem content to refuse to tell the truth. That would make me unsure how you would act if you’d been on McCarty’s committee.
No more accusations. Tell the truth. How do you know Ben was at the meeting? What else were you told? What secrets are you hiding?
Pingback: Pixel Scroll 2/27/24 It’s Scrolls And Pixels I Recall, I Really Don’t Know Files At All - File 770
…
These two statements seem to be in conflict. You clearly do want to hide who was in attendance.
Craig Miller: How do you know Ben was at the meeting? What else were you told?
I said, “I heard Ben Yalow is still on the LA in 2026 bidcom despite his name being removed from their website.” All I was told is “He was at the committee meeting on Saturday.”
If you think I am going to rat out a whistleblower who has a conscience, you have another think coming.
As Laura said, Ben Yalow — and the Chengdu Worldcon that Ben Yalow chaired — are directly responsible for the lack of trust we WSFS members are willing to extend to Worldcons and bids from this point forward.
We are tired — excruciatingly tired — of long-time members being given a pass for their bad behavior, out of misplaced loyalty, especially on your bidcom’s part, for someone who has proven that they do not deserve either trust or loyalty.
LA in 2026 needs to stop making excuses and start fronting up to the membership — or they’ll deserve losing the bid to None Of The Above at Glasgow in August.
There’s a real “I am really shocked that this extremely extremely confidential material was shared in the first place” energy in your comment.
Sigh. JJ and ChewyGlacier, two people hiding behind aliases, are the arbiters of truth, justice, and all that is righteous.
I have answered the questions asked. I have been truthful and honest. You act like you are on a holy crusade but you have been nothing but evasive, casting aspersions on others.
You claim you want honesty and disparage – as we all do – what happened with Chengdu. But you hide and refuse to answer legitimate questions put to you. Why should anyone believe you are sincere? You seem to think honesty is only for others.
@Craig Miller
Trying to turn this around on JJ is seriously not a good look. I notice you didn’t bother grilling Gray who told us in the first comment that they had heard the same thing. Your over-the-top defensiveness isn’t doing the LA bid any favors here. You seem terribly worried what else WSFS members might find out.
Well, I’m honestly tempted to pony up the money to vote in site selection to vote NOTA simply based on your reactions here, so I’m not sure you are doing the LA Bid any favors.
Craig Miller: two people hiding behind aliases, are the arbiters of truth, justice, and all that is righteous.
Spoken like an old white dude who has never received rape or death threats for voicing his opinion on the Internet… one who is used to getting what he wants through insults, bullying, and intimidation.
Craig Miller: you hide and refuse to answer legitimate questions put to you. Why should anyone believe you are sincere? You seem to think honesty is only for others.
I presume you know what DARVO is. I do — and I know DARVO when I see it.
Stop being pissed off that someone blew the whistle on you, and start being pissed off that you were doing something that needed a whistle being blown.
If you were horrified by what happened, attacking JJ for asking a tough but fair question about Ben Yalow’s involvement is a poor way of showing it.
JJ is a contributor on File 770 going back a decade and the members here value their posts and comments. Just because you are comfortable using your real name, as I am, doesn’t entitle you to cast aspersions on others for not doing the same.
Yalow’s involvement in any Worldcon effort going forward is going to discredit it because of Chengdu and his non-existent desire to take any responsibility, offer the members of WSFS real transparency and accountability about everything that happened, or resign.
It was a mistake for the L.A. bid to allow him to attend the meeting. The gesture of removing him from the bid page and the bid’s board of directors rings hollow if he is still allowed to be a part of any of the effort, because that suggests he will be involved and influencing decisions.
@Craig Miller
Wow, I hadn’t seen your last comment when I wrote mine. You’re really starting to sound a lot like Dave McCarty on his facebook page. As Dave Weinstein said, NOTA is now looking like a better choice here.
@Craig Miller
oh jesus h fuck dude what the hell are you doing?
Did you look at Dave McCarty’s public responses and think, “Hold my beer?”
“How many committees is this guy on?” was one of the top comments I saw on Bluesky after, I think, the third time McCarty was discovered to still be actively involved in an organizational aspect and subsequently resigned.
Some of the responses to the Chengdu mess have leaned heavily into the technically correct and legalistic, while ignoring the spirit of community expectations. So it’s not surprising that overly specific and weak responses get probed for clarification.
Something along the lines of “Ben Yalow is no longer involved, and will not be permitted to be involved, in any way with the LA bid and any subsequent convention. And the same will apply to anyone else involved in organizing the Chengdu WorldCon and associated Hugos ” would, I suspect, go a lot further in avoiding further interrogation.
Specifically listing individual things people are no longer involved in just invites speculation as to what things the list is not including.
To whom it may concern: I think some people are just trying to make things worse than they are. To avoid this, I suggest stop replying in kind.
I’m going to close comments for the night. Don’t guarantee I will reopen them in the morning, though.