From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 15:10:46 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:35:04 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: other information sources To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:23:04 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: other information sources >In-Reply-To: <01HWAOD2CL0W94K4VC@delphi.com> On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Alban St. Albans wrote: > > just out of curiosity, tibor? lisa? you've had recent experience in this. > how much time would a competent tax-type attorney spend on our > case? and how much money owuld the board have to spend? > I gave up keeping track of the hours. If already familiar with SCA and provided with all relevant documents including my report, perhaps 20 hours. If not familiar with SCA, add in a fair amount of time to read up the corporate documents, perhaps attend a meeting or two, etc., double or triple that. Price--varies. My normal rate is $90/hour. (Tibor got a deal.) My partner charges $120/hour. A big firm partner can easily cost $250-$300/hour. You are looking at a couple thousand dollars at a guess. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 15:11:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:34:17 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Corporation or Other Format? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 1995 17:38:20 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >In-Reply-To: <9510111836.AA16447@dsd.camb.inmet.com> >Subject: Re: Corporation or Other Format? > BACKGROUND: This model supposes a future SCA consisting of many individual > local corporations, at least one per Kingdom, with an umbrella organization of > some sort for the whole. This would allow, more-or-less, each country's laws > to apply where necessary (Lochac, Drachenwald, Ealdomere, etc.). > > TIBOR'S POSITION: Umbrella need not be a corporation. (I'll leave it to him > to explain why.) > > MORGAN'S POSITION: Umbrella should be a corporation. Tibor's proposing a partnership or limited partnership of incorporated kingdoms? Humm. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 16:07:42 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 12:24:13 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Thu, 12 Oct 1995 10:04:03 -0400, "Carole C. Roos" writes: > for the agenda for November and December. Am I correct that > Janna is counting votes on this or just votes for leader? > [...trimm...] > In the meanwhile, can we have a temporary agreement on how to post? I > would find it helpful if people would put their name in the subject > section and number their response on a particular thread (my next post on >[..trimm...] > If someone can suggest a better way to track the discussion, please > present it. > Flieg here -- responding to Alysoun I feel that the fact that some mailers trash the subject line is a good argument against this method. Proper quotation (a few lines carefully selected) does a much better job of referring to things. Does your mailer trim the headers? I can always tell with mine, who posted what. Better yet, intro each message you send with your name (as above.) * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ================== Old Used Duke ================= [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 16:13:18 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 41 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:24:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. Cariadoc brings two things forward. One is a reasonable statement of the tax-exempt status question. Let me draw attention to the end of his statement: >3. I do not know whether or not the IRS would buy that argument. As most of you know, I am more sanguine about our ability to win such an argument than some. The key point is that no one knows, and an infinite amount of discussion in the Grand Council will have the same effect as none. It is the Board's business to react to this. They are the ones on the firing line. All we could do is point out that there may be a problem -- and Tibor's already done that. I suggest we concentrate on such proposals as Cariadoc's. As to Cariadoc's proposal: His proposal overlaps discussion in the membership committee, for obvious reasons. In theory, our commitee, which found it impossible to agree on a single proposal, is supposed to be bringing forward our several ideas. Some members have formulated their ideas, some have not. I hope Cariadoc's proposal will speed up the process and that we can have several labelled options before the Grand Council at once. I further suggest that when these options are looked at, we have a system of two-round voting or alternative voting so that people can not only vote for the system they like best, but also the one that they like second or third best. An example of why this is a good idea: Two cities in Canada at the Lakehead, Port Arthur and Fort William, decided to merge. Three alternative names were put on the ballot: Lakehead, The Lakehead, and Thunder Bay. The first two split the vote and the third alternative won, leaving many people unhappy to this day. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 16:16:59 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3702 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:35:39 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Proposal to Restructure the SCA as an Association To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "David Friedman" at Oct 12, 95 09:31:01 am Greetings from Tibor. David, as you might expect, I like your proposal very much. However, there are a host of issues that it does not yet address. While many of them are detail oriented, and therefore not suited for a high level discussion, there is still a requirement that all issues be discussed. Solutions don't have to be delineated now, but they must be possible. -- One of the first is something that you might expect to be on my mind... legalisms and taxation issues. Would there be a centralized 501(c)(3) exempt organization that has a group exemption? Or would each group be required to have its own 501(c)(3) exemption (if it were domestic US). Where would the funds come from for incorporation? What are the legalisms of that? Local groups, and Kingdoms have assets which are (right now) assets of the SCA Inc. We'd have to find a way of getting those assets distributed, as well as the distribution of control that you are also suggesting. It can be done, but I'd like to be sure we have a way of getting from here, to there... What if the local Kingdoms choose to incorporate as a nonprofit, or under a foreign government? What would the relationship be at that time? -- There is the centralized coordination issue. While you, and I, and others, are not at all dismayed by the notion of liberty to do one's own thing in terms of re-creation, there are those that are. We can expect, and must have a plan to cope with, the obvious resulting issues. As a concrete example, I suspect that at least one independent Kingdom would seriously consider changing it's peerage structure to include a new Peerage for fencing. I can think of at least two kingdoms who would resist that mightly. Without a mechanism for resolution of such differences of opinion, I suspect it is far more likely that each group will simply go its own way. I applaud people's rights to go their own way. But at the same time, I'd like to make it as easy as possible for them to play together. How do we resolve this problem? As one point, do we allow each permutation of pairs of Kingdoms to work together, or do we wish to assist in this growth process by creating a group atmosphere, that (like the League of Nations) would work together to create group standards? Or, would the SCA Incorporated choose to attach conditions and agreements to its initial recognition (and release of assets)? These are just three items that occur to me off the top of my head. We would like (and hope) that any Kingdom would always be governed in these things by the will of it's members. Yet we all know that such governance can be hijacked. How do we plan ahead to prevent abuse of power? I can name Pennsics where our ceremonial Crowns knocked heads so badly, that the event was badly affected. And they are purely figureheads, with only the control we cede them. How can we deal with the rogue king concept? -- Administrivia issues, also pop to mind. How would memberships be handled? Would we require Kingdoms to have memberships? (If they are 501(c)(3) groups, they will pretty much have to do some kind of grass-roots fundraising.) How would subscriptions be handled? The SCA has subscription liabilities, which would have to be discharged: I presume a refund, or a funds transfer would take place? Wouldn't Kingdom groups need to have certain "exchange" deals with SCA Inc, like membership lists and donor lists, and subscriber lists, and so forth? How would they coordinate issues of group listings, and local contact information? (I hope, better than we do now.) -- I like the idea. Perhaps these, and some other issues, could be resolved, and I'll like the idea even more. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 16:38:54 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 94 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:51:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Finnvarr's Proposal-1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Here is *My* proposal, which may give heart to the more conservative spirits (of which I am probably one.) It is an edited version of something I sent to the Membership committee a while back. I'm sending it here because since we have gone to a listserv and since Tibor's bombshell, it has proved very difficult to keep a separate discussion going. I want to put this forward because I don't want Cariadoc's proposal to be the only one on the floor. --Finnvarr ASSUMPTION 1. Membership in the SCA, Inc. is a positive thing. Paying for a membership is both symbolic of belonging to an international organization, and a practical measure to help that organization run its affairs. Members of the SCA culture are not just members of a local group, or even of a kingdom. Therefore, paid membership is to be encouraged. (I am ignoring at the moment the international complications.) ASSUMPTION 2. Membership is more expensive than it needs to be, and this is a result of trying to accomplish too many separate goals through membership. Specifically, the mandatory subscriptions that are bundled into membership, which may once have had a justification, are less easy to justify now. The organization pays a price by excluding people who would buy memberships, and finding itself forced to raise revenue in other ways (NMSC). Therefore I propose that: 1. The basic membership be unbundled from all publications. 2. The basic membership be required of all local group officers and candidates for our combat elective officers. 3. Local groups be allowed to charge non-members more, but there should be no NMSC from the corporation or the kingdoms. COMMENTS: One glaring disadvantage of this proposal is not as bad as it looks. Less printed material would be going out to the membership. However, I do not think that our membership fees should be tied to this old technology. To make up for the fall-off in subscriptions, the SCA should be encouraging electronic publishing. Kingdom newsletters, TI, CA, local rags, all should be available electronically. Of course, not everybody has access to the net, but I am not proposing we end paper publication -- just cease to force everyone to get their information in a rather expensive way, if they don't want to get it that way. A well-thought-out information strategy should make official SCA info more available to many people now, while still making it possible for everyone with a postal address to get it the old way. Note that I said nothing about: 1. Governance; 2. Financial problems of the Kingdoms and the SCA, Inc. It occurs to me that the Kingdoms are going to be the biggest opponents of abolishing the NMSC, but hey, that's NMP [Not My Problem] (at least at the moment). Discussion in the committee has made it clear to me that imposing a universal governance system on the whole SCA is impossible. --Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 16:43:08 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 54 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:42:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr with some comments on Cariadoc's Proposal. It's elegant. The possibility of mixed membership, with individuals being able to sign up with the umbrella organization (at least under some circumstances) may be a strength. I'd like to hear C. say more about this. There are other questions, though. 1. Kingdoms cross international borders. How would this proposal deal with that? 2. Would this give too much power to Kings and Seneschals? In many kingdoms, the "King's Word is Law" has long been a principle; in others where that misguided phrase was unknown in the past, it is now surfacing. Would loosening the structure give more unchecked power to those who hold such opinions? 3. Financing of the central organization. It would have important duties. (See below.) 4. Selection of the Board. I don't want the Kingdoms to control the Board; I want the Board to be a countervailing force. If such a system were to work, it would require clear guidelines for what is the SCA and what is not, and some system of enforcement. What, under this system, would prevent the Tuchux, whom I consider a gross perversion of our idea, from sneaking in? It's not impossible today, but very unlikely, that something of this sort could happen. Wouldn't it be more likely under the new system? Also, there would have to be a system of appeals from the decisions of Kingdom and lower level authorities. The Board is now receiving a large number of requests for severe banishments from the various kingdoms; this is not a great situation, to have the Board in the position of ruling on such things, but the alternative, no appeal, would be worse. It may be answered that nothing but the psychology of the membership acts as a control now. But would not the psychology change when the organization commits itself to a radical decentralization? Finally, as Alysoun has pointed out, many questions that do affect many ordinary members will not be touched by this plan. Perhaps none of our plans will; but I suspect that one of the things that at least some of the members who know of our existence want us to do is deal with the "paid membership" issue; the "accountability issue"; etc. which will not go away if we decentralize. Or will they? I'm waiting to be convinced. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 16:43:08 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 54 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:42:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr with some comments on Cariadoc's Proposal. It's elegant. The possibility of mixed membership, with individuals being able to sign up with the umbrella organization (at least under some circumstances) may be a strength. I'd like to hear C. say more about this. There are other questions, though. 1. Kingdoms cross international borders. How would this proposal deal with that? 2. Would this give too much power to Kings and Seneschals? In many kingdoms, the "King's Word is Law" has long been a principle; in others where that misguided phrase was unknown in the past, it is now surfacing. Would loosening the structure give more unchecked power to those who hold such opinions? 3. Financing of the central organization. It would have important duties. (See below.) 4. Selection of the Board. I don't want the Kingdoms to control the Board; I want the Board to be a countervailing force. If such a system were to work, it would require clear guidelines for what is the SCA and what is not, and some system of enforcement. What, under this system, would prevent the Tuchux, whom I consider a gross perversion of our idea, from sneaking in? It's not impossible today, but very unlikely, that something of this sort could happen. Wouldn't it be more likely under the new system? Also, there would have to be a system of appeals from the decisions of Kingdom and lower level authorities. The Board is now receiving a large number of requests for severe banishments from the various kingdoms; this is not a great situation, to have the Board in the position of ruling on such things, but the alternative, no appeal, would be worse. It may be answered that nothing but the psychology of the membership acts as a control now. But would not the psychology change when the organization commits itself to a radical decentralization? Finally, as Alysoun has pointed out, many questions that do affect many ordinary members will not be touched by this plan. Perhaps none of our plans will; but I suspect that one of the things that at least some of the members who know of our existence want us to do is deal with the "paid membership" issue; the "accountability issue"; etc. which will not go away if we decentralize. Or will they? I'm waiting to be convinced. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 17:44:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:10:25 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <307D9DD6@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:42:00 PDT) A couple of comments on Finnvarr's comments on Cariadoc's proposal: >2. Would this give too much power to Kings and Seneschals? In many >kingdoms, the "King's Word is Law" has long been a principle; in others where >that misguided phrase was unknown in the past, it is now surfacing. Would >loosening the structure give more unchecked power to those who hold such >opinions? Could, but I think we could deal with this. As a f'rinstance: I think it would be fairly reasonable to insist that Kingdoms demonstrate that they have reasonable internal checks and balances before they separate. This should be oriented towards goals, not means -- instead of specifying *what* the internal systems look like, the Corp. should simply try to ensure that there is a reasonably realistic-looking system there. Perfection shouldn't be demanded, but decent stability probably should be. (In theory, this suggestion is wrong, since it is the center interfering with the regions; in practice, it is probably a necessary step in any sort of reasonably coherent decentralization. It needs to be undertaken with a co-operative spirit, though; the center could *easily* scuttle all attempts to decentralize by abusing this.) >4. Selection of the Board. I don't want the Kingdoms to control the Board; >I want the Board to be a countervailing force. Reasonable, provided there are checks and balances. The problem with the current system is that the Board holds *all* the cards. If the Kingdoms have some real power, I am *much* more willing to have a fairly independent Board... >If such a system were to work, it would require clear guidelines for what is >the SCA and what is not, and some system of enforcement. Concur; as I said in my note, I think that the Landmarks become a necessity under this scheme. (Or, indeed, maybe under *any* scheme that seriously decentralized.) >Also, there would have to be a system of appeals from the decisions of >Kingdom and lower level authorities. Concur, although this might not be the Board. (There is no especially good reason for the Board to serve as both the legislature and judiciary for the Society; an independent court of final appeal wouldn't be a bad idea at all.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. _Wolverine_ is meaningful" -- captkidd From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 18:01:56 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 700 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 16:00:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Corporation or Other Format? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510121834.AA03889@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 12, 95 02:34:17 pm Esclarmonde replied (to Morgan's assertion of what I was proposing for an umbrella organization): Tibor's proposing a partnership or limited partnership of incorporated kingdoms? Humm. Tibor proposed once: the woman accepted, and that is that, OK? What I was proposing was that we figure out what the top level would do, and who (if anyone) it might expose to risk, and then decide what would fit. I think the race to the idea of incorporation of an umbrella group, is a case of a hammer making everything look like a nail. I'd rather solve the problem, than hammer it to fit. I'll respond to Morgan's post in full, if I ever get a bit more time. Tibor (Time is how I know how late I am.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 12 22:55:24 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 18:35:01 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Proposal to Restructure the SCA as an Association To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes: >One of the first is something that you might expect to be on my mind... >legalisms and taxation issues. Would there be a centralized 501(c)(3) >exempt organization that has a group exemption? Or would each group be >required to have its own 501(c)(3) exemption (if it were domestic US). I was assuming that the tax status of the central organization would not be affected by my proposal--whether it should change is a separate issue. I do not know to what extent the central group could make exemption easier for local groups--how do group exemptions work? I would prefer, if possible, to avoid a situation where the central organization has to keep close track of what the regional is doing in order to make sure the central organization's tax exemption is not threatened. I assume independent kingdoms will almost always want to incorporate as non-profits, and can decide if they should be 501(c)3 or not. I assume most local groups will be unincorporated associations. My understanding is that there is no tax reporting requirement if income is below some fairly substantial amount, so small to medium groups can avoid any dealings with the IRS. Large local groups might want to incorporate--again, the choice of form is up to them. >Where would the funds come from for incorporation? What are the legalisms >of that? Any kingdom or large local group that cannot raise the cost of incorporation from its membership has serious problems. >Local groups, and Kingdoms have assets which are (right now) assets of the >SCA Inc. We'd have to find a way of getting those assets distributed, as >well as the distribution of control that you are also suggesting. It can be >done, but I'd like to be sure we have a way of getting from here, to >there... I believe we can transfer assets to groups that are incorporated as 501(c)3's. Otherwise, the Corporation sells the assets to the kingdoms at the lowest reasonable price--and lends them to the kingdoms until they get around to raising the money. >What if the local Kingdoms choose to incorporate as a nonprofit, or under a >foreign government? What would the relationship be at that time? I don't see the problem. A non-profit and a profit can do business with each other. >There is the centralized coordination issue. While you, and I, and others, >are not at all dismayed by the notion of liberty to do one's own thing in >terms of re-creation, there are those that are. We can expect, and must >have a plan to cope with, the obvious resulting issues. > >As a concrete example, I suspect that at least one independent Kingdom would >seriously consider changing it's peerage structure to include a new Peerage >for fencing. I can think of at least two kingdoms who would resist that >mightly. Without a mechanism for resolution of such differences of opinion, >I suspect it is far more likely that each group will simply go its own way. This is part of the question of what conditions the central organization sets for membership. My inclination is to make them pretty loose--to permit, for example, a kingdom to establish a peerage for fencing, while requiring every kingdom to recognize the peerages that now exist (I could live without that, but I suspect it is important to a lot of people). Part of the point of the way my proposal is structured is that I want to separate out those issues from the general issue of organizational structure. If we agree to my proposal and recommend it tothe Board, we can then go on to argue about such details. >We would like (and hope) that any Kingdom would always be governed in these >things by the will of it's members. Yet we all know that such governance can >be hijacked. How do we plan ahead to prevent abuse of power? I can name >Pennsics where our ceremonial Crowns knocked heads so badly, that the event >was badly affected. And they are purely figureheads, with only the control >we cede them. How can we deal with the rogue king concept? The structure initially established must be approved by vote of the kingdom membership. After that, dealing with the problems of that structure is basically up to them, as long as they don't violate the conditions for being a member of SCA Inc. They won't do it perfectly, but I expect they will do it as well as the present structure does. In my view, one good check would be to loosen the geographical monopoly of the kingdoms--but that, again, is not part of what I am proposing but one of the details we will want to talk about, and perhaps make recommendations about, after we have (I hope) decided on the general structure. >Administrivia issues, also pop to mind. How would memberships be handled? The kingdom handles kingdom membership as it likes. My recommendation is that the SCA inc. produces some services (such as T.I.) which it offers to sell to the kingdoms and to individuals who want to buy them, the kingdom does the same. We probably want to permit individuals to be members of the SCA Inc. directly (if there is no local kingdom) or of their kingdom directly even if the kingdom is itself an association (if there is no local group they want to be associated with). The regional federations in gem and mineral collecting have some individual members, although most people are members through their clubs. But again, I don't think that how we decide these details is crucial to the overall proposal. David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 04:54:15 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:26:46 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Board meeting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >When is the Board meeting? The 21st, or 28th? I don't mind waiting a >little, but I don't want us to spin our wheels for *too* long... 21st. We could live with it (or rather without "it") that long, I guess.=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 05:01:56 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:35:32 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Proposal to Restructure the SCA as an Association To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L On Cariadoc's proposal: >I like the idea. Perhaps these, and some other issues, could be resolved, >and I'll like the idea even more. > > Tibor I'll second that. With lots of emphasis on the "I like it", and in the=20 process of getting to work on the coordination stuff. (I've just gotten hol= d=20 of the Landmarks files. Expect a report by November 1.) /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 06:28:20 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:58:49 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Drachenwald Survey To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L With some delay, here's the promised report on my Drachenwald survey.=20 I had to write it rather faster than I'd wanted to, as the=20 Drachenwald ombudsman wanted to have it before the next Board=20 meeting, so the processing of the results hasn't been all that=20 terrific. Anyway, if you want more details or whatever, you know=20 where to find me.=20 There are six documents in all: this report, the questionnaire=20 (Suppl 1), the accompanying letter (Suppl 2), group data (Suppl 3),=20 quotes from answering comments (Suppl 4) and my own remarks=20 (Suppl 5).=20 /Catrin *** *** Report on the Drachenwald Survey In response to the need for factual information on the functioning of=20 the SCA in Europe (Kingdom of Drachenwald), in early August I sent=20 out a questionnaire to Drachenwald=E9s local groups. The questionnaire=20 and its accompanying letter are enclosed as Supplement 1 and 2. The survey was sent to all the seneschals (and their equivalents) of=20 SCA and related groups, listed in the Kingdom newsletter and the=20 newsletter of the Barony of Nordmark. In all, 49 surveys were=20 distributed. The deadline was set a month later, September 8. Three=20 weeks after deadline I had received 19 answers, including an=20 incomplete one from the Kingdom of Drachenwald. Data concerning the age and size of the responding groups can be=20 found in Supplement 3. The groups which had decided to answer the survey share three traits: =20 they are heavily local-dominated, they have complaints concerning the=20 workings of the SCA, but they are committed to the SCA. Only one of=20 the groups which have answered consists solely of Americans; the=20 remaining have less than 1/3 American members, 13 of them have no US=20 members at all. Three groups registered no complaints: one of them=20 exclusively American, the other two (in Germany and Finland) founded=20 in 1995 and thus with little opportunity to have experience problems=20 yet. Few of the Nordmark secessionist groups answered the survey,=20 presumably for lack of interest in the SCA and its organization. - In=20 all, only one group actively refused to answer the survey, objecting=20 to the "strange" questions. 12 of the responding groups have a separate legal identity in their=20 home country. The countries where groups do not perceive the need for=20 separate incorporation are the United Kingdom and Ireland. The=20 motivation given for separate incorporation is either legal=20 necessity, or, in some cases, making it considerably easier to rent=20 sites and buy necessary insurance. 6 groups (4 of them Swedish) have=20 also contemplated the option of forming or joining a Medievalist=20 association separate from the SCA. As for conflict between the SCA=E9s rules and policies and local=20 laws/customs, slightly fewer cases were reported of medieval conflict=20 (10 occurrences) than modern conflict (14 occurrences) - several=20 groups report both mundane and medieval conflict. On the modern side, 8 groups report conflict concerning financial=20 rules and policies; 7, on methods of selecting officers; 7, on waiver=20 policies; 5, on insurance; 4, on contact between superior and=20 subordinate officers. (Rules and customs for running events are=20 considered a matter of medieval recreation.) Other problems have to=20 do with SCA membership, becoming an official group, geographic=20 boundaries (Ireland), and differences in expectations as to living=20 standard between the US military members and local residents. =20 In cases where the conflict is considered resolved (2 groups), the=20 "solution" is to ignore the administrative rules of the SCA and to=20 run the group according to local law and custom. 10 groups see their=20 modern problems as unresolved or only partly resolved.=20 On the medieval side, the major problem is faulty communication=20 between officers and their superiors (6 cases); the status of=20 fighting/A&S activities causes problems in 4 cases, as do rules for=20 running events. Conflicts concerning levels of authenticity are cited=20 among event-related problems. Only one group mentions the ways of=20 selecting rulers as a problem. Other problems cited are fighting=20 rules (face thrusting) and heraldic submissions (delays). =20 No medieval conflicts have been reported as resolved other than in=20 part.=20 Finally, as proposed changes, practically all groups suggest=20 decentralization of the modern side of the organization. The only=20 exceptions to this are the group with only US members (no=20 administrative problems at all), and a newly started French group =20 (haven=E9t had time to think about it). - Several answers explicitly=20 recomment separation of the modern and the medieval aspects, =20 reorganizing the central level to handle only the medieval side, and=20 on the modern side letting groups incorporate locally on the level=20 and in the manner most suited to the relevant legal environment. =20 Some quotes from comments received, and the author=E9s remarks, are=20 enclosed as Supplement 4 and 5. A complete record of the comments=20 will be available about October 30. =20 In Nordmark/Drachenwald, October 13, 1995 Janna G. Spanne a.k.a. Catrin Gwynystlum, GoA, member of the GC *** ***=20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 06:29:40 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:01:20 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: DS-Suppl1, Questionnaire To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L *** *** * THE DRACHENWALD SURVEY * Answers no later than September 8th to:=20 Janna G. Spanne, Nyckelkroken 50, S-226 47 Lund, Sweden or Internet: janna.spanne@kansli.lth.se 1. Name of group: Modern location (region/city): Seneschal's name, address, phone, e-mail: 2. Status: ( ) Barony, ( ) Canton within Barony of:=20 ( ) Shire, ( ) other:=20 ( ) Incipient Canton / Shire / other: ( ) Independent group, not applying for official status.=20 * Why not?=20 3. (First) application for official status in (year) 19 Granted official status in 19=20 If applicable: applied for Baronial status in 19 Became a Barony in 19 Independent group: active since 19 4. Current number of active participants: Local: =20 American:=20 Current number of paid SCA members: Local: American:=20 Number of active participants at the time of first=20 application=20 for official status: Local: American: =20 5. Does your group have a legal identity separate from the=20 SCA Inc (separate incorporation) in the country where you are=20 active? =20 ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, since when? 19 * Why/Why not? =09 6. On the modern level (=E9the real world=E9), have you ever=20 experienced a serious conflict between the SCA=E9s rules and=20 policies and the laws/customs of the country where you are=20 active? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, did the conflict concern: =09 ( ) financial rules & policies, ( ) method of selecting=20 officers, ( ) waiver policies, ( ) insurance, ( ) rules for running=20 events, ( ) contact between superior and subordinate officers, ( ) other matters:=20 Has/have the conflict(s) been resolved?=20 ( ) yes ( ) no ( ) not completely * If yes, how? If no / not completely, why not?=20 * What solution would you suggest?=20 7. On the medieval recreation level (=E9the game=E9), have you=20 ever experienced a serious conflict between the SCA=E9s=20 rules and policies and customs/expectations in the country=20 where you are active? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, did the conflict concern: =09 ( ) status of fighting activities, ( ) status of=20 A&S-activities, ( ) ways of selecting rulers, ( ) ways of selecting=20 officers, ( ) contact between superior and subordinate officers, ( ) rules and customs for running events, ( ) other matters:=20 Has/have the conflict(s) been resolved?=20 ( ) yes ( ) no ( ) not completely * If yes, how? If no / not completely, why not?=20 * What solution would you suggest?=20 8. Have you at any occasion seriously considered=20 forming/joining a medieval recreation group separate from=20 the SCA? ( ) yes ( ) no=20 * Why / Why not?=20 Further comments? 9. * What changes, if any, to the organizational structure=20 of the SCA, would you propose in order to make it function=20 better in an international context? *** *** Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 06:34:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:02:23 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: DS-Suppl2, letter To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Unto the Seneschals of Drachenwald=E9s local groups,=20 greetings from Catrin Gwynystlum, member of the Grand=20 Council=20 of the Known World.=20 Many SCA members in Europe feel that the Society needs to=20 undergo changes in order to become truly international in=20 its structure.=20 If the Grand Council is to discuss such changes and make=20 suggestions to the Board of Directors, it needs facts about=20 the structure and working of SCA groups outside the USA. The=20 aim of the present survey is to provide such facts about the=20 local groups that constitute the Kingdom of Drachenwald.=20 In my report to the Grand Council, no group will be referred=20 to by name, or pointed out specifically, without its=20 Seneschal=E9s express permission. =20 The report will be published in Drachenwald, either in The=20 Dragon=E9s Tale or in some other suitable way.=20 Please try to answer all the questions. For the questions=20 marked with an asterisk (*), which may require additional=20 time, there is a separate later deadline. If a question does not apply to your group, please try to=20 explain why.=20 If you cannot give exact figures, please give=20 approximations.=20 If you need more space, use the reverse side of the sheet=20 (add more lines if you answer by e-mail). Please add comments on other issues that you find relevant=20 and that the survey does not cover.=20 Note: in the present survey, the word "American" refers to=20 people employed in some capacity by the US armed forces in=20 Europe, and their dependants. - US citizens residing in=20 Europe for other reasons (studies, family, civilian=20 employment) count as local residents.=20 I would appreciate receiving your answers no later than=20 September 8th -=20 the additional time for the *-marked questions is until=20 October 6th.=20 Further comments and suggestions are of course welcome at=20 any time.=20 For questions, comments, clarifications, inquiries about the=20 results, contact: Janna G. Spanne, Nyckelkroken 50, S-226 47 Lund, Sweden;=20 phone +46 46 129985 home, not after 9 p.m. local time, +46=20 46 2229750 office, preferable; fax +46 46 2224531 Internet: janna.spanne@ kansli.lth.se Writen communication preferred (paper- or e-mail, fax).=20 Send your answers to the above address. If you wish to=20 participate by e-mail and do not have access to the e-mail=20 version, notify me at the above Internet address.=20 I thank you in advance for your kind assistance.=20 In Nordmark on July 24th A.S. XXX, being 1995 Gregorian.=20 Catrin Gwynystlum Member of the Grand Council P.S. Do you know of a group not listed in the Dragon=E9s Tale=20 that would be relevant to this survey? Please send them a=20 copy.=20 *** *** Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 06:36:04 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:04:05 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: DS-Suppl3, data To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The Drachenwald Survey: Supplement 3, group data Of the responding groups, 6 have been active for two years=20 or less; 6, between three and five years; 7 are six years or=20 older. 10 of the groups have official status, 7 are=20 incipient, the remaining two have no intention of becoming=20 official.=20 Answers were received from one group in France, one in the=20 Netherlands, one in Ireland, two in Finland, two in the=20 United Kingdom, five in Sweden and six in Germany. The 19th=20 answer is from Drachenwald as a whole.=20 As to active participants, 8 groups have less than 20; 7=20 groups 20-50; 3 groups 50 or more. (The remaining one is=20 Drachenwald as a whole, where it is impossible to determine=20 the number of active participants). Of these are paid SCA=20 members: 1/3 or less, in 7 groups; 1/3-2/3, in 3 groups; 2/3=20 or more, in 5 groups, and all paid members in 3 groups=20 (British and French).=20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 06:36:52 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:07:59 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: DS-Suppl5, remarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The Drachenwald Survey, Supplement 5: author=E9s remarks The survey author=E9s own local group didn=E9t answer the=20 survey. Even before the questionnaire was sent out, the=20 ever-incipient Canton of Torsheim was well on its way=20 towards joining the secessionist Kingdom of Nordmark, with=20 better reasons than most. Torsheim=E9s fate illustrates many=20 of the problems non-US groups in Drachenwald have had to=20 cope with.=20 Torsheim=E9s first application for official status was sent=20 in, I believe, eight years ago. Today, Torsheim is still=20 incipient. The major problem is that its heraldic=20 application still hasn=E9t been processed. Torsheim=E9s name was=20 passed some time this year - the group only found out about=20 it because I happened to write to Laurel to inquire about=20 the application. "Your name was passed a couple of months=20 ago." "Oh. How nice to find out. What if someone had told=20 us..." Torsheim=E9s armory application was lost, entirely and in=20 parts, on various occasions and various levels, and the=20 populace is by now seriously tired of re-applying.=20 When I mentioned it to Laurel, his reaction was, "Huh? Never=20 heard of it..."=20 Why he never heard of it may be explained in the next=20 paragraphs. One of the British comments in Supplement 4 mentions the=20 difference between the US "phone" culture and the=20 UK/European "written" culture. I believe that the difference=20 is deeper than that. In the following I use Swedes as an=20 example, but the survey indicates that the problem is=20 similar in other parts of Europe. =20 - Whenever I discuss the lack of democracy and=20 accountability in the SCA with an American, I sooner or=20 later hear: "Of course there=E9s accountability. You phone the=20 person in charge and ask them for the information, or to fix=20 things, or you tell them what the problem is, whatever. "=20 Now, a Swede typically will be reluctant to do this. Phoning=20 the Kingdom seneschal, Laurel, or your Kingdom ombudsman on=20 the Board, amounts to intruding on a person=E9s privacy,=20 unless you know them personally. The possibility to get=20 things fixed should not depend on knowing the person in=20 charge. A Swede will look for proper formal channels for=20 complaints, or for acquiring information, and will feel very=20 confused and helpless in a system where such channels don=E9t=20 exist. This confusion may even develop into a feeling of=20 persecution: "They=E9re ignoring *us*, specifically, and we=E9re=20 so different and nobody understands us." =20 Also, a Swede will consider it an SCA officer=E9s duty to try=20 to find out about the opinions of the populace. In contrast=20 to this, in the past most Drachenwald officers have been US=20 military, and have perceived their duty to be to pass on=20 directives to the local groups and receive reports as to=20 their implementation, i.e. no bottom-up communication at=20 all. This practice is only slowly changing, as there are no=20 accepted channels for two-way communication. An example:=20 When my local group was notified about the non-member=20 surcharge, the opposition was massive. Note, we simply got=20 told, out of the blue, that the SCAInc in the States needed=20 more money fast and that the Board had decided that this was=20 the way to obtain it. - I got in touch with the=20 Drachenwald seneschal, asking her (in what I believe was a=20 sensible and courteous manner) about the nature and=20 background of the financial emergency, and about the reasons=20 for considering the non-member surcharge the best way of=20 remedying it. After a while she simply stopped answering my=20 messages. - The same seneschal proceeded to dismiss=20 Nordmark=E9s baronial seneschal for non-communication a few=20 months later, because the Nordmark seneschal had not been=20 responsive to *her* demands for information. To imagine the=20 reaction this discrepancy caused is left to the reader as an=20 exercise. In the Survey, many groups mention the necessity to run the=20 modern organization (the local corporations) in a democratic=20 way. While this may not be a strictly legal requirement for=20 non-profits in all European countries, it is a very fimly=20 rooted practice. In Sweden a non-democratic non-profit is=20 legally possible, but the practice of running them=20 democratically is so overwhelmingly common that most people=20 believe that the law actually demands it. If it should=20 become public knowledge that a particular non-profit isn=E9t=20 democratically organized, the result would be a major loss=20 of public goodwill and a dramatic drop in membership, as=20 everybody tends to ask what the "skeleton in the closet" is=20 that the group is trying to hide by its undemocratic=20 structure. In the not-so-remote past, Swedish Greenpeace=20 suffered this very fate, to the extent of even having their=20 tax-exempt status questioned. =20 The communication problem is mostly a matter of having the=20 will to communicate, and showing it. Higher-level officers=20 should be encouraged to think about whether two-way=20 communication is working, and if not, why. If members=20 actually noticed Kingdom and Society officers=E9 interest in=20 proper communication, I believe that the issue of democracy=20 and accountability would become considerably less infected,=20 althought the need for a real organizational solution would=20 still be there. - Incidentally, while it certainly takes=20 two to communicate, the solution doesn=E9t lie in simply=20 teaching Drachenwalders to phone their higher officers. The=20 cultural difference exists and trying to eliminate it by=20 forcing Europeans to adopt the US pattern is a bad idea and=20 potentially destructive to the SCA in Europe.=20 The organizational problem, the need for local incorporation=20 on the modern level, can in my opinion only be solved by=20 clearly separating the medieval and the modern aspects of=20 SCA=E9s activities, and, while maintaining international unity=20 in the contents (the medieval side), letting the form (the=20 modern side) be determined by the laws and customs of the=20 country where each group is active. =20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 06:37:28 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 11:05:29 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: DS-Suppl4, quotes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The Drachenwald Survey: Supplement 4, quotations "THINK about the international ramifications of policy=20 decisions BEFORE enacting them, to avoid the usual=20 post-facto =E9oh, you can=E9t do that in Sweden/Germany/UK, I=20 suppose we=E9d better exempt you... =E9 which makes me (for=20 one) think that the Corporation doesn=E9t give a monkey=E9s=20 about the international groups." (UK) "When we were forming the shire, contact between ourselves=20 and Drachenwald was poor. I would write asking specific=20 questions about what we had to do to sort out our=20 application and would receive no reply, or a non-reply=20 (=E9You=E9re doing fine.=E9). Only with the gradual spread of=20 email to the Drachenwald officers have things become better.=20 I think this reflects the difference between a UK =E9writing=E9=20 culture and a US =E9phoning=E9 one." (UK) "I think there=E9s no need to form any separate group if you=20 form a separate incorporation for mundane requirements."=20 (Finland) "More influence for the individual Kingdoms, especially=20 since Drachenwald is not likely to have a BoD member."=20 (Sweden) "We want to know how to take part in the decision-making=20 process and how to be able to affect this process." (Sweden) "BoD should administrate the Kingdoms, not every single=20 (peasant) member." (Sweden) "The SCA provides a liberal forum for playing with history,=20 but the way the society has developed through the years=20 shows that =E9serious history=E9 on a wide scale won=E9t be=20 possible. The SCA is good at play but inept at history, to=20 put it in a blunt way." (Sweden) "In Germany, the waiver isn=E9t worth the paper it=E9s written=20 on. ... you can not waive liability claims. ... If someone=20 tries to get you to do just that, he is acting against the=20 law. If he gets any profit out of your signing this paper,=20 he is going to find himself in court. ... If you sign the=20 waiver of your own free will, every judge will still declare=20 it null and void since you cannot be expected to have=20 understood it: after all, it isn=E9t written in your native=20 language!" (Germany) "There should be ways to remove officers without having to=20 resort to assasination or mobbing." (Germany) "Official (?) SCA policy is to delimit boundaries by postal=20 codes. In Ireland and Rockall we don=E9t really have postal=20 codes. In Man and Northern Ireland there are zillions of=20 postal codes. ... ... As far as solving our dispute I would=20 wish the SCA would follow the lead of other sporting and=20 hobby associations and allow one group to span multiple=20 countries (in this case Ireland, Northern Ireland and Man).=20 " (Ireland) "Initially we got absolutely no communication from the=20 Principality officers. East Kingdom, no problem. Nordmark,=20 no problem. Drachenwald? Not a peep. We had no addresses for=20 them (although we eventually got APO addresses which we=20 couldn=E9t write to)..." (Ireland) "Make the mundane org. completely separate from the SCA. The=20 largest problem is that in Holland =E9officers=E9 need to be=20 elected, while in the Society they can be appointed (which=20 is the way it should be! in the SCA)" (Holland) Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 10:00:32 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1483 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:29:01 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: hypothetical case (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: From lsteele@mhc.mtholyoke.edu Thu Oct 12 17:31 EDT 1995 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 17:31:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Lisa Steele To: Tibor Subject: hypothetical case (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1012 Please upload to the Grand Council list. Thanks! >An organization is established for the sole purpose of running quarterly >gatherings at which meetings are held for scholars in a limited field to >exchange information. Does this organization pass the tests for a 501(c)3? Off the cuff, I'd say that it could be a (c)(3) educational--the problem would be the funding sources. Would it be funded by the attendees, by the general public, by other (c)(3)s? I haven't done any work on this tho. >Further assume that attendance of the meetings is only 10% of the attendance >of the quarterly gatherings, but in no way detracts from the meetings. >Again, does this meet the standards? But what are the other 90% doing? Is this a fora where the attendees are submitting papers and the entire 100% attend some programs, but not all, or is this 10% coming for all the lectures and 90% coming for a potentially deductable trip? The result may differ. Publishing proceedings might help too. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 10:21:16 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 09:51:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Phone-1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun Three cheers for Catrin! What excellent work! Thank you so much. I will read through the report again and again, but right off the top, I want to point out that some things are not any different for people sitting smack in the middle of the US. (Is that comforting or horrifying?) These are the type of things which will continue to cause problems regardless of the organizational structure. Phone culture. This is not really an "American" thing: in more well-regulated US organizations proper channels are used and the letter is customary because it can be filed and referred to later. There is a body of correspondence which can be passed from an out-going officer to his or her successor allowing smooth transition. Members of the group can see exactly what was said and do not have to rely on someone's "interpretation" of a phone call. Calling is the custom in the SCA. Besides not having the advantages of a letter mentioned above, calling allows the problem of multiple calls (whether the superior says the same thing to more than one caller) and the problem of backpedaling (altering the original information with a later and different spin). All this makes it much more difficult to hold officers of every level accountable and further weakens our administrative system. Calling is the custom because officers do not work in a disciplined manner (they don't think what they need to do until the deadline is upon them), many are not particularly comfortable with written expression, many lack well-organized files (all the essential documents of the office are stuffed in a box in the garage). Some people will argue that this is the way volunteers do things, but this is not true. This is the way untrained volunteers do things. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 11:11:50 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:40:23 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Proposal to Restructure the SCA as an Association To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 23:13:25 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Proposal to Restructure the SCA as an Association >In-Reply-To: On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, david friedman wrote: > local groups will be unincorporated associations. My understanding is that > there is no tax reporting requirement if income is below some fairly > substantial amount, so small to medium groups can avoid any dealings with > the IRS. Large local groups might want to incorporate--again, the choice of Technically this is true. But, there is a Form 990EZ for small tax exempt organizations. Many CPAs and tax attorneys would advise any tax exempt organization to file anyway because the return has various legal consequences including starting the clock on the statue of limitiations. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 12:15:01 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: ddfr@best.com (Unverified) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 08:41:43 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >The possibility of mixed membership, with individuals being able to sign up >with the umbrella organization (at least under some circumstances) may be a >strength. I'd like to hear C. say more about this. I was partly basing my proposal on the way my wifes' parents' hobby, mineral collecting, is organized. In their system, most individuals are members of clubs which are members of a regional federation which ... . But individuals can also be themselves members of the regional; I don't know if they can be members of the cental organization. In practice, this is mostly an option for people who have no local club, although it might also be used by people whose local club specializes in a different facet of the hobby than what interests them. My view is that one would want to retain such an option at both levels in our organization, although I would be inclined to let each kingdom decide for itself whether to permit individual members. >1. Kingdoms cross international borders. How would this proposal deal with >that? Up to the kingdom. The easiest way would be for (say) the Middle Kingdom to be a U.S. corporation some of whose members were Canadian corporations or unincorporated associations. You might want a Canadian umbrella corporation between the kingdom and any unincorporated Canadian groups. >2. Would this give too much power to Kings and Seneschals? In many >kingdoms, the "King's Word is Law" has long been a principle; in others where >that misguided phrase was unknown in the past, it is now surfacing. Would >loosening the structure give more unchecked power to those who hold such >opinions? An incorporated kingdom whose local groups were not permitted to be legally independent might have this undesirable feature--depending on how its corporate structure was set up. Alternatively, you might get an undesirable degree of power with the kingdom's Board of Directors. Is that a sufficient argument for barring that option? I think my answer is "if we can get general acceptance of the proposal without that option, fine, but if the choice is between the status quo and my proposal with that option, I favor the latter." >If such a system were to work, it would require clear guidelines for what is >the SCA and what is not, and some system of enforcement. What, under this >system, would prevent the Tuchux, whom I consider a gross perversion of our >idea, from sneaking in? It's not impossible today, but very unlikely, that >something of this sort could happen. Wouldn't it be more likely under the >new system? I don't see why. The central organization has a specific list of characteristics that a regional must meet to be acceptable. The main difference is that there will be pressure to make the list explicit, which is probably a good thing. >Also, there would have to be a system of appeals from the decisions of >Kingdom and lower level authorities. The Board is now receiving a large >number of requests for severe banishments from the various kingdoms; this is >not a great situation, to have the Board in the position of ruling on such >things, but the alternative, no appeal, would be worse. We manage to survive without a system of appeals from the decisions of the Board. However you organize things, there is some top level beyond which appeals are not available. My view is that it should be up to an independently incorporated kingdom to decide whether it wanted the Board of the central organization to be its court of final appeal. If not, presumably its own Board of Directors would play that role. Note again that in my ideal system (although not part of the proposal I am making) there would be some ability for groups that are unhappy with their kingdom to join another one (in the Mineral Collectors' system, a regional is not allowed to solicit clubs outside its territory but is allowed to accept them if they apply for membership on their own initiative). That would be a real restriction on royal tyranny--and a period one. But that, too, is something I would prefer to argue out separately from the main proposal. >Finally, as Alysoun has pointed out, many questions that do affect many >ordinary members will not be touched by this plan. Perhaps none of our plans >will; but I suspect that one of the things that at least some of the members >who know of our existence want us to do is deal with the "paid membership" >issue; the "accountability issue"; etc. which will not go away if we >decentralize. > >Or will they? I'm waiting to be convinced. 1. I am not claiming that this change solves all the problems, just that it solves a big chunk of them. 2. It does not solve the issue of accountability, membership control over the Board, etc.--but it makes it less important, by reducing the role of the Board (and the Imperial officers) in the kingdoms. We ought to offer proposals on that issue--but I think we can separate them from this issue. 3. Finnvair knows my views on compulsory membership--but again, that is not what this deals with. If the Middle wants to impose compulsory membership after it incorporates, this reform will not stop it. We could make "meetings open to non-members" a condition of membership in the central organization, but I will be very surprised if we do. At least my reform lets the kingdoms with a strong tradition of closed membership do things their way without imposing that way on kingdoms with the opposite traditions. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 14:26:50 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 925 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:54:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-2 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: >From lsteele@mhc.mtholyoke.edu Fri Oct 13 13:48 EDT 1995 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 13:48:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Lisa Steele To: Tibor Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Cariadoc's Proposal-2 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 394 Please forward to Grand Council list. On Fri, 13 Oct 1995, David Friedman wrote: > I was partly basing my proposal on the way my wifes' parents' hobby, > mineral collecting, is organized. Just an aside, but as I think I pointed out in the report, mineral clubs seem to be organized as (c)(7) social clubs. These are a good example of a mixed educational, social organization. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 14:46:49 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 27 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:08:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Response to Survey Comments: To: janna.spanne@kansli.lth.se To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Very interesting, Catrin, and thanks for sharing it, and in such detail. I must second Alysoun's remarks. Maybe some Americans think that the phone is a good cure-all for all the organizational problems of the SCA, but I have never felt that way, and there are plenty of other people who have expectations that their communications and problems should be dealt with in a timely manner. These expectations are often disappointed. I have a hard time understanding where this feeling, among officers of civilian background as much as those of military background, that they should get all the info they want when they want it, but that they never are obligated to reciprocate. This irresponsible hierarchical attitude, wherever it comes from, is very prevalent in the SCA. The Board may have encouraged it early on, but I very much doubt it has done much in that direction for a long time. (I was on the Board 10 years ago, and timeliness and completeness of non-financial reports was never discussed.) There are plenty of officers on the Kingdom and Regional level who believe that there should be a fountain of reports springing up from ground-level, so that it can be stacked up in a corner somewhere, presumably. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to back up the contention that most of these reports are never read. Reorganization of the SCA, Inc., might eliminate one level of useless reports, but there would be plenty of useless reporting left, believe me. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 14:59:42 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 31 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:22:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Re-Response to Cariadoc To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The question of appeals to the international level from the kingdom level is something I feel very strongly about. Both common-sense considerations and actual experience have shown me that the top officers (monarchs included) in a Kingdom often have a tremendous amount of power they can abuse without most of the populace even knowing what is happening. Such people can also get very self-righteous about their power (I am the King! I am an officer of the King!), and use all the medieval symbolism of power, submission, and obedience to justify and defend their actions. At one stage some time back, in a certain kingdom, ex-Monarchs went directly into Kingdom Offices, resulting in a tight little cabal running the kingdom for an extended period, with very unfortunate consequences. I can see the same thing happening with Kingdom Boards of Directors. Monarchs, their spouses, and their friends could very easily get a lock on all three sources of power. There are problems with having the Board of the SCA, Inc. act as a court of appeal, but the overriding advantage of having them take that role is that mostt of them are not involved in the serious disputes that come to them on a personal level. They can (though not infallibly) take the high road, the road of principle and proper procedure, which may be difficult for the best intentioned to do within a polarized Kingdom. It is healthy that there is some out from local political polarization. C's remark that we have no appeal from the decisions of the Board, does not, I think, meet this concern of mine. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 15:07:25 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 7452 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:30:08 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Proposal to Restructure the SCA as an Association To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "david friedman" at Oct 12, 95 06:35:01 pm Greetings from Tibor. All quotations from Cariadoc/David: I was assuming that the tax status of the central organization would not be affected by my proposal--whether it should change is a separate issue. I do not know to what extent the central group could make exemption easier for local groups--how do group exemptions work? I would prefer, if possible, to avoid a situation where the central organization has to keep close track of what the regional is doing in order to make sure the central organization's tax exemption is not threatened. Exemptions take a long time, and can cost money. Sometimes groups remain without exemptions for several years, paying taxes, as the process pushes along. A Group exemption allows a centralized organization to extend it's exempt status to organizations that are similar in purpose, and in doing so it must certify to the IRS that the sub-organization is aligned with its own exempt purposes. In the mean time, the group can pursue it's own exemption. Monies would be kept under the Employer ID of the subsidiary group, not the parent. *IF* people want tax exemption (and it should be obvious I doubt the value) then a means of coordination might be in order. All I know for sure, is that the relationships an exempt organization has with other sorts of corporations is subject to all sorts of analysis by the IRS, whereas for non-exempt organizations, almost anything goes. I'm probably not competent to make an intelligent determination, but I am competent to point out that the ice may be thin here. I assume independent kingdoms will almost always want to incorporate as non-profits, and can decide if they should be 501(c)3 or not. I assume most local groups will be unincorporated associations. My understanding is that there is no tax reporting requirement if income is below some fairly substantial amount, so small to medium groups can avoid any dealings with the IRS. Large local groups might want to incorporate--again, the choice of form is up to them. There are good and sufficient reasons, however, why you might well want to report. Such as PROVING that you were small enough. Or showing fiscal information that could be used later for a status change. Or demonstrations that you weren't distributing profits, even though you are a non-profit. And others. I'd also like you to consider, David, whether we might want to require nonprofit status... The notion of something like King Richard's Faire, or a lower class equivalent, attempting to become a Laurel Kingdom, kind of bothers me. I haven't attempted to put a finger on why, however. Any kingdom or large local group that cannot raise the cost of incorporation from its membership has serious problems. That is certain. But we need to make sure that 501(c)(3) assets of the SCA Incorporated are NOT used to incorporate non-exempt organizations. I believe we can transfer assets to groups that are incorporated as 501(c)3's. Otherwise, the Corporation sells the assets to the kingdoms at the lowest reasonable price--and lends them to the kingdoms until they get around to raising the money. It would have to be a fair market value. Loans must follow the prudent investor rule, and be for reasonable market interest, and probably secured. (I was just reading this chapter in Hopkin's book last night... I wouldn't say I've mastered it, but he does cover exactly this case. Page citations available, if you like.) >What if the local Kingdoms choose to incorporate as a nonprofit, or under a >foreign government? What would the relationship be at that time? I don't see the problem. A non-profit and a profit can do business with each other. Of course. But we are talking more than commerce here, aren't we? This is part of the question of what conditions the central organization sets for membership. My inclination is to make them pretty loose--to permit, for example, a kingdom to establish a peerage for fencing, while requiring every kingdom to recognize the peerages that now exist (I could live without that, but I suspect it is important to a lot of people). Part of the point of the way my proposal is structured is that I want to separate out those issues from the general issue of organizational structure. If we agree to my proposal and recommend it tothe Board, we can then go on to argue about such details. Quick SCA philosophical digression. I've found that there are a fair number of people within the Society, who simply cannot abide other people doing what they want, or like, even if it is appropriate. They must pass judgement, or worse, find some outside authority to change what is going on. I have my suspicions, however, that this could be magnified by groups acting together. Not diminished, but made worse. Somehow, the guiding philosophy will have to be made clear: so that Kingdom W or Kingdom C don't go away just because Kingdom A makes a Peerage award for its fencers. Or worse, if we have a canonical list of Peers that must be accepted everywhere, the strain that may come when adding to it. Consider that a recently version of the Board had no problem changing one of our landmarks from the bylaws, without first having open discussions of any kind. (Membership issues) I'd shudder to think what might happen should the organizations that constitute the central body prove unadaptable. The structure initially established must be approved by vote of the kingdom membership. After that, dealing with the problems of that structure is basically up to them, as long as they don't violate the conditions for being a member of SCA Inc. They won't do it perfectly, but I expect they will do it as well as the present structure does. This actually aligns quite closely with what I was thinking. I had a more protective idea in mind, however. Not only must the initial structure be approved, but any future changes in membership voting rights must also be approved. No fair having a Crown Speak A Word, and the whole thing disappearing in a cloud of spittle. The kingdom handles kingdom membership as it likes. My recommendation is that the SCA inc. produces some services (such as T.I.) which it offers to sell to the kingdoms and to individuals who want to buy them, the kingdom does the same. We probably want to permit individuals to be members of the SCA Inc. directly (if there is no local kingdom) or of their kingdom directly even if the kingdom is itself an association (if there is no local group they want to be associated with). The regional federations in gem and mineral collecting have some individual members, although most people are members through their clubs. But again, I don't think that how we decide these details is crucial to the overall proposal. I consider such magazines to be the equivalent of unrelated business income. The central organization will need to meet legal definitions of direct support for IRS purposes, if it is to gain the most advantageous status. I suspect that could be handled by the sub-organizations agreeing to pay a per-capita assessment against it's membership base to the corporation, provided that most expenses of the central corporation are not fixed, but float based upon number of organizations and members served. I like where this is going, David. Thanks for the work and thought. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 18:01:16 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 48426 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:55:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Lisa's report. Comments: To: SCA Reform Comments: cc: Lisa Steele To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L It took longer to convert to ASCII, than either of us would have liked, and some of it required manual retyping. Add to that the time it took to spell check, and proof read... But here is Lisa's report. I could only find the time to give a quick proof read effort. (Found and corrected the phrase marital arts, to martial arts, however.) Whenever a discrepancy was found, I used the hard copy I have here next to my desk. Tibor IS SCA, INC., ENTITLED TO TAX-EXEMPT STATUS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF THE UNITED STATES? A Report Prepared by Lisa J. Steele, Esq. Kangas & Steele P.O. Box 794 Bolton, MA 01740 (508) 368-1238 76761.2677@compuserve.com AUTHOR Lisa J. Steele is a partner in the firm of Kangas & Steele. She is licensed to practice before the bars of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Connecticut, and United States Tax Court. She is a former law clerk to Chief Judge Dupont of the Connecticut Appellate Court (1991-1992) and to Judge Chabot of the United States Tax Court (1992-1994). She is the author of several published law review articles on various topics. Ms. Steele has been a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), Inc. since 1992. She has been involved in the Barony of Ponte Alto, Kingdom of Atlantia, and the Barony of Carolingia, East Kingdom. She is an authorized fencer in Atlantia and the East Kingdom, former deputy fencing marshal of Ponte Alto, a merchant at Pennsic XXIII, taught three classes at Pennsic XXIV, and taught at several University sessions in Atlantia and the East Kingdom. Ms. Steele is also the author of _Medieval France_, a medieval travel atlas of 9-15C France, published by White Rose Publishing. SCOPE OF REPORT This report is a discussion of the federal tax issues surrounding the tax-exempt status of SCA, Inc. It was based upon the author's experience, discussions with other members of the Society, discussions on rec.org.sca (the Rialto) and copies of Form 990 for 1990, 1992, and 1993. It was drafted without access to the incorporation documents, bylaws, tax exemption application, or tax exemption determination letter. The author was provided with a copy of a letter from the IRS to SCA, Inc., dated September 21, 1989, which states that the IRS is unable to furnish a copy of the original determination or ruling letter and that the IRS' records show that there has been no change in SCA, Inc.'s exempt status. The report does not consider state law issues or liability for postage based on the claimed educational bulk mail rate. This report does not address SCA, Inc.'s status as a non-profit California corporation or any aspects of California law. HIERARCHY OF AUTHORITIES This report discusses in detail the Internal Revenue Code, Income Tax Regulations, rulings by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and cases decided in federal courts. The following is a guide to the authorities and their significance should this matter come before a federal court. An opinion of the United States Supreme Court (__ U.S. ___) is binding on all courts unless overruled by the Supreme Court itself. An opinion of a federal Court of Appeals (__ F.2d ___) is only binding in the circuit where the court sits. It is binding on the Tax Court for cases appealable to that circuit. _Goldsen v. Commissioner_, 54 T.C. 742 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). In SCA, Inc.'s case, the 9th Circuit (California) is the only binding precedent. Court of Appeals' opinions are, however, considered persuasive by other courts. An opinion of a federal District Court (___ F. Supp. ___) is only binding on that particular court and may be considered persuasive by other courts. A "full" opinion of the United States Tax Court (___ T.C. ___) is binding precedent in that court unless overruled by it. A "memorandum" opinion of the United States Tax Court ( T.C. Memo ___ - ____) only affects that case. It is not binding precedent in the Tax Court, but is often a good indication of how the court will resolve similar issues in the future. An opinion of the Court of Federal Claims (___ Ct. Cl. ____) is binding on that court only, but may be persuasive in other courts. A revenue ruling (___ Rev. Rul. ___) is a statement of the litigating position of the IRS. _Stubbs, Overbeck & Assoc., Inc. v. United States_, 445 F.2d 1142, 1146-7 (5th Cir. 1971). Taxpayers may assert a Rev. Ruling as a shield., Rev. Proc. 89-14, Sec. 7.01(4), (5), 1981-1 C.B. 814, 815 (1989). It is not binding on any court. _Stubbs v. United States_, _supra._ INTRODUCTION Section 501(a) provides that organizations described in section 501(c) shall be exempt from taxation. Section 501(c)(3) includes "Corporations *** organized and operated exclusively for *** charitable *** or educational purposes, *** no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual ***. Section 501(c)(7) provides an exemption for clubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other exempt purposes. The regulations require that the organization must be both organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. If SCA, Inc.'s exemption is ever challenged by the IRS, it will have the burden of proving that the IRS' determination is incorrect. _Handcock Academy of Savannah v. Commissioner_, 69 T.C. 488, 492 (1977); Rule 142(a), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Standing and Venue The only organization which can revoke SCA, Inc.'s tax-exempt status is the Internal Revenue Service. The usual procedure would be a notice of deficiency or notice of revocation which could be challenged in the United States Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims, or an appropriate federal District Court. To my knowledge SCA, Inc., has never received a notice of deficiency or notice of revocation. Any inquires or assurances made by the IRS, absent certain formalities, are not binding upon the IRS in litigation. Thus, it is immaterial whether SCA, Inc., has received and responded to inquires or undergone an audit. For example, the letter from the IRS to SCA, Inc. dated September 21, 1989, merely states that SCA, Inc. was granted a tax exemption and that its records do not show any change in its exempt status. This letter does not in any way indicate that the IRS has reviewed that exemption nor does it prevent the IRS from challenging it. The Courts have long held that taxpayers do not generally have standing to challenge the tax-exempt status of any organization. _Allen v. Wright_, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984); see also _Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis_, 407 U.S. 163, 166 (1972). A holding by any court resolving a taxpayer suit against SCA, Inc., or the IRS on this point does not resolve the question of whether SCA, Inc., is entitled to tax-exempt status. Thus, the litigation brought in Arizona in the 1980s is not determinative of SCA, Inc.'s tax-exempt status. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY TESTS There are several tests which are used to determine whether an organization complies with the requirements of sec. 501(c). In the event of a challenge by the IRS, it will be SCA, Inc.'s role to prove that it meets these standards. _Handcock Academy of Savannah v. Commissioner_, 69 T.C> 488, 492 (1977). Organizational Test The organizational test is an examination of SCA, Inc.'s legal documents: its articles of incorporation, by-laws, and amendments thereto. The author did not review those documents in preparing this report. These documents were probably submitted to the IRS when SCA, Inc., first applied for tax-exempt status. It is likely that these documents were reviewed and satisfied the IRS at that time. The author strongly recommends that competent tax counsel review any changes to the articles of organization and by-laws since the date of the application to determine whether there have been any changes which would adversely affect SCA, Inc.'s tax-exempt status. Operational Test The operational test is an examination of SCA, Inc.'s day-to-day activities. The regulations define this test as follows: (c) Operational Test. (1) Primary activities. An organization will be regarded as "operated exclusively" for one or more exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of such exempt purposes specified in section 501(c)(3). An organization will not be so regarded if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. Thus, an educational organization [1] must show that its activities accomplish one or more of the statutory exempt purposes. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(C)(1), Income Tax Regs. This test focuses on the activity's purpose and not merely its nature. _Federation Pharmacy Services v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 687 (1979) affd. 625 F.2d 804 (8th Cir. 1980). There is a similar test for social clubs, however, they are required to devote "substantially all" of their activities to a nonprofit purpose. Sec. 501(c)(7). The existence of a single nonexempt purpose, if it is substantial, will destroy the exemption of an educational organization regardless of the number or importance of the organization's exempt purposes. _Better Business Bureau v. United States_, 326 U.S. 279, 283 (1945). Nonexempt activities must be incidental and less than substantial in order to remain an educational organization. _Church in Boston v. Commissioner_, 71 T.C. 102, 107 (1978). For the reasons set forth below, it is the author's opinion that SCA, Inc., has a substantial nonexempt purpose which is social. See _St. Louis Science Fiction v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1985-162. Private Inurement Test Sections 501(c)(3) and (c)(7) require that no part of the organization's "net earnings" inure to the benefit of any private individual. This is a very strict test. The courts have said many times that "no part" means, effectively, not a single penny. See _Founding Church of Scientology v. United States_, 188 Ct. Cl. 490, 412 F.2d 1997, 1021 (1969); _McGahen v. Commissioner_, 76 T.C. 468, 482 (1981) affd. w/o pub. op. 720 F.2d 644 (3d Cir. 1983). In practice this test often overlaps with the operational test. See _Church of the Transfiguring Spirit v. Commissioner_, 76 T.C. 1, 5 (1981). Tax-exempt organizations are permitted to pay salaries to their officers and directors, and to buy, sell, and lease property from their officers, directors, and members, but these transactions are given special scrutiny because of the opportunity for abuse. In general, the standard is whether the transaction's terms are similar to those that a for-profit corporation would use in dealing with unrelated third-parties. The private inurement test would be the basis for any claim that the salaries and benefits paid to officers, directors, and staff are excessive. It would also be the basis for challenges based on an alleged embezzlement. [2] Do note that the private inurement test may be implicated any time a person with the ability to influence or control SCA, Inc.'s decisions receives payment for services rendered. These transactions should be thoroughly documented and handled with extreme care. _St. Louis Science Fiction v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1985-162 raised the question of whether a science fiction convention conferred a substantial private benefit on artists and hucksters. In that case, revenues to private artists amounted to $2,376.41 in one year and $4,800 in a second year. The court was not provided with figures on huckster earnings. It is quite possible that the significant merchant presence at Pennsic, Estrella, and other major events might risk SCA, Inc.'s tax-exempt status under the private inurement test. Lobbying and Political Test Section 501(c)(3) also forbids organizations from carrying out substantial political or lobbying activities. The author is not aware of any lobbying or political activity and so has not pursued research in this area. OPERATIONS SCA, Inc., received its tax exemption as an educational organization. "Educational" is defined by the regulations as: (a) The instruction or training of the individual for the purpose of improving or developing his capabilities; or (b) The instruction of the public on subjects beneficial to the community. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs. Without access to SCA, Inc.'s tax exemption application and determination letters it is impossible to say exactly what instruction or training SCA, Inc., purports to provide. The Form 990s for 1990, 1992, and 1993 mentions the following activities which it contends are related to its exempt purpose: "local & regional meetings at which various subjects of the period studied are demonstrated, discussed, or re-enacted"; "publications on topics relevant to the historical period studied and newsletters publishing event schedules"; and "sale of books & materials related to the recreation & study of medieval & renaissance history". See Part VIII, Forms 990 for 1990, 1992, and 1993. The Form 990 for 1992 lists as accomplishments: "publication -- quarterly newsletter to over 20,000 subscribers; bi-monthly pamphlets to over 5,000 subscribers; regional & local newsletters" and "events -- local & regional meetings held by members open to the public practicing & demonstrating arts & crafts of the period". See Part III, Forms 990 of 1992 and 1993 (this page is missing from my copy of the 1990 return). The author assumes that SCA, Inc. contends that it educates the public in history, sports (heavy weapons, fencing, archery), or crafts. History SCA, Inc. purports to teach history in several ways. There are publications like the Compleat Anachronist, articles in Tournaments Illuminated and Arts and Sciences newsletters, classes in kingdom universities, and classes taught at events and by local and regional groups. There are three rulings which discuss how teaching history might be an educational purpose. As mere rulings, these illustrate the view of the IRS. The issue has not been decided by the courts. An organization that was formed to create and operate a 19th century American village was held to serve a charitable and an educational purpose. Rev. Rul. 77-267. The organization employed qualified architects and craftspeople to restore structures in the most authentic method possible. It provided trained guides for the public. A second organization that was formed to research, study, and conduct historically accurate reenactments of Civil War Battles for the public (at a nominal fee) was ruled to serve an educational purpose. Rev. Rul. 67-148. The ruling states that an education organization need not offer formal instruction, but need provide an opportunity for self-education. A third organization was formed to hold an international exposition to celebrate and commemorate certain historical events. The exposition's purpose was to inform the public about the importance of certain historical events and the cultural achievements, value, and products of various nations. The IRS ruled that the organization had a charitable and an educational purpose. Rev. Rul. 71-545. The incidental entertainment provided was ruled not to detract from the charitable and educational character of the exposition. A common thread to these rulings is the stress on accuracy and authenticity. In the author's opinion, only those activities which stress historical accuracy would be eligible as educational activities under these rulings. While one might argue that SCA, Inc., is similar to the Civil War reenactors, even a cursory comparison of the level of research and authenticity would show SCA, Inc., sadly deficient in this area. It is clear from my own participation in SCA, Inc., and in discussions with other members, that it does not place a premium on the historical accuracy of its customs, costumes, fighting styles, or many crafts. The standards of historical knowledge in our universities and publications has been widely criticized by academics. Indeed, certain prominent officers have been quoted criticizing SCA, Inc.'s Arts & Sciences' standards for being too high. While it might be possible to defend some parts of its activities as historical education, these would be small parts of its total activities. In _St. Louis Science Fiction v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1985-162, the organization was a science fiction group which held an annual convention (Archon). The Commissioner contended that the organization was operated for a substantial social and recreational purposes, and that it operated for the private benefit of artists and hucksters. The court held that, while some of the convention panels served an educational purpose, the tone of the convention and many of its panels were predominantly social and recreational. It is the author's conclusion that any claim that society serves an education purpose would be similarly defeated. Sports One of SCA, Inc's primary activities is training its members in combat inspired by historical sources. It is clear from discussions with academics and with group marshals that most SCA combatants are trained in effective tactics and techniques for winning under SCA rules. The rules do not require the combatants to use historical materials (plastic armor is not uncommon), historical weapons designs (lack of quillions on many heavy weapons' swords), or historic techniques (two-sword form used by European garbed combatants in heavy weapons, modern-style fencing lunges), even where safety would not be compromised. Mismatches of armor and weapons style by the same combatant are common. Purely fantastic or farcical armor, weapons, and heraldry appear at most events. It is a rare tournament which is held under any variation of historical rules. Few combatants are knowledgeable about historical figures, armor, weapons, styles, or prominent writings by historical authorities. Thus, while it would be difficult to argue that SCA, Inc., combat activities teach history, they might educate combatants in sports. The IRS ruled that an organization which promoted sports for minors served both a charitable and an educational purpose. Rev. Rul. 80-215; Rev. Rul. 65-2. An organization that instructed and educated individuals in a particular sport for a nominal charge was held to serve an educational purpose. Rev. Rul. 77-365. An organization that promoted sports for all persons regardless of age was held to be a civic league. Rev. Rul. 70-4; see Sec. 501(c)(4) (civic leagues). Many kingdoms in SCA, Inc., specifically exclude minors >from tournaments. The proposed requirement for membership in order to fight is more than a nominal fee. Thus, it seems most likely that SCA, Inc., would be held to be a civic league rather than an educational organization were a case to focus on our sports activities. [3] Moreover, the kingdom newsletters and combat-oriented tournaments will prove problematic. The IRS ruled that a chess club which organized chess tournaments for its members, provided chess magazines and books to libraries, offered free instruction, and gave public exhibitions had a substantial recreational purpose. _Minnesota Kingsmen Chess Association v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo. 1983-495. It held that the club's matches were more recreational than educational. The club devoted 48 hours to publication of its newsletter, 102 hours to instruction, and 96 hours to competition. Most of its newsletter consisted of results of past tournaments and advertisements for future tournaments. This describes many kingdom newsletters with uncanny precision. Arts SCA, Inc., also promotes the study and practice of historical-style arts and crafts. Participants at events are encouraged to wear an "attempt" at historical clothing. Local groups encourage participants to learn enough about historical heraldry to create a coat of arms, to learn historical illumination to create award scrolls, and to learn enough costuming to create serviceable "garb". While again, it would be difficult to argue that most of these attempts meet sufficient academic standards to be historical, they could be a promotion of crafts in general. The promotion of the arts (which includes crafts) has been recognized generally as constituting both a charitable and an educational purpose. _Goldsboro Art League v. Commissioner_, 75 T.C. 337, 343 (1980); _Plumstead Theater Society v. Commissioner_, 74 T.C. 1324 affd. 675 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1982). In _Cleveland Creative Arts Guild v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1985-316, the IRS challenged an organization which promoted the arts and also ran arts festivals and craft shows. In this case, the organization did not screen entries in its festivals and shows for artistic merit. However, it only ran 2 two-day events and 2 craft shops open for a month each. The competition aspect of one event encouraged artists to display their finest wares. It also charged no admission or only a nominal admission to its festivals and shows. The commission charged by the organization was used to defray its expenses. The majority of the exhibiting artists were not members of the organization but unrelated third parties. It is possible that SCA, Inc., might be held to educate the public about medieval crafts. However, craft demonstrations and sales form a small part of most events. While crafts are discussed in Tournaments Illuminated and various kingdom and local Arts and Sciences journals, these form a minor aspect of the total publications directed to members. Many local groups have regular meetings of dance, illumination, music, and sewing groups which do teach historical crafts. Other meetings are designed to assist members in dealing with SCA practices and customs (making one's first t-tunic, teaching commonly performed English country dances as well as historical dances). The number of events which hold "Arts and Sciences" competitions is small compared to total events in most kingdoms. When a competition is held, it is clear that (1) the focus of the event is usually the fighting and socializing, not the crafts; (2) the required standards for documentation and authenticity are often arbitrary or too low; and (3) the judges are not necessarily qualified to recognize proper documentation and authenticity. There have been a number of complaints about historical mis-statements and a-historical crafts propagated by Laurels and recipients of kingdom and local A&S awards. There have been many complaints about the historical accuracy of crafts taught at kingdom universities. Conclusion Regardless of how well one feels SCA, Inc. educates the public in history, sports, or crafts, it clearly violates the operational test for a Sec. 501(c)(3) educational organization. Put plainly, its primary function is social, not educational. Many members, if speaking candidly, would agree. Thus, it is not "operated exclusively for" educational purposes. Moreover, the educational value of its activities is suspect because of the lack of authenticity controls. SPECIFIC ISSUES Several specific points about SCA Inc.'s current operations have been raised. Many of these are not fatal to its tax-exempt status, but they may increase the corporation's tax liability. Compensation Compensation raises two potential issues: the operational test and private inurement. An exempt organization may pay reasonable compensation to its officers, directors, and employees. However, the compensation must be a reasonable amount, and must be for services performed. See _World Family Corp. v. Commissioner_, 81 T.C. 958, 968 (1983). See also sec. 162, Sec. 1.162-7(a), Income Tax Regs. Note, SCA, Inc. cannot avoid this test by classifying its workers as independent contractors. See _Senior Citizens of Missouri v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1988-493. The Form 990 for 1990 shows compensation paid to a president($21,038 per year), a secretary ($19,200 per year), and a treasurer ($9.57 per hour). It lists 7 directors who are not compensated. There is a management cost of $409,739 (line 14), but this copy does not detail that item. The Form 990 for 1992 shows compensation paid to a president ($21,660 per year), a secretary ($24,864 per year (this is a typo on the original return)), and a treasurer ($7,166 per year). It lists 7 directors who are not compensated. Other salaries and wages total $61,457, but there is no further breakdown. The Form 990 for 1993 references a "Statement 4" which was not provided to the author with a copy of the form. The compensation for SCA, Inc.'s officers does not appear unreasonable on its face. The author recommends that its budgets and records be examined to determine how employee compensation is determined, whether it is reasonable compared with other similar organizations, and whether it consumes a substantial portion of its gross revenues. In _Senior Citizens of Missouri v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1988-493, the organization paid advances representing 33.2 percent of its gross receipts and spent only 8.9 percent of its gross revenues on exempt activities. The court held that it failed to satisfy the operational test. Membership Fees It is my understanding that SCA, Inc. does not require membership to participate in most activities. There is a $3.00 nonmember surcharge levied at events. The Kingdom of Atlantia requires membership as a precondition for authorization in all combat related activities. Outside donors are not required for an organization to qualify under Sec. 501(c)(3). The courts have found organizations supported exclusively by fees and assessments to be exempt from taxation. _Hospital Bureau of Standards & Supplies v. United States_, 131 Ct. Cl. 19, 158 F.Supp. 560 (1958); _Chart v. Commissioner, 491 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1979) revd. on another issue 652 F.2d 195 (D.C. Cir 1981). However, the absence of outside donors is a factor which may indicate that the organization has a nonexempt purpose. _The Council for Bibliographic and Information Technologies v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo. 1992-364. I have not yet found any statues or case which preclude an educational organization from giving its members a discount, or imposing a surcharge on non-members, to participate in events. Certainly many museums offer admissions discounts to their members. If, however, SCA Inc's exemption is based upon educating the public about medieval martial arts, then requiring more than a nominal membership fee to participate in marital arts will destroy that exemption. If martial arts teaching is part of its educational purpose then it cannot enact "pay-to-fight". Conversely, membership requirements and non-member surcharges would be vital to maintaining the tax exempt status as a 501(c)(7) social club. Income from non-member surcharges and admission fees would be subject to the unrelated business tax (see below). See Sec. 512(a)(3). Membership fees and fees for guests are still exempt from the tax. See Sec. 512(a)(3)(B); _Confrarie de Chaine v. Commissioner_, T.C. Memo 1993-637. Public Support Test Every applicant organization starts off as a "private foundation" and must prove to the IRS' satisfaction that it is a "public charity". Sec. 1.508-1(b)(4), Income Tax Regs. In order to become a public charity, an organization should be one whose purposes fall under Sec. 501(c)(3) and be "broadly supported". The tests for support are: (1) The organization "normally" receives more than 1/3 of its support in each taxable year from any combination of gifts, grants, contributions or membership fees, or the furnishing of facilities in an activity which is not an unrelated trade or business. Gross receipts from related activities received from any one persons are includable only to the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the organization's total support. Sec. 509(a)(2)(A); and (2) The organization "normally" receives 1/3 or less of its support in each taxable year from the sum of (a) gross investment income and (b) the excess, if any, of the organization's unrelated business taxable income over the amount of unrelated business income tax on that unrelated business income. Sec. 509(a)(2)(B). If there is a material change in the organization's support and it cannot meet either 1/3 test, then its status with respect to a grantor or contributor is not changed until notice of the status change is made public. Support includes membership fees, gross receipts from admissions, sales of merchandise, or other activities which are not unrelated trades or businesses and net income from unrelated business activities. Sec. 509(d). It would appear from Part IV of Form 990 for 1993 that SCA, Inc., contends that it meets the support test. The author suggests that SCA, Inc.'s records be checked to see whether it has been granted "public charity" status. If so, the tax returns and accounting records should be examined to see if this status has been properly granted. The tax liabilities differ so claiming public charity status improperly may cause tax problems if discovered. Unrelated Business Income Tax The unrelated business income tax is imposed by sections 511-513 of the Code on organizations exempt from tax under sec. 501(c)(3) and (c)(7). There are some technical differences about how the tax applies to educational organization and social clubs. The regulations allow an educational organization to engage in a trade or business as long as its operation furthers an exempt purpose and its primary objective is not the production of profits. Sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(e)(1), Income Tax Regs. The regulations are more narrowly drawn for social clubs, but they may sill incur taxable unrelated business income. See Sec. 1.501(c)(7)(B), Income Tax Regs. One issue is the taxability of items sold by SCA, Inc., such as the Compleat Anachronist, the Known World Handbook, and t-shirts. Rulings involving museum stores provide some guidance to educational organizations. Greeting cards which displayed works form an art museum s collection were ruled to contribute to the museum's educational purpose by stimulating and enhancing public awareness, interest, and appreciation of art. It was not held to be an unrelated trade or business and thus the income was not subject to the UBI tax. Rev. Rul. 73-104. Similarly the sale and rental of reproductions of a museum's art works and literature relating to art were not subject to the UBI tax. Sales of scientific works and souvenir items without a relationship to art was subject to the UBI tax. Rev. Rul. 73-105. If SCA, Inc., is an educational organization, then sales of the Compleat Anachronist may not be subject to the UBI tax. It would be arguable whether the Known World Handbook is sufficiently educational to be exempt from the tax. T-shirts sold by SCA, Inc., kingdoms, and local groups for fundraisers are certainly subject to the tax. If SCA, Inc. becomes a social club, it might argue that the sale of the Compleat Anachronist serves another exempt purpose (educational) and are thus exempt. I would expect the Known World Handbook, t-shirts, and advertising to still be subject to the tax. CONSEQUENCES It is highly likely that SCA, Inc., does not qualify for tax-exempt status as a Sec. 501(c)(3) educational organization under the "operational test". If so, its officers and directors need to decide whether to (1) ignore the situation in hopes that it will never be seriously investigated by the IRS; (2) reform SCA, Inc., into a true educational organization; (3) reform SCA, Inc. into a Sec. 501(c)(7) educational club; or (4) reform SCA, Inc., into a non-profit taxable corporation. The IRS rarely audits educational organization at this time. Congress, however, has taken an interest in this area and is likely to allocate more funds for an investigation and enforcement. Nevertheless, the IRS is unlikely to catch this problem unless SCA, Inc., is brought to its attention by failing to timely file Forms 990, by failing to timely file other documents, by persistent complaints about its failure to comply with public document disclosure rules, litigation in state or federal courts, or unfavorable publicity. It is also possible that a third party may complain to IRS. Certainly there are many critics of SCA, Inc., in academic circles who might publically challenge it as an educational organization. Likewise, there are many critics within SCA, Inc., who might chose to bring this matter to the IRS' attention. The research contained herein would into be difficult for a knowledgeable person to reconstruct. If the matter is brought to the IRS' attention, SCA, Inc., would first incur the accounting, legal, and staff expenses necessary to comply with the IRS' requests for information. These responses must be answered fully and completely. Rumors persist on the Rialto that SCA, Inc., has responded to similar inquiries with letters from school children and photographs of public demonstrations, implicitly representing these as SCA, Inc.,'s primary activity. Depending on the results of that investigation, the IRS might then begin proceedings to revoke, SCA, Inc.'s tax-exempt status. Critical matters which the IRS might investigate might be (1) contents of all publications distributed or sold over the past three years; (2) activities at major events--Pennsic, Estrella, etc., local events, and public demonstrations; (3) media reports, especially raw videotape of Pennsic, Estrella, and other events; (4) contents of debates on history, social activities, and research from the Rialto and other fora; and (5) subpoena various members of SCA, Inc., with academic degrees for their views of it as an educational organization. As you will note from the hierarchy of authorities cited above, the author could not find any binding precedent in the United States Tax Court which would govern this action. My sense of the situation is that, if the IRS' revenue agents were knowledgeable about SCA, Inc.; subpoenaed members and academics to testify about its educational activities; and the IRS had representation of equal quality to SCA, Inc., the author is confident that the exemption would be revoked retroactively to the start of the statute of limitations period (3 to 6 years, Sec. 6501(a), (e)), plus interest accruing at the statutory rate. Moreover, additions to tax for substantial underpayment or negligence would likely be imposed. [4] If alleged, SCA, Inc., would have the burden of proving that it was not negligent. Rule 142, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. The prominence of SCA, Inc.'s social purpose, the lack of authenticity controls on its educational activities, and the history of SCA, Inc's compliance with reporting requirements would all be relevant factors in this determination. The addition to tax for substantial underpayment of tax or negligence is 20% of the substantial underpayment or amount attributable to negligence. Sec. 6662. An accountant could likely provide a rough calculation of the amount due for back taxes, interest, and Sec. 6662 additions to tax. The author suspects the amount would bankrupt SCA, Inc. The worst case would be civil and criminal charges of tax fraud against SCA, Inc., and the officers and directors responsible for preparing the returns. The IRS would have the burden of proving liability for civil tax fraud by clear and convincing evidence. Rule 142(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. In that case, back taxes could be determined to the date when SCA, Inc., stopped being an educational organization. No statue of limitations would apply to the tax deficiency. Sec. 6501(c)(1)-(2). The addition to tax for civil tax fraud is 75% of the portion of the underpayment attributable to fraud. Sec. 6663. If the postings on the Rialto are accepted as true, SCA, Inc., has been aware of the questions raised in this report for some time, has willfully ignored the situation, has willfully misrepresented SCA, Inc.'s activities to the IRS, has engaged in a persistent pattern of filing late, incomplete returns, and has been quite secretive about its budget and expenses. If these allegations are true, the author thinks that the IRS could legitimately impose a civil fraud addition to tax and could prevail at trial. Criminal tax fraud is a felony. Sec. 7201. The penalty is a fine of $100,000 on individuals ($500,000 on corporations), imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, plus the costs of prosecution. The author does not believe that a criminal tax fraud proceeding is likely given the information provided to her. BECOMING A TRUE EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION The first option is to make SCA, Inc., a true educational organization. This would involve a fundamental change in its nature. It would likely require the abolition of customs which conflict with historical and literary sources; an emphasis on documentation and professional standards of accuracy in publications and Arts & Sciences; and a major change in the purpose of events. Careful research and use of literary sources could be used to permit women to fight in tournaments and to forbid historical religious persecutions, although the facts of such persecution and of women's exclusion from tournaments would likely be discussed at public demonstrations and events. Events like the 1994 Knight of the Heart event in Lochemere, Atlantia (tournament held under King Rene's rules with strong emphasis on historical style setting and garb) show that this can be accomplished and can be a quite enjoyable event. In this case, SCA, Inc., might still be liable for taxes, interest, and additions to tax for the period when it did not qualify as an educational organization. BECOMING A SOCIAL CLUB One of the criteria of a social club is that its membership requirements are neither broadly stated nor vague. See Sec. 501(c)(7)-1(b); _United States v. Fort Worth Club of Fort Worth, Texas_, 345 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1965). While there is an objective standard for membership, SCA, Inc., does not require membership for participation in events, practices, or weekly meetings. Moreover, a social club may receive up to 35% of its gross receipts from sources outside of its membership. Not more than 15% of its gross receipts should be derived from the use of its facilities or services by the general public. If it exceeds the 15% and 35% thresholds, then all the facts and circumstances are taken into account in determining whether the organization qualifies for exempt status. Because of the membership requirement and the 35/15 gross receipts ratio, it is unlikely that SCA, Inc., could retroactively qualify as a sec. 501(c)(7) social club. When it applied to reclassify itself, it would immediately raise the issue of taxes, interest, and additions to tax for the period when it neither qualified as an educational nor social organization. Even if it did qualify, the author has found no guidance on whether a sec. 501(c)(3)'s assets can be transferred to a sec. 501(c)(7) social club. One problem is raised by the tension between sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(4), Income Tax Regs., which requires a sec. 501(c)(3)'s assets to be dedicated to an exempt purpose, and Rev. Rul. 58-501, which permits a social club to make a liquidating distribution to its members. It is clear that a sec. 501(c)(7) social club can be reclassified into a sec. 501(c)(3). Rev. Rul. 71-421. Thus, in order to become a social club, SCA, Inc., would likely have to dissolve itself and form a new corporation. SCA, Inc.'s assets would likely be liquidated to pay its tax liability. In order to qualify as a social club, the new organization would have to be organized exclusively for pleasure, recreation, and other non-profit purposes. Some examples of social clubs include amateur sports clubs, bowling clubs, flying clubs, garden clubs, gem and mineral clubs, and other hobby clubs. Rev. Rul 74-148 (bowling club); Rev. Rul 74-30 (flying club); Rev. Rul. 67-139 (garden club); Rev. Rul. 66-179 (gem and mineral club). See IRS Pub. No. 557 (1992) p. 35. It would still be subject to the strict requirements of the organizational, operational, and private inurement tests. Sec. 501(c)(7). The new corporation's sources of revenue would be membership fees, dues, assessments, fees for use of its facilities, and fees charged in connection with its activities. It could only make its facilities and activities open to the general public in a limited fashion. Sec. 1.501(c)(7)-1(a), Income Tax Regs. The new corporation would be required to limit its membership. There are several things that the IRS looks at in examing membership: (1) whether requirements are broad or vaguely stated; (2) whether dues are so low as to encourage one-time or transient use of its facilities by the general public; (3) whether the club is strenuously engaged in expanding its membership; (4) whether management can effectively perpetuate itself through close ties to its activities or facilities; and (5) whether the club advertises for public patronage of its facilities. Sec. 1.501(c)(7)-1(b); _United States v. Fort Worth Club of Fort Worth, Texas_, 345 F.2d 52 (5th Cir. 1965). The new corporation could create "classes" of membership to deal with some of the problems raised by the now-withdrawn pay-to-play and pay-to-fight policies. If one class pays substantially lower dues and enjoys the same privileges as other classes, then there may be an inurement of income to the benefited classes which will destroy the club's exempt status. _Pittsburgh Press Club v. United States_, 388 F. Supp. 1269 (DC PA 1975) revd. on other issues 536 F.2d 572 (3rd Cir. 1976); Rev. Rul. 70-48. The new corporation could admit the public to its tournaments or activities and charge admission, but only if the admission fee is a reimbursement of cost and not a source of revenue. IRS Pub. No. 557 (1992) p. 36. Compare _Colombo Club, Inc v. Commissioner_, 54 T.C. 100 (1970) affd. 447 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir. 1971) (golf club green fees based on cost of maintenance) and _Santa Cruz Building Assn. v. United States_, 411 F. Supp. 871 (DC MO 1976) (green fees a significant portion of total receipts). A social club calculates its unrelated business taxable income differently than other tax-exempt organization. Sec. 512(a)(3). Dues, fees, charges or similar amounts paid by members for goods, facilities, or services, their dependents, or guests is not taxable income. Certain kinds of passive income are also exempt. All other income is taxable. There are also restrictions on how social clubs can set off deductions against its investment income. Sec. 277 (non-profit social clubs), 512(a)(3) (tax exempt social clubs); _Cleveland Athletic Club, Inc. v. United States_, 779 F.2d 1160 (6th Cir. 1985); _Brook, Inc. v. Commissioner_, 799 F.2d 833 (2nd Cir 1986); Rev. Rul. 81-69. Finally, officers and directors could no longer take deductions for their travel and contributions to SCA, Inc. Sec. 170. The new corporation would not receive a discount on bulk rate postage. It is unclear whether a tax-exempt social club would be able to receive the same access to and discount on certain sites that SCA, Inc., currently receives as a tax-exempt educational organization. Changing SCA, Inc., into a social club would involve a fundamental change in its nature. First, it would require enactment of a strict pay-to-play policy. The cost of membership and classes of membership would have to be calculated based on a major change in revenue. Second, education would be subordinated to social activities. Certainly garden clubs, mineral clubs, and other hobby clubs have an educational aspect, but SCA, Inc.'s current educational status may exert some pressure on individuals and groups to strive for accuracy and historical knowledge. The change may have an affect on learning within SCA, Inc. BECOMING A NON-PROFIT, TAXABLE CORPORATION A third option would be to dissolve SCA, Inc., and incorporate a non-profit taxable corporation. SCA, Inc.'s assets would either be lost to paying back taxes, interest, and additions to tax, or transferred to another tax exempt organization under sec. 1.501(c)(3)-1(4), Income Tax Regs. The corporation could be incorporated in California, Delaware, or any other state. It would be subject to state and federal income tax on any profit it made. The state of incorporation should be chosen carefully. In some states, a non-profit corporation is still subject to a minimum corporate excise tax. The new corporation would have lesser bookkeeping requirements. Its officers and directors would no longer need to worry about the strict accounting requirements of a tax-exempt organization. Members would not be able to take deductions for contributions to the corporation. Sec. 170. It would lose the bulk rate discount on postage. It might have a harder time getting access to and discounts on certain sites. CONCLUSION There are a series of tests which a tax-exempt organization must meet in order to maintain that status. It seems clear that SCA, Inc. passes the "political activities" test. The author does not have sufficient information to render an opinion as to whether SCA, Inc., passes the organizational test. It is unclear whether it passes the "private inurement" test based upon the significant presence of merchants at major events. In the author's opinion, SCA, Inc., clearly violates the operational test and must act immediately. If SCA, Inc., files another Form 990 without investigating this matter and taking corrective action, it risks negligence or fraud additions to tax should it ever be challenged. Moreover, claiming a status to which it is not entitled is incompatible with the moral standards set by SCA, Inc. In the author's opinion, tax evasion is the moral equivalent of theft and is indefensible. FOOTNOTES [1] The term "educational organization" refers to an organization which has been determined to be exempt under sec. 501(c)(3) because of an educational purpose. It is contrasted with a "social club" which receives its exemption under sec. 501(c)(7). [2] For reasons related to confidential work the author performed for the United States Tax Court she has not analyized the problem raised if indeed there was an embezzlement by an officer, director, or staff. Suffice it to say that the litigating position of the IRS has been that an embezzlement is private inurement and that it is unclear whether Sec. 165(e) regarding theft losses applies to tax- exempt organizations. [3] N.B. One attorney consulted in preparing this report questioned whether an educational exemption would apply to a sport made up and taught by an organization or whether the intent of this provision is deal with widely recognized sports. The author has not found any authority on this point. [4] Section 7428(c)(1) provides that contributions to the SCA would be deductible under Sec. 170(c)(2) until the date the court first declares the determination was correctly withdrawn. For the period >from the publication of the notice of revocation to the date of the court's determination, individuals and couples are limited to a deduction of $1,000 per year. Anyone who is responsible for the acts which caused the determination to be revoked cannot claim the deduction during this period. See Sec. 7428(c). From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 20:02:01 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CAROL L SMITH Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:10:57 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: CAROL L SMITH Subject: Caroline -- Board Meeting Date To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings From Caroline! Justin asked when the Board meeting is. It will be held next Saturday, 21 October, in the Fine Barony of Three Rivers, in the Song and Sheildwall Kingdom of Calontir (St. Louis, MO). We don't need to have a decision on how to better organize by then. The report to the Board is long gone, and I suspect the Board members here will not be reading much past Wednesday the 18th. We do need to decide and move on with that structure, however. If you want to come to the Board meeting, contact the Event Stewart, Lord Wulfric, at broach@twinearth.wustl.edu for more information. Take good notes! Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 13 20:02:08 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CAROL L SMITH Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 18:04:22 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: CAROL L SMITH Subject: Caroline -- Grand Council Leadership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings unto the Grand Council from Caroline! This missive is to commend those who see the need for stronger leadership within the Grand Council, encourage those who have taken the initiative to make that leadership happen, and prod those on the sidelines to speak up. With the change of the Chronicle to an interactive listserver, our communication initially continued to unravel. This week, however, some order has begun to take place. Alysoun has suggested that the sender put his/her name in the subject, and some have followed that suggestion. Those commenting have realized the need to focus the conversation and have started to do so (although it is hard to do). All of this is good. One of the reasons for going to an interactive mode is to get more comments from people who had not been speaking up. So far this hasn't happened. I eagerly await hearing from those who have yet to comment. (Your Graces of Atlantia, I know you're out there!) The Grand Council, however, still needs someone to ensure that we keep on track and on schedule, follow up on committee work, and in general herd us along. This work will take at least an hour _a day_, nearly _every day_, to do. In addition, this person needs to be even-tempered to handle the impassioned arguments here, as well as be respected by the GC and the Board. As I have said previously, I do not have the time to do that work effectively. As many of you, I have a full time career and a full time almost-spouse (he's somewhat mundane, which I'm working on! :), and those commitments must come before the Grand Council. I wish I were able to do it all. I will, however, be glad to continue work on the Grand Council in whatever other role is appropriate. There are at least 3 people currently interested in this leadership role (in alphabetical order): Alysoun, Baron Corwyn da Costa, and Tibor. If any of the rest of you wish to be considered for this position, speak up! Catrin has volunteered to take votes, and Terras has as well. I suggest, Catrin, that you pick a deadline for voting, so that we'll all know when to let you know by. (And non-email available people can perhaps contact Terras to voice their opinions, since they're all in the US and international snail mail is a pain.) So, go for it, good gentles. Our ombudsperson, Edward, knows also the need for stronger leadership and is looking to us to make it happen. I know we'll get this decided and move on, the sooner the better. With this missive I must also tell you that I will be unavailable from 18 October to 7 November. For some reason my lord won't let me take the computer on my honeymoon! :) I'll be reading and perhaps commenting through the 17th. I hope to return refreshed and at least a little more active on the 7th. I remain, ever in Service, Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 01:16:00 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 00:34:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: non-profit/not-for-profit status To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L why should we remain a 501(c)(anything) corporation, rather than a simple for profit corporation? so far, the only advantages we'd have would be (obviously) paying no taxes, and being able to rent some sites that would otherwise be unavailable to for-profit groups. the tax filings would be similar, we'd wind up paying some income tax (depending on how many "profits" we'd make), we'd wind up having a couple of members losing minor tax deductions - but we wouldn't have to worry about meeting the irs requirements for educational, etc., support. so, why are we automatically assuming that we should remain 501(c)(3)? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 02:56:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 02:08:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Governance and Safeguards To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! I have read both Cariadoc's and Finvarr's proposals with great interest, but I think that both fail to be explicit about what I think to be the reason why we are talking about changing how the SCA is organized at all. The sense of crisis in governance which led to the formation of the GC was a result of concrete, historical events. It arose from the feeling that the Board of Directors (and the SCA bureaucracy) had, by imposing the policies of October 1993 and January 1994 in the particular way in which they did, violated the fundamental rights of the participants in our Society. This feeling was compounded by a recognition that this was not the first time this had happened. The talk of decentralization, accountability, and reorganization flowed directly from the desire that the majority of participants be free to play the game as they please while the rights of various minorities (particularly non-members) to participate were guaranteed. This was certainly why I became involved in the reform movement, and I think it is likely that this is true for most of the activists in the struggle against the October 1993 and January 1994 policies. It makes sense to me to begin any discussion of how we might reorganize by being absolutely clear about what any reorganization's purpose is. Otherwise we will have very little idea of whether any proposed reorganization is more or less likely to fix the "problem" than the current system. There may be other things we want the SCA's governing system to do, but the minimum it _must_ do is the following: (1) Provide the maximum opportunity for the participants to determine how they want to play the game (guarantee the right of the majority to determine how things are done); and (2) Provide absolute safeguards for the rights of minorities to participate when the majority makes determinations which restrict what are regarded are the rights of those minorities to participate in the traditional way they have hitherto (protect the minority from oppression and injustice at the hands of the majority or any powerful minority). The Board has acted in a tyrannical way in the past -- decentralization,the forcing of decision-making to to the lowest possible level, is one possible way to guarantee objective 1. Election of Board members and society and local/regional officers is another possible such safeguard. But we must also be aware that tyranny is as possible at the regional and local levels as at the corporate. Majority rule can be tyrannical (although we have no experience of it, by and large, in the SCA, since so few SCA decision-making processes have been historically majoritarian). Rule by self-selecting elites (the SCA bureaucracy is an apt example, and some royalty come to mind) can be extremely capricious, tyrannical and unjust. What we need at the most fundamental level is a system of governance which maximizes participation in decision-making (ensuring that the majority have their say) while protecting the most basic rights of all participants (e.g., a participants' bill of rights). The situation is complicated by the fact that much tyranny in the SCA is abetted by something akin to what political economists call "free ridership" -- mainly in the form of "my ox isn't being goared, and it's too much of a bother to do anything about my neighbor's ox." It is for this reason that I am unsettled by the remedy for the problem of tyranny in Cariadoc's proposal. One is left with the option of ostracizing an entire kingdom because its royalty or bureaucracy are arseholes, or taking no effective action to redress injustice at all. We need concrete structures to guarantee that people can play the game in the way they please without intrusions from above, but we also need concrete, enforceable and effective sanctions against injustice; and sanctions which do not depend on mobilizing large numbers of people to see that justice is done. Is it possible to come to some agreement on such first principles? Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 11:32:44 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 10:46:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Hossein-2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (Alysoun climbs on her soapbox) Although it is difficult to define and difficult to work with, mentality can be changed. People are not born with set attitudes. An attitude develops from personal experience, and an attitude can be changed by personal experience. Earlier I spoke of the need to educate the Board and pointed out that we do not have an entity strong enough to do this. I have also expressed my concern about the lack of Board orientation and training. Whether we are talking about the Board of SCAinc, the governing body of some smaller independent entity, or the seneschal in your own shire, these are things that need to be considered. If a local seneschal thinks his job is to "run" the group and that everyone in the group outside of his particular cronies is basically incompetent to understand the grave matters he must work with, there will be oppression. If the seneschal thinks his job is to represent the group, to aid them in their endeavors, and to encourage the participation of even the weakest members in group affairs, it will not be oppression. The question is how to discourage the first mentality and encourage the second. To do this we must look very objectively at factors which lead to the first attitude. We must think of ways that will mitigate the impact of these factors. We must think of counterbalancing factors which can be strengthened or introduced that will lead to the second attitude. This is hard work and it will not produce instant results--but it is effective in the long run. I have noticed that my postings in this area have not grasped the imagination of the majority of the Council. Some postings have set there like ducks dead in the water, others have initiated some discussion but were set aside for another topic and as of yet have not resurfaced. Looking at many of the other postings, I have had doubts that I understood the nature and the purpose of the Council--that I wandered into the wrong room. I have decided that even if this were the case, the Council makes a bully pulpit. The best I can do is to continue to post on what I think needs to be considered in hopes that it will provoke thought in the Council, among Board members future and present who read it, for officers current and potential, and for anyone who is part of a local group. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 11:47:55 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 10:46:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Hossein -1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I thank Hossein (Governance and Safeguards) for a careful and to-the-point statement which should serve us well. If people will refrain from quibbling, these principles of ensuring freedom and avoiding tyranny embrace the concerns of everyone in the society. They are just as apt for those who feel that a strident minority is pushing for more drastic reforms than they want, as it is for those who are pushing for those reforms. It is vital that in opposing one tyranny we do not set up another. In coming together people feel more secure if there is a written compact. The earliest discussion in the Council was of such a nature for this group. The By-laws and Corpora serve in this function for the whole. As people work together they may see need to amend this compact to better fit the situations they encounter. The usefulness of this compact was demonstrated during the recent battle when the Board did not act in accordance with it. However, a compact is by nature broadly stated. It is brought to life through policy and implementation. This is an area where tyranny can readily establish itself. It is not always clear how policy is set. Some policies may develop without a conscious effort, by custom. It is not a written policy that former royalty assume the great offices of state, yet this can become a custom in a kingdom with the same de facto force as a consciously adopted policy. There is yet another level, even more vague and difficult to address. I would use the term mentality; Gareth who studies these matters uses the term values. This is the perspective, the worldview, that underlies our actions, our decision making; that determines policy and implementation both consciously and subconsciously. The attitude of the Board is an example. Is there anyone on the Council who does not think that there is a problem on this last level? My impression is that we all agree on this. But mentality, attitudes, are the most difficult area to work in. I well remember my father saying "Young lady, I don't like your attitude!" and my response, of course, was "What attitude?" It is my belief that the root of the problems lies in this area. Unless we can address this, the same problems will reoccur under any other compact. Changing the compact may be necessary for other reasons and adjustments in the compact may be part of addressing the mentality--but I think that focusing on the compact alone to solve this is misguided. (continued) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 12:42:19 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 62 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 11:46:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Governance and Safeguards To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. I must agree with Hossein that governance is central to the mandate of the Grand Council. Most people most of the time are not concerned with debating the details of how the organizations they belong to. Whether they have any way of expressing their desires and having an influence over important decisions WHEN THE TIME COMES for such decisions -- that most certainly has an effect on how they think about the organization and how they act within it. > But we must also be aware that tyranny is as possible at the >regional and local levels as at the corporate. Precisely, and I've seen far more of it here than on the corporate level. >It is for this reason that I am unsettled by the remedy for the problem of >tyranny in Cariadoc's proposal. One is left with the option of ostracizing >an entire kingdom because its royalty or bureaucracy are arseholes, or >taking no effective action to redress injustice at all. Again, agreed. This is the atomic bomb solution to world problems. Blow up Belgrade or some other unloved capital city and many problems are solved. Except of course that the price of doing so is so high that the bomb is never dropped (good thing, too), and nothing is done. Shall we cast out Atlantia because we don't like the current King's actions? Or hope he goes away in a few months? (Not to mention the fact that it's very embarrassing to find out your atomic bomb does not work.) One can turn it around. One can always resist tyranny on the local level by seceeding. But there are high prices to be paid for this too, and so it is almost never done. And it is hard to argue that sheer secession solves many problems at the game level. It may stop some particular abuse (or not) but it breeds complications that neither promote most people's ability to have fun nor help them to learn about the MA. Centralization has had the virtue, most of the time, of keeping a certain kind of blatantly useless politics at bay. The price however has been another kind of chronic useless politics, and the occasional crisis (Jan 94) that has come close to splitting the SCA and ushering in the blatantly useless politics of secession and exclusion. So what is the cure? Not mere decentralization, as in Cariadoc's plan, and not just making membership cheaper and more available, as in my approach to the membership question. These may both be good things, but they are not enough. The medieval answer to this question was representative government. To allude to Alysoun's last post: we change the attitude of arrogant, irresponsible and autocratic officers at all levels either by making them representatives of their people, or bringing in the countervailing power of representatives. And I would say that it is almost more necesary to have the representative element at the local and regional levels (Kingdom, Principality) than at the top, corporate, international level. Enough for now, Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 13:10:15 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 09:16:23 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: SCA Supreme Court? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvairr raises some interesting points. As may be clear by now, one of my problems with a number of these issues is that my general bias is decentralist, but the GC itself is at the center. I am thus torn between wanting to recommend the best possible rules and structure for the kingdoms and believing that the kingdoms should, on the whole, decide those things themselves. If we are going to have a supreme court, I am not sure there is a good reason to make it the Board of the central organization. How about the following alternative (not part of my proposal, but a proposal I may also make after we have discussed it). It is inspired in part by the legal institutions of one of my favorite historical societies. I. There shall be a court to which decisions by the kingdoms may be appealed. It will have jurisdiction over (list of things currently appealable to the Board). II. As a condition of membership in the SCA Inc., a kingdom must agree to abide by the decisions of that court. III. Each kingdom appoints one judge to the court for a term of two years. For legally independent kingdoms appointment is by the crowns with the approval of the Board of Directors of the kingdom, unless the kingdom has provided otherwise in its original bylaws. For kingdoms that are still a part of SCA Inc., appointment is by the crowns with assent of a majority of the great officers. IV. The court may overrule an appealed decision by majority vote of the active judges; a judge is active until he informs the court that he is not, at which point the court requests his kingdom to appoint a replacement. Of course, if you don't like that procedure for appointing judges, we could do away with all of this democratic nonsense and return to the medieval idea of the right to enforce law as property: Alternative III. The judge from each kingdom shall be its senior active duke, defined as whoever of those who want the job first completed his second reign in the kingdom. If no such dukes want the job, it shall be the senior active count, similarly defined. Since Akbar seems to be inactive ... . David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 14:08:55 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 56 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 13:36:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: SCA Supreme Court? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here: I can see some real advantages to having the court of appeal be something separate from the Board. I'll bet the Board can, too. > I am thus torn between wanting to recommend the best possible rules and >structure for the kingdoms and believing that the kingdoms should, on the >whole, decide those things themselves. Formulations like this make sense on one level; but let us remember that Kingdoms have as unrepresentative and irresponsible a power structure as the Corporation as a whole (the Corporation is in large part responsible for this). If our concern is to have more responsive and less tyrannical government, handing over power to the Kingdoms as they exist is maybe worse than the problem it is meant to solve. >III. Each kingdom appoints one judge to the court for a term of two years. >For legally independent kingdoms appointment is by the crowns with the >approval of the Board of Directors of the kingdom, unless the kingdom has >provided otherwise in its original bylaws. For kingdoms that are still a >part of SCA Inc., appointment is by the crowns with assent of a majority of >the great officers. This appointment procedure would be OK if there was some representative element in the selection of the appointers. As of now there isn't. If we are going to have self-selected elites, why not stick with the self-selected elite we have now? >Alternative III. The judge from each kingdom shall be its senior active >duke, defined as whoever of those who want the job first completed his >second reign in the kingdom. If no such dukes want the job, it shall be the >senior active count, similarly defined. Hey, this leaves me out entirely :-), since I never had a second reign in any kingdom. This has the appeal of putting the old dukes to work, and putting them in a position to harass newer, younger dukes. I wonder who would prove to be more arrogant and intractable, young or old? > Since Akbar seems to be inactive ... . Let me spell it out. You'd have two seats, East and Middle. Congratulations, Lord of the High, Higher, and Highest Justice! On a serious note, a separate "Supreme Court" built into the system has a lot to recommend it. In particular, this would disentangle one element of governance from corporate structure, a good thing given our international reach. But governance, even of the game aspects, could not be only a matter of appeals. Unless you think that we can fix the common institutions of the SCA at this point in time. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 15:26:38 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 14:59:14 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Alysoun: Hossein-2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L about dictatorships, protecting the rights of the majority and the minority, mentalities, values, et al - perhaps we might come up with something along the lines of a Bill of Rights? something that isn't By-Laws, but is more official policy? (i have no idea what such a thing would look like, and in fact this is very off-the-cuff - but what we might need to do is something between This is The Dream (tm), the Landmarks discussion, and the Intent Behind the Rules?) am i making sense? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 14 15:31:10 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 15:04:17 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: SCA Supreme Court? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L cariadoc comes up with a Court of Appeals, and staffs it with a) crown appointees, b) crown with great officer approval appointees, c) senior active dukes or senior active counts. as a group, crowns and former crowns would have a decent collective wsdom. i'd like to add an alternative: d) kingdom seneschals, either d sub1) active kingdom seneschals (those still in office), or d sub 2) retired kingdom seneschals who weren't kicked out of office. or, for that matter, leave the appointment process (not just the appointments themselves, but how the appointments are made) up to the kingdoms. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Oct 15 05:46:17 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 10:15:46 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: SCA Supreme Court? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... for that matter, leave the appointment process (not just the >appointments themselves, but how the appointments are made) >up to the kingdoms. Yes. /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Oct 15 06:08:56 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 10:38:54 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Caroline -- Grand Council Leadership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > There are at least 3 people currently interested in this leadership > role (in alphabetical order): Alysoun, Baron Corwyn da Costa, and > Tibor. If any of the rest of you wish to be considered for this > position, speak up! > > Catrin has volunteered to take votes, and Terras has as well. I > suggest, Catrin, that you pick a deadline for voting, so that we'll > all know when to let you know by. (And non-email available people can > perhaps contact Terras to voice their opinions, since they're all in > the US and international snail mail is a pain.) If we're doing things by e-mail (or phone to Terras & e-mail from Terras=20 to me), I'd say one week from the proposal we're voting on. If the above *i= s*=20 the proposal (Alysoun, Corwyn or Tibor for GC chair), I'd have said next=20 Monday, but that's the Monday after the Board meeting. Let's give people a= =20 chance to get home, take a shower, have a drink...=20 So the deadline is *Wednesday October 25th*. When you send me your votes, put "GC vote" in the header and don't discuss= =20 other subjects in the posting. I'll be out of town for the next four days a= nd=20 will be deluged by e-mail when I get back, so I need to be able to get hold= =20 of the relevant stuff fast.=20 (Caroline, what, if anything, should we do with persistent non-voters?=20 Maybe we should take a vote on that? Or discuss it with the chairperson whe= n=20 we have one?) /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 00:29:55 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: David Friedman Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 20:35:44 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Friedman Subject: Re: Finnvarr: SCA Supreme Court? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr writes: >Formulations like this make sense on one level; but let us remember that >Kingdoms have as unrepresentative and irresponsible a power structure as the >Corporation as a whole (the Corporation is in large part responsible for >this). If our concern is to have more responsive and less tyrannical >government, handing over power to the Kingdoms as they exist is maybe worse >than the problem it is meant to solve. That is not quite what my basic proposal does. When a kingdom becomes independent, its proposed legal form must be approved by vote of the membership. So if the membership wants an elected Board of directors for the kingdom (the obvious form of democracy) they can have it. Of course, there remains the possibility that whoever currently runs the kingdom will have enough influence to get a majority vote of the membership for an unrepresentative system run by him. In the mineral collecting hobby, incidentally, a local club that wants to join a regional submits its bylaws, constitution, or whatever for approval. My mother-in-law had never heard of a case where such a submission was refused. On the other hand, given general U.S. mores, I expect that virtually all of them involve election by the membership. If the Board ends up making itself elected, it would not be unreasonable for it to require some form of democracy in the corporate structure of an independent kingdom. As things stand, on the other hand, it would be hard to imagine the Board making such a demand with a straight face. Here again, I am inclined to first get agreement on the general idea of an association structure, than argue about the details, especially since this detail is one we have to argue about anyway--at the central level. >This appointment procedure would be OK if there was some representative >element in the selection of the appointers. As of now there isn't. If we >are going to have self-selected elites, why not stick with the self-selected >elite we have now? You could have elected judges instead of my proposal, but I doubt it would be an improvement. There simply is not going to be enough interest in a kingdom with two thousand members in who is going to judge an unknown set of cases over the next two years. >>Alternative III. The judge from each kingdom shall be its senior active >>duke, ... >Hey, this leaves me out entirely :-), since I never had a second reign in any >kingdom. Careless of you. A few more points: 1. There may be a problem with an elected Board of Directors at the kingdom level--or for that matter a powerful unelected board. We get a lot of dramatic mileage out of pretending to be monarchies. The pretense may wear thin if it is obvious that the king can only do what his Board permits. That is less of a problem now because the Board is farther away. One solution is a Board with sharply limited powers over the game. Another is an independent kingdom with independent local groups. In that form the kingdom corporation has a good deal less power, and the King's power comes largely from his ability to get the barons and other influential local people to follow him. This has the (to me very attractive) feature of making the real underlying political struture of our game more like that of the historical societies the game is supposed to be based on. I like to think that one of the defining characteristics of a feudal order is that the combined armies of the barons are much larger than the army of the king (net of the barons), so that a successful king is really a coalition leader. 2. When considering the problem of kingdom tyrants (I suspect Finnvairr and I may have some of the same examples in mind), it is worth remembering that democracy is not the only way of limiting them. There are at least two others. A. Weak central structures. Consider a kingdom of legally independent groups. If a king gets sufficiently unreasonable, even if he completely controls the kingdom (i.e. putting aside the possibility of a kingdom BOD), people just ignore him. If he tells them that if they let people he has banished attend their events, he will drop them from the kingdom, they let him--and rejoin after his reign is over. B. Competition. I don't want to get tangled up in this issue now, since it is a contentious one, but one way of controlling bad kings and, more seriously, bad elites in long-term control of a kingdom, is to give groups and individuals the option of walking--shifting their allegiance to another kingdom. We don't want to make this too easy, but in my view we also do not want to make it impossible. 3. My impression (again largely from my mother-in-law) is that what democracy means in practice in a large volunteer organization is rule by a self-perpetuating group, with mechanisms by which the populace can change the membership of the group if the populace is sufficiently unhappy with them. In her part of the mineral collecting hobby, the officers are elected, but in practice the one elected is almost always the one nominated by the nominating committee, which includes (I think) the current officers. On the other hand, there is a fairly easy procedure for nominating other candidates, which gets called into service (rarely) when the nominating committee makes a decision that is very unpopular with the membership. I should perhaps add that in her hobby, I think in part because it is organized as an association, being an officer is enormously less work than in ours. My vague memory is that, when she was either number two or number one in the Midwestern Federation (their normal pattern is that the number two officer--I think first vice-president--serves for a year and is then elected as number one officer--I think president) she said the job took her an hour or two a week. She spent much more time than that on the hobby--but as a participant, not an officer. The Midwestern Federation is larger, in both membership and area, than the Middle Kingdom. At one point there was some sort of internal conflict within one of the large local groups. She was involved as someone whom both sides wanted support from--but she had no official role at all, since the group was a member of the Regional not, as in our system, a part of it. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@best.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 09:18:25 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3450 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 08:45:48 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Proposed Variant to Cariadoc Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >From Gallardon de Crecy, by Tibor Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Fri Oct 13 17:04 EDT 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:03:17 -0400 Message-ID: <951013170316_123321724@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Proposed Variant to Cariadoc Proposal Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2968 Please forward to GC This is in many ways based on the Cariadoc proposal, but spins of the Umbrella organization earlier. This may be highly desirable if we find that such an umbrella corp would be eligable for a 501(3)(c) but one whose activities included actually running our sorts of events, or one with the history of SCA, Inc., would not. By making the the different responsabilities and costs of the International and the regional organizations explicit early, it helps guide those who are trying to decide if a large or a small regional organization is better for them. It also differs from the Cariadoc proposal in smaller details. Umbrella Organization: Knowne Worlde, Inc. (A new, fresh slate, organization) Determines common standards and practices for member regionals, allowing considerable leeway Publishes TI, CA, and other material of interest to Scadians Offers advice and counsel to regionals if they request Individual membership in Knowne Worlde, Inc gets you TI Outsources many management functions, as per Bertram proposal Regional Organizations (generally at least one per country) Responsibilities, directly or through branches: Provides corporate shield against liability for officers Provides insurance required to hold events in their jurisdiction Enforces combat standards necessary for safety and insurability Responsible for maintaining necessary financial records and Tax Reports of its activities Produces and delivers kingdom newsletters Responsible for raising funds required to support the above purposes (economies are possible if it outsources management functions and uses same Association Management firm as Knowne worlde, Inc.) The members of the regional organization would decide how to organize themselves, as Cariadoc suggests, by putting the proposed organization to the vote of the paid members in that region. It is important that there also be a method by which the members can amend the bylaws, so that if the choose a "King's Word is Law " structure they are not saddled with it for all eternity. I would anticipate that at a fairly early stage in the transition the former SCA would consist of the umbrella organization, the non U.S. groups, and a regional group containing the United States and foreign groups without enough critical mass to form their own regional. Individual U.S. kingdoms could form their own regional if they wanted to take on the responsability. Or the above arrangement might be the long term preference of the members. Kingdoms crossing national borders? No problem, you have two separate organizations, appointing administrative officers according to their by-laws, with the same ceremonial head. Independent regionals within a kingdom? No problem, the independent appoints its own officers, but recognizes the Monarch as ceremonial head for the purpose of awards and such. If monarchist, they could submit their appointees for royal approval. Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 09:43:27 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1393 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:14:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: non-profit/not-for-profit status To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01HWET5JV3GM8ZG1T1@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Oct 14, 95 00:34:30 am why should we remain a 501(c)(anything) corporation, rather than a simple for profit corporation? Alban, there are very few particular reasons why we should remain a tax-exempt organization. The issue of what to do with profits is another, separate issue. I'd like to see us keep the profits in the organization, instead of paying them to owners or stock holders. So I wouldn't encourage a for-profit status, myself. Let me dig in my files for a minute.... here are the benefits I could think of when first drafting notes on this topic: --- What does that 501(c)(3) status give us? Tax free status deductible donations shield from D&O liability free or reduced cost sites reduced cost postage reputation --- We don't really need the tax free status, and the issue of deductible donations is probably moot: most of our donors are not in a position to effectively use the tax deduction, I suspect. The D&O shield is useful, but can be replaced with cash, for the most part. The postage benefit is being phased out (says Bertram). The issue of reputation is of diminishing value. (I am sure that most people we need to impress would be just as impressed if we said "Educational nonprofit" instead of "Educational tax-exempt". I bet that is what most people say, anyway.) The loss of free or cheap sites would, however, be significant. Surmountable, but significant. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 10:19:02 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 112 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 09:44:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: A few replies to Tibor To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Message by Morgan, forwarded by Finnvarr. --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- Hello to Tibor, GC, and the other readers: I said: However, Tibor was not submitting his brief for consideration and review by the GC; he clearly indicated that he had already submitted it to Board members for action. This is not the same. Tibor replied: I had thought posting it here was an obvious call for feedback. Sorry if that wasn't apparent. You very clearly said in the letter, as it was sent (according to you, in the opening to the letter) to the Board members who have email addresses, and posted to the GC and Midrealm lists: "This letter and the accompanying legal opinion letter are notice enough. You cannot fail to act, in some way. At best, you should seek a binding opinion (letter ruling) from the IRS that the SCA is still a valid exempt organization." This reads more like a command to the Board members than a request from feedback by other members of the GC or any other person/party. In our discussion of University/SCA funding, Tibor answered me: So? The University group buys what it should have, and the SCA group buys what it should have, and so it goes. Where is the problem? * * * What's the beef? We don't need duplicates. And what about comingling? Should the University group buy blue bowls and the SCA group buy white ones, so we can tell which ones belong to which group? Do we need to get two beverly shears? I'm the Exchequer, and *I* have to do the ferschluggin' paperwork, which is convoluted enough! Please do NOT go making extra trouble for us poor folk! Esclarmonde said, in response to a comment I made about the unfairness of eliminating a corporation's tax-exempt status because someone stole from it: The IRS' theory and I CANNOT GET INTO DETAILS is. Sec. 501(c)(3) forbids _any part_ of the net income of an exempt-organization to go to those having a private interest in it, esp. those with decision making authority and their families. The courts have consistently held that "no part" means not a bloody penny. How does this tie in with state statutes allowing reasonable compensation etc. to the officers, directors, and employees? Wouldn't these payments come out of the net income? Or are they an expense off the top? And I wish you could get into the details, because I would like to know how the IRS can justify removing tax-exempt status from a corporation when it is the victim of a criminal act. =================================[ ADDENDUM ]===================================== A number of persons asked how the tax-exempt status of the SCA affects members, since most do not take anything off on their taxes. I have itemized for a LONG time (stock revenues, mortgage, all that icky stuff) and I have never taken off any part of my SCA membership, although I take off a lot of other donations. It may be that I simply have missed something, since I tend to renew in two-year-or-longer chunks, and my membership dies in a few months. Can someone who has renewed or joined more recently cite where the information states how much of the membership can be deducted? I do know that many payments to tax-exempt organization, such as my professional groups, are NOT deductible on my taxes. Into which group does the SCA, Inc., fall? Also, maybe Esclarmonde can correct me, but in her postings she indicates that if the SCA loses tax-exempt status, it would have to pay mucho dinero in back taxes. My understanding is that a tax-exempt group does have to pay taxes on profits garnered in those activities which are not part of its stated or central activity, but does not pay taxes on those activities which are. For example, the SCA, Inc., would probably have to pay taxes on profits from the SCA Marketplace but not TI or CA. {BTW, sorry if I mangle the spelling of any names, there's a reason I chose the simplest spellings of my name.......} ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 11:19:48 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 59 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:42:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Re Cariadoc's response to me To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >So if the membership wants an elected Board of directors for >the kingdom (the obvious form of democracy) they can have it. I'm not sure that this is the best way of putting democracy in the SCA. There is some point in having an elective BoD for regional (kingdom) corps., for those rare issues that crop up on the real-world legal level that require the legitimacy of representative government to resolve. But many of the things that get people stirred up in the SCA are purely within the game structure, where we have almost no representative elements at all. The Corporation actively discourages representative government. Thus we have less of it than many communities had in the real Middle Ages. Having a lot of business dragged before an elected Board of Directors for the Middle Kingdom would be, to my mind, no improvement on what we have now. Simply, that group would be too remote and too "unmedieval" to grease the political wheels the way they should be greased. For policies and decisions to be made well in a large kingdom, some kind of representative element must exist within the medieval, game structure. >>Hey, this leaves me out entirely :-), since I never had a second reign in >>any kingdom. >Careless of you. The word is not careless, it's "economical." >1. There may be a problem with an elected Board of Directors at the kingdom >level--or for that matter a powerful unelected board. We get a lot of >dramatic mileage out of pretending to be monarchies. The pretense may wear >thin if it is obvious that the king can only do what his Board permits. I share this concern. As above, I do not think that our discontents are entirely addressable by changes to our legal status in the real-world framework. I am more concerned that my SCA interests are represented in a sensible fashion within the medieval structure of the Principality and Kingdom. And not just because I am a senior duke with two peerages. That the power of the corporation inhering in seneshcals is used to discourage such sensible expedients as Councils of Landed Barons and Baronesses, and concentrate power in inner councils of appointed officers is one of the worst aspects of the current structure. > Consider a kingdom of legally independent >groups. If a king gets sufficiently unreasonable, even if he completely >controls the kingdom (i.e. putting aside the possibility of a kingdom BOD), >people just ignore him. If he tells them that if they let people he has >banished attend their events, he will drop them from the kingdom, they let >him--and rejoin after his reign is over. This would have its advantages. How you suggest making it possible for people within a kingdom to insist on their right to form a legally independent group without being expelled from the greater community. The rock-collecting method of holding elections is in line with many academic organizations. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 12:22:01 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 11:40:20 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: alban -1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L something's been niggling at the back of my mind for the last two weeks or so, with the most recent set of discussions that've focussed on cariadoc's association plan, finnvar's glosses of that plan, the supreme court, tibor's tax case, and our collective thoughts as to what would replace the sca if tibor's tax case actually does wind up in the dissolution of sca, inc. cariadoc? finnvar? the rest of you who've commented on this? could you tell me, precisely, how this association plan will solve the problems _currently_ facing the SCA, Inc., and its board of directors? we've been commissioned to correct errors in the present structure? not to toss the whole thing out, and replace it whole hog with a completely new and different governance, with new and different errors? cariadoc's association thing is quite attractive (i really do like it) - but i think it's just _too_ radical a change for now. neither the board of directors, nor more importantly the vast membership, is going to accept this thing at the first board meeting after we send it in. if the grand council does eventually adopt the association plan, we're going to have to do really major and long-term public relations work to persuade both the board and the membership that the plan is indeed the best way to go - and, more importantly, we're going to have to implement it over years; which means we're going to have a detailed plan for the changeover, which means we're _still_ going to have to keep the present system for a while longer, and _that_ means we still need to focus on what changes the present system needs. what i think i'm trying to say is, let's not get too involved in constructing The Perfect System without also being aware of how to get there from here, in stages - and whether it's even possible to get there at all. alban, who is, yet again, reminded of the constitutional convention of 1787. ("damned politicians! we elected them to correct the articles of confederation, and they went and dumped the whole thing for that damned new constitution!") From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 12:40:42 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1545 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:56:39 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: non-profit/not-for-profit status (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Again, forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor.] Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Mon Oct 16 10:31 EDT 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 10:27:23 -0400 Message-ID: <951016102723_74469363@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Re: non-profit/not-for-profit status Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1124 Please forward to GC Galleron here It is important to remember that the real killer about giving up our 501(3)(c) status is that we couldn't keep any of our assets. All money, including that in the accounts of local branches, wouild go to some other tax-exempt organization. Ditto for anything we bought with funds that passed through those accounts, or made with materials so purchased, or which our members counted as a donation. Anything the new organization wanted to keep, from crowns to tent-ropes, would have to be purchased from the SCA.. At fair-market prices. Don't forget that our new tax liability would include state taxes. In Pennsylvania, where I live (and where they hold Pennsic), the tax is 6%, of gross revenues rather than profits. Not a big percentage, but if you figure you go to Pennsic and several events a year, you could easily be out five dollars more per year. Not a lot of money in absolute terms, but then neither are the membership rate increases that provoke howls of outrage from various quarters. The real cost, however would be giving up our assets. Galleron de Cressy/Will McLean From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 14:38:51 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 12:42:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Out of town To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I will be overseas and out of touch with e-mail between October 23 and November 7. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 15:40:29 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:09:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: standing committees To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun Alban (Alban 1) speaks for me as well. Eventually something along David's model will be the practical choice for administrative reasons (see his point on volunteer vs paid work). We may be at a juncture where something of this sort would be appropriate for Europe and other distant areas--especially since it includes options to fit the needs and interests of different groups (see Catrin's report). Pushing it whole hog is counterproductive. Unless we have good reason to believe that the board will entertain a massive structural change, we would be drawing yet another battleline instead of working toward a way to pull ourselves together. We would also miss the opportunity the GC has to make recommendations which would improve current conditions and strengthen all parts of the organization, which would be essential to enable future changes. I hope to follow Finnvarr's lead and bring out my suggestions from the membership committee later this week. In preparation for this, I want to explain how I think standing committees work and why I will be pushing them in future discussion. In earlier chronicles I said that one way to balance the board is to have entities of established expertise. At that time I was stressing the seneschal system which I think is our best bet for real representation. Another type of entity is the standing committee. This is a permanent body which is focused on one particular dimension. It differs from a working committee by having an on-going task. Standing committees would be useful in reducing the workload on board members and in providing support for great offices. They are a way of including more people in high level decision making and a way of tapping specialized talents. We have many people who can contribute professional expertise to a particular area but who lack the time and interest to become board members or hold a high office. Currently we have no way to utilize this expertise or to share that knowledge with other people interested in working in that area. In addition a standing committee is in a position to develop long-range plans. I will be focusing on standing committees at the board level, because the GC reports to the board. Almost any standing committee at that level should have a parallel standing committee on the kingdom level. I would rather not get into the issue of whether this is something the board should require of the branches. Rather I would like to think that the usefulness of having kingdom-level standing committees would be apparent to the kingdoms, and in some cases even to lower branches. The royalty and kingdom officers should see the need for sound advice based on consistent monitoring and planning; the people should see it as a mechanism for sending input to the board-level committee and for developing a knowledgeable body of people who could serve on that board-level committee. Because I think that it is important that such committees have a high percentage of members with experience in the particular field, I do not see them as representative in the sense of elected from the general membership. At the same time, emphasis on this experience should make the committee less susceptible to stacking. The tricky part is getting them set up, especially in the present divided and highly charged atmosphere. Once in place, a committee system would be able to draw talent and ideas from the membership and this consideration should be less of a problem. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 17:01:37 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 276 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:14:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan's Monday Missive To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >From Morgan, forwarded by Finnvarr. >>>>> Because I am replying to a number of messages, I am going to run them together instead of saying "Morgan to Alysoun: Hossein-1" or whatever. I find those subject lines MUCH less helpful than ones stating the general subject of the thread, BTW. That's just me. Also, I am going to respond to only the "hot points" in the messages since Thursday, to try to keep this message from being 12K long! Since I am only a guest on this list, I am trying to keep my communications few and concise. Alban asked: >> the tax filings would be similar, we'd wind up paying some >> income tax (depending on how many "profits" we'd make), >> we'd wind up having a couple of members losing minor tax >> deductions - but we wouldn't have to worry about meeting >> the irs requirements for educational, etc., support. The filings are NOT similar for NFP and for-profit corporations. There would be the complications about payments to shareholders, if any. One advantage I could see of membership is that we could tie shareholding with the membership, so that each member owns a share of the corporation. Alysoun suggested that "untrained voluneers" do everything by telephone in an unorganized manner, and this is part of the SCA culture. [Summarization, sorry if it is clumsy.] I agree and disagree. I think that the culture has been "this is a game, this is not supposed to be work" and that is why a lot of people rely upon a telephone tree. However, I have seen other groups, such as DAR, rely upon telephone trees. And as an officer, I can attest to the quantity of paperwork which I must produce quarterly. y:( Justin commented on Cariadoc's restructuring proposal that: >> The counter-argument will undoubtedly be made that this will >> mean that the SCA will be somewhat less homogeneous, which is >> probably true. * * * It *does* presume that the central body >> has some control over the game, so things wouldn't wander too >> far. I think that, in practical terms, it requires a codification >> of SCA Landmarks . . . . . Whatever. I have found that there are elements in every Kingdom which are different from others; the wrestling every Pennsic (and other major War, but this is the one with which I am most familiar) about whose fighting standards will apply indicates that we are not as homogenous as people things. I have seen fighters, artisans, and others have trouble adjusting to the new culture of a new Kingdom, and having lived in more than one Kingdom, I can attest that they have different cultures and already the SCA is far from homogenous. Finnvarr suggested "alternative voting." I have seen this work very well, in the following scenario: Each vote is given 'weight,' so that a First-place is worth three, a Second is worth two, and a Third is worth one. Each score is based upon the number of each type of vote multiplied by the weight, and added together. Thus, something with LOTS of second-place votes and no firsts can win over something with a few first-place votes. Tibor said in response to Cariadoc's proposal: >> Would there be a centralized 501(c)(3) exempt organization >> that has a group exemption? Or would each group be >> required to have its own 501(c)(3) exemption? The paperwork is a lot simpler if each group/Kingdom is its own corporation. >> Where would the funds come from for incorporation? What >> are the legalisms of that? In Illinois, it has to come from the individual incorporators. It canNOT come >from any existing SCA-based account. >> Local groups, and Kingdoms have assets which are (right now) >> assets of the SCA Inc. We'd have to find a way of getting >> those assets distributed, . . . . . The cleanest way to is arrange a purchase or gift from the SCA, Inc. There has to be some documented transfer of ownership. >> What if the local Kingdoms choose to incorporate as a nonprofit, >> or under a foreign government? What would the relationship be >> at that time? First Question = Some of them may be REQUIRED to incorporate under foreign (non-USA; in the legal field this can also mean other-state, but I believe this is not what Tibor intends here) jurisdictions because that is where they are located. Second Question = This is why we need an umbrella organization of some type, to oversee and keep the communication going. Corporations can agree to work together no matter where or how incorporated, although if they do joint fundraising etc. the contracting can get a bit painful. Tibor talked about the fencing peerage, how one Kingdom would insist upon this and others would fight it. This is why we need the umbrella group. One handy thing is that they can set up the OPTION of following a given part of the overall programme. If a Kingdom elects to follow a peerage, they must do so within the overall guidelines set up by the umbrella organization. If they elect not to, they cannot set up a parallel peerage. But they do not have to follow ALL the peerages or awards. Tibor asked "How can we deal with the rogue king concept?" Given that the royalty is of limited duration, we can probably wait them out. I am used to waiting out dingbat (my word, meant somewhat fondly and not exclusively perjoratively) presidents of various associations, who govern for a year, sometimes two. Either everybody else overwhelms them, or you ignore them and point out how a given idea cannot be implemented because the gears that were set in motion are either too well-oiled or too rusty. [And anyone on the GC who has been royalty can feel free to jump all over me for this comment.] Finnvarr had a couple of comments on Cariadoc's proposal: >> 3. Financing of the central organization. It would have >> important duties. This can be a percentage of membership from the Kingdoms, or other groups, as their way of "buying into" the umbrella group's services and authority. >> 4. Selection of the Board. I don't want the Kingdoms to >> control the Board; I want the Board to be a countervailing >> force. Agreed. Also a point: royalty comes and goes, the Board sticks around. They can do a lot more long-term work, and have a more global and longrange view. Justin added "If the Kingdoms have some real power, I am *much* more willing to have a fairly independent Board..." I do NOT want the Board to turn into another level of inter-Kingdom power struggles. And I don't want the Board members to just be Kingdom appointees; I have seen the Curia get FAR too insurlar and self-regenerating. They'd appoint their cronies (which is NOT as perjorative a term in Chicago as it seems to be in other parts of the Worlde) and I'd worry that the appointee would be sent with an agenda. Cariadoc replied to Tibor: >> I assume most local groups will be unincorporated >> associations. My understanding is that there is no tax >> reporting requirement if income is below some fairly >> substantial amount, so small to medium groups can avoid >> any dealings with the IRS. As Esclarmonde noted, it would be better to file even a token report, as a way of affirming that you have done the paperwork, so the IRS can't come back later and hit the group with penalties, etc. As to the idea of unincorporated associations, *shudder!* This puts the net worth of the officers and other persons in charge on the line. Tibor said in another message (I think to Alban) that "The D&O shield is useful, but can be replaced with cash, for the most part." I would not want to bet my home on that. If the protection is not there, the judgment can and will go against the individuals. I can also lecture you on "piercing the corporate veil" as well a the exposure of persons in partnerships and other non-incorporated associations. {Sorry folks, I have a mortgage and a few items I would really not want to lose in a liability suit. I intend to get a car soon, wouldn't want to lose that either. If you have no net worth, maybe you feel differently.} Tibor told Cariadoc: >> Exemptions take a long time, and can cost money. I have not found this to be unduly so, but I do this more regularly than he. >> A Group exemption allows a centralized organization to >> extend it's exempt status to organizations that are >> similar in purpose, and in doing so it must certify to >> the IRS that the sub-organization is aligned with its >> own exempt purposes. * * * Monies would be kept under >> the Employer ID of the subsidiary group, not the parent. I think the latter is true. As to the former, this would be easy if the umbrella/parent organization required the subs to follow certain rules and guidelines and received reports on same. Sort-of as the SCA does now. And I know a number of reasons why *I* would not want King Richard's Faire (locally held version is now called Bristol Ren Faire) to be a Laurel Kingdom: it's tacky, the pickle guy is obnoxious, they violate animal safety regulations, and this year there were several incidents of rape (primarily statutory) by the "knights." That's just off the top of my head. I do have a different feeling about the magazines. I get from the ABA and others a main journal every month, plus newsletters or magazines from the various committees and sections to which I belong. These do seem to be related to the purpose of the group. [Please, let us not get into another discussion of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(7) and those details right here.] Hossein made a number of good points in his discourse on "Governance and Safeguards." Like Finnvarr, I worry more about tyrrany on the local level than Hossein, but I have seen smaller groups being taken over by a household which then runs things much as they please. Worse yet if there is a person of strong personality who takes control, whether seneschal or merely advisor. I would agree to giving power to non-members as long as they agree to follow certain precepts and as long as they are contributors to the group. I do not want some of those hotpants-and-bikini Pennsic-only members to have a great say in things. My prejudice. I think that to some extent, I prefer people to be judged by quality (and to an extent, quantity) of input, rather than whether they have a little yellow/blue/whatever card and the number thereupon. Membership can have legal benefits, but it should not be the determinant of whether we allow someone to play the game. I was interested in Cariadoc's suggestion of an "SCA Supreme Court," but I am not sure we want a representative from each Kingdom simply because this can get to be unwieldy. The reason the Supreme Courts of the state and federal systems in the USA work is because the justices are located in the same place. It could be difficult to get all the justices from all the Kingdoms together, unless we agreed to a majority/percentage attendance rule, or that hearings could be without oral discussion, or that some could listen to tapes. As for the suggestion about the most senior Duke, I would expect that the Kingdoms would prefer it to be a Duke who rose through their systems and not one who simply moved into the Kingdom, which could lead to opportunism. [Tongue equally firmly in cheek?] Cariadoc noted that there may not be enough interest in elected judges. He must not have paid attention to the elections in Chicago while he was here -- or was His Grace speaking of lack of voters, not lack of candidates? And you may (or may not, I am much more active in the legal community than he was) recall the fussing about underqualified candidates in recent elections. Finnvarr said that there should be some representative element in the Board, but that now it is comprised of "self-selected elites." My understanding is that people nominate themselves or are nominated by others, and the names are posted for a comment period. After that, the Board makes a selection. I have been told they DO read the letters received concerning a particular candidate, and these may be retained for future reference as to qualification. Galleron de Cressy suggested that the umbrella be a 501(c)(3) but the subs need not be. Interesting concept -- and one that I am not sure would work in practice. If the GC is going to suggest hiring a tax attorney to look at that issue, why not hire a competent corporate attorney to look at the NFP question and the issue of how corporations and other groups could work together to best effectuate the intended ends of the collective? Galleron also pointed out the loss of SCA, Inc., assets to other 501(c)(3) corporations, and the added burden of not just federal but state and local taxes. As I previously pointed out to Tibor, the tax in Chicago is effectively 10% (9.something-large). This is going to hurt many groups. Finnvarr said: >> Having a lot of business dragged before an elected Board of >> Directors for the Middle Kingdom would be, to my mind, no >> improvement on what we have now. Simply, that group would >> be too remote and too "unmedieval" to grease the political >> wheels the way they should be greased. For policies and >> decisions to be made well in a large kingdom, some kind of >> representative element must exist within the medieval, game >> structure. As a historian, you ought to know about representative ruling bodies and the like in medieval days. For the most part, they did not exist, and justice was for the elite. I would certainly not want Peers to be the only persons entitled to review of situations by the judicial body! The practices in period of circuit justic in addition to the baronial courts can be adapted, if you wish, but I suggested a post-1215 model that is more egalitarian. The Council of Landed Barons and Baronesses might be something to explore further. This is far too long, but I've reached the end. A few other things bugged me bot not worth discouring upon. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 17:15:31 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nathan Clarenburg Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 15:30:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nathan Clarenburg Subject: Decentralization and Bungling To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gentles, I like decentralization plans in the abstract, but have a recurring concern over them in the real world. We have enough difficulty filling all our high officer posts now, and even so a significant number of them fail to fulfill their roles on a timely and professional basis. With more chief officer posts to fill, we dramatically increase our chances to bungle on a corporate level. Would someone please tell me what repurcussions may follow such bungling? Nathan nathan@cis.ksu.edu * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * "Nobody ever escaped punishment for unrighteous treatment of a cook." -- Menander's "Dyskelos" (ca. 300 BC) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 16 17:17:50 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 29 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 16:26:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Medieval representation Comments: To: 72672.2312@compuserve.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Morgan said to me: >As a historian, you ought to know about representative ruling bodies and the >like in medieval days. For the most part, they did not exist, and justice >was for the elite. They were far more common than most people think. Representation was sometimes restricted to peers, but often enough there were elections. The franchise was usually very restricted, and voting informal, but not always! Medieval representative bodies above the local level, and even usually at the local level, were very oligarchic by anyone's standards, but not nearly as oligarchic as an SCA kingdom. As I said before, there were many communities in the Middle Ages, especially after the 12th century, that had more representative elements in their make-up than the SCA does. Anyone who doubts this may look at Susan Reynolds *Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe 900-1300* (Oxford, 1984); I wrote an article in TI sometime back on the same subject. We are stuck with a kind of penny-ante absolutism, modified by anarchy. I offered the idea of a Council of Landed Barons and Baronesses as an example of a minimal level of representative government, not as an ideal. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 00:50:28 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 00:10:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Re Cariadoc's response to me To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L if i understand finnvar correctly, he doesn't like an elected regional board of directors because of the lack of control it'd have over the medieval part of the game. so, finnvar, what ever happened to the midrealm's curia regis in all this? thoe regional board of directors would handle business affairs, and the great officers would handle, as they always have, the history side. right? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 10:50:25 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 37 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:09:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Re Alban's interpretation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr >if i understand finnvar correctly, he doesn't like an elected regional >board of directors because of the lack of control it'd have over >the medieval part of the game. Heavens no! I guess I wasn't very clear. I very much favor some kind of representative element being built not just into the business side of the Society, but into the game as well. I certainly do not want the regional board to control the medieval side of a kingdom's affairs except in dire emergencies. But that was not the point I was trying to make. For a kingdom the size of the Middle Kingdom, one council, elected or not, curia or Board of Directors, is insufficient to act as an effective representative body. Either council is (or would be) both too small and too far away from the local groups to do this. However good their intentions, there would be too few people to do the job of representatives. Kingdom officers are specialists and administrators, not representatives, and with any kingdom with over a dozen sizeable groups, there is no chance of them being anything else. This may seem irrelevant to some of you, but think of it this way. The East and the Middle, at least, are far bigger in numbers of members and groups than the SCA itself was a very short time ago. If we have a problem with alienation and lack of accountability in the whole structure, we also have similar problems lower down the line in the bigger kingdoms -- or at least the obvious potential for such problems. We can treat the kingdoms like black boxes -- unquestioned units which we can use, unexamined, to restructure the SCA out of. But I think that would be very unwise. Of course, this assumes we are proposing to restructure the SCA. Does anyone out there favor a less drastic approach than Cariadoc's? Now is the time to speak up! Finnvarr From sca-reform-approval@world.std.com Tue Oct 17 11:27:58 1995 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:06:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Lance Harrop To: sca-reform@world.std.com Subject: Re: Part 2 of 2: Lisa's report In-Reply-To: <3082D34D@msmail.radisys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: sca-reform-approval@world.std.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: sca-reform@world.std.com William Oakenshield writes: > Reading this evaluation of our tax exempt status, one is left with only a > couple of possibilities. > c)we ignore it, take comfort in the fact that no fannish social club has > ever had its permit lifted, and wait until the ax falls in 20 to 50 years > when the IRS examines us finally. > I will now pull out my crystal ball, and tell you that the board will choose > option c. I totally agree that William is reading the BoD right. They will listen to those who have said that the SCA, simply by it's current practices, is meeting the educational requirements of 501(c)(3). And I'm not totally convinced that they are wrong. However, Lisa's report clearly claims that if we ignore her, Tibor, and all the people who claim we are not meeting the educational requirements of 501(c)(3), then we are commiting fraud, because they have told the SCA, Inc that it is not in compliance with 501(c)(3) requirements for tax exemption, so claiming tax exemption is fraud. I am desperately trying to decide if I, and the BoD, can just listen to Solveig when she argues that we are educational, and therefore deserve tax-exemption, or I should listen to Angahard convince Lisa that we are not educational, and therefore do not deserve tax-exemption. It seems that a lot of Lisa's report is premised on the complaints of those who say we don't teach enough and don't have really valid A&S competions, to decide that we are not educational. If I don't accept those arguements about creditation and the educational aspect of tourney fighting, and I don't, then can I conclude that Lisa's report is flawed and that her warning about our ineligability for tax-exempt status is thereby flawed, and therefore her claim that the SCA Inc is commiting fraud because it ignores her report is thereby flawed??????? I've said before I'm all for improving the educational and recreational aspects of the Society. I'm just not sure that killing the SCA, Inc is going to improve the Society. And I hope I don't get into a "IS TO, IS NOT" arguement over this. Si non tibi placet, non emendate agis Leifr Johansson Author: Lance Harrop From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 13:55:28 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3515 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:18:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Cariadoc Proposal: Long Term or Immediate Priority? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: >From WMclean290@aol.com Tue Oct 17 11:01 EDT 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:00:15 -0400 Message-ID: <951017110014_46714439@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Cariadoc Proposal: Long Term or Immediate Priority? Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3190 Please forward to GC Galleron here. Alban and Alysoun argue that the Cariadoc proposal , while attractive in the long run, would not immediately address our current problems, since it would take some time to hammer out the details, obtain consent, and implement it. I would suggest that his proposal is quite relevant to one currrent and pressing issue, the question of the European groups. I gather from Catrin's report that many are in effect actually operating in ways very similar to what is proposed by Cariadoc, and are often required to do so by national law or custom. We have generally managed to continue to function in our relations with these groups by ad-hoc exemptions and by ignoring the issue. We can't do this much longer. The Council can both address these issues and provide a test for the Cariadoc system by suggesting a model framework for the relations between SCA, Inc and a legally separate regional corporation. For example, SCA, Inc would recognize a regional or national corporation as an associated organization if: It was legally incorporated in its jurisdiction Its by-laws were agreeable to its members and amendable by them It was responsible for reporting of all tax obligations incurred by its activities, and for the penalties for failure to do so It was responsible for all legal liabilities arising out of its own activities, and for maintaining appropriate insurance against such liabilities. Its activities were consistant with the purposes of the SCA Its customs were reasonably consistant with those elsewhere in the SCA It did not act in such a way as to bring the SCA in general into disrepute (or at least, into greater disrepute than it may be in already) An associated organization would gain these benefits: It could appoint its own administrative officers Its reporting requirement to SCA, Inc would be very greatly reduced Because they would impose a lesser burden of oversight on SCA, Inc., members of associated organizations would pay a considerably lower membership fee for membership in SCA Inc. If the associated organization covered a smaller area than an SCA realm, it would be ruled by the realm's monarch in all "in the game" matters; awards and so on. The monarch would have only as much of a role in the group's 20th century administration as they chose to give him. While we may get mileage, as Cariadoc suggests, from pretending to be monarchies, I do not think the standing of the monarch in "the game" is necessarily enhanced by involment in 20th century administrivia. The English would not love their Queen so well if she had to do the stuff the prime minister does. The devil, of course, is in the details. Comments? By the way, I can confirm Cariadoc's observation that we work our officers much harder than other organizations. The people I know on the board of substantial tax-exempt organizations put in a fraction of the hours our board does. I personally think our approach is counter-productive; we tend to burn our officers out, making them crispy and unftted for further work, whereas organizations inflicting a lower workload get years of useful labor out of theirs. Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 15:24:31 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 26 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:42:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Galleron's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is an excellent proposal, whatever else we do. The only omission I can see, is that it says nothing about what body would judge if the spun-off areas (particularly important in the case where an entire kingdom lay outside the SCA) are abiding "reasonably" by SCA custom. It would not be healthy to leave all that power with the Board of the SCA, Inc., because then a conflict involving say Sweden or Ontario would all too quickly become a conflict between "us" and "those damned Americans who don't understand anything and never give us any respect." (Been there...on both sides.) On the other hand, these "foreign" SCAs should not be allowed to do whatever they like and still claim to be part of the SCA community, just because they are in a different country. There should be an agreement on basics ("Landmarks" if you will) and a "Court of Appeal" that both supervises the Landmarks and handles in-game appeals like the Board does now. And has the final say on new Kingdoms reaching full status (to protect Principalities >from unreasonable Kingdom establishments). With that caveat, the proposal, if adopted, would do a lot to prevent future administrative and political problems; though not much to solve some of the in-USA ones. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 15:38:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 15:01:01 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A few replies to Tibor To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:01:47 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: A few replies to Tibor >In-Reply-To: <30828D5A@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> On Mon, 16 Oct 1995, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > > The IRS' theory and I CANNOT GET INTO DETAILS is. Sec. 501(c)(3) > forbids _any part_ of the net income of an exempt-organization > to go to those having a private interest in it, esp. those with > decision making authority and their families. The courts have > consistently held that "no part" means not a bloody penny. > > How does this tie in with state statutes allowing reasonable compensation etc. > to the officers, directors, and employees? Wouldn't these payments come out > of > the net income? Or are they an expense off the top? And I wish you could get Precisely. "Reasonable" business expenses, like salaries and operating expenses. See sec. 162 IRC for details. > into the details, because I would like to know how the IRS can justify > removing > tax-exempt status from a corporation when it is the victim of a criminal act. I don't know how the Court will work it out. The problem is basically that the sec. 165(e), which deals with theft losses has not been applied to tax exempt orgs and there are som odd wrinkles in 165(e). My suspicion is that strong cost controls, vigorous criminal prosecution of the malefactors, and strong attempts at restitution might help. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 15:46:13 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 15:06:37 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: standing committees To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951016150956_45963425@emout06.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun suggests: >Standing committees would be useful in reducing the workload on board members >and in providing support for great offices. They are a way of including more >people in high level decision making and a way of tapping specialized >talents. True; on the other hand, they are also an excellent way of creating excess permanent bureaucracy. One almost 100% accurate rule of bureaucracy (in any organization) is that it is self-perpetuating -- even when its nominal purpose ends, it tends to continue on, usually causing trouble as it goes. (This is one reason why the GC was given a self-destruct date, so that we *don't* turn into one of these.) It's not a bad idea; after a fashion, Cariadoc's suggestion of a Supreme Court (which I basically approve of) is just such a committee. We should be careful in suggesting the notion, though. *Specific* standing committees, addressing *specific* needs of the center, are often going to be useful. The notion of committees in and of themselves, though, is somewhat less so -- they're only useful if they really are addressing a clear and present need... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "7. Make obscene phone calls to 1-900-FONE-SEX 2. Research material for term paper `The Musical Genius of Milli Vanilli'" -- from "Top 10 Ways to Combat Boredom" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 16:03:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 15:21:21 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Governance and Safeguards To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 21:46:49 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Governance and Safeguards >In-Reply-To: <199510140608.CAA27654@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> On Sat, 14 Oct 1995, Greg Rose wrote: > The sense of crisis in governance which led to the formation of the > GC was a result of concrete, historical events. It arose from the feeling > that the Board of Directors (and the SCA bureaucracy) had, by imposing > the policies of October 1993 and January 1994 in the particular way in which > they did, violated the fundamental rights of the participants in our Society. > This feeling was compounded by a recognition that this was not the first time > this had happened. The talk of decentralization, accountability, and > reorganization flowed directly from the desire that the majority of > participants be free to play the game as they please while the rights of > various minorities (particularly non-members) to participate were Another concern is the lack of information available to the members about decisions being made in the planning process. We really need to have minutes and reports not just available to the subscribers, but some sort of ongoing digest availalbe to members in TI or the kingdom newsletters. (Atlantia was doing this for a while in the Acorn.) I, for one, would like to see a series of panel discussions at kingdom univiersities about the SCA's governance, purpose, "why are we here" and about how folks become peers, officers, etc., and what those folks do. --Esclarmonde From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 22:17:27 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 21:39:29 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: re Caridoc's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl. I aplogize for the infrequncy of posting, especially as things seem to be heating up right now. I just got back from a week and a half of vacation a few days ago and I'm still not caught up on all the discussion. (Coming home to nearly one hundred e mail messages is a bit disheartening). So here are a few preliminary remarks. Re Cariadocs proposal: Your model is based on the theory that the Kingdoms are going to be more responsive and look out for their members more efficiently than a central corporation. I have had enough experience with bad Crowns not to desire to give them a bigger piece of the pie to grab for, and more than a few times I've been thankful that there were corporate officers to back up their Kingdom counterparts, and to help stomp on Crowns when they got out of line. You presuppose that the Kingdoms will not become (or continue to be- depending on your point of view), tight oligarchic structures. Many Kingdoms seem to recycle the same small group of people throough important jobs. There is no reason to believe those same people would not be on the Kingdom's corporate board. Like Finnvarr, I favor a less radical approach to restructuring, but I would still like to see more discussion on your model. The tax and liability issues are interesting, but would we be able under the current laws to transfer items of regalia technically owned by the Corporation to a newly formed Kingdom incorporation that may not have a tax exempt, non profit status? You mention the option of groups changing alliegences if they do not feel proprly supported as a 'final sanction'. Wouldn't this also apply to entire Kingdoms? As an example: if a Kingdom found itself at odds with the umbrella organization over some emotional issue (say fencing or archery peerages), then that Kingdom might be more likely to try and break with the umbrella organization rather than try to work their problems out. After all, they are already incorporated and under your system are getting little real support >from the central organization. Is the potential for fragmentation really what we want? On multiple memberships- Under your plan, a Kingdom would probably have it's own membership fees to cover it's administrative costs, newsletters etc. Is that a complication we want as well? It seems all around to entail more paperwork for the corp, the kingdom, and the individual member. Serwyl ( who is finding himself buried somewhere underneath the information superhighway) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 23:49:18 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:12:07 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Subject: Re: Cariadoc Proposal: Long Term or Immediate Priority? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L on will mclean's idea to have an association-type group: well, actually, the board could implement such a thing reasonably rapidly for non-american groups. (side note: will mentioned european groups. i was all set to agree with him when i suddenly realized there are also canadian, australian, new zealnder, japanese, etc. groups; let's not forget that.) as new countries come online, it'd probably be not to difficult to incorporate them correctly. i hope. off the top of my head. my difficulties with cariadoc's proposal i realize would be with SCA, Inc., and it's american population base; we have 30 years of history and tradition to deal with, and it ain't gonna be easy doing the transition over. -but in a country with only a couple of years tradition, or none at all, yet, it should be a good thing to Go Association. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 23:51:35 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:17:31 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Galleron's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L finnvar said >The only omission I can see, is that it says nothing about what body would >judge if the spun-off areas (particularly important in the case where an >entire kingdom lay outside the SCA) are abiding "reasonably" by SCA custom. so, set one up. a landmarks agreement body? a dream supporting group? (actually, the names may be frivolous, but an independent group, keeping the landmarks alive, changing them occasionally if need be, and being sure all the groups meet said landmarks, as a body separate from the board of directors, would be a Good Thing.) alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 17 23:53:43 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 23:05:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Re Alban's interpretation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ah, so! so, possible ideas for large kingdoms: elected parliaments. divide the kingdom into small kingdoms. divide the kingdom into principalities, each of which will have its own parliament, with one representative to the kingdom parliament. continue on the same course as before. and, something that occurred to me this morning: since the issue currently at hand deals with the self-government of a kingdom, why are we talking about it? why not let each kingdom whack out its own solution? alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 08:52:54 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:19:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: membership 1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun This past week I have had good conversations with a number of people outside the Council in addition to the significant posts that have been in the list. I have heard about the difficulties of colleges, seneschals who tell group members that the SCA is a "private party", worries about "drift" in the nature of the game, and whether we are not succeeding in enculturating the rapidly growing number of participants. (I also learned that somewhere there is a DAR chapter that does not get important matters in writing, but I am skeptical.) >From the beginning of the Council, there has been a tendency to reduce the importance of the organization in order to reduce the importance of SCAinc. This tendency stems from past political disagreement. While we want to ensure that the situation which caused the most recent grievances with SCAinc, and previous grievances, does not reoccur on any level, that is not the sole purpose of the Council. There are many grave matters distressing people and they hoped we would bring them relief. It has been said before that we cannot separate the mundane and the medieval. We cannot separate the game from human organization. This is stating the obvious: no local groups = no game. Unless we share an understanding of the game (and I look forward to the Landmarks posting) we cannot determine how those local groups can best function or how they can best combine into larger associations. This is not to posit one rigorous model. Rather it is to present one clear ideal which each group can use to evaluate its own organization, to determine its own strengths and weaknesses, and to guide it in adapting to its own unique situation. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 08:56:51 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:19:26 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: David/Galleron proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I think Galleron's proposal of David's proposal makes a lot of sense. I would like to hear from those who would be most directly affected. Catrin should be back from vacation soon. What about others? We have not heard from Bertrik in a long while. Would Australia and New Zealand consider this? Our far-flung members include: Bertrik (Netherlands), Catrin (Sweden), Edward (New Zealand), Frithiof (Sweden), and Isabeau (Australia). The Council would welcome input from others as well. (Hello, Germany? England?) Please feel free to send messages through me. And I remind the Council to allow time for response to reach us. [The next round will be to discover whether Canada considers itself here or there. After all Canada is closer to the United States than Brooklyn is to Manhattan :-)] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 10:35:28 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:55:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Membership 2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun There is considerable debate about our nature: whether we are educational, an educationally oriented hobby, or primarily social. I do not think that people who disagree on this level can agree in any serious way on the game. They may be able to agree on certain trappings (rule by combat, etc.), but because the motivation of their play is different, the game will go in different directions. The same is true for organizational concerns and needs. What a local group should consider as an educational organization will be different from the things it must consider as a social organization. When we consider the question of membership, we should not restrict it to a discussion of who pays what money to SCAinc. The greater question is who is in which game. Can we agree that some people are far enough out that they are not members (even if they pay dues)? Morgan says "I do not want some of those hotpants-and-bikini Pennsic-only members to have a great say in things." Others have mentioned Tuchux. We have debated this in the membership committee where there was some principled objection to any sort of exclusion. However, viewed pragmatically, if we say we are doing *something* we need to have enough of a definition of what that *something* is to know when we are doing it and when we are not. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 12:06:13 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 118 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:22:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan on Galleron et al. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Morgan: >>>> Finnvarr asked if anyone has a better idea that Cariadoc's for the restructuring, and Galleron replied. (Roughly; I don't always get messages in order, but in clumps.) While I agree with Alban's point that the non-USA groups include more than Europe (add to the complication that some are almost purely USA-citizen groups while others have seeped into the idigenous populations), and Alysoun's observation of parts of Canada being more closely affiliated with the USA than parts of the USA are with itself, I think that it is possible to come up with a system of related-but-legally-separate groups which appears from Caitrin's report to be essential for the non-USA groups, and as Cariadoc noted reduces liability on the central organization. However, neither idea is perfect, and I think it behooves the GC to collect the proposals and look at them in concert rather than as independent threads. I do think that the Kingdoms can and should be legally independent, if only to get the management closer to the people and to cut down on some of the gawdawful paperwork. One big reason that the tax filings are late every year (something Tibor, Yaakov, and Esclarmonde harped upon) is that a lot of the exchequers do not file their report timely, and some not at all. The numbers then get crunched at every level up the ladder -- state, Kingdom -- before going to the national level for a final crunching. However, there should be a 'Supreme Court' or some other accountability outside the Kingdom. Serwyl said to Cariadoc that: >> Your model is based on the theory that the Kingdoms are going >> to be more responsive and look out for their members more >> efficiently than a central corporation. * * * more than a >> few times I've been thankful that there were corporate officers >> to back up their Kingdom counterparts, and to help stomp on >> Crowns when they got out of line. I agree wholeheartedly. Cariadoc should have had enought experience in the Midrealm, which is too big to adequately address the needs of its citizens, to know how this can happen, especially when the Royalty tend to come from the same small region of the Kingdom (and the rest of the Kingdom feels underrepresented and/or disenfranchised). Some of it has to do with Kingdom personality, as well, but the different designs and personas of the Kingdoms must be taken into account when designing a model. What works for geologists (scouts, DAR, professional orgs., etc.) may not work for recreationists. As Finnvarr quite aptly noted, "For a kingdom the size of the Middle Kingdom, one council, elected or not, curia or Board of Directors, is insufficient to act as an effective representative body. Either council is (or would be) both too small and too far away from the local groups to do this." In a similar line, Serwyl mentioned a number of concerns that I share, about how "Many Kingdoms seem to recycle the same small group of people through important jobs. There is no reason to believe those same people would not be on the Kingdom's corporate board." We have in Midrealm a self-perpetuating curia and lesser officers, many of whom are married or otherwise related to each other. And if you think a self-perpetuating Board is a pain, think of it when the translation is for a couple Baronies to be running the Kingdom! Finnvarr said, with reference to Galleron's proposal: >> The only omission I can see, is that it says nothing about >> what body would judge if the spun-off areas (particularly >> important in the case where an entire kingdom lay outside >> the SCA) are abiding "reasonably" by SCA custom. The groups with which I am familiar that do this 'franchise' affiliation have ways to ensure that the group adheres to the precepts of the underlying organization. It's this sort of thing that the Boy Scouts use to ensure that a pack doesn't become part of NAMBLA, for a harsh example. You can use reporting back, and other means to ensure compliance, it's not too egregious. Alban suggested: >> since the issue currently at hand deals with the >> self-government of a kingdom, why are we talking about >> it? why not let each kingdom whack out its own solution? Good idea, but I would suggest offering a menu of options (you can tell I do too much computer stuff, right? ) from which they can select, so that the Kingdoms have a jumping-off point. Otherwise, you may find some foundering as they try to figure out what model can be used. We went into similar discussions a-year-and-a-half ago about how to elect memebrs to IKAC and the Board. The consensus in the group(s) I mostly participated in was to offer a selection of methods and have each Kingdom choose one to place in their Laws that would be followed, but without requiring each Kingdom to follow the exact same method. Variances to allow for Kingdom wierdness would be allowed (Palatine baronies, myriad principalities, Crowns changing on different periods, etc.). ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 12:54:45 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:11:04 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: A proposal for reorganization and membership--long and detailed To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In the membership group, we have conducted some elaborate and detailed discussions of various proposals. The recent move to a LISTSERV format seems to have derailed this group, and so instead of conducting the final stage of examining and consolidating various models, we are apparently all to submit our individual proposals. My suggestions for organizational structural change were first offered to members of the board when I served as Deputy Steward. Because of my training and professional experience, I was asked to participate in the organizational restructuring planning seminar held in January 1993. Preparatory work for this seminar began with surveys and response-position essays in October/November of 1992. I had already developed the bare bones of a proposed structure, emphasizing the board's role as primarily the all-important and not-usually-gotten-around-to setting of direction (the vision thing). I saw as the most pressing needs the establishment of credibility for the board and the serious work of changing the then current policy of "doing the decision making for people so that they can play." I am convinced that it is only through involving people in formulating the most important decisions in our organization, setting the direction in which we are to move, that the board will establish credibility with the membership. In many discussions with many people, including some vigorous debates within the membership group, this plan continues to evolve. The core principles have not changed, however. This proposal is based on the premises that 1. the board of directors should be a people's board, not comprised of professional administrators. 2. the board, as the final organizational voice, should be entrusted with the most important decisions, those establishing our desired values and setting the desired direction for our organization. 3. administrators, people specifically selected for skills in these areas, should make primary administrative decisions 4. decisions should be pushed to the lowest level feasible, maintaining accountability to the board to remain true to the established values and desired direction, and ultimate accountability to the people, even those currently outside of the local branch. We are one group, and one people, and we will lose too much to compromise that. 5. it is simply unworkable to attempt to meaningfully separate the modern and the medieval aspects of our organization.. We can pretend, but virtually every decision of any importance in either aspect could have serious ramifications for the other area. Yet we do need to protect our medieval mission from real world intrusions. Events that look like modern ren fairs are not what the SCA is about. Meanwhile we live in a litigious and legalistic society. We ignore this at our peril. Thus we should look for a way for the modern world to inform our medieval structure without dominating it. The rest of this presentation is somewhat detailed. I do not hesitate to present my reasoning in full, because reforming an organization is a delicate and dangerous thing. It should not be done glibly, for organizations die regularly, many at the hands of those who would tinker. So it is important to consider these things carefully. On organizations, movements and other groups I would suggest that we clarify even further some key terminology. These definitions are not mine, but are taken from organizational theory, theory of social movements and sociology. As with all theoretical topics, someone will disagree with just about everything, yet these are fairly well accepted and those who vocally disagree are mostly considered radicals. As with all of the points I make regarding organizations, it will be of little inconvenience to supply limited references if anyone is interested. This is my life right now, as I am immersed in my dissertation (on organizational theory) and these books are piled around me even as I rewrite this. Organizations are created in order to achieve some purposive action (cf. Weick, who suggests that the purpose of organizations is to reduce ambiguity and March and Cohen's "garbage can model" which posits organizations as receptacles in which stuff happens). The organization is a modern structure, dating from the industrial revolution and arising from the field of political economy (Burrell offers an interesting contrast between the ancient craft workshop, the capitalistic workshop, the contracting system, and the foreman system, which lasted until killed by the Labor Management Relations Act in 1947--of these the first clearly did not resemble what we know to be organizations at all, and the second only peripherally so). Organizations can function as an entity separable from any one person. Organizations can own property (actually, and in most cases legally), can address and be addressed, can reform and reinvent and even change goals (e.g. the March of Dimes changed >from an anti-polio to an anti-birth defects organization). Leadership of organizations gains its legitimacy partly through position, though there is always an element of legitimacy to be earned through social means. Movements are not created, they arise around the effective statement of a central succinct idea for some change. Usually movements are social/political and must necessarily be rhetorically based, as the movement's leadership must continually recreate the movement from among its audience. There is no formal membership in a movement--members are self-identified. Generally, membership is episodal and declared based on adherence to the ideas being expressed by the leadership. Leadership is based on an individual's ability to persuade an audience to accept the movement's core ideas. Thus, leadership is usually fluid and transient, although occasionally a particularly effective orator will arise and dominate the field. The movement cannot own property and cannot address, except through a collective voice (e.g. a chanted slogan) and cannot be addressed, except by addressing each follower (e.g. through mass media). Communities are groups of people who are interdependent and organized around the well-being of its members. Membership is granted by the acceptance of the rest of the community, and can be lost by violating community norms. Leadership usually comes from within and is granted by the community based on trust for the well being of the community. Formal structures may exist, but these are maintained through custom and tradition and may be changed or discarded as the community evolves. In the SCA, we have all of the above (and more, including clans, tribes, households and guilds). It is a mistake to simply replace one form with another. A movement, for example, will not look like an organization, and it will not accomplish the same things. Each form has its strengths and weaknesses. A movement, for example, has no core, no center. It is amorphous and ambiguous. It is hard to really have a sense of belonging to a movement for long, and it has little staying power. A movement is exciting, flexible and dynamic. It is most able to respond quickly to environmental changes. An organization will keep pushing us to emphasize money and power. It works to encourage people to attempt to order ever more aspects of its members' lives in particular ways. It is less flexible, but is very efficient at certain tasks, particularly in taking advantage of division of labor. A community will constantly work to influence all of the parts of its members' lives. It is hard to be just partly in a community. A community is concerned with the welfare of its members and will not be confined to a particular aspect of life. Thus a community can be very supportive--and very oppressive--depending on how closely the member matches the prevailing community norms. Communities are stable, and slow to change. These are, of course, ideal types in the Weberian sense. In practice, most social forms tend to look like one of these but still have characteristics of others. Most of the plans proposed build in (or hope for) each of these social forms. The discussion becomes intense when we start talking about which forms are to be dominant and which subordinate. Whatever comes of these discussions, there will still be a Society-as-movement, a Society-as-community, and a Society-as-organization. These are neither interchangeable nor are they separable. It is important to remember that we are talking about social structures, so that to change one thing will impact many other things. We can try to compartmentalize discussion to only discuss membership, for example, but any changes in membership will effect structural changes that are far reaching. As soon as we begin to talk about changing membership, we start work on changing the social structures that are in place. To be a member of a community, an organization and a movement are very different things. Using one term to describe all of these things is equivocal to the point of confusion. I am no fan of the organizational form--I believe that our society has been over-organizationalized and that the organizational form comes embedded with some values that work against what we are trying to do here. Therefore, I do not particularly like the idea of moving toward the creation of still more organizations. There is no safety in numbers. I would like to see some other form utilized--such as a modified collective or even a "virtual corporation", but I do not think that we have the resources to do the sort of pioneering work that would be required for such a bold move. It would be a mistake to confuse the proliferation of the organizational form with a new structure, however. Transforming the Society into a conglomerate or federalist structure would create more organizations and thus compound their biases towards money and power. Transforming the local branches or kingdoms into organizations would change much of what is good in them. They currently look more like communities than organizations, and the more organizational roles are integrated into them, the less they will feel like communities. We will not be well served by a Society of organizations. It would also be a mistake to remove the organizational structures and expect that the same level of efficiency of providing service will be maintained, or that everyone who is currently being served will continue to be served. It is the very impersonality of the organization that allows it to provide universal services. Here I would refer to Perrow's defense in "Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay." We tend to take for granted the benefits of the organization while decrying its shortcomings. The grass is always greener and the Society without the organization would look very different--some of it may be better but much would be worse. Synopsis of a conservative proposal This is why I am proposing relatively little structural change. The role of conservative is not particularly comfortable to me, but as an organizational consultant I have seen, and fear the consequences of major changes, particularly when an organization has already taken a number of hits and when the present leadership appears to be somewhat gun-shy. I propose, then that we should keep the current basic structures, modifying them to accommodate their principal deficiencies. I see three main problems currently: 1. Accountability. The board too easily evades accountability to the people, through self-selection and closed meetings. Kingdoms also need to be held more closely accountable, for with the board's hands-off policy there is no effective check on the power of the Crown (in some kingdoms) or on the great officers (in other kingdoms) or on some other group (in still other kingdoms). It is too easy now for members who are somehow excluded from a local group, or who live in an area not served by a branch, to be lost in the crowd. Kingdoms tend to organize around local branches, and thus are accountable to the leadership of those local branches, not to the members who are not branch leaders. 2. Flexibility. The growth of branches outside of the United States, and particularly outside of North America calls for a greater flexibility in handling many affairs, especially those dealing with environmental matters (e.g. insurance, waivers, liability, public relations). The one organization-fits-all model just doesn't seem to be able to be responsive enough to the needs of minorities outside of the U.S., where a clear majority of members reside. 3. Vision. We seem to be heading nowhere in particular, and this may be good or it may be dangerous. There seems to be no party charged with providing visionary leadership to ensure that we continue to enjoy the things we value most, and improve on the things we like least. This is becoming increasingly important as the ratio of newcomers to old timers continues to grow. We have traditionally relied heavily on an oral tradition and this seems to be proving inadequate as it is now practiced. Meanwhile, new challenges come forward due to changes in our membership and in the environment (e.g. Americans with Disabilities Act, and is anyone prepared with policies for the first time that modern countries with established SCA branches go to real war against each other?) I believe these problems can be addressed adequately (but not perfectly) by modifying our existing structures. Thus I would make most of the changes to the organizational part of things, and shy away from direct changes to the movement and community and other parts. Thus I would propose these structural changes: 1. Charge the board with setting the direction for the society. They would be involved with very few administrative matters, and thus would conduct most of their meetings in public. Their primary task would be to provide a forum (opportunity and structure) for a continuing dialog among the members of the society and to translate these into viable direction statements, to be turned over to the officers for administration. Their task would be similar to what we are doing here, but with greatly expanded input and on an ongoing basis. Note that the board would not simply be responsible for making these value and future decisions, but for developing an ongoing process in order to forge consensus on important issues. I would imagine that they would spend much of their time, especially initially, working to develop ways to involve people in constructive discussion about these important issues. This might include several things already mentioned, such as town meetings, reports by kingdom seneschals, and special interkingdom councils. But ultimately the board succeeds or fails based on its ability to preserve to process. 2. Place most administrative matters in the hands of the existing society-level officers (Seneschal, Marshal, A&S, etc.) and have them meet frequently (probably quarterly in person, and monthly via conference call or continually via computer bbs). They would be directly answerable to the board (as is now the case). They would be responsible for taking the directives >from the board and translating them into general policy. Wherever possible, they would defer to the regions (kingdoms) to implement policies in a way that is sensitive to each regions needs and customs. They would review kingdom policies in sensitive areas to ensure that creative interpretations do fall within the scope of the values and directions collected and expressed by the board (which speaks on behalf of the people). 3. The kingdoms (with whatever balance of officers/royalty/whatever they currently have) would take these policies and translate them into specific actions that fit with their specific regional situation. Thus decisions at this level will usually be more detailed versions of the more general policies decided upon by the society officers which are watched by the board to ensure that these fit within the values and directions expressed by the board as a result of ongoing discussions among the people. 4. Add a new officer, specifically responsible as liason to the modern world, at both the society and kingdom levels. This would be parallel to what was the Executive Director, but would function not as the person in charge, but rather as an officer, on par with the other officers. This would give us someone in each region (kingdom) responsible for keeping abreast of the local laws, ordinances, etc. and able to provide good information to the rest of the officers as they collectively make decisions. This person, for example, would be responsible for researching local laws and ordinances about minors, carrying live steel, alcohol policies, etc., and would serve as primary contact person with the modern media. They would also serve as legal agents, able to serve and be served papers. 5. Create new corporations, as needed, to satisfy modern laws. These corporations would remain as far in the background as is possible, functioning to serve the Kingdoms, not to run them. Where these corporations existed, their chair/president/whatever would usually be the kingdom liason officer. Where there are multiple corporations within one kingdom, the chairs would usually select an officer from among them. 6. Local branches would continue to be formed in order to serve concentrations of members. However, kingdoms would be encouraged to do more to help new branches form (it should not be an uphill struggle) and to provide needed services for those not served by a local branch. As to membership: 7. There would be a lower annual membership fee. I would also encourage a low-cost "transient" category for the unemployed, students, etc. and a steeply discounted family rate. People would be able to attend meetings and events while they are deciding whether they want to join (six-month or one-year trials) at no charge (eliminate the surcharge). But the expectation would be that if you wanted to continue, you would sign on the line. I would consider separating publications from membership (it may not be cost effective to do so), but require that officers secure access to the kingdom and society information newsletters (some groups might pay for officer subscriptions, for example). I would suggest that we allow "scholarship" memberships for new members, after investigating the limitations imposed by our tax status. Overview I believe this would address the accountability issue by clarifying the roles at each level, and by putting the board into regular face-to-face contact with the populace. Real social accountability comes through contact, not through formal oversight or anonymous elections. Oversight by your co-workers "on-the-ground" is usually much more effective than that offered by distant superior officers. Formal recall procedures should be continued, but real accountability will come when the board starts talking to people regularly in open meetings. I believe this would address the flexibility issue by pushing the implementation of policy to the regional level, and by allowing the creation of separate modern corporations, where needed. We would formalize the liason functions to encourage better connection between the kingdom officers and the modern requirements. We would also avoid the potential new problem of losing our unity by keeping the overall direction and general policy decisions at a collective level. I belive this would address the vision issue by freeing the board to do the sorts of things that a board is supposed to do--provide visionary leadership to the organization through guiding its direction. In various times the board will rely heavily on one source or another for leadership, but it always maintains responsibility for the future of the society. But unlike most boards, which meet in secret to consult with the experts of their choosing, our board should be charged with the process of engaging the members in open discussion about the future of the society. I would imagine they would do this through a variety of means, including "community" meetings, publications (perhaps an official version of the Thinkwell?) and perhaps even small structured discussion groups. The main task of the board would be listening, not dictating. . . This is designed to provide specific responses to perceived problems with a minimum of structural change. There is already too much excitement around here! Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 13:10:52 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:45:20 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: missed Cariadoc's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm addressing this to the entire list because I do not know to whom to take my problem. I seem to have missed Cariadoc's proposal. I have received many responses and defenses of it, but I do not have the original post. I receive posts in a digest form. How do I know if I have missed other things? (I keep all digests and have printed them out). Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 13:12:04 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:25:19 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Gareth--response to Cariadoc Comments: To: ddfr@best.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cariadoc asks: "I suggest that Roy reread the Board letter that went out in defense of the compulsory membership decision, and see if it sounds as though its authors favored "greater involvement of the people in the society"--other than the sort of "involvement" that the readers of advertisements have in the goods being advertised. "As to the Mandamus petition ... . Roy does not make it clear whether he believes that the Board's actions in that controversy were indefensible but the petitioners should not have taken legal action anyway (A position I think defensible, although not one I hold) or whether he believes the Board acted correctly in refusing to obey its own bylaws and forcing members who wished to exercise the rights provided in those bylaws to spend quite a lot of their own money in order to do so (a position I think indefensible). But I suggest that the attitude expressed in his comments seems to be "we were doing the right thing--what business did they have jogging our elbows"--which again takes it for granted that it is up to the Board to decide what the Society will be like, and the rest of us ought to limit ourselves to whatever role in the process they assign to us." I respond: I am perfectly aware of the letter from the board that went out in defense of the compulsory membership question, and of the extensive history on the issue, including a (in my opinion) botched survey attempt in TI and an abysmal record of soliciting and receiving informed opinion. I am aware of some of those who have been prevalent in the various reform movements who were abusive from the beginning of the issue, and who were no more an example of courtesy than were the board members. No, I do not defend the letter. But I also do not turn a blind eye to the fact that the board is not a professional body and thus should not be held to higher standards than should be the "leaders" of the various reform movements. There was plenty of error on all sides, and there will likely be plenty more to come. By the time that letter was finally written, the board was clearly on the defensive and in a nearly pure reaction mode. It's members had undergone several shocks, some of which were a result of major miscalculation. So I believe that it was people's legal rights to take legal action against the board. I also believe that the board should have, from the day it was formed, abandoned the absolutely silly position that people should be protected from business so that they can better play the game. I believe the board should have been involved in the beginning with developing serious interaction with the populace--that the policies of having board ombudspersons assigned to kingdoms far away, for example are wrong-minded. However, I also believe that we are a much poorer society as a result of the Mandamus (and other actions). We have not shown ourselves to be a society based on courtesy, but on legal arguments, deception and mistrust. I do not believe it is too late to change things, but those who work for revenge by disrupting everything possible, and those who work to marginalize the disrupters had better both get their acts in order or we will be known as the time in which the Society really died. Not doom talk, but a warning. The most important things, the things that make us not simply another mineral club, are values that are built into all parts of our game. To remove these is to transform us into another mineral club. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 13:12:44 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:05:12 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Gareth--officers ill-trained To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Several have noted the historic and pervasive lack of effective communication within the SCA. However, I would point out three social factors which would lead me to be surprised at any other state, and doubtful that any single rule will change anything for long. 1. People in the SCA (and even in this forum) are fond of railing against bureaucrats and paperpushers. Therefore the people who do well at these sorts of things are told right up front that they will not be welcome and that their efforts will not be rewarded. It is indeed true that there may be some perfect people out there who are skilled in developing policy, personally meeting with people to exercize great charisma in influencing others, and efficiently and effectively communicating in a prompt and regular fashion on paper. Unfortunately, we seem to not have enough of these to go around to fill all of the corporate, kingdom and local branch offices. So in a group in which some are heavier in two of these areas and weaker in the third, guess which get systemically left out? 2. Officers are for all intents and purposes, appointed by the Crown, unless they delegate this to others. Crowns are not selected based on their ability to process paperwork or correspond effectively. Indeed, as Kingdom Seneschal, I required all entrants to the Crown List to affirm to me that they had indeed read the Kingdom and Corpora sections on the responsibilities of royalty. Many felt this to be an unnecessary thing. Note that several of these applicants also had difficulty getting the paperwork done to keep their memberships current. Now everyone makes mistakes, and overlooks things. Regular correspondence is one of my biggest weaknesses as an officer. But those who serve as Crowns are often (certainly not always) almost disdainful of those who are skilled in this area. 3. It is the subculture of fighters that produce Crowns. This subculture is almost anti-literate, and almost proud of it. Check the reporting obligations and records of marshals in those kingdoms which require that marshals be fighters. Communication between officers in the SCA is poor because we do not value it. Sure we would love perfection in our officers, but if something is to go, the ability to effectively communicate on paper will be one of the first casualties. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 13:17:19 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:10:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Gareth--paying for lawyers To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I agree heartily that the SCA should invest in competent legal counsel on taxes and a number of other issues, including civil litigation, activity liability, officer liability, waiver texts, and many other issues. Historically, the SCA has occasionally hired lawyers, and their choice has often been dictated by expense (some lawyers are willing to do a few things for free). Other times, the SCA has secured the services of friends or contacts of board members, or of those in the SCA who are also lawyers. However, it seems that we have as often as not gotten far less than we paid for, and paid not nearly as much as we should have. Most organizations of our size also cannot afford good and regular legal advice. In some cases, it has become apparent that some of those who are members of the SCA have had a difficult time separating their SCA-political involvements from their responsibilities to the organization. So as a question, how much money should we be willing to spend for legal counsel in a given year? "As much as is prudent" doesn't cut it--someone who is not a lawyer will need to make this decision with no more information than what we have. So lets talk dollar figures, albeit round or ballpark. Hundreds, thousands, or ten thousands? Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 14:02:33 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 189 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:22:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: missed Cariadoc's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <688258.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Oct 17, 95 01:45:20 pm Gareth notes: I seem to have missed Cariadoc's proposal. I have received many responses and defenses of it, but I do not have the original post. I shall send him one at once. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 14:06:16 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 13:32:54 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Membership 2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951018095529_126880912@emout04.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >There is considerable debate about our nature: whether we are educational, an >educationally oriented hobby, or primarily social. I do not think that people >who disagree on this level can agree in any serious way on the game. They may >be able to agree on certain trappings (rule by combat, etc.), but because the >motivation of their play is different, the game will go in different >directions. Oh, I don't think the truth is quite as cut-and-dried as that. We've existed with that curious dichotomy pretty much from the beginning, and it hasn't destroyed us. Indeed, my personal opinion is that it's one of the Society's strengths, the sort of creative tension that arises from this Jekyll/Hyde interaction. (Fill in your own opinion about who is Jekyll, and who Hyde.) I suspect we would be considerably weaker without it. Yes, I'll admit that the most extreme anti-educationalists get on my nerves sometimes. But I don't think there *are* any really clear boundaries of what's in and out now, and I think we need to be quite careful in any attempts to draw them. And I *do* think we should err on the side of inclusiveness; while the real extremes might be mildly harmful, I don't think that much short of them is... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Q: Is there a UNIX FORTRAN optomizer? A: Yeah, `rm *.f'" -- Christopher Welty From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 15:38:17 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:00:15 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A proposal for reorganization and membership--long and detailed To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <684640.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> (message from Roy Gathercoal on Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:11:04 -0800) As is usually the case, I agree a lot and disagree a bit with Gareth's proposal. Overall, I'd say that it is minimalist but not bad. I think he glosses a couple of issues too quickly, and I don't like one or two aspects, but I am willing to concede that it would help a good deal while not changing much. Some specifics: I'm not wholly convinced by the argument that Kingdom organizations would be much worse than we have now (although that's damning with faint praise -- Kingdoms are already over-bureaucratized). I do think he makes a compelling point with regard to local groups as organizations; while this might not *necessarily* happen, it is a real concern to consider in any extreme decentralization plans. It does currently help that local groups don't have to spend an excess of time on organizational matters -- we should try not to put too much extra burden on them. (This doesn't rule out decentralist plans, but it is an important issue to consider while making them.) I think I disagree with one fundamental assumption Gareth makes, which is that we are necessarily dealing with a *single* organization. He pretty much universally assumes that we have a single hierarchy and chain of command. It's not clear to me that this is true -- I could easily see multiple organizations existing within the framework of the larger community, serving separate purposes. For example, the "Royal" organization controlling such matters as awards and rank, as opposed to a "Seneschalate" organization dealing with administration. Yes, they are existing within a single framework, and might be viewed in some sense as one; however, we might be able to clarify a lot by separating them and examining their relationships more carefully. (Note for example the American government system, which can usefully be viewed as a number of different organizations from different angles. States vs. Federal; Executive vs. Legislative vs. Judicial. By having these concepts of sub-organizations with distinct tasks, we are enabled to more clearly understand each one's bailiwick, and to place checks and balances between them.) Does this distinction matter? I don't know -- I'm chewing on it. I certainly think we should be open to looser, more "networked" organizational structures than simple hierarchies, though. Gareth's list of problems to be addressed is again minimal, but reasonable -- these are really the critical issues. I would advise some caution on the "Vision" thing, though. He writes: >3. Vision. We seem to be heading nowhere in particular, and this may be good >or it may be dangerous. There seems to be no party charged with providing >visionary leadership to ensure that we continue to enjoy the things we value >most, and improve on the things we like least. We need to be careful here. A group chartered to be "visionary", like any bureaucratic office, is likely to make work for itself, possibly to the detriment of the group. Gareth deals with this somewhat, but I want to emphasize it: this sort of "vision" must be done with *heavy* input from the populace (and an open ear -- the Board has in the past sometimes asked for input and then not listened), and it must always be done with an attitude of "do we need this?". I may be something of a radical, but I think that the Board as a whole must *not* be -- it needs to be pragmatic, and open-minded but cautious. It must not do things simply because they *can* be done, and it should regard it as a positive good when it finds itself not needing to do anything. >Thus I would make most of the changes to >the organizational part of things, and shy away from direct changes to the >movement and community and other parts. Dead right. Among other things, making changes to the movement or community is *much* harder than making changes to the organization. >From a simple pragmatic viewpoint, this is useful. Proposal #1: >1. Charge the board with setting the direction for the society. I might quibble here that it isn't clear to me that the Board of the SCA, Inc. is *necessarily* the right body for this job. But you're right that *someone* probably needs to do this, and the Board isn't a terrible choice. I think we're actually approaching something resembling consensus on this basic issue: that someone needs to have the basic job of "identity", and that if it's the Board that should be their *primary* task. >2. Place most administrative matters in the hands of the existing >society-level officers (Seneschal, Marshal, A&S, etc.) and have them meet >frequently (probably quarterly in person, and monthly via conference call or >continually via computer bbs). They would be directly answerable to the board >(as is now the case). They would be responsible for taking the directives >from the board and translating them into general policy. Mostly yes. I agree with the motivation, but we should also take a *stringent* look at the top levels of the bureaucracy. Do we need all these hierarchies? Do they all need to reach to the top? To take my favorite example, do we need an administrative head of A&S for the Society? I believe not. Particularly if they are going to be meeting regularly, it behooves us to examine whether all these bureacracies are needed, because those meetings are going to cost real money. I believe we need a Society Seneschal, Treasurer, and maybe Marshall. I don't believe any of the other officers need to be involved at this level. (Even those who would still exist, like Laurel KoA, don't especially need to be meeting constantly with the others -- his bailiwick is clear and largely separate.) Also, we *must* emphasize this point: >Wherever possible, they would defer to the regions (kingdoms) to implement >policies in a way that is sensitive to each regions needs and customs. Yes, yes, yes! The center should be mandating as little as possible, and with as much flexibility as possible. *Wherever* possible, we should be pushing implementation down as far as practicable. This is a key point, regardless of what overall scheme we adopt. >4. Add a new officer, specifically responsible as liason to the modern world, >at both the society and kingdom levels. Note that I believe we already have this in the East. Don't know how useful it's proven to date... As usual, membership is one of the points where I have the most quibbles: >7. There would be a lower annual membership fee. Yes, but how much lower? And how do we achieve this? One of the key problems we have now is that a lot of people perceive the center as providing very poor value for the money. Currently there are no checks on the spending by the center, which is a large part of why the spending keeps going up -- without either competition or an effective regulator, it's *very* difficult for any organization to rein in costs. I think we need either that competition or that regulator; that is, either multiple corporations (which is outside the scope of Gareth's proposal, I think) or a *very* powerful internal office designed specifically to keep an check on costs. Without something like this, we're simply not going to be able to lower membership fees, because we're not going to be able to lower costs... In general, Gareth doesn't change much from now, but: > I would also encourage a >low-cost "transient" category for the unemployed, students, etc. and a steeply >discounted family rate. My usual problem with this "transient" category is that it's not dealing with what I see as the major issue -- people who are only mildly active. $20 a year is way too high for people who only attend a couple of events (and, IMO, isn't reasonable). $10 is still pretty steep. Only when you start getting down to about $5 does it make sense, and for many of these people it doesn't make sense for it to ever go higher. This is why I'm in favor of event surcharges *instead* of membership fees (or possibly hybridized with a dirt-cheap membership fee); they make the price of "membership" proportional to one's activity level. Sometime soon, I need to get off my duff and write this up as a formal proposal. >I would consider >separating publications from membership (it may not be cost effective to do >so), but require that officers secure access to the kingdom and society >information newsletters (some groups might pay for officer subscriptions, for >example). Reasonable. I'm strongly in favoring of "unbundling", and I don't like the notion of requiring officers to *purchase* newsletters, but requiring them to have access to (and moreover, to read) those newsletters seems just right... I have one problem in the Overview: >I believe this would address the accountability issue by clarifying the roles >at each level, and by putting the board into regular face-to-face contact with >the populace. Real social accountability comes through contact, not through >formal oversight or anonymous elections. Oversight by your co-workers >"on-the-ground" is usually much more effective than that offered by distant >superior officers. Formal recall procedures should be continued, but real >accountability will come when the board starts talking to people regularly in >open meetings. Yes and no. I don't think we can do without either formal or informal accountability. You're right that it's essential to get the Board in touch with the populace in a very down-and-dirty way, but I think we also need formal checks and balances, for those times when things go awry. (No, I don't expect this to happen next month or next year. But in the next 20 years, I'm *certain* that it will happen at some point.) I'm not particularly wedded to any particular scheme of checks and balances, only that there be something that is actually realistic. (As opposed to the current methods, which are almost impossible to actually invoke, and ineffective even when invoked.) So, overall -- I think it needs some tweaking, but it's not bad. A bit conservative for my taste, and I might not *push* it, but I probably wouldn't oppose most of it either... Oh, and one final point -- this might well be entirely compatible with Cariadoc's proposal. That is, this might be a sensible framework for Kingdoms that stayed "in", even if some opted out of the Corporate framework. I know that that disagrees with some of Gareth's principles, and suspect he would prefer not to see Cariadoc's scheme happen, but I don't see anything in the two proposals that is really mutually exclusive... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "(I really do hear a voice in my head, that tells me what to do. But I say "yes dear" and hang up the phone, and the the voice goes away.)" -- Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 19:21:36 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:49:37 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:37:31 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers >In-Reply-To: <688389.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> On Tue, 17 Oct 1995, Roy Gathercoal wrote: > > So as a question, how much money should we be willing to spend for legal > counsel in a given year? "As much as is prudent" doesn't cut it--someone who > is not a lawyer will need to make this decision with no more information than > what we have. So lets talk dollar figures, albeit round or ballpark. > Hundreds, thousands, or ten thousands? > First, decide what you want your attorney(s) to do. Do you want a corporate counsel that the BoD can call at need? Do you want to budget for occassional consultation? What skills and licenses will you require? As an attorney, my suggestion is that you want the following in some combination. (1) a competant tax attorney skilled in state nonprofit and federal tax exempt law; (2) a competant corporate attorney skilled in California non-profit law; (3) a competant litigator with perhaps a background in sports law who can advise on waivers and litigation. You may wish to approach the California Bar Association and the ABA about firms willing to do reduced cost or pro-bono (free) work for a tax-exempt org. When you have officers, directors, their friends and family, involved, you have the potential for disasterous conflicts. Seperating roles is not easy--which I why FREX I don't represent my family or draft any but the most straightforward papers. On the other hand, it is helpful to have an attorney who knows the subject matter. You may wish to broaden your search to attorneys in related hobbies like RPGs, historical re-enactment, and SF fandom. You might want to put out a call in the kingdom newsletters for attorneys willing to donate time to be an advisory council to work with formally retained council. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 18 19:07:59 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:31:02 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: another miss? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In taking another look at my files, I note that a post I forwarded (critical of one of my posts) did not show up in the digests I received. Did this make it to the GC? Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 09:39:42 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1863 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:04:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Affiliation/Franchise To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: From lsteele@mhc.mtholyoke.edu Wed Oct 18 18:27 EDT 1995 Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 18:26:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Lisa Steele To: Tibor Subject: Affiliation/Franchise Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1391 Please forward to GC list. Let me toss out a few comments on the quasi-independent kingdom under one governing body idea. Although it _will_ annoy a fair number of folks, one possiblity might be to trademark the SCA's cross-kingdom symbols--the name, and perhaps the marks used for peers. This would be time consuming and perhaps cost $1k each (you will need a trademark attorney. I am familiar enough to comment, but not to do the paperwork). This could cause problems for merchants who make medallions, but they could be licensed for a nominal fee ($1 per year and a color copy or sample of each type of medalleon). This would allow SCA-Prime (the central group) to legally keep SCA-Secondaries from using SCA trappings. As for democratic representation, there are any number of historical options. Some of the better documented are those used by the Italian city-states. I do like the idea of encouraging a crown which must compete in a quasi-historical fashion with its landed baron/esses. For courts, why not set up an artibration body--call it the Office of the Chancellor or the Sheriff (if it weren't in violation of GPD 6, I'd suggest Legates) composed of volunteers _with formal credentials in arbitration or mediation_ who handle a certain class of disputes. (Much like the legal recourse to crown justice as opposed to baronial justice). --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 09:43:14 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 760 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:08:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510182249.AA20637@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 18, 95 06:49:37 pm Esclarmonde wrote: You might want to put out a call in the kingdom newsletters for attorneys willing to donate time to be an advisory council to work with formally retained council. I feel that one of the reasons the Mandamus attorney was so ferociously effective, in comparison to the SCA attorney, was that he was being assisted by people in the Society who were knowledgable about both the law, and the Society. Or, in other words, I agree with Esclarmonde. Experience has shown, at least twice (The SCA did switch attornies part way through the Mandamus time period) that such assistance makes a difference. If we want good legal results, we would have to emplace as much effort in getting them, as the attorney will in providing them. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 10:44:26 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 40 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:58:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Morgan >>>>> >> You might want to put out a call in the kingdom newsletters for >> attorneys willing to donate time to be an advisory council to >> work with formally retained council. There used to be a variant of this; I was one, and I think Cariadoc may have been another? But it was dissolved pretty much without notice about the Time of the Troubles. A few lawyers were retained in special positions, quietly. The problem I can see with this panel is that there are a lot of attorneys within the SCA who have no competency in the areas named by either me or Esclarmonde, and who are willing to donate time but may do more harm than good. I would suggest that any attorney chosen for such a panel be actively practicing in at least one of these areas; not be an agency attorney (i.e., employed by government) or other non-practicing lawyer; and preferably have at least some litigation experience or ability to recognize potential litigation and make appropriate referrals. Some lawyers seem to think they can handle anything that arises in their field, and I would rather have someone who understands, f'instance, that just because the corporation has an employment issue does not mean the corporate attorney can handle it. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 11:07:25 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:38:26 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Re: membership-2 (fwds) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Morgan writes] Alysoun aptly said: >> When we consider the question of membership, we should not >> restrict it to a discussion of who pays what money to SCAinc. >> The greater question is who is in which game. A member should agree to abide by the rules of the group of which s/he is a member. The SCA, Inc., covers such a great time period, this has led to much argument, but I think it would be safe to say that neo-Regency-vampire folk and the modern-cabaret-bellydancer folk are Not Within SCA P-O-I. A wrinkle will come if a person can be a member of a Kingdom, which may have different rules than the SCA, Inc., Umbrella (for example, it bans fencing). If the Kingdom must agree to abide by certain Landmarks, then the members of the Kingdoms would also agree to abide by those Landmarks. Persons joining the main organization (if this is allowed under the reorganized model) would agree to abide by the Landmarks also. I am not suggesting that we be as tough as, say, a bar membership where I swear to uphold certain principles and follow a slew of rules. But I think it would be appropriate to require that people who belong to the organization agree to abide by its rules and boundaries. This leads to the interesting argument of non-members. It is quite clear thatmany people (Hossein comes immediately to mind) believe that these people should not be surcharged or prevented from participating. But if people can play the game without following the rules simply by not being members, where does that leave the rest of us? And for those who join, what would be the benefits of membership if they have to follow rules but must tolerate those who do not? [And Brendan ap Morgan, Barony of Arn Hold] writes: Well Met, Alysoun! If a GC lurker may be so bold to reply, I would like to indicate my agreement to you primary point below, and to extend it, in that my experience (14 years, doing a variety of things mostly local) indicates that even when there is fundamental agreement in a local group as to the educational/social focus, there may very well be deep divisions concerning how that focus is taught and acted out. A simple example would be two autocrats trying to put together an elaborate Pas d'Armes, but who cannot agree on whether suspension of disbelief or accomodation of individuals' mundane needs are more important. Same idea, but now at the individual execution level, than the philosophical group level. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 11:19:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:38:34 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: membership-3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun The question on membership is who plays which game. Justin replied: "We've existed with that curious dichotomy pretty much from the beginning, and it hasn't destroyed us." He goes on to consider it a strength and a creative tension. This is all a matter of degree. One vampire in a 100 participants is one thing, 25 in 100 in another. How many vampires can we support before we become an Ann Rice fan club? And of course, the problem isn't any one type: a couple of vampires, a couple of Tuchux, a couple of something else adds up. Because we use our personas as our primary identities, when we talk about inclusion and exclusion we tend to forget that we are talking about a pretend person not a real one. We do not have a difficulty as far as I know in telling someone, "You are welcome to play with us but you can't be a Flapper, a Cowboy, or a Foreign Legionaire." Given the hard questions raised about the tax status, we clearly have reached a point where people are concerned that there are not enough "education" people to support an educational mission. Again this is a matter of proportions. I am not so concerned about what the IRS thinks or what some stodgey group of academics might think. I am more concerned about the expectations of our own people. What do they expect from an event? What kind of support do they expect from their local group? I do not believe that this is simply a community problem which can be worked out independently by local groups. Our community units are artifically formed by the organization. We are in a particular "community" because of where we live, not because we share an understanding of the game. By claiming to be the only game, the organization has not encouraged alternate games to arise >from the movement. In my mind the greatest failing on the part of the organization lies in ignoring the tension this situation has produced. It has continued to say one thing, to allow another, and to provide no help to people caught in between. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 11:47:22 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2365 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:13:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron on Various Comments on His Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: >From WMclean290@aol.com Thu Oct 19 11:10 EDT 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:09:29 -0400 Message-ID: <951019110928_127721503@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron on Various Comments on His Proposal Content-Type: text Content-Length: 2046 Please forward to GC Finvarr suggested that questions of whether associated organizations were conforming to SCA custom, and appeals from the kingdoms, should be handled by a body or bodies independent of the Board. Morgan mentioned that other organizations, such as the Boy Scouts, have mechanisms to deal with this sort of issue. I think it would be useful to hear more specifics on how other organizations deal with these questions. Are the decisions of the body that decides these questions binding on the Board of the parent organization? Who appoints them? Lisa suggested an arbitration body. Would its rulings be binding, or subject to further appeal? I think Finvarr's concern that these matters should be in the hands of an independent body is a valid one. However, if it looks like it may take a while to hammer out the details, the GC may wish to recommend that these decisions remain in the hands of the Board as an interim measure until the details of the independent body can be worked out. My impression is that the problems of the European groups are pretty pressing, and even an interim solution would be an improvement on the present situation. When I referred to Europe here and in my previous posting, I didn't mean to exclude the other non-U.S. groups; I was just referring to where the problem seemed to be greatest. And of course there would be nothing to prevent a U.S. group from qualifying as an associated organization once it had the appropriate corporate structure in place. I agree with Justin that it should be possible to define a reasonable separation between the "Royal" rank and awards side of our government and the administrative, seneschalate side. Lisa's suggestion for a SCA, Inc(tm) scheme is interesting, but I think it would enrage so many people that we should consider it only if we can find no other option. And I don't see how we could ever trademark a white belt. Will Mclean/Galleron de Cressy(who believes that wise kings undertake no great action without the consent of their parliament) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 13:16:46 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 750 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:33:42 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership-3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951019103828_127697688@emout05.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Oct 19, 95 10:38:34 am Greetings from Tibor. When you say member, what exactly are you talking about, Alysoun? Dues paying member to a corporation (or, more than one in some scenarii)? Active participant? Or what? I've always considered the issue of scope of game different from membership, but you seem to be blurring the line. Member has several meanings when we discuss the SCA Inc. There is the legislative meaning, the fundraising meaning, the participant meaning, and perhaps others. I'm afraid I find your attempts at parsimony wasted on me, because I can't see where you are going, or what problem you are trying to solve. Perhaps this is because I was not a member of the Membership committee, and therefore lack the context. Please, educate me? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 14:06:15 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:26:47 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership-3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951019103828_127697688@emout05.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun responds to my point about the "creative tension" between "fun" and "authenticity": >This is all a matter of degree. One vampire in a 100 participants is one >thing, 25 in 100 in another. How many vampires can we support before we >become an Ann Rice fan club? True; indeed, true in two different regards. Personally, I think the vampires are a bit beyond the pale -- most have nothing at *all* to do with period, which pushes outside what I see as the envelope of the Landmarks. And you are correct that proportions are important -- it's fine to have outliers around a center, but we do need a center. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that we need not define ourselves terribly strictly. Having some sense of what the club is about is fine, but the wording should be reasonably broad, to allow a wide sweep of interpretations of what the club is about. It might well take out some of the extreme fringes -- but if it does, that must be done with all deliberate caution. (I have no problem with counting the Anne Rice vampires out. I am considerably more leery about counting out the genbarbs, and even moreso about counting out, say, the sincere early-period types.) And we must recognize that we *are* a club of hobbyists, and any serious authenticity requirements are going to rebound *hard*... >I do not believe that this is simply a community problem which can be worked >out independently by local groups. Our community units are artifically formed >by the organization. We are in a particular "community" because of where we >live, not because we share an understanding of the game. Partly true, but at least partly not. Each group in the SCA *does* have its own distinct character, and that is unquestionably one of our greater strengths. That's because most groups are mostly home-grown; while there's plenty of inter-SCA movement, most people were recruited locally. That leads to community units that are relatively real -- many people regard themselves as being part of the smaller community just as much as the larger. (If you don't believe that, consider the large number of people who drop out when they move, often because the new local community doesn't match their assumptions.) I would be flatly uninterested in being part of a more homogeneous club, because homogeneity almost always selects for the lowest common denominator. We are able to take pride in our local groups precisely because they *do* have individual character... (And it's worth noting that local groups *are* generally better about pushing authenticity than the center. The center promulgates a large number of our clearest inauthenticities (eg, the rank and title system). But some local groups are *quite* good at keeping themselves pretty authentic, mostly through a clear local sense of identity plus some peer pressure...) > By claiming to be >the only game, the organization has not encouraged alternate games to arise >from the movement. True; we might do well to "bleed off" some of the edges into better-suited games. (I actually know at least one person who has serious considered founding a historical-fantasy club, just to drain off some of the most extreme fantasy types from the SCA...) But it's important to bear in mind that there are multiple types of fringe. It's one thing to try and get rid of the wholly-fantasy types, but we don't want to get rid of the people who are simply casual about authenticity at the same time. (While a truly authenticity-serious club might be fun, it clearly wouldn't be the SCA...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "'...a waiter can be summoned by...snapping the fingers...'. Any of his fingers?" -- meo From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 16:13:37 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1315 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:29:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Affiliation/Franchise (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan --Terras Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > > Esclarmonde suugested: > > >> For courts, why not set up an artibration body--call it > >> the Office of the Chancellor or the Sheriff (if it weren't in > >> violation of GPD 6, I'd suggest Legates) composed of volunteers > >> _with formal credentials in arbitration or mediation_ who handle > >> a certain class of disputes. (Much like the legal recourse to > >> crown justice as opposed to baronial justice). > > I am not sure that requiring the people to have this credential is necessary, IF > the person is in a position which requires the use of such skills even without > the formal training. Actually, training is not much (going there, doing that, > because it was not required when I was a hearing officer but it seems to be A > Useful Thing now), takes about a day, and as my mother says, anyone who was a > parent of more than one child should have no problem passing. > > ---= Morgan -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe