Consider a new way to select NCEW's convention cities: bidders are getting harder to come by.

NCEW members may be surprised to see in this issue of The Masthead only one bid for our convention in 2010.

If you read the pitch by Keven Ann Willey of the Dallas Morning News, you'll see that she has begun the heavy work of exploring her city's offerings for the benefit of NCEW. In September, she'll make a formal presentation at the convention in Kansas City, after which members will decide where to hold our annual event in 2010.

Except this time, there won't be a competitor, unless a last-minute bid comes in. No offense to Keven or Dallas, but that's disappointing, if only because NCEW members are used to having choices.

When I first put Pittsburgh forward as a host city, while at the Madison convention in 1997, members actually had three bids to consider. But, given the new pressures on our industry, anyone who has since served on the Site Selection Committee knows what a luxury that was.

The current members of the committee--Vanessa Gallman, Dick Hughes and I--tried mightily to drum up at least two convention bids for our members in 2007. We promoted it in NCEW's e-newsletter. We sent an email pitch, with a last-call followup, to all members. We did the usual one-to-one behind-the-scenes work performed by Site Selection Committee members to try to recruit committed NCEW members to "volunteer" for planning and executing a national convention.

In all but one case, our invitations were turned down--politely, of course. What's heartening is it was not for lack of affection for NCEW. What's discouraging is most of the reasons reflected the difficulties of the news business. Members said they were coping with shrinking staffs and unable to take on such a task; some were unsure their publishers could make the significant financial contribution required of a convention; some were not certain they would even be with the same newspaper in several years.

This is the first time in recent years that NCEW has had only one formal bidder for a convention. Truth be told, it follows several years when the Site Selection Committee had difficulty rounding up two bids. This is an unusual way for a 550-member national organization to choose convention sites, and this year's committee wonders if it's time for a change.

It might be worth amending the bylaws to authorize a group of members--like the Site Selection Committee or the NCEW board--to select the next location, with consideration given to geography, cost, and certainly host commitment (both financial and labor-wise).

Site selection would then become an ongoing pursuit for NCEW. What's more, potential hosts would not suffer the frustration of losing out to another bidder, after doing the considerable work of inspecting hotels, exploring offsite venues, and securing the promise of a convention contribution from one's publisher. Eliminating that unsavory outcome might even produce more potential convention hosts.

It's unfortunate that NCEW does not have at least one other bidder for the 2010 convention. But this could be a blessing in disguise, if it leads to a more rational, dependable method for selecting convention hosts. Let the discussion begin.

Tom Waseleski is NCEW secretary and editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Email: twaseleski@ post-gazette.com