======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #14 -- May 3, 1995 Contents of this issue: Modius: GC Operations Bill Sommerfeld [fwd]: GC organizational suggestion Justin: Oops Bertram: Intro, GC Operations Tibor: FTP by email Isabeau: Intro, GC Operations Alysoun: Delphi topics, work Eichling: Hypothetical SCA Structure Edward: Intro, Various Issues Caroline: Proposal Schedule for July Meeting New Ombudsperson Grand Council Meeting at Lilies War Gareth: GC relationship with the Board, and Direction This is the Grand Council Chronicle, the proceedings of the Grand Council of the Known World, a body chartered to examine the structure of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc., and make recommendations of changes. The contents represent the opinions of the contributing authors, and do not necessarily represent the official policies of the SCA, Inc. ---------------------------------------- >From the Secretary's Desk A couple of brief things: I've been tended to occasionally reformat messages, to be a little more consistent and work better through email. (Mostly shortening long lines, putting in white space, stuff like that.) So far, I haven't gotten any complaints, but if you *do* have something that wants to run exactly as sent to me, please note it specially, okay? Tibor has sent me the report of the nominating committee to the Board. I've chosen (in consultation with Caroline and Tibor) not to put it into the Chronicle per se, because it's mightily long, and mostly not relevant to our day-to-day discussion (I think). However, we want to make sure it's available to people, so it has been put on the FTP site (for information on getting this through email, see Tibor's article below) and the Web site (http://www.inmet.com/~justin/gc/). Also, it is enclosed as an addendum for those who are receiving the Chronicle by postal mail. -- Justin ---------------------------------------- From: modius@dobharchu.org (Erik Langhans) Date: 25 Apr 95 08:53:04 -0600 Subject: Thoughts and Comments Greetings from Modius The 90 Day Countdown (Goals/Deadlines): In one months time we need to have a voting structure in place. I recommend a 2/3rd majority vote with majority and minority opinions included. We can if necessary do it by the weekly Tuesday GC publication deadline. This will allow those without quick access the opportunity to respond. By the end of the next 60 days we need to have voted on our first batch of proposals. We then order our actual vote counts, write the minority and majority opinions and do one final posting to the GC Chron.. This is done by day 85. Then on day 90 we send them on to the BoD. Yes or no? Lets roll our sleeves up and get to work NOW! As we develop or decide on specific ideas or recommendations we should put aside a section of the GC Chron. which will run an up-to-date vote tally on each. Feedback/Opinions: Subcommittees - Lets do it. This will fit in nicely with my primary recommendation - the 90 Day Countdown. Delphi Method - No. Nix or Spin Off the TI to Kingdom level - Fine, lets give the Kingdoms the money normally spent on TI and let them come up with their own version of a TI or maybe enhance their own Kingdom level newsletters. Corwyn comments "The mission of the Council is to help preserve the nature of the Society while accommodating the demands of the mundane world, our growth and our changing administrative needs." YES! YES! YES! modius@dobharchu.org ---------------------------------------- [Forwarded by Justin] Subject: GC organizational suggestion. Date: Wed, 26 Apr 1995 16:00:02 -0400 From: Bill Sommerfeld Once you guys get down to business, I think that to keep your focus & make progress, you should keep a list of "issues", and give them each unique names, and list the set of currently open and recently "resolved" issues along with their current status at the end of each GC digest. I think it would help to avoid going in circles ("No, we resolved that 5 months ago; go back and read the digests from then to see why we chose what we did.."). You would formally create an "issue" if N council members (with N somewhere around 5) believed it should be created (and those N would naturally have to agree on the wording, possibly in out-of-band discussion by email or phone). Exactly how and when to vote would need to be defined, but I'd suggest something like an initial debate, a straw poll (votes with comments attached), continued debate, and then a final vote, with some kind of time limits to allow debate to resolve itself. sample issues: mission-statement: "The SCA, Inc should have a corporate mission statement explaining its reason for existance". territorial-exclusivity: "Should more than one `official' SCA branch be permitted to exist in a given geographic area?" Just a thought... it might help the GC actually get something done... - Bill ---------------------------------------- Greetings from Justin. Just a brief note this time (I'm in the middle of Deadline Hell at work, so I *may* be relatively quiet for the next month). But it was noted that my note last time misattributed some comments of Nathan's to Alban -- I misread Alban commenting on Nathan's earlier posting. My apologies to both; I try not to do that... ---------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 10:22:46 -0400 (EDT) From: David Schroeder Subject: Grand Council Introduction Hi folks! I'd like to introduce myself to those of you I haven't yet met, electronically or in person. Then I'd like to share a my thoughts on "process" for the Grand Council's delibera- tions and make some recommendations for how we can move ahead. But first things first... * * * BERTRAM'S INTRODUCTION In the SCA I'm Bertram of Bearington, a Pelican since Pennsic XII and, back in the early 1980s, the Society Chronicler and editor of Tournaments Illuminated. Now I'm the Chronicler for the Principality of AEthelmearc and the publisher of AEstel, the principality newsletter. I've been in the Society since 1975 and have lived in three kingdoms -- the East, the Middle, and Calontir, while being squired to a knight from Atlantia. (That's Duke Gyrth Oldcastle, who is also on the Grand Council. <"Hi Gyrth!">) I live in the Barony-Marche of the Debateable Lands, which is mundanely known as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and enjoy singing, song-writing, poetry, cooking, dramatics, learning about period printing, and practicing positive political action. * * * Mundanely, I'm Dave Schroeder, President of Renaissance Information Services, a start-up venture providing high- level client-server and business process reengineering expertise to organizations that need it. In the past I've been the Client-Server Technical Manager for a national systems integrator and the Manager of End- User Computing for a five *billion* dollar conglomerate in the Midwest. I've got a Masters in Business from Carnegie Mellon and have two years of Doctoral work in Organizational Behavior, along with a Bachelors in Sociology/Anthropology (with an emphasis on demographics and survey research) from Swarthmore. * * * I've had quite a lot of experience with outsourcing computer services from the inside, working for an outsourcing company. I understand the things that can go wrong as well as the things that can go right and in the balance I'm convinced that most organizations are better off focussing on the things that are particular to them and leaving the routine matters outsourced to others. If you'd like a copy of my article on outsourcing the clerical work of the SCA, Inc. please send me email at 'dschroeder@cmu.edu' and I'll gladly email you a copy. The White Paper is also available via U.S. Mail. Just send your address to: Dave Schroeder, 117 Gordon St., Pittsburgh, PA 15218, or call me at 412/731-3230 to request a copy. * * * GRAND COUNCIL OPERATING PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS I'd like to second Baron Hossein on his statements concerning the use of Delphi techniques. I don't think such techniques are appropriate for either the set of problems at hand or the makeup of this body. I'd like to recommend the following alternative way of making decisions: THE PROBLEM Forty people is too many people to get MUCH work done _as a body_. The coordination costs are too high. It's too easy for everyone to say "Let someone else worry about getting ______ done." You can't really get to know all the people on the Council and it's too easy to feel "lost" in the crowd. A PRACTICAL SOLUTION I think we should form Working Committees of 3-7 people each, dedicated to coming up with workable recommendations for the Board on a number of areas. Outsourcing should certainly be one such area. We might also want to have committees dedicated to various "styles" of solutions to our problems, or dedicated to specific actions that will probably need to be taken no matter what happens with decentralization, and so on. Call the sort of organization we'd have after restructuring MODELS and the issues that may be important no matter how we end up restructuring MATTERS and you've got a workable way of organizing our efforts. Committees, as smaller bodies with more commitment from their members, can more quickly develop their best ideas for how the SCA, Inc. might be restructured or might cope with critical issues. The Committees can prepare Position Papers and Proposals laying out their recommendations and doing their best to EDUCATE the members of the Grand Council and the people of the Society about the issues involved, and also do their best to PERSUADE members of the Grand Council and the people of the Society that _their_ model would be a good one. The Grand Council AS A BODY would then review the Proposals from the Committees and hammer out something that makes the most sense, seeking a broad concensus if possible, but recognizing that some of the issues may have to be put to the populace directly. If need be, the Proposals from various Committees would then serve as minority reports to the Board, though with luck we might come up with something that everyone likes enough to push as a single recommendation to the Board (and the Society, for ratification). * * * Here are some ideas for committees -- I'm going to put in most of my efforts on Outsourcing, so please understand these are just general ideas for other committees, not specific suggestions: MODELS OF RESTRUCTURING 1. Minimal Necessary Changes Model -- how can we provide minimal patches for the current system to keep it working for another ten years, if possible? 2. Kingdom-level Decentralization Models 3. More Extensive Decentralization Models 4. +-----+ MATTERS FOR RESTRUCTURING (These may serve all MODELS...) A. Representation and Accountability B. Landmarks of the SCA to serve #2 and #3 above C. Outsourcing Options and Mechanics D. International Issues E. Legal Issues F. Fiscal Issues G. I would like to strongly urge that the Grand Council adopt SOME process for coming up with recommendations that's more effective than using Delphi techniques and immodestly believe that the process I've outlined is a workable one and a way of getting things moving rather than just sitting around reading email and flapping our electronic gums. To that end, I'm setting up a Working Committee on Outsourcing. If anyone would like to serve on it with me, please send me email at 'dschroeder@cmu.edu' -- I'd welcome help from folks who aren't formally on the Grand Council, too! We'll all get together in a virtual corner and start preparing our Position Paper and Proposals. I think my whitepaper on Outsourcing gives us a good headstart. Thanks, everyone, for your patience in reading this LONG letter. Much obliged -- my best -- Bertram +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Bertram of Bearington AEstel Chronicler Debateable Lands/AEthelmearc/East Dave Schroeder dschroeder@cmu.edu President, Renaissance Info Serv +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ---------------------------------------- From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: FTP by mail Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 15:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Greetings from Mark Schuldenfrei (Tibor) Old correspondence and other data are stored at an FTP site called ftp.gc.sca.org. If you do not have FTP services on your machine, you can still get the information that is there by using what is called an FTP email server. It is slow, but effective. Here is a quick introduction to FTP by mail. If you have any questions, email me at schuldy@math.harvard.edu, and I will help. The basic format is to send email to an FTP email server, putting commands in the body of the email. Sites you can use include: ftpmail@sunsite.unc.edu (USA/NC) bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu (USA/NJ) bitftp@vm.gmd.de (Europe) bitftp@plearn.edu.pl (Europe) ftpmail@doc.ic.ac.uk (UK) ftpmail@cs.uow.edu.au (Australia) To get a list of what is in the GC storage site, send the following commands in the body of the message: open ftp.gc.sca.org cd /pub/sca_gc dir quit This will show you a list of what is in the /pub/sca_gc directory. To fetch a file do the same thing, except instead of dir, use the get command. For example, to fetch the first issue of the GC Chronicle, do open ftp.gc.sca.org cd /pub/sca_gc get gc_chron.001 quit Most of these FTP by mail servers also understand the help command: help quit So, to recap, send mail TO the FTP-email server, tell it where to look (machine and directory) and either what files you want or a directory list. Note that this only works on text files, which are all we have. See the help file for commands like "binary" for transferring binary files. Feel free to experiment: you can't hurt anything. Tibor ---------------------------------------- >From LESZE_RICHARD@Tandem.COM Sun Apr 30 23:58:19 1995 [Note that the above address belongs to Artos Barefoot, who is providing email access to Baroness Isabeau for the time being.] Introduction: Isabeau of the Wilde Wood (Angie Eves) Isabeau has been active in the SCA in Lochac for about eight years, holding administrative positions at various levels including Principality Seneschal. She has (amongst other awards) a Grant of Arms, is a Court Baroness and a member of the Order of the Pelican Angie has tertiary qualifications in Education (which she outgrew), Social Welfare (got bored), Business Law (forgot it), Organisational Studies (liked that one), and is currently Assistant Director Responsible for Human Resources Management Policy, Administrative Law, Industrial Relations and Personnel Practices for the Family Court of Australia. Message to the Council: We need to decide on the functions and issues the Council should be looking at. I suggest we look first at what the traditional structure can do well, eg, in areas of equity, economies of scale and consistency. Also, we should examint areas that would serve the organisation better if they were streamlined, devolved or outsourced. We need to acknowledge that we are not all going to agree, and how much concensus or majority vote would be appropriate before a recommendation is made. We should prioritise the issues we are going to cover by the amount of impact they will have on the organisation and their flow-through effects. We need to decide which issues can be considered concurrently, and set (at least tentative) completion dates. This may be one way to limit the amount of verbiage that seems to be generated on any particular topic. ---------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 May 95 10:29:15 EDT From: Carole.C.Roos.2@nd.edu (Carole Roos) Subject: GC: Delphi topics, work Greetings from Alysoun Topic #2 Board Responsibilities The Board should monitor all aspects of the organization to identify weak or problem areas and see that they are properly addressed as well as to identify and promote strengths. Ideally most of the work including problem-solving and decision-making would occur at lower levels. The Board would digest the reports, facilitate interkingdom exchange of ideas, and provide on overview of the whole to help kingdoms keep their own work in perspective. For this to work (or anything else for that matter) the Board must have a reliable reporting system. Last issue Finnvarr pointed out that much of the administrative burden doesn't come from the Board and Serwyl described how officers get crosscut. Add in the fact that we have officers who have no prior leadership or administrative experience, were given little or no training, may not fully understand some of the forms, etc. that go with their jobs, and can't count on real help or support from their superiors. If the organization can't be effectively managed from the bottom up, the Board is forced to try to manage it from the top down. Topic #1 Mission I think Justin was on track last issue by pointing out the difference between his concerns and a mission statement as such. There is a much deeper question here. Whether SCA inc "owns" the Known World [Society] or the Known World "owns" SCA inc depends on where you stand. Which came first isn't significant anymore since both exist. The Known World needs something like SCA inc to handle certain types of business; SCA inc needs something like the Known World to fulfill its purpose. The confusion isn't between the corporation and the membership nor between the Board and the branches. It's between ideologies--it's about the nature of the game. The quarrels, the frustration and hard feelings on the local level result from this confusion: people do not agree about how to play. However we define the game or set the rules, someone will object. That should not prevent us from trying to articulate some coherent vision to work toward. I will suggest one such vision. I'm not going to explain it in great detail (why I am choosing certain words, for example) in order to save space. I will try to present enough so you can see how it works and what advantages I think it would offer. It will not please everyone because it is a mundane and practical approach. There is a special, shining mystery that the Known World holds for many of you, but I think it would be wrong to try to capture that in a working document. That higher reality should be reserved for poetry and song. First alter the purpose statement of SCA inc: "The purpose of SCA inc is to promote research into and re-creation of daily life in the Middle Ages and Renaissance of Western Europe through informal educational activities for its participants." Next, define the Known World: "The Known World is a historically informed, idealized social order which provides the learning environment for the educational activities." Third, describe how our educational process works. I haven't had time to work out specific wording here, but it is essentially the principles of informal adult education. For now I'll just list the basic points along with garb as an example so you can see that this is in fact what we are doing. 1. Acceptance of individuals and their present level of knowledge and skills. (Newcomers welcomed in first attempt at garb) 2. Stimulate interest by demonstrating the relevance of the subject to the individuals (Newcomers look around and see that good gard "counts") 3. Provide learning materials which enable the individuals to meet their interest needs in accordance with their skill levels (We offer how-to ideas and help; we don't insist they start with Elizabethan ball gowns) 4. Provide encouragement and feedback (We say, you can do it; we compliment their new improved garb) 5. Encourage continuing learning by repeating steps 2-4 with models of increasing difficulty (Just look through your garb chest!) In other words I'm saying that the nature of the game is informal adult ed., but a complex version which requires the insection of four distinct elements: 1. history (the garb); 2. skills (the sewing); 3. human development (acceptance, encouragement to develop potential, opportunity to increase self-esteem and confidence); 4. values (what we call courtesy) as people become part of this community and accept responsibility for helping others learn. This vision of the game has several strong points. First, it is intelligible to outsiders and worthy of their respect. Second, it legitimates the Known World and the game in terms that SCA inc has to recognize. It establishes a clear relationship among the parts. No more arguing over who is boss--we are all working on the game. Third, defining the game in this way gives us a means for evaluation and assigning accountability that can be used on all levels from the individual to the whole shebang. It won't automatically solve all our problems but it does give us a useful tool for working on them. There, one vision., Anyone have a better idea? Work In volunteering for the Council, I offered the ability to do democraphic analysis on membership and the offer still stands. In a separate posting I have offered to do an organizational chart since some of us (me!) are in desperate need of it. In either case I have to have raw data. Who should I talk to? ---------------------------------------- Date: 30 Apr 95 From: Eichling Subject: Hypothetical SCA Structure Synopsis: Hypothetical Structure of the SCA Volunteer to act as clearinghouse on Society-wide organizations (College of Heralds paradigm). Introduction: These observations are largely the result of discussions in the GC Bulletin (can it be cured by penicillin?) during the last six weeks. I have an image of a group of people in the middle of the ocean, flailing around in dark waters. Perhaps it is simply that I do not grasp the situation properly, perhaps the purpose and direction are there, but beyond my limited perception. I will display a hypothetical SCA structure, to serve as a basis for comment. I volunteer to act a clearinghouse for input on the idea of expanding the number of independent Society-wide organizations, presenting a digest of these comments in a future Bulletin. Thanks go to Sir William Schuyler and Master Bruce Draconarius for their expert advice. The proposed structure relies on two premises: 1) Territoriality The question of Kingdom territoriality is left as it stands. The current geographic divisions of kingdoms are logical, easy to deal with conceptually, have historical analogs, and seem to be 'working' - no need to fix them. The question of territoriality within a kingdom falls under the jurisdiction of that kingdom, according to its laws and traditions (We have non-territorial cantons in the Barony of Altavia in Caid, for instance.). Any setup which encourages subinfeudation is a real can of worms ("Our shire is located in Atlantia, but we're in allegiance to Caid."). 2) Umbrella Organization I am assuming that some sort of an overall Society organization exists. While I do not think it inappropriate that this premise be called into question, I personally feel that a corporate level organization has a function, and prefer that it exist; you may persuade me otherwise. The functions of this organization should be broad in scope, but should minimize the number of routine tasks. Beginning, then, with the premises that the kingdom structure remains pretty much as it is, and that some sort of corporate organization exists, this is my image of a hypothetical SCA structure: 1. TI operates autonomously. It maintains its own subscription list and collects its own moneys. Every year, the TI staff sends a subscription list to the BoD, for their information. TI subscription, per se, is independent of membership considerations. ( I believe that there is sufficient 'mundane' interest in historical recreation that the TI could function as a special interest magazine instead of just the SCA newsletter.) 2. The total membership in the SCA is the sum of the members of each of the kingdoms. The only membership consideration the corporation has to deal with is whether the kingdom itself meets the requirements for membership in the SCA. 3. The College of Heralds provides us with a functional example of a subset of SCA concerns being handled separately and effectively on a Known-World wide scale. The College collects its own funds, for services directly rendered, and maintains its own hierarchy. In the corporate structure, they are answerable only to the BoD; medievally, each herald a member of his own kingdom and subject to the dictates of the Crown. ( In spite of its apparent objective implausibility, the system actually works.) Based on the paradigm of the College of Heralds, I would propose further SCA-wide organizations: a) The Marshallate. Adherence to the Rules of the Lists, armor standards, inter kingdom wars, and martial-related safety issues fall under the perview of this Society-wide organization. A "thumbs down" by the Marshallate precludes a group from being considered for membership in the SCA. The Marshallate is supported by either (a) list fees or (b) authorization fees. b) The Medic's Guild. By mundane law and professional tradition, medical ethics take precedence over politics or national boundary. I don't have a clear image of the funding of the Medic's Guild: list fees, war fees, or voluntary donations are all possible. I don't think it's a real problem; I've rarely seen a fighter reluctant to donate to the medics. (I used to put a $1 'surcharge' on my rattan sales for the medics. No matter how short of cash a fighter was, I never had one ask me to discount it.) c) The Seneschalate. Here's the tricky one; it's checks-and-balances time. What we want is to have someone in a position of responsibility in a kingdom to keep thing rational in the rare event that the king turns out to be an absolute dodo, but at the same time not saddle a good monarch with personality-conflict seneschal. It's easier to state the problem than come up with a good answer. How about this: The society-wide group of seneschals is also a standing committee of the BoD. If the seneschal has to 'pull rank' on the Crown, it automatically comes under corporate scrutiny (IKAC). 4. The kingdoms are all incorporated independently. They maintain their own membership and insurance. (I agree with Finvarr, this will be transparent to most people.) 5. The BoD has three standing committees: The Seneschalate, The IKAC, and The GC (The last mentioned is small, quiet, and rarely meets. Like doctors, our job is to do a good enough job to put us out of work.) The BoD concerns itself with: (1) Principles and Policy, (2) Criteria for kingdom membership, (3) Qualification for membership, (4) Interactions with the heads of Society-wide groups, (5) Interactions with its 3 standing committees. Summation: This image of a hypothetical structure for the SCA minimizes the number of changes which need to be made, while bringing more of the routine work closer to home (kingdom). It still allows for an overall Society with a general philosophy, inter kingdom mobility of awards, and sense of unity. Contact data: Eichling von Amrum Janet L. Chennault 15538 Cobalt St. Sylmar, CA 91342 INTERNET Garrloch@aol.com ---------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 01:02:22 GMT-12 From: Phil Anderson Subject: Re: Grand Council Chronicle #13 Greetings from Edward No-shoes, First, an introduction. Mundanely, I'm Phil Anderson, currently employed as assistant editor of the New Zealand Science Monthly and also a part-time student in about my 15th year of university "study". I have qualifications in computer science and psychology, and a number of years' experience in the administration of a local incorporated society - much of what has happened at BoD level over the last 18 months has looked rather familiar... In the Society, I'm Edward the Discalceate/No-Shoes/Long-hair, an 11th century Saxon. I've been attending events since the mid-1980s, being involved in a wide range of activities but not specialising in any - pretty much Joe Average SCAdian, I suspect. For those who care, I'm not currently a paid member of the SCA Inc., though I have been in the past. In GCC 11, Nathan asked: >What's our tax liability in other countries? Are foreign tax laws >mainly concerned with subscriptions, donations, feast and site fees, >sending money to foreign corporations, or all of the above? As far as New Zealand is concerned, the SCA appears to have essentially no tax liability at the moment. I'm informed that we simply have to fill out a "nil return" each year. Significant growth in numbers and turnover could doubtless change things. Territoriality: I live in a city which is, for all practical purposes, the "home territory" of two different SCA groups. Having overlapping territory does not seem to cause any problems which would not exist in a single united group in some form, with the sole exception of creating a greater need for officers than a single group would experience. I don't know that I'd want to see overlapping territories encouraged, but I'd like the system to be flexible enough to allow them where circumstances make it appropriate. In GCC 13, Justin asks: >More generally -- is this the time for us to deal with this level of >concreteness? I had personally been hoping to deal with some of the >Big Picture uber-questions first, to get an underlying philosophy set >down to guide us in the later decisions. We seem to be drifting, [...] I would, in fact, be happy to see us drift for a _short_ time further. It's useful to see what issues spur discussion and to get a feel for what people's views are and how they approach it all. When we _do_ move towards greater focus, starting off with simple, concrete, preferably non-controversial issues would be sensible, as many participants will still be settling into their roles. Big questions can wait a bit until we have more experience. And a question from me: Does the BoD currently have such a thing as a Procedures Manual - a document handed out to people when they join that outlines how to approach dealing with various common (and not-so-common) situations that they may have to handle? Regards, Edward ---------------------------------------------- Phil Anderson *** hairy@sloth.equinox.gen.nz ---------------------------------------------- "No-one is equal to anyone else!" ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 May 95 08:26:24 cst From: "CAROL L SMITH" Subject: GC: Proposal Schedule for July Meeting Greetings from Caroline! With the April Board meeting just passed, the July meeting isn't far away. Below is the schedule I'd like to propose for getting things ready for the next Board meeting. Let me know if you have any problems with it. The Board meeting is 22 July 1995 in Pittsburgh (Debatable Lands). Commentary is due 30 June. (Rhetorical comment: Why the Board is going to Pittsburgh in July and then nearly all returning for Pennsic 3-4 weeks later is beyond me.) 24 May: Proposals presented for vote (GC Chronicle #17) 16 June: Voting concludes on proposals 16-30 June: Finalize report to the Board 30 June: Send report to Milpitas 22 July: Board meeting This schedule means that your proposals to be presented to the Board MUST be ready by 24 May, 3 weeks away. So, if you have something specific you're working on (like outsourcing or a mission statement), please present it here next week! Otherwise, it will have to wait until the October meeting (probably 21 October, probably in St. Louis, but I won't be there if it's then). As always, please let me know if you have questions or concerns. I remain, ever in Service, Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 May 95 08:28:56 cst From: "CAROL L SMITH" Subject: GC: New Ombudsperson Our new Ombudsperson is E. F. Morrill (Viscount Edward Zifran of Gendy, etc.). He is on email at gendy@panix.com and his address should be in your local newsletter. ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 02 May 95 08:33:47 cst From: "CAROL L SMITH" Subject: GC: Grand Council Meeting at Lilies War Greetings from Caroline! There will be a meeting of the Grand Council and the Board at Lilies War (12-18 June, just north of Kansas City, MO). All Grand Council and Board members at the War are invited to attend. The exact time and location will be determined when I know the schedule, but it will be on Saturday the 17th. Hope to see you there!! Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com/314-530-1836 (P.S. There will also be at meeting at Pennsic. Date and time to be determined.) ---------------------------------------- Unto the members of the Grand Council does Gareth bring greetings, On our relationship to the board I am concerned. I presided (sort of) over the still-birth of the Steward's Council, and I see some of the same patterns occuring here as in that august body. Some of these potential factors are out of our hands, but others are not. The most important factor is our relationship to the board. It should be no surprise to anyone that communication has not been one of the board's historic strengths. Much of this comes as a result of the board's structure--instead of maintaining frequent contact and "presence" the board tends to orient towards its quarterly meetings, thus tending towards an event management style rather than a processual style. Of course, all of the necessary people and information are not available at the board meeting, so the board must do the best it can with what it has, or put the issue off for another quarter. Thus even with an active ombudsman (unlikely, do to the huge load on each board member) contact with the full board will be infrequent, and opportunities to "talk out" our slight misunderstandings and ambiguous relationships will be limited. This is a setting ideal for breeding mistrust and large misunderstandings. Traditional fixes to this problem are problematic. Normally I would suggest several face-to-face meetings to ensure that we are getting the relationship off to the best possible start. That is probably not feasible. My distant second choice would feature indepth meetings (several sessions of at least two hours each) between a several GC members and the board (perhaps over a weekend) so that both groups can better understand the concerns and reservations (not simply the policies or formal guidelines) of the other. This model would potentially put the representatives from each group in the middle--a potentially unpleasant vantage point. The risks of not taking this sort of action are too great to be ignored, however. A deep preliminary understanding and at least some trust will become critical in the future, if the Grand Council is to become a real force in reshaping the organization, and it will become nearly impossible after the first set of difficult (and potentially threatening) proposals are sent out. In short, we need to develop an atmosphere of trust. Members of the Grand Council must believe that the board will take our consultations seriously, and will support us to the best of their ability with relevant information and candor. No less importantly, board members must believe that the Grand Council is not simply another in a long series of "board bashers"--that we take seriously the implications of our work, and that we will treat each member of the board with dignity and respect. My experience has been that board members (with almost no exceptions) are devoted people who care deeply about the Society and who sacrifice much to attempt to give back to the SCA. It just doesn't make sense that someone who is on some sort of personal power trip would take this route--it costs way too much and yields too little to make a stint on the board an effective means to power and influence in the SCA. This does not mean that board members are not human. If criticized, they will flinch. If criticized unfairly, they will bristle. If slandered, they will feel hurt. They must be reluctant to turn over their job description and some of their organizational responsibility to a group of people they have never met--I would be. Given the atmosphere within some sections of the Society recently, their reluctance is probably even greater than it would be otherwise. I am not saying that we should somehow pander to the board, that we should try and protect them from what we see as the truth (little t). I have more respect for the board members, and for us, than that. But I would encourage us to work hard at building a basis of trust between our two groups before the tough calls start happening. Such a basis will make misunderstandings less likely. On heading in the right direction Another factor with the potential to hurt our effectiveness is the relationship among generalizability, accuracy and simplicity (I acknowledge Weick's "The Social Psychology of Organizing" for this basic concept). We simply cannot do all three--we must make some tradeoffs somewhere. Some solutions will be more generalizable--applying to everyone in every country and in every situation. Other solutions will be more accurate--carefully working in all available and relevant detail to ensure that the results will not be in error. Some solutions will be more simple--easy to quickly grasp and to apply. All of our solutions will have some characteristics of each, but none will be fully all. But we do need to quickly develop some idea of where our target ought to be--if we don't, we are likely to wallow around somewhere between the "philosophy of the Society," pursuit of a fine and potentially critical legal point in California (or Finnish) Corporate Law, and development of a series of one-sentence statements that won't be likely to be misunderstood by any of our members. We don't have the time, resources or patience to do all three, but each is important enough that we cannot afford to ignore it. So to start things off, I would suggest a position closest to generalizable (pertaining to all situations) and somewhat closer to simple (short and easy to understand) than accurate (careful in all details). This would tend to take us toward statements that would nearly always apply, be somewhat easy to understand (with some thought) and leave many of the details to be dealt with later. The main danger of this position as I see it is that the devil may well be in the details, and if so, we would end up with something less useful than it should be. What do you think? Renewed in service to you, Gareth ----------------------------------------