If you're registered for Bouchercon 2008 (or are about to be) this post is important and should be disseminated to as many people as possible. There are many reasons, from when to expect to hear about panel assignments to the creation of a message board and Facebook page, but here's the crucial reason why, as co-chair Ruth Jordan explains:
For the year 2010 two bids have been presented to the committee. Both reached us by the July 1st cut off date and were deemed sincere. This means that you will decide where Bouchercon is held at the General Business Meeting this year.
For the year 2011 one bid was presented. The committee [ed. full disclosure: I'm a member at large] has approved the bid and there will be a motion to carry at this year’s General Business Meeting.
There is within the Bouchercon Rules and By-Laws a stipulation that all future bids for upcoming conventions should be presented the first day of the convention. The Standing Committee is waving this wording for 2008 because a portion of the membership would be unable to be active in the discussion. However, we feel it is important to honor the spirit of the wording and so all three bids will use this space this week to present their proposal to our membership minus contract specifics. For the membership who does not yet use the internet there will be copies of all three bids available at this year’s registration tables.
So check back with the Charmed to Death blog throughout this week for news about the 2010 bids in particular. It's been a while since there has been more that one bid in a year, and the timing this time around is exceptionally tight. So read each proposal and when the General meeting takes place on Friday, October 10 during the noon hour, come out, listen to the presentations in person and vote. Because for the first time in years, you can determine where Bouchercon will be two years from now.
UPDATE: More on the first announced 2010 bid, from San Francisco.
UPDATE 2: More on the second announced 2010 bid, from Tempe, AZ.
So we're being kept in suspense as to what the locations are? I suppose that's appropriate for a mystery conference.
Posted by: David J. Montgomery | July 28, 2008 at 09:18 AM
Does this hold a clue about one of the possible sites?
http://mwillmoth.livejournal.com/
Posted by: Naomi | July 28, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Good find, Naomi. Looks like Scottsdale as one of them. Would the Poisoned Pen then be the host bookstore? Barbara and Rob have certainly earned it, if so...
Posted by: Dan | July 28, 2008 at 02:02 PM
The minutes from Alaska indicate that there was interest in Memphis and St. Louis. I have seen elsewhere that St. Louis is the 2011 location. Perhaps Memphis is the second location interested for 2010.
Posted by: B.G. Ritts | July 28, 2008 at 07:16 PM
Wouldn't it be nice if someone talked about the current contract dispute between management and the unionized hotel workers at the Baltimore hotel where Bouchercon will take place? Mystery writers and readers were quick to show their support for the screenwriters' strike, making their silence all the more curious now that other workers are fighting for their rights and we can actually give them a hand. I'm not saying people should boycott the hotel, but it would be good to at least hear people acknowledge the shameful situation.
Posted by: XX | July 28, 2008 at 08:31 PM
The B'con blog (http://bouchercon2008.blogspot.com/) now shows San Francisco to be one of the 2010 bids.
I'd be more impressed with the previous comment if the poster had identified him/herself.
Some posts concerning the dispute at the Sheraton have been on the Baltimore Sun blog at: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/books/blog/2008/07/mystery_writers_blasted_by_uni.html
and (with comments from Jon Jordan)
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/books/blog/2008/07/bouchercon_the_latest.html
Posted by: B.G. Ritts | July 29, 2008 at 03:51 AM
I don't know what the other proposed city is, but San Francisco sounds like a great location for B'con. And what I saw of the proposal looks very good. That's going to be a hard one to beat.
Posted by: David J. Montgomery | July 29, 2008 at 07:30 PM
I made the comment on the union and hotel management. My name is Rick Drake and I didn't think my name would make a difference. Those links above don't address the concerns expressed and they are outdated. Plus, I was wondering about what potential attendees might think of it, not the convention organizers who already seem to have sided with management (not that this is necessarily bad, although on this occasion it seems particularly wrongheaded).
Posted by: Rick Drake (XX) | July 30, 2008 at 04:38 PM
The links have information, and info is info. The most recent statement I've read has said there is no strike. There has apparently been no animosity between the con's chairpeople and the hotel staff when they have visited. Why are what appears to be outsiders harassing attendees?
Without having any knowledge of the contract between the hotel and this year's committee, I take them at their word that breaking the contract would bankrupt the con. That would effectively cancel it. People from Europe, Asia, and Australia are scheduled to attend. The hotel has had groups hold their previously scheduled gatherings and then pledge not to have another there until the dispute is settled. Why shouldn't that be good enough for B'con to do also?
Posted by: B.G. Ritts | July 30, 2008 at 07:34 PM
Actually, pledging not to have a conference again would amount to doing much more than what the B-Con organizers have done so far, which is essentially not much. Breaking contracts would be costly and would cause them too many legal troubles so I can see why that's out of the question.
Nonetheless, if you read what they posted on their blog and what some other people have pointed out, the B-Con organizers are essentially taking management's statements at face value and placing the blame squarely on the hotel workers. They even go as far as to claim that the reason this is still going on is because the workers refuse to sign a contract. Everyone other than studio execs gave the Hollywood scriptwriters the benefit of the doubt about their fight being fair so why can't they do the same with hotel workers making peanuts an hour? I'm not asking for a boycott but I think at least making a statement would be pretty decent.
As for "outsiders" getting involved, I guess I could be considered an outsider. I don't belong to any union, don't work or know anyone at that hotel and have nothing against the B-Con people. It just pisses me off to see how fans, writers, and the convention organizers don't care about this at all. They're not forced to care, but many of them make the occasional pro-liberal statement in their works/interviews/ blogs, so why not take it a step further and actually adopt a stance where they can really make a difference?
The hotel staff is obviously not going to be hostile to clients. They don't want to get fired. The fact that staff members of the union that represents them are drawing attention to the issue shouldn't be seen as something sinister. It's simply their job to work for their members and they have the advantage that they can't be harassed by the hotel management.
Posted by: Rick Drake | July 30, 2008 at 08:40 PM
You seem to be comparing apples and oranges -- the screenwriters were on strike.
Posted by: B.G. Ritts | July 30, 2008 at 10:14 PM
People weren’t supporting screenwriters because they were on strike. They were supporting them because of the abusive contract offer that was made to them. Hotel workers don’t strike because they can’t afford to, making it all the more perplexing that no one stands up for them and those who do are derided as “outsiders.”
Posted by: Rick Drake | July 30, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Those I referred to as outsiders mined names and contact information through an online list and used it to selectively harass Bouchercon attendees with false information (that the con's been canceled, etc.). They should hardly be acknowledged as upstanding colleagues of the hotel's workers. Normally, dirty tricks tend to cause people to lean the other way. I don't believe the organizers and attendees of B'con are unsympathetic, but they are surely not happy with the tactics that have been used against them. They are, with cause, expressing their displeasure.
Posted by: B.G. Ritts | July 31, 2008 at 06:07 AM
They should be pissed if it is in fact true that they are being lied to or effectively harassed. They shouldn't if the only thing they experienced was getting a phone call in which someone explained the situation to them. They can always hang up if they're not interested. I don't know which one was the case. On one of the links you sent me a hotel worker said the list of names was public, so I don't see anything wrong with using that information for their purposes.
In any event, this still doesn't change the fact that everyone involved with Bouchercon is remaining silent about something that I at least find reprehensible. It seems to me this is such a tiny community nobody wants to ruffle any feathers.
Posted by: Rick Drake | July 31, 2008 at 11:16 AM
You've made your point abundantly clear. Has it not occurred to you that people simply don't share your opinion?
It's an internal dispute between the hotel and the hotel's workers. Everyone hopes that they'll get a decent contract out of it. But other than that, it's none of our damn business.
Perhaps you could remove your soapbox to a more appropriate location.
Posted by: Leonard T. Carruthers | July 31, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I agree with Rick but then again it's not necessary to insist on your point over and over again. If people don't care about the issue, drop it. I posted two replies at the Bouchercon blog on one of the links listed above and some other anonymous people joined in too. Why can't they post with their real names? I don't know but the silence you decry speaks volumes.
In any event, I see this as yet one more symptom of the cliquish and often provincial nature of the American crime fiction scene, where everyone's friends with everyone, almost nobody posts a negative review ever (unless it's for a soft target like James Patterson, a millionaire who could care less), nobody ruffles any feathers, and everyone lives in perpetual ignorance of anything that's published outside of the U.S. and the broader context of crime fiction.
Posted by: Gonzalo B | August 02, 2008 at 03:46 AM
I find this very curious. What exactly do you expect people to do? The hotel employees aren't on strike, so it's not a matter of crossing a picket line, which some people are reluctant to do. The two parties are engaged in contract negotiations. I think everyone involved supports the service workers and wishes them the best -- what specifically do you want us to do other than that? And what exactly are you doing to assist them?
Obviously it's far too late to change the venue. Do you think the conference should be canceled? (That's ridiculous.) Are you just hoping that commentary on the back of someone's blog will somehow improve things? If you think it will, you may count me among your numbers. I give the employees my full support.
(And if it makes you feel any better, I'm staying at the hotel across the street.)
Posted by: David J. Montgomery | August 02, 2008 at 02:01 PM
Since I don't want to make the same mistake as Rick above, if you're interested in discussing this privately, I'd be happy to do so. I don't want to editorialize through someone else's blog. The answer to most of your questions can be found in my two posts at the Bouchercon blog linked above. Since I didn't get any answers back then, I chose not to press the issue any further. I only intervened here because I saw someone else had brought the subject up.
Posted by: Gonzalo B | August 02, 2008 at 11:01 PM
Please forgive the long post.
I would like to say at the outset:
I am not a union member.
I am not affiliated with UNITE HERE.
I did sign up for Bouchercon and have attended several mystery conventions as a fan. I was looking forward to Bouchercon this year. I am sure it will be a wonderful convention.
But I will not cross a boycott line or picket line (or whatever) so I canceled my registration.
My decision not to attend Bouchercon is a personal decision based upon my family background (union) and my political beliefs. I also talked to representatives from the hotel and the union. Yes, I did call and talk to them. I specifically wanted to know if any negotiation sessions were planned (short answer at that time: NO). I am sure there are many people who do not share my beliefs. But at least, I had the information, in advance, about the ongoing boycott. I could make a decision that I could live with.
I am concerned that news of this labor dispute has not been widely disseminated to the attendees. I did not see a mention of the dispute in the most recent Bouchercon progress report. The boycott was mentioned (very dismissively) in the Bouchercon blog. How many people read that blog AFTER they sign up? I can understand people not caring that there is a boycott. But for some of us, this boycott will be a big deal. I would have been horrified to show up at the convention and then find out about the dispute.
A few more items and I will get off my soapbox.
I think some of the blog posters need to brush up U.S. labor law.
A serious labor dispute can exist at a workplace even if a strike is NOT called.
Unions call for strikes when their membership can afford the risk of a strike. Do the terms, strike replacement or lockout, mean anything to you? You generally see strikes when management can not quickly or easily replace the workers (pilots or writers) due to their special skillset.
Boycotts are called when that type of leverage is not available. In Baltimore, there are no other union hotels to strike in sympathy. Given the job situation in the city, I am sure the management would find a way to quickly cobble together a replacement crew. Boycotts, however, can be an effective method of shaming management back to the negotiation table (as well as bringing some economic pressure). Several conventions have already canceled at the hotel and city council members have come out in support of the union.
As to the invasion of privacy by union members--- well, I think that will be a tough sell since the attendees list is available on the web.
Just google your name, nothing is private anymore.
One last item, I do hope the individuals who attend the convention will make time for the Bouchercon meeting. I think perhaps a discussion about contract clauses to address this situation would be beneficial.
Thank-you.
Posted by: S. Bartle | August 25, 2008 at 06:03 PM