BayCon Files to Host Westercon 78
Having been awarded the right to host Westercon 77 at BayCon 2025 (by the Caretaker Committee assigned by last year's Westercon to find a site to host the convention), BayCon's parent non-profit corporation has filed a write-in bid to host Westercon 78 in conjunction with BayCon 2026. There were no bids filed before the April 15 deadline, and no other bids have filed, although they still have time to do so. The deadline is the close of voting at Westercon 76 in Salt Lake City this Friday at 6 PM MDT.
Only bids that file the necessary documentation with Westercon 76 before the deadline are eligible to win the election, except that None of the Above is always eligible. Should no eligible bid win, then the Business Meeting in Utah can select a site, and nearly all of the restrictions go away other than the "must be in North America west of 104°W or in Hawaii."
Lest people think my pointing out the final deadline for filing a bid is silly, note that back in 1992 I administered the voting for the selection of the 1995 NASFiC. I had earlier rejected the "I-95 in '95" bid's filing because it did not have a valid facility agreement that met the technical requirements of the WSFS Constitution. Their organizers frantically hunted around for something that would meet the technical requirements. (The election administrator isn't allowed to rule on whether the site is sufficient to actually hold the convention, only that the agreement between the bid and the site is legal. In theory, it's up to the voters to decide whether a site is suitable.) The I-95 bid managed to file their bid with one second left before the deadline. They were therefore eligible to win. Atlanta (Dragon*Con) won the election, and we did not count the subsequent places (there's no reason to do so in a Site Selection election), but it's possible that I-95's write-in bid would have placed second. I'm sure that they would have placed no lower than third, with a serious None of the Above campaign in the race and another bid on the ballot for New York City, which almost certainly would have placed fourth in a field of two candidates on the ballot.
While I know how to administer a "failed" site selection, having had to do so several times, that does not really mean I want to do so. I'd much rather let the members select the site than have to go through complicated additional parliamentary maneuvering.
Only bids that file the necessary documentation with Westercon 76 before the deadline are eligible to win the election, except that None of the Above is always eligible. Should no eligible bid win, then the Business Meeting in Utah can select a site, and nearly all of the restrictions go away other than the "must be in North America west of 104°W or in Hawaii."
Lest people think my pointing out the final deadline for filing a bid is silly, note that back in 1992 I administered the voting for the selection of the 1995 NASFiC. I had earlier rejected the "I-95 in '95" bid's filing because it did not have a valid facility agreement that met the technical requirements of the WSFS Constitution. Their organizers frantically hunted around for something that would meet the technical requirements. (The election administrator isn't allowed to rule on whether the site is sufficient to actually hold the convention, only that the agreement between the bid and the site is legal. In theory, it's up to the voters to decide whether a site is suitable.) The I-95 bid managed to file their bid with one second left before the deadline. They were therefore eligible to win. Atlanta (Dragon*Con) won the election, and we did not count the subsequent places (there's no reason to do so in a Site Selection election), but it's possible that I-95's write-in bid would have placed second. I'm sure that they would have placed no lower than third, with a serious None of the Above campaign in the race and another bid on the ballot for New York City, which almost certainly would have placed fourth in a field of two candidates on the ballot.
While I know how to administer a "failed" site selection, having had to do so several times, that does not really mean I want to do so. I'd much rather let the members select the site than have to go through complicated additional parliamentary maneuvering.