Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:54:26 -0500
From: Ted White <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
CC: WSFA List <wsfalist at wsfa.org>,
 lee gilliland <leeandalexis at hotmail.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Correction
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Elspeth Kovar wrote:
>  [To follow the policy of Full Disclosure that newspapers follow, yes,
>  Keith is a friend of mine.  I am trusted to be objective enough that
>  since I got involved in Worldcons I've usually had the responsibility
>  of handing out suites at there, and that I'd do so honorably despite
>  any biases that I might have personally.  Believe me, suites are in
>  short supply and there are good ones and ones that aren't as good,
>  plus people wanting rooms nearby.  Pulling this off well requires
>  absolute trust in my ability to be objective.  I apply the same
>  objectivity to this matter.]
>
>  Folks, and I include Alexis and Lee as I'll send them this as a cc.
>
>  I just received a copy of the memo that Alexis handed out at the
>  first Friday meeting (I hadn't seen it because, like the rest of the
>  Capclave chairs, I was at the World Fantasy Convention and, not
>  having heard anything about the meeting despite several requests to
>  officers, finally asked around).
>
>  The correction is that I was the person who offered to cover Ted's
>  membership in WSFA and asked Keith if he'd be willing to ask Ted as
>  he sees him every day.  I wanted Ted to be a member solely to
>  simplify matters; there seemed to be some confusion about WSFA's
>  unwritten policy of always welcoming guests.  Since Ted hasn't
>  bothered to be a member in some years, not liking business meetings
>  but regularly coming for the conversation with folks, including
>  Alexis, his status was in limbo.  It was certainly *not* an attempt
>  by me to force Ted to return to the Gillilands; his attending or not
>  was entirely his own choice and I had no idea.
>
>  Keith asked him, without mentioning who the offer came from.  What I
>  didn't know was that Keith planned to pay for it himself in thanks
>  for Ted getting him a job.  Ted agreed, at which point Keith told him
>  who was paying for the membership (and later told me).  I have no
>  idea which trustee would sign off on it but assumed that it could be
>  any one of them (and Bob accepted the membership as he would have
>  anyone's who met the criteria, which Ted did).  Barry also had no
>  idea of any of this; he was simply the person handed the membership
>  to sign off on and, to the best of my knowledge, has no love for
>  Keith or Ted.
>
>  And to the best of anyone's knowledge the prospective ban had already
>  been dropped anyway, so that wasn't an issue; it was done because it
>  was simpler than amending the constitution again, this time to
>  address the many visitors we have.
>
>  To reiterate:
>
>  It wasn't done by Keith; Keith had no thought of it until I asked him
>  if Ted might be willing to become a member to simplify things; Ted
>  had no idea of any of it until asked if he'd be willing to be a
>  member to which he readily agreed without knowing the issues; Barry
>  had no idea of that Ted might become a member until asked to do his
>  job of trustee; Bob accepted his membership as a valid one.  There
>  was no plot: If anyone wants to be annoyed at anyone they should be
>  at me since it was entirely my idea.
>
>  I'm sorry that it upset things but it just never occurred to me that
>  the hosts needed to be notified that an attendee was becoming a
>  member.
>
>  It also didn't have anything to do with the WSFA list: that, like
>  WSFA meetings themselves, is designed to be open to anyone.  I mean,
>  for Pete's sake, what would our biweekly gatherings be like if there
>  was always a censor reviewing everything that was said before it
>  could be heard?  The only difference between the list and the
>  meetings is that everyone hears all the conversations.
>
>  And yeah, the "outcry" at the Third Friday meeting wasn't an outcry,
>  it was simply a discussion.  It certainly wasn't calculated: several
>  members of WSFA, not including Keith who'd resigned from WSFA
>  entirely, had decided for their own reasons to no longer attend
>  meetings at the Gillilands.  For that matter, none of them were even
>  at Third Friday.  (And, of course, for obvious reasons, none of them
>  were at the meeting where this memo was handed out.)  That matter was
>  raised at the Third Friday meeting but as a discussion of options.
>
>  As an aside, yes, Erica 'banned' someone from WSFA meetings because
>  the people involved were unwilling to oversee their child or to
>  arrange for someone else to do so.  Dan and I didn't have to deal
>  with them because the child was still quite small then: the only
>  problem we ran into was a used diaper in the trash can reserved for
>  recycling.  (According to the person in question Alexis also called
>  her and said that she was no longer welcome until she or her husband
>  took responsibility for her child: unfortunately the Gillilands are
>  the people she holds responsible but for the most part she's gotten
>  over things, just sniping now and then.)  Had we still been hosting
>  WSFA meeting when the child was older we'd have had issues over what
>  to do.
>
>  They weren't banned.  They were, however, told that they wouldn't be
>  welcome at WSFA meetings unless they worked out a way to keep their
>  child from destroying the property.
>
>  So this part of things is indeed a tempest in a teapot.  Obviously
>  Lee and Alexis weren't aware of why and how Ted became a member.
>  That was only due to the lack of knowledge, the same state that
>  everyone else was in.  Ted finally joining WSFA appeared to be a
>  minor enough matter that it never occurred to me that it might be
>  taken this way.
>
>  As I said if there's any fault it's mine.  I'm not defending anyone
>  else: I'm taking responsibility for something that I did.  If there's
>  any blame, it's to be laid on me.

Speaking as Ted White here, I have *no idea* what this is all about.  If
Alexis has written something about me he has not sent me a copy, and I
have no idea what he has said about me.   So I'll reserve all judgment
on that.

As far as my membership being paid (through the rest of 2005), events
occurred as Elspeth described them, and this is the first that I was
aware of her hand in the matter.

It's all moot with me, in any case.  I have been badly insulted and
apparently defamed by the Gillilands, to whom I have done nothing to
provoke such actions.  I will not return to their house again unless I
receive a genuine apology, which I doubt will be forthcoming.

I regret losing contact with Alexis in this fashion, but it would appear
that it is he who has severed that contact.  Sic transit etc.  I
recommend he get professional help for Lee.

My involvement in fandom is far greater than WSFA, and I have a healthy
life outside fandom as well.  I've replaced WSFA meetings on first
Fridays with gettogethers with my band.  (Dan Joy, who joined WSFA many
years ago at the age of 11, is another member of that band.)  Life goes
on.  If WSFA ever moves the location of its Virginia meetings, I might
drop in again.  If not, I guess my only contact will be via this list.

For what it's worth, my sympathies are entirely with Keith and I think
the Gillilands have treated him shabbily and dishonestly.   Working with
Keith for the past half year has given me an increased respect for him
and deepened my liking for him.  It mildly astonishes me that WSFA has
let him go so easily and readily.

Oh well.

--Ted White

cc: Gillilands