From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 16:07:17 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 15:29:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Election of Board Members? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My feeling is that a better starting point would be, what do we want the central structure of the SCA to do? Electing different captains to steer the same ship strikes me as rather pointless. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 16:16:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 15:42:43 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Election of BoD Members (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512271945.NAA42772@black.missouri.edu> (message from Joseph Heck on Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:45:46 -0600) Morgan gives three possible "modes of election", and comments: >Now we have the issue that there are fewer seats than Board members. It was >suggested that there be a rotation, with Board members from each Kingdom take >office in turn as vacancies come open. Alphabetically by Kingdom seems fair. Actually, I would say that this is a broader issue -- is Board election directly related to Kingdoms at all? One possibility is certainly direct suffrage at the Corporate level, with one member, one vote, having no relationship to Kingdoms. I don't adore this method (in particular, it requires a much clearer idea of what a "member" is, and that's something of a can of worms), but it is *clearly* a real option we must consider... (In general, any method that involves direct election is almost certainly going to require a clear definition of the electorate; we need to bear this in mind...) There is also the possibility of expanding the Board, and simply making it one Board member per Kingdom. While I started out opposed to this notion, Bertram convinced me (long ago) that it would be viable, and I haven't heard any convincing counter-arguments yet. This would obviate some problems, although possibly cause others... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Check in was fun... `I'd like to check in three to Sweden...' presenting the tickets... `Yes sir... would you put your carry on bag on the scale?' `No, that's one of the passangers'. `Yes, sir, would you put _their_ bag on the scale.' `No, I didn't make myself clear. That is not a bag belonging to a passanger... that bag is the passanger.' `Excuse me sir... did you say the BAG is the PASSANGER?' `Yes, and it would like a window seat.'" -- From "The Lump", by Thomas Ignatius Perigrinus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 16:35:56 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 15:55:15 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: IKAC and reform To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 17:10:34 -0500 >From: spacey@major.cei.net (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: re: IKAC and reform Noble Cousins! I am disturbed that members of the Grand Council are so quick to dismiss the IKAC both as an instrument of reform and as an important part of a post-reform society. No, the Grand Council can not force the dissolution of the IKAC. That would, if nothing else, be an attempt to abrogate the rights of free speech and assembly of the members of that council. However, this does not mean that the Grand Council should simply dismiss the IKAC from consideration nor the role of the IKAC from the future of the society. It seems to me that the IKAC may very well be the legitimate vehicle for carrying certain parts of the "central role" in the society of the future. Whether the IKAC constitutes the "supreme court" that some have talked about, operates as nominating committee for a futer BoD or any number of other possible roles, I believe that this body (which already exists) can have a valuable role in the future polity of our society. Regardless, I believe that simply dismissing the IKAC from consideration is a grave error. Further, it bothers me that so many members of Grand Council appear to view considering things in an essentially "abolitionist" light. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 812 West 13th, Little Rock, 72202 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 501-370-5331 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 16:53:38 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: 9468 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 16:08:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Report on Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor.] Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Wed Dec 27 13:37 EST 1995 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 13:36:20 -0500 Message-ID: <951227133620_100107711@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Report on Electing Board: Options and Costs Content-Type: text Content-Length: 8765 Please forward to GC Edward Z. mentioned this as one the things he'd most like the GC to address, as did Michael Potter. Sounds good to me. What I have done is lay out the different methods I could think of with their pros and cons. At this stage I would like your comments either on methods of selecting the Board I have omitted, or pros and cons I missed. You can e-mail me personally if you don't think the subject should be discussed on the GC list yet. I will edit this to reflect your comments and repost it. At that point I would suggest a non-binding straw poll to see if any of the methods proposed attract broad approval or opposition. If the consensus of the GC favors any one method, we may wish to flesh out that proposal in greater detail. I can then repost the report as amended, and the Councilors all get a last chance to change their votes. Then the whole report, with who voted for what attached, goes off to the Board. Sound good? SELECTING THE BOARD This report examines a number of methods of selecting the Board, including both direct and indirect election, with their expense and implications. While a number of proposals have been made for a less centralized structure for the SCA, most envision an umbrella organization with important functions, so that the content of this report would be relevant to them as well. Direct election would be the slowest and most expensive method. If the board is elected indirectly, the smaller the number of electors, the cheaper and faster the elections will be. Indirect election is used by at least one large re-enactment organization. The Revolutionary War re-enactors choose their Board by vote of the heads of the local groups/units. If all Directors served their full term the length of time to complete elections would be relatively unimportant. In practice, Directors are frequently unable or unwilling to complete their entire term. It is not unknown for several to resign in a brief period. The longer it takes to complete elections, the more advance notice a resigning director must give, or the longer their post will remain unfilled. Throughout this report I have used "member" in the sense of "paying member of the SCA". I respect the fact that some may have a broader definition of what it means to be a member of the society, but I have chosen this usage for clarity and simplicity. Bear in mind that a significant portion of the Society considers electoral politics a positive evil. 1) Current Method Directors appointed by current Board. Names of candidates are published and comments solicited. Pro: Relatively speedy, inexpensive and flexible. Board is able to familiarize itself with the candidates and select with an eye for creating a Board with an overall balance of knowledge, skills, and experience. Avoids the inconvenience of electoral politics. Con: Members feel disenfranchised and powerless. Decisions of the Board lack the legitimacy that comes from the explicit consent of the governed. Elections: Basic Assumptions Elections , direct or indirect, are assumed to involve the following steps: The Board, or its nominating committee, announces one or more vacancies. It publishes its recomendation(s) and calls for other nominees. Any candidates meeting certain thresholds are added to the ballot. For example, a nominee might need the votes of 10% of the Crowns and Kingdom Seneschals (that is, currently, three Crowns, Seneschals, or any combination), or 2% of the local seneschals, or 1% of the membership. You might also say that no more than 2/3 of that minimum may come from a single Kingdom. Or you might set lower thresholds. Ballots are distributed to the electors with thumbnail resumes of the candidates. Electors send in their votes, which are verified and tabulated. Currently, a Director's term is scheduled to expire every six months. To preserve this schedule two elections would be required per year. While two directors might be chosen in a single annual election, holding election any less frequently than that is likely to create problems with bringing several new Directors up to speed at the same time. Several of the following models for indirect elections assume that local seneschals are in actual practice chosen by the local members, either formally or informally. SCA governing documents reflect the theory that they are appointed by their superiors. It may be desirable to modify the governing documents to reflect the actual practice. 2) Direct Election: All paying members can vote Pro: Gives every member the greatest potential input in the electoral process. Con: Expensive and slow. Awkward for non-US members. Most members are unfamiliar with most Board candidates. In practice, the recomendation of the Board would have a great deal of influence on the process. Denies voice to non-member participants. Board is less likely to be a balanced mix of skills and abilities. Cost and Duration: If announcement of vacancy, call for nominees, and ballots are distributed in kingdom newsletters, they might be expected to consume at least a page in total. With deadlines, printing, mailing and time for response, assume at least two months each for both call for nominees and for ballots. Three months each would probably be more realistic. So assume at least one page in every Kingdom newsletter per election, plus the labor of verifying and tabulating votes, and not less than six months from start to finish. 3) Indirect Election by Local Seneschals. Pro: Can be faster than direct elections. Allows non-member participants an opportunity to have some influence on the process. A smaller electoral body might be more familiar with the candidates. Con: Less direct input for members. Board recomendation would still have great influence. Still relatively expensive to disrtibute, although less trouble to tabulate. Cost and Duration: As for direct election. Or ballots could be mailed for $200-300.This is roughly the same order of magnitude as printing a page in every Kingdom newsletter, but much faster. Ballots could also go out by e-mail where possible. Distributing such information by mail might reduce the electoral cycle to a few months. 4) Indirect Election by Regional Group Every Kingdom, Principality, or associated organization (if SCA, inc. recognizes such organizations) receives a number of votes proportional to its paid membership. Each such regional group elects, directly or indirectly, one or more electors to cast those votes. (one elector casting all, two each casting half, etc) Acceptable methods would include: Election by local senescals as per 3). Regional Board directly elected Regional Seneschal elected by local seneschals Electors directly elected for two year terms. Acceptable candidates would include "The Crown" or "The Kingdom Seneschal" so that monarchist Kingdoms who really wanted to do so could give their choice to their monarch- as long as they affirmed it by vote every two years. Any other method of direct or indirect election acceptable to both regional group and Board. Pro: If total number of electors is small, this is the cheapest and fastest method. A few dozen electors could be polled by phone if necessary. Gives greatest scope to Scadian diversity. Allows easy transition to organization of affiliated groups if desired. Con: Less direct input for individuals. Requires each regional group to choose electoral method. If electors have no other duties, creates another layer of offices. Cost and Duration: If number of electors is small, cost of Board election itself is minimal. However, the electors themselves must be elected. If electoral powers are given to elected local officers with other duties, there is no additional cost to elect them. If the electors have no other duties, the cost to elect them is similar to the cost of Board elections described above. However, such elections might be held less frequently. 5)Election of One Director per Kingdom (by any of the methods described above) Pro: Electors will be more familiar with candidates Con: Virtually doubles expenses of Board for Travel, etc. Board is likely to become unwieldy as number of Kingdoms increases. Board is far less likely to be well balanced in terms of skills and abilities. Disproportionate influence for members of smaller kingdoms. Board members more likely to see themselves as advocates for their region instead of Society as whole. 6)Appointment of One Director per Kingdom (By Monarch or unelected Kingdom Seneschal) Pro: It's simple Con: All the disadvantages of 5) above, plus: power vested in unelected leaders, extreme erosion of role of Board as check on Monarchs and Kingdom Seneschals, lack of consent of the governed. comments? Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Dec 27 19:14:59 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 18:48:40 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacements To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 16:24:27 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: Replacements >Criticism cannot be avoided. Boy, do I wish it could. > >John, I'm afraid I don't take your point. Can you lay out for me how >balance of that sort is going to enhance the Grand Council? I'm not sure >that I see what remains as out of balance. > >Or, rather, what sorts of problems would arise from the current roster, that >such representation would correct? A few hypothetical examples would help >me understand. > > Tibor I am not for balancing out the Council. I think it is pretty well balanced as it is now. The ones who want to contribute do, the one's that don't seem to have just gone away, if they were even here to begin with. I only brought up my suggestion to contact the Kingdoms about their missing reps so that when it comes time for the GC to present their proposals SCA-wide, the Kingdoms whose reps have gone away won't have any reason to gripe. That's all. Please do not take my suggestion as any criticism of the GC's current makeup. It is not! I wish your committee luck with your new chairperson. John From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 00:24:12 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 22:00:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: On the Road Again. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! Tomorrow morning my wife and I will begin the transporting of 10 cats, a housefull of furniture, and a couple of tons of books to Mississippi (where I shall be joining the faculty of the Univ. of Mississippi). I shall try to log on occasionally from the road, but I do not anticipate being able to regularly participate in discussions until Jan. 1. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 00:37:24 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Schuylab@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 22:33:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Eichling Von Amrun Subject: Re: Vote for Coordinator To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I thought that I had sent this missive on 24Dec95: Please record it now to revise the % activity calculation. (I will stay after class and write, "I will not send confusing commands to LISTSERVE..." on the board 100 x.) Politically Correct Seasonal Greetings Cordially Extended to All -- I had originally voted for Fiacha (6 Nov 95), but would like to change my vote to Arthur, who was not running at that time. This is not to be construed as a slight to Fiacha, who seems an estimable individual, but evidence of a perception that the dogged tenacity with which Arthur managed to wrest a coherent vote from the GC may be the most important personal attribute of a coordinator in the forthcoming discussions. Eichling von Amrum From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 18:31:02 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: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:31:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Election of BoD Members (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L my general feeling on elections are, the simpler, the better. i'd as a rule prefer to see, at the very basic level, a "member" to be defined as one of those people who pays money annually to milpitas. each paying member gets the same number of votes as there are positions to be filled (i.e., if there are three positions to be filled this election, the member gets one vote for each position; _not_ meaning that he can use three votes for one candidate). nominations for potential board members can come from anyone, anywhere - paying members, non-paying members, aliens from venus, disembodied spirits from ancient egypt. ballots would appear in TI, since TI at least gets to the vast majority of those needing to cast votes, that is, paying members. this is the simplest way, i would assume. if it needs to be gussied up at later points (byexpanding the electorate, or getting more ballots out, or whatever), it canbe - but the first set of elections shouldbe run as simply as possible. alban, playing devil's advocate From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 18:38:28 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: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 00:45:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Report on Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L hmmm....i've made some comments since christmas that no-one's replied to, or mentioned. is this message getting out?and when is it being received? (mailed to the list 10:45PM Mountain time, wednesday, 27 december) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 19:28:28 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: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 07:35:07 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Justin's proposal for a budget working group To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Generally, I do not object to this proposal, but I do think it is important to highlight a couple of things. 1. This will be seen as a threat. Autonomy is an important part of any job, and just as there is always resistance to providing "real numbers" to outsiders (including people from other departments) in large corporations, there will be resistance to providing real numbers to anyone from the GC, and especially anyone known as being involved in a reform movement that has been perceived as hostile. Information is often power, and to yield information in this area is to yield power. 2. The collection of information will be necessarily political. We can pretend it is not, but that pretense will simply make us easier to manipulate. How will we ensure, for example, that each area has a legitimate voice? Will we allow the people responsible for various projects write their own explanations? Will we take the part of advocates for each area, or only for those areas who have a supporter on this committee? If someone does not happen to care to respond to us as quickly or as completely as we would like (and our authority to command the Laurel Sovereign of Arms, for example, is at best tenuous) 3. Order itself is not value-free. The organization with a lot of ambiguity, with much "inefficiency" will be more likely to embody values divergent from the quintessential instrument of modernity that is the modern organization. Even the popular management literature has begun to pick up on this, finally recognizing that a perfectly ordered rational organization is entirely incapable of doing anything worth doing. While there may be no virtue in redundancy and inefficiency, in human enterprises there might be no vice there either. Thus we should be careful about our implicit assumptions going into such a project. 4. Some journalists and technicians would love to believe that there is such a thing as an objective fact. Savvy managers and policy makers cannot afford to allow themselves to believe this. Just as the presentation in the local newspaper of an actual photograph and interview with an actual SCA member at an actual SCA event who happens to (legally) be wearing a bunny fur bikini, bragging (as is her right) of the men she will lay tonight, and conspiratorially telling (with some degree of truth) that the SCA we show in demos is not the "real" SCA is all true fact, but something happens in its presentation. The selection of what appears as fact (among how many facts) is more important than the actual numbers (which because of the nature of the squishiness of any organizational practice in an always-changing environment will be estimates, roundings and guesses). For instance, what is an anomaly, and what is a new condition? In thousands of management and organizational studies journal articles I have never heard reported that even one manager of a real organization really knew what was coming next year--and that it was going to be the same as last year. Thus to the degree to which this committee's report is taken as gospel by others, the selection of "facts" by this committee will in fact be an outside intervention in each of the areas of the SCA. To pretend otherwise will not change this. So this proposal could have some value, but we should be up front in recognizing that its primary value will be in placing the GC in the fight for the driver's seat in the SCA. Through this committee, we will be saying "we are just finding the objective facts" but will in fact be making decisions about what should be kept and what should be changed, through inclusion/exclusion and presentation--even before we get to the more apparently political stage of making obvious decisions. By establishing this committee (if the Board and key officers really support it--and I would be mildly surprised if they truly did) we would be implicitly saying that those who did not respond to us by our time frame and according to our format decisions would risk organizational penalties. This would have some benefits. It would place another force into the power struggle in the SCA, it would force some realignments and some coalition-building among current powers, and would force a confrontation among many aspects of the organization that are currently loosely coupled (and thus, fairly autonomous). Of course, one could easily make the argument that each of these benefits are also a liability. Again, my point is not that this is a bad idea, but that it is not as innocuous as it might first appear. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 19:31:02 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 10:52:28 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Election of BoD Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Dani... -- Justin >From: dani@telerama.lm.com >Date: Wed, 27 Dec 1995 19:30:44 +0500 (EST) >Subject: Re: Election of BoD Members >In-Reply-To: <9512272042.AA07944@dsd.camb.inmet.com> The question of how to choose BoD members doesn't appear to me to be a fruitful one to pursue just now. Is the idea that if we had better (or more carefully chosen, or more representative, or less cooperative) directors that would go some way towards solving our current problems? Some of the new directors chosen in the past year and a half have been among the people I would have selected had I had the power to choose personally, from the entire membership. In the medium term, at least, it hasn't made much difference: They inherited the old mess and seem to have been too busy fighting alligators to do much about it. *First* concentrate on a way to restructure the corporation. This includes figuring out what the Board's *job* should be. *Then* it makes sense to worry about how the Board is chosen. -- Dani Zweig dani@telerama.lm.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 19:43:33 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: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:15:03 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: on reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In response to Finnvarr'a post about reporting, I would suggest that the greatest potential benefit of reporting lies in its nature as structured communication. However reporting has commonly been taken to be strictly one-way and teleologically towards the compilation of documentation. I suspect this comes from the traditional insecurity of low level managers (in this case, regional officers--often the first to threaten local branches with "nuking" if their officer should miss a report or two) and from our societal views of authority, based on command and obedience. There are a few cases in which documentation is important (keeping track of awards, reported injuries and weapons authorizations come to mind) but I w9ould argue that this should be seen as a small part of proper reporting. The problem with railing too hard against reporting is that this is distressingly often the only form of communication existing between officers at different levels, and too often the only time that many officers think about what they should be doing and what they actually have done in their office. To deemphasize reporting, without replacing it with some other form of structured communicative practice would be to effectively further deemphasize the importance of these areas fo interest in the local branches. For example, we all probably would agree that a key part of the job of the local arts and sciences person would be to encourage the practice of the arts and sciences by individuals and by groups within the local branch, and to provide encouragement and resources. I believe we would mostly agree that the practice of arts and sciences is an important part of the SCA. Further, I believe that we would mostly agree that it is the actual doing of the arts and sciences by people, not the existence of officers that is the key and desired result. However, reasonably assuming for a moment that leaders in the organization are interested in promoting the arts and sciences, and that it would be more effective to ensure that this is done at the local group level, rather than by restricting our efforts to a one-size-fits-all publication effort; the local officers are an attempt at decentralization! Now if we factor in the little control that regional officers have over branch officers, and the huge span of control of the kingdom officer over branch officers, and the dual warrant system (traced from both the Crown and the kingdom officer) and we see a system in which there is very little command authority. Thus the control aspect of reporting is likely to be minimal. I am arguing that properly done, the primary focus of reporting is to structure a regular self-monitoring function for officers at every level ("what have I done in this office this last three months?") and a regular formal communication channel. This means that reports should be two-way, probably formally, but at least through response of some sort. As kingdom seneschal, I contacted each of the regional seneschals at least once each quarter, but if I were to do it again (and I don't plan on it) I would institute a formal report-response from kingdom to regional, and from regional to branch officers. Even with no response from regional officers, however, the report from the local officer has important benefits. First, as mentioned, it forces the local officer to conduct a brief self-assessment. Second, if there is any chance that the regional officer is to be of help to the local officer, the regional has to know what is going on in the branch. I cannot expect the local officer to even know of all of the possible resources available to the regional officer (and the regional of the resources available to the kingdom officer). While there is no guarantee that the regional officer will be competent and able to offer any help, at least if there is some communication if the regional is competent at all, it is more likely that help will be offered. It is entirely unlikely that a regional officer will go to each branch officer, ask them individually what they need to better do their job, then try to help. It is far more likely that if a branch officer says "I need help with this" that the competent regional officer will be able to help. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 19:46:37 1995 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 11:03:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Election- 35% Board - 65% Kingdom To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greeting GCer! Hats off to the member who came up with the ecection topic! Here is my compromise proposal...... NEW) Election of Director - 35% Board and 64% Kingdom. The Board, or its nominating committee, announces one or more vacancies. It publishes its the names of the nominees it receives and comments solicited. (as before) The term would be one year. Acceptable candidates would not include "The Crown" or "The Kingdom Seneschal" (conflicts of interest). In regards to actual election: each Board member gets 2 votes and would each votes for a particualr candidate (thus the seven member Board gets 14 votes total to distribute). A total would be kept for each nominee. Then each Kingdom's Monarch and Kingdom Seneschal get 1 vote each, voting for individual nominees. 13 Kingdoms equates to 26 votes. After election all votes made public via e-mail (rialto?) Pro: Faster than direct elections. Still relatively expensive to distribute. Allows non-member participants an opportunity to have some influence on the process through communication with Kingdoms. The Kingdoms might be more familiar with the candidates. Board is still able to familiarize itself with the candidates and select with an eye for creating a Board with an overall balance of knowledge, skills, and experience. Board still maintains check on Monarchs and Kingdom Seneschals. Con: More trouble to tabulate. Disproportionate influence for members of smaller kingdoms. Board members more likely to see themselves as advocates for their region instead of Society as whole. Thoughts?? -Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 19:49:22 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: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:40:07 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: response to Finnvarr To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr wrote: >I disagree with Justin here. I've never been able to see such a clear-cut distinction between mundane and Current Middle Ages. Have a look at the regs on banishment, for instance. I agree with Finnvarr. I can see no way to meaningfully separate the modern >from the medieval. There are very few, if any areas of serious potential problem that do not seriously impact on both aspects. >I believe that a certain amount of decentralization is inevitable. If it is, then we will need to have some body to sort out disagreements about both the game and administrative relations between legal entities (corporations). . . >I am NOT in favor of leaving this simply to Kingdom reps, as though the SCA were a federation of Kingdoms. I can spell out why I feel this way, but I've done it before and it may be fairly obvious. Again I agree. These will not be easy nor infrequent questions. This should not be a matter of a federation of kingdoms, because we are not, and should not become a federation of kingdoms. Further, if the large kingdoms are thinking, they will object to a system in which a kingdom with the population of a large barony has the same representation and binding authority as one twenty times that size. Likewise, the small kingdoms should not sit still and see their votes completely discounted because their delegations are tiny. There are inherent problems with representation. It is one thing to talk about a representative body, but ask a centrist Midrealmer if he or she would be satisfied if , for example, this central "representative body told the kingdoms that they had to allow rapier combat as a factor in half of the Crown tournaments--even though a numerical majority of SCA members opposed it. The devil is in the details. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 20:12:42 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 36 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:40:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Voting on the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I thought Galleron's summary of possible voting plans, their pluses and their minuses, was very good. I still think it is premature to get into this. However, I oppose one vote per member because I feel such elections will be meaningless. I never felt that the elections I took part in for officers of scholarly organizations meant very much. This would be very similar. (In response to Alban). I also oppose election by Kingdom Seneschal (as they now exist) or Crown. This would be to hand more power to people who already have quite a bit, and add nothing to the legitimacy of the Board. I oppose any system where the Board is simply a group of Kingdom representatives. If we want to increase the legitimacy of the Board through elections, I favor ones a system where local members elect their seneschal, those seneschals elect their superiors, and so forth, until Kingdom Seneschals elect the Board. If we don't do that, we should forget about elections completely and stick with the current system. Remember a key fact. The SCA *already* is made up of more than one corporation. I feel that there will be a multitude of corporations in the future, at least one per country, and more in some countries. At least as important as electing our current Board is figuring out how to relate these various corporations, both those that exist now and those that will likely exist in the future. Finnvarr HOWEVER, From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 20:16:09 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:42:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: On Gareth's on reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This makes perfect sense -- or it would if there was an elimination of duplication and as much effort put into contacting lower level officers as there was in beating reports out of them. Finnvarr From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Dec 28 20:33:11 1995 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:33:04 -0600 (CST) From: Susan Earley X-Sender: ghita@Mercury.mcs.com To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group In-Reply-To: <1030557.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII This message was originally submitted by ghita@MCS.NET to the SCAGC-L list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply" function of your mail program. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (62 lines) ------------------ On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, Roy Gathercoal wrote: > Generally, I do not object to this proposal, but I do think it is important to > highlight a couple of things. > > 1. This will be seen as a threat. Autonomy is an important part of any job, > and just as there is always resistance to providing "real numbers" to > outsiders (including people from other departments) in large corporations, > there will be resistance to providing real numbers to anyone from the GC, and > especially anyone known as being involved in a reform movement that has been > perceived as hostile. Information is often power, and to yield information in > this area is to yield power. > I don't find this a threat, and I don't think that the other Directors do either (although this may be a matter of degrees for each other Director - meaning some might feel more threatened than others). Now that I'm sorta in charge of the budget, I'll take all the help I can get. I'm still trying to organize my questions for everyone so I don't waste anyone's time when I call them. > So this proposal could have some value, but we should be up front in > recognizing that its primary value will be in placing the GC in the fight for > the driver's seat in the SCA. Through this committee, we will be saying "we > are just finding the objective facts" but will in fact be making decisions > about what should be kept and what should be changed, through > inclusion/exclusion and presentation--even before we get to the more > apparently political stage of making obvious decisions. By establishing this > committee (if the Board and key officers really support it--and I would be > mildly surprised if they truly did) we would be implicitly saying that those > who did not respond to us by our time frame and according to our format > decisions would risk organizational penalties. > I'd prefer that if this was committee was to be formed, it was a voice among others (like the Budget Compliance Committee and the Finance Committee), so that the Board could choose between differing viewpoints rather than depending on one source for the information. Although I'm not sure right now that anyone really has the time to track all this stuff down (I'm trying to, really). Once I have things in hand better, this could be a useful addition to my resources, but until then I have enough to handle getting what I have into a workable format without explaining it to another committee (I'm already working with the rest of the Board). (See, I can still say NO occasionally :). > This would have some benefits. It would place another force into the power > struggle in the SCA, it would force some realignments and some > coalition-building among current powers, and would force a confrontation among > many aspects of the organization that are currently loosely coupled (and thus, > fairly autonomous). Of course, one could easily make the argument that each > of these benefits are also a liability. > Boy, this sounds like war plans. Does it really need to be like this? > Gareth > HI GARETH! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "A shy, retiring young thing" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 02:49:29 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 02:29:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: An upwared pointing hierarchy of elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I believe the upward pointing hierarchy of elections suggested by Finvarr is the signle simple reform that will break the back of many of the problems we have been formed to deal with. On the other hand two questions should rise 1) *IS* or *SHOULD* the BOD be seen as the upward extension of the Seneschalate? I see some wisdom in this view but I think the question should be asked. This is true ONLY to the extent that the Corp. will be viewed as a MUNDANE business extension of the society. 2) I think the baronial level senesaschalate, acting as an electoral college and each holding the number of votes equal to the paid membership of thier region is a small enough body that kicking BOD electins up to kingdom level *MAY* be unneccesary within such a scheme. As a whole this single reform will fit well into ANY of the schemes I've seen proposed for re-organization. It will also do something RARE in an election and that is insure that those voting actually have knowledge of the issues the candidates will be dealing with, at least to the extent that seneschals have had to have knowledge of local laws relating to non-profits, insurance issues, and financial controls. Because the actual practice, so far as I know it is that Most, if not all seneschals are ALREADY selected locally very LITTLE would change at its broad base, but the whole FOCUS AND OREINTATION would change at the layers above that. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 09:22:07 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: 563 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 09:01:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: response to Finnvarr To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1030651.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Dec 28, 95 08:40:07 am Greetings from Tibor. Gareth wrote: Again I agree. These will not be easy nor infrequent questions. This should not be a matter of a federation of kingdoms, because we are not, and should not become a federation of kingdoms. Hmmm. I would say that I have come to the opposite conclusion over the last few years. Despite our on-paper organization, life in each kingdom is quite different from the others, and our inter-kingdom rules are mostly vague. Can you speak to this a bit more, Gareth? I'm obviously not looking where you are looking. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 11:53:07 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 11:13:25 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: on reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1030584.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> (message from Roy Gathercoal on Thu, 28 Dec 1995 08:15:03 -0800) Gareth writes a bit about reporting; I find myself focusing on this: >The problem with railing too hard against reporting is that this is >distressingly often the only form of communication existing between officers >at different levels, Here's my key problem: I'm unconvinced that there should *be* "different levels" in some of these cases. The Society has a heckuva lot of hierarchies of officers in it, some reaching to the top, some not. Some of those hierarchies actually need all of their depth -- the Treasurers come to mind, at least given our current general structure. But some of them clearly do *not* need all that depth, and in some cases, I think it's downright harmful. I'll use the A&S hierarchy, because I think it's the most blatant case. I have never seen *any* real value come from the A&S hierarchy. I've seen some valuable contributions come from some local A&S officers (although by no means all), but I've never seen the *hierarchy* do anything useful whatsoever. The problem is, it's structured as "superiors" and "subordinates", and that imposes a certain mindset on people. It leads to our wholly dim reporting structure, with lots of useless communication going up and down the lines of command, accomplishing nothing. It leads to far more structure than is good for an office as vague as A&S. I quite agree that communication is immensely useful, but the A&S office has never done it right, because of this vertical nature. There *has* been lots of useful communication between artisans in the Society -- and almost all of it has been unofficial. All the Arts newsletters out there, both special-interest and general, *are* accomplishing a great deal, much more than the officers are. Now, we *could* get a somewhat useful structure, if we nuked the current A&S hierarchy and replaced it with "communications co-ordinators" or something like that. Really that's just redefining the offices, but changing the terms changes the focus, and emphasizes that the purpose here is to *assist* the local A&S officers and artisans in communicating *among each other*. *That* could be useful. (Of course, it can also be done entirely unofficially, without warrants and such nonsense -- indeed, it arguably *is* what's happening with the growing "networks" among artisans in the Society...) This is perhaps the one case where I simply see *no* valid argument for keeping the existing hierarchy. Eliminate it, and maybe replace it with something useful. Or not -- the *necessary* structures *will* grow, whether fostered by the corporation or not... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Support your Local Unsupported Assertion!" -- Joe English From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 13:08:08 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 12:35:40 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Proposal: Budget Study To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 23:27:49 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Proposal: Budget Study >I've posted a rough cut of what I think should happen a number of times >(including about 10 minutes ago on the reform list.) I'd be happy to start >there, with my unoriginal notions, if people agree. > > Tibor > > Sounds good to me Tibor, post whatever budget info you see as pertinent. Maghnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 13:10:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 12:24:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Replacement summary* To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun Let's start the New Year off right by finishing up one thing before we forget about it. During most of December there was a discussion thread about non-participating members/replacements. I will roughly summarize it. Facts: there are a few people who have never said anything, not even introduced themselves; some who have 'resigned'; some who have not been heard >from after their initial introduction; some who rarely participate; and some who disappear for extended periods without explanation. The original plan was that a two-month absence should receive a reminder and two such absences would result in removal and replacement, with the Council being in charge of the replacements. Resignations were to be made to the co-ordinator: as of the beginning of the month the Board had not been informed of any official resignations. The general opinion arising from the discussion was that (1) the non-participation rule (or something like it) should be enforced and (2) there was no advantage in replacing non-participating members at this time. The only message exception was from the Bearkiller who was concerned about kingdom representatives. Members participating in the discussion were: Fiacha, Tibor, Finnvarr, Corwyn, Justin, Magnus, Janna, Bertrik, Modius, Michael Fenwick, John of Sternfield, and Serwyl. (I hope I have not missed anyone.) Given the lack of disagreement on this topic, we can say that the Council favors removing those who do not participate and sees no need to replace them at this time. **** Alysoun's opinion is that Fiacha as coordinator and Justin as secretary send an official "you are off the Council" letter to those who have not participated since last July, and a reminder letter to anyone who has not participated since we have gone to list.serve. That a letter making these removals and the resignations official go to the Board (just to make it all tidy). And that if any of these people were kingdom representatives, a letter go to the respective Crowns informing them of the situation to see what, if anything, they want to do about it. (Remember that a later Crown may be more interested in this stuff than a current Crown--let the blame fall on their predecessors, not on us.) I don't think this has to be a proposal with a vote since there was so little disagreement. If there is disagreement, now's the time to voice it. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 13:10:42 1995 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 08:56:43 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: An upwared pointing hierarchy of elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- with some comments: In message Fri, 29 Dec 1995 02:29:56 -0500, arthur dent writes: > I believe the upward pointing hierarchy of elections suggested by Finvarr > is the signle simple reform that will break the back of many of the > problems we have been formed to deal with. > > On the other hand two questions should rise > > 1) *IS* or *SHOULD* the BOD be seen as the upward extension of the > Seneschalate? I see some wisdom in this view but I think the question > should be asked. This is true ONLY to the extent that the Corp. will be > viewed as a MUNDANE business extension of the society. I would see the BoD as a mundane extension of the SCA. However, it is not an upward extension of the Seneschalate, but rather of the SCA as a whole. Using the Seneschalate to select/elect it is in my mind a partial, incomplete solution because it selects bureaucrats with bureaucrats. I would rather see it selected by the Heralds. (Why not? All groups have to have one, and we've got the organization in place!) > > 2) I think the baronial level senesaschalate, acting as an electoral > college and each holding the number of votes equal to the paid membership > of thier region is a small enough body that kicking BOD electins up to > kingdom level *MAY* be unneccesary within such a scheme. You would disenfranchise all those groups which are not Baronies??? Watch out for inter-Kingdom Anthro, Arthur. Lots of areas with large populations are not Baronies and don't particularly want to be. Why "proportional to population"? One of the things that needs to be done in any election scheme is to protect minority rights as well as majority. This is best done by removing the powers (such as they are) of the Board, not by "legitimizing" those powers by election. This is one of the reasons why I like the Kingdoms as the base unit for the SCA. There are only 13 of them so far, unlikely to be more than 20 in the next ten years. I still think that the idea of one Director per Kingdom has a deal of merit. Then make it so that the SCA is run by an Executive Committee, with powers similar to a thoroughly limited "BoD". The EC takes care of month-to-month mundane business, voting to use XNN insurance carrier, for instanc. Then the Board only has to meet once per year to handle "Board business" (changes to By-Laws, review of actions by the EC, etc.). > > As a whole this single reform will fit well into ANY of the schemes I've > seen proposed for re-organization. It will also do something RARE in an > election and that is insure that those voting actually have knowledge of > the issues the candidates will be dealing with, at least to the extent > that seneschals have had to have knowledge of local laws relating to > non-profits, insurance issues, and financial controls. Which is to say, exactly as much as the rest of us bozos. What makes you think that a Baronial Seneschal(e) has any such knowledge, or wants it? Even _Kingdom_ Seneschal(e)s rarely, in my experience, have that kind of knowledge. As for finances, well, I trust a book-keeper more than a bureaucrat, but I don't trust either of them much. > > Because the actual practice, so far as I know it is that Most, if not all > seneschals are ALREADY selected locally very LITTLE would change at its > broad base, but the whole FOCUS AND OREINTATION would change at the > layers above that. > Semi-serious joke follows: You know how to (s)elect a sensechale? You place a large cardboard box on the ground with a stick holding one edge up and a string running to the stick. Then you put a bar of chocolate inside the box. The first person in the group who enters the box to get the chocolate, you pull the string, the box comes down and you run over and sit on it until the person inside has: 1) Eaten the chocolate 2) Agreed to be seneschal for the next year If they don't eat the chocolate first, they're too stupid to be seneschal. Oh, yes... If anyone actually _wants_ to be seneschal, then they are automatically disqualified. ((Historical precedent for this method can be found in the Roman Republic's method of selecting dictators.)) * * * 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 Fri Dec 29 13:20:27 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 12:48:55 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 23:27:55 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Galleron: Electing Board: Options and Costs Galleron, Much thanx. To All: I believe that the current method is sufficient. They should solicit specific reccommendations from IKAC, crowns and Curias. This input will be as representative as practical. We need to discuss the options, but my vote says no real change is required. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 14:08:24 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 7 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 13:26:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Re Replacement summary* To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I agree with Alysoun. I would like to avoid complaints from the non-participants at a later date, if they won't take the responsibility of speaking now. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 15:56:22 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 15:02:15 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Ghita... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:33:04 -0600 (CST) >From: Susan Earley >Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group >In-Reply-To: <1030557.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> On Thu, 28 Dec 1995, Roy Gathercoal wrote: > Generally, I do not object to this proposal, but I do think it is important to > highlight a couple of things. > > 1. This will be seen as a threat. Autonomy is an important part of any job, > and just as there is always resistance to providing "real numbers" to > outsiders (including people from other departments) in large corporations, > there will be resistance to providing real numbers to anyone from the GC, and > especially anyone known as being involved in a reform movement that has been > perceived as hostile. Information is often power, and to yield information in > this area is to yield power. > I don't find this a threat, and I don't think that the other Directors do either (although this may be a matter of degrees for each other Director - meaning some might feel more threatened than others). Now that I'm sorta in charge of the budget, I'll take all the help I can get. I'm still trying to organize my questions for everyone so I don't waste anyone's time when I call them. > So this proposal could have some value, but we should be up front in > recognizing that its primary value will be in placing the GC in the fight for > the driver's seat in the SCA. Through this committee, we will be saying "we > are just finding the objective facts" but will in fact be making decisions > about what should be kept and what should be changed, through > inclusion/exclusion and presentation--even before we get to the more > apparently political stage of making obvious decisions. By establishing this > committee (if the Board and key officers really support it--and I would be > mildly surprised if they truly did) we would be implicitly saying that those > who did not respond to us by our time frame and according to our format > decisions would risk organizational penalties. > I'd prefer that if this was committee was to be formed, it was a voice among others (like the Budget Compliance Committee and the Finance Committee), so that the Board could choose between differing viewpoints rather than depending on one source for the information. Although I'm not sure right now that anyone really has the time to track all this stuff down (I'm trying to, really). Once I have things in hand better, this could be a useful addition to my resources, but until then I have enough to handle getting what I have into a workable format without explaining it to another committee (I'm already working with the rest of the Board). (See, I can still say NO occasionally :). > This would have some benefits. It would place another force into the power > struggle in the SCA, it would force some realignments and some > coalition-building among current powers, and would force a confrontation among > many aspects of the organization that are currently loosely coupled (and thus, > fairly autonomous). Of course, one could easily make the argument that each > of these benefits are also a liability. > Boy, this sounds like war plans. Does it really need to be like this? > Gareth > HI GARETH! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "A shy, retiring young thing" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 17:14:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 16:29:04 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1030557.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> (message from Roy Gathercoal on Thu, 28 Dec 1995 07:35:07 -0800) A couple of comments on Gareth's comments on the Budget group idea: >1. This will be seen as a threat. Unfortunate, but almost certainly true. I think this is a good point, and hints that we should try to work *with* people as much as possible, to try and reduce this. >2. The collection of information will be necessarily political. We can >pretend it is not, but that pretense will simply make us easier to manipulate. >How will we ensure, for example, that each area has a legitimate voice? An important, and real consideration. My impulse would be to try and talk most closely with the people actually spending the money, but you're right that it's not always going to be simple to figure out who that is. >3. Order itself is not value-free. The organization with a lot of ambiguity, >with much "inefficiency" will be more likely to embody values divergent from >the quintessential instrument of modernity that is the modern organization. I quite concur. But at this point, we have chaos without information, and I think that's a bit dangerous. I'm one of the great devotees of chaotic and decentralized structures; however, I also perceive the Board as currently trying to make decisions in a vacuum, and that's a recipe for ongoing disaster. If we *are* going to make major decisions (and a budget for a million-dollar corporation *is* a big decision, by definition), then we need to have enough facts to make those decisions wisely. That doesn't mandate micro-management; it does require some assessment of priorities. (And if it hasn't been clear: all of this is predicated upon the Board thinking it's worthwhile. If they don't, then there's little point...) >4. Some journalists and technicians would love to believe that there is such >a thing as an objective fact. Savvy managers and policy makers cannot afford >to allow themselves to believe this. Well, I'd like to believe that *some* of the items here are going to be close to factual, namely the amounts of money people are actually spending. Certainly the justifications would be intensely subjective; that's why I suggest just enumerating them as a first step, with as little prejudgement as possible. >So this proposal could have some value, but we should be up front in >recognizing that its primary value will be in placing the GC in the fight for >the driver's seat in the SCA. Through this committee, we will be saying "we >are just finding the objective facts" but will in fact be making decisions >about what should be kept and what should be changed, through >inclusion/exclusion and presentation--even before we get to the more >apparently political stage of making obvious decisions. In what way? I find this assertion interesting, and possibly something to watch out for. My agenda here *is* simply to amass as much information as possible, on the theory that if we at least have all that information laid out, there is some hope of the Board getting the budget under control. I would frankly rather the GC did *not* get involved in "power decisions" at this time, because I'm not entirely convinced we're capable of resolving anything. > By establishing this >committee (if the Board and key officers really support it--and I would be >mildly surprised if they truly did) we would be implicitly saying that those >who did not respond to us by our time frame and according to our format >decisions would risk organizational penalties. Yes, that's true. Personally, I think something like this may well be needed -- I've heard too many horror stories from, eg, the Marketing Committee, finding themselves simply unable to get the facts needed in order to even start working. I find that intolerable, and I would encourage the Board to have a little more backbone in these situations. But I don't see that as making the GC a particularly independent force; indeed, I think the only way we could have any such power is specifically as an arm for the Board. Honestly, I'm uninterested in getting involved in power games here, and if it's likely to turn into that, then I'd have to reconsider. I just want to see the Board getting the necessary information to bring down our expenses, and think the GC might be the right body to do that. As I said before, if someone else is actually doing that job, I'm perfectly content to leave it to them... -- Justin Who would *much* rather not make another commitment at this point, if remotely possible... Random Quote du Jour: >From "The Top 17 Least Known Facts About The Lunar Landing": 11> Buzz Aldrin blew chance at being the first man on the moon in tense, "2 out of 3" rock-scissors-paper match with Neil Armstrong. 10> Due to catheter malfunction, Armstrong boldly went where no man had gone before. 9> Michael Collins practiced for the moon mission by dropping his wife off at the mall, then circling the parking lot until she was ready to come home. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 22:15:32 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 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 20:41:00 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Various on Heirarchy, Elections, etc. (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: >From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Fri Dec 29 12:11:11 1995 Date: 29 Dec 95 13:11:56 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Grand Council Discussion List Subject: Various on Heirarchy, Elections, etc. Message-ID: <951229181155_72672.2312_FHP43-1@CompuServe.COM> I decided to wait for the flurry of messages to subside and reply en masse, and hitting only the really high points: Justin's argument about the A&S heirarchy is valid. The only reasons I have seen for it to exist are sharing of ideas within a region, since A&S officers don't communicate amongst each other about projects, ideas, and other things they are doing. As far as reporting goes, I don't think it is a very essential thing, EXCEPT that it CAN be used as a record of someone's abilities and activities if you are looking to give that person awards. Pulling out a pile of past A&S reports and saying, "look, see, this person did this and that and t'other..." can be very helpful when the group memory has slipped a few grooves. Of course, these can be part of the Seneschal's report, along with the Minister of Children stuff and a number of others. Who needs to have a heirarchy? Marshalls, because of the cards. Exchequers. Seneschals. Heralds, because of the layers of vetting. Alban suggested (snipped where appropriate): >> my general feeling on elections are, the simpler, the better. >> i'd as a rule prefer to see, at the very basic level, a "member" >> to be defined as one of those people who pays money annually >> to milpitas. each paying member gets the same number of votes >> as there are positions to be filled ..... I think Sentence #3 contradicts Sentence #1. Let's make it even simpler: you have one chance to vote for (mundane, USA) President, you have one chance to vote for Board member. I agree that only paying members should have the vote. I agree with Finnvarr and Gareth that the concept of a federation of Kingdoms is bad, especially if the representative body is constituted by population. I also know that a lot of Midrealmers are not happy with Curia being as it is, and would NOT want to have a Curia-run representative to the Board. And never mind the 'centrist Midrealmer' on the question of rapier, Gareth -- don't even think of getting the Caontiri started! If Modius is suggesting a Board term of one year, this is bad. That is not wnough time for a Board Member to get acclimated. Most Boards of size go on three-year rotations with election at an annual meeting (say, January) in thirds. If this was to indicate the time for the posting, comment, and election, I dunno, for some people I think it is too long, for others not long enough. Also, I cannot agree to election by the Royalty and Kingdom Seneschal. I'm sorry, but some I trust, others are brownnosing puppets. I know a lot of people on my side of the Midrealm feel we have been disenfranchised by the Kingdom for years because the Curia is incestuous and the Royalty comes from the other side. The Royalty and Kingdom Seneschal appoint the IAC member. Let's keep the Board more openly elected if at all possible. Lastly, to Modius, many people don't get the Rialto, even in digest form, and aren't on other online lists or systems. Why not print the results in TI, which all paid members receive? I have read the various comments on elections. I think it could be too complicated and time-consuming to require all memebrs to vote, and too troublesome to have the feeding-upwards voting to which a couple have alluded. Right now, I am not sure there is an alternative that would easily work within the SCA structure as it now exists,and hope that everybody realizes there may be a step away to get anything of substance going. Also, I think we would need simple majorities for the elections if any large numbers are to vote. Remember, even presidential elections (USA again) get no more than 60% registered voters out, and I've seen as bad as the 30's%. You can't require a certain percentage of voters to elect, although it might not be inappropriate to assert a minimum percentage and then have runoffs when necessary. For election info, I would suggest a perusal of some other corporations' practices on electing Boards of Directors. Much of this is also statutory. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Dec 29 23:21:54 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nathan Clarenburg Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 21:57:18 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nathan Clarenburg Subject: Nathan: Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9512291748.AA03398@dsd.camb.inmet.com> I'm strongly against introducing real democracy into the SCA. That would blow apart the dream for too many of my friends. I'm pretty set against a plebescite of Seneschals or suchlike....it would be very difficult to assemble strong information about the candidates, and MIGHT introduce ELECTION CAMPAIGNS into our organization (*shudder*). One way or the other, any general election is likely to be more of a charisma war than a carefully considered vote.....especially if we need several of them every year. Having said what I'm against, let me try to be constructive. I'm not convinced that the current system of selection is broken. The failures of the Board in past years appear to have been ones of mass-action/inaction instead of problems selecting the right folks. I think the system of EJECTION is broken. A better method to impeach and oust large groups of Board members is definitely in order. Maybe polling the Seneschalate for a Vote of No-Confidence to oust the whole board would be more appropriate for this since it would be an accurate way to tap the _feeling_ of the Society, which is the essential factor in a lack of confidence. A better system of polling the populace is also in order. Putting letters in TI asking for comment is a method that has proven to be grossly inadequate. I have an idea on how to address this, but will put it into a different letter with a more appropriate Subject Line. Nathan, Calontir GC rep nathan@cis.ksu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 03:05:46 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 02:43:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Replacement summary* Comments: To: "Carole C. Roos" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951229122436_101608364@emout04.mail.aol.com> actually rather than a summary 'you are off notice', even for the DOA 'members' protocol call for a 'chime in or die' notification to be the first step, and thats not a bad start. I'd favor sending anyone who hasnt been heard form in the last two months the notice specified in our charter and going from there. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 04:12:34 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 03:53:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: An upwared pointing hierarchy of elections Comments: To: Flieg Hollander To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <32205.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> On Fri, 29 Dec 1995, Flieg Hollander wrote: > I would see the BoD as a mundane extension of the SCA. However, it is not > an upward extension of the Seneschalate, but rather of the SCA as a whole. I'd been viewing the duties of the baord as primarlily mundane onthe assumption that some other organ (usually at kingdom level now, but some IKAC like creature in most reform proposals) handled SCAdian internal stuff... Do I take then that you believe that this is and should be the primary area of responsibilty and knowledgethat bpard members are selected for? if so then I you are correct and board composed of members picked to represetn not regions , but SCAdian interest areas would be appropriate. > You would disenfranchise all those groups which are not Baronies??? Watch > out for inter-Kingdom Anthro, Arthur. Lots of areas with large populations > are not Baronies and don't particularly want to be. Semantic slip. read that as "unit smaller than principality". barony was easier to say and figured people would get what I meant. To be clear I MEANT baronies, shires, colleges, royal forrests, and basicly ANY recocgnized SCAdian group smaller than a principality > Why "proportional to population"? One > of the things that needs to be done in any election scheme is to protect > minority rights as well as majority. Actually, we're talking about an election system for BOD members, not a representive assembly etc. So I'm not sure this really applies. >This is best done by removing the > powers (such as they are) of the Board, not by "legitimizing" those powers > by election. Actually the power and duties of the board is a separate and separable can of worms from "how do we pick'em". I'm inclinded to agree with reducing the scope of the board, but for me legitimacy IS a big issue. it is in fact a big enough issue that I've been paying the non-member surcharge and living without kingdom newsletter BECAUSE I find paying dues to a bunch of folks that I dont pick and who dont contribute in any way to the activiteis I enjoy morally unacceptable. (my take on that last being that everything I see of the SCA is initiated and carried out at or below kingdom level and has little or nothing to do with a national corp whos costs have been spiraling and whos services are at best inadequate...) >This is one of the reasons why I like the Kingdoms as the base > unit for the SCA. There are only 13 of them so far, unlikely to be more than > 20 in the next ten years. > I still think that the idea of one Director per Kingdom has a deal of > merit. Then make it so that the SCA is run by an Executive Committee, with > powers similar to a thoroughly limited "BoD". The EC takes care of > month-to-month mundane business, voting to use XNN insurance carrier, for > instanc. Then the Board only has to meet once per year to handle "Board > business" (changes to By-Laws, review of actions by the EC, etc.). I actually favor a "functional" over a regional model if it comes to that, where instad of having a mid-realm, an eastrealm. and etc reps, we have heavy weapons rep, an A&S rep, a servuces rep etc. so far as I can tell regions are conveneient , but the true constituancy within the SCA is not where you are, but what you do... > What makes you think that a Baronial Seneschal(e) has any such >knowledge, or wants it? Even _Kingdom_ Seneschal(e)s rarely, in my >experience, have that kind of knowledge. As for finances, well, I trust >a book-keeper more than a bureaucrat, but I don't trust either of them >much. um... actually you'r right. I assumed that SOMEBODY in the SCA had a clue about the laws governing the acticivities of non-profits, insurance issues and etc. My experience has been that when a chapter bumps its nose against the outside world senschals were the people called on for that clue. perhaps my experience was misleading or I was dealing with an unusualy competent seneschal. I do essentially agree with your characterization of how seneshals are picked. its the sink or swim nature of it that presumably leads to competence and being drafted further up the senashalate food chain... The rusted woodlands seneshal is selected as follows; when the sitting senesahl chooses to retire, local memebers who suspect they may have the office foisted on them rush to submit letters for why they SHOULDNT be seneshal. the lamest excuse loses. no kidding. frankly BECAUSE its a thankless annoying beauracratic job seneshals are probably picked from A) people who dont duck fast enough and B) those who look like they might do a good job, whether they like it or not... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 06:19:44 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: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 03:00:30 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: On Federations (response to Tibor) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In response to my statement: > This should not be a matter of a federation of kingdoms, because we are not, and should not become a federation of kingdoms. . . Tibor asked >Hmmm. I would say that I have come to the opposite conclusion over the last few years. Despite our on-paper organization, life in each kingdom is quite different from the others, and our inter-kingdom rules are mostly vague. Can you speak to this a bit more, Gareth? I'm obviously not looking where >you are looking. Putting aside the "ought to" for a while, I am happy to address the "is." There are many reasons why we are not currently a federation, but the following few reasons pop to mind quickly. 1. When we join, we join the organization. Our memberships entitle us to the same benefits wherever we go. Awards of Arms and Peerages (and though often sticky in implementation, to a large degree, other awards) are earned and honored in each kingdom. No special treaty is needed, and no Crown has the right to refuse to recognize these awards. They are given by the Crown, but are given by the right granted as part of the organization, not because the Crown or kingdom happens to want to play with this group of people this reign. The same cannot be said for other organizations. There are other groups that have titles and honors, etc. but these are not recognized in the SCA. 2. The Crowns rule with the authority of the entire Society. If the rules are not followed, the Crown may not rule. Occasionally a Crown Tournament is refought because some Kingdom Senschal didn't do the job and some entrant or consort did not bother to know or to follow the rules. Even if these people are well liked, they will not rule, for it is the rules of the Society, not of the Kingdom which takes precedence. 3. Kingdoms may not freely enter or leave affiliation with the Society. In fact, there is no such thing as group affiliation.. A kingdom from another organization (Acre, for instance) could not simplly petition to join the SCA intact. Its members could also become members of the SCA, of course (many people are members in multiple re-creation orgs) but they would be recognized as members of whatever SCA kingdom they happened to live within. I certainly could conceive of an organization that was a federation of kingdoms, but this would not be a small difference. There would be significant differences at every level, even at the level of the individual member. 4. The kingdoms and other branches are required to provide services to the members they serve. Only the entire organization in the person of the board may prohibit someone from attending SCA events. This is the third level of banishment, revocaton or denial of membership. The membership that is being denied is not in a kingdom, but in the entire SCA. It is true that some people can run people out of town by making life miserable for them, but this is different from having the power to officially exclude someone. One could certainly argue that there is litttle interaction among the kingdoms. This may be true, in the sense of people from kingdom A talking to people in kingdom B about topic C. But this is not because the kingdoms are autonomous, but is rather because long ago people running the show decided that people were better off developing traditions and customs for themselves. I would point out that the largest areas of interaction, those of rules that are binding, and are thus reproduced in the laws and customs of each kingdom, are those that come from the organization of which we may all choose to be members, not some self-selecting group of royalty and/or kingdom officers. Even if a majority of Crowns were to get together and decide (as at an ancient Pennsic) that the Earl Marshals and Chiurgeons of both the East and Middle, which included two MDs, should be canned because they decided that a Pennsic war site was dangerous and this was clearly overstepping the authority of officers, which shoudl be to serve the Crown, there are appeals and procedures and consequences that constrict the actions of the Crowns. To say that kingdoms are very different is not to say that they are not part of the same thing. It is possible to be very isolated from other groups and still be parts of the same thing. In fact, I would argue that the SCA is very decentralized, and that the policy of setting guidelines and then allowing the regional areas to develop customs and traditions that vary widely in non-essential areas is one of the things that the SCA has done well. Of course, for the sake of argument, one could take the position that the SCA is really a failed highly centralized organization--but I would love to see the documentation for that claim! (I would suspect that such a position would require that the emphasis on kingdom tradition and custom came only after attempts to manage all of the details of each kingdoms life failed. I distrust much of the influence coming from the West, but I could not bring myself to this position. . . Hope I answered your question to your satisfaction, Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 06:27:36 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: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 12:08:37 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Re Replacement summary* To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I agree with Alysoun. > >I would like to avoid complaints from the non-participants=20 >at a later date, >if they won't take the responsibility of speaking now. > >Finnvarr Yes.=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 07:22:00 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: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 04:00:28 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Finance-information-gathering committee--respone to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin responds to my post >>So this proposal could have some value, but we should be up front in >recognizing that its primary value will be in placing the GC in the fight for >the driver's seat in the SCA. By asking: >In what way? I find this assertion interesting, and possibly something to watch out for. My agenda here *is* simply to amass as much information as possible, on the theory that if we at least have all that information laid out, there is some hope of the Board getting the budget under control. I would frankly rather the GC did *not* get involved in "power decisions" at this time, because I'm not entirely convinced we're capable of resolving anything. First, I would say that I overstated my position a bit. After time, I seem to be saying that this is inevitably a Machiavellian war of the fist magnitude. I really intended only to raise some questions about whether the project would be likely to be as innocuous as it might seem. The problem here is twofold: First, money is such an important symbol of power in our society that things involving money in organizations frequently are watched more closely than other areas (such as organizatonal values). Second, getting a real handle on the financial situation is such a big task, and is being/has been attempted by so many people that if we succeed entirely (unlikely) we will be in the driver's seat, because we will have information (and understanding accumulated in its collection) that will be unavailable to others, even if we freely distribute the synopsis of our findings. We will be called upon to interpret, and that is a position of power. If we suceed partially (likely) ours will be one voice of several partial successes. These sorts of things cannot simply be agglomerated, in that the conventions, decisions etc. utilized in data collection will not be standardized across the various attempts to make sense of this information. By the way, whoever is the first to make others believe that he or she (possibly Ghita--Hi back!) really does understand the entire budget will hold tremendous power. He or she might choose to weild it benevelolently, but it will be theirs to weild. They only have to say "that won't work because. . ." and begin a reasonable, accurate, and straightforward explanation and everyone not possessing the understanding of this detailed mess will be quickly lost. Now perhaps we are the body to undertake this project. I was merely pointing out what I see as some of the potential risks. After all, you don't have to want to become messed up in an organizational power struggle to find yourself messed up. . . Thanks for asking for clarification, Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 07:24:13 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: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 04:00:09 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: On A&S and hierarchy, response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin takes me to task for defending the Arts and Sciences officers: >I'll use the A&S hierarchy, because I think it's the most blatant case. I have never seen *any* real value come from the A&S hierarchy. I've seen some valuable contributions come from some local A&S officers (although by no means all), but I've never seen the *hierarchy* do anything useful whatsoever. I have seen much good come from the A&S hierarchy. Three examples come to mind. 1. The kingdom arts and sciences competitions have done much, at least in some kingdoms, to promote the arts and sciences by bringing together some of the best rising talent in the kingdom. Further, they have enticed people to try new projects (especially for pentathlon-type competitions). In many kingdoms, it is the kingdom officers who have written and updated judging criteria, a project in itself which has done much to raise the expectations of what is possible in the arts and sciences. 2. In many kingdoms, it has been the lobbying of the arts and sciences officers, at all levels, which has led to the honoring of some of the finest practitioners as kingdom bards and arts champions. In some kingdoms these positions even carry rank and insignia. Even when the establishment of these positions was driven by one or more people, it has often been the arts and sciences officers who have been the quiet counsel in the ear of the Crown. This is of value. In those kingdoms where the Crown takes seriously its obligation to consult its Great Officers, the presence of the arts and sciences officers ensures that this aspect of SCA life will not be totally ignored--a distinct possibility given our current structure which does not require any interest in the arts and sciences (excepting the martial arts) as prerequisite to rule. 3. I have been aware of countless examples of regional arts and sciences officers who were able to assist local officers help members by making introductions, arranging small classes, and quietly suggesting that someone talk to someone about pursuing an expressed interest. And before anyone too accustomed to life in large groups shouts out "that's the work of the laurels" remember that many large areas of our society are without active laurels. Further, I would argue that many laurels see themselves as specialists, and not as general proponents of the arts and sciences. >The problem is, it's structured as "superiors" and "subordinates", and that imposes a certain mindset on people. It leads to our wholly dim reporting structure, with lots of useless communication going up and down the lines of command, accomplishing nothing. It leads to far more structure than is good for an office as vague as A&S. You seem to place the blame for the "superior" and "subordinate" mindset on the A&S officer structure. That is curious, given that it is such a feature of our general society. I refer to it as "managerial bias" and make the case that it is a defining characteristic of the modern organization. I would say, in fact, that in my experience, probably due to the nature of the people most likely to fill A&S offices, this office is far less likely to be rigidly hierarchical than is, say, the marshallate or the heralds. And I have seen some unofficial clans, households and guilds that have been far more hierarchic than any SCA office. >This is perhaps the one case where I simply see *no* valid argument for keeping the existing hierarchy. Eliminate it, and maybe replace it with something useful. Or not -- the *necessary* structures *will* grow, whether fostered by the corporation or not... Sure. easy enough for someone who is well connected and sitting plunk in the middle of a large, diverse and well-connected group. But how would your informal groups reach someone who does not have electronic mail access and who happens to live, in say, Moose Jaw, SK, or Owensboro, KY? I would suggest that the officer structure is far less necessary in large, well established groups than in small and geographically isolated groups. But even in large groups, it is good to have someone responsible for seeing that things don't fall through the cracks. This should be a primary concern of each office. This is not to argue for no change. I believe we should work to energize our offices at every level. We should raise our standards for offices and get rid of the "you got stuck with it" jokes. It seems we currently pass up few opportunities to belittle our officers, and it is often our officers that are doing the belittling. We do have a bunch of people serving who have no idea what they are doing. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have officers. If we suddenly had a generation of SCA fighters who didn't know what they were doing, we should work to train and build in structures to address the problem--not say "SCA fighting must be bad." We do need to change the focus of our officers. We need to ensure that society officers are seriously committed to helping kingdom officers, kingdom officers are devoted to helping regional officers, regional officers are truly in tune with the needs of local officers, and that local officers are more interested in serving their local members than in simply strutting around as an important person. We need to replace anyone at any level who is not committed to service. But we currently have a structure, that extends throughout the Society, which is filled with more good people than bad. Let's find ways of making this work better. -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 10:53:43 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 56 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 10:24:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Missing comment To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. I commented on Flieg's post opposing "bureaucrats electing bureaucrats" but I haven't seen it show up. Perhaps I replied to owner-scagc-l by mistake. Here is the gist. Flieg sees no legitimacy in either our present Board or in a proposal of indirect elections of officers. Or, if I'm not mistaken, the Corporation itself when contrasted with the Kingdoms, which presumably he does see as legitimate. I must say that I don't see a great deal of legitimacy in the Kingdoms -- or, to be precise, in any given set of Crowns or Crown Officers. I am a great supporter of our current method of selecting Crowns by tournament, but I don't think that this gives Crowns much of a mandate to RULE. (Canned rant on this subject available on request.) Nor do Crown Officers have much of a mandate outside of their rather narrow specializations, even if, in some kingdoms, they do act that way. Legitimacy grows out of consent. If you have no orderly way of expressing DISsent, then you leave no outs except, ultimately, secession and revolt. If that's the way its going to be, then we need no rules or structures at all. Let the strongest -- or most dissatisfied -- rule, as long as they can. Clearly, others besides Nathan will feel that the danger of electioneering to the atmosphere and pleasure of the game is very great. But there is a danger in formless chaos, too, a chaos that could eventuate if we dismantle the overall structure that we have without substituting something that is both workable and legitimate. If anyone thinks that the structure of our kingdoms would be untouched by such chaos, they are dreaming in technicolor. Flieg was eloquent in his dismissal of seneschals. I've never been a seneschal, and I've been irritated by many of them, but I do know that they are the people who on average have the best idea how our rules and the real world intersect on the local level -- in their own neighborhood. Not a bad training ground for an informed electorate, in my view. But do they have legitimacy as representatives? Now, no. That's because they are at the beck and call of everyone in the hierarchy above them, and have no counterbalancing mandate from their own group -- at least not in my neighborhood or Flieg's. However if you do give them that mandate, and if you make superior seneschals responsible to their subordinates in a real sense, then the whole equation changes. Indirect election of seneschals by seneschals going back ultimately to the local group is worth considering for the legitimacy it would give to our whole structure. And a legitimate structure would have a much better chance of dealing with practical problems and *having its decisions accepted.* Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 12:54:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 12:31:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: prior considerations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun I have been trying to summarize the other December threads with the thought that this would be helpful to those returning from the holidays. And I am not getting very far in attempting to identify proposals/topics from the past year. I see two related problems. 1) We are not together on the use of words. If you compare all the messages on a thread you will see that some people understood the original one way while others took it another way and they are talking past each other in the continuing discussion. 2) This communication problem is complicated by our very different views on the SCA. If we cannot figure out how to start from some common ground speaking the same language we are not going to get much done. To illustrate: the A&S hierarchy. Whether or not a council member thinks this is a good thing depends on that member's understanding of the hierarchy (how it works in that member's kingdom; how much attention that member has paid to it) AND that member's opinion of the ideal role of A&S in the SCA. I place a high value on A&S in the SCA; I have paid a lot of attention to A&S hierarchy in Midrealm; I think it is great and am actively working to further strengthen it. Is this a dead-end disagreement? Not necessarily. If we focus on A&S hierarchy, we will just bump heads. The same is true of discussion of something as abstract as "centralization" [what does this mean?] or something as narrow as board elections when we still have no shared sense of what the board should do. But if we can establish a common starting point for looking at all aspects of the SCA and SCAinc, we might be able to figure out how to better balance some of these parts. When I first came on the Council I asked whether the organization serves the members or the members serve the organization. The general opinion was that the organization is member-serving. Sidestepping the issue of who is a member at this point, I suggest that we view the whole kit and caboodle from the member perspective first. If we start from the view of a player we can establish a series of priorities which can guide us in debating the proper role and function of different parts. This will require us to focus on the game/administration interface--but then, that's where the rub is. To lead off: a player wants first and foremost other people to play with. So the first and highest priority of the organization is to connect the players. Currently we are doing this in two primary ways and a number of secondary ways. The primary ways are by (1) recognized groups (shires et al.) which identify and collect players in a local geographical area and (2) kingdom newsletters which advertise the opportunities to play with people outside the local geographical area. The secondary ways include other forms of communication such as Rialto and other forms of "connecting" such as wide-based households, guilds, etc. Let me know if you buy this. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 13:41:34 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 10:16:25 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Chairman's Greetings and Wishes for the Coming Year To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951230123129_81086800@emout05.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, The last year has been interesting if not conclusive. Next year, we must reach some conclusions. In order to reach conclusions, we must remain focussed on what we are trying to achieve and how we may achieve it. What we are trying to achieve is an examination of the structure of the SCA with a view to proposing well considered changes to those parts of the structure that we believe need to be changed. We cannot succeed in this if we allow ourselves to jump from topic to topic, reciting old arguments and position statements, never concluding anything. It may be, that we must all learn patience and save our arguments for the days when the relevent subject is open for discussion (this is a veiled threat to moderate the list if we cannot maintain focus any other way). For me to endorse any concrete proposal, I will need to see the following Cost Estimate What will this proposal cost in terms of money, paid labor and volunteer labor. Time Estimate How long will this proposal take to complete its job. For example, how long will it take to run an election. Conversion What is the additional cost of converting the current scheme to the proposed scheme. How long will the conversion take. How long will the service be unavailable due to the conversion. Finally, we cannot forget the terms of our charter. Thus I ask that Justin prepare a list of members who have not participated in the last 2 months and, if he has time, further lists of people who have not participated in the last 4 and 6 months. I ask the GC Appointments Committee to go through their records and find the list of applicants who were generally acceptable but not chosen. It is my belief that if anyone on that list has been contributing to our discussions, then they might be invited to fill some of the vacant seats. I will listen to private arguments on this point. As I have long stated, Tibor is my deputy. Best Wishes for the New Year Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 13:47:48 1995 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 10:21:57 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Agenda Items To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951230123129_81086800@emout05.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Your Chairman, I would like to believe that we are discussing agenda items rather that the items on the agenda. Please back off from the detailed analysis of the items until they are on the agenda. Please suggest more items for the agenda and second those you want to see discussed. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 14:24:33 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 14:02:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Alysoun: prior considerations*I CONCURR* Comments: To: "Carole C. Roos" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951230123129_81086800@emout05.mail.aol.com> Yes. I agree in every detail. I suggest polling to see how many people, if any, disagree witht the 'organization seves membership' paradigm and THAT would be our first (hopefully unanimous) startig point to work together from. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 14:54:16 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 14:31:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Agenda Items:PROPOSE:SELECTION OF BOD MEMBERS Comments: To: cNigel Haslock To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING ITEM FOR THE AGENDA (assuming it hasnt been formally proposed yet) 1) by what method should board members be selected? NOTES: A) there is discussion already under way on this issue B) I believe the branch of this discusssion dealing with "local members pick local seneshals, pick regional seneshal, pick kingdom seneshals, pick BOD members is relevant branch as it deals strictly with a selection method for BOD members. C) I believe the divergent opinions as to whether the BOD is a primrarily mundane business organ or the 'head' of the SCA is relevant because each of these views requires selecting for different skill sets, and hence different selection critereia/methods/biases. To some extent, the Job description of a BOD member (and hence the function of the BOD) will need to be settled to rationaly recomend a selection process. D) I beleieve the issue of centralization/decentralization, to the extent that it does NOT impact job description is NOT relevent or neccesary to a decision on board member selection AND would prevent any decision on this item from being reached in a timely manner. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 15:12:06 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 14:51:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Agenda Items Comments: To: "Carole C. Roos" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951230123129_81086800@emout05.mail.aol.com> I would like to place this portion of Alysouns posting (subject to her approval) on the agenda as an item to be polled. I beleive it is an essential baseline for our broader discussion and is a very rational place to start. If agreeable to the chair , I volunteer to collect 'votes' (statements of support or oppostion as this an opinion poll and not an action item) and comments, and publish the poll/vote format we are now familiar with,regularly until we have a good idea how everybody who cares to comment feels about this. say three weeks from it acceptance as an agenda item. On Sat, 30 Dec 1995, Carole C. Roos wrote: > When I first came on the Council I asked whether the organization serves the > members or the members serve the organization. The general opinion was that > the organization is member-serving. Sidestepping the issue of who is a member > at this point, I suggest that we view the whole kit and caboodle from the > member perspective first. > > If we start from the view of a player we can establish a series of priorities > which can guide us in debating the proper role and function of different > parts. This will require us to focus on the game/administration > interface--but then, that's where the rub is. > > To lead off: a player wants first and foremost other people to play with. So > the first and highest priority of the organization is to connect the players. > Currently we are doing this in two primary ways and a number of secondary > ways. The primary ways are by (1) recognized groups (shires et al.) which > identify and collect players in a local geographical area and (2) kingdom > newsletters which advertise the opportunities to play with people outside the > local geographical area. The secondary ways include other forms of > communication such as Rialto and other forms of "connecting" such as > wide-based households, guilds, etc. > > Let me know if you buy this. Some of you will probably feel that this is an absolutly NON controversial statement and that polling on it is a waste of time. I hope you're right. An explicitly agreed upon non-controversial starting point is however EXACTLY what I feel we mos need to make our discussions productive. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Dec 30 23:33:46 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 23:09:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Agenda Items:Constraints on Board members Comments: cc: fiacha@premier1.ne To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Unto the grand council greetings for a new and productive year Three more proposals for agenda items. 1. We examine means by which board members may be removed from office over and above the existing procedures. 2. Financial oversite: A. We consider the neccessity for financial accountability, oversight and independent control over the finances of the SCA Inc that are presently controlled and allocated by the board. B. We develop means for providing such oversight and/or independent control if such structures are decided to be neccessary 3. We discuss the feasability and neccessity of seperation of corporate offices (particulalry the treasurer) from the board positions. The first is obviously related to Arthur's item, selection of board members, but may need to be separately considered. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 31 10:35:10 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 10:00:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: agenda items To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I thank Arthur for suggesting my concern with a starting point (member-serving or not) on the agenda. If we agree on it--and there was general agreement from those posting on it earlier--it might be the tool we need for reaching an agreement (or at least clarifying positions) on some of the tougher issues. I would also like to put forward the question of kingdom size. During the past year I have raised a number of concerns and attempted to address them from the administrative side. This approach raised strong objections from some members. It has been suggested to me from several sources that kingdom size may be more relevant in addressing these concerns than administrative measures. We ought to consider this and think how the Board and SCAinc would be affected if we recommend more and smaller kingdoms. (Maybe this should be done before we discuss board elections?) If we work >from the perspective of the player, kingdom size becomes particularly important. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Dec 31 14:55:35 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 49 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Sun, 31 Dec 1995 12:36:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Budget Committee/Financial Information To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Investigating and concluding on the financial details of an organization is what I do for a living. When I was working for KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne, I had the good fortune to be in the private business group which meant that I participated on several large audits, but I also in many audits of small companies and not-for-profit organizations. I had many "shoebox" clients who would bring all their receipts in at once and you had to construct financial statements from them. All of this experience has lead to one conclusion for me, in order to straighten out financial messes, you have to have the source documents. That means having them sent to you or being where they are. For the SCA, that would mean being in California. I'm not sure if forming a committee to investigate the financial affairs would be useful unless the members of the committee were willing to spend a fair amount of time in California going through the records. The SCA could hire an outside accounting firm to do this, but the bills could run up quickly, especially if the work was meant to straighten out many years of poor records. Volunteer help could cut this bill down, but at minimum the volunteers would have to be decent bookkeepers and being accountants would be even better. Without this effort, all a committee could do would be to speculate about what was done and complain about their lack of information. Of course, you can set a budget even without prior information by making educated guesses about how much things should cost, but the value of the budget would be directly proportional to how good the guesses were. My suggestion is to pick a point in time (like the end of this year) and do the best job possible with what financial information is available. Then, account for things correctly in the years to come. This does mean that the previous years will be "lost", but it also means that there will be far less effort and money required. This year's budget will be poorer (less "good" information to rely on), but budgets and financial reporting in the years to come will be far better. One fear that I often hear expressed is that there has been a good deal of fraud and waste in the years past. By not spending the effort to fully investigate prior years, this information will be lost. However, future activities will be controlled and reported. Unless there is a real hope of recovering what was spent, I think that concentrating on the future would be the most prudent path to follow. I do think that a financial committee would help, but the most value would be gained from looking to the future, that is, ensuring that controls and reporting is appropriate in the years to come. regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 1 06:10:32 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 05:50:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR Comments: To: "Potter, Michael" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <30E6F468@tmpgw951.allied.com> Having done TWO "hi- you're the new manager of our non-profit corp and we have no finacnial records" reconstructions, my more expereince tallies with Myrdins. the only USEFUL thing to do if you want to know what happened in the past is to create a chart of accounts that makes sense and then get all the canceled checks and deposit slips together, compare them to the bank statements to see how much you're missing, and then record each expenses/deposit in the appropriate accounts/periods. Not a small quantity of work, even for ONE year of SCA ops. Also its best open by a single (or a couple of) competent volunteers rather than a comittee. IF the SCA is willing to reproduce a years worth of canceled checks,deposit slips, and bank statements and hand them over to a competant volunteer, I'd be willing to provide the Programming support (I.E. setup a simple foxpro application for data entry and reporting), then you'd just need a skilled volunteer to set up the chart of accounts,( I can and have done this in the past, but I'll wager we can find a more conventionaly skilled volunteer) and some poor soul with a good PC and too much time on their hands to do the data entry... On the other hand, I'd say its really not an immidiate GC concern because the real problem is not reconstructing past expenses, but controlling and recording PRESENT expenses properly. Thats REALLY going to have to come >from paid staff. Supervising or reviewing the performance of paid staff is really not something that falls within our purview I suspect. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 00:21:11 1996 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: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 23:55:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L with all this talk about the lousy shape past records are in, what's a good way to persuade Ye Home Office to start doing this year's (and next year's, and all the years thereafter) records in good accounting procedure? we can always reconstruct the past in more or less detail, sort of - but there's no reason why we can't, er, the home office can't start keeping good and accurate records now. right? (one can only shake one's head at why the board didn't insist, last year, when the financial crisis imposed itself, that good records started being kept immediately.) alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 09:56:02 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 07:22:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Financial records To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I forgot to add to my message that I haven't seen any proof that the records are in as bad shape as is claimed. They may be ok, but the _reporting_ based on them may be poor. regards, Sir Myrdin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 11:34:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 11:14:15 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Budget/financial To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun In answer to Alban, it appears to me that the Board did decide to keep better records, enlisting the services of Ghita and getting the financial booklet put together. I have been impressed with Ghita's handling of financial matters in Midrealm, although I don't know all that much about them. My understanding (see her recent posting to the Council) is that she is setting out to do what Justin had in mind--get the big picture--as well as straighten out the odd parts. Certainly having a clear view of the financial basis of the organization is something the Council should have. Since we don't have independent access to all the records, I don't see how a committee could work faster than Ghita can. And it's not clear that she can get the whole thing sorted out to give us a report during the lifetime of the Council. So a clear view of the finances may be something we can't have. This lack affects our work in two ways: (1) consideration of finances and (2) consideration of most anything else that costs money. We can work with the first if we look at systems rather than dollars (who does what, what sort of back-up or review is in place, etc.) What happens if Ghita is hit by a truck? What happens if the next financial officer is less energetic/competent? Ghita et al. can offer us the best insight on this--we don't have to think of everything ourselves, you know. There is nothing to stop the Council from endorsing a good plan if she has one. It would be very helpful if knowledgeable council members looked at the new booklet and chatted with Ghita about the State of the Matter. On the second: it would be helpful if we had some ballpark figures and if Ghita would keep an eye on our deliberations to alert us if we are wandering into the impossible. I have no idea of what the TI budget is, for example, so I don't know whether trimming it as some members have suggested is good, bad, or indifferent. This gets back to the member-serving question and the necessity of establishing priorities: determine what is most important and make sure it is well-financed, then see what is leftover for everything else. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 12:17:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 11:54:32 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: On A&S and hierarchy, response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1034053.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> (message from Roy Gathercoal on Sat, 30 Dec 1995 04:00:09 -0800) Gareth gives a few examples of good works done by the A&S Hierarchy: >1. The kingdom arts and sciences competitions have done much, at least in >some kingdoms, to promote the arts and sciences by bringing together some of >the best rising talent in the kingdom. I don't happen to like A&S comps in principle, but that's neither here nor there. It *is* clearly the case that such competitions and exhibitions do not require the presence of the hierarchy -- many such competitions, including a lot of the better ones, are run "unofficially", without any particular involvement of the hierarchy above the local level. I see absolutely no reason to believe that the removal of the hierarchy would change the comps a jot; people who like them would just keep right on running them. >2. In many kingdoms, it has been the lobbying of the arts and sciences >officers, at all levels, which has led to the honoring of some of the finest >practitioners as kingdom bards and arts champions. True. However, this would be even better served by the local-communications oriented officer I suggested. One officer pointing out someone's good works isn't nearly as effective as actually communicating those works broadly, when it comes to recognition. Again, *communication* is crucial, and must remain -- indeed, should probably be enhanced. But it should be sideways, not vertical. >In those kingdoms where the Crown takes seriously its >obligation to consult its Great Officers, the presence of the arts and >sciences officers ensures that this aspect of SCA life will not be totally >ignored--a distinct possibility given our current structure which does not >require any interest in the arts and sciences (excepting the martial arts) as >prerequisite to rule. True; but the real responsibility of the Crown is to listen to the populace when it comes to awards, and the responsibility of the populace is to inform the Crown. One officer can help that a little bit, but a well-connected network would help a lot more. >3. I have been aware of countless examples of regional arts and sciences >officers who were able to assist local officers help members by making >introductions, arranging small classes, and quietly suggesting that someone >talk to someone about pursuing an expressed interest. See previous comment -- you're right, but a rich communications net would work even better. >You seem to place the blame for the "superior" and "subordinate" mindset on >the A&S officer structure. That is curious, given that it is such a feature >of our general society. Certainly true; we are heavily influenced by our environment. But we need not adopt that environment uncritically. I simply think we've used the wrong model in this particular case. That isn't surprising, and it certainly isn't anyone's fault, but it's still inappropriate. >I would say, >in fact, that in my experience, probably due to the nature of the people most >likely to fill A&S offices, this office is far less likely to be rigidly >hierarchical than is, say, the marshallate or the heralds. True -- but with even less justification. > And I have seen >some unofficial clans, households and guilds that have been far more >hierarchic than any SCA office. Absolutely so -- excessive hierarchy is, at least, a tendency in our small-s society, and possibly inherent in human nature. That doesn't make it ideal or desireable, merely understandable. >Sure. easy enough for someone who is well connected and sitting plunk in the >middle of a large, diverse and well-connected group. But how would your >informal groups reach someone who does not have electronic mail access and who >happens to live, in say, Moose Jaw, SK, or Owensboro, KY? Bad person to pick that argument with. I'll toss aside modesty for a minute, and assert with considerable confidence that the Letter of Dance -- one example of the kind of cross-locality communication I'm propounding -- has done a *hell* of a lot more for local dancemasters in Moose Jaw than the A&S hierarchy ever managed. Indeed, that's what got me started on that project, as I sat in the Barn (Jeez, eight years ago now), and listened to the woes of a local MoA&S from an out-of-the-way shire, who simply had no *useful* resources to draw upon for teaching her people how to dance. That newsletter hit *every* Kingdom, *every* country, and very nearly every region that the Society covers, without *any* connection to or particular support from the official structures. If one person can do that, strictly on his own initiative, I'm pretty damned confident that we could build up awfully good communications nets, even if we are restricted to postal technology for some years yet... >But we currently have a structure, that extends >throughout the Society, which is filled with more good people than bad. Certainly true. My point is that we could use those good people far more effectively if we reoriented the structure to focus on local-to-local communications, instead of hierarchical ones... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters ... and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare..." -- Blair Houghton From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 12:49:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: ghita@Mercury.mcs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Susan Earley Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 11:10:58 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan Earley Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01HZIJ5L19S29BWT9G@delphi.com> For the record - the home office IS using good accounting procedure (from what I have been able to see, anyway - I'll know more after the January meeting as I'm going out a day early to check this out). We have a software package that does General Ledger. When I'm out there to see what's being done, I may change some of the categories we are using (No, I don't know who set them up in the first place, but I doubt it was Renee.) to be more detailed than they are now. Because some things are not being tracked individually (lumped together into one category), it is difficult to see what was going on with those specific things before they were broken out. Please be assured that this is definitely one of my priorities. On Mon, 1 Jan 1996, Alban St. Albans wrote: > with all this talk about the lousy shape past records are in, > what's a good way to persuade Ye Home Office to start > doing this year's (and next year's, and all the years > thereafter) records in good accounting procedure? > we can always reconstruct the past in more or less > detail, sort of - but there's no reason why we can't, > er, the home office can't start keeping good and accurate > records now. right? > > (one can only shake one's head at why the board didn't > insist, last year, when the financial crisis imposed itself, > that good records started being kept immediately.) > > alban > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "A shy, retiring young thing" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 13:13:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:33:34 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: On A&S and hierarchy, response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Sat, 30 Dec 1995 04:00:09 -0800, Roy Gathercoal writes: > Justin takes me to task for defending the Arts and Sciences officers: > > >>I'll use the A&S hierarchy, because I think it's the most blatant case. >> > I have never seen *any* real value come from the A&S hierarchy. I've > seen some valuable contributions come from some local A&S officers > (although by no means all), but I've never seen the *hierarchy* do > anything useful whatsoever. > > I have seen much good come from the A&S hierarchy. Three examples come to > mind. > > 1. The kingdom arts and sciences competitions have done much, at least in > some kingdoms, to promote the arts and sciences by bringing together some > of the best rising talent in the kingdom. Further, they have enticed > people to try new projects (especially for pentathlon-type competitions). > In many kingdoms, it is the kingdom officers who have written and updated > judging criteria, a project in itself which has done much to raise the > expectations of what is possible in the arts and sciences. Er... Roy How many people enter those competitions? Out here, we're lucky if we get 5 entrants in a Kingdom A&S competition, out of a population base of over 2000. How does this count as "doing much" to promote the A&S. Even if you got 40 entrants in the Midrealm that would only be 1% of the paid population (much less the actual). I think that almost all A&S officers would be astounded by half that much turnout in a given competition! And, Roy, the A&S competitions are not run by the A&S _hierarchy_. They are run by the officers at the top. The subordinates and reports do nothing to further the compeition. So this example doesn't support the heirarchy theory of A&S officers, IMHO. Finally, you are assuming that competitions are a positive good. There are many people who would disagree with you -- some of them are Laurels. > > 2. In many kingdoms, it has been the lobbying of the arts and sciences > officers, at all levels, which has led to the honoring of some of the > finest practitioners as kingdom bards and arts champions. [..a buncha trim for length...] And in this Kingdom, it was the Crown who set up the honor, not the A&S officers. Again, you don't need a _heirarchy_ to do this. > > 3. I have been aware of countless examples of regional arts and sciences > officers who were able to assist local officers help members by making > introductions, arranging small classes, and quietly suggesting that > someone talk to someone about pursuing an expressed interest. And before > anyone too accustomed to life in large groups shouts out "that's the work > of the laurels" remember that many large areas of our society are without > active laurels. Further, I would argue that many laurels see themselves > as specialists, and not as general proponents of the arts and sciences. So you have some people who help. Justin's point, and mine, is that you don't _need_ to have a vertically organized structure to set this up. I am equally aware of numerous areas where the A&S officers are irrelevant to the pursuit of artistic endeavors. (My point here being that we can compare anecdotes without actually proving the worth of the heirarchy; my examples of when it doesn't work are not relevant.) > >[..Justin said...] >>The problem is, it's structured as "superiors" and "subordinates", and >> > that imposes a certain mindset on people. It leads to our wholly dim > reporting structure, with lots of useless communication going up and > down the lines of command, accomplishing nothing. It leads to far more > structure than is good for an office as vague as A&S. > > You seem to place the blame for the "superior" and "subordinate" mindset > on the A&S officer structure. Roy, I have to disagree with you here. He is saying that the "managerial bias" has led to the A&S _heirarchy_ and that it reinforces itself, blocking other mode of organization. I feel that he is too pessimistic here, but agree that much of the support of the arts comes about _in spite of_ the A&S structure, not _because of_ it. [...more trim...]> > > Sure. easy enough for someone who is well connected and sitting plunk in > the middle of a large, diverse and well-connected group. But how would > your informal groups reach someone who does not have electronic mail > access and who happens to live, in say, Moose Jaw, SK, or Owensboro, KY? Via advertisements in the Kingdom Newsletters, publications of their own distributed at regional events, deliberate outreach to Seneschales, etc. Given the really very small _downward_ reach that is normal in the A&S heirarchy, I would expect Justin's proposal to be at least as successful as the current situation. [.trim...] > We do need to change the focus of our officers. We need to ensure that > society officers are seriously committed to helping kingdom officers, > kingdom officers are devoted to helping regional officers, regional > officers are truly in tune with the needs of local officers, and that > local officers are more interested in serving their local members than in > simply strutting around as an important person. We need to replace > anyone at any level who is not committed to service. But we currently > have a structure, that extends throughout the Society, which is filled > with more good people than bad. Let's find ways of making this work > better. > Justin's proposal is that "what would work better" is not a heirarchy but a loose arrangement of groups devoted to particular arts and sciences, purhaps a "guild model" rather than an "management model". (Justin, am I reading you correctly?) You are right that the "management model" would work if it were filled with people such as you describe. _Any_ model will work if you have that kind of people. There just aren't that many of that kind of people. There are more of the kind of people who are willing to teach all about "inglefark ponting" than there are who want to be generalists. The current system doesn't and _can't_ use them, except as resources, which they can be without the current system. Anyway, my two cents on the chaos side. (Not disorganized chaos, however, Finnvaar is right about the dangers of _that_.) * * * 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 Tue Jan 2 13:40:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:16:28 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Voting on the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 1 Jan 1996 21:52:45 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Voting on the Board >If we don't do that, we should forget about elections completely and stick >with the current system. > I feel that our Medieval organization, even in the Modern world, has NO need to be democratic. We needsome mechanism to prevent or redress abuses...I've seen little in democratic practices (as opposed to theory) that will guarantee this. What simpler mechanisms could do this? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 13:59:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:25:58 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Mon, 1 Jan 1996 23:55:43 -0500, "Alban St. Albans" writes: > with all this talk about the lousy shape past records are in, > what's a good way to persuade Ye Home Office to start > doing this year's (and next year's, and all the years > thereafter) records in good accounting procedure? > we can always reconstruct the past in more or less > detail, sort of - but there's no reason why we can't, > er, the home office can't start keeping good and accurate > records now. right? > > (one can only shake one's head at why the board didn't > insist, last year, when the financial crisis imposed itself, > that good records started being kept immediately.) > > alban > Actually, the records, as I understand it, are in _decent_ shape for the last year and a half. It is the time before that where they are truly chaotic. (The SCA, Inc. hired a book-keeping firm about the time that the Writ of Mandamus action was taking place.) The Mandamus action produced the shoe-boxes. If you want those records talk to Monica or one of the other people involved. * * * 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 Tue Jan 2 14:16:05 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 18 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:33:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Voting on the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I feel that our Medieval organization, even in the Modern world, has NO need >to be democratic. >We needsome mechanism to prevent or redress abuses...I've seen little in >democratic practices (as opposed to theory) that will guarantee this. >What simpler mechanisms could do this? Well, Magnus, having dismissed the political experience of the ages (IMHO), I think you have a certain obligation to answer this yourself. Historically speaking, the usual alternatives are 1) to give all power to a god-like figure whose morality and wisdom, because divine, are beyond reproach or 2) divide society into functional castes, the governing caste being, because of descent and superior moral training, beyond reproach. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 14:17:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:47:19 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Various on Heirarchy, Elections, etc. (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199512300241.UAA53348@black.missouri.edu> (message from Joseph Heck on Fri, 29 Dec 1995 20:41:00 -0600) Morgan writes: >I agree with Finnvarr and Gareth that the concept of a federation of >Kingdoms is bad, especially if the representative body is constituted >by population. I also know that a lot of Midrealmers are not happy >with Curia being as it is, and would NOT want to have a Curia-run >representative to the Board. Well, although I *am* in favor of some level of federalization, one thing is quite clear: this, or indeed any significant level of decentralization, would require the Kingdoms to get their act together better. It's clear that many, perhaps all, of the Kingdoms are scarcely more representative of the populace than the upper levels of the Corporation. This is a separate, but clearly related issue... -- Justin No, I'm not starting that argument right now, just acknowledging its existance... Random Quote du Jour: "While Albert Einstein is queueing to enter heaven, he meets three men. He asks about their IQs. The first replies 190. `Wonderful,' exclaims Einstein. `We can discuss my theory of relativity'. The second answers 150. `Good,' says Einstein. `I look forward to discussing the prospects for world peace'. The third mumbles 50. Einstein pauses. `So what is your forecast for GDP growth next year?'" -- from The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 14:19:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:51:52 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Nathan: Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 13:48:08 -0500 (EST) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Nathan: Electing Board: Options and Costs >In-Reply-To: On Fri, 29 Dec 1995, Nathan Clarenburg wrote: > I'm strongly against introducing real democracy into the SCA. That would > blow apart the dream for too many of my friends. But a form of democracy, or at least representative goverment is quite historical. More so in fact that many SCA customs. Look FREX at the Italian republics, or how popes, bishops, deans, etc. were chosen, or at guild elections. Heck, look at how the king of Jerusalem was chosen (at one point by election of the major peers). It is easy to fit it into the dream, if history is part of the dream. > > I'm pretty set against a plebescite of Seneschals or suchlike....it would > be very difficult to assemble strong information about the candidates, and > MIGHT introduce ELECTION CAMPAIGNS into our organization (*shudder*). One > way or the other, any general election is likely to be more of a charisma > war than a carefully considered vote.....especially if we need several of > them every year. Ask Tibor and some of the Carolingians about how our new baronial couple was chosen. Despite many fears of campaigning, it went with an amazing amount of speed and decorum. SCA folks can act like adults if we try. > > A better system of polling the populace is also in order. Putting letters > in TI asking for comment is a method that has proven to be grossly > inadequate. I have an idea on how to address this, but will put it into a > different letter with a more appropriate Subject Line. At a though, how about regularly scheduled b***h sessions like SF conventions hold were anyone who is interested can come and directly address the office holders with no reprecussions. --Esclarmonde From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 14:20:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:56:00 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: On A&S and hierarchy, response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 09:28:00 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: On A&S and hierarchy, response to Justin >>The problem is, it's structured as "superiors" and "subordinates", and >that imposes a certain mindset on people. It leads to our wholly dim >reporting structure, with lots of useless communication going up and >down the lines of command, accomplishing nothing. It leads to far more >structure than is good for an office as vague as A&S. > >This is not to argue for no change. I believe we should work to energize our >offices at every level. We should raise our standards for offices and get rid >of the "you got stuck with it" jokes. It seems we currently pass up few >opportunities to belittle our officers, and it is often our officers that are >doing the belittling. We do have a bunch of people serving who have no idea >what they are doing. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have officers. If >we suddenly had a generation of SCA fighters who didn't know what they were >doing, we should work to train and build in structures to address the >problem--not say "SCA fighting must be bad." > >We do need to change the focus of our officers. We need to ensure that >society officers are seriously committed to helping kingdom officers, kingdom >officers are devoted to helping regional officers, regional officers are truly >in tune with the needs of local officers, and that local officers are more >interested in serving their local members than in simply strutting around as >an important person. We need to replace anyone at any level who is not >committed to service. But we currently have a structure, that extends >throughout the Society, which is filled with more good people than bad. >Let's find ways of making this work better. > > I find myself agreeing with both of the above reviewers. The Reporting structure seems nearly useless, both in A&S and in the Heraldic offices as well. The positins should not be done away with, rather they shouldbe part of our educatiol and training mission. Officers as experts available to the local groups coordinators and interested individuals. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 14:23:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:00:27 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacement summary* To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:32:16 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Replacement summary* >The general opinion arising from the discussion was that (1) the >non-participation rule (or something like it) should be enforced and (2) >there was no advantage in replacing non-participating members at this time. >The only message exception was from the Bearkiller who was concerned about >kingdom representatives. > >Members participating in the discussion were: Fiacha, Tibor, Finnvarr, >Corwyn, Justin, Magnus, Janna, Bertrik, Modius, Michael Fenwick, John of >Sternfield, and Serwyl. (I hope I have not missed anyone.) > >Given the lack of disagreement on this topic, we can say that the Council >favors removing those who do not participate and sees no need to replace them >at this time. >**** Alysoun, thanx for the recap. I thought I'd seen my position in print so did not reiterate it. We need to 1. Send notices 2. Remove nonparticipants AND 3. Replace them Becuz....That is what our rules say. I find that we often don't even follow our own rules here, but we should follow those given to us from the Board. I certainly have no objestion to ustelling the board that we wouldn'tfind replacements valuable, but unless they change their directions to us, we must make plans to replace them. If the Notices are sent now this should give us plenty of time to figure it out. \Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 14:24:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:52:48 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Officers: good, bad, and reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Officers: good, bad, and reporting >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 30 Dec 1995 04:00:28 PST." > <1034065.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 1995 15:09:14 -0800 Greetings to the members of the GC from siobhan. I've read the notes about various officers from Finnvarr, Flieg, Tibor, Justin, and Gareth, all of whom I respect enormously. Lying in bed this morning thinking about this topic (not my usual waking-up thoughts, but perhaps something hatched overnight), I've come to the conclusion that, like the blind men and the elephant, they are all right. Not that any of these gentles are blind. On the contrary, they see very clearly. But there are different parts that they see. I think we can think about seneschals and arts officers similarly for this moment. Both have enormous, onerous, and sometimes rediculous reporting requirements. Both have no local power, unless their group decides to grant it. Both feel, most of the time, that they live at the whim of (frequently) faceless superiors who could remove them with little recourse. Most hoard what information they gather and seldom distribute it to anyone's good use. Now, I've been an arts officer at the local, baronial, and regional level. I've been a regional seneschal. For my sins, I've been a Kingdom chronicler and Corporate officer and promoted pointless reporting. I've been caught in this web. Once or twice I think I had good ideas, but they weren't ideas which got me approval or encouragement from the upper hierarchies, _because they were ideas which pushed information and responsibility down to the lower levels._ Let's talk briefly about which direction service points in the Arts and in the Seneschalate. Usually, the arts officer or seneschal always has his or her face turned upward, thinking of the report that must be generated in (X) weeks. Thinking of how to best present the local group's activities to some superior. In one Kingdom of my personal knowledge, the arts reporting requirement encourages A&S officers to call or question everyone in the local group, asking what they are doing, so as to have a listing of every activity happening in the group. That information goes up the chain and disappears into a filing cabinet. No one benefits, not even the folks who were asked. (except that they might then know they had an arts officer or Seneschal.) Yes, some groups don't need officers because they have strong sub-organizations that, being locally focused, take the place of local officers (and do it better, in many instances). But in the group I live in now, our arts officer is invisible and our seneschal doesn't really have a good handle on how to make things click. The group hardly has any idea that anyone else exists in their county. They're too far geographically from the busy hub of the principality to really have caught the flavor of how things run. I'm finding myself doing organizational things because .. well, I guess because that's what Pelicans do. ;-) In my perfect world (smile), officers would focus on what the needs of the group were. Instead of info feeding solely upwards, it would go back out and down. Clever ideas (fundraising, demo choreography, group tapestries, banner painting, classes that worked really well, event planning techniques) would be spread to groups that needed help. Local group seneschals would get calls from folks above not to find out where the report is, but to find out what the local need was. I think regional officers need to travel. If they can't themselves _do_ a needed seminar, they should help find someone who can. Our upper level officers need to be resources, not drains on local energy. Reporting is another bugaboo. Why do we have the reporting we have? Nominally to make sure the organization is healthy. I fear sometimes we are generating paperwork, not activity. But we can't just knock it, we have to come up with something that will replace it. I don't have a total plan, but I think we should start by changing what we share and what happens to it when it gets to the "upper" level. I've thought that we should, instead of lists of activities, be sharing things like: Outlines of classes Detailed instructions on how to do good fundraising or demos Contact lists of people who can teach Lists of problems or needs that the group wants met (and, if needed, a private trouble note) When the "upper" level got this stuff, they'd be responsible for spreading the info. how? Newsletter, Web, email, whatever. If nothing else, photocopying the relevant stuff and send it to the others in the region. (altho I think, personally, that the last is a _terrible_ idea.) The needs lists should be broadcast and the officer should help find ways to fill it. (Heck, if nothing else most groups probably have the facility to video-tape a seminar if they want to send it to someone too remote to reach. Syr Aldric once sent slides of fighting lessons to Saskatoon because they didn't at that time have any authorized fighters, and at least one of the folks went on to become knighted...) I think we don't need quarterly paper reports above the principality or regional level. Let the regionals do the jobs they've been selected to do. We might get better performance if they felt they were serving the folks of their principality/region rather than the one officer above them. A phone call, email, or post card once a month and then a summary at the end of the year should be enough. The important thing here is that the information needs to spread. Perhaps along with the Budget group you should consider constituting a group to consider how to energize local officers and make our structure better meet their needs. I personally believe that energizing local officers to help their local groups would solve a number of other problems we have, such as too few autocrats, too few qualified candidates for principality and Kingdom offices, decline in attendees at Kingdom arts events, etc. Regards, and thanks for reading all the way to the end, siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 14:24:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 13:59:30 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Magnus... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:17:37 -0600 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group >> 1. This will be seen as a threat. Autonomy is an important part of any job, >> and just as there is always resistance to providing "real numbers" to >> outsiders (including people from other departments) in large corporations, >> there will be resistance to providing real numbers to anyone from the GC, and >> especially anyone known as being involved in a reform movement that has been >> perceived as hostile. If that were to be the reaction, then I would say that yes, these people need to be removed. This is ofcourse unless the people seeking the information approach them with hostility. This I find unecessarry and unlikely. Factual information must be passed about freely in this organization. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 16:06:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CLSMIT@CCMAIL.MONSANTO.COM Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:35:15 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carol L. Smith" Subject: Re: Chairman's Greetings and Wishes for the Coming Year To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha -- Please email me privately. I have some stuff for you! Thanks. Sorry for the waste of bandwidth; my mailer doesn't provide author addresses. Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 16:18:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 15:21:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Topics, etc. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L New Years Greetings GCers! I second the topic of Election and Removal of BoD officers. I would support 2 to 3 year BoD terms if there is a vote of confidence clause. Based on some sort of vote, ie each Crown and each Kingdom seneshal get one vote, all votes are tallied, and if 75%+ agree on removal the BoD member is removed. I think we should table discussion on Kingdom size. My new mailing address is modius@cityscope.net and my web site is http://www.cityscope.net/~modius. -Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 20:22:13 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:09:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Democracy in the Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L How relevant this is to our current concerns is debatable, but for those interested, I did write an article, "Res Publica: Democratic Elements in Medieval Life" in TI #104 (Fall 1992), pp. 34-37. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 20:22:15 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 12 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 17:58:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Bitch sessions To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > At a thought, how about regularly scheduled b***h sessions like >SF conventions hold were anyone who is interested can come and directly >address the office holders with no reprecussions. > --Esclarmonde In the Canadian and British Parliaments, this is called "Question Period." Usually there is a great deal of heckling and noise and no obvious payoff. But every once in a while the government is nailed, the minister promises to do something, and a wrong is righted or a policy changed. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 20:22:17 1996 Return-Path: Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 19:04:14 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Subscribe To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I would like to subscribe to the Listserv and recieve daily gc discussions Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 20:27:34 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 16:21:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Agenda Items (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [From Galleron, via Tibor] Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Tue Jan 2 11:55 EST 1996 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 11:53:49 -0500 Message-ID: <960102115348_82491873@mail04.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Agenda Items Content-Type: text Content-Length: 1946 Please forward to GC So far, a number of agenda topics have been proposed: Alysoun's "Does the organization exist to Serve the Members?" poll Ways to elect/select the Board Better Ways to Remove Board Members Financial Oversight of Board (Justin's Budget Review Proposal might be considered a subset of this) Separating Corporate offices from Board positions Smaller Kingdoms and how to encourage them Three topics from Modius that were widely opposed in the form he proposed them (although the centralization/decentralization question could be profitably pursued in the context of specific proposals like Cariadoc II) I apologize if I've missed any. This already looks like more than the Council can discuss at one time. I repeat my suggestion that Fiacha/Tibor publish and maintain a "List of Concerns", separate from the Agenda, for subjects the GC wants at address eventually but isn't ready to yet. My favorite topic for immediate discussion from the list above is "Electing the Board"- it isn't necessarily the most important topic, but the Council may be able to come to closure on it fairly quickly- and Edward Z did ask that the Council address it. To that I would add "Relationship of SCA, inc. to other SCA corporations" with Cariadoc II as a starting point. It's another that Edward asked the Council to look at, it is of immediate impotance to the non-US groups, and it will provide a framework for decentralization within the US if desired. Other topics I would like the GC to look at (But probably not yet) Votes of No Confidence on specific Board actions Increased Checks and Balances, and Explicit consent of Governed, at Kingdom Level? Appeals Body between Kingdoms and Board What other Functions/Powers of the Board are better shifted elsewhere? Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy As I said before, I welcome private e-mail on my "Electing the Board" report while the Council is discussing the Agenda content. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 21:46:22 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:13:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Siobhan's post on officer reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Our reporting structure presumes a need to document activity. I believe this comes out of a feeling that we must demonstrate our educational purpose. If our officers thought of themselves as teachers, perhaps we would think of more productive ways of organizing many of our functions. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 23:04:00 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:26:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: BOD selection and removal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Four methods for selection of BOD members have been mentioned recently: 1. Direct election by the populace, 2. Election by Kingdom Seneschals (who may or may not themselves be elected by local seneschals), 3. One member selected by each Kingdom (by whatever manner the Kingdom chooses), 4. No change to the current election method. (Please let me know if I've missed a method or misstated any). I could not support direct election by the populace for several reasons. General elections assume the voting populace has some sort of knowledge of the candidates, their history and positions (or at least have access to this information). In the US, candidates spend a great deal of money campaigning to get their 'message' out. Print and electronic media cover and comment on candidate experience, positions and personal characteristics. Even with all this information available, few voters actually make fully informed choices, rather they rely on gut feelings and instinct to guide them. A recent example being the defeat of George Bush in the last Presidential election. Voters attached themselves to the concept of Bush as 'wimp' and Clinton representing 'change', without really being clear on exact issues. My point is that not only does the general populace of the SCA not have the tools to make informed decsions, most probably do not want to be flooded with the information necessary to make an informed choice. I certainly would not look forward to campaigning in any form in the SCA, it would ruin the fantasy for many of us. I would also be afraid of such elections being popularity contests rather than mandates from the populace on direction. For election of the BOD by Kingdom Seneschals, some of the same commentary applies. Although since the candidates have a smaller electorate to get their message to the negative effects of campaigning can be minimized. The real problem is that there is still no mandate. The third method, having BOD members selected by each Kingdom, suffers from problems regardless of the selection method. Larger kingdoms are underrepresented. If the selection method is democratic, it suffers from the same problems as a general election. If chosen by the Crown, curia or seneschal (or any combination thereof), the selection can be seen as maintaining the status quo. In any event, there is no guarantee a given Kingdom has someone willing or capable to do the job. This is mostly a problem for smaller or more distant Kingdoms. Drachenvald may not always have someone capable of making Board meetings in the US, and there is only so much you can do by conference call. Trimaris currently has no Board member (and I know of no one itching for the job). On the other hand, the East may have a couple of excellent candidates, but only one could serve at a time. The final method, leaving the selection method alone, seems to me to be the least objectionable. I would prefer to see clearer methods of removal and censure than a new way to select the Board. The method suggested to allow the Crowns and Seneschals a vote a piece with binding removal if 75% vote to oust seems reasonable. This, combined with clear guidelines for binding removal based on a petition from the populace seems reasonable. I wonder what use could be made of a 51% 'no confidence' vote as an intermediate level before binding removal? Serwyl (Who never thought he would be using his International Relations degree in quite this way) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 2 23:45:01 1996 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, 2 Jan 1996 23:19:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L in response to ghita's response about my wondering about financial policies, please be aware that i've notified my home office (aka what passes for a brain) that i'll shut up about what the sca corporate offices are doing about financial reporting. i'll also discipline my fingers for typingwithout first hooking the brain into circuit. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 00:20:42 1996 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, 2 Jan 1996 23:57:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Agenda Items (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L actually, i'd like to suggest moving the "election of the board" discussion to the way-back burner, and turn to "removal of a board member" discussion. the election of a board sort of vaguely works, and trying to introduce a brand new method will generate considerable heat when the old method hasn't been shown to be tragically flawed. (flawed, yes, but not tragically so.) however, there's _no_ way for anyone not on the board to remvoe a board member, so we should work on this. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 02:54:08 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nathan Clarenburg Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:33:21 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nathan Clarenburg Subject: Nathan - Corporate-level information coordinator To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Siobhan and others reiterate concerns I've held for years about problems in the A&S setup. I think we need to refine the reasons for information to travel "up" from local to corporate level, and wish there were more effective ways to send information back "down" to local officers and the people they serve. Finnvarr points out the possible need to document our A&S activity to defend our tax status, but if this is the intent then we're not collecting the appropriate information - we should be documenting demos. Moreover, while it's possible that all this information should be collected and inventoried, but I don't think any comprehensive database has been established (if so, I'm simply unaware of how to access it!). There are many other pieces of information I'd like to see gathered and collated on an inter-kingdom basis such as injury statistics (fighting, dancing, camping-related, post-feast intestinal disorders), food safety, and a general record of SCA-published articles. The latter could influence the development of A&S while the former two would provide baseline information by which we could evaluate the impact of changes to marshallate regulations, fire and camping regs, and efforts to improve hygiene. Another set of information relates to recruiting materials, recruiting techniques, educational materials, and training & administration issues surrounding demos. A related issue is the setting up of national-level relationships with organizations we frequently help out (Scouts, school organizations, etc.). Based on the above, allow me to open just one more can of worms before we whittle down our topics of discussion: I believe all the above issues could be handled by a single corporate-level officer whose responsibility would be to collect and disseminate information based on SCA research. This office could have sub-deputies involved specifically with A&S, health issues, and with other information-gathering focuses. The office would both gather information generated from existing research and would generate research projects of its own. I think all these functions could be consolidated into one office and this would also help us get a lot more use out of the channels for communication that exist. Nathan, Calontir GC rep nathan@cis.ksu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 03:07:25 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nathan Clarenburg Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 01:46:19 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nathan Clarenburg Subject: Re: Nathan: Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9601021851.AA02354@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Would someone in favor of re-vamping the Board selection process please describe how this measure could have avoided any of the recent problems we've had with the Board? > Forwarded for Esclarmonde... > -- Justin > > I'm strongly against introducing real democracy into the SCA. That would > > blow apart the dream for too many of my friends. > > But a form of democracy, or at least representative goverment is quite > historical. Agreed, but I will maintain that our Society is not historical. We are determining procedures for a recreationist group with highly idealistic dreams and ideals. This is neither bad nor good - but it's the way we are and we need rules and procedures that agree with it. Democracy doesn't fit in with many of our Monarchist dreams, and a large number of people in the kingdom I represent would HIGHLY resent it if we introduced it into our everyday SCA-life. > Ask Tibor and some of the Carolingians about how our new baronial > couple was chosen. Despite many fears of campaigning, it went with an > amazing amount of speed and decorum. SCA folks can act like adults if we > try. Agreed that this system can work. It can also fail dramatically and cause major schisms. Let me ask again: How would a democratic selection process have prevented any of the failures of the past few years? If the current process if broken, how would this measure fix it? > > A better system of polling the populace is also in order. Putting letters > > in TI asking for comment is a method that has proven to be grossly > > inadequate. I have an idea on how to address this, but will put it into a > > different letter with a more appropriate Subject Line. > > At a though, how about regularly scheduled b***h sessions like > SF conventions hold were anyone who is interested can come and directly > address the office holders with no reprecussions. Our kingdom has these sessions, which we call Althings. Such a measure already happens to some degree on a national level at Board meetings. But I'm skeptical that these sessions would have a substantial impact on the problems we're currently discussing (accountability and improved lines of communication between Board and the general "membership"). Nathan, Calontir GC rep. 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 Wed Jan 3 09:35:40 1996 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: 2453 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:16:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor] Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:09:24 -0500 Message-ID: <960102140924_29702796@emout05.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item Please forward to GC Arthur suggested a poll on whether we agreed with Alysoun's statement that the SCA exists to serve its members, and asked for votes on whether the Council agreed or disagreed with her statement, which read in part: >To lead off: a player wants first and foremost other people to play with. So >the first and highest priority of the organization is to connect the players. >Currently we are doing this in two primary ways and a number of secondary >ways. The primary ways are by (1) recognized groups (shires et al.) which >identify and collect players in a local geographical area and (2) kingdom >newsletters which advertise the opportunities to play with people outside the >local geographical area. The secondary ways include other forms of >communication such as Rialto and other forms of "connecting" such as >wide-based households, guilds, etc. > > As phrased that's pretty much mom-and-apple-pie as far as it goes. But if we stop there we have a pretty limited view of the ways the organization serves the members. I think it would be more productive to phrase the poll as follows: I agree/disagree with each of the following: (yes or no for each) 1) The SCA exists to serve its members by: 2) recognizing groups to identify and collect players in a local geographic area, 3) publishing kingdom newsletters to advertise the opportunities to play with people ouside the local area, 4) providing insurance and support so sites will let members play there, even though members want to have tournaments and hit each other real hard and so that 5) members won't lose their house if an unfortunate accident happens while their friends are playing, 6) making sure that when members move to a different state or country, they can still play more or less the same game and can still keep their nifty ranks and awards, 7) making sure that when members go to play it will be the game they want to play, 8) keep jerks from spoiling the fun, and 9) publishing neat articles and other information on medieval stuff that members can read even if they live in a different kingdom or country than the author and even if they don't have a computer. Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 09:44:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 08:10:22 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Various on Heirarchy, Elections, etc. (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Kwellend-Njal David W. James said: > From vnend@aol.net Tue Jan 2 20:33:02 1996 > From: "David W. James" > Message-Id: <9601021029.ZM10830@zelazny.ops.aol.com> > Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 10:29:23 -0500 > In-Reply-To: Joseph Heck > "Various on Heirarchy, Elections, etc. (fwd)" (Dec 29, 8:41pm) > References: <199512300241.UAA53348@black.missouri.edu> > X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) > To: ccjoe@SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU > Subject: Re: Various on Heirarchy, Elections, etc. (fwd) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Joe, please forward to the list, thank you. > > > Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > > I agree with Finnvarr and Gareth that the concept of a federation of Kingdoms > > is bad, especially if the representative body is constituted by population. > > Why? > > Though I confess to being distracted by work and other things, I don't recall > any of the three of you saying *why* you felt a federation of Kingdoms is > 'bad', or what you mean by 'bad'. > > Personally, I feel that a federation of kingdoms is a more accurate model for > the SCA than the current monolithic structure, and that the decentralization > implied by a confederal structure as a good way to address the problems of the > last few years. That is, I think it to be 'good' because it more accurately > represents reality and appears to address certain problems I find particularly > galling. It has the added benefit of having been shown to work for other > organizations. > > Kwellend-Njal > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 10:39:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 07:02:52 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Chairman's Greetings and Wishes for the Coming Year To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings Caroline, My email address is fiacha@premier1.net Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 10:52:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1.net (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 07:21:12 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, >with all this talk about the lousy shape past records are in, >what's a good way to persuade Ye Home Office to start >doing this year's (and next year's, and all the years >thereafter) records in good accounting procedure? We cannot instantaneously do this. Individually, we can write letters to the Board. In the long term, perhaps we can raise this as an agenda item, discuss it and make the necessary recommendation but that will not get the record keeping fixed right away. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 11:03:12 1996 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: 1052 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:26:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Topics, etc. (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [For Guillaume, by Tibor] Forwarded message: To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Re: Topics, etc. Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 16:45:42 -0500 From: Bill Sommerfeld I'm commenting on Modius's message. Please forward to the GC if you think appropriate. I would support 2 to 3 year BoD terms if there is a vote of confidence clause. Based on some sort of vote, ie each Crown and each Kingdom seneshal get one vote, all votes are tallied, and if 75%+ agree on removal the BoD member is removed. Note that the conventional model for "votes of confidence" (the British parliamentary system), requires a vote of 50%+ of the parliament for the government to *stay in power*. [as I favor "rough consensus" as opposed to "majority rules", I'd prefer a system which required approval from 75%+ of the electorate before someone took office, but then our culture seems to celebrate the dominance of the 51% over the 49%] - Bill [just a lurker on the GC list] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 11:11:43 1996 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: 2054 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 10:37:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Nathan: Electing Board: Options and Costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nathan Clarenburg" at Jan 3, 96 01:46:19 am Greetings from Tibor. Nathan asked: Would someone in favor of re-vamping the Board selection process please describe how this measure could have avoided any of the recent problems we've had with the Board? I'm not sure where I stand on the idea of re-vamping Board selection processes. On the one hand, I don't think that's where things are the most broken. On the other, I do see a tendency for selection of new Directors who will give a lot and go along a lot... not altogether bad, but sometimes a rabble rouser may be called for. Surely, that process could be improved: but not as a first thing. However, I'm willing to try and play-act a little alternate history... with the caveat that this is all one person's version of "Woulda been, Coulda been, Shoulda been." In a nutshell, if the Directors had felt answerable to a consituency, they might well have checked with that constituency before enacting any of the changes that later drew such angry outcries. If that had been the case, it might also have "legitimized" some of those changes, making them harder to argue against. As the various Directors resigned over the year 1994, perhaps they would have been replaced with Directors who had a clear mandate to reverse some of those decisions. Nathan, let me spin the question back at you. I'm counting on your sense of fair play here... You were the GC Representative that was appointed by Calontir, and you frequently sign your posts that way. However, Calontir cannot mandate your removal: you are not directly answerable to Calontir. How do you think that changes your role and responsibilities to the GC, and your Kingdom? Would you change, or re-emphasize things differently if you were picked for the committee by the original sub-committee on staffing? Or by the Board? If there would be even a slight difference, how would it affect things? I believe that our built-in senses of loyalty and fair play make us more responsive to those that give us our positions. It's the ethos of the Society, I suspect. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 12:06:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:35:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: do I have to? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L While I am convinced that we should agree on some mutual vantage point for assessing all aspects, do I have to run a poll on member-serving? What I would rather do is set up priorities from a player stand-point, determine where the weak/trouble spots are, and then tackle them by the order of impact. Admittedly this runs against some of the current topics, but underlies other discussion threads. Let me explain where I'd like to go and if it only messes things up, I'll drop it. (Fiacha?) Player needs are: (1) ways to connect with other players; (2) opportunities to play; (3) information on how to play (SCA how-to and medieval education); and (4) recognition. These needs are met through SCAinc, the society, the kingdom, the game, etc., in varying degrees. Justin's concern with promoting A&S is a prime example of the overlap and potential friction. If the whole purpose of the A&S hierarchy is to generate information for the corporation's tax status, it clearly ought to be abolished because it is not member-serving, but corporation-serving. Locally, I do not think this is the case--my experience with the A&S hierarchy here is that it promotes informal initiative and the kind of communication webs I think Justin is talking about, works toward providing more opportunities for play in this area and connects players with A&S interests. And it is instrumental in helping players get recogition for their work. Now, what is really going on in the A&S discussion thread? What are the real sore spots? How much of it is coming from the corporate level (pressure for reports)? How much of it is a kingdom problem (caving in to corporate pressure, attitude/vision of A&S officers, influence of Laurels [the game side])? Is the main gripe four reports a year or that those reports fall into a black hole--and whose fault is that? If the A&S hierarchy in one area works well and in another it doesn't, there is some factor beyond the "A&S hierarchy" that needs attention. Before we can address that, we need to make sure we agree on what "working well" means. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 12:48:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 11:12:43 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan on Electing Board Members (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: >From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Wed Jan 3 11:13:19 1996 Date: 03 Jan 96 12:14:37 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Grand Council Discussion Group Subject: Morgan on Electing Board Members Message-ID: <960103171436_72672.2312_FHP30-1@CompuServe.COM> Nathan suggested that what needs fixing is the method of ejection, not the method of election, and claims that the comment-from-populace posting in TI is inadequate. Actually, I know of at least one person who will NOT get on the Board because of the flood of negative letters which followed the printing of his name in TI, so I don't think it's totally broken. However, the system could be a lot better. What if it were a two-step process? First, the commentary. Then, those members for whom there was commentary would be reviewed as far as SCA and mundane resumes and the sum of the commentary, and thoe who met the majority of a certain criteria (got at least 75 of 100 points?) would be placed on the ballot for Board elections at the assigned time. This would be rather like what Consumers Union and other organizations with which I am involved holds their elections. A brief summary of the person, meeting certain standards including length, accompanies the ballot. I agree with Finnvarr that winning Crown tourney is no guarantee of the ability to rule or make reasoned, appropriate long-term decisions. I also agree that the current, Royal-appointment form of filling officers slots is flawd in arelated way; I have seen too many examples of people being appointed to fulfil promises or for other incestuous reasons instead of based upon ability. Magnus said that there is no place in the SCA for democracy. True, but the Corporation is a creature of mundania, and should be run as democratically as possible. The NFP corporate laws of most states (I am familiar primarily with California, Ohio, and Illinois) allow for directors to be elected by the members of the corporation. In Illinois, a director may be removed with or without cause, and by vote of the memebrs or, if there are none, by vote of the other directors. I think it is in the latter place that the SCA, Inc. falls down, as there is no way for the non-member participants to remove a director under the current constitution of the Corporation. Is the GC now going to offer recommendations for rewriting the corporate bylaws and articles of incorporation? Esclarmonde suggested "regularly scheduled b***h sessions" at which issues could be addressed. Many groups hold these as post-mortems for Events, as do the convention folk, as a way of figuring out what went right and wrong. These could be tacked onto the Board Meetings, I suppose, but logistically it would be a difficult thing to do at the Corporate level. Could be useful at the lower levels, however, when addressing the question of heirarchy. Speaking of heirarchies, I agree with Siobhan that information needs to be spread out. Having been a lower-level officer in a number of offices, I have not seen a lot of information filtering back down, except possibly at the officer meetings at Pennsic and Crown adn the like, which have been decidedly LESS than useful. When unofficial publications do more to disseminate A&S info than the official ones, someone needs to rethink their strategies. Finnvarr may be right that the officers think of themselves as information-gatherers rather than teachers, and Nathan may be right that a single office can probabaly collect the information at the Corporate level. But I think more than demos show the educational aspect of the SCA -- the RUSH/RUM/Ithra/KWA&S also teach, as do in-group classes and workshops and the A&S articles and newsletters. Kwelland-Njal asked why I don't like the federation of Kingdoms model. This ties in with my belief that winning Crown is no guarantee of ability to govern. If we have a mundane corporation, we need a mundane entity to manage it. Crowns change too often to allow the required continuting in management. I think there can be a sort of Kingdom federation to run the SCA side of things, to some extent (there are points of disagreemnet I can see right now, like rapier and face thrusts) but not for the Corporate side. Justin responded to my last post that "Kingdoms need to get their act together. It's clear that many, perhaps all, of the Kingdoms are scarcely more representative of the populace than the upper levels of the Corporation. This is a separate, but clearly related issue..." I agree. Some Kingdoms, like Calontir, are very solid and reflect through their layers well; what you see is what it is. Midrealm is just the opposite; the upper eschelons appear dedicated to maintaining their view of the Kingdom against popular pressure for change. Yes, this could make a federation difficult -- would it help to inestigate Alysoun's question of kingdom size in conjunction with this, if it were to be addressed at all? Serwyl had some good points, but I think a populace-wide vote is possible, given my experience with other organizations. If someone feels they lack sufficient knowledge about the candidate(s), they simply do not vote. Alban is right that the current system is flawed, which I credit to the fact that the Board is self-electing. They can suggest that people they want on the Board self-nominate or be nominated by another, then vote their friend/crony/appointee onto the Board. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 14:00:38 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: ghita@Mercury.mcs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Susan Earley Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 12:33:29 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan Earley Subject: Re: Budget Committee/Financial Information:CONCUR To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01HZJW8A7QYM99F664@delphi.com> Hey Alban, I didn't mean for you to be silent about the corporate office finances, just be sure of your facts. If anyone has something to say about it, I wanna hear it. I just don't wanna have incorrect (or unchecked) information being passed around as truth. Renee has had problems in the past with this type of thing, and I want to discourage it >from happening any more. On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Alban St. Albans wrote: > in response to ghita's response about my wondering about financial > policies, please be aware that i've notified my home office (aka > what passes for a brain) that i'll shut up about what the sca > corporate offices are doing about financial reporting. i'll > also discipline my fingers for typingwithout first hooking > the brain into circuit. > > > > alban > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "A shy, retiring young thing" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 14:13:49 1996 Return-Path: From: "David W. James" Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:13:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Joseph Heck "Morgan on Electing Board Members (fwd)" (Jan 3, 11:12am) References: <199601031712.LAA44522@gold.missouri.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Subject: Re: Morgan on Electing Board Members (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii This message was originally submitted by vnend@AOL.NET to the SCAGC-L list at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. If you simply forward it back to the list, using a mail command that generates "Resent-" fields (ask your local user support or consult the documentation of your mail program if in doubt), it will be distributed and the explanations you are now reading will be removed automatically. If on the other hand you edit the contributions you receive into a digest, you will have to remove this paragraph manually. Finally, you should be able to contact the author of this message by using the normal "reply" function of your mail program. ----------------- Message requiring your approval (20 lines) ------------------ On Jan 3, 11:12am, Joseph Heck wrote: > Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > Kwelland-Njal asked why I don't like the federation of Kingdoms model. This > ties in with my belief that winning Crown is no guarantee of ability to > govern. Non-sequitur. What does the one have to do with the other? Or, rather, you are making an unfounded assumption; that the "head" of the medieval side of a Kingdom would also head the mundane side of it. Under the confederation model it would seem to be far more likely that the mundane side would be headed by a YourKingdom Inc. board of directors. How *they* were selected would be up to the kingdom (assuming they use that model at all.) (Note that, in this model, you have a large group (taking all the kingdom's Boards) that is, at least in theory, trusted by the members of the groups, and that the YourKingdom, Inc. Boards would be the logical folks to select or exercise controls on the SCA, Inc. Board of Directors.) Kwellend-Njal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 14:52:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 13:07:04 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan: Budget and Financials (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: >From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Wed Jan 3 11:32:09 1996 Date: 03 Jan 96 12:14:50 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Grand Council Discussion Group Subject: Morgan: Budget and Financials Message-ID: <960103171449_72672.2312_FHP30-2@CompuServe.COM> Ghita and Flieg noted that the Corporation has been using MUCH better accounting procedures for the last year-and-a-half, give or take a bit. High time. I think one of the problems was the overly archaic computer systems the Corporate Office seemed to prefer, and the inability to find or fund any competent person to get things set up properly. (They turned down at least one qualified volunteer.) I can't remember if she mentioned this, but Ghita stepped down as Midrealm Exchequer two or three (?) months before ascending to the Board, so she has some background in the financial end of things. Now, if someone would just explain to the lower-level Excheiqers how to fill out those twelve pages of forms, adn WHY some of them need to be included even if they are totally blank...... *sigh* I disagree with Alysoun that the GC should turn this inquiry over to Ghita, who is after all a Board member and not a member of GC or an independent person. Sir Myrdin is right about catching up from bookkeeping disaters, picking a point, and effectively starting over. I had to do that a few years ago when I took over management of the business I now run, which had a totally incompetent bookkeeper (whom I promptly fired). You can go backand fill in past information if you find the holes, but there's no point in getting so hung up on the past that you mess up the future as well. As for this exchange: ::>Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group :: ::>> 1. This will be seen as a threat. Autonomy is an important part of any job, ::>> and just as there is always resistance to providing "real numbers" to ::>> outsiders (including people from other departments) in large corporations, ::>> there will be resistance to providing real numbers to anyone from the GC, and ::>> especially anyone known as being involved in a reform movement that has been ::>> perceived as hostile. :: ::If that were to be the reaction, then I would say that yes, these people ::need to be removed. :: ::This is ofcourse unless the people seeking the information approach them ::with hostility. This I find unecessarry and unlikely. :: ::Factual information must be passed about freely in this organization. :: ::Magnus Ihave to agree with the original poster (Justin?) and disagree with Magnus. At least two GC members are Mandamus plaintiffs, and Tibor produced that noble but ill-wrought tax demand before the October Board meeting. The Board members would probably be justified in viewing a GC demand for the financial documents with a severely jaundiced eye. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 15:32:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 14:35:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Stuff To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings GCers. Some shorthand responses to recent postings... No, to a federation of kingdoms No, to selling the SCA mailing list to raise money. YES!!!! to Corporate level coordination officer(s) in charge of gathering info form all kingdoms and disseminating it back out to the populace. I have an idea..how about one corporate coordinator per branch, ie one for the Heralds, one for the Chiurgons, A%S, Chivalric or "Heavy" combat, Rapier Combat, Hospitaler. This coordinator would work with the current kingdom level officer in charge of that office. Thoughts? -Modius (modius@cityscope.net) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 16:06:13 1996 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: 1362 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 15:19:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Morgan: Budget and Financials (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601031907.NAA57268@black.missouri.edu> from "Joseph Heck" at Jan 3, 96 01:07:04 pm Greetings from Tibor. Morgan wrote: I have to agree with the original poster (Justin?) and disagree with Magnus. At least two GC members are Mandamus plaintiffs, and Tibor produced that noble but ill-wrought tax demand before the October Board meeting. The Board members would probably be justified in viewing a GC demand for the financial documents with a severely jaundiced eye. If the Board would treat the entirety of the GC that way, than both the GC and the Board would be a sham and a disgrace. I do not see that as likely. I believe that the individual members of the Board agree that the Mandamus suit was something that should not have needed to be brought, and should not have been resisted. And, although they may wonder about the sorts of individuals that would have brought it, I doubt they would color the entire GC badly as a result. Morgan, I am CERTAIN you are wrong. I'd also be intensely upset if you were right. Specifically, I had NO TROUBLE getting financial documents and other information from Lori Taylor. In fact, she has always been quite helpful to me, and I would urge other GC members to take advantage of her efficiency and positive attitude. (And, that is three GC members. Bertram, Hossein, and myself.) Tibor ("Noble but ill-wrought"? Well, what the heck. It fits on a tombstone... :-) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 3 16:13:50 1996 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: 3131 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 15:44:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Agenda Items (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [For Sean McKay, via Tibor] Forwarded message: >From MCKAY_MICHAEL@Tandem.COM Tue Jan 2 20:33 EST 1996 Date: 2 Jan 96 17:17:00 +1600 From: MCKAY_MICHAEL@Tandem.COM Message-Id: <199601021732.AA23353@gateway.cpd.tandem.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Agenda Items (fwd) Content-Type: text Content-Length: 5251 I've missed some of the background (perils of not reading every posting!), but I think a slight name change might work better when talking about the topic labled "SCA Inc. in relation to other SCA corporations". While we are thinking about this topic, we should also think about how the SCA deals with other organizations that have an overlap or share some mutual goals. This topic comes up a fair amount when recruiting members, or dealing with resources and specialists in the SCA's area of interest. This is an area mostly ignored by the board ("hey we have enough trouble organizing ourselfs, why worry about things outside!"), but that is a great deal of interest to the local groups. At the least I would like to see a policy on dealing with similar organizations (obvious things like: "Don't bad-talk other groups" and "If a new recuit is well suited for another group you know about, let them know about that group too" should be self evident). I'd also like to see a policy encouraging the use of resource organizations (ie. figure out a way to tell new archers that they can contact the British Longbow Society to find out certain types of information not commonly available in the SCA). Ideally, I'd like to see the SCA not only as it currently exists (a great place for tournaments and selective recreations), but also as a kind of coordinator for getting knowledge and groups that overlap our area of interest. I think of the reasons the SCA has survived and spread the way it has (unlike many of the other groups) is that it allows many different "games" to be played at the same time (ie. accomidate a variety of purposes). Upon occasion, people will be very interested in a specific area (say English Civil War living history re-enactment), and than we can point them to resources and/or groups that specialize in that area. But meanwhile, I would settle for encouraging SCA members to make better use of outside resources, and to work better with "rival" groups. This is the type of subject that the Grand Council can deal with much better then the Board. I do see this as a superset to "How does the SCA Inc. treat other SCA corporations". Examining the larger picture that I mention here, will help clarify a number of issues within the smaller picture. The reason I suggest changing the name and getting a "receivable" (ie. the policy statement) is that it will cause some more serious thought on the issue, and that it is needed. I have both observed and heard about some pretty bad incidents that show my "obvious" examples above need more widespread knowledge and a explanation as to why they should be followed. Seaan McAy Caer Darth; Darkwood; Mists; West (Santa Cruz, CA) Per fess indented argent and vert, three pheons counterchanged From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 11:10:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:30:57 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Frithiof on Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Good Greetings from Frithiof! Upon reading the digest of Jan 01-02, I find myself agreeing with Alban: Table the discussion on how to elect new board members, and instead figure out a way to remove board members when necessary. Yes, these two topics are closely interrelated, but we might need impeachment even with an elected board. Also, I think we should discuss what we want the board to do. I am all for lightening the workload of the directors, by decentralizing some jobs and moving others to maybe Society officers or some version of the Inter-Kingdom Council. Which functions of the board could be shifted somewhere else? And where? Society officers? Kingdom level? Maybe we could get rid of some functions entirely without ill effects? Frithiof Skaegge; Aros, Nordmark, Drachenwald. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 11:21:48 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 10:59:59 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: BOD selection and removal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960102222625_82851039@mail06.mail.aol.com> (message from Chuck Hack on Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:26:26 -0500) Serwyl writes on general elections: >My point is that not only does the general populace of the SCA not have the >tools to make informed decsions, most probably do not want to be flooded with >the information necessary to make an informed choice. I certainly would not >look forward to campaigning in any form in the SCA, it would ruin the fantasy >for many of us. I would also be afraid of such elections being popularity >contests rather than mandates from the populace on direction. I've heard this from several quarters; I have to say that I think people are getting a little carried away with this argument. One of the other clubs I'm involved in is the Interactive Literature Foundation, which shares a lot in common with the SCA (including a fair number of members), although it's a good deal smaller. The ILF *does* have universal suffrage of members, and has had from its inception. Elections to the Board are annual; each candidate gets to make a statement in Metagame (the TI equivalent) about their position. (It isn't clear to me whether there is a length limit; I haven't seen any statements run over half a page.) They tend to get elected in large part based on that statement of their priorities. It isn't perfect, but it seems to work, generally without massive politics. Indeed, their worst problem, consistently, is finding people willing to run. (They've asked me to take a Board position a couple of times, and I'm not even that active.) There *is* an element of popularity contest involved, but that's inevitable in a club of only a couple hundred members, where the majority live in a particular geographic region. I suspect it would be considerably less so in the SCA, where we're pretty well geographically distributed. Virtually no one is universally known in the SCA, and a fair number of the few who *are* aren't universally liked. And I really don't buy the "it'll ruin the game" argument. People are better at separating the mundane from the game than that -- they have to be, since we *do* have a strong mundane element to deal with every day. No, there shouldn't be campaigning at events. But as I said, I don't think one *can* "campaign" effectively in the SCA, anyway, outside the local group and *possibly* the Kingdom. Democracy is not the only solution; I don't even know if it's optimal. But it *would* work better than most people are giving it credit for. >The final method, leaving the selection method alone, seems to me to be the >least objectionable. I would prefer to see clearer methods of removal and >censure than a new way to select the Board. I wouldn't even put it that way -- "removal" and "censure" are just the sorts of words that trigger a typical SCAdian's "but that isn't *nice*" reflex. The high priority is to have a way to over-ride Board decisions when they have a case of Brain Fade, as happens every few years. The mechanism we currently have is clearly inoperable; something better is required... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "For every plus, there is a minus. For every yin, there is a yang. For every Cher, there is a Sonny." -- mtv From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 11:38:14 1996 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: 4283 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:02:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: sca organizational problems (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [For Ian, by Tibor] Forwarded message: From cturner@smtp.cnsy-ian.navy.mil Wed Jan 3 16:00 EST 1996 Date: Wed, 3 Jan 96 11:00:22 UTC Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) To: From: "LTjg, USN 3-8401 ext 167 Bldg 8 Rm 207" Return-Receipt-To: Subject: sca organizational problems Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3663 Greetings Tibor, Would you please forward this for me. Thank you, Greetings to the GC from Ian O'Donnell, After having watched a local Barony change nearly every officer in the last year and looking at the problems involved. I think that the majority of the problems in the SCA boil down to two. 1) Communications: Either poor, false, or distorted. 2) Training: For officers and for the general SCA population. In reference to communications, many of the officers do try to put forth the information, but much of this information is passed down by email or by telephone or by face to face conversation and when the information reaches the end user, it is "tainted" with the interpretations of everyone from the top down. (Remember the gossip game you learned in elementary school) A good example is that I was recently told that if our kingdom raised X dollars (I don't remember the figure) by June that the non-member surcharge in our kingdom would be canceled... From what I saw of the board proceedings on the internet it sounded more like the kingdoms would have to find a method to supply this money every year. I don't know which is true and have no real person to ask because our seneschale thought that my questions were irrelevant to local issues and it was a kingdom problem that would be taken care of. Because of my military training, I have a tendency to try to do things though the "chain of command", but this implies that the people in the chain feel a responsibility both ways and that questions will be forwarded in a timely manner. This is just one example of my personal experience but it shows that the information flow path is not good. Questions may take a year or more to be answered and I consider that unsatisfactory. As for training, I think that the last couple of months of the GC proceedings are a prime example. Most officers in the SCA seem to get an office and then they ask "What is my job? How am I going to do it?" It took the GC a year to ask itself this question and there is still some debating going on. For officers, They have a vague list of reports and responsibilities but that is usually it. And, much like the GC if the officer doesn't like a rule that was given to them, they try to change it, often without consulting the people that made the rule. We work with volunteers, but that is no reason that they should not be trained. A Marshall or a Chiurgeon must meet certain minimum requirements, and in the local area, must pass a "Test of Knowledge" (my term) before they receive warrants. For A&S, Seneschale, Herald and Exchequer it seems to be you get the office and warrant and then _maybe_ the training. I have seen the GC hinting around the issue that there are many different views on what is right and what is wrong for the SCA. I think that it is time to put some definition into all the positions in the SCA from top to bottom. This means defining the responsibilities of the board, but also defining the responsibilities of the members and the officers and making it clear what is expected of them. This is not an easy task, and some people are going to resent any form of structuring of the "game" because it detracts from their version. But, if you want accountability, people have to know what is expected of them and what they are accountable for. Sorry to be so longwinded, Thanks for your time, Ian O'Donnell Chris D. Turner Ian O'Donnell Charleston S.C. Barony of Hidden Mountain, Atlantia Work: cturner@smtp.cnsy-ian.navy.mil (803) 743-8401 x167 Home: cturner@awod.com (803) 572-8803 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 12:56:01 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 12:30:34 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan: Budget and Financials (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Michael... -- Justin >Date: Wed 03 Jan 1996 14:25 CT >From: UDSD007@DSIBM.OKLADOT.STATE.OK.US (Mike.Andrews ) >Subject: Re: Morgan: Budget and Financials (fwd) Joseph Heck said, quoting ?Margo? in passing (and do please note that these attributions may be in error): > I disagree with Alysoun that the GC should turn this inquiry over to Ghita, > is after all a Board member and not a member of GC or an independent person. An excellent point which does not reflect on Ghita's honesty or ability to perform an inquiry dispassionately. Ghita should not be involved in such an inquiry, so long as she is a member of the group subject to the inquiry. > As for this exchange: > > ::>Subject: Re: Justin's proposal for a budget working group > :: > ::>> 1. This will be seen as a threat. Autonomy is an important part of an > job, > ::>> and just as there is always resistance to providing "real numbers" to > ::>> outsiders (including people from other departments) in large corporatio > ::>> there will be resistance to providing real numbers to anyone from the G > and > ::>> especially anyone known as being involved in a reform movement that has > been > ::>> perceived as hostile. > :: > ::If that were to be the reaction, then I would say that yes, these people > ::need to be removed. > :: > ::This is ofcourse unless the people seeking the information approach them > ::with hostility. This I find unecessarry and unlikely. > :: > ::Factual information must be passed about freely in this organization. > :: > ::Magnus > > > Ihave to agree with the original poster (Justin?) and disagree with Magnus. > least two GC members are Mandamus plaintiffs, and Tibor produced that noble > ill-wrought tax demand before the October Board meeting. The Board members > would probably be justified in viewing a GC demand for the financial documen > with a severely jaundiced eye. I find two points to object to in the last sentence: 1) If I recall correctly, the mandamus action established that absolutely _anybody_ can demand access to the financial docs and it doesn't matter whether the Board members, or some subset of them, like it, dislike it, or indifferent on the point. Unless I am sorely mistaken, that's the way it is. Tibor? 2) We are working _for_ the Board, at the _request_ of the Board, and the quickest way for them to lose credibility -- in my eyes, anyway -- would be for them to stonewall on the question of access to the books. If they want us to do what _we_ think is our job -- a job which they asked us to define -- then they would do well not to prevent us from doing our job by unreasonably denying reasonable requests. IMHO, the Board members would _not_ be justified in viewing a GC demand (probably couched as a polite request) for any documentation with a jaundiced eye, so long as the GC is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the GC that the demand (or request) is related to the GC's job and is reasonable. Not that this gets us any forwarder on the matter of selecting or removing Board members. Back to our muttons. I'm trying to sort out the posts so far today, and it's a job, folks. Would some brave soul care to attempt to post an unbiased summary? -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra Pray, I beseech you, for the repose of the soul of Kathleen Anna Young Lister, once known as Baroness Caitlin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 16:48:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:20:26 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Bitch sessions To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 22:21:59 -0500 (EST) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Bitch sessions >In-Reply-To: <30E9E508@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> On Tue, 2 Jan 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > > At a thought, how about regularly scheduled b***h sessions like > >SF conventions hold were anyone who is interested can come and directly > >address the office holders with no reprecussions. > > --Esclarmonde > > In the Canadian and British Parliaments, this is called "Question Period." > Usually there is a great deal of heckling and noise and no obvious payoff. > But every once in a while the government is nailed, the minister promises to > do something, and a wrong is righted or a policy changed. > Greetings FInnvarr. I guess I don't watch enough CSPAN to see the non-American parliaments. True, the sessions can get nasty in a con session, _but_ I think an important difference is that con sessions are not reported and the entire audience is there. There is little political constituance to play for, thus less noise. The payoff is simple, anyone who walks into the meeting can directly address the decison makers with problems and questions. IMHO, we don't do enough of that. --Esclarmonde From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 16:48:13 1996 Return-Path: X-Openmail-Hops: 3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="Message text" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@NPD.COM Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 13:30:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Langhans_Erik/houston_synd@npd.com Subject: Misc. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings GCers! Some shorthand responses to some current topics. Yes to lending a higher priority to the removal (vote of no confindence) issue of BoD members. I agree w/ Justin in this regard. As stated before I feel that the Kingdoms need to have a say (read Vote) in this matter maybe even the IKAC?!? No to a Federation or Confederation of Kingdoms. Yes to corporate level coordinating officer(s) who compiles and disseninates info gleened form the Kingdoms, and sends it back out to the populace. Perhaps one such corp level officer per major office ie Seneshal, Hospitaler, Chivalric/Heavy combat, Rapier Combat, Chiurgon, A&S, etc -Modius (modius@cityscope.net) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 18:18:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 17:33:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Ian's post on training To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Back when I was on the Board and Cliveden Chew Haas was Clerk of the Board, among other things, she once stated her perception that we were very weak on training indeed. Her basis of comparison was the Methodist Church, which she was very active in. One of the major priorities of the Methodist organization was training volunteers in both general organizational skills and specific task-oriented ones so that there was always a well of trained people to draw from. Thank you, Ian, for bringing the up. I'd like to see this as an agenda item of some sort; or at least a concern permanently recorded so that we can get back to it. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 18:23:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 12:18:14 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Wed, 3 Jan 1996 09:16:18 -0500, Mark Schuldenfrei writes: > [Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor] > > As phrased that's pretty much mom-and-apple-pie as far as it goes. But if > we stop there we have a pretty limited view of the ways the organization > serves the members. I think it would be more productive to phrase the > poll as follows: > > I agree/disagree with each of the following: (yes or no for each) > > 1) The SCA exists to serve its members by: > 2) recognizing groups to identify and collect players in a local > geographic area, > 3) publishing kingdom newsletters to advertise the opportunities to play > with people ouside the local area, > 4) providing insurance and support so sites will let members play there, > even though members want to have tournaments and hit each other real hard > and so that > 5) members won't lose their house if an unfortunate accident happens while > their friends are playing, > 6) making sure that when members move to a different state or country, > they can still play more or less the same game and can still keep their > nifty ranks and awards, > 7) making sure that when members go to play it will be the game they want > to play, > 8) keep jerks from spoiling the fun, and > 9) publishing neat articles and other information on medieval stuff that > members can read even if they live in a different kingdom or country than > the author and even if they don't have a computer. > > Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy > Flieg here -- I'll take a yes for each, thank you, and stop right about there. Now if we could come up with something as simple and clear for the "landmarks/recognition factors" we'd be in great shape. * * * 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 Jan 4 19:58:07 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 16:05:56 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Voting on the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am not yet caught up (I was out of town for a month, and had a about 1600 EMail messages waiting when I got back), but wanted to make one comment on this topic; I apologise if someone else has made it. I believe a common system in other organizations is nomination by an existing group, such as the current Board members plus some others, followed by election by the general membership--with some not too onerous procedure for nominations by members. If everything is going well, only one candidate is nominated for each office and you have the sort of self-perpetuating system we now have. But if the membership is unhappy, someone nominates a rival candidate and he gets elected. It may be worth considering. David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 21:46:23 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 20:01:38 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Morgan: Budget and Financials (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Ihave to agree with the original poster (Justin?) and disagree with Magnus. At >least two GC members are Mandamus plaintiffs, and Tibor produced that noble but >ill-wrought tax demand before the October Board meeting. The Board members >would probably be justified in viewing a GC demand for the financial documents >with a severely jaundiced eye. > > Then perhaps we should be diplomatic both in how we ask and in WHO does the asking. We should not be percieved as a threat to anyone doing their job right. We should not be percieved as a threat to anyone doing their job wrong if they are interested in doing it right either. We have a mandate from the BoD to examine and suggest. If we can't do that in the financial area I sugggest we quit wasting our time and clear the bandwidth for something useful. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jan 4 22:07:22 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 21:27:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Reply to Morgan re financial reporting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Morgan wrote: > Now, if someone would just explain >to the lower-level Excheiqers how to fill out those twelve pages of forms, >adn >WHY some of them need to be included even if they are totally blank...... >*sigh* The forms the locals use are set up to match the slots on the forms we have to fill out for the IRS each year. (I don't recall the form identification). The idea is to be able to just total the figures from all the Kingdoms and submit the report. In practice, it's not that easy, as the corporate treasurer had to send every Kingdom's report back at least once this year due to errors, several were returned twice and one three times. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 00:03:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 23:06:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Board selection and Removal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Arthur Writes: >you neglected the possibility of election of BOD members by group level >senashals. I based on what you said about BOD election by kingdom >senashals it appears you would object to this method also. Yes and yes. Yes I neglected to mention it (thank you), and yes I probably wouldn't favor it either (at least not without thinking about it a lot more). >I disagree with your objections to alternative selection methods and >ESPECIALLY with your suggestion that the current method is either good >enough or better than any altenatives so far suggested on several grounds. Actually, I just don't think that Board selection is as burning an issue as the ability to remove members (or perhaps to block unpopular actions as Justin mentions). I also don't think democracy is an automatic panacea for the ails of the Society. >So far as I can tell, you believe there IS no body outside the BOD capable >of judging the suitiabllity of candiditates for BOD. That's not what I said, nor was it what I wished to imply. My main objection to general election is the apathy of a vast majority of the populace (so well evidenced by the failure of the reform forces in the recent Board unpleasantness to get even a minimum number of signatures on a petition to impeach). You and I and the others here on the GC are not necessarily the norm in the Society. From discussions I've had around this Kingdom, I'm far >from convinced many people WANT the kinds of democratic reforms thus far proposed. What they seem to want (on an overwhelming scale) is just to be left alone to play the game. As to the various Kingdom based methods for electing Board members, my worry is that with at least some Kingdoms, the choice would be left up to a ruling clique and still not in any measure represent people's needs. Please note that I am not against any democracy in this regard, I just carry a hefty dose of scepticism. >BOD >members may become MORE aquinted with the annoying details of running the >SCA *AND* the reality of the responsibilities and balances of the >decisions thay must participate in *BUT* we're still talking about the >*SAME* SCA the rest of us are IN and know about *OR WE SHOULD BE*. (if >BOD inhabits an entirely different SCA than the rest of us wouldnt you >consider that a problem with the BOD that needed to be addressed?). No need to shout. ;) Of course they don't inhabit a different SCA than the rest of us, but historically we have pretended that they did. Remember the line from Fiddler on the Roof where the Rabbi is asked what is the proper prayer for the Czar? "God protect and keep the Czar....Far away from US!" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 01:02:26 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: ghita@Mercury.mcs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Susan Earley Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 16:49:55 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan Earley Subject: Re: Morgan: Budget and Financials (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601031907.NAA57268@black.missouri.edu> On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Joseph Heck wrote: > I can't remember if she mentioned this, but Ghita stepped down as Midrealm > Exchequer two or three (?) months before ascending to the Board, so she has some > background in the financial end of things. Now, if someone would just explain > to the lower-level Excheiqers how to fill out those twelve pages of forms, adn > WHY some of them need to be included even if they are totally blank...... > *sigh* > Well, ya know that new exchequer manual? I wrote most of it. It has detailed directions for the forms, which have also been redesigned to be easier to use. The kingdoms should be buying copies for their locals, and they are available for $10 each (its 1/2 inch thick, so don't choke on the price), bulk $8. The reason those extra forms need to be included even if blank is because the Kingdom exchequer doesn't know if they're not included because of an envelope stuffing error or because they're blank. When I was kingdom exchequer, I regularly got reports with numbers in the slots where there is space to explain them on those extra pages, but no extra pages, requiring me to call them under deadline to figure out what was supposed to be on those pages. BTW, I only stepped down a week before I got on the board - I was supposed to step down at Pennsic, but my successor got permanently sick, prompting a serious successor search. > I disagree with Alysoun that the GC should turn this inquiry over to Ghita, who > is after all a Board member and not a member of GC or an independent person. > Yeah, but I'm doing most of the work anyway. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "A shy, retiring young thing" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 02:21:29 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 01:59:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Board selection and Removal Comments: To: Chuck Hack To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960104230651_106934217@emout06.mail.aol.com> On Thu, 4 Jan 1996, Chuck Hack wrote: > Actually, I just don't think that Board selection is as burning an issue as > the ability to remove members (or perhaps to block unpopular actions as > Justin mentions). On refelection I'm inclined to agree that this is the easiest, and perhaps should be the first thing to be decided on. HOWEVER the ability to remove members of a self selecting board seems a bit futile AND we have a request from the Director to look at selection so how about making selection our SECOND proirity, right after removal/blocking methods? > What they seem to want (on an overwhelming scale) is just to be > left alone to play the game. my hearty agreement could reosund from the very furthest reaches of space, however the very fact that the GC was constituted on a wave of dissafection so high that its crest toyed with the idea of schism and brought even *ME* to get involved says that some reform is very much in order... > As to the various Kingdom based methods for electing Board members, my worry > is that with at least some Kingdoms, the choice would be left up to a ruling > clique and still not in any measure represent people's needs. Please note > that I am not against any democracy in this regard, I just carry a hefty dose > of scepticism. Concurr. while Kings are wonderful symbols and can provide astonishing degrees of leadership, considering how they get the job, a representitive boardd must AT LEAST feel itself responsible to a group of people who are responsible to and slected by the membership > No need to shout. ;) Of course they don't inhabit a different SCA than the > rest of us, but historically we have pretended that they did. Remember the > line from Fiddler on the Roof where the Rabbi is asked what is the proper > prayer for the Czar? "God protect and keep the Czar....Far away from US!" Actually, one of the problems is that being a 'besieged' group in power they DO get a little out of touch and DO see things differently and to that extent they DO inhabit a different SCA than the rest of us. tying them to a constituency which they must be mindful of, and tying a group of electors to them so that the electors feel responsible for making and keeping there wishes know, is one way of doing this. As to the "Czar" bit, your right, it happens to be a dead on analysis of how most SCAdians would like it to be. BUT what the membership is really asking is that the board read thier minds with no effort on the memberships part to communicate. that may be whats responsible for the vaccum around the board that results in a siege mentality: "Every time we fail to read their minds they get pissed off!". a representitive/constituent relationship between the BOD members and a small and (fairly) informed group of electors would definatly help keep the BOD in touch, and would mean at least one member in every branch felt responsible for keeping up on issues/could relate those sissues to from any member who cared... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 02:26:06 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 02:00:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: The Highest Possible Quality BOD (a suggestion) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L 'legitiamacy' in selection is one of the important issues in Director selection. QUALITY and PREPARATION are the other two. typically someone with strong interest is selected for a non-profits BOD and they go from 'outside the loop' with no real knowledge nor control to INSTANT "Vote on this now" responsibility for the organization. thats bad BOD's are also forced to rely on 'who they can get' to some degree , becasue the job DOESNT pay. this means that people who show the loudest and often most persisitant interest from the OUTSIDE become board members. What is often discovered later is that they have no taste for being an insider with authority, or have no time to devote to the responisible excercise of thier new duties. This too, is bad (disclaimer: I speak of non-profit BOD's as an abstract and have NO knowledge of specific SCA BOD history) BOTH OF THESE PROBLEMS CAN BE CONTROLLED, AND THE RESOURCES OF THE BOD INCREASED AS FOLLOWS: Either a single, or multiple working groups could be established as standing bodies to assist the BOD in information gathering and policy formulation. Potential board members would be first elected TO these committees, and THEN, with with a public record of actual attendance, performance, and positions available, could become eligable for election to the BOD. It combines a pre-election performance trial with an extended and productive orientation to the issues and responsibilities to be assumed. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 02:30:17 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 02:09:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: We need a limited agenda, and a way to limit traffic... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960104230651_106934217@emout06.mail.aol.com> reading all the GC stuff is taking me about 40 minutes *A DAY*. people without the luxury of daily E-mail, or who access thier mail at work are soon going to be utterly swamped, again. WE need the official 'this is the list of items under discussion' list , if there is to be one , and we may also need a method for limiting positng ( yes, mea culpa...). we now have far too many threads going to realisticly accomplish anything on them. we need a limtied agenda, and a limit to traffic volume, otherwise this is going to feel very mcuh like the old GC before we 'got organized'. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 04:45:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 17:45:35 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan replies to Modius (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Wed Jan 3 15:07:16 1996 > Date: 03 Jan 96 16:05:25 EST > From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> > To: Grand Council Discussion Group > Subject: Morgan replies to Modius > Message-ID: <960103210524_72672.2312_FHP61-1@CompuServe.COM> > X-Status: > > Modius suggested: > > >> I have an idea..how about one corporate coordinator per branch, ie one > >> for the Heralds, one for the Chiurgons, A%S, Chivalric or "Heavy" > >> combat, Rapier Combat, Hospitaler. This coordinator would work with the > >> current kingdom level officer in charge of that office. > > That exists now, at least notionally. Check your Kingdom Newsletter, and it > will show SCA-wide officers for almost if not all of these. Also, each Board > member has the duty to be responsible as a liaison to one or more of these > areas. > > Or did you mean something additional? > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 04:50:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 17:46:26 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Morgan to Tibor (was: Budget and Financials) (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: >From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Wed Jan 3 15:50:53 1996 Date: 03 Jan 96 16:51:35 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Grand Council Discussion Group Subject: Re: Morgan to Tibor (was: Budget and Financials) Message-ID: <960103215134_72672.2312_FHP88-2@CompuServe.COM> X-Status: Tibor responded to me rather heatedly, but I think without reading the entirety of the quoted material. I had said: >> I have to agree with the original poster (Justin?) and disagree with >> Magnus. At least two GC members are Mandamus plaintiffs, and Tibor >> produced that noble but ill-wrought tax demand before the October Board >> meeting. The Board members would probably be justified in viewing a GC >> demand for the financial documents with a severely jaundiced eye. Now, what MAGNUS had said, and quoted in my original posting, was: ::If that were to be the reaction, then I would say that yes, these people ::need to be removed. :: ::This is ofcourse unless the people seeking the information approach them ::with hostility. This I find unecessarry and unlikely. :: ::Factual information must be passed about freely in this organization. I was merely pointing out that an automatic reaction of hostility would not be surprising under the circumstances, and as Justin pointed out, when people who had been on the opposite side of a lawsuit come in asking for internal information, sometimes the people they ask do get a bit prickly. It was not meant as an assumption that the Board would refuse, and as I am not privy to Tibor's activities I did not know that he indeed had the information, especially as he was not sharing that with the rest of the GC list that I could see. Also, I thought that Bertram was a GC member, but one of the inactive ones? As I am not a GC member, therefore do not vote, I pretty much stor and ignore the voting lists, so I don't rememebr who is and isn't on the Grand Council except for the more actively contributing members. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If the Board would treat the entirety of the GC that way, than both the GC and the Board would be a sham and a disgrace. I do not see that as likely. I believe that the individual members of the Board agree that the Mandamus suit was something that should not have needed to be brought, and should not have been resisted. And, although they may wonder about the sorts of individuals that would have brought it, I doubt they would color the entire GC badly as a result. Morgan, I am CERTAIN you are wrong. I'd also be intensely upset if you were right. Specifically, I had NO TROUBLE getting financial documents and other information from Lori Taylor. In fact, she has always been quite helpful to me, and I would urge other GC members to take advantage of her efficiency and positive attitude. (And, that is three GC members. Bertram, Hossein, and myself.) Tibor ("Noble but ill-wrought"? Well, what the heck. It fits on a tombstone... :-) -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 09:59:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 08:34:01 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Morgan on Financial and Other Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: >From 72672.2312@compuserve.com Thu Jan 4 22:48:45 1996 Date: 04 Jan 96 23:49:42 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Grand Council Discussion Group Subject: Morgan on Financial and Other Issues Message-ID: <960105044941_72672.2312_FHP58-2@CompuServe.COM> Apparently I was not clear, entirely, in my gripe about the financial forms. I am sure it is easier to the higher-ups to see every single page on every single report, instead of figuring out which ones aren't there because they are blank. I just miss th days we could send in a "NO CHANGE" postcard, which saved a lot of money in copying and a lot of postage. My main gripe was that the explantions are SO poor that even those of us with considerable experience in bookkeeping and accounting get things wrong. The explanations are darned inadequate. No wonder things keep getting returned!! I've had to redo my report four times trying to figure out where things fit in. [For the record, I have taken accounting courses, I am VERY good in maths, and have done the books for three businesses, plus am on the board and review the finances and budget of a non-profit in Northern Illinois.] I was certainly not trying to support or justify the Board's refusal, if it were to occur, to share financial information with the GC or others. I was springboarding off the comments of others and pointing out that it would not be unusual if the Board were to refuse to provide it. As Magnus pointed out, it may be as much WHO and HOW as whether the GC asks for the information. Correct, the Board is not entitled to "stonewall" as one person stated it, but y'all may remember that it was not the Board who did it at the time of the Mandamus action, it was the Executive Director and his lawyer friend. The Board was, I have always maintained, following questionable advice. Ian is right, there is little training in some parts of the SCA. Certainly not at the Board level, and surprisingly little in the offices. Many of the groups in which I have been involved do have deputies who are trained to take on the position, but others are filled last-minute when the holder burns out. Some more regularized training may be in order, especially for reporting offices. Sean McAy is probably right that the GC should be looking at the "big picture" on structure, but maybe that would be another agenda item? I think the issues of Board election and Board ejection can be part and parcel of the same thing. Often, the statutes related them, and it could be that voting for Board members is an easy way not only to make them accountable, but to make it possible to vote them out if necessary. Many statutes provide criteria and procedures for removing Board members. I'll be at Northshield's First Coronet this weekend, so probably won't post until I've caught up again, sometime next week. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 10:04:03 1996 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: 2520 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 09:41:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [For Kwellend-Njal, by Tibor, with mild reformatting to fix line lengths] Forwarded message: From vnend@aol.net Thu Jan 4 18:42 EST 1996 From: "David W. James" Message-Id: <9601041840.ZM16974@zelazny.ops.aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 1996 18:40:27 -0500 In-Reply-To: Mark Schuldenfrei "Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item (fwd)" (Jan 3, 9:16am) References: <199601031416.JAA11502@abel.math.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.0 26oct94 MediaMail) To: schuldy@abel.MATH.HARVARD.EDU Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item (fwd) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Length: 1716 Tibor, please forward this for me... Thanks > [Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor] > From: WMclean290@aol.com > Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 14:09:24 -0500 > Message-ID: <960102140924_29702796@emout05.mail.aol.com> > To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu > Subject: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item > As phrased that's pretty much mom-and-apple-pie as far as it goes. But if we > stop there we have a pretty limited view of the ways the organization serves > the members. I think it would be more productive to phrase the poll as > follows: > I agree/disagree with each of the following: (yes or no for each) > 4) providing insurance and support so sites will let members play there, > even though members want to have tournaments and hit each other real > hard and so that 'Support'? > 5) members won't lose their house if an unfortunate accident happens while > their friends are playing, It was my understanding that the SCA's insurance did nothing of the sort. Rather, it protected the corporation and its officers and would cover damages to sites *not*owned*by*SCA*members*. Was this mistaken, or has the insurance changed or is 5 completely non-existant? > 6) making sure that when members move to a different state or country, they > can still play more or less the same game and can still keep their nifty > ranks and awards, Not always a safe bet now... > 7) making sure that when members go to play it will be the game they want to > play, Not true now. I could fight in the East; I can't in Atlantia or the Middle. > 8) keep jerks from spoiling the fun, and Sorry, the people spoiling my fun the last three years have been SCA, Inc officers (making rules to exclude people.) Kwellend-Njal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 10:10:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 08:38:22 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: ORGANIZATION To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "arthur dent" at Jan 5, 96 02:09:18 am arthur dent said: > WE need the official 'this is the list of items under discussion' list , > if there is to be one , and we may also need a method for limiting > positng ( yes, mea culpa...). we now have far too many threads going to > realisticly accomplish anything on them. > > we need a limtied agenda, and a limit to traffic volume, otherwise this is > going to feel very mcuh like the old GC before we 'got organized'. Is going to? Too late. Can folks make subject lines appropriate with keywords? FINANCIAL BOD MEMBERS ORGANIZATION Terras -- joe (314) 882-2000 ccjoe@missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 12:05:45 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 11:34:14 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: The Highest Possible Quality BOD (a suggestion) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Fri, 5 Jan 1996 02:00:52 -0500) Arthur suggests: >Potential board members would be first elected TO these committees, and >THEN, with with a public record of actual attendance, performance, and >positions available, could become eligable for election to the BOD. Actually, in practice, that seems to be what *is* happening. If I recall right, both Ghita and Tetchuba (the newest members of the Board) served on a Board committee for a while before they were elected. I don't think that anyone's made it a formal policy, just a consideration while choosing Board members -- which seems about right to me... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "People now realize that 2020 is just going to be so different, that they can't even think about it. Whereas in 1960, 2000 seemed like you'd be able to get to it just by extrapolating 1960." "Somebody said the 20th century is the century when *change* changed." -- Danny Hillis & Alan Kay From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 5 13:48:45 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 10:21:47 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun Poll as Agenda Item (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > > 5) members won't lose their house if an unfortunate accident happens while > > their friends are playing, > > It was my understanding that the SCA's insurance did nothing of the > sort. Rather, it protected the corporation and its officers and would cover > damages to sites *not*owned*by*SCA*members*. Was this mistaken, or has the > insurance changed or is 5 completely non-existant? I have not seen the current policy. The liability policy we had a year ago explicitly excluded from coverage incidents between members and incidents involving competitions or training for competitions. The listed insured were the Corporation, its national officers (more precisely, officers whose positions were listed in the governing documents), and the members of its board. So if I injured another member in a tourney and he sued, there would be three different reasons why I would not be covered. 1. We are both members 2. We are engaged in a competition 3. The policy does not cover me anyway. David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University