DisCon III Moves to December -- and Ignores the WSFS Constitution

[kevin_standlee]

As by now I assume most of the people who read my journal know, DisCon III, the 2021 Worldcon, has moved dates and will now run December 15-19, 2021. It will still be at the Omni Shoreham, but the originally-planned other hotel, the Marriott Wardman Park, went bankrupt and is permanently closed. Before reading further, I encourage people to read the linked article, which goes into extensive detail about why they are doing what they are doing. The December date is the earliest that they hold the convention during a time when they think it will be safe to do so and that the Omni had available space. Trying to hold the convention in August would probably not be safe, even if it was legal, and trying to go all-virtual if the large-events-ban orders were lifted by then would have scuppered the convention with massive cancellation fees from the Omni.

Personally, I'm much happier with a December Worldcon in person than in an all-virtual convention in August (if the meeting order was still in effect) or no Worldcon at all (which was quite plausible). It does, however, change my projected travel plans. I expect there to be an in-person Loscon (last weekend of November), and SMOFCon in Portugal is the following weekend, followed by Worldcon two weeks later. Lisa and I plan to take the train to Washington DC, cashing in many years of accumulated Amtrak points. While I do have enough accumulated time off that I could conceivably take an entire month off, I think it would be a bad idea to do so for various reasons. I did even work out a complicated travel plan that would have us drive to LA, then fly to Portugal and back to LA, then drive up the coast to the Bay Area to take the train on our planned trip. Our tentative train travel plan is a circle trip: Emeryville-Chicago, Chicago-DC, DC-New Orleans, New Orleans-Los Angeles, and LA-Emeryville, then drive home. We might spend Christmas in New Orleans. I don't have the family with whom I used to spend holidays, so it's not the hardship it is for some to have a major holiday period around Worldcon.

In any event, I've pretty much given up on traveling to Portugal for SMOFCon. It will save money and allow me to continue to be a team player. Besides, I don't really want to spend all of my PTO at once. I'm going to need it for Westercon 74 next year and likely another train trip to Chicago for next year's Worldcon.

Yes, I'm generally happy with DisCon III's decisions, but there is one decision buried in the fine print about which I and a number of others are not pleased.

At the very bottom of their announcement is this statement:

As we have already closed site selection [filing], we will not be reopening and shifting the filing deadline.

The closing of filing for site selection to which they refer is the deadline for filing the necessary papers to be on the ballot for the 2023 Worldcon site selection election that DC3 is conducting. The relevant deadline is clearly stated in the WSFS Constitution:

4.6.3: For a bid to be allowed on the printed ballot, the bidding committee must file the documents specified above no later than 180 days prior to the official opening of the administering convention.

The original opening date of DisCon III was August 25, 2021. Therefore, the deadline for filing to be on the site selection ballot was February 26, 2021. Two bids (Memphis, Tennessee and Chengdu, China) filed by then. The site selection ballot has not yet been issued, and there is no indication that it has even been printed. (Typically this ballot goes out around the same time as the final ballot for Hugo Award voting.) The newly announced official opening of DisCon III is now December 15, 2021. Logically, that means the new deadline for filing should be June 18, 2021. In my opinion, this means that if anyone else wants to bid for the 2023 Worldcon, they have until June 18 to file a bid to be on the ballot. Yes, that means that I think that filing should reopen until June 18.

Note that the filing deadline to be eligible to win the election is the close of voting, which probably will be around 6 PM Eastern Time on December 17, 2021. Only bids that meet the eligibility requirements, which includes being at least 800 km from the site of the 2021 Worldcon, may file such papers. That does mean that sites like Charlotte, Detroit, Toronto, New York City, Montreal, or Boston aren't eligible, although Nashville, Atlanta, and Orlando are, by my reckoning of straight-line distances via Google Maps.

DisCon III contends that because the original deadline has passed, it should not be reopened. I contend that the wording in the WSFS Constitution is explicit and that there is no overriding reason (like, for example, local law, or a direct restriction of the pandemic as opposed to an incidental side effect of it) that an explicit provision of the WSFS Constitution should be set aside. As it happens, the site selection filing deadline is the only date that is written into the WSFS Constitution relative to the official opening of the convention. Eligibility for the Hugo Awards and eligibility for being able to nominate for the Hugo Awards are hard-coded dates. The deadline for submitting new business to the WSFS Business Meeting is relative to the date of the first Preliminary Business Meeting, not the start of the convention itself. (And a good thing, too, because in my opinion, the contention that deadlines have to be based on the original convention date means that if the new-business deadline was relative to the start of the convention, we'd have to refuse to accept new business in mid-July for a meeting that won't happen until mid-December.)

You may be asking, "So what? All the bids we knew about have already filed, so what difference does it make?"

I contend that there are two reasons for being concerned about this. The first is that frankly, there are groups that are unhappy about both the bids on the ballot, for various reasons. A "sprint" bid might enter the field. Now even though I have agreed to run Memphis' WSFS division should they win, I'm trying to be as fair as I can about the known deficiencies of all currently filed bids. In 1990, I was a member of the San Francisco in '93 Worldcon bid committee, facing filed bids from Phoenix and Zagreb. Due to unimpressive performances from all three filed bids at the 1989 SMOFCon (the filing deadline at that time was the close of the previous Worldcon, and sites were selected three years in advance at that time), a heretofore hoax bid for Hawaii was pressed into service by a large number of SMOFs and a write-in bid for Hawaii in '93 filed. The write-in bid placed second ahead of the Zagreb and Phoenix bids, and I rather expect that had they been on the ballot, they might have beaten San Francisco. In 1991-92, I wrote and was a co-sponsor of a change to WSFS rules that changed the filing deadline to 180 days before the convention, a rule that, had it been in effect for the 1990 election for the 1993 Worldcon, would have allowed Hawaii to be on the ballot. So even though it would have been used against me back then, I recognize the value in keeping the door open for "sprint" bids. If there are groups that still want to take a shot at the 2023 Worldcon, I think they should have a chance to file until the T-180 deadline that is written into the Constitution.

The second reason I think DisCon III should reopen filing, even if nobody else files, is philosophical. WSFS rules are not self-enforcing. We trust Worldcon committees to follow WSFS rules as much as they can, subject to local laws and other contingencies. There is no higher authority that can force a Worldcon committee to obey WSFS rules. There's no WSFS Inc. that can step in and give orders. There is no appeal from a Worldcon committee's decisions. A Worldcon committee that refuses to follow a clearly-written and unambiguous rule that would not be difficult to follow is telling us that no rule is safe. WSFS governance is based on trust. If we can't trust a committee to follow the rules, then the unwritten contract between the members of WSFS and the Worldcon committee that manages the members' annual convention breaks down.

There are much more complicated things that Worldcons have to do that are written into the Constitution. We trust those committees to follow those rules, and to deviate from them only in extremis. There may even be reasons to set aside some rules. For example, had DC3 been held on its original dates and should the existing public health emergency have still been in effect and the convention held entirely online, we would have been able to set aside the WSFS Constitutional provision regarding remote participation in the Business Meeting because the District of Columbia (local jurisdiction of the convention) has an ordinance that says that during such an emergency, rules in your bylaws prohibiting electronic meetings cannot be enforced. It would have been complicated, but it would be legal, and it would not be the DC3 committee arbitrarily deciding to ignore a WSFS rule.

I think DisCon III should change their initial decision and reopen site selection filing until June 18, even if no other bid surfaces, to confirm that insofar as they are able to do so, even under the difficulties of a worldwide pandemic, they will continue to obey the rules of the organization whose membership is the World Science Fiction Society. To do otherwise is to do a disservice to the members of WSFS.

Comments

[a_cubed]

I agree with this, Kevin.
Do you think an open letter from former Worldcon Bidders (or open to more people, but former bidders seem the most relevant stakeholders to me) would be worthwhile trying to organise?

[kevin_standlee]

It might be worthwhile. I know that some individuals have been writing to DC3 about this already.

[dianelacey]

I, for one, would willingly sign that letter

[kevin_standlee]

As I hope would be obvious, I also would sign such a letter. I'm a three-time Worldcon bid committee member, including one of the bids that led to the adoption of the current rule, and of course I chaired the SJ in 2002 committee. Somewhat forgotten in fannish history is that even though Seattle had to drop out of the 2002 race, there was a last-minute filing for a not-entirely-serious-but-could-be-made-to-work 2002 bid for Roswell, New Mexico. That bid wouldn't have been allowed without the 180-day rule.

Andrew: Would you like to take a shot at drafting such a letter and drumming up support from other Worldcon bidders?

[drplokta]

There is of course an interesting question that should perhaps be considered by the Nit-picking and Fly-specking committee. What would happen if a Worldcon unexpectedly brought its opening date, and thus the filing deadline, forwards by three months? Let’s say that IndecisiveCon announces its dates as 1-5 September, implying a filing deadline in early March. A bid is filed in January, and a couple more bids plan to file. Then IndecisiveCon announces “We’ve changed our dates to 1-5 July, so the filing deadline has already passed, and we won’t be accepting any more bids”. That would appear to be perfectly legal, and indeed required, under clause 4.6.3.

I would suggest the the clause should be: “4.6.3: For a bid to be allowed on the printed ballot, the bidding committee must file the documents specified above no later than 180 days prior to the official opening of the administering convention. Where the administering convention has at different times publicly announced more than one opening date, the latest such date shall be used, even if it does not reflect the current intention at the time that bids are filed.”

Although if a Worldcon brings its dates forwards by more than 180 days, that would require the filing deadline to be after the administering convention actually happens.

[kevin_standlee]

As it happens, an advancement of the date happened last year, but the change happened so far in advance that nobody paid much attention. Pre-pandemic, CoNZealand moved a week earlier than originally planned, which also moved the filing date. However, as there was only one know bid and no apparent additional bidder, and the change happened well in advance, nobody, including me, complained. Now had it been closer to the filing deadline, and had I been the Administrator, I would have probably held the door open an extra week — yes, ignoring the Constitutional language I helped craft — for the equitable reasons you mention.

The NPFSC has already been considering this issue and may have legislation to submit this year on the subject.

There are hard-coded (not relative) deadlines written into the Constitution that pretty much assume that Worldcon will never happen much earlier than the first week of July, and it would be extremely difficult to do so in the first quarter of the year. Indeed, in a technical sense, it would be impossible to announce the Hugo Awards at Worldcon if that Worldcon were held in January. Those people who think that "Worldcon" and the "Hugo Awards" are separate things that should be separated from each other would get their wish, as the Worldcon would have to conduct the administration of the awards and announce the result long after their convention ended.

[clothsprogs]

For what it's worth, I agree with you about reopening and moving to the new deadline.

Teddy

[history_monk]

Agreed. I'd be cautious about leaping into a rules revision at this stage. Leave it as an exceptional case for now.

[kevin_standlee]

The NPFSC is never that enthusiastic about proposing changes, but under the current circumstances, it may be necessary to do something that says, in effect, "Yes, even if it means reopening an already-closed deadline." Again, the committee is discussing the subject and watching developments.

[seekingferret]

I think the point about the importance of sticking to the formal rules, especially for an organization as otherwise transient and chaotic as WSFS, is a good one. But the sprint bid argument is not convincing to me.

Discon had a clearly communicated bid timeline for site selection bidding. The two announced bids have made clear for a long time that they were planning to bid, well before even that timeline was announced. Discon happening in December instead of August has little impact on how a convention that will take place in two years down the road will operate- for the little impact it will have, my understanding is that all declared bids have agreed that they don't mind that the business meeting being pushed back will delay getting some things started for the winner. If someone was dissatisfied with Memphis and Chengdu, there has been plenty of time for them to create a competing bid to challenge them. And it seems to me that the value of adhering to the formal rules is competing against the significant value of having a clearly communicated, fair process and schedule for site selection and sticking to that process and schedule even as other things change around it. The appearance of fairness is damaged by a process that keeps changing, too, even if it is changing because it is trying to adhere to formal governing rules.

[kevin_standlee]

Well, if all that matters is knowing who the bidders are far in advance, maybe we should go back to requiring bids to be filed by the end of the previous Worldcon. Then you would know at least one Worldcon before the Worldcon selection happens. Is that more important than giving flexibility to any group that wants to bid to decide by about six months before the election to enter the race?

[seekingferret]

You wrote two paragraphs about how Worldcon governance is built on trust, on how it's important that rules be carried out fairly and consistently because that's how we know that the important rules of the society are being carried out fairly and consistently. But you don't seem to think it's important that when Discon sets out rules for how it's going to carry out site selection, it sticks to those rules too?

We can argue in a vacuum about how site selection deadlines should be adjusted for the future all we want, honestly I don't really care that much, six months sounds fine in general. If we went to a purely digital balloting system and shortened the deadline in the future to four months before the con's advertised dates, that would also sound fine to me. I'm not opposed to making it easier for bids to enter the race later. But right now what you're calling for is changing election rules mid-race. And I appreciate that there is a good formal argument for changing the rules, but I don't think you're grappling with how changing the rules after filing deadlines have passed would be unfair- and have the appearance of unfairness- to the Memphis and Chengdu bids who have been working within the established process.

[kevin_standlee]

I'm saying that DisCon III shouldn't be ignoring the very small number of rules that they are required to follow.

I am not calling for the rules to be changed mid-race. I'm saying that the rules should be enforced as they are written. The rules say "180 days before the opening date of the convention." The convention's opening date has changed. You are the one who is saying that the rules should be changed in mid race, and that instead of the deadline being 180 days before the opening date of the convention, it should be 180 days before the original opening date of the convention.

But who cares, right? Why should they follow any rules at all? Maybe they could say, "Because we think that Hugo Awards voting is too complicated, instead of ranking your choices, just mark an X and we'll decide who wins." And if you complained that this isn't how the rules are written, they said, "Pandemic! We get to do anything we want to do!"

[nolly]

Since the rule is "no later than", without a "no earlier than" clause, it seems to me that they are within the rule of law. Saying they are "ignoring" the Constitution is a bit extreme; they are only going against tradition.

[kevin_standlee]

I'm unclear how you reach this conclusion. What would a "no earlier than" clause mean here?

DisCon III is going against the way this rule has been interpreted since it first took effect in 1993. I was the WSFS division manager that year. I wrote the proposal that was put before the Business Meeting in 1991 and ratified in 1992. Every Worldcon for past thirty years except DisCon III has interpreted this as what I would consider to be the plain meaning: If you file your bid at least 180 days prior to the official opening date of the convention, it should be on the ballot.

Are you saying that WSFS hid some sort of tricksy meaning in those words and that it's taken thirty years for a Worldcon committee to discover it?

As of today (April 18, 2021), it is 241 days until the official opening of DisCon III. Therefore, if a bid were to file today, they would be filing 241 days prior to the convention. 241 < 180, so they would not be filing later than "180 days prior to the convention." What am I missing here?

Should we have actually written something in the constitution like:

To calculate the filing deadline, subtract 180 days from the official opening date of the convention. The result of this calculation is the date by which you must file a bid to be on the ballot. If the official opening date of the convention changes, you must recalculate the filing deadline by once again subtracting 180 days from the official opening date of the convention. This means that if a Worldcon changes the official opening date of its convention after it is originally seated, the filing deadline also changes. This also means that if a Worldcon moves its dates later than originally announced, even if the originally calculated filing deadline has passed, then any additional bids file by the new deadline also are eligible for the ballot.

Or is this still not enough words? How could we possibly state the rule so that it means exactly how it has been interpreted by every other Worldcon committee for the past thirty years, including Worldcons who have changed their dates after they were originally seated?