Readercon query

[calimac]

Could someone explain to me the relationship between 1) the concom that just reversed and overruled the board's decision, 2) the board that issued the infamous two-year suspension, 3) the concom that actually ran this year's convention? Because, as it appears, the concom (3) referred the matter to the board, which was then overruled by the concom (1). What? I do not think I grasp the administrative structure here.

Comments

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

As I see it, the board put in place a rule that they enforced selectively.

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

If I understand correctly, and I do not at all swear that I do, the concom is the larger body with ultimate authority, while the board is a smaller body authorized to act on behalf of the concom but subject to the concom's concurrence. In many other organizations the board would be called the executive committee. The board has the authority and nimbleness to act quickly, while the concom has to take longer to assemble, debate, and vote.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

The concom may also have been able to overrule the board because the entire board of directors resigned and has not yet been replaced.

[ron-drummond.livejournal.com]

Kate's reply is accurate. 1) and 3) are one and the same; 2) is a subset of 1) / 3).

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

They did, but that does not explain the administrative relationship between the board and the concom, which is the question I am asking.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

But that makes no sense, that 1 and 3 could be the same. If the concom is too large and amorphous to make a decision, how can it possibly practically run the convention? Every small convention I have worked on, the concom has been the small, flexible, ad hoc body tasked with actually running the convention, while it's the board which is the larger, slower, more formal and permanent body that makes the heavy and deep policy decisions.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

But it makes no sense that the concom could then overrule them, instead of merely acting in their abcense. If the board of directors of an orchestra resigned, could the musicians overrule their decisions?

[ron-drummond.livejournal.com]

Sounds like nomenclature meltdown to me.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Let's start with the structure with which I am familiar and with which you've been in the neighborhood: SFSFC Inc., a California non-profit corporation. SFSFC's "members" for legal purposes are the eleven members of the Board of Directors, and thus the Board is the highest administrative body of the corporation. The Board charters committees, can set high-level policies, and appoints committee chairs, but generally tries to leave its committees to work on their own. (They could interfere with any of their committees, as those committees are subordinate to the Board, but it would get messy, and it has the few times that it's happened or come close to happening.) Thus, if the SFSFC Board took some action about an SFSFC function, that's the end of the line, administratively.

It appears that Readercon's corporate structure is that there is a larger group of "members" — which may be the same as the "concom," but I'm not sure — and that thus the corporate membership is sovereign, not the Board of Directors. Their "Board" is elected by the members and subordinate to it, and thus should be bound by any policies or rules established by the membership. Their Board is more of an administrative body charged with carrying out the instructions of the membership, not with setting policy.

I don't know for certain if this is the legal structure, but it appears to be close to it, and the differences in nomenclature were what confused me, too. I'm far more familiar with the nonprofit governance structure of SFSFC, which is similar to that of SCIFI and a lot of the other non-profits that have run Worldcons, plus CWSFA, which I helped form to run Westercon 58 in Calgary and whose bylaws were built from SFSFC's with the California-specific portions removed and the Alberta-specific provisions added.

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

Faced with a general rebellion by the concom and the reaction in fandom the board resigned en masse'.
I believe their system is along the lines of MNSTF, with the board controlling the purse strings and the policies of the convention at corporate level.
But, it's 5:42 and having woken up from a nightmare, I could be wrong.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Right, but does MNSTF have some other corporate body with a misleading name that lives above the board?

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

An orchestra has:

- Board of directors
- Management
- Musicians

Readercon has:

- Board of directors
- Concom
- Attendees (members)

It's not a perfect analogy, but if the whole SFS board of directors resigned, Brent Assink and his staff would continue making decisions and putting on concerts.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The Mythopoeic Society works the same way. Context and dynamics are different, but the Society board commissions ad hoc concoms, expects them to run the Mythcons, and acts as the final authority to make major decisions and resolve any serious conflicts.

And Potlatch concoms are commissioned, legally, by the board of Clarion West, though I have not heard of one actively involved in appointing the concom (Potlatch has been more of a self perpetuating entity) or interfering with its working.

And the WFC concoms that I have known have lived in terror of an active Board that selects them and owns the con and has very specific ideas of how it should be run.

Four cases, differing dynamics, but basically identical organizing structure. Readercon appears to have something totally different. Thus my puzzlement.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Sorry, thought I was logged in; I'm the anonymous person who just left a reply to myself.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

That sounds more like a Worldcon, minus the Business Meeting, than any small con I know. Is zReadercon that large and complex? Or is concom 3 a subcommittee of concom 1?

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

As far as I know, it doesn't (in theory).
I will grant that there are some members of the board who keep getting elected year after year, but that's just the people choice.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

The other difference is that one of the problems in this incident was a total disconnect between the Readercon Board and the chairperson of this year's con. That would not happen at a Worldcon. The excom might disagree with the chair, but the chair would be part of the excom and not blindsided by its rulings.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Its imperfection is sufficient to offer me no help whatever. I'm not querying who's going to put on the next Readercon in the absence of a board. But Assink couldn't overrule the board's decisions, even in the absence of a board.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'll ask a lawyer about that, because I am not one.