INTRODUCTION. The deadline to submit proposals to the Glasgow 2024 Business Meeting was July 10. The formal agenda will be out soon, but in the meantime the movers of 15 submitted items have provided copies for publication and discussion on File 770.
“When We Censure You, We Mean It” proposes that someone censured by the WSFS Business Meeting shall be ineligible to participate in bidding or running a WSFS convention for a specified period. A bid which names such a person on their committee shall be ineligible to appear on the Site Selection ballot or be written in. A seated Worldcon committee that includes such a person, even as a guest, shall be deemed incapable and its site selection and Hugo administration functions will be assumed by the following seated Worldcon.
SHORT TITLE: WHEN WE CENSURE YOU, WE MEAN IT
Moved to amend the WSFS Constitution by adding the following text:
Section 4.X: Bid and Convention Committee Eligibility
4.X.1: No person who has been censured by the WSFS Business Meeting shall be eligible to participate in bidding for or administering a WSFS-selected convention or any associated responsibilities, for a period of five (5) years or until the censure is lifted, whichever is longer.
4.X.2: Any bid naming a censured person on their committee shall become ineligible to appear on the Site Selection ballot or for selection by write-in vote. Any Worldcon committee naming a censured person on their staff at any level or as a named guest shall be deemed incapable and their WSFS business functions (site selection and Hugo administration) shall be assumed by the following seated Worldcon.
SPONSORS: Kate Secor, Kristina Forsyth, Terri Ash, Kevin Sonney
DISCUSSION: Right now, being censured by WSFS has no actual practical effect. Let’s make it mean something.
WSFS has historically been reluctant to censure people, which means that the bar to doing so is extremely high, and when we do it, it should have some kind of real-world effect. This sets up what seems like a proportionate response to the level of malfeasance required for a censure.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Agree with this one
Yes.
I would add two provisions.
To 4.X.1, a provision for pardoning and immediate lifting of sanctions if the censured person is subsequently found to be innocent.
To 4.X.2, a grace period for a Worldcon that has already named the censured individual to name a replacement.
I think Stuart has the right idea!
Overall, I like it.
Chris
Whichever is LONGER? So does this mean that even after the five years, the censure would need to be lifted explicitly, or might be tacitly prolonged? I could understand not wanting to allow the next year’s Worldcon to lift the censure, but this phrasing seems to have unintended consequences.
@Jan Vanek jr.
I don’t think those consequences are unintended. If someone has done something egregious enough to be censured, it’s up to them to actively convince the community to let them back in.
Hmm. I’m not sure that it was the intention for the future Worldcons to need dealing with previous censures, but even so, in such a case phrasing like “until the censure is lifted, but never less than five years” would be much clearer.
With Stuart Hall’s and Jan Venek, Jr.’s modifications, I like this.