Transcribe
Translate
Fantasy Amateur, v. 7, issue 3, March 1944
Page 2
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
2 fantasy books, originals, etc., or otherwise in the way that plaques and loving cups are, is a matter of majority opinion. So start opinionating! Now we come to an unpleasant matter for consideration-the matter of what, if anything is to be done about one Claude Degler, alias Don Rogers, alias (?). There appearsto be rather strong feeling on both sides of the question. Several abortive attempts to do something about the situation have been made, I have at hand a petition started by Schwartz, Shaw and Unger, and aimed at eliminating Degler from the organization. It was circulated among seven or eight other members for signatures which it failed to get. Several of them enclosed letters explaining their refusal to sign. The consensus seems to have been that the organization would be better off without him, but there was considerable reticence about taking direct action to this end, and doubt about the constitutionality of the reasons listed in the petition. To sum things up, I have received the impression that the majority of the membership would like to see Degler out of FAPA, but don't know just what to do about it. In an attempt to clarify what seems to be a muddled situation, let's consider what steps may be taken, and on what grounds. 1. Annul Degler's membership and return his dues. 2. Refuse renewal at expiration of present membership. 3. Reguse renewal for, say, three years. 4. Let him remain a member. Now it may come as a surprise to some that according to the constitution we need no other reason than a majority dislike of the guy to expel him for the organization. If a majority of the membership no longer wishes to have him as a fellow member, it certainly seems that the desirity of the majority should rule. And in Article 12 of the constitution it reads, "A majority vote of the active membership shall be necessary for the adoption of new amendments. A similar majority may at any time, through and instrument in petition form, over-ride any acts of, or impeach officials, or suspend sections of this Constitution in particular cases without repealing them." (Italics mine.) This if a majority of the members forted that Article 5, Privileges, be completely suspended in Degler's particular case, he would be effectively eliminated from the organization. I have asked Vice President Chauvenet for a ruling on this point, but to date have not heard from him. Nevertheless, the wording of the constitution seems quite clear, and the outcome of the situation can quickly be decided if the membership wishes to do anything definite. There is one other matter that has come to my attention. It was noticeable in the last mailing, and it is very conspicuous in at least one item in the present mailing (providing it is present). It concens the business of getting too free with those "virile, four-letter, Anglo-Saxon words". Now the use of such language in a FAPA publication may or may not be in poor taste; may or may not offend some of the members. These are matters for discussion. But what does concern us immediately is the jeopardy in which this places the whole mailing with the Postal Department. Our Uncle Samuel has some rather definite ideas on the subject of obscenity. It appears to me that nothing contained in any fapazine could overbalance the danger in which injudicious use of unconventional terms could place the whole organization. As there appears to be nothing in the constitution covering this situation, I sueggest that a petition to amend Article 9, Section (d), and/or Article 10, to provide the necessary censorship of items for in-
Saving...
prev
next
2 fantasy books, originals, etc., or otherwise in the way that plaques and loving cups are, is a matter of majority opinion. So start opinionating! Now we come to an unpleasant matter for consideration-the matter of what, if anything is to be done about one Claude Degler, alias Don Rogers, alias (?). There appearsto be rather strong feeling on both sides of the question. Several abortive attempts to do something about the situation have been made, I have at hand a petition started by Schwartz, Shaw and Unger, and aimed at eliminating Degler from the organization. It was circulated among seven or eight other members for signatures which it failed to get. Several of them enclosed letters explaining their refusal to sign. The consensus seems to have been that the organization would be better off without him, but there was considerable reticence about taking direct action to this end, and doubt about the constitutionality of the reasons listed in the petition. To sum things up, I have received the impression that the majority of the membership would like to see Degler out of FAPA, but don't know just what to do about it. In an attempt to clarify what seems to be a muddled situation, let's consider what steps may be taken, and on what grounds. 1. Annul Degler's membership and return his dues. 2. Refuse renewal at expiration of present membership. 3. Reguse renewal for, say, three years. 4. Let him remain a member. Now it may come as a surprise to some that according to the constitution we need no other reason than a majority dislike of the guy to expel him for the organization. If a majority of the membership no longer wishes to have him as a fellow member, it certainly seems that the desirity of the majority should rule. And in Article 12 of the constitution it reads, "A majority vote of the active membership shall be necessary for the adoption of new amendments. A similar majority may at any time, through and instrument in petition form, over-ride any acts of, or impeach officials, or suspend sections of this Constitution in particular cases without repealing them." (Italics mine.) This if a majority of the members forted that Article 5, Privileges, be completely suspended in Degler's particular case, he would be effectively eliminated from the organization. I have asked Vice President Chauvenet for a ruling on this point, but to date have not heard from him. Nevertheless, the wording of the constitution seems quite clear, and the outcome of the situation can quickly be decided if the membership wishes to do anything definite. There is one other matter that has come to my attention. It was noticeable in the last mailing, and it is very conspicuous in at least one item in the present mailing (providing it is present). It concens the business of getting too free with those "virile, four-letter, Anglo-Saxon words". Now the use of such language in a FAPA publication may or may not be in poor taste; may or may not offend some of the members. These are matters for discussion. But what does concern us immediately is the jeopardy in which this places the whole mailing with the Postal Department. Our Uncle Samuel has some rather definite ideas on the subject of obscenity. It appears to me that nothing contained in any fapazine could overbalance the danger in which injudicious use of unconventional terms could place the whole organization. As there appears to be nothing in the constitution covering this situation, I sueggest that a petition to amend Article 9, Section (d), and/or Article 10, to provide the necessary censorship of items for in-
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
