May 5 2012
ESFS Should Reform
This is one article I wanted not to write. I have to because I was in the centre of an unpleasant hurdle, assaulted by both friends and foes.
It is about the 2012 Zagreb Eurocon, which by the way was really ok from the organizers point of view. They edited English and Croat anthologies especially for this event and the famous Darko Macan was everywhere. Zagreb is a wonderful clean city, full with flowers, blossoming and perfuming the atmosphere. This is one of the reasons I initially chose Bucharest in May, for the 2014 bid. (Anyway this article is not about winning or losing. I have to say “Congratulations, Ireland! your effort was better!”). Even though, the Zagreb event was quite near after Easter and this showed in personal finances, mine or others. The attendance was as expected, less that in Stockholm last year. The only other reason I think, besides finance, would be the past war, however even the police was scarcely there, making obvious that the slightest sign of war was erased. Fortunately for the Croats, because the tourists still seem to remember, and being cautious until their first visit.
I attended two ESFS general meetings. The first should have been on Thursday, but because of lack of quorum (Roberto Quaglia arrived with me on Friday) it was postponed. I will focus on bid presentation and things related to bid. Because on this I have a stronger opinion, being directly involved, I have some proofs and more important, it concerns the main basis of Eurocon.
The Croat organizer where able to provide a large conference room, complete with ceiling projector on a large screen and a laptop attached. Wonderful. I was asked before the presentation if 15 minutes will suffice. Of course they will, I said, thinking at the number of pages. Absolutely, I was thinking, we have the best conditions.
However the presentations were allowed only 10 minutes. Officially, new rule. Mister Chairman withdrew himself from the board table for the duration, only to better support his team, by further detailing prices and making comments or pushing the guy presenting for Ireland. I resented that, the limited time and the visible support from an “inactive Chairman”.
Let’s say, this was at the presentation. If you want to look at my presentation, filmed by one of my colleagues, it is on YouTube, here (Presentation, First Part, Presentation, Last Part). Not very elaborate, simple, direct, based on facts. You have to forgive my English and my obvious excessive nervousness.
Next day, same atmosphere. The now active Chairman proposed 3 minutes speech for each bidder representative, which was done, only for him to begin presenting some more during 5 to 10 minutes. It was quite inappropriate, and was covering small details like currency exchange rate or the relation with Worldcon in London, the series of 6 or more events, but the meaning was “Vote for Ireland”. Of course I reacted but with no effect. There could be more to say, but everybody’s time is limited and you may draw a clear image from what was said already.
I will not comment that on the Eurocon schedule the Romanian bid was ignored, and it was even marked the Dublin Eurocon 2014 presentation on Sunday, printed long time before vote! I will only remember that Iris – Eastercon Journal and Ansible mentioned, by wording of ESFS Chairman that Dublin Eurocon for 2014 is a fact and indeed linked with Worldcon. It was a whole campaign, focused on ignoring Romanian bid, or even the necessary bid approval for one bidder. And this campaign was lead by the ESFS Chairman.
Maybe you will see on the film the equivocal position of Ireland representative answering the question what will happen if Worldcon will not be in London 2014. It seems to me they didn’t considered the possibility.
Thank you mister Chairman of ESFS for being impartial and supporting. Romania should have withdrawn the bid, but afterwards the image would be as a theatrical one, not as a protest for not being equally treated. The main reason we stay and fight is the following.
We have to start lobbying for stronger changes at ESFS board and restore the professional look and credibility. Compared to Worldcon, Eurocon seems like a small European travel agency, which by chance happens to be used by many SF fans and maybe some few SF professionals.
I would be happy to hear somebody proving me wrong.
Johan Anglemark
May 5, 2012 @ 2:34 pm
Interesting (I wasn’t there). Two things:
1. Why should the question what will happen if Worldcon will not be in London 2014 have been considered? There are no competing bids, there is no opposition to the bid. We *know* Worldcon will be in London in 2014, as surely as if the vote had already taken place. Only a disaster of some sort, like the conference center burning down, will prevent it.
2. As I understand it, your complaint is with the conduct of the ESFS chairman, not with the ESFS bylaws and statutes. Exactly what are the changes you propose?
Eugen Lenghel
May 5, 2012 @ 7:37 pm
Short answers:
1. That was my reaction also, because I was convinced that Worldcon 2014 will be in London. Why the question was raised, I don’t know. It wasn’t me to raise it.
2. For the moment we only have some ideas. I have to confer with colleagues and affiliates in order to agree and submit a formal document. As soon as the main course of action will be established, we will make it public.
I have to add, because it seems necessary:
We are not angry about loosing the bid. The Irish made a better effort than us and we fairly agree to that. At the end the results would have been the same.
Johan Anglemark
May 6, 2012 @ 12:18 pm
I’m looking forward to hearing those proposals. I myself think that the current setup is a bit of a legacy from the 1970s and that there is plenty of scope for reform.
Chris O'Shea
May 8, 2012 @ 12:27 pm
Firstly, I wasn’t there either, sadly … and having been to Dublin many times before, but never having been to Romania, I’d have had no qualms about voting for Romania … (of course I have good friends on the Dublin bid, and they would have pursuaded me to vote for them, so in the end I’d have voted for Dublin too).
I see the location of the Worldcon as being pretty irrelevant (or at least having competing pros and cons).
Pro: it means that many Worldcon attendees may spend a longer trip in Europe and come to the Eurocon.
Cons: it puts two expensive conventions very close financially and for people that might have to arrange child care, care for aged parents etc. it means more disruption in their lives …
Also we end up with a Eurocon that may be more “diluted” with non-Europeans (whether that is good or bad is of course debateable)
I’d like to see more emphasis on what makes a Eurocon different from a national convention *or* a worldcon, but that seems almost assumed …
As there are no other bids for Worldcon in 2014, the UK bid will win unless (as has been said) there is a disaster, or enough people vote *against* the UK bid. There’s been plenty of preparation (a couple of years of bid parties, smoffing etc.) which has led to no competing bids, so the UK worldcon bid is all but won.
And again the Dublin bid for Eurocon has been quite visible for a little while now, and (at least to me) it was the bid that had the most visibility, and enthusiasm and energy.
I think the chairman excusing himself from the chair so he could go support his home country’s bid is perfectly fair. It was clear he was supporting them in his personal capacity as a fan and a conrunner and not in his ESFS role.
However if he continued to promote his bid when back in charge, that would be wrong (of course if he was just recounting facts rather than trying to sway opinion, then again I see little wrong with that, though it would have been better to have left that to someone on the bidding team to make those points).
Overall, I think you make good points about how things could be improved, but I don’t think there’s enough evidence listed here for anyone to call “foul” or ask for the vote to be retaken … just a light slap on the wrist will suffice, and some thoughts about new rules.
Any organisation that isn’t constantly questioning the existing rules/procedures (whether to get rid of them or to add to them) is stagnant.
I don’t like having too many rules or requirements, but an emphasis on fairplay and reasonableness is perfectly acceptable.
Eugen Lenghel
May 8, 2012 @ 2:08 pm
Yes Chris, is not a matter to recount or to retake the vote. What is done is done. If it was something about I would have claimed then and there to do something.
But there are quite few things to improve about Eurocon and ESFS.
Mihaela
May 8, 2012 @ 1:41 pm
I am sorry about the program book item title. It was a printing/proofing mistake and we apologize. Originally it said “Eurocon 2014 in Dublin/Euroconference 2014” because programming had had a request for a panel slot with that title on Sunday.
Eugen Lenghel
May 8, 2012 @ 2:01 pm
It is OK Mihaela, it is not a big one. Anyway the things started with Eastercon and Dublin was presented since then as sole bidder and of course winner. The Romanian bid was ignored all the way. But again, this was not at all due to your team.
Mihaela
May 8, 2012 @ 1:44 pm
Unbelievale, again! sorry. am typing to fast.
It was supposed to say “Eurocon 2014/Euroconference 2014”
and since it was applied for by the Irish, they were going to hold whether Dublin won Eurocon or not.
SF2 Concatenation
January 12, 2013 @ 3:09 pm
It is quite understandable if someone bidding for a Eurocon saw that at a prior Euroconference (in this case Olympus 2012) there was a session (with the ESFS Chair attending) billed in that convention’s newsletter as a Eurocon 2012 briefing and immediately above that an item on Linkcons billed as being before the 2014 ‘Dublin European Con’, then that bidding person would possibly be just slightly concerned.
Though the word ‘Eurocon’ was not used with specific reference to Dublin, a Eurocon association might have been made by some especially as there was no mention of other bids (such as Romania’s). Unfortunate wording? Possibly? Many at the UK Olympus (not being Eurocon regulars) would not know the difference between ‘Euroconference’, ‘Eurocon’ and ‘European convention’. Using the term ‘Irish national convention’ might have been better because at that time the convention had no official status. In short an association – albeit subconsciously – or an impression might have been given that Ireland 2014 was a Eurocon when of course at that stage it was not as the site vote had yet to take place. As Olympus was an ESFS endorsed Euroconference, ESFS had a duty of care and it would have been good to have had things made less ambiguous. Nonetheless these things happen and we might pass this one off as an isolated accident.
However subsequently what happened at the Zagreb 2012 Eurocon – at which the bidding vote was due to take place – was that there was a programme item that was clearly billed as if Ireland 2014 was already confirmed that year’s Eurocon. But this programme schedule was drafted before the bid vote took place, and there was no mention of alternate bids (be it Romania’s or possible bids yet to be launched at that year’s Eurocon). This was most certainly (as cited in another’s comment above) a mistake. If a potential rival bidder saw this then they would certainly think there was bias. At this point the ESFS Chair should have been sensitive to such possible concerns and made a point of ensuring that everything from thereon in was, not just above board but, seen to be above board. But did this attention to governance happen…?
All the above is a matter of public record (online) and one does not need to have attended Zagreb to be aware of it.
Subsequently, at the (Zagreb) bid presentation session the ESFS Chair stood down (handing the Chairing of the session over to someone else) and then, Eugen noted, remained in the room to lend weight to the rival bid. Now here any suspicions mildly fermenting might quite understandably become hardened. (One instance might be an accident but you cannot get away from a run of concerns looking decidedly odd.)
This complex mess is going to take a big comment to disentangle (apologies). Arguably it boils down to two issues which can be dealt with in the comment below and a third comment post to address the above comments already posted.
SF2 Concatenation
January 12, 2013 @ 3:10 pm
The first issue: The billing of one of the bids as winning in advance of the bid presentation and also before the site vote session at Zagreb 2012.
Eugen’s complaints are of course unfortunate and he has a perfect right to raise them for discussion. As noted above, at the 2012 British national convention Olympus (also an ESFS Euroconference), and at the 2012 Zagreb Eurocon, there were programme items billed (or in the con newsletter) that might be construed as implying one bid having won the 2014 bid _prior_ to the vote taking place! The ESFS Chair was at both these ESFS endorsed conventions and is meant to be in dialogue with both conventions’ organisers before they took place (see ESFS constitution 13/1.A(b)). It is the Chair’s implicit duty to ensure that no Eurocon bid winner is announced in advance of the bidding session irrespective of how many bids are on the ballot (even if there is only one) together with the ‘none of the above’ option (which is missing from the ESFS constitution). This is not least because as things stand anyone can announce their intention to bid at the beginning of the Eurocon bid voting session! Indeed the ‘stand-in Chair’ (as distinct from the ESFS Chair) at the 2012 Zagreb bid presentation session prior to the voting session made this clear when asked this very question by a UK attendee. (This is on YouTube.) So Dublin (which was erroneously presented on the programme schedule as the winning bid prior to the vote) could have had a rival at the last minute (in addition to Romania) at the 2012 bidding session for the 2014 Eurocon.
The ESFS Chair therefore failed to ensure that the Eurocon bidding session was seen as open to potential alternate bids (irrespective of whether there were any); remember nobody could possibly know who might present a bid at the last minute, and indeed that Romania was going to follow-up in its intention stated at the preceding Swedish Eurocon 2011 by presenting a bid at the 2012 Eurocon vote session to be the 2014 Eurocon.
Part of the ESFS officers’ implicit duty is to encourage bids (right up until the last minute) as well as the explicit duty as ESFS members to uphold the ESFS constitution (ESFS Constitution 4(a)) with due impartiality between nations.
Even weak bids should arguably be positively encouraged against strong bids so that teams new to running Eurocons can learn, as well as to tease out further details from the strong bids, and also of course not present matters as a done deal. (Which like it or not seems to be the impression some others have received from comments elsewhere on the net. [Even SF2 Concatenation has been [falsely] accused elsewhere in all of this for – it is inferred – helping ESFS rig the vote for Dublin!!!! We certainly do not need this and when an ESFS officer’s conduct results in our being impugned we have a right to speak out and this is what we are doing here.])
Finally, there is also the comparatively minor problem that Dublin’s strong bid (as Eugen himself has graciously conceded) was undermined by the perceptions some held – irrespective of them being right or wrong – of malficence. Yet the Dublin bid team themselves played fair as well as presented a solid bid. They did not need any of this.
(Continued below…)
SF2 Concatenation.org
January 12, 2013 @ 3:11 pm
(…Continued from above)
2nd issue concerns procedure at the bid session itself….
As none of the SF2 Concatenation team were at Zagreb we cannot comment on the attitude of people there as only half the bid session is on YouTube. So we cannot say whether any attitude constituted unfortunate behaviour or, at the other extreme, was downright bullying by virtue of overly support of one party over another by the ESFS chair. Both bids were presented perfectly fairly by those representing the bid teams, so the question arising is whether ESFS Chair’s procedure was the best one, or whether it was somewhat lacking?
One does not have to have been at the Zagreb bid presentation session to comment on the key point Chris raises.
Chris > I think the Chairman excusing himself from the Chair so he could go support his home country’s bid is perfectly fair. It was clear he was supporting them in his personal capacity as a fan and a conrunner and not in his ESFS role.
True, governance issues to the uninitiated can seem opaque, and relying on volunteers the Peter Principle comes to the fore often in fandom (cf. the 2010 Australian Worldcon programme management). As such fandom often sees those out of their depth do not realise that this is so until they positively flounder (again cf. the 2010 Australian instance).
It is therefore understandable (quickly commenting on a blog discussion) that some might think the Chair excusing himself from the impartiality of the Chair so as to be partial is justifiable, but it is also understandable that some might not!
This last is especially true given 1 above. (That there were programme items hinting that Dublin was the Eurocon at the British Olympus Euroconference, and stating it so at the Zagreb Eurocon, means that some may think things were not ‘fair’ even if they were unfortunate ‘accidental’ errors). Remember there is the difference between ‘negligence’, ‘fair practice’, ‘good practice’ and ‘best practice’. The ESFS Chair has to think things through and do what is right for the European SF community as a whole; and this includes catering for those who might not think it fair to temporarily stand down so as to actively support one bid over the other. Surely, it is the Chair’s duty to strive for ‘best practice’ within ESFS and not just ‘fair practice’. And if what took place was ‘negligence’, then this is not easily excusable.
Unlike a quick response to a blog, or others at the ESFS meeting on the day in the heat of the moment (and possibly in the aftermath of Eurocon partying), the Chair had the luxury of time to consider how to handle matters months prior to the Zagreb Eurocon. Here the Chair might have considered what is commonly done in analogous situations (or even sought advice from those with knowledge of governance and/or past Eurocons).
So what happens in other walks of life? In a football match would it be acceptable for the referee to stop halfway through the game, hand over to another referee and then play for one side?
Another example from fandom is the Hugo Award administrator who is not allowed to vote for the Hugos. And, although it is not in the rules, s/he is not a known critic of SF books, publishing reviews or otherwise promoting some works over others during their one-year term of office. If they were then eyebrows would quickly be raised. In short both the letter and the spirit of the WSFS constitution is observed and Hugo administrators are not be seen to support one work over another…
In politics (in Britain anyway) the Speaker of the House of Commons – who calls Parliamentarians to speak and keeps order (just as the ESFS Chair is meant to do at the ESFS AGM and bid meetings) – has to be seen as both independent and impartial. From the moment of accepting office the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan, and renounces all affiliation with his or her former political party. The Speaker does not take part in debates nor vote (except to break ties, and even then, subject to conventions that maintain his or her non-partisan status).
If the Speaker is known, or thought, to feel passionately about an issue about to be debated then s/he can hand over Chairing Parliament to the Deputy Speaker but then the Speaker is still not allowed to take part in the debate and so leaves the Chamber. Analogously, with regards to ESFS, if the Chair felt that he was not impartial to supervise the bid presentation session, or even felt that some might feel he was not impartial (even if he genuinely was unbiased), then he should not Chair the session (which he did do [well done]) and should also leave the room (which he did not do [bad call]).
It needs to be recognised that the office of ESFS Chair carries political (with a small fannish ‘p’), as well as psychological and perceptual weight that is not removed simply by temporarily stepping down from running a meeting: the Chair needs to remove his/herself from the room. The ESFS officers’ term is three years and not most of three years with bits of standing down so as to support one ESFS constituent nation over others.
A gamekeeper should not turn poacher and then back again. However, ethically a game keeper can temporarily retire.
To sum up,if the ESFS Chair felt that his/her individual circumstances might be viewed (even to a minority) as providing bias then the Chair should hand over to his/her deputy, the Vice-Chair (as per the ESFS Constitution 13/1/B(1)). The Chair should then at the very least remain absolutely silent or at best leave the room for the duration of the bidding session. This former is ‘fair practice’ while the latter is ‘best practice ‘and ensures that the ESFS Chair is not in anyway conferring bias and, importantly, s/he is seen to be actively impartial.
ESFS officers have a duty to the whole European SF community, and not any one nation, during their three-year term of office (and not just the parts of the term of office where there is no potential for conflict of interest). Importantly they have to be seen to have, as well as have reputation for, impartiality adopting both the letter and the spirit of the ESFS constitution. This is so that smaller and less-economic European nations, as well as those with a low SF profile, get a fair crack at the whip. (Incidentally this is why there is the three-delegate per nation rule in the constitution when it comes to voting so that European nations with a smaller SF profile get as fair a say as bigger nations: protecting the voice of smaller profile nations is therefore firmly in the spirit of the ESFS constitution.)
Of all the ESFS officers, the Chair must adopt the highest standards possible and be seen to be whiter than white. This is the price ESFS officers pay for the right to hold their posts and to represent the interests and honour of the European SF Community. The Chair’s reward is that in the event of a tie between bids or any other decision the Chair arguably has the privilege of having the casting vote. (Though this last is not in the constitution.)
In short the Chair, having handed over to somebody else, should then have left the room for the duration of the bid presentation session.
Given both points 1 and 2 the way the 2012 bid presentation session for the 2014 Eurocon does rather look more than a little messy and its officer approach to governance was arguably negligent.
SF2 Concatenation
January 12, 2013 @ 3:12 pm
Comments on the earlier Comments
Johan. > I’m looking forward to hearing those proposals. I myself think that the current setup is a bit of a legacy from the 1970s and that there is plenty of scope for reform.
Yes, let’s hope something is presented in writing to the ESFS officers in advance of Kiev. Then it can be calmly discussed in a considered and rational way at the Kiev Eurocon (2013).
Other (urgent) proposals might be ESFS needing to shorten its painfully protracted business meetings as well as have a development strategy. If the Chair and officers have difficulty developing this then they might consider creating a separate body (advisory group, council or whatever) of Eurocon regulars (say those who have attended three or more previous ESFS business meetings) that meets outside of the Eurocon (such as the day before and/or online) with a separate Chair so as to ensure independence and plurality of view.
Johan > Why should the question what will happen if Worldcon will not be in London 2014 have been considered? There are no competing bids, there is no opposition to the bid. We *know* Worldcon will be in London in 2014, as surely as if the vote had already taken place. Only a disaster of some sort, like the conference centre burning down, will prevent it.
London 2014 could have lost the vote to ‘none of the above’ (this is the ‘no site wins’ option WSFS voters have). Matters would then go to the WSFS business meeting and if that failed to sort things out by the end of the 2012 Worldcon the site selection issue would immediately be handed over to the 2013 Worldcon committee to sort out. All this is in the WSFS constitution. The ESFS constitution is silent about the ‘none of the above’ option and how to handle it in the event that in any year none of the bids are considered strong enough to be worthy of being a Eurocon. This protocol is something else that ESFS needs sort. Thank you for raising it Johan. So what might happen in such a highly theoretical case of London failing to win?
In the – highly unlikely – event that London 2014 Worldcon bid had really messed their bid up and ‘none of the above’ had won at the ballot held at the 2012 Worldcon, and then the WSFS business meeting at that Worldcon found it could not sort matters out (as per the WSFS constitution), then the next year’s Worldcon might well run another ballot. London 2014 could then re-present a hopefully better bid the next year plus other bids might come forth. If then ‘none of the above’ still won then the NaSFic would have probably become the 2014 Worldcon. Alas with ESFS we do not have something analogous to the NaSFic and so we would probably have a year without a Eurocon. This is no big deal as Eurocons used to be biennial.
Chris > I’d like to see more emphasis on what makes a Eurocon different from a national convention *or* a Worldcon.
Yes, we noted this in our Autumn 2011 Science Fiction news.
It was the concern raised at the 2011 Eurocon when Dublin placed a marker as the previous Dublin Eurocon (1997) had no mainland European guest or mainland European content in the programme (apart from one item on translation). In truth it was a fun SF convention but it was not a proper Eurocon. Looking forward to 2014, Dublin is bound to be a well run SF convention given Octocon’s (the Republic of Ireland’s national convention) recent track record. How good a ‘Eurocon’ it will be we will see, but the Dublin organisers are aware of the concerns and seem willing to address them. So there is every hope.
Chris, you might like to see esfs.info/Eurocon_Running_Guide_draft_June_07~English which was compiled from comments from a number of Eurocon regulars from several nations. It includes advice to bid presenters as to what helps make a Eurocon.
Chris > I see the location of the [2014] Worldcon as being pretty irrelevant (or at least having competing pros and cons).
Pro: it means that many Worldcon attendees may spend a longer trip in Europe and come to the Eurocon.
Cons: it puts two expensive conventions very close financially and for people that might have to arrange child care, care for aged parents etc. it means more disruption in their lives …
It is actually very relevant precisely due to the pros and cons you raise: we made exactly the same points in our Spring 2012 Science Fiction News.
Chris > Overall, I think you make good points about how things could be improved, but I don’t think there’s enough evidence listed here for anyone to call “foul” or ask for the vote to be retaken … just a light slap on the wrist will suffice, and some thoughts about new rules.
Concur regarding no need for the vote to be re-taken (Dublin 2014 presented a good bid and had a sound vote), but this is not the first ESFS disquiet in recent years and recent ESFS business meetings are – ahem – a tad chaotic. Going by recent experience there is unlikely to be any effectual ‘light slap on the wrist’ (light slaps on the wrist don’t sober those with their heads in the clouds) or some thoughts about new rules. Few issues raised at one ESFS meeting are ever subsequently considered between Eurocons let alone re-visited the following year. The officers have no advisory body (or working groups as WSFS does) working between Eurocons. So nice thought Chris, but we likely may as well dream on.
Chris > Any organisation that isn’t constantly questioning the existing rules/procedures (whether to get rid of them or to add to them) is stagnant.
True. As things stand the only changes can be made by the ESFS Officers themselves as led by the ESFS Chair and then voted on by the rest of us. Most of those who are nationally and internationally active within the SF community are already committed to their own ventures and so too busy to stand for ESFS office. At the moment we have one longstanding officer who fulfils a very useful service of being the repository of ESFS knowledge, and another longstanding officer who maintains the ESFS website, and then there is the Chair who does a wonderful job fronting ESFS on stage at opening ceremonies but – to be blunt – is perhaps more than a little out of his depth with regards to governance and committee chair skills, albeit without realising it. And then there is the Treasurer post… (In recent years the Treasurer has failed to attend more Eurocons than he actually attends, besides which there is no regular income stream or expenditure to manage though recently (2012) there has been the contrivance to change that with a small donation and the establishment of an ESFS bank account. So now there is a putative argument for having a Treasurer even though there are still no regular income streams. The ESFS treasurer post should be discontinued until there is a clear expenditure demand along with a regular income stream.) All of which means that in recent years ESFS has seen little done other than constitution tinkering, though a few of the officers have provided a good service in keeping things going. Unfortunately, with few hankering to stand for ESFS office, we can’t really complain too much at the lack of added value and strategic development.
As you English say, ‘C’est la vie‘.
Mihaela > I am sorry about the program[me] book item title. It was a printing/proofing mistake and we apologize. Originally it said “Eurocon 2014 in Dublin/Euroconference 2014 because programming had had a request for a panel slot with that title on Sunday.
Mihaela – it is not your fault. It is ESFS’s job to ensure that there are programme items relating to the ESFS business meeting, bid presentations, site vote session and award presentations at each Eurocon. ESFS needs to check that the timing of these programme items are suitable and that their descriptor wording is appropriate. It is only a ten-minute job for them to check the draft programme. Given that there was a similar problem just a few months prior to Zagreb 2012 at the British Olympus convention that had ESFS Euroconference status, one might have thought that the ESFS Chair would be doubly aware of the need to get this right for Zagreb… So Mihaela do not blame yourself, it is not your fault. Eurocon organising committees are different every year. Conversely, the constant factors between successive Eurocons are the Eurocon officers led by the Chair and so the responsibility lies firmly with them. (It is even in the ESFS constitution.)
SF2 Concatenation.org
January 12, 2013 @ 3:13 pm
What might happen next?
Well it is Eugen’s decision whether he wants to raise his concerns directly with the ESFS officers. He arguably needs to do this before the Kiev Eurocon (2013). If he does then it is up to the other ESFS officers to separately consider matters without the Chair in their own closed session (presumably at the Kiev Eurocon), and then call in the Chair for right of reply. Then together all the officers can consider what response to give Eugen privately and what statement to make publicly on their website. This last would hopefully include what steps are being taken to ensure that all this does not happen again (even if matters were accidental rather than deliberate [albeit subconsciously] it is clear that ESFS is lacking in some governance mechanisms). Eugen raising his concerns formally would be doing the European SF community a great service. (Though it might be better if he kept is communication with them as short as possible and not the length of this discussion thread, which teases out all the points and addresses the comments made by others.)
At the very least the ESFS officers might admit that with the benefit of hindsight things could have been better handled and then they can detail what steps they will take to make sure that this does not happen again. We all are human and make mistakes and there is no shame in that. The trick is ensuring that we recognise and learn from them while apologising if it is felt necessary. Being abusive to those who simply report concerns is not helpful (sadly this has happened [elsewhere to this website] regarding this issue).
Recognising and learning will mean we can then put this all behind us and move on knowing that ESFS has been improved. Whether or not any of this actually comes to pass will be a test of ESFS integrity, openness and transparency.
Advice to ESFS: Why not create ‘Standing rules’ [of governance] separate to the Constitution. Include impartiality protection measures. If you are stuck then see how WSFS handles its governance and workload for comparison (but don’t slavishly follow WSFS). Separately to both these, create detailed (one side of A4 should be enough per officer) job descriptions for each officer post – the brief job description summaries in the constitution are not adequate – and include with the Chair’s job description the checking of ESFS-related programme items in Eurocon and Euroconference draft programmes (above and beyond what is already clearly in the constitution). Finally, noting Chris’ comment, and also Johan’s, on reform, consider the possibility that while other ESFS officers may stand for successive 3-year terms, the Chair can only serve a maximum of two 3-year terms as Chair (irrespective of successive or not). This will ensure that ESFS continually gets new blood to lead it, encourage fresh perspectives on how to improve its governance as well as strategic development and prevent snollygosters from getting a long-term hold. Meanwhile the other officers can provide the longer-term ESFS historical knowledge base.
Above all, we all want the same thing: a vibrant European SF community that reflects the continent’s fanac fairly. Meanwhile let’s look forward to Dublin and subsequent Eurocons. 🙂