The WisCon Anti-Abuse Team has opened its revised policies and procedures to public comment.

We have been guided by the goal of making WisCon a safer and more enjoyable experience for everyone. To that end, we have worked to develop a policy that 1) makes reporting easy, 2) is compassionate and reporter centered, 3) facilitates a timely response and clear communication, and 4) reduces incidence of harassment through member education and by fostering a supportive, respectful climate.

A organization of a permanent team will help address previous mistakes in handling harassment reports.

Much of our work on this policy has been informed by the mistakes that have been made in previous years. We have built in a series of redundancies to make sure that reports can never be lost or ignored. For example, prior to WisCon38, harassment cases were handled by the convention chairs, who typically step down shortly after a convention. By establishing a permanent team, including an archivist and Safety liaison, we have multiple checks in place to make sure reports move forward.

Comments will be accepted through April 17.

WisCon has reached a conclusion about the harassment complaint filed by Rose Lemberg with the WisCon committee in 2013.

The substance of the complaint was that poet F.J. Bergmann harassed Lemberg by reading the poem “Meet and Marry a Gorgeous Russian Queen” at the Moment of Change-sponsored open mike at WisCon in 2012. Lemberg felt the audience was meant to identify traits mocked in the poem (accent, nationality, academic background) with her. Bergmann denied this here in 2013 and again here in 2015.

WisCon’s Statement on Findings & Recommendations, posted March 27, determined the reading could not be characterized as harassment:

The subcommittee considers F.J. Bergmann’s poem “Meet and Marry a Gorgeous Russian Queen” to be both anti-immigrant and potentially sexist. Given the timing of the poem’s genesis and publication, however, the subcommittee was unable to characterize this particular incident – the reading of the poem during the “Moment of Change” open mic at WisCon 36 – as harassment. The subcommittee’s research has documented that the poem was written long before the conflicts between Bergmann and Lemberg began.

Despite that determination, WisCon recommended Bergmann face consequences for what it termed a “pattern of caustic behavior toward anyone she disagrees with,” which include not allowing Bergmann to attend any of Lemberg’s events at WisCon, and limiting Bergmann’s volunteer duties (if any) to “non-public-facing positions.”

Bergmann sent a rebuttal to the WisCon committee, quoted here with her permission. About the overall verdict she says:

It seems to me that the subtext here is that anyone who makes social-issues accusations automatically gets respect and credibility and is instantly and permanently empowered by this community, regardless of actual circumstances or lack of evidence, and that any harm done by the accusations is of absolutely no consequence, or even justified, simply because it is assumed from the get-go that any accusations must necessarily be true. I cannot begin to express the level of my dismay, here: the committee is saying that a) I was not guilty of these charges, and b) I deserved what I got, plus additional penalties? What is going on?

And she does not intend to participate at WisCon in the future:

It is obvious that I will no longer be safe at WisCon—and I know that I speak for others. I thought I was a part of the WisCon community and sympathetic to its agenda of promoting women and their writing, but I am apparently mistaken. What I’m not part of is a dwindling, vociferous clique with axes to grind, who distort evidence to fit their ideology. And the idea that, should I attend, everything I say and do will be surveilled and interpreted in the most negative way possible is nauseating. Fortunately, I’ve found that many people in the larger SF community listened to what I had to say, believed me, and supported me; I am not dependent on the approval of what WisCon has become.

In general, and in this instance specifically, I am not “abrasive and confrontational” without cause. Like many WisCon members, there are issues about which I feel strongly. I was publicly defamed without recourse—privately, it would seem, for a year beforehand and then publicly for another year and a half, nor does it seem to be ameliorating in certain circles, given the tone of the report—by a host of people, most of whom I’d never met or interacted with, who anticipated and circumvented due process. Exactly what is the WisCon-endorsed behavior under these circumstances?

First, covert defamation; and now, being spoken down to as if I were some kind of closet redneck. I have no intention of coming to WisCon under these constraints and negative misperceptions, much less volunteering in any capacity….

The WisCon report included an apology to Lemberg for “our bureaucratic lapses” and to Bergmann and the WisCon community for taking so long bring the matter to an end.

In a few weeks WisCon will have a draft of its new member safety policies available for public review reports Jacquelyn Gill, chair of the convention’s Anti-Abuse Team.

One of the changes will be making WisCon’s Anti-Abuse Team a year-round department with a Safety representative and a historian/archivist, something Gill says “will help prevent past issues with institutional memory, mishandling of reports, and lack of follow-through.”

Another feature is a new policy “to address member conduct outside of WisCon that may threaten member safety at the convention, including doxing, outing, stalking, assault, and online harassment.”

And they are tightening coordination between WisCon’s Safety, Registration, Programming, and Volunteering departments so that any bans or programming restrictions are communicated and enforced.

The work of the Anti-Abuse Team is separate from the subcommittee handling Rose Lemberg’s report of harassment by F.J. Bergmann. The Lemberg subcommittee is soon expected to ask the concom for a final vote on its recommendations, which are as yet unknown.

Poet F.J. Bergmann, the subject of a harassment complaint filed by Rose Lemberg with the WisCon committee in 2013 that has been open for 18 months, alleges in a new blog post the animus driving the complaint came from Alex Dally MacFarlane, recently criticized by Athena Andreadis, Elizabeth Bear and Laura J. Mixon as part of the network of followers of blogger Requires Hate (Benjanun Sriduangkaew).

Alex Dally MacFarlane publicly supported Lemberg’s 2013 complaint against Bergmann with a series of tweets she later assembled in a narrative at Storify.

The substance of the complaint is that Bergmann harassed Lemberg by reading the poem “Meet and Marry a Gorgeous Russian Queen” at the Moment of Change-sponsored open mike at WisCon in 2012. Lemberg felt the audience was meant to identify traits mocked in the poem (accent, nationality, academic background) with her.

Bergmann denied this in 2013, and does so again in the new post with the added charge, “I believe that I have been intentionally harmed by Alex Dally MacFarlane (ADM), and I wish to make a public report of my experiences.”

Bergmann has also responded to File 770’s questions about WisCon’s progress in resolving the harassment complaint.

WisCon has been investigating me as a result of the official complaint from ADM and Saira Ali since summer 2014. The original Chair of the investigation committee, Debbie Notkin, stepped down and a new committee formed. One of those on it was K. Tempest Bradford, who had proclaimed herself to be a friend of both MacFarlane and Ali. I objected, and she eventually withdrew, reluctantly. Then another committee member quit. The replacement committee has been deliberating since October, which is the last time they asked me for any information. They said that they intended to present a public report after January 2, but this has not yet happened. I understand that they have reported to the concom and asked for input.

Today (January 22) WisCon issued its own update:

The subcommittee convened to consider Rose Lemberg’s report of harassment by F.J. Bergmann is beginning to wrap up its work.  Finalizing conclusions and recommendations will yet take several weeks.  The last stage of the process begins with the concom voting on whether to accept the subcommittee’s final report and recommendations.

The subcommittee’s next update will be an announcement when the concom begins voting.

“Come Build WisCon With Us”, posted December 1, invites fans to step up and fill the con committee’s vacancies.

They are seeking an organizer for the writer’s workshop, a lead in at-con registration, and people to handle the after-con party, do banquet liaison, run art show set-up, sell ads, work on grant-writing and fundraising, volunteer in gaming, assist programming and the bake sale, or even help co-chair the con.

The next WisCon is May 22-25, 2015.

[Thanks to Michael J. Walsh for the story.]

WisCon’s LiveJournal reported in October that close to a dozen people resigned in the aftermath of the Frenkel harassment ban. No names were publicized, though in addition to Jeanne Gomoll’s resignation, File 770 has learned about changes in status of three other former WisCon chairs. The departure of one of them, Richard S. Russell, was involuntary.

Jim Leinweber is no longer chair of the 2015 WisCon. He reportedly is still a member of the committee and its parent organization SF3. The new chairs are Levi Sable and Mikki Kendall. File 770 has yet to learn the reason for the change.

James Hudson, who chaired or co-chaired WisCon 21 (1997), WisCon 29 (2005) and WisCon 33 (2009), has voluntarily resigned from the WisCon committee and SF3 Board. Hudson told File 770: “My choice. Didn’t agree with some of the directions the committee was going and I was close to retiring anyway.”

Richard S. Russell, one of WisCon’s founders and chair of WisCon 9, was notified on October 24 by SF3 President Jackie Lee that he had been removed from the WisCon committee by the SF3 Board “due to his alienating current and prospective concom members, as well as WisCon as a whole” and for “behavior [that] violates WisCon’s Statement of Principles.”

Russell has worked on all 38 conventions in the series and had expected to continue serving —

WisCon is always a stressful and exhausting experience, but that has been more than offset by the sense of satisfaction and accomplishment I’ve felt after each one. Despite having slowed down somewhat at the age of 70, I was very much looking forward to doing it all again next year for WisCon 39.

Regrettably, however, WisCon has fallen under the control of a bunch of self-appointed commissars of political correctness with a low tolerance for differences of opinion on matters of policy, and they have in fact ousted me from the concom.

Russell’s continuing expression of his views in committee channels about WisCon’s People of Color Safe Space and the Jim Frenkel harassment complaint was an issue, the parties disagreeing how that deserved to be characterized.

Russell sent File 770 a copy of the letter requesting his removal from the committee, which says in part:

We appreciate Richard’s extensive contributions as a volunteer, and we are not currently seeking a ban on his presence at Wiscon. However, we feel that his continued presence on the concom is alienating and damaging to many concom members and potential members, and to Wiscon as a whole.

We believe that Richard’s behavior is not in keeping with WisCon’s Statement of Principles, which the SF3 membership has now affirmed as a policy the SF3 board and WisCon concom members should adhere to.

• Richard continues to protest the very existence of the established POC Safer Space at WisCon, and continues to insist that his interpretation of what is racist is more important than the lived experiences of people of color. (see addendum for quotes from 2009-present on this subject)
• Richard’s characterization of the POC Safer Space as “racial segregation” and his refusal to drop the subject despite being told to stop, by fellow members and by several successive sets of chairs, has caused members of the concom to leave, and will continue to cause members of the concom to leave if he remains.
• Suppressing his comments about the POC Safer Space, as has been done for the last four years, is not an adequate solution. He has threatened to bring up the issue at a concom meeting as recently as Wiscon 38 in 2014, and there is no mechanism to moderate his Basecamp comments.
• Moderation as currently implemented requires the concom list moderator to be in the exposed, singular position having to decide which of his messages to let through, and to bear the brunt of his reaction. Richard has sent the moderator outraged emails over moderated messages (see addendum).
• Richard’s trivialization of harassment discussions as “angst and breast-beating” and his characterization of harassers as needing an incentive to not harass people (“Where’s the incentive for anyone to clean up their act* if they’re just going to be discriminated against indefinitely based on a single accusation?”) indicates that his presence on the concom during discussions of harassment will be disruptive and alienating to fellow members.

The request was signed by Juliana Perry, Elliott Mason, Levi Sable, Jess Adams, Gabby Reed, Jackie M., Sandy Olson, Julia Starkey, and Kat Tanaka Okopnik.

Russell’s own take is that he is upholding the Statement of Principles –

I support it enthusiastically and whole-heartedly. My main wish is that the concom as a whole would do likewise, in particular with regard to this provision:

Feminism is part of a larger constellation of movements seeking social, political and economic equality for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, class, sex, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, creed, ability, status, or belief.

And, more recently, this one:

… we cannot pick and choose which people deserve justice and which issues we are more comfortable with. We are called to be true to our principles, even (and especially) when they are unpopular.

And this one:

Meetings, decision-making processes, program development, and guest of honor choice all reflect a commitment to feminist ideals of equality, respect for everyone’s right to be heard, and the obligation to hold each other accountable for what we say.

The expulsion letter’s first bullet point is a reference to Russell’s protest against the “People of Color Safe Space” established by WisCon several years ago, described by one proponent, N.K. Jemisin, as a place –

away from the main traffic of the con; I’ve found it useful after a panel in which somebody said something highly problematic, to go somewhere and either cool down by myself or rant at other people who understood what I was feeling.

The pithiest of Russell’s comments quoted by the letter (from a 2009 discussion) says:

Any “solution” that involves overt racial segregation is only one among many possible approaches to whatever the problem is. I have never seen a clear statement of the problem for which this “safer space” is supposed to be the solution, let alone any indication that anyone spent any serious amount of time considering alternative approaches.

The last bullet point in the expulsion letter objects to a comment he made in an online discussion about WisCon’s reconsideration of the terms of the Frenkel ban (earlier in 2014):

I preface this statement with an acknowledgement that I am far from impartial on the matter of how WisCon should treat Jim Frenkel, because Jim has been a personal friend of mine for 30+ years. I babysat his kids, attended Josh’s bar mitzvah, worked with him on opening-ceremonies skits for Odyssey Con, traded books with him, served with him on panels at cons, used him as entree to conversations with Gardner Dozois and George R. R. Martin, and so on. He is a frequent guest at my house and I at his.

So take whatever I have to say with the appropriate number of grains of salt.

And what I have to say is this: The guy already lost his job over this incident. How many sticks do we have to beat him with before he’s sufficiently bloody to satisfy everybody?

Where’s the incentive for anyone to clean up their act* [*even assuming Jim’s act needed to be cleaned up, which is by no means a certainty] if they’re just going to be discriminated against indefinitely based on a single accusation?

Earlier in this thread, somebody said “The matter was dealt with at the time, and now the case is closed.” IMHO, that’s the way it should stay. Let’s move on.

Russell further complains that when he was removed from the committee by decision of the SF3 executive board they “did not even do me the courtesy of notifying me that they were contemplating this action, let alone soliciting my reaction to it.” Undeniably that would have made it a more transparent process, however, there appears to be nothing in SF3’s Bylaws requiring notice.

WisCon has announced that “in response to member concerns” 2011 and 2014 co-chair Piglet Evans will not be handling harassment reports in any committee position she may hold in the future, nor will she serve in any of the convention’s Safety positions. (See “Piglet recuses herself from harassment process”.)

As if to allay skeptics, they added: “We further guarantee that she will be held to this.”

In recent months WisCon and its parent organization SF3 have issued a series of apologies about mishandling two harassment complaints. Piglet Evans was a point of contact for at least one of these complaints (screencap at Radish Reviews).