======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #26 -- August 2, 1995 Contents of this issue: Terras: Hossein's Comments Alysoun: interactive; boards Finnvarr: Alban's Proposal; Int'l Corporations Modius: IAC Proposal Serwyl: Progress; Nordmark; Corwyn's Manifesto Edward: Int'l Issues 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: Joseph Heck Subject: Hoessin's comments Date: Wed, 26 Jul 1995 10:05:58 -0500 (CDT) Hoessin said some of our colleagues do not have network access and proposes that we rent something for them. I didn't even know we had any money?! Either way, it is pre-supposing that they even _want_ network access. I know many people who do not. What we should do is contact them (Caroline? You're the closest to leadership we have) and find out what they're thinking... I think Caroline needs to either step up to a more active leadership role or appoint someone to do so. I don't nessecarily see this role as needed to incite and come up with zillions of ideas, then persuading the rest of us - more of an advocate and arbitrator to gather comments and synthesize some compromise and suggestions that can eventually move onto the Board in our name. I would also like to see the GC move into a straight-out listserv forum - I would be willing to type for those people who do not have/desire network access if that is a problem. As long as it doesn't degrade into personal attacks and pure rhetoric, I think it might open communications more and get people talking. This will probably be useless without someone to massage the discussions into a coherant form as well. Terras ---------------------------------------- Sender: Carole.C.Roos.2@nd.edu (Carole Roos) Subject: GC: interactive; boards I do not think interactive will help because I do not think that speed is our problem. Going in circles faster is still going in circles. In any one chronicle we talk about a dozen different things, often in the same message. I am very sympathetic to members who are not participating regularly, because I suspect that many of them are overwhelmed. Do I respond to Alban's longish structural skeleton or Corwyn's mandate? It may be more helpful to set an agenda, so we could all focus our attention on the same thing at the same time. Then our discussion might have enough continuity to get somewhere. I, too, am concerned about the Council's progress. In particular, we have not yet established a productive level of discussion. We are still giving equal weight to macro and micro issues. We should not have to recommend outsourcing to the Board. We might as well recommend that they use the cheapest long distance phone company. What we want to do is determine how we can have a Board that is responsible enough to take care these things for itself. Hal is right--on whatever level one incorporates, there will be a board. Maybe more than one if we incorporate on the local level, keep the kingdom and some central body. We need to think about boards in general. I'll begin by answering John and go on to touch matters relevant to the other postings. A board can have any number of members, as suits the size and nature of the organization. (30-40 is common; 7 seems unusually small for a national, much less international group.) Board members do not have to be selected by the same process: on the same board, some can be elected, others appointed, etc. Often board members are recruited from outside the organization in order to tap expertise and/or provide interface with particular communities. (The local scout council board likely includes lawyers, educators, and pastors.) By definition, the board has the ultimate responsibility for the organization and the ultimate authority (power). How the actual board functions, however, varies with the nature and custom of the organization. Some boards are a very passive presence. They meet to ok the budget and rubberstamp whatever is presented to them. This is generally viewed as a bad thing. The important point is that a passive board and a proactive one might have exactly the same structure. In other words, structure is a factor, but not the only factor. A board is not the body that "runs" an organization. It should be more concerned with the overview, the long-term, the broad directions. While the board is not involved in the nuts and bolts, it cannot be isolated. It must be well-informed about all aspects of the organization. In other groups, we speak of "educating the board," presenting projects, interests, problem areas, etc. so that these dimensions are considered in the board's work. In very small organizations, the board works like a steering committee. It presents its work to the assembled membership, which under the guidance of the group's officers (usually the president is on the board) organizes itself to implement the board's directives. For example, a concern over dropping membership would result in a directive to develop a membership plan and the members would form a membership committee to work on it. (Note: the board doesn't tell them how to do it.) Larger organizations develop support structures (for the obvious reason that the membership is too large and/or spread out to assemble). In this case the board directives are usually two-tiered. The average member gets an annual user-friendly version which summarizes the financial report and other board work. (This may be a page or two in the newsletter or a separate booklet depending on how much there is to say and whether it also serves other functions such as pr, funding sources, etc.) The more detailed version goes to the support structure which has the task of implementation and what we would call "running" things. In some organizations the support structures are volunteer, in others they are professional, and still others, they are both working together. These support structures are very important. They are the bridge between the top and grassroots. They represent the members' interests and needs, and educate the board. They also translate the board's work into "real-life" and affect the membership. Relevant to our concerns are two other features: These structures also remove the board from the nuts and bolts by establishing an expertise. The College of Arms is an example of a support structure. The Board is still the ultimate authority and should the heralds run amuck, the Board is who would sit on them. However because the Board respects the expertise of the heralds it does not feel that it should go messing about with heraldry. The other feature is that the support structures have clout. They are in the best position to evaluate the performance of the board and to put pressure on it. In my experience in other organizations, this clout is THE effective mechanism (unless there is an outside funding group, which can be even better). I will continue this next issue and try to get down to specifics. Think about support structures on all levels and how they are or are not functioning. If we can work out a basic US model then we can see how it would or would not work in other contexts and go from there. ---------------------------------------- From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: GCC #25 Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 13:13:00 PDT Finnvarr sends greetings to the Grand Council. Please forgive any faults in this presentation. I have been involved in a major political problem in my Kingdom, and it has taken time away from everything. I liked what Alban had to say about the reorganization of the SCA, mainly because his conceptualization and proposed solution is close to what I have been arguing for, though the division of responsibility is not quite the same. His I.A., I.B., and II are close to what I was talking about: --a corporation for tax, liability, and insurance in each major jurisdiction. --a federation to handle matters that cross jurisdictional lines (SCA-wide publications. --authorities to handle disputes about the rules of the medieval game. Such a division would solve a lot of problems, but not all. The big remaining problem would be that the US corporation (presuming there would be one national US corporation in category one above) would still be a very big one, with most of the overhead and burdens that the SCA, Inc. now handles. It would be difficult to make it responsive to the members, to make the selection of directors more democratic, etc. The usual problems of any metropolitan power with colonies and dependents. And before people say, make the Kingdoms the members once again, let me point out: Several kingdoms cross national boundaries, and the differences in national corporate, tax, and liability laws cannot be wished away; AND The whole organization will not be more responsive to the membership unless the grassroots membership in each Kingdom has some say in the handling of funds, etc. The locus of the problem will merely be shifted. The logical thing would be for each national corporation to have a set of rules about membership in itself and in its local subsidiaries, which would do some of the work (at least in some countries) of handling funds and mundane legal requirements. Problems of implementation in the US and also Canada might be pretty fierce, though. Common membership would be preserved by an agreement between all the (national)corporations that a member of one of them moving into a second would have all the rights of membership there until the first membership ran out, as well as the right to participate in any subsidiary group. Just as residents of one Kingdom take peerages, arms, etc. from one Kdm to another now. I see the medieval game being run much the same way as it is now, but with the Kingdoms doing much of the work. There must still be a final court of appeal for the membership, or else there is no organized world-wide SCA. I am not really interested in working out the rules for an SCA with no final court of appeal and forum for discussing changes to the basic rules. A number of things have convinced me that the members -- people who pay money -- will have to have a formal way of expressing their will, at some level. The Nordmark episode is a warning of secessions to come, whatever you may think is the truth about events there and the motives of the participants. Finally, John of Sternveld is quite right in saying that expanding the Board in size is a mistake. It will add to the overhead and have very little other practical effect. Yours, Finnvarr ---------------------------------------- From: modius@dobharchu.org (Erik Langhans) Date: 01 Aug 95 01:07:32 -0600 Subject: gc message Greetings fellow GCers from Modius. I would like to submit the following proposal for your consideration and vote: "The Grand Council proposes that the Board of Directors increase the breadth of the Inter-Kingdom Advisory Council's authority. Specifically, we recommend that the BoD delegate to the IKAC the following administrative tasks: 1. Reviews of the proposed advancement of Shires to Baronial Status. 2. Reviews of the decision to dissolve local branches up to Shire level. These minor corporate reviews are of the sort that effect only a single kingdom and that require Corporate approval. These issues have already been approved by that particular kingdom's Kingdom Seneshal. By delegating the aforementioned administrative duties, the BoD frees up valuable time so as to focus on the more important matters it has in front of it. The BoD will, as always, retain the power to overturn or reverse any decisions made by the IKAC." ---------------------------------------- Greetings From Serwyl. RE GRAND COUNCIL PROGRESS: I agree that the Council is moving slowly. As one of the members with limited on-line access, I am somewhat uncomfortable with being forced to get an E-Mail address. On the other hand, that may be the only way to increase response time and get things moving. I may be able to to give out an address in the next few weeks. On Computer access in general, and the effect on debate: I have had a particular bias towards the on-line information and communications boom in the last few years. Most of this bias is admittedly subjective, but it is not technophobic. Every time a debate or problem come up in the SCA, the E-Mail flies. I saw huge stacks of printouts on Rialto discussions of the Pay for Play controversy, as well as on other topics. 99% of it was Trash. There are several problems inherent in the premise of on-line communications, but the main one is the belief that speed and ease are desirable in all communication. In personal or even professional communications this is not generally the case. In ordinary conversation, we use more than words to convey meaning. We use gestures, facial expressions, emphasis and tone. In return we interpret the responses of the receiving party. Misunderstandings can be caught and clarified quickly. With most on-line communications, the sender can fire off his or her thoughts almost as quickly as speech but with none of the balancing factors. What you type on your keyboard in haste may be as quick as speech but as permanent as a book. The words once sent are available to be printed out and distributed infinately, whether or not you regretted them ten minutes later. My point is, we need to be wary of a system that has the potential to substitute speed and ease for thought and reflection. RE COMMENTS FROM HAL HEYDT ON NORDMARK Hal states: 'Unless there is compelling reason (such as safty or health), any documentable period practice or artifact is permissable in the Society' I'm not sure I would want to be quite that broad, for instance, does this mean I can pass a swastika on my arms since it was a period Celtic symbol? (and that's just a mild example). Loopholes aside, I quite agree with the spirit. If a Kingdom wants to have a standing Ting to meet and conduct Kingdom business, it should have every right to do so. Trimaris used a similar concept in the early years with our Witan (until the BOD stomped on it). CORWYN'S MANIFESTO OK, you got me. I've been toying with a list like this too. Yours looks like it covers everything I had (and more), except for one target area: Kingdom structure. Any solution to the status and functions of the Board will also inpact the Kingdoms. If we choose (for instance) to have Board members selected by the Kingdoms, we should give thought to those Kingdoms where the Crown's word is law. While having Crown's word as law works in a structure with a strong central authority (as we have now), it is woefully inadiquite to meet the needs of a Kingdom centered organizational structure. I wish I had more time to go over the topics in this last issue, but my wife only got the copy to me from work today, and the deadline is tomorrow. There is a lot of meat to go over and I hope to have some fuller and more substantive comments next time. Bye. ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 1 Aug 1995 00:05:29 +1100 From: Phil Anderson Subject: Re: Grand Council Chronicle #25 Greetings to the Council from Edward Long-hair In GCC 25, a missive forwarded by Frederick of Holland on behalf of Hal Ravn suggests "changing the SCA, Inc. into a membership corporation with the members being the kingdoms and leaving it up to the kingdoms to incorporate or not as they choose". Under such a scenario, I think that although kingdoms might be the appropriate "member entities" as far as the US-based (and possibly Canadian too) SCA goes, on the wider international scene it would be better to have national organisations as members separate from the parent kingdom. With the best will in the world, US Caid could not really represent the interests of New Zealand SCAers, for example. I would also be interested in hearing views on how acceptable such an arrangement would be to the people who see their personal paid membership of the SCA Inc as being very important. I quite like the idea myself, but it seems to me that many people would be strongly opposed. Edward ----------------------------------------