Kevin Standlee (kevin_standlee) wrote,
Kevin Standlee

  • Mood:

Nobody Checks My Work

While I'm flattered that people think I'm such a good parliamentary draftsman that my work is free from errors, the fact that nobody seems to go over my proposals and spot bugs means that I'm more likely to make mistakes. While looking over the proposal I wrote yesterday, I realized that just re-inserting the sentence that we dropped out of 3.2 doesn't work because the wording of other sections changed as well. For instance, the old 75-mile exclusion zone no longer exists. Giving it more thought, I think that the purpose of section 3.6 was supposed to change entirely. Under the old two-zone system (plus a local 75-mile exclusion), you had two deadlines, and these things happened at deadlines:

Jan 1: If nobody from eligible zone (there was only one in those days) files, then any place in the other zone except places within 75 miles of the administering site becomes eligible.

Apr 15: Only sites filed by today appear on the ballot. If nobody files, then the 75-mile restriction goes away as well. Obviously, all bids run as write-ins.

The 75-mile rule isn't there any more. The April 15 rule is really meant only to apply to what bids appear on the ballot. Only the January 1 rule applies to letting the "local zone" bid.

Taking all of this into account, I get this revised wording:

3.6 Provisions When No Valid Eligible Bids Are Received

If no valid bids are received by the deadline in section 3.5, If no eligible bids are received by the January 1st of the year of the site-selection balloting, then all sites defined in section 3.1 shall be eligible and the other site restrictions in this article shall be suspended.
Comments: This “safety valve” provision allows bids from the zone that is otherwise excluded from bidding to file if no bids from the other zones file on or before January 1 of the year in which the site-selection election is happening. This rule existed in the two-zone rotation system that was changed in 2005 to the current “anti-zone” system; however, due to a drafting error, it was inadvertently stricken when the current wording of section 3.2 was adopted.

This year, it was noticed that the “safety valve” clause was missing from the bylaws, and inasmuch as no bids from the non-South zones had filed either by January 1 or April 15, while bids from the South zone had, a minor crisis ensued until the site selection administrator was able to make a ruling that allowed the two bids onto the ballot. This ruling was rather convoluted, however, and all parties involved would prefer to see this explicit provision restored to the bylaws.

The previous wording of Section 3.6, with its reference to Section 3.5, was intended for situations when no bids at all had filed by April 15; in which case the final restriction (a 75-mile exclusion zone around the administering site) was suspended. This 75-mile zone no longer exists, and therefore references to situations when no bids at all file by the April 15 ballot deadline no longer have any relevance, because if no bids file by January 1, all sites, including those in the administering zone, become eligible already.

Note that this only suspends
site restrictions, and particularly section 3.3. All other requirements for bidding, such as a facility agreement, organizing document, etc. still apply even if the site restrictions are suspended.

I think this accomplishes what we want, but I would appreciate it if someone else would look through the Westercon bylaws and make sure I haven't caused one problem while trying to fix another.

Edit, 11:35: Added the supporting argument that goes with the proposal.
Tags: westercon

  • Why New Editions?

    I responded to this comment on LiveJournal, but is deserves a longer and top-level answer. Is there actually a requirement that the WSFS business…

  • New Edition

    Something I hadn't noticed until recently is that a new edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR) was issued last year. This is…

  • Actual Snow

    No, we didn't win the lottery last night. Indeed, no ticket got more than one hit, and therefore we don't need to go back and try to collect even a…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.