WSFS History: The Chris Carrier Motions

[kevin_standlee]

The WSFS Business Meeting has a love affair with the otherwise obscure procedural motion "Objection to Consideration," which allows a 2/3 majority of the meeting to kill a motion without debate as long as they do it immediately after it comes to the floor. (It's only in order before debate starts or before the Chair states a subsidiary motion, such as a motion to Refer to Committee.) This motion only exists in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, not any of the other alternative rules manuals. If you read it closely, you find that it really isn't supposed to be used on just motions that are wildly unpopular or thought to have absolutely no chance of passing; however, WSFS (for other reasons) has ruled out some of the more useful procedural ways of weeding out its agenda, so OTC is all that's left. Because the motion is obscure, and because you have to interrupt business and be fairly rude in the way you introduce it, and because it's not debatable (you can't say why you're objecting), it has a tendency to act like a 16-ton weight dropped on the heads of newcomers who don't see it coming, leaving them sitting there gasping for air and saying, "What just happened?"

OTC is really supposed to be used on motions that are highly objectionable, to the extent that they could cause harm to the organization if they actually got to the floor. It's rare than an OTC has been used this way in WSFS, but it has happened, and I was on the head table (as Parliamentarian) when it happened, back in 1993.

Here's some history: Back in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, one of the regular fixtures of WSFS Business Meetings was Robert Sacks, a notorious WSFS gadfly who wasn't very well liked and tended to introduce unpopular motions. But Robert suddenly found himself on the side of the angels at the 1993 Worldcon when a Sacramento-area fan named Chris Carrier got into a feud with him. The substance of the feud is irrelevant; the key thing is that Carrier decided to go after Robert when the Worldcon came to San Francisco.

As ConFrancisco's WSFS division manager, it fell to me to interact with Carrier. Chris produced four motions for the Business Meeting, shipping us a case of paper to meet the 200-signed-copies rule. One of the motions was actually (as I recall) routine-but-unlikely, as it affected site selection lead time, I think zone rotation [see comment below clarifying]. But the others are what set off all of our alarm bells. One of the motions called for WSFS to censure Robert Sacks for various actions. Another would have modified the WSFS Constitution, specifically naming Robert, and prohibiting WSFS from holding Worldcon within 100 miles of Robert's place of residence, up to the point of unseating a selected Worldcon should Robert move to within 100 miles of the selected site. (Robert himself suggested that he didn't mind that one, as it potentially would set him up for life as Worldcons paid him Danegeld to stay away.) I forget the third one, but it similarly wandered into oddball territory where it was highly inappropriate for WSFS to go.

Well, the Business Meeting staff went on Alert to deal with this. We actually had Sergeants-at-Arms prepared to take action if the meeting got rowdy. The word was spread that these motions were coming. We had a very well attended Business Meeting. Carrier had himself and one person he'd convinced to come along and second all of his motions. Chris had learned his procedural rules, I'll grant him that. But as soon as we got to the Carrier Motions in the agenda, WSFS members lept to their feet and deployed Objection to Consideration in the way it's really intended: to kill motions that don't even deserve consideration because they could lead to damaging the organization just to discuss them. Carrier tried to fight delaying actions, calling for ballot votes on each OTC, but everything he proposed died everyone-2, and his motions were killed everyone-2. WSFS showed just how efficient it can be, killing four motions in about four minutes, and that was that.

Now yes, one of the killed motions really didn't deserve that OTC, but was "collateral damage" caused by a crackpot dropping three highly objectionable motions onto WSFS. Robert Sacks had a few minutes of goodwill with the Business Meeting that he then proceeded to fritter away in his usual way. Carrier was convinced that there was a conspiracy to support Robert Sacks, which there was not: there was a "conspiracy" to protect WSFS from crackpot motions.

Now this is all ancient history to some folks; after all, it was twenty years ago, and besides, both Robert Sacks and Chris Carrier are now dead; however, it does show a case where Objection to Consideration was used properly, and it also it one of the reasons I'm reluctant to introduce any proposal that completely eliminates it such as the otherwise-plausible idea of making motions with sufficient co-sponsors immune from OTC.

Comments

[paradoox.livejournal.com]

You know that the minutes from that BM are online:
http://worldcon.org/bm/pre-1998/w1993.htm

I'd summarize the motions as:

A) site selection rotation change to 4 zones
B) motion to censure
C) Short Title: "Incompatible Activities Amendment"
D) exclusion zone to include Robert Sacks

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I was too lazy to look it up. Thanks for the footnote.

[parrismcb.livejournal.com]

thanks for this explanation of why the WSFS uses the rules as they/we do. I vaguely remember some of this history, but I don't regularly attend the business meetings unless I know there's specific issues I want to propose/defend. then I'll drag myself out and hunt for tea and sugar no matter how late the night before was for me. I generally trust the WSFS to be democratic and pragmatic.

Maybe we should set up a "Ask a SMOF anything" Q&A period online and at cons. Of course, we'd need 3 SMOFS and 4 moderators to present various philosophies and knowledge sets.....damn, another good idea shot down by the details of how to set up such a event, too bad we don't have people experienced in choosing interesting topics and appropriate panelists. Oh wait...

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

We actually had (in effect) such a panel on Thursday of this year's Worldcon. Because the other main panelist and I have loudly disagreed in the past, some folks turned up looking for a bloodbath and were disappointed. Martin Easterbrook did a good job of pitching questions at Mark Olson and I and taking them from the audience.

The big challenge is that the best time for the panel relative to the Business Meeting is on the first day, when there aren't a lot of people around. By the time you get to the point where there are enough people around, the meetings have already happened.

[eefster.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I think waiting until the Thursday is too late anyway. One panel is probably either a good (very general) overview or a good refresher, but won't be sufficient to help brand-new people feel comfortable with the procedures.

Robert's Rules are dense as it is, and WSFS has modified them. I think a 'Complete Beginner's' guide online would be a big help, broken down into sections and/or the major items someone is likely to run into at a WSFS business meeting. That can be from as simple as moving/seconding to as 'dramatic' as the OTC. (Could the entire generic BM be represented as one big flow chart?)

Sample videos of each item from past BMs (or simulations for this guide) would then show where they fall in a meeting and how quick it can be. Having a on-going version of bovil's 'Ask the Chair' could also be a way for people to get their questions answered.

Having a 'baby BM' even earlier Friday (9am? 8:30?) would give new attendees one physical runthrough before going to the actual Preliminary meeting without requiring another day's attendance (time off work, hotel costs, etc.)

Of course, all of this has to be balanced with 1) is it actually useful, 2) is the utility worth the effort, and 3) time and resources from volunteers, and then extra time/space at Worldcon itself. I know that I would find it immensely useful, as a newcomer to the process, but I don't know that that means the WSFS should invest in it above other things.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

I find running some of these primer panels to be an exercise in headbanging (of the desk, not metal, kind).

Well-meaning established people make the suggestion, because if only new people understood, they would understand. Only the new people rarely bother to come to the primer panels. This may be because the panels aren't effectively pitched to newcomers (where "may be"="definitely"). This may be because the newcomers, in a fit of hubris, are offended at the suggestion they don't know everything (where "may be"="often").

Some recent newcomers make the suggestion, because they've surmounted the obstacles and become a part of things. But they're often unable to pitch the panel ideas in ways programming heads understand.

Mind you, I've seen this work at Costume-Con. Then again, that's a much smaller and more focused convention. It's easier at reg to identify newcomers and pitch newcomer panels to them. The "So this is your first Costume-Con" panels are populated by established participants, who start talking about their experiences at their first Costume-Con, and then open up to questions on the floor.

[bovil.livejournal.com]

Then again, having an early "Ask the chair anything" panel would probably draw people...

[purpleranger.livejournal.com]

As I recall (and from clicking on the link that paradoox gave), the "Incompatible Activities Amendment," while not actually saying it, seemed to be accusing Robert of various criminal activities. Was this simply a case of Carrier engaging of assholery above and beyond the call of duty?

I didn't know Robert that well, but I always found him a congenial sort. We probably had our points on where we disagreed, but we were able to do so without being disagreeable.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

I do not know and I do not care. I just know that it's an area into which I don't think WSFS should go. It's a quagmire.

[katster.livejournal.com]

Enjoyed the history, Kevin.

Just wanted to say that. :)

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Thank you. After all the static I've taken, including being banned by jorhett because I'm one of the Evil Old White Guy SMOFS Maliciously Oppressing All Women, People of Color, New Fans, and anyone else that Jo has decided to Ride to the Rescue of today, there have been times lately when I wonder whether there's any point to my continuing to try and work on these things. The positive feedback really helps.

[lindadee.livejournal.com]

You may be preaching to the choir, but take heart that that's what Jo is doing as well. I don't think either side is convincing the other.

[k6rfm.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this; I do remember this business meeting. I was thinking the other day that it was the actual example of the Worldcon business meeting using OTC as it should, but my memory told me Sacks was the mover, not the target; glad to have my faulty memory corrected.

[(Anonymous)]

In the case of the Carrier motions, Carrier was only able to find two people to support them -- that is, himself and one other person. If there had been a standing rule that protected any motion with, say, 10 supporters from being OTC'd, he might possibly have been able to find 10 supporters for his motion to change the zone rotation system, or his Incompatible Activities Amendment, but certainly not for the one to ban any Worldcon from being held within 100 km of Robert Sacks' home. There are only so many people willing to sign their name to a resolution whose consideration would be damaging to the organization -- and the more people who sign on, the less likely it is that the motion's consideration really would be damaging to the organization.

(I was going to say "outright foolishness" instead of "damaging to the organization," but that's not the same thing.)

Any restrictions on OTC would presumably be done via a standing rule rather than a constitutional amendment -- so presumably they could be changed from year to year and thus fine-tuned until some satisfactory balance was achieved.

-- J. Kreitzer

[cogitationitis.livejournal.com]

Interesting that we're now writing codes of conduct, with respect to the "Incompatible Activities." Of course, it would have been impossible to administer.

I always really liked Robert. Back then, I was new to business meetings, and though he was a gadfly, I thought he sometimes kept us to our rules, even when I was more convenient for us to try to cheat them a bit. His death hit me hard.