editoradmin
< The Rosewood Rambler, Number 1 | The Rosewood Rambler, Number 3 >
I Was at San Diego, Where Were You?
I WAS DISTURBED at two articles in the September NA reporting on events at San Diego. Ann Vrooman’s article leaves one thinking that it was a highly emotional battle full of rancor, trickery, and ill will. That is a false impression. I hate to think that years from now people reading the NA will believe that the San Diego Convention was a disorderly affair. It definitely was not. Let me report the facts.
Since Ann does not clearly define the issue, let me give some background information: The 1973 Convention upheld the judges’ decision that only the creator of a work can enter it in the laureate binding on the officers so that when Ralph Babcock submitted articles by others, the Recorder and President had no choice but to reject them. However, since they did not want to deny entry to anyone, each author was contacted, permission obtained, and each article was entered legally. A request was then made by Ralph that the judges rule that publishers and/or printers also may enter material they have published for member authors. Two of the judges voted in favor of his request. The third judge declared the question moot since all articles were already in the hands of judges.
The debate was on whether to accept the judges’ report. People on both sides had strong feelings and argued fervently, but the description of volcanos erupting is gross exaggeration. The arguments were rational and reasonable. The entire affair was conducted in an orderly and business-like manner. Ralph read statements from absent members and similar statements were made by some attendees, that any member should be able to enter the work of others in the laureate contest. And Ann’s article reads as if the judges were supposed to rule on whether they were in favor of permitting someone other than the author to enter the work.
No. No. No. They were to decide: “Is it constitutional?” That decision has nothing to do with its desirability. If that is what most people want, then the constitution should be amended so that it says so clearly and unmistakably. But that is another issue. Please, please don’t confuse them.
And the statement that parliamentary tricks were used just doesn’t hold water. I don’t believe that Bob Williams meant to employ a trick, but even if he did, the reconsideration certainly cancelled it. After the first vote carried, someone moved that it be reconsidered since some people may not have understood how they were voting. And although a two-thirds majority was required and the vote was short of that by a fraction of a vote, the Chair declared it carried and the issue was discussed again. It was voted on a second time and again carried by a substantial majority. I fail to see how anyone could claim to be tricked or not to know how he was voting.
Both Ann and Glenn Engebretsen imply that the issue being discussed was the Heljeson article. That issue was settled by the 1973 Convention. “Memorandum from Marietta” is certainly of laureate quality and everyone should read it, but not as preparation for making a decision about this question as Ann suggests. As good as it is, it is not relevant to this subject.
Glenn starts by making a very good point. He interprets Art. XII – 6 “Any author, publisher or printer may enter the laureate competition by sending to the Recorder… one copy of each paper containing or constituting one of his entries.” to mean that a publisher may submit articles he has printed for other members. Others put more importance on the word his saying it means his own creation. It is certainly ambiguous, and Glenn’s point is well worth considering, but then he too brings up the Heljeson article as if that were the subject being voted on. He says the opinion of 6 august judges over a period of 2 years, stands even steven at 3 and 3. But he ignores the fact that the convention is the final authority, and if he is keeping score, the convention has voted twice and the score is 2 to 0.
Well, I do agree with Glenn that when voting on a constitutional matter, one should first read the constitution.
And What of the Drunken Hillbilly?
Then along comes Jed’s Jernl full of the same misconceptions. J. Ed touches on a valid point that in the past articles have been entered by someone other than the creator. I believe this is a good legal point. Laws sometimes become unenforceable after having been unenforced. Too bad he barely touched on it, and too bad he didn’t present this argument at St. Pete. But like Ann and Glenn, he rambles on about Heljeson and dirty tricks.
Yes, a hobby is for fun, but if we have a contest, we must have rules. If this rule is too restrictive, then we should change it. But stop complaining about the result rather than correcting the cause.
Sober up, Hillbilly Jed, that moonshine must have been from a bad batch.
I Did It Myself!
When Harold Segal visited us after the last VAPA meeting and saw the first Rosewood Rambler, he said, “Did you do all of it yourself?” He had visited us several times, but had never seen me set type. I prefer “visiting” rather than type setting when I have company. My part in the hybrid papers printed here, has been to print about 100 copies, usually printing on the platen a time or two because of chattering instead of being careful. So his question was understandable.
But when a letter from Ann Vrooman said some printers in California didn’t believe I did all of the work on my paper, it ruffled my feathers.
I do hereby solemnly swear that I did all of the work on both Rosewood Ramblers. I did ask for advice and received the same answer almost every time, “You will have to make your own decision.”
I did receive some unsolicited advice on the content of this issue (all negative) which I chose to ignore. I’ve never been easily led. I try to keep an open mind and to be reasonable, but my opinions are my own.
Hand set and printed by Leah G. Warner at the Boxwood Press, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770. Type used: ATF Century supplemented by some worn Monotype.