From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 15:35:22 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 10 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 10:53:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Harder to work together To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I understand how it would cost more, but I don't quite see how >it would the Board members would inevitably find it harder to >work together. Would you be so kind as to explain? Once you get to thirteen (and it won't stay at thirteen for long), you get beyond the effective size of a committee. You have a hard time even remembering all the names. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 16:10:36 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: 262 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 15:18:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron:oops (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:57:27 -0500 Subject: Galleron:oops The date I intended for end of voting on my poll should read "Sunday February 4" rather than the third. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 16:43:28 1996 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: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 08:17:22 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Fwd: re: Board Characterization To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Roy, please forward to the GC list. Thanks. Kwellend-Njal wrote: "They are under no legal obligation to even read your attempts to influence them, let alone take them to heart." This is partly correct and partly incorrect. In matters wholly internal to the Society, it's true that they can listen or ignore as they please, but in matters which touch on fiduciary responsibility or modern law, they are bound by laws and regulations which require a pro-active guardianship of both the interests of the membership and of the Federal government. The question of how "proactive" a 501(C)(3) board is legally required to be can be argued, but it is certain that a written, signed complaint alledging violations of modern law by officers of the corporation can not be ignored and dismissed without exposing the both the corporation and the Board as individuals to very serious consequences. In the Tibor letter, the Board was advised in writing that if certain things went on in the Society, then very serious consequences are in store for the corporation. In the Windwicshire appeal, the board was advised that these things, and worse, were in fact going on. At the January BoD meeting, the Windwicshire appeal was dismissed in executive session.. In this specific case, the BoD utterly failed to carry out its proactive duty. As the signator on that appeal, I was amazed that not one member of the BoD contacted me for further information, for clarification or documentation regarding any of the very serious issues raised in that appeal. I am aware that two members of the BoD each contacted an An Tirian of long standing to inquire as to the merit of the charges made in the appeal; these individuals tell me that they affirmed that the charges had merit. One can only conclude that the BoD didn't care, that even a written complaint accompanied by substantial documentation wasn't enough to move them to action. Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up. The Mandamus petition forced the BoD to finally acknowledge that it is accountable to modern law, but evidently they didn't fully grasp the implications of that lesson. Watt Kidman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= RFC822 Headers Follow =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- X-ENSMTPTo: rgathercoal X-ENSMTPSubnet: foxmail Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (198.4.7.5) by gateway.gfc.edu with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:05:15 -0800 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA05924; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:31:21 -0500 Date: 24 Jan 96 11:12:49 EST From: Windward <73651.3314@compuserve.com> To: Roy Gathercoal Subject: re: Board Characterization Message-ID: <960124161249_73651.3314_DHR57-1@CompuServe.COM> -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 16:45:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:02:41 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: proposals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960126091820_406943296@mail06.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >Justin's idea to get the various views firmed up as proposals is a good one, >but rather difficult for those of us who are against elections. I disagree -- I've been assuming that one "proposal" *should* say essentially, "keep the current system". We should have that formalized and voted upon, just as with the other options. (Maybe putting in a few tweaks along the way. For example, it isn't clear to me now that the current model guarantees that all nominations will be listed in the nomination list if the candidate agrees, and I think there *should* be such a guarantee -- I've seen several cases in the past few years where nominations appear to have conveniently fallen on the floor...) But I consider keeping the current model one fully viable option, which should be considered at the same level as the other proposals... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Cannibalism is the solution to the problem of world hunger." -- Dave Mack From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 16:45:49 1996 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: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 08:17:48 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Various, from Gareth To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Some quick comments on various recent topics. I do not believe the SCA, or its board, would qualify as an oligarchy. It takes far more than having a group of people make decisions to constitute such. Now if there were a small group of relatively homogeneous people (e.g. Crowns) who selected the board which was the only appeal of those Crown's decisions, then we start having something that looks like an oligarchy. How about a nominating committee chosen by lottery. Sort of like jury duty? This group would not be chosen by kingdom, but by random membership number. Every member in the SCA has an equal opportunity to be chosen. Then the chosen individuals would be asked to serve for this one year committee, and advised of the committment. If they say yes, they are in. If no, we go to the next name chosen. Then the board selects members from the list of approved nominees. They don't have to go through the hassle of begging for applicants, writing letters, etc. and they don't have to be the bad guys who deny Lord Idiot his moment in the sun so that he can banish all of the knights of his kingdom. Don't put anything else on the Kingdom Seneschals. They are almost (or perhaps as) overworked as are the board members. And most of them would be as conscientious about actually finding out about the people they are supposed to be selecting from. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 16:49:45 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: 1756 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:50:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Hossein Election Plan (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:44:19 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Hossein Election Plan Please forward to GC Hossein, your plan is clear, concrete, comprehensive, and probably workable. I think it could be improved by some tinkering, however. Please sever I and II Lots of people seemed to like the "Ballots on Request or with Board Proceedings". Why don't you? (Not being snotty, just asking) Many non-profits use both candidate by petition and by nominating committee. Why do you prefer only candidates by petition? Why not ditch the envelope, print election materials in TI, and mail them separately only to the non-subscribing members? Could save $10,000. Is your concern the extra five week delay? Why not elect alternates as well? We'll try to fix the workload and burnout problem, but I don't know how successful we'll be, or how soon. Well worth it if it avoids even one special election. Do you intend children that are family members to vote? Probably wouldn't hurt, but is that your intent? Your recall thresholds are both too low and too high. Too low, in that a tiny portion of the membership could conceivably unseat a director with whom the majority is satisfied. Too high, in that the people collecting signatures during the late unpleasantness did not collect enough signatures to satisfy your requirements. I much prefer the Cariadoc two-step recall process. A lower number of signatures triggers a special election to find out if the majority is dissatisfied. Can you give us examples of organizations like ours that use the sort of recall process you advocate? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 17:05:06 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 171 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:23:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan: Yes, Vote on Elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L OK, here's my question: If you think that the general populace doesn't care enough to elect Board members, what makes you think they will care enough to vote against a policy or director? In the time of the Troubles, the Rialto and anyone who had a consisttent secondary hookup to it had their knickers in a twist and were all excited. Many people who didn't -- and I speak from experience -- really didn't understand why there was the excitement. Many said they could not see how it affected thier playing of the game, so they planned to ignore it all. No feedback about dissemination of information, please! I wish to point out that after a certain point there was a lot of apathy even about something that many others consider to be critically important. Will enough people consider anything of sufficient importance to protest and sign petitions? Will they get jaded if there come petitions on a regular basis? I agree with Tibor that: >> Regardless of the means of appointment, we will ALSO need a means of >> feedback and removal: either of specific votes and policies, individual >> directors, or perhaps even forcing replacement of an entire Board. (Not >> that I find the last all that likely.) >> >> As I've mentioned before, we need to be able to distinguish a bad idea not >> just a bad Director, or all feedback could become excessively personal. For this reason, I continue to DISAGREE with those who think that discussion of how to select directors is irrelevant. Selection and removal are two sidesof a coin, and he removal process should be related in some way to the selection process. Right now, the populace ha no substantive input to either. I have said this, Tibor has said this: >> In our modern world (and face it, Boards are modern) the traditional form of >> representation of communal will is electoral. And I think the only way for the Board to be considered representative and responsive is if the members are elected at large. If this spoils your narrow view of The Game or The Dream, tough. THE CORPORATION, WHICH THE BOARD RUNS, IS A MUNDANE ENTITY. THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CAN BE ELECTED IN A MUNDANE MANNER. To all the people who think elections won't work because you don't know the people: It happens. It does work. I don't know a lot of the people who run for the Board of the Consumer's Union, but I look at their qualifications andt hink of how I would like to see the Board constituted. Even within the state bar association, which is about as big as the SCA in total but all within one state, I don't know all the candidates for Assembly. And some of the ones I do know, I would not give my vote. I may not use up all my votes in the election,but I feel that I can live with the ones for whom I do vote, based upon what I know about them and what I am told by others. I'm not sure that Alyoun is correct that "Petitions from the populace [protesting Board proposals] aren't necessary--the objection could come from the kingdom seneschal before the thing ever got to the populace (keeping down the number of petitions that have to circulate)." I live in a Kingdom where a chunk of the populace feels the Curia is irrelevant and detached from our lives. It's entirely possible that the Kingdom Seneschal doesn't have a clew about what is important to us. I think this is another place that options can be offered. Galleron said we have to find a way to keep Directors from burning out. I agree. I am about to accept the second appointment to the board of a local not-for-profit, in part because I asked to be reappointed because I am NOT burned out and want to continue with the major project I have started. What's the difference? We design broad policies and let the management implement. (We also have to deal with reductions in budget and other major items, but that's not relevant here.) WE DO NOT MICRO-MANAGE. We get input >from management when needed, reports on finance and from the staff union, but the ultimate big decisions come from us. I think that if the SCA Board of Directors stopped micro-managing, they would not burn out as badly. The key corporate offices should NOT be directors. The other offices should report in, but the Board should not act on them unless there is a request. And Kingdoms should make their own shires/baronies/etc. without more than Board acknowledgement of the elevation. [Want more suggestions?] Finnvarr suggested that Kingdom and Principality seneschals should review policybefore the Board finalizes it. Why not the IAC, assuming it is functional and accurately and adequately represents the Kingdoms? Finnvarr also gave a very clear two-part outline of division of labour under the title "Workload," and I commend it to all of you. Rosalyn MacGregor's discussion was also very cogent and I don't think it was too long for the substance. Tibor suggested an algabraeic equation for removal of directors: "As a proposal, let's say that if an elected Director gets X votes, than one tenth that number of signatures is an impeachment request, and one fifth that number is an impeachment demand?" GAK!! How would you like to think that you needed 200 signatures for an impeachment petition, then discover it's no good because you really needed 300 due to the percentage of the vote this Director had received? Would these numbers be posted by each Directors name in TI and the Kingdom newsletters? No. KISS. Pick a number, or a percentage of total population, or alternatives. Something that does NOT depend upon the vagaries of the selection process. I think Hossein's proposed election procedure if good, needs a little tweaking. (I not that those who voiced opposition are those generically opposed to election of Board members.) I think the removal procedure needs a bit more work. Should we offer grounds, or sample grounds for removal? I have seen this in the statutes and/or governing documents with or under which I have worked.Why was 1,500 chosen for the populace petitions? Should it be a percentage of the total SCA membership? Using current numbers, that's about six percent of membership. One comment: Whenever I have to prove membership, as when I receive my warrant as group officer every year, they do not want just my membership number. They want a photocopy of my card or of the label on the most recent Kingdom newsletter. I think these should be an attachment to the nominating package, if only to save the time cross-referencing with the membership database. Also, while a recall provision is a nice balance to the election provision, I agree that there should be a way to focus on the POLICY. Why knock off a personfor a stupid decision, when it makes more sense to kill the decision and forcethe person(s) to address the underlying issues, or why the decision failed, or whatever? This is not the official topic for debate, but a few persons have offered suggestions (review by Royalty/Seneschals, review by IAC). I think that the feedback/opposition procedure for policies needs to be addressed next. Catrin suggests that if the electorate were constructed of people with AA or better, people would decline the AA because "they don't want to be bothered with politics." Oh, piffle. They'll take the AA and ignore the politics. And awards are harder to verify than membership, except peerages, we've been having this discussion on another list. Alysoun accurately suggested that the discussion of Directors be three-part: nomination, selection, removal. Alysoun also said: "On Hossein's proposal for removal--I like three votes per kingdom but not two for the Crown (many kings and queens are married). Can you think of a third party? The seneschal is administrative; the crown is, well, the crown: what third position would be in contact with the people's sentiments but have a somewhat different view? The interkingdom council rep?" I'm not sure the IAC rep is necessarily any more in touch with the populace. I have heard of one who has stated that the populace should be seen and not heard; this person is also married to a curia member of that Kingdom. Ick and double-ick. People who are in touch are in the offices where people come in contact, such as herald, chatelaine, and so on. Why not the Marshall, in case pay-to-fight and related things come up again? I agree with Katerine-formerly-Angharad that the "You are about to Expire" stuff can be reduced to a postcard, possibly one with checkoff information on it so that the person can just make checks, attach a cheque, and return it to the AO. Since the postcard would contain the mailing label with membership number and all the other useful bits, it could be easier to check the renewal into the database. The postcard could state that for more detaileld information to changes ot memebrship, get a form from the Kingdom newsletter or TI. Yipes! This is longer than I'd intended, but I am playing catch-up. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 17:11:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 16:38:01 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: proposals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eric... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:52:20 -0600 (CST) >From: Ron Fleig >Subject: Re: Alysoun: proposals >In-Reply-To: <960126091820_406943296@mail06.mail.aol.com> On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Carole C. Roos wrote: > On Hossein's proposal for removal--I like three votes per kingdom but not two > for the Crown (many kings and queens are married). Can you think of a third > party? The seneschal is administrative; the crown is, well, the crown: what > third position would be in contact with the people's sentiments but have a > somewhat different view? The interkingdom council rep? How about the Herald? More people probably have contact with the College of Arms than any other office. Eric the Wanderer of the Flying Dragon's Cave Ron Fleig urfleig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 17:13:45 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: 22349 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:13:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Call for Votes on Selecting Board (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron, by Tibor. Note, there is a short form on the end. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 12:59:48 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Call for Votes on Selecting Board STRAW POLL I think it is time to get a sense of where the Council wants to go. Many of you think elections in any form are not needed. Many of you think they would be a significant improvement. Let us hold a non-binding vote to discover the sense of the Council. Details of voting are at the end. This would be a non-binding vote to see if any consensus emerges. My idea is that all methods will be passed on to the Board, with who voted for what. If a consensus emerges for one or more method, it can be framed as a specific proposal. Councilors in favor of a minority position can also develop it as a specific proposal. We can tack a summary onto the beginning to explain the sense of the Council. When all that is done, the whole report will be resubmitted to the Council so that anyone who wants to change their vote can do so. RECALL AND REPEAL Again, I have not discussed this important subject because it will be greatly effected by the decisions the Council makes on elections. Many of you have suggested that Recall and Repeal would be desirable ways to control the Board, instead of, rather than in addition to, elections. I must point out that, as far as I know, Non-Profits rarely allow the recall of directors for decisions or actions that are not contrary to the by-laws, but merely unpopular. Provisions by Non-Profits for the direct, binding repeal of unpopular Board measures by the membership are so rare that I know of no examples. Others with greater knowledge feel free to correct me on this. We can discuss the reasons for this later. The important point is that we must be cautious in assuming that binding repeal and recall are good ideas. However, I see no reason why we cannot have provisions to compel the Board to poll the membership on unpopular, or possibly unpopular, decisions upon petition of 1% of the membership. The poll would not be binding on the Board, but would provide useful feedback. I recommend that we do this in any case. It need not exclude other measures. 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. Electing the Board would probably not greatly improve the caliber or quality of Board members selected. However, an elected Board might be more responsive to the needs of the members. If the Board was elected with the consent of the membership, controversies between the Board and membership might be less polarized and divisive in the future. Many members strongly dislike the current system, and doubt the legitimacy of a self-perpetuating Board. Most organizations roughly similar to ours use some form of direct or indirect election, and prefer it to any other method. Self-perpetuating Boards are rare in organizations like ours. 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. One way to reduce the impact of unexpected resignations if election cycles are long is to elect "spare" or alternate directors. Bear in mind that a significant portion of both the Council and the Society considers electoral politics a positive evil. Cariadoc and others pointed out, however, that the sort of electioneering typical of campaigns for public office in the U.S. is rare within non-profits and other organizations like ours. The prizes aren't that attractive (first prize, a year on the Board, second prize, two years on the Board) and we are unlikely to see a flood of campaign contributions from the Rattan PAC. Usually, in other such organizations,the recommendations of the Board/Nominating Committee is accepted with little fuss. Means of change are, however available when needed. However, if we do recommend elections it will be very important to make sure that the general membership is happy with the idea. Regardless of what we recommend or the Board decides, I suggest that the Board publish some version of this report, and poll the membership on their preferences, using the same yes/no/blank system I have suggested we use. I would rather see the version I prefer fail to prevail because it was opposed in the polling, than see it imposed without consulting the membership. 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. BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS These are the basic assumptions I am using for all elections unless stated otherwise. They are intended as a starting point, and may be amended. The intent is to give enough specific detail to determine basic costs, timing, etc. I would like you to vote on whether each approach is acceptable to you in broad outline. We can argue over details later, and if the final version becomes unacceptable to you, you can change your vote. SCHEDULE OF ELECTIONS Directors will continue to serve three year terms. Normally, a single election will be held each year by postal ballot. We can either move to a 3/2/2 triannual schedule for electing directors, with those elected taking office immediately after the election, or we can maintain the current rotation, with those elected not taking office until their predecessor's term ends. NOMINATING COMMITTEE Seven members, two year terms, elected by same procedure as Board on the same ballot. The current system of listing nominees is continued, but renamed "Candidates for nomination", and used as a pool from which the Nominating Committee and others draw its nominees for the ballot. Nominating Committee sifts through comments, selects non-petition nominees for ballot, is reponsible for preparing description/resumees for its nominees. Shifting workload off the Board is a good thing. A nominating committee would do so. Since the committee could do its work by correspondence, Kingdoms that would have a hard time sending a director to four Board meetings a year, such as those outside North America, could still have a voice on the nominating committee. You could make it policy that when possible candidates for the committee be drawn from Kingdoms not currently represented on the committee or the Board. Known gadflies who would just be sand in the gears of a working Board like ours could still fill a useful role on the committee WHY BOTHER WITH A NOMINATING COMMITTEE? Why not just let anyone on the ballot who collects fifty signatures and not have a committee? Well, not having such a committee deprives you of a chance to balance the Board, to say "X is a great guy, but the Board is pretty heavy with Eastern ex-royalty right now". Without one the only thing you have to go on is your personal knowledge (often nonexistant) and the candidate statement (often inadequate. I can think of lots of Awful Board Candidates who could show a credible resume). In elections for public office, the solution is to have public campaigns by the candidates to inform you of their virtues and their opponents shortcomings. Nobody seems to like that model for us. Also, if all your candidates need signatures, you select for people that want the job. Do you really want to do this? The ideal Board candidate is one who is wise enough to know the job is hell, unambitious enough not to desire it, but who can be talked into taking the job for the good of the society. This person is not going to be out drumming up signatures. LENGTH OF ELECTIONS About six months before ballots are mailed the Nominating Committee publishes a description of the number of vacancies, an announcement of the deadline for petition nominees, a renewed plea for comments on the "Candidates for Nomination" and a brief description of any special abilities they are looking for. "Since director X is leaving next year, we will have a particular need for someone with knowledge of accounting. As always, we try to choose directors from kingdoms not currently represented on the Board" It is desirable for the Nominating Committee to list its nominees at this time, or at least its short list, but not essential. The election will choose the directors to take office in the coming year, plus two alternates. These will take office if a position needs to be filled before the next election. Unless it is unable to find sufficient qualified candidates, the Nominating Committee will nominate at least sufficient candidates to insure that the ballot will include one more candidate than the number of vacancies plus alternates. Candidates may also be added to the ballot by petition signed by fifty members. The voting materials will include a short statement from each candidate, subject to reasonable restrictions on length and obscene or libelous language. The nominating committee may endorse particular candidates. Voters may vote for as many or as few candidates as they like, up to the number of candidates plus alternates. Two runners-up become alternates. Lead time between closing the ballot and mailing will depend on the method of distribution. Let us assume that two weeks are required between submission of statements (with verification of petitions) and delivery of ballot to printer/publication to allow time for review of ballot, layout, typesetting and delivery time. TI would need to receive the election material some six weeks before mailing, assuming they were given reasonable advance notice of length. (Eight weeks is the normal copy deadline). Kingdom newsletters would require about a month lead time. A mailed ballot or one included in the Board proceedings might need a week. Assume six weeks from mail date to close of election. If ballots are tallied on a weekly or ongoing basis, the tally should be completed shortly thereafter. Then the lag between finalizing the ballot and the end of the election would be about 14 weeks if ballots were distributed in TI, twelve if by Kingdom newsletter, and nine if mailed. COST The cost of one 8.5X11 page (one side) in every Kingdom newsletter or TI is estimated at about $600: printing and postage divided by number of pages per year. (TI's more expensive stock is roughly balanced by economies of scale in a longer print run) This is not exact, since postage cost is not a linear relationship to the number of pages, but gives a rough approximation: a few cents per member. Printing in TI is simpler, but requires more lead time between issues. A single page self-mailer (no envelope) and first-class postage would run about $.40., not including labelling costs. If several pages and a return envelope were mailed in an envelope, the package might run about $.60. Thus mailing ballots to the entire membership might run $10,000-$15,000. If 2,000 members request ballots when they sign up for membership (more than twice the number that have responded to any previous polling in TI), the cost might run between $800-$1200. Ballots would need to counted. The poll that ran in TI on "Knighthoods for Laurels/Pelicans" got just under 800 responses. That was a hot issue: it is likely that response to ordinary Board elections will be lower. The 1992 poll on membership requirements got about 320. MANDATE? WHAT MANDATE? It has been pointed out that such a tiny vote isn't a mandate for anything. Correct. What it is is consent of the governed. There is a world of difference between being asked, and declining to answer, and never being asked at all. OPTIONS: 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. 1a)CURRENT METHOD, BUT WITH SEPARATE NOMINATING COMMITTEE If we did retain the current system, an independent committee, appointed by the Board, might be a useful marginal improvement. Everyone would write in with their nominees and comments, just like now. The committee would provide a short list of suggested candidates to the Board. Publishing the short list in advance of Board deliberations would be nice. Pro: Independence. Greater role for overseas groups and outside voices. Lower workload for Board Con: Still self perpetuating 2) DIRECT ELECTION: ALL PAYING MEMBERS CAN VOTE Pro: Gives every member the greatest potential input in the electoral process. Con: Expensive and slow. Most members are unfamiliar with most Board candidates, and would need to rely on candidate statements. In practice, the recomendation of the Board or nominating committee would have a great deal of influence on the process. Denies voice to non-member participants. To the extent that candidates outside the nominating committee's choices prevail, Board is less likely to be a balanced mix of skills and abilities. 2a)DIRECT ELECTION, LIMITED SUFFRAGE Ballots and election materials distributed to: 1)All who subscribe to Board proceedings, or 2)Check off a "Send Me Ballots" box on their membership, or 3)Request ballot with proof of membership Pro: Informed, committed electorate. Less expensive than suffrage for total membership if ballots are mailed. Insulates people who don't like politics from the political process Con: Disenfranchises members who can't be bothered to check ballot option on membership or send for ballot. But how many of these would vote anyway? 3) INDIRECT ELECTION BY LOCAL SENESCHALS. Corpora revised to affirm that local senschals are chosen by their group, subject to confirmation by their superiors. Said confirmation shall only be refused for just and stated cause relating to the performance of their duties. They may be removed only for similar stated cause. This would simply confirm the actual practice and custom in the East. If they do things differently where you live, say so. 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. Nominating committee recomendation would still have great influence. Still relatively expensive to distribute, although less trouble to tabulate. 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) One method that seems particularly attractive would be to to give the electoral vote to Kingdom or Principality seneschals elected by the seneschals beneath them (either local seneschals, chosen as per 3), or regional senechals elected by local seneschals). Higher level seneschals would be subject to confirmation and removal as per 3). This method of selecting seneschals has a number of advantages, promoting legitimacy and responsivness at the Kingdom/Principality level, and should be considered on its own merits even if it is not used to select the Board. Other methods for choosing electors might include: Election by local senescals as per 3). Regional Board directly elected Electors directly elected for two year terms. Acceptable candidates for electors 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 to be filled. If the number of electors is small, the cost of the 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. 4a)UPWARD ELECTION OF SENESCHALS EVEN IF OTHER METHOD IS USED TO ELECT BOARD This could be a good idea just on its own merit.... 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. Several Kingdoms have not put forward a single candidate for the Board, and others only one, so availability of candidates could be a problem. Costs of elections could be somewhat reduced, since each kindom would vote only once every three years instead of once a year or more. Each Kingdom, however, would have a narrower choice of candidates. 6)APPOINTMENT OF ONE DIRECTOR PER KINGDOM (By Monarch or unelected Kingdom Seneschal or other unelected officers) 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. The size-of-Board objections to 5) and 6) could be dealt with by retaining the seven-member Board and having each Kingdom choose one member in some set rotation, or somewhat mitigated by having a 13 member Board that meets once a year, which selects a seven member executive committee to do most of the administrative work now done by the current board. The regional advocacy and talent pool concerns could be somewhat reduced by allowing and encouraging each Kingdom to select Board members from outside its borders, and by retaining the current system of not making directors ombudsmen to their own kingdom. The other objections remain. 7) APPOINTMENT BY BOARD, MONARCHS, AND UNELECTED KINGDOM SENESCHALS Each Board member gets two votes, each Monarch and Kingdom Seneschal gets one. A compromise between the strengths and weaknesses of 1) and 6). Does not increase the extent to which the Board is selected with the explicit consent of the Membership. 8)PETITION FOR POLLING, REGARDLESS OF OTHER CHANGES Requiring the board to poll the membership on important issues, and publish the results, if 1% of the membership petitioned them to do so. Could be done in conjunction with any other changes, or the status quo. I do not believe it would require changes in the by-laws. True, the Board could ignore the results, but often it would pay attention. VOTING You know the drill by now. Send votes to the listserve, Tibor will tally them, counting any that arrive before 2400 hours, Sunday, February 3. Make it easy on him by putting (your name):Straw Poll as the subject line. Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about Your choices are: 1)Current method 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee 2)Direct election by whole membership 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots 3)Indirect election by local seneschals 4)Indirect election by regional group 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes 5)Election of one director per kingdom 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes It will be very interesting to see how this turns out Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 17:58:14 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:25:07 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan: Yes, Vote on Elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31095465@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:23:00 PST) Morgan disagrees with the notion of Election-by-Armigers, on the grounds that: >And awards are harder to verify than membership, except peerages, we've been >having this discussion on another list. Very good point. My lady wife is the Keeper of the Eastrealm Order of Precedence. She's quite good at it, and works very hard, and it's *still* the case that we know that there are inaccuracies in it. The fact is, our systems aren't set up to track awards especially carefully -- Royalty often wait many months before reporting these things, and sometimes the report never comes in until she has harassed the (by then ex-) Royalty for months. The records just aren't good enough for this to be feasible everywhere. Besides, at least in the East, only SCA names are tracked. Trying to correlate that against the mundane names for balloting would be a nightmare. (And if an award was given to "Susan the Short", do we really know who that is? Sometimes not.) And double-besides, awards aren't anywhere near consistent enough across the SCA for this to make sense. I've seen reigns that gave AoA's to people at their third event, because the Royals liked their face. And I've seen others who felt that only people who have had a major impact on the Society deserve to be noticed. It's too arbitrary to be useful. Overall -- it's using a tool for a purpose it was never intended to have. One could have endless arguments about the problems of the SCA's award system (let's not do so now, though). But the simple fact is: unless the award system were *massively* reconstituted, using AoA's as a guide to elections just wouldn't work... -- Justin Who doesn't even want to *contemplate* what it could do to the politics around awards... Random Quote du Jour: "What's a Vanilli? 2000 guys lip-synching poorly." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 18:03:30 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 13:58:51 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Frederick Straw votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frederick of Holland votes on elections I[...trim...] > so that anyone who wants to change their vote can do so. > > RECALL AND REPEAL > Again, I have not discussed this important subject because it will be > greatly effected by the decisions the Council makes on elections. Many > of you have suggested that Recall and Repeal would be desirable ways to > control the Board, instead of, rather than in addition to, elections. I > must point out that, as far as I know, Non-Profits rarely allow the > recall of directors for decisions or actions that are not contrary to > the by-laws, but merely unpopular. Provisions by Non-Profits for the > direct, binding repeal of unpopular Board measures by the membership > are so rare that I know of no examples. Others with greater knowledge > feel free to correct me on this. > We can discuss the reasons for this later. The important point is that > we must be cautious in assuming that binding repeal and recall are good > ideas. > However, I see no reason why we cannot have provisions to compel the > Board to poll the membership on unpopular, or possibly unpopular, > decisions upon petition of 1% of the membership. The poll would not be > binding on the Board, but would provide useful feedback. I recommend > that we do this in any case. It need not exclude other measures. I disagree that recall and repeal is dependent on elections. The fact that Hossein's proposal could have the recall section pretty easily split off is clear. > > Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) > Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. > Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about > > Your choices are: YES > 1)Current method yes > 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee NO > 2)Direct election by whole membership Maybe > 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots NO > 3)Indirect election by local seneschals No > 4)Indirect election by regional group Forget it! > 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes Maybe > 5)Election of one director per kingdom Maybe > 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom Maybe > 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals YES > 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes I don't understand the separation of 5 and 6. Why not leave the matter up to the Kingdom.?The East can vote and the West can appoint -- it then doesn't matter. As long as the Board meets quarterly 5 and 6 are much more expensive than any other scheme. If we change to a managing Board, 5 6 are the best involving elections. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jan 26 18:07:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:36:30 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Justin: Straw Poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601261913.OAA01897@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:13:54 -0500) 1)Current method 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee -- yes 2)Direct election by whole membership 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -- yes 3)Indirect election by local seneschals 4)Indirect election by regional group 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes -- yes 5)Election of one director per kingdom 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom -- no 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals -- no 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes Note that none of these votes are especially strong -- I don't think any method would destroy the Society, or that any would make our problems go away. And 4a really is outside the scope of this discussion, I think. A good idea, IMO -- but not part of this topic. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Refrain means don't do it. A refrain in music is the part you better not try to sing." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 17:37:35 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: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 19:33:03 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: choosing the size of the electorate? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L catrin suggest, following up on the suggestion that the electorate include anyone with an aoa or higher, that >and possibly force people to consider declining their AoA because >they don't want to be bothered with politics. >That's definitely spoiling the game *and* the elections. bullfeathers. anyone with an aoa or higher *could* vote if they wanted to; they would not have to vote. the aoa suggestion was made, i think, because an aoa suggests that the recipient has been around long enough to have some inkling of what's going on. but if they don't want to be bothered with politics, there's nothing forcing them to after getting the aoa. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 17:38:27 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: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 18:29:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Fwd: re: Board Characterization Comments: cc: morrill To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1147949.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Jan 26, 96 08:17:22 am Just as a matter of record.... > > Roy, please forward to the GC list. Thanks. > Kwellend-Njal wrote: "They are under no legal obligation to even read your > attempts to influence them, let alone take them to heart." > This is partly correct and partly incorrect. In matters wholly internal to the > Society, it's true that they can listen or ignore as they please, but in > matters > which touch on fiduciary responsibility or modern law, they are bound by laws > and regulations which require a pro-active guardianship of both the interests > of > the membership and of the Federal government. > > The question of how "proactive" a 501(C)(3) board is legally required to be > can > be argued, but it is certain that a written, signed complaint alledging > violations of modern law by officers of the corporation can not be ignored and > dismissed without exposing the both the corporation and the Board as > individuals > to very serious consequences. > > In the Tibor letter, the Board was advised in writing that if certain things > went on in the Society, then very serious consequences are in store for the > corporation. In the Windwicshire appeal, the board was advised that these > things, and worse, were in fact going on. At the January BoD meeting, the > Windwicshire appeal was dismissed in executive session.. I would point out that the Appeal dealt with the BOD overturning the denial of raising Windwic from incipient group to official group. The other matters alluded to in the appeal, may be still under discussion. > > In this specific case, the BoD utterly failed to carry out its proactive duty. > As the signator on that appeal, I was amazed that not one member of the BoD > contacted me for further information, for clarification or documentation > regarding any of the very serious issues raised in that appeal. I am aware > that > two members of the BoD each contacted an An Tirian of long standing to inquire > as to the merit of the charges made in the appeal; these individuals tell me > that they affirmed that the charges had merit. One can only conclude that the > BoD didn't care, that even a written complaint accompanied by substantial > documentation wasn't enough to move them to action. > You may be contacted still. Remember your appeal was asking for the overturning of the Kingdoms actions on this specific case. From what I can see there may be many questions and many sets of books and records >from and held by all parties that may need to be looked into. I'm not sure that anyone wants ME to look into anything. After all, it it true that I'm not a reformer....I'm a malcontent. > Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up. The Mandamus petition > forced the BoD to finally acknowledge that it is accountable to modern law, > but > evidently they didn't fully grasp the implications of that lesson. > > Watt Kidman > > It is nice that this subject has been brought up in this forum. I look forward to the bashing. :-) EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 17:41:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 19:50:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Galleron: Hossein Election Plan (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron writes: > Hossein, your plan is clear, concrete, comprehensive, and probably workable. > I think it could be improved by some tinkering, however. Thanks for the kind words. I'm amenable to some tinkering. > Please sever I and II I am willing to do this if the GC decides to vote on election procedures first and then recall procedures, but, frankly, I think that the proposal I've put forward is an integral whole and would like to see it considered as such. > Lots of people seemed to like the "Ballots on Request or with Board > Proceedings". Why don't you? (Not being snotty, just asking) The best professional legal advice to which I have access suggests that creating procedures which potentially discriminate against one sector of the electorate are potential lightning rods for litigation. I would like to avoid that from the beginning. > Many non-profits use both candidate by petition and by nominating committee. > Why do you prefer only candidates by petition? Because I trust the populace to choose wisely by endorsing by petition the candidacy of people whom they trust. I find the idea of small, elite bodies deciding who can be a candidate for office repugnant -- it bespeaks an unwillingness to trust that participants in the SCA are just as competent to govern themselves as anyone else. They don't need people "who know better" deciding for whom they may vote. > Why not ditch the envelope, print election materials in TI, and mail them > separately only to the non-subscribing members? Could save $10,000. Is your > concern the extra five week delay? Again, such a procedure potentially discriminates against one sector of the electorate. I don't like the idea of second-class citizenship in the SCA. I also think that the ultimate cost of the entire election would be more like $6,000-8,000 per year. I think that it is worth it to spend that money to get a more open, participatory, democratic, and legitimate style of governance in the corporation. > Why not elect alternates as well? We'll try to fix the workload and burnout > problem, but I don't know how successful we'll be, or how soon. Well worth it > if it avoids even one special election. Note that my proposal doesn't call for special elections if directors resign; you merely select extra directors to fill the unexpired terms at the next regular election. > Do you intend children that are family members to vote? Probably wouldn't > hurt, but is that your intent? My attitude is: you pay your dues, you get your vote. I'm willing to compromise on this within limits. > Your recall thresholds are both too low and too high. Too low, in that a tiny > portion of the membership could conceivably unseat a director with whom the > majority is satisfied. Too high, in that the people collecting signatures > during the late unpleasantness did not collect enough signatures to satisfy > your requirements. Actually, we collected slightly over two thousand signatures. My attitude is that any director who pisses off more than three times the number of people we demand for kingdom status is a director who should be off the Board. > I much prefer the Cariadoc two-step recall process. A lower number of > signatures triggers a special election to find out if the majority is > dissatisfied. De gustibus non disputandum. I think that special elections are unnecessary and that a relatively low threshold (although I don't think that 1500 is all that low) keeps the Board attentive to the concerns of the membership. > Can you give us examples of organizations like ours that use the sort of > recall process you advocate? Two credit unions to which I have belonged, and one professional association. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 19:02:17 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 18:00:07 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Alysoun: proposals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >On Fri, 26 Jan 1996, Carole C. Roos wrote: > >> On Hossein's proposal for removal--I like three votes per kingdom but not two >> for the Crown (many kings and queens are married). Can you think of a third >> party? The seneschal is administrative; the crown is, well, the crown: what >> third position would be in contact with the people's sentiments but have a >> somewhat different view? The interkingdom council rep? How about the senior peer, where the senior peer can disqualify himself, in which case the next senior peer, and so on? Or similarly for landed barons. Or the landed baron of the largest barony. None of these is particularly fair, but they give a different viewpoint. David/Cariadoc (who is now in a kingdom where he is not the senior peer, just in case Finnvairr is in a suspicious mood). From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 20:42:17 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:18:15 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: straw vote; more To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Put my yes on this one. 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee Like Justin, I don't think that any of them are a total disaster, more a matter of adding unnecessary complications which at best will be rather ineffective in solving our difficulties. I suggest modifying the current nominating system in the following way. 1) separate committee (a panel of 3 is sufficient) to oversee nominating process. 2) everyone interested in being considered is listed in kingdom newsletters (every other month or so), on kingdom list.serves, and posted at website with a request for comments. 3) everyone submits a resume and a statement to be run on kingdom list.serve and posted at website, with hard copy available on request through the office. This material can be updated/changed by that individual quarterly. 4) At regular intervals, all comments will be abstracted (to make them anonymous) with a copy to the Board file and a copy to the individual. The individual can respond by revamping posted materials (to include more information, for example), rallying additional comments (to offset negatives), etc. False assertions (no, I don't have a prison record) will be expunged from the files. 5) The Board will advertise its personnel needs, explaining what they are looking for and why. This should encourage people to volunteer for directorship and committee work. 6) A short-term educational project will be initiated to promote an understanding of the system in the general membership and to encourage participation in the comments. (one article in TI isn't enough) Something like this should make the whole thing more transparent. It doesn't prevent serving directors from packing the board, but it should make such actions more visible. The commentary is not made public, which leaves a dark spot. To make these comments public might discourage candid comments, esp. negatives, and could be very embarrassing to the individual commented upon. We could also run a total number of comments received on an individual, but we cannot divide these into positive and negatives. A proper and helpful comment letter would discuss both strengths and weaknesses. For example, X is hard-working and efficient, but has no experience outside Midrealm. How serious a weakness this is would depend on the make-up of the board at the time. Would someone post a report on the last board meeting and what is the Windwicshire appeal? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 20:46:01 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <199601261913.OAA01897@abel.math.harvard.edu> with last message <199601261913.OAA01897@abel.math.harvard.edu> 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: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 10:01:43 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: Call for Votes on Selecting Board (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601261913.OAA01897@abel.math.harvard.edu> Your choices are: 1)Current method YES 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee 2)Direct election by whole membership 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots 3)Indirect election by local seneschals 4)Indirect election by regional group 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes 5)Election of one director per kingdom 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, & unelected seneschals YES 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 21:00:23 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:37:28 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: State of The Council Address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from the Chairman, It has been gratifying these last few weeks to track the current discussion, especially the voices of the dissenters. However, it seems that in the last few days some of the more strident voices have lost patience. Therefore, I declare the coming week to be proposal week. I would like to see a variety of formal proposals placed on the floor. I don't want to see any of the proposals attacked or argued. I do want to see as many of my requirements for a workable proposal as possible addressed in each proposal. I don't have a problem with people stealing pieces of existing proposals to make a new one. I also declare that the issue of recalling directors is wide open for discussion. I also declare that the issue of persuading the Board to reconsider a decision is open for discussion. Finally, I would like for people to stop fussing with straw polls. The Council is not expected to produce a single unanimous recommendation. In making a recommendation to the Board, I expect to offer the most popular idea that we come up with as well the next two or three most popular alternatives. It there is a need for straw polls, it will be after we have voted on specific proposals, not before. Regards Fiacha p.s. I owe you all a copy of the report I made to the Board. I owe you an updated agenda and status report. I owe you an announcement about handling vacancies on the Council and on Kingdom Representatives. I say this because I am now late for a weekend long event and only hope to be able to do some of these chores when I get back tomorrow night. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 21:11:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:45:42 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: A few thought on managing an election. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gretings from Fiacha, It has been pointed out that there is already an annual mailing from the corporate office to every new and renewed member. It occured to me that this might be a good vehicle for sending out the voting sheet and candidate statements. The objection is that this is not done at any one time of the year. Rather than saying that this is an insuperable problem, perhaps we could consider adjusting our membership period. Other organizations can do this so why could not we? Perhaps this would mean using a service bereau to handle the bulk of our membership. However, it would reduce the effort require to maintain the office the rest of the year. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jan 27 23:09:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Schuylab@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 22:09:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Eichling Von Amrun Subject: Re: Eichling: re Alysoun & Flieg To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alysoun-- Thank you for the reply / encouragement. It is inarguable that our goal should not be to offer a random recommendation to the BoD in a attempt to 'get something done'. On the other hand, if we never come forward with any results at all, its just as good as if we didn't exist. You expect that, by challenging in argument, a more thoroughly thought out proposal will result. The evidence thus far seems to be that, given any perceptible amount of disagreement, the councils of the GC wither away into oblivion. I think that we may have to all pull in the same direction at the same time to get any productive results. I'm not familiar with network discussions; perhaps a debate structure which evolved when participants were personally present doesn't work so well on-line? Flieg-- 1) One of the reasons to vote for the BoD is that the individuals who do so _become_ members in the eye of the State of California. 2) By selecting the BoD by membership vote, the _responsibility_ of selection is transferred from the shoulders of the BoD to those of the voting membership. It is no longer possible for the people to say, "They are a self-selecting clique." or "Look who They have chosen." Additionally, I also would wish to have a say in who is governing a group which is important to me. I agree that the self-selection method used by the BoD has, overall, produced good results...but if it produced results which were good enough, the GC would not be in existence. I do feel that there has been an attenuation of the link between the BoD and the people of the SCA; choosing the BoD by vote should mitigate that. 3) Some of the advantages to the BoD-minutes-balloting proposal are that it is self-funding (you expressed concern as to the cost) and that it does not forcibly intrude itself into the participation of those individuals who are not interested in the modern corporation (I would not have thought of that concern...happily, others did.). By and large, I agree with the rest of your metaphor and missive. Eichling From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 12:01:32 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 11:28:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Alysoun: reply to Arthur Comments: To: "Carole C. Roos" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960124094928_125721196@mail04.mail.aol.com> I was trying to think of a way of accomodating your concerns thatt the customs and voice of smaller kingdoms would be drowned out in any system of general elections. your rigth, I dont think a populace petition should be called for, but I also dont like the the idea of a monarch and chosen officers doing so...perhaps apercantage of local senshals? If we can address this 'proprities o larger kingdoms imposed on smaller ones' issue and then some way of seeing that members of smaller kingdoms would still serve on the BOD , would that accomodate the concerns you expressed earlier? ___________________________________+__________________________________ "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 On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Carole C. Roos wrote: > This suggestion: > If we allow a "Not In Our Kingdom" clause permitting monarch with x% of the > populaces signatures, or x percentage of the locally elected officers, or > basicly x% of SOME group of people he/she didnt pick... > > doesn't quite do it for me. I am after something that places disagreements > on a rational footing so compromises can be reached. The board has to say WHY > they want some such thing, the kingdom has to say WHY it is a bad idea in > their area, and then there should be negotiations to come up with a way that > respects the needs and interests on both sides. Petitions from the populace > aren't necessary--the objection could come from the kingdom seneschal before > the thing ever got to the populace (keeping down the number of petitions that > have to circulate). > > I don't understand why this is so difficult, outside of bad habit. The number > of things that have to be done for the corporation *in a specific way* would > seem to be relatively small, and primarily related to financial bookkeeping. > The same principle should also work within a kingdom. We have sufficient > variation between regions and local groups (at least in the large kingdoms) > that policies need to be negotiated to be effective. The focus is on > objective--the WHY behind the policy. > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 12:03:12 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 11:34:35 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Recall votes...CONCURR Comments: To: Mark Schuldenfrei To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601241623.LAA29799@abel.math.harvard.edu> Actually , it looks like a really good and complete idea to me. I'll support it as is. On Wed, 24 Jan 1996, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote: > Why not apply the same means to this? As a proposal, let's say that if an > elected Director gets X votes, than one tenth that number of signatures is > an impeachment request, and one fifth that number is an impeachment demand? > > Comments or suggestions? (I think of this as a launch point for ideas, not > a final product. After all, I thought it up two minutes before typing it.) > > Tibor > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 14:50:43 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 14:23:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: alban:straw poll vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about Your choices are: 1)Current method - NO 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee - NO 2)Direct election by whole membership - YES 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -YES 3)Indirect election by local seneschals -NO 4)Indirect election by regional group - NO 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - NO 5)Election of one director per kingdom 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom - NO 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - NO 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes - NO From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 15:09:24 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: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 14:41:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Alysoun: reply to Arthur To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L there is one, real-world method of large-kingdoms/small-kingdoms concern: the united states government. the senate has two votes per state; the house has one vote per unit of population. this was the "rhode island" compromise (i _think_ that was what it was called) of the 1787 constitutional convention, when the delegates >from the small states (rhode island, connecticut, massachusetts, and vermont, or was it new hampshire?) had precisely the same worry as was stated from the Honorable Delegate from Drachenwald. unfortunately, i doubt the board would go for a system that split itself into twain.....unless (brainstorm here) the board is elected along the usual method, and the proposed adjudication thang (my memory blanked out here. the appeals court? the...the.. branch that decides whether the ....ah hell.) that new known-world-wide almost-like-the-board-but-not- quite thing could have its members chosen by kingdom. one branch to legistlate, one branch to repeal legislation. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 17:59:15 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: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:29:37 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: choosing the size of the electorate? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L , because an aoa suggests that the recipient >has been around long enough to have some inkling of what's >going on. The AOA might suggest this, but sometimes it just means you hang out with the right friends. There are people on this GC and others who may even be eligible to serve on the BoD who don't have an AOA. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 18:04:16 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: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:29:45 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Vetos To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 02:04 PM 1/18/96 EST, you wrote: >Magnus writes: >>If we have any body with authority to veto BoD actions, then no actions are >>final till this veto procedure has had opportunity to run. This could >>totally shut down the BoD's ability to run the Corp. > >That's a *very* extreme way of putting it. No, things aren't final in >the most formal sense -- that doesn't mean they can't take effect. One >perfectly viable model (and probably the most sensible one) would be >that Board actions *are* in effect until and unless overturned. In >other words, a repeal mechanism instead of a veto mechanism. Slightly >weaker, but considerably more practical. > > -- Justin > Definitely, It was more the Presidential type Veto that was concerning me. We need to figure out what types of Decisions can take effect on just the BoD's say so. The decision to change insurance companies is very different from a decision to outlaw combat as a method of choosing Monarchs. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 18:08:02 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: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:29:39 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: BOD and Nominating Committe Suggestion (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Milady Rosalyn of the MacGregors, and all else here: You did write, among other things: The process that is most upsetting seems to be the "nominations > in the dark" currently used by the BOD. A nominating committee that keeps all > transactions in the open would solve this discomfort. So, perhaps Good My > Lord Tibor's suggestion of electing the nominating committee is a better way > to approach the matter. There > seems to be resistance to electing the BOD, but there may not be to electing > the nominating committee. > I do agree with most of your commentary and reasoning but must disagree on one major point only... Electing a nominationg committee still rquires us to hold an election which I feel would have little utulity and much complication. Giving the appearance of control to the masses is merely smoke and mirrors impersonating passing out bread to the populace. On the other hand, the comments about conducting nominations in the dark are right on point. I don't feel a need to force democracy into our structure. Openess and honesty are required tho whether forced or voluntary. > I welcome any constructive thoughts on this message, and I beg the council > members' forgiveness for taking up their time. > You have from me not forgiveness, but thanks. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 18:08:48 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: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 16:29:46 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Cash based elitism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 07:45 PM 1/18/96 -0500, you wrote: >if one were to be anally technical, then one could consider >buying any membership in the s.c.a. to be cash-based >elitism. all tibor's idea is, is raising the stakes slightly. > >mind you, i'm *strongly* against paying even more money >just for the privilege to vote (aka tibor's idea) - but >let's keep this cash-based thread to a minimum? > >alban Not as big an issue for elections perhaps, but a very big issue in addressing who belongs. When I joined the SCA I was told there were 75,000 members. Now after a period of fast expansion, there are only 25,000 members. Those without paid memberships don't count anymore. My Shire, just elevated to full status has either 10 members (paid at anygiven moment) or 20+ members (very active and supportive of the group) or else over 40 or 50 members (they've come to meetings and or events and or are building garb) My group is Not very affluant. Who should be excluded? This is a major topic all by itself, but one that applies to any attempt to be representative. Magnus who as you might guess is trying to catch up on mail from during his hospitalization. btw the new knee should be ready by Pennsic.... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 18:45:10 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 52 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 18:07:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Morgan: Nominating Committee To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Back from Coronet, and haven't seen this on the list yet, so I forward it for Morgan. Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FORWARDED FROM: Steve Muhlberger Return-Path: <72672.2312@compuserve.com> Date: 26 Jan 96 20:30:02 EST From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> To: Mark Schuldenfrei , Grand Council Discussion List Subject: Re: Morgan: Nominating Committee Message-ID: <960127013001_72672.2312_FHP56-2@CompuServe.COM> I am asking both Tibor and Finvarr to post this, because Finnvarr is at Coronet this weekend: ================================================================= Galleron said: >> NOMINATING COMMITTEE >> Seven members, two year terms, elected by same procedure as >> Board on the same ballot. But NOT on the same cycle -- otherwise, there will be a gap year. 4/3, right? I do *NOT* think that the nominating committee should endorse any candidates. This does not happen in other NFP elections in which I have participated, and I think it gives the wrong message. Especially if we are trying to eliminate the past impressions of cronyism. (I can use words like 'cronyism'; my mundane persona lives in Chicago, and we all know about THOSE elections.......) Gareth suggested that the nominating comittee be choen by lot from the membership at large. Intriguing suggestion! I would recommend a few restrictions, such as being over a certain age, and maybe trying to gt a balance >from among the Kingdoms. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 19:40:18 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 19:03:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: References to obscure matters To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is not meant as a personal reflection on anyone, but I was a little aggravated by this: > In the Windwicshire appeal, the board was advised that these >things, and worse, were in fact going on. At the January BoD meeting, the >Windwicshire appeal was dismissed in executive session.. What is this? Am I supposed to know this by mental telepathy? If this is a serious matter for our consideration, how about some detail? If not why waste our time? Finnvarr -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= RFC822 Headers Follow =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- X-ENSMTPTo: rgathercoal X-ENSMTPSubnet: foxmail Received: from arl-img-5.compuserve.com (198.4.7.5) by gateway.gfc.edu with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Wed, 24 Jan 1996 10:05:15 -0800 Received: by arl-img-5.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515) id LAA05924; Wed, 24 Jan 1996 11:31:21 -0500 Date: 24 Jan 96 11:12:49 EST From: Windward <73651.3314@compuserve.com> To: Roy Gathercoal Subject: re: Board Characterization Message-ID: <960124161249_73651.3314_DHR57-1@CompuServe.COM> -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 23:42:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 23:17:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Hossein's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L NO -Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Jan 28 23:47:03 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 28 Jan 1996 23:17:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Straw Poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about Your choices are: 1)Current method - Yes 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee - Yes 2)Direct election by whole membership - NO 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -Maybe 3)Indirect election by local seneschals -NO 4)Indirect election by regional group - NO 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - NO 5)Election of one director per kingdom-NO 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom - NO 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - NO 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes - NO You forgot one though, 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes- YES From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 02:28:05 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: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 00:51:58 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Good Solveig, I find nothing in your below missive with which I can disagree: >Noble Magnus! > >The thing that bothers me most about the path of the Grand Council discussion >is that the council is putting the cart way before the horse. The Grand >Council >should not be discussing the election proceedures for the Board of Directors >until it has addressed the general constitution of the society itself. It >is much more important to identify the major constitutional groups in the >society before an election mechanism is established. The American Mathematical >Society has several governing bodies. Each with a different task. Each of >these bodies is directly elected. It makes no sense fiddling with the >election of the Board of Directors or removal of directors until its size, >composition and role in the society is determined. I think that the >Grand Council should have established an overall agenda for its deliberations >months ago instead of spending months frothing at the mouth about current >affairs and who's who in the Grand Council. Immediate political activism >was not supposed to be what the Grand Council was to be about. Instead of >tackling the big picture (which last I heard is what the Grand Council was >asked to do), it is fiddling around with the details. A plaster here, a splint >there. *SIGH* > > Your Humble Servant > Solveig Throndardottir > Amateur Scholar > The election questions were moved to the forfront because of a specific request from the BoD. I too believe that a structural approach to "what body makes what decision?" would be more valuable to the Society. If you do allow, I would like to post your letter above to the GC list. If not I'll have to compose one of my own separately. Thank you for sharing your ideas. Servant to Shire, Principality, Kingdom, Grand Council, Society but most of all to the Dream! Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 03:24:31 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:31:58 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Various, from Gareth To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I do not believe the SCA, or its board, would qualify as an oligarchy. ... >Now if there were >a small group of relatively homogeneous people ... We could discuss this one at some length, but I guess most people see how the discussion would go, so I suggest we skip it or have it by private e-mail. >How about a nominating committee chosen by lottery. Sort of like jury duty? >This group would not be chosen by kingdom, but by random membership number. >... I distinctly LIKE it. >Then the board selects members from the list of approved nominees. ... Fortunately, this one doesn't follow from the previous. The nominating committee by lottery could go with most any (s)election method. >Don't put anything else on the Kingdom Seneschals. They are almost (or >perhaps as) overworked as are the board members. Yes. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 04:18:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:23:53 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Solveig: >>... The Grand Council >>should not be discussing the election proceedures for the Board of Directors >>until it has addressed the general constitution of the society itself. Magnus: >I too believe that a structural approach to "what body makes what decision?" >would be more valuable to the Society. Certainly. Although I do participate in the (s)election discussion, I think that (re)defining the rigths and obligations of the Board should be a prerequisite to making detailed proposals about its structure and selection. The complex of micromanagement, control of the game and non-US representation is a good example: if the Board is to continue controlling the game, and/or if it is to have any real power over how the non-US groups are organized, then such groups need to be represented on the Board - which entails considerable expense. If the control of the game is to be handed over to a body of Kingdom representatives, if the only mundane requirement for non-US groups is to be that they be organized in a way legally appropriate in the relevant country, if the Board is to cut down the number of meetings and amount of routine interference, non-US representation will become more affordable but less crucial. Still, a discussion of the value, costs and possible methods of empowering the general membership has enough intrinsic worth to be motivated on the GC. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 04:55:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:55:25 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Catrin - straw poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) > Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. > Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about > > Your choices are: > 1)Current method NO > 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee NO > 2)Direct election by whole membership YES > 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots YES!!! > 3)Indirect election by local seneschals NO > 4)Indirect election by regional group YES > 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes ? > 5)Election of one director per kingdom MAYBE > 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom NO WAY > 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals NO WAY > 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes NO >>You forgot one though, >>9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes- YES!!! (Thanks, Serwyl!) Notes: (2) Good principle - probably not feasible in the SCA (alienates the anti-politics people) (3) Depends on how you pick seneschals. Puts still more work on seneschals. (4) Depends on how you pick electors. Messy. (4a) Possibly a good idea, but is it relevant here? (5) Board size and expense! Might be motivated if the Board goes on micromanaging and handling the game. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 08:10:38 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 74 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 07:37:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan: More on the Elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan. Finnvarr >>> Magnus is correct that it may be useful to determine when the Board's actions can be vetoed. He also has a point about the participation of non-paying members int he election process. Unfair though it may seem, I prefer limiting elections to paid members, rather than incluidng unpaid, as it is easier to verify them and lessens the opportunity for ballot-stuffing. Alban suggested that there be a system like the U.S. Congress, with the Board being like the Senate and the Appeals court being proportional by population. I see either body being sufficiently unwieldy for effective management or review. I still think that if the candidates for the Board are chosen from those Kingdoms not represented, each will be represented in due time. Right now, if there are seven Board members, that leaves seven from which to choose. If Alysoun continues to be concerned that the smaller Kingdoms will be inadequately represented, then you add in a factor that the Kingdom cannot have had a member on the Board in the last four years, which potentially knocks out ten or eleven. A safety clause would allow expansion to seven if the pool would be inadquate. I am not familiar with the relevant portions of the California NFP Code, but Hossein's assertion that you cannot discriminate against members in the voting is not correct in a number of other states. You can be allowed to discriminate against those who are lower-level members. (They also get fewer free passes, subscription to fewer publications, etc.) It may be possible under California law for a specific group of members to be designated the voting members; I have not checked, and I do not know if this specific question was asked. Hosein also said that "My attitude is: you pay your dues, you get your vote. I'm willing to compromise on this within limits." I think that minors (generally, under 18 years) should be eliminated. They can't make contracts; they can't vote in the USA; they may be members, but I would have concerns about their malleability. Yes, adults can be worked on, too, but I worry less about that. Fiacha said that every member gets an annual renewal mailing; I would like to point out that some of us re-upped for two years, so we don't. Scheduling the memebrship year to tie in with elections is a problem because people join at various times throughout the year. Would the first year be pro-rated? And wouldn't this lead to more paperwork, accounting headaches, etc.? I disagree with Cariadoc that the senior peer of a Kingdom should be the third vote. Some senior peers are barely active and don't have a clew how the Kingdom feels. Similarly with landed Baron(esse)s, who may have an idea how their barony goes but not the rest of the Kingdom. I still think it would be more responsive to have the third vote be a Curis office that does have a lot of contact with the populace, with a restriction that the person not be related to any critical person (Royals, other Curia or lesser officers, GC, IAC, etc.). ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 09:53:03 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: 506 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:25:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Harder to work together To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <310925C0@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Jan 26, 96 10:53:00 am >I understand how it would cost more, but I don't quite see how >it would the Board members would inevitably find it harder to >work together. Would you be so kind as to explain? Once you get to thirteen (and it won't stay at thirteen for long), you get beyond the effective size of a committee. You have a hard time even remembering all the names. Finnvarr, I'm racking my brain for counter-examples, but we don't seem to be providing one, do we? (:-) Tibor (aka old-whats-his-name) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 10:03:27 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: 475 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:33:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: Call for Votes on Selecting Board (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Kwellend-Njal, from Tibor. Forwarded message: From: "David W. James" Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:19:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Galleron: Call for Votes on Selecting Board (fwd) Tibor, please forward: Galleron lists 8 options; there should be one more: 9) More discussion required. This would basically be a "I'm not satisfied with the current method, but none of the other options is satisfactory either." marker. Kwellend-Njal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 14:11:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 10:59:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Board decisions To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Don't limit yourselves to thinking solely in terms of major board decisions and how to swiftly block them (i.e., like the membership mess). Consider the whole range of board work. How the membership and the board interact on an on-going basis will affect how major decisions are reached and the response to them. There should be no unstated policy. That would be like the board deciding to keep down the number of new kingdoms but never saying that that was their intention, just shuffling that paperwork to the bottom of the pile. All working policies should be stated and available (a website location would be helpful) along with the rationale. Any interested member should be able to find out this stuff--no insider tracks. I do not want to hear confidential rumors that the board doesn't like something (and this should go for kingdom curias as well). Administrative directives should be framed in terms of objective/outcome and rationale. A way of doing it should be attached as an example and for convenience. The point of most things is the objective, not getting everyone to do it in the same way. (Obviously uniformity is necessary in some areas, like finances. The mess that would result from creative reports on funds is sufficient rationale in itself.) The branches have the option of using the suggested procedure or coming up with one of their own which better fits the local situation but is in accordance with the objective and rationale. Again, larger or more diverse kingdoms should operate similarly. If these two things were in practice, there would be a better climate for negotiating major decisions such as those on membership requirements and fees. Looking at the recent mess, there were a number of factors involved. First and foremost was the mismatch between the rationale and the action. Since I find it difficult to believe that this particular board was so stupid, I am forced to the conclusion that it was a false rationale, put forward as more acceptable than their real rationale. Second, there was the element of surprise--Everyman certainly wasn't expecting this kind of change. Third, there was an immediate crisis of principle. Instead of dealing with this on the most practical level, the debate quickly escalated into power and vision arguments. Fourth, there was a perceived time pressure. People felt it must be dealt with immediately. The last three dovetail. Whenever people are surprised by a threat to something they care about they want a rapid fix. They do not want to wait for slow but sure routes. The most significant thing about this whole mess is often overlooked. The board is incapable of enforcing an unpopular decision. If you look at the many examples or analogies we have used in our council discussions, you will see that the majority are based on governments or businesses. We are neither. On the membership committee, Justin said that he thought that what the SCA needed was some competition and I think he was absolutely right. Most of my experience has been with volunteer organizations which have a stronger service dimension than the SCA. By necessity they have a more clear statement of purpose--and I think I have overestimated the importance of this. These organizations are in stiff competition for a dwindling volunteer pool--they value their people. Interactions are based on mutual respect--we treat each other as rational people involved in a common enterprise. This does not mean people agree; it does mean that disagreements are negotiated by appeals to reason. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 14:20:11 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: 495 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:11:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Fwd: re: Board Characterization To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601262329.SAA28718@panix.com> from "E. F. MORRILL" at Jan 26, 96 06:29:53 pm It is nice that this subject has been brought up in this forum. I look forward to the bashing. :-) Having only a cursory familiarity with the issue, I must admit that I am NOT pleased that it has come up here. It is, at most, symptomatic of a sort of problem that the Grand Council is already familiar with: if a particularly egregious example (if what Watt has to say is correct.) We are not a court for resolving Societal disputes. Much though sometimes the Society needs one. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 15:52:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:11:58 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: State of The Council Address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:37:28 -0800) Fiacha writes: >Therefore, I declare the coming week to be proposal week. I would like to >see a variety of formal proposals placed on the floor. Good -- it's about the right time for this to happen. Okay, folks -- if you actually care about this issue, it's time to actually get writing. (I am *not* writing anything up here; as I've said, I'm pretty indifferent to this particular issue.) But -- >Finally, I would like for people to stop fussing with straw polls. The >Council is not expected to produce a single unanimous recommendation. I disagree here, and rather strongly. The purpose of a straw poll is not to produce unanimity -- it's to promote internal communication within the Council, by summarizing things concisely and asking around. I'd say that is *quite* needed; our internal communications have been mediocre at best, and every little bit helps. I, at least, am finding the responses interesting and informative, not just in gauging what people think, but how deeply they feel about it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I don't think the armies that faced the Mongols in battle had any doubt as to their opponants....`Do you know me? I've conquered half the known world and people still don't recognize me as Emperor of All Men. That's why I travel with my Mongol hordes. With my Mongol hordes I'm instantly recognized and receive the respect I so richly deserve. The Mongol hordes...don't leave the steppes without them.'" -- Tashuurdai Ech'e Mongghol Ghachar ("That Mongol guy with the whip") From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 15:59:09 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:25:24 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: various To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Huzzah Tibor! I agree heartly with your hesitation to introduce regional politicking to the board. Further, I would point out that any scheme in which each kingdom selects a person will likely be less representative, not more representative of the people of the SCA than is the current system. Because of the way we do things. ex-royalty (or perhaps in some kingdoms, former great officers) will prove to be unbeatable in any electoral or selection process. We will end up with a board comprised almost totally of ex-royalty (and probably dukes/duchesses) from the various kingdoms. Not representative in any meaningful way. As far as a proposal, I would repeat myself (apology for the redundancy, but Fiacha asked for proposals this week). 1. Nomination committee selected by random membership number to one-year term on committee. 2. This nominating committee solicits nominations and letters of comment, reviews and selects appropriate nominees. 3. Board selects members as needed, based on dossiers prepared by nominating committee and on specific and overt selection criteria. For example, the board should attempt to reflect a balance of SCA activities, avoid a geographic concentration of members, etc. 4. Removal should be similar to the current system, but I would change the impeach to removal and replace the Crowns' petitioning with a majority of society-level officers--until and unless we change the requirements for entering Crown Tournament to include some administrative competence. This would also give the topical areas of interest (heraldry, fighting, arts and sciences, etc.) a voice in the potential removal of a director, instead of diluting these through the kingdoms. 5. I am torn about the issue of removing one director vs. the entire board. I believe the weaknesses of each are obvious, but just in case: Weaknesses of removing entire board: board will be more likely to withdraw and form a unified front in times of criticism--thus potentially stifling internal board dissent. if it should be done, losing the entire board at once would be risky for the society. penalizes board members who do (unsuccessfully) stand up to rest of the board Weaknesses of removing one member: too easy for board member with poorer communication skills to unjustly take the heat for others' actions. possible for board to set up a scapegoat to take heat for unpopular decision would encourage board members to go public with accusations against other board members about sensitive issues most members would rely on rumor or third-hand information to base petition signature upon. Way too easy to have petition gatherers handing out false information about the character or actions of a board member, in order to succeed in gathering adequate signatures. The petition originators have a vested interest in having their recall petition work--not in discovering and informing about the possible complexities of a difficult decision. This is the same principle that makes me uncomfortable with the "petition to challenge a decision" provision. I can see numerous occasions in which a topic is too complex to communicate in an ad in kingdom newsletters (assuming that we will still grant newsletter subscriptions to all members) or in which some critical information should not be freely and publically disseminated. (e.g., the principal witness that so-and-so really did say such-and-such was caught in several untruths and contradictions in his statements to the board. . it would be utterly unwise for the board to publically announce that the basis for the decision was that so-and-so is a liar) On the other hand, I do think it is important for the board to be accountable for its actions. That is why my preferred model has the board responsible for engaging the membership in careful discussion about the broad directions in which the Society shoudl go. The board should not be involved in any administrative decisions, apart from selection of the society-level officers. Thus the accountability of the board comes in their interaction with us, not in our ability to clobber them if needed. There would be no need for private board meetings, and the travelling board shows would be real fora, not simply a "watch the board at work" display. Let the society-level officers, selected for their administrative skills, take responsibility for administrative decisions, and let them be held accountable to the board and therefore to the people. Let us make the board an extension of the people, not of some group of officers or crowns or kingdom elites. A note on the proposals that would include ballots for the membershp expiration letters. How about those who renew for multiple years? Do they only get to vote once every n years? Or will there be a special list maintained to send out special letters to people on the date of their renewal? Finally, someone suggested that Fiacha should take responsibility for talking with Ed about a policy for deciding how replacements to the GC should be done. Is this properly within the scope of responsibility as we set out when we decided to select a chair? I'm not necessarily objecting, and certainly don't want to do it myself, but I wonder if we are seeing some drift in responsibility and workload. It would be too easy to put more and more on the back of the chair. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 16:13:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:32:03 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A few thought on managing an election. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eric... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 13:52:54 -0600 (CST) >From: Ron Fleig >Subject: Re: A few thought on managing an election. >In-Reply-To: On Sat, 27 Jan 1996, Nigel Haslock wrote: > Gretings from Fiacha, > > It has been pointed out that there is already an annual mailing from the > corporate office to every new and renewed member. > > It occured to me that this might be a good vehicle for sending out the > voting sheet and candidate statements. The objection is that this is not > done at any one time of the year. > > Rather than saying that this is an insuperable problem, perhaps we could > consider adjusting our membership period. Other organizations can do this > so why could not we? > > Fiacha > This is a great idea! Adjust all memberships to match the AS year; prorating to May 1 in the first year. Those that have two year memberships can be taken into account by a special mailing (they would get the same mailing that everyone else gets but they don't have to send in any money in alternate years. :*) ) or eliminating that option. Eric the Wanderer of the Flying Dragon's Cave Ron Fleig urfleig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 16:22:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:31:13 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Windwicshire... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Tetchubah... -- Justin >From: Carolyn Richardson >Date: 29 Jan 96 11:46:06 >Subject: Windwicshire... In answer to the question "What the hell is Windwichire and is it pertinent to the discussion on the list" the answer is - it was a petition asking the Board to overturn the denial of full status to an incipient group by the Kingdom of An Tir (the Board declined to overturn the Kingdom Seneschal). And _no_ it is not pertinent to this lists' discussion. And just as an addendum to Ed's earlier note: The Board has never been asked to investigate the allegations of possible wrongdoing alleged in Watt Kidman's note. A formal request for such was not part of the Windwicshire petition. Tetchubah (who is reading the discussion but not participating) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 16:30:13 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: 1340 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:46:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: reply to Arthur To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "arthur dent" at Jan 28, 96 11:28:04 am Greetings from Tibor. I was trying to think of a way of accomodating your concerns thatt the customs and voice of smaller kingdoms would be drowned out in any system of general elections. your rigth, I dont think a populace petition should be called for, but I also dont like the the idea of a monarch and chosen officers doing so...perhaps apercantage of local senshals? Welcome to American Civics. Consider the House and Senate. Consider "Tyranny of the Majority". How did US forefathers answer this puzzle? In addition to the power of the electorate, was a base document, which guaranteed what was felt to the minimal rights of others. Such a manifesto might well serve the Corporation. But, given our mechanisms and diversity, it would have to be a separate issue. Sigh. Alysoun, you ask for guarantees that can't be given. You need to look at likelihoods, and see if they are at issue. One of the things we are discussing, right now, is not giving an electorate the power to "do things unto others". We are talking about a form of negation: "Don't do that thing to me". Veto's are not mandates. It is quite a debatable thing, to consider the proposition "Anything that irritates a sufficiency of the Society should be removed, whether they live in the same area, or not." Does considering this help? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jan 29 18:42:59 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:00:08 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: various To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:25:24 -0800, Roy Gathercoal writes: > Huzzah Tibor! I agree heartly with your hesitation to introduce regional > politicking to the board. > > Further, I would point out that any scheme in which each kingdom selects a > person will likely be less representative, not more representative of the > people of the SCA than is the current system. Because of the way we do > things. ex-royalty (or perhaps in some kingdoms, former great officers) > will prove to be unbeatable in any electoral or selection process. We > will end up with a board comprised almost totally of ex-royalty (and > probably dukes/duchesses) from the various kingdoms. Not representative > in any meaningful way. Speaking as a representative Duke, I resent that remark. How do you think that they would not be representative (I.e. represent the interests of the people in the Kingdom.) Of course any long-timer could represent the interests of the Kingdom -- but somehow they're all peers.... Seriously -- what do you mean by "representative in a meaningful way"? What _are_ the interests which should be represented? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 03:43:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:44:33 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: State of The Council Address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha: >>Finally, I would like for people to stop fussing with straw polls. The >>Council is not expected to produce a single unanimous recommendation. Justin: >I disagree here, and rather strongly. The purpose of a straw poll is >not to produce unanimity -- it's to promote internal communication... I agree with Justin. It's also a rather handy way for very busy or less verbal people to express their view. If they choose not to use it - that's another matter, and, in my opinion, a great pity. We should encourage answers to the straw poll, not weaken its status. Ask people at least to answer the poll, if they don't have the time or energy to take part in the discussion. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 09:57:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:31:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: various To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg: I would not want to rule out old-timers/dukes because their experience is invaluable, to be sure. However, their view of the whole thing is different from those of us who have been for less time (and there are a heck of lot more of us). One example is that because they know how something developed and the people who contributed to it over time, they are less able to see the thing as it exists at present. Another example is that they overestimate the amount of influence a member can have--they certainly have influence. Because their knowledge of a kingdom has grown along with it, they are less able to appreciate the difficulties encountered in trying to learn the ropes. Tibor: I didn't understand all of your posting of the 29th Re: Alysoun reply to Arthur. Sorry, please try again. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 10:46:49 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 07:16:02 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: being representative To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg wrote: > Seriously -- what do you mean by "representative in a meaningful way"? What _are_ the interests which should be represented? The short answer (what's that, a sigh of relief?) is that these interests are many, and quite varied. In some cases, they involve issues that only concern peers in an abstract way (such as policies about creating AoAs), in other cases they are focused on a particular aspect of the society which may not be dominated by former royalty (depending on the kingdom, could be rapier fighting, embroidery or equestrian things). We of course cannot ensure that every possible viewpoint, every interest is represented. But I believe it would be a mistake to assume that one person >from a group of the most well known and respected people in each kingdom will form a group more representative of all of the people than would a group selected with a careful eye to diversity of interests and experiences. I do not believe that we should have people brand new to the Society serving on the board, but there are people out there who have never been acknowledged as peers, have never served as Crown, who are far more in touch with the majority of the membership in some aspects than are those of us who tend to have other peers as friends and companions. Note that I do not believe that former royalty should be excluded from service on the board--just that a system that would likely see people with the same backgrounds selected from the kingdoms each time would yield a body most unrepresentative of the tens of thousands of people in the society. This may be what we want, but we should not make the mistake of thinking that having kingdoms represented is the same as having the people represented. More clear? Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 10:54:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 07:22:37 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: BoD Characterization (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 28 Jan 96 12:14:36 EST From: Windward <73651.3314@compuserve.com> To: Nigel Haslock Subject: re: BoD Characterization Fiacha, please post this to the GC list. Thanks Edward Z wrote, "It is nice that this subject has been brought up in this forum. I look forward to the bashing." It would be unfortuante if that's the response; it certainly wasn't my intent in making the post. Bashing would only interfer with addressing the problem of dispute resolution within the organization. Having just gone through the process of working a grievance through the system, Windwicshire can speak to the discrepancy between how the system is supposed to work, and how it actually does. EM> ... the appeal dealt with the BoD overturning the denial of raising Windwic >from incipient group to official group. The appeal dealt with the belief by the shire, backed up by considerable evidence, that this failure to elevate was the direct result of the shire having brought forward charges of fiscal malfeasance against a member of the Crown's household. The merits of that charge doesn't fall within the pervue of the Grand Council, but I would hope that the GC would give thought to the very limited range of options that apply in a situation such as this. We perceived a "hostage" situation in which effective action against wrong-doers was profoundly inhibited by the desire to not do damage to either the Society as a whole or to individuals who were merely misinformed. The range of options we perceived was 1) let the situation continue unabated, 2) file a complaint with the U.S. Attorney's office, RICO division, 3) file a complaint re private inurement with the IRS, 4) file a civil suit against the SCA, Inc. re the laws prohibiting the harassment of whistle blowers or 5) file an appeal with the BoD. As you can see, options 2) through 4) are highly detrimental to the Society as a whole, something which we feel isn't warranted. Option 1), we believed, would do the least damage in the short run, and the long run is not our responsibility. A reading of the timeline on the Mandamus petition convinced us that that BoD wasn't sufficiently aware of its corporate and legal responsibilities to warrant the filing of an appeal. If the outcome was predetermined, then we had little interest in going through the exercise. This was especially true since once this information was formally brought forward, the BoD would have a legal obiligation to ascertain the merit of the charges. The appeal would remove any "plausible deniability" which the BoD might later raise as a defense for its inaction. The decision to go forward with the appeal came about after E.F. Morril made a rather eloquent and empassioned post on the Internet in response to a post by some anonymous group alledging a series of improprieties in Caid. Morril pointed out (I'm recalling here, not quoting) that it was the duty of all members of this Society to either bring forward real evidence that the Ombudsman and the BoD could address, or to refrain from making broad assertions that only served to demean us all. Morrill's post challenged them to either put up or shut up, and to show respect for those charged with overseeing the Society by dealing directly with them. I don't know if others heard his words, but we took them to heart and got to work. It is my hope that the GC will consider the need for there to be some sort of credible internal forum in which non-peers can bring forward complaints against officers of the corporation without out fear of reprisal. It has been asserted that the BoD had no duty to investigate this matter, and while that can be debated in the legal sense, I would assert that given the presentation that this is a Society founded on honor, that those in power do have a duty to guard and attend to the rights of those who are new to the Society. Perhaps we need some sort of Miranda warning for non-peers: "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in Court. You have the right to a Peer. If you can not afford a Peer, the Court will appoint a Peer for you." :-) Watt Kidman From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 11:30:50 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: 559 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 10:42:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: References to obscure matters To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <310C3B27@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Jan 28, 96 07:03:00 pm Greetings from Tibor. Finnvarr wrote: What is this? Am I supposed to know this by mental telepathy? If this is a serious matter for our consideration, how about some detail? If not why waste our time? I've corresponded with Watt over this issue... he has my sympathies. But he also seems to believe that his problems with his own NFP (Windward) and his attempts to integrate them into An Tir and the Society (Windwicshire) are universal knowledge. I know about them from reading the An Tir list. As I said, I don't think it belongs here. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 12:01:16 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: 813 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 11:34:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. (I added an note to the end.) Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 09:19:45 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Power to Recall without Power to Elect? Please forward to GC Giving members the power to recall directors but not elect them would be a new and strange way to run a corporation. I don't know of anyone that does it that way. What do you do if you recall all the directors? Ask the last one to leave to elect a new Board before he turns out the lights? If you want to have the power to recall the board, you must take responsibility for electing them. Galleron Tibor here. California law covers the case where all Directors resign or are removed. Otherwise, I agree very much with the sentiments expressed. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 12:18:29 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: 971 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 11:49:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Morgan: More on the Elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <310CEC1C@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Jan 29, 96 07:37:00 am Greetings from Tibor. Morgan wrote: I am not familiar with the relevant portions of the California NFP Code, but Hossein's assertion that you cannot discriminate against members in the voting is not correct in a number of other states. You can be allowed to discriminate against those who are lower-level members. (They also get fewer free passes, subscription to fewer publications, etc.) It may be possible under California law for a specific group of members to be designated the voting members; I have not checked, and I do not know if this specific question was asked. California Corporate Code allows there to be classes of membership, with varying rights and qualifications. This is true for all California Corporations, irrespective of tax filing status. (At least, this was true a year ago when I read it. It's been a while, and the legislature is not required to notify me when it changes the law.) Tibor (http://www.pubinfo.ca.gov) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 14:05:56 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: 760 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:31:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Clarification on Straw Poll (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 15:21:24 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Clarification on Straw Poll Please forward to GC Serwyl writes: "You forgot one though, 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes- YES" Note that in the body of the proposal, I framed 2a) to say that members would get ballots if they either requested that they be sent them, or, if they subscribed to the Board Proceedings). I assumed that Subscription to Board Proceedings (to be technical, they're not actually minutes) also implied a request for Ballots. 9) is only a separate proposal if you intend Subscribers to Proceedings to be the ONLY people who can vote. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 14:16:18 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: 1217 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:36:00 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Harder to Work Together (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 16:22:28 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Harder to Work Together Please forward to GC: Finnvarr writes: "Once you get to thirteen (and it won't stay at thirteen for long), you get beyond the effective size of a committee. You have a hard time even remembering all the names." Absolutely right. On the other hand, many, many non-profits of our size have a board of twenty or so, of whom seven or so serve on the executive committee, doing the sort of things our Board spends so much time on. There are usually a bunch of other committees on whatever can be spun off. The whole Board might meet only once a year, the committees as needed. This is not an endorsement for the "Board member from each Kingdom" idea. If there's some Eastern blowup and the Board needs to step in, I want it to be a "Board member that happens to come from the East" listening, not "The Honorable Representative from Eastrealm" Besides, if you lock yourself into a one-per-kingdom, you have to turn away qualified candidates who happen to be from a Kingdom already on the Board. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 14:28:08 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: 2700 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 13:41:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Back to Hossein on His Election Plan (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:32:31 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Back to Hossein on His Election Plan Please forward to GC I asked Hossein: > Lots of people seemed to like the "Ballots on Request or with Board > Proceedings". Why don't you? (Not being snotty, just asking) He answered: "The best professional legal advice to which I have access suggests that creating procedures which potentially discriminate against one sector of the electorate are potential lightning rods for litigation. I would like to avoid that from the beginning" But what if you framed it this way: A. ELECTORS. Any persons holding sustaining, associate, family, or international memberships may become members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. They may do so by either: 1. Requesting that they be made members of the corporation when they apply for membership, or: 2. Making a written request to be made a member of the corporation at any later point in the term of their membership, and providing proof of membership, or: 3. Subscribing to the Board Proceedings Me: > Why not elect alternates as well? We'll try to fix the workload and burnout > problem, but I don't know how successful we'll be, or how soon. Well worth it > if it avoids even one special election. Hossein: "Note that my proposal doesn't call for special elections if directors resign; you merely select extra directors to fill the unexpired terms at the next regular election." Yes, but current by-laws require Board to have at least five Directors to function. And being even one short for as much as a year could be a workload problem. Me: > Can you give us examples of organizations like ours that use the sort of > recall process you advocate? Hossein: "Two credit unions to which I have belonged, and one professional association." What percentage of their membership did they require for recall? Was it expressed as a percentage or an absolute number? If an absolute number, what percentage of their membership did it amount to? I agree with you that, while you could consider first I and then II, you cannot consider II without I, since procedures for replacing ousted directors in II are contained in I, and some such procedures are essential if the entire Board is ousted. While 2000 signatures may have been collected, Arval has told me that he only had some 800 in hand, with a packet of some 400 others going astray in the mail. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 15:30:19 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: 1320 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:50:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron Re: Frederick Straw votes (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 09:13:16 -0500 Subject: Galleron Re: Frederick Straw votes Please forward to GC: Flieg writes: > I don't understand the separation of 5 and 6. Why not leave the >matter up to the Kingdom.?The East can vote and the West can appoint -- >it then doesn't matter. > If you leave the choice up to the kingdom, you must also give the people of that kingdom an easy, non-traumatic way to change their mind. You could do that under 5) by using one of the options I mentioned in 4). If the Kingdom wants the Crown to do it, you have the Board member chosen by two electors, chosen every three years. One of the options on the ballot is '"The Reigning King and Queen". If everybody is happy, that option wins in every election. If it doesn't, then clearly the Kingdom doesn't want to do that anymore. I don't want a kingdom that decides that maybe appointment by the Crown wasn't such a good idea to have to mobilize some difficult special process or overcome an entrenched Kingdom establishment to change its mind. I still think the Board members should be accountable to the Society as a whole, not to individual kingdoms, and certainly not to individual monarchs. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 15:39:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:49:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Morgan: More on the Elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor, The point wasn't whether California law allows different classes of members in an NFP. It does. The question is whether it creates potential for litigation if you discriminate against some sub-class of the class "members who elect Board members." My information is that it does. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 15:48:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 12:11:02 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: being representative To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Tue, 30 Jan 1996 07:16:02 -0800, Roy Gathercoal writes: > Flieg wrote: > > >> Seriously -- what do you mean by "representative in a meaningful way"? >> > What _are_ the interests which should be represented? > > The short answer (what's that, a sigh of relief?) is that these interests > are many, and quite varied. In some cases, they involve issues that only > concern peers in an abstract way (such as policies about creating AoAs) Huh? Policies about creating AoA? What should the Board be doing about that? (Maybe just a poor example. Similar to my lack of smilies on my earlier comment to your letter.) , > in other cases they are focused on a particular aspect of the society > which may not be dominated by former royalty (depending on the kingdom, > could be rapier fighting, embroidery or equestrian things). But these are "special interests", and can be represented by anyone who will listen to the PAC's. [...trimmed for length > the society. This may be what we want, but we should not make the > mistake of thinking that having kingdoms represented is the same as > having the people represented. > More clear? No. Especially the last sentence. What "people" need to be represented? The Board doesn't deal (by and large) with "people". It deals with individuals and it deals with official groups. If we are limited to one person or less per Kingdom, that person has to temper their own concerns with a _lot_ of input; it doesn't matter who they are. There may be a paradigm problem here. To me "The people" is a meaningless noise unless it is copiously clarified. It is also to me a "warning" buzzword that there is likely to be some form of oppression from modern governments explicit in a statement like "The people need..." or "The people want...". Somehow, I never seem to be part of "the people". From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 16:49:53 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 17 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:48:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Straw poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I, too, see a place for this straw poll. So here are my responses. Your choices are: 1)Current method -- yes 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee -- yes 2)Direct election by whole membership -- YES 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -- YES 3)Indirect election by local seneschals -- no 4)Indirect election by regional group -- yes 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes -- yes 5)Election of one director per kingdom -- NO 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom -- NO 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals -- NO 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 16:56:10 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: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:21:35 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Carts and Horses (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > >Noble Cousin! > >Feel free to post my missive along with your comments. > > Your Humble Servant > Solveig Throndardottir > Amateur Scholar > >>Good Solveig, >> >>I find nothing in your below missive with which I can disagree: >> >>>Noble Magnus! >>> >>>The thing that bothers me most about the path of the Grand Council discussion >>>is that the council is putting the cart way before the horse. The Grand >>>Council >>>should not be discussing the election proceedures for the Board of Directors >>>until it has addressed the general constitution of the society itself. It >>>is much more important to identify the major constitutional groups in the >>>society before an election mechanism is established. The American >>>Mathematical >>>Society has several governing bodies. Each with a different task. Each of >>>these bodies is directly elected. It makes no sense fiddling with the >>>election of the Board of Directors or removal of directors until its size, >>>composition and role in the society is determined. I think that the >>>Grand Council should have established an overall agenda for its deliberations >>>months ago instead of spending months frothing at the mouth about current >>>affairs and who's who in the Grand Council. Immediate political activism >>>was not supposed to be what the Grand Council was to be about. Instead of >>>tackling the big picture (which last I heard is what the Grand Council was >>>asked to do), it is fiddling around with the details. A plaster here, a >>>splint >>>there. *SIGH* >>> >>> Your Humble Servant >>> Solveig Throndardottir >>> Amateur Scholar >>> >>The election questions were moved to the forfront because of a specific >>request from the BoD. >> >>I too believe that a structural approach to "what body makes what decision?" >>would be more valuable to the Society. >> >>If you do allow, I would like to post your letter above to the GC list. If >>not I'll have to compose one of my own separately. >> >>Thank you for sharing your ideas. >> >>Servant to Shire, Principality, Kingdom, Grand Council, Society but most of >>all to the Dream! >> >>Magnus > > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 17:08:50 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: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:13:28 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > >Tibor here. California law covers the case where all Directors resign or >are removed. Otherwise, I agree very much with the sentiments expressed. > > Tibor: What does California law say about this? Magnus ps electing replacements could be left as the only power and duty remaining to a lame duck, removed director. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 20:11:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 43 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 19:27:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Morgan to Galleron to Hossein on Ele To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hossein: "Note that my proposal doesn't call for special elections if directors resign; you merely select extra directors to fill the unexpired terms at the next regular election." Galleron: Yes, but current by-laws require Board to have at least five Directors to function. And being even one short for as much as a year could be a workload problem. Not just a workload problem -- they would be stopped if the Board did not have the minimum number of members. This is what torqued a lot of people during the Troubles, when the remaining Board members had emergency telephone meetings for the sole purpose of appointing new members to cover the unexpired terms and get up to the required minimum. Also, I think that Hossein's concern about the "litigation lightning rod" of who can vote would be simply answered by defining the list as those who subscribe to the Board minutes, or whatever. This is not disciminating against a given group, as they would be paying an additional fee over the basic membership. As I've noted before, a number of the groups to which I belong allow only members above a certain financial level to vote for Directors, and this would be no different. Galleron said: "If you want to have the power to recall the board, you must take responsibility for electing them."" YES!!!!! ---= Morgan From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 20:53:12 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:14:35 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Elections, Nominating Committee To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, I have been having trouble with the concept of general elections for the very reason that they could make Directors answerable to a geographically defined electorate. With either open elections with a wide franchise (allowing most or all members to vote) or a system that chooses directors based on Kingdom, directors can become tied to an area. Under the current system, directors are encouraged to think of the Society as a whole, rather than their own corner of it. Indeed, directors routinely bow out of issues involving their home Kingdoms. With the concerns some GC members have expressed about the possible geographic hegemony inherent in having a wide franchise, I have come to lean more towards leaving the final selection of directors up to the Board. This does not in any way preclude the existence of a nominating committee, which may indeed be constituted in such a way that geographic elements are actually a benefit, rather than a liability. Given the limited scope of responsibility of a nominating committee, which would include searching out potential candidates and convincing them to throw their hat in the ring, the group's size would be less of an issue. We could have a committee made up of one member per Kingdom, to be chosen in whatever manner each Kingdom wishes. Such a Kingdom based system gives us greater coverage and a finer ability to identify good candidates and weed out others. It also allows for democratic election of its members for those Kingdoms that wish it. The responsibilities of such a committee would be: 1. Search for and approach suitable candidates for the Board. 2. Solicit and accept nominations from the populace 3. Examine and discuss candidates qualifications. 4. Solicit commentary on candidates from the populace. 5. Make nominations to the Board. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jan 30 21:11:31 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: 3136 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 20:26:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Outline of Election Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 16:40:19 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Outline of Election Proposal Please forward to GC: Here's a very, very typical way that US non-profits of our size are set up. Since it seems to work well for a lot of groups and our way doesn't, I think we should give it serious consideration. Elected Board, 21 directors elected for three year terms, with seven elected each year. Normally, the entire Board meets once a year. It selects a seven member Executive Committee to manage the routine affairs of the corporation between annual meetings. It also sets up a nominating committee of seven, and such other committees as seem useful or desirable. Relevant choices might include finance, budget, membership, and appeal/grievance. These committees might be composed of directors, members, or both. The committees would meet as needed. So the Executive Committee does the sorts of things our current Board does, minus the things pushed off onto the other committees, and minus anything pushed down to the kingdom level. While the nominating committee is not separate from the Board as a whole, it is separate from the EC, the equivalent of our current Board. The cost for travel and lodging for the Board proper actually go down (21x1 versus 4x7). To the extent that the other committees meet in person, there is additional expense. But this model also has important advantages. New directors can cut their teeth on the less critical committees. Workload is less per director, so you can have good directors serve two terms, instead of having both good and bad ones burn out after one. The system is flexible: if you lose an executive director for some reason, there is a reserve of other elected directors to draw from. If the Nominating Committee does its job right you end up with one director from each kingdom, and one from each major region in the big ones. Yet the Executive Committee itself is not so large as to be unwieldy. Elections are held as in the Hossein plan, except: Seven directors are elected in each year. Petition requirement is waived for candidates proposed by the Nominating Committee. Electors are defined as follows: A. ELECTORS. Any persons holding sustaining, associate, family, or international memberships may become members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. They may do so by either: 1. Requesting that they be made members of the corporation when they apply for membership by marking the appropriate box on their membership application, or: 2. Making a written request to be made a member of the corporation at any later point in the term of their membership, and providing proof of membership, or: 3. Subscribing to the Board Proceedings Except for the definition of the electorate, all of the provisions above are very common in non-profits of our size. Steal as much of this as you like. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 05:56:34 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:55:22 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Morgan to Galleron to Hossein on Ele To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Morgan to Galleron: >Also, I think that Hossein's concern about the "litigation lightning rod" of >who can vote would be simply answered by defining the list as those who >subscribe >to the Board minutes, or whatever. ... Correct me if I've got it wrong, but don't you need to be a registered voter to vote in US national-level elections? Simply being a member (i.e. citizen) isn't enough. So somehow I think a similar system should be okay for the SCA. >Galleron said: "If you want to have the power to recall the board, you must >take responsibility for electing them."" >YES!!!!! > ---= Morgan YES!!!!! /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 05:56:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:09:55 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Serwyl: Elections, Nominating Committee To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I have been having trouble with the concept of general elections for the very >reason that they could make Directors answerable to a geographically defined >electorate. ... It *could*. Would it *have to*, if set up right? One of the reasons we discuss a nominating committee is that a balance in the candidates' background is considered a good thing. If the committee can consider needs for a specific mundane skill, why not also consider needs for balance in geographical background? "With the Board we've got now, the next candidates shouldn't be from the East, or Middle, and we ought to have someone from AnTir." Or something. (And, anyway, is being answerable to a geographically defined electorate worse than being answerable to nobody at all?) >... Indeed, directors routinely bow out of issues involving their >home Kingdoms. ... Why couldn't elected directors do the same? They'd get elected Board members, not Kingdom representatives, unless you specifically set it up that way. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 10:43:50 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: 984 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:57:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: More on My "Outline of Election Proposal" (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 08:43:25 -0500 Subject: Galleron: More on My "Outline of Election Proposal" Please forward to GC With a 21 member Board meeting annually and a seven member Executive Committee, (the "21/7 Plan" for brevity) you would set a minimum number of directors, perhaps the current five, and a maximum of 21. That way you could ramp up to the big Board gradually and as needed, and even reduce it later if you managed to spin off enough of the Board's duties and responsibilities to make it desirable. Yet another advantage of this plan is that you could remove a director or directors from the Executive Committee without necessarily recalling them as directors. Less traumatic that way if it's a policy question rather than corruption or abuse of authority. The 21/7 plan would also work with directors elected by current Board as we do now. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 10:47:28 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: 929 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 10:00:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron Re: being representative (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:38:39 -0500 Subject: Galleron Re: being representative Please forward to GC In a message dated 96-01-30 17:21:34 EST, flieg writes: >To me "The people" is a meaningless >noise unless it is copiously clarified. It is also to me a "warning" >buzzword that there is likely to be some form of oppression from modern >governments explicit in a statement like "The people need..." or "The people >want...". Somehow, I never seem to be part of "the people". Funny, I have exactly the same reaction to "The Kingdom". Does it mean: "What the majority of the people in the Kingdom wants to do" or: "What nobody in the Kingdom objects to" or: "What no significant minority in the Kingdom objects to" or: "What the King and/or Curia want to do" These can be very different things. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 12:38:15 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: 1630 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 12:08:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 11:43:13 -0500 Subject: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) Please forward to GC Magnus writes: > >ps electing replacements could be left as the only power and duty remaining >to a lame duck, removed director. > The chances of an undesirable result would be high. For example: "Treat me like filth and then make me elect the new Board? Hell no, I resign. Right now. Let the State of California pick 'em", or: "New Board? OK, but you're not going to like it. You will note that I have chosen seven people that share my views strongly, and have more stamina than I do" or: "New Board? Here's the list. You will note that I have chosen Paul Serio as one of the Directors. I felt that the monarchs that voted us out deserved at least one ex-King on the Board to represent their views. He can't travel, so you will have to hold all meetings at his current place of, ahh, residence." or: "New Board? Here you are. Since you ousted us for showing insufficient sensitivity to the concerns of non-member participants, you will note that the new Board is composed entirely of Tuchux." You have already decided that this person is unworthy of trust and authority, and you have done nothing to improve his ability to think clearly and calmly by humiliating him in the most public manner possible. Why would you want him to pick the next Board? ("Because I don't want to be bothered by elections" is not an acceptable answer) Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 14:28:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 12:48:44 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Morgan to Galleron to Hossein on Ele To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Janna G Spanne on Wed, 31 Jan 1996 09:55:22 +0100) Catrin writes: >Correct me if I've got it wrong, but don't you need to be a registered >voter to vote in US national-level elections? Simply being a member (i.e. >citizen) isn't enough. >So somehow I think a similar system should be okay for the SCA. Well, yes and no. Yes, you have to register to vote (although that's almost automatic at this point -- there's *very* little involved in doing it). But there are *big* differences between the rules on the government (especially the federal government) and the rules on private organizations. You can't reliably use one as a guideline for what's legal in the other. And there are many areas that may be apparently legal, but can still get you sued -- law is, of necessity, fuzzy around the edges. Hence, even if discriminatory election rules aren't *explicitly* against the law, they still might be successfully litigated. So I don't find this argument especially persuasive. (I'm not *too* panicked about the "lightning-rod" thing, but I don't think this is a valid counter-argument against it.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You can *not* use the same adjective to describe THE FOUNDATION TRILOGY and MOBY-DICK and have it mean anything. (Oh, all right. You can describe them both as "large." You know what I mean.)" -- Da Roach From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 15:26:56 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: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 12:12:41 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron, If we have a chance of electing a whole group of people who would follow your scenarios, thru any format whatsoever, I vote now to dissolve the SCA as a failed experiment. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 16:54:30 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: 1120 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 16:11:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601311812.MAA14154@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Jan 31, 96 12:12:41 pm If we have a chance of electing a whole group of people who would follow your scenarios, thru any format whatsoever, I vote now to dissolve the SCA as a failed experiment. Magnus, Magnus... "Death of the Net Predicted..." Let's attempt to avoid the hyperbole, shall we? I would have thought Galleron's potential situations ludicrous: before A.J. Those with longer memories might, instead, hearken back to the days of the formation of Atlantia. We cannot prevent a Board from making errors. What we must do is stack the deck so that errors are less likely to be made, and arrange so that errors can be easily reversed. Magnus, your idealism is, well, charming. But is it constructive? Galleron is showing a certain "maximal pessimism" with his scenarii. They are not likely: but they should be considered. There are parallels between what we are doing, and building reliable software systems. One of the things you do there is to envision the worst case, and it's likelihood, and the cost of preventing that case versus permitting it. It is appropriate that we make those judgements here, to. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 18:22:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 17:33:19 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199601311812.MAA14154@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus writes: >If we have a chance of electing a whole group of people who would follow >your scenarios, thru any format whatsoever, I vote now to dissolve the SCA >as a failed experiment. I think this is a bit over-stated. The fact is, we *do* occasionally get vengeful twits in positions of power. That isn't peculiar to the SCA, it's just a fact of human society. We do a better job than most of *not* getting them, but it would be arrogant to assume that this will never happen. I think we should try to build our systems to be hard to abuse, and I'd say Galleron is right -- this model *is* just begging for abuse. It doesn't even require an especial twit, just someone torqued off enough to not be 100% rational. I'd say that *most* of the Board members I've seen have hit that point at least occasionally -- it's just human... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: [...] r. Always tip your hat before striking a lady. [...] -- Rules for Soldiers Re-entering Civilian Life From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jan 31 21:54:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 21:06:54 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Response to Catrin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, To recap, I said: >>I have been having trouble with the concept of general elections for the very >>reason that they could make Directors answerable to a geographically defined >>electorate. ... Catrin responded: >It *could*. Would it *have to*, if set up right? I'm not sure how it would NOT under some of the proposals we have in front of us. Catrin: >One of the reasons we >discuss a nominating committee is that a balance in the candidates' >background is considered a good thing. If the committee can consider needs >for a specific mundane skill, why not also consider needs for balance in >geographical background? "With the Board we've got now, the next candidates >shouldn't be from the East, or Middle, and we ought to have someone from >AnTir." Or something. That's why I spent the rest of my post discussing the merits of a nominating committee. I distinctly like having directors that are as neutral as possible. The two tiered approach, with a Board selected as it is now, but vetted through a body that is geographically and possibly democratically selected, has a certain appeal. >(And, anyway, is being answerable to a geographically defined electorate >worse than being answerable to nobody at all?) Technically, they should be answerable to ALL of us. >>... Indeed, directors routinely bow out of issues involving their >>home Kingdoms. ... >Why couldn't elected directors do the same? They'd get elected Board >members, not Kingdom representatives, unless you specifically set it up >that way. I just think that it's harder to make that separation when you owe your job to a specific group. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 00:33:48 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: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 21:58:31 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 05:33 PM 1/31/96 EST, Justin wrote: >It doesn't even require an especial twit, just someone torqued off enough >to not be 100% rational. I'd say that *most* of the Board members I've >seen have hit that point at least occasionally -- it's just human... > > -- Justin Exactly my point. It is easy enough to get one or two especial twits, even a criminal or a psychotic. However, unless the entire BoD falls in this direction, we can safely allow the BoD to choose replacements for any that have been removed without falling prey to one of Gallerons's scenarii for BoD of the Damned. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 04:03:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Schuylab@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 03:38:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Eichling Von Amrun Subject: Re: Eichling: CA Membership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Eichling, I'll add my stalk to the straw poll here. I think it may be surprising, and certainly will be informative, to see how the information lines up when a count is taken. Incidentally, I'm finding myself agreeing with Galleron lately (perhaps I'm not feeling well). I am not a lawyer, but I do have a xerox of a legal monograph on the definition of a member of a non-profit organization in California (Curtis Sproul, UC Berkeley.) Unfortunately, I didn't request a copy of the title page of the book: It's your standard review-of-a-topic-outlines-and discussion type text. "6.2 1. Definition of "Member" The word "member" (or "statutory member") as used in this chapter, and in the Nonprofit Corporation Law is a term of art meaning a member as defined in Corp C & 5056. Accordingly, a member is any person, whether or not called a member by the corporation, who, pursuant to a specific provision in the articles or bylaws, has the right to vote on (1) the election of a director or directors or (2) one or more of the following matters: dissolution, merger, or disposition of all or substantially all the corporate assets (except for creditors of a mutual benefit corporation...)...The term "member" also includes persons designated as members in the articles or bylaws who, pursuant to a specific provision in the articles or bylaws, have the right to vote on changes to the articles or bylaws. A person is not a statutory member merely on the basis of rights he or she may have as a delegate, as a director, or as a person entitled to designate or select a director or directors... ...Furthermore, the corporation is entitled to use the word "member" in referring to persons associated with the corporation who do not qualify as statutory members." 6.3 2. Corporations Without Members A nonprofit corporation need not have members; indeed, unless its articles or bylaws contain express membership provisions, it is deemed to have no members. This option is one of the most significant features that differentiate nonprofit corporations from business corporations. If the corporation has no members, actions that would otherwise require membership approval need only board approval, and rights that would otherwise vest in the members are vested in the directors, including the right to share in any distribution upon dissolution of the corporation." You see, I disagree with the thought that says that we are starting in the wrong place to consider election of the BoD as an issue at this time. That is the place to begin to enfranchise an interested segment of the SCA population. We can _all_ make decisions. My straw vote: Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about Your choices are: 1)Current method - OK 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee - OK 2)Direct election by whole membership - NO 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -OK 3)Indirect election by local seneschals -NO 4)Indirect election by regional group - NO 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - NO 5)Election of one director per kingdom-NO 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom - NO, Well..Maybe 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - NO 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes - You forgot one though, 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes- _YES_ Eichling From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 08:33:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:01:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan: Question to Serwyl To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L OK, I am still confused, Serwyl. Give me a simple answer. How, just how, will the Directors be answerable to a given geographic group, if they are elected in a general, Knowne-Worlde-wide election? ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 09:01:23 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: 920 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:35:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Serwyl: Response to Catrin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960131210652_411693849@mail06.mail.aol.com> from "Chuck Hack" at Jan 31, 96 09:06:54 pm Greetings from Tibor. Serwyl answered Catrin's question: "(And, anyway, is being answerable to a geographically defined electorate worse than being answerable to nobody at all?)" this way: Technically, they should be answerable to ALL of us. Technically, they are answerable to the public via the attorney general of California, Serwyl. Technically they are NOT answerable to the donors. See the American Bar Association "Handbook for Directors". On the other hand, let us temper our theoretic observations with observed fact, shall we? They are not answerable, and have not been, save on the rare occassions when they choose to notice. If they can choose when and how to be responsive depending upon the requestor's identity and the audience, that isn't very answerable at all. I too express fears of geographic loyalty. I think we can do so on stronger grounds than the hypothetical theoretical. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 09:46:06 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: 2328 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:14:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Back to Magnus on Recall without Power to Elect (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:09:39 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Back to Magnus on Recall without Power to Elect (fwd) Please forward to GC Magnus writes, responding to my worst-case scenario of what might happen if we asked a Board we had just recalled to elect a new one: >If we have a chance of electing a whole group of people who would follow >your scenarios, thru any format whatsoever, I vote now to dissolve the SCA >as a failed experiment. > Magnus, I believe most people are decent and honorable, and it is unlikely that the departing Board will do anything spitefull on the way out. They may not even throw up their hands in despair and give up, or put in a fresh Board to perpetuate the policies that got them recalled. But consider circumstances that would trigger a mass recall in the first case: It would be an unusually toxic Board, or you wouldn't, or shouldn't, be recalling them in the first case. If they were only moderately bad you'd just let them finish their term. They would be very, very, convinced that they were right, and that they were just being persecuted by a noisy, wrongheaded minority. Otherwise they would just cave in on their policies, and you wouldn't be recalling them. (They might even be correct, since recall without elections gives no way to prove the question one way or another) People have been them names for months.(Cause that's how we do these things) They are punchy and disoriented. Deep, deep, deep into bunker mentality.. Again: why would you WANT someone you have decided is unworthy of trust and authority to pick the next Board? Especially when they're in an overwrought emotional state. If you trust their honor and good sense you shouldn't be impeaching them. If you don't, they shouldn't be picking the next Board. And even if they are decent, honorable, and wise (recalled through some unfortunate misunderstanding, perhaps) they shouldn't be picking the next Board. They will not be in a good emotional state for making decisions in the best interests of the Society, and the new Board, however good, will be tainted by association. I'm not even sure it would be legal to set it up that way. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 09:46:07 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: 1382 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:16:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron re: Lightening rod for litigation? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, By Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 09:09:42 -0500 Subject: Galleron re: Lightening rod for litigation? Please forward to the GC Would someone with the appropriate background please look into the question Hossein has raised about differing treatment of voting members being a problem in California? I believe we are in the clear if we define voting members as follows, and send them all ballots by mail: A. ELECTORS. Any persons holding sustaining, associate, family, or international memberships may become members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. They may do so by either: 1. Requesting that they be made members of the corporation when they apply for membership by marking the appropriate box on their membership application, or: 2. Making a written request to be made a member of the corporation at any later point in the term of their membership, and providing proof of membership, or: 3. Subscribing to the Board Proceedings But what if some get ballots by TI and some by mail? If all get ballots by TI, does it matter that some members pay extra for first class and most get their' copy by third class mail? Obviously, if TI isn't an option that will affect costs. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 10:55:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:25:51 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602010358.VAA21713@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus writes: >Exactly my point. It is easy enough to get one or two especial twits, even a >criminal or a psychotic. However, unless the entire BoD falls in this >direction, we can safely allow the BoD to choose replacements for any that >have been removed without falling prey to one of Gallerons's scenarii for >BoD of the Damned. In which case, I believe you have forgotten the context of the discussion. The message from Galleron that you were replying to was talking about your point: >ps electing replacements could be left as the only power and duty remaining >to a lame duck, removed director. Galleron was specifically addressing this case, where there are few (or one) person, who has already been removed, doing the selection. In which case, the chance of a disaster increases considerably... -- Justin Keeper of the Archives Random Quote du Jour: "Crikey, fancy Sam & Max or John Constantine on an American stamp. (Frankly, though, I think Flaming Carrot is more in keeping with the duties and responsibilities of the U.S. Postal Service.)" -- Moriarty From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 11:15:00 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: 2031 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:37:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron's election proposal outline (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor, with some reformatting. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 10:05:58 -0500 Subject: Re: Galleron's election proposal outline (fwd) Please forward to GC: Tetchubah sent me some private e-mail relevant to the council's current discussion, which I quote below. She also asked us to do something about the workload issue, which I also would like to see us tackle as soon as we finish the election/removal discussion Tetchubah: [...] Galleron is working from the assumption that the costs of a large board (in his example, 21 members meeting annually) are less than our current system (7 members meeting 4 times a year) but I was wondering if the Executive Committee (7 people) of his other group meets more often than once a year? It seems to me they'd almost have to in order to "manage the routine affairs of the corporation between annual meetings". Not everything can be done via the phone, email, or conference calls so how do they manage the stuff that can't wait a year? Galleron: Yes, I was careful to say that it is only the costs of the board proper that go down. People that have served on our board can be the best judge of this, but I would think that the executive committee would want to meet face to face about four times a year, with one of those meetings immediately following the board annual meeting. Then your total number of trips would be for 21x1 plus 7x3. You might save a bit by holding the annual meeting at Pennsic and Estrella in alternating years, or by having a somewhat smaller big board. Bottom line, it might cost somewhat more, perhaps 50% more for total board travel, big board and executive committee, than now, or $15,000. However, that money would buy significant benefits: a broader, more diverse board, greater flexibility, wider representation, and less concentrated workload. (You see Tetchubah, we ARE thinking of you) Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 21:35:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 21:19:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Answer to Morgan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Morgan asked: >OK, I am still confused, Serwyl. Give me a simple answer. > How, just how,will >the Directors be answerable to a given geographic group, > if they are elected in >a general, Knowne-Worlde-wide election? > > > ---= Morgan I would be very suprised if even in a Knowne World election that votes did not fall into geographic lines. The mass of populace do not care to educate themselves about candidates' qualifications or positions. This has been proved again and again in national elections. A very few people actually make the attempt to vote, and those that do vote decide less on the issues than on gut feelings and personal factors. Even as a person with a degree in political science I notice the tendancy in myself. Another issue in Society wide elections: Imagine you are Duke Morgan of the Middle Kingdom, population somewhere in the bezillions... Imagine I am Duke Serwyl of Trimaris (a really big stretch...). Your name recognition is likely to be much higher than mine, and your chances of election (all other things being equal) similarly enhanced. Thus even Knowne World elections offer drawbacks over even the current system, where the Board at least attempts to create a mix of talents and Kingdoms of origin. Also, my comments you respond to cover a range of the proposed methods for electing directors. A Society wide election is less geographically tied than some of the other methods (one member per Kingdom for instance), but it still has a geographic element, and it is an element that I suspect will be quite a factor if adopted by the corporation. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 1 21:36:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 21:20:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Response to Tibor To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Catrin: >Serwyl answered Catrin's question: "(And, anyway, is being answerable to >a geographically defined electorate worse than being answerable to nobody >at all?)" this way: Serwyl: >Technically, they should be answerable to ALL of us. Tibor: >Technically, they are answerable to the public via the attorney general of >California, Serwyl. Technically they are NOT answerable to the donors. See >the American Bar Association "Handbook for Directors". >On the other hand, let us temper our theoretic observations with observed >fact shall we? They are not answerable, and have not been, save on the >rare occasions when they choose to notice. First, I said 'should be answerable', not is. We are talking about two completely different things. I thought part of what we were here for was to discuss ways to make them more responsive, not rehash what we already know. By the way, how is 'theorectic observation' all that different from 'observed fact'?. :) Tibor again: >If they can choose when and how >to be responsive depending upon the requestor's identity and the audience, >that isn't very answerable at all. It's about as answerable as any representative of a locality to state or federal government (assuming geographically oriented elections/choice of directors). But I do agree we need answerability. >I too express fears of geographic loyalty. I think we can do so on stronger >grounds than the hypothetical theoretical. 'Hypothetical theoretical'? (say that three times fast...) . We have little BUT theory to go on in most of our arguments about what type of system would be most advantageous for the SCA as a whole. Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 00:02:57 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 31 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 23:38:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Morgan re: Serwyl's Answer To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr Serwyl, I appreciate your response. As I said, I was puzzled, perhaps because the scenarii I have envisioned have not lent themselves to the possibility. I have continually advocated that the Nominating Committee (as I have advocated that such a body be used) select among those candidates from Kingdoms not currently represented. That way, whether the election is made by the Board or by some segment of the populace, it would be limited to geographic regions not currently represented. I do not support one-per, nor do I support regional elections, nor do I support any method that does not use some form of vetting of the candidates, whether it is review of qualifications by a neutral body, or petition by sufficient number to quell fears of cultism. ---= Morgan (never a Duke, thanks!) |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 09:54:14 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: 394 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 09:45:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Serwyl: Response to Tibor To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960201212000_412477537@mail02.mail.aol.com> from "Chuck Hack" at Feb 1, 96 09:20:01 pm Greetings from Tibor. Serwyl wrote: First, I said 'should be answerable', not is. True, but the legal theory of what should be true remains the same. By the way, how is 'theorectic observation' all that different from 'observed fact'?. :) "The difference betwen theory and practice in theory, is smaller than the difference between practice and theory in practice." (:-) Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 10:53:40 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:31:25 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: "straw votes" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron invited us to a "straw polling": > Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) > Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. > Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about 1) Current Method: NO Enough people are unhappy enough with this to actually do something about it! 2) Direct Election, All paying members can vote: Yes 2a)Direct Election, Limited Suffrage: Yes One person, one vote. Simplest form of democracy. Requiring would-be voters to do something extra to get a vote is just an uneccessary complication, IMnsHO. Those who don't want to vote can just toss the ballot in the trash, and live with the results. 3) Indirect Election by Local Seneschals: No 4) Indirect Election by Regional Group: Maybe Indirect democracy depends very much on the set up; how to select the electors. If the electors are an elected regional board I could live with this scheme. If the electors are appointed officers then NO. 5) Election of One Director per Kingdom: Maybe. Depends on the setup, as above. 6) Appointment of One Director per Kingdom: NO 7) Appointment by Board, Monarchs, and Unelected Kingdom Senechals: NO Both of these schemes increases the hassle without increasing the Boards accountability noticeably; hence they are worse than the current system. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 12:52:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:35:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Elections and Recall To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In the recent election for chairperson of this Council we were voting not on how the candidates stood on issues but whether we thought one would be more organized than the others or better able to maintain order in the Council. Of equal consideration was how neutral the person would be in office (not pushing personal preferences). Underlying all this was a confidence that a significant number of us are outspoken--if we erred in our assessment of the chair's character, we would make our dissatisfaction known. Given the size and diversity of the Society, I am concerned that board elections and recall would not have the same dynamics. Board elections would be subject to what I'll call "localism" and "issue-orientation." Localism is voting for someone you know. This would not necessarily be by kingdom. It could be by region (people are known in Middle and East) or by interest group (among heralds or archers, for example.) This is not bad--a person who is well-known and liked would probably be a good director. It will, however, give greater weight to those candidates known in more populous areas or among groups capable of getting out the vote. The other way of developing a support base is to focus on issues--to collect like-minded people across the Society. This increases the likelihood of single-issue candidates. Before I was part of the Council, I thought the SCA was more consistent--a view derived from comparing national materials with local experience. I have since learned that there are distinctive differences by region/kingdom, although I do not know how deep these differences are. If these differences are significant, then an election/recall system will force politicalization. The better a director reflects a particular set of interests (regional or issue), the less acceptable that director will be to those who have a different set. For example, currently, people wanting less centralization are highly motivated. Their success in electing directors will motivate those wanting the same or more centralization to initiate recall and elect their own candidates. This will not be mitigated by a nominating committee. An additional concern: There is a tendency on the Council to shove responsibilities and power onto non-board bodies (nominating committee, Interkingdom Council). This limits the board as it now exists, but why doesn't it just mutliply the problem in the long run? (Choosing members by lot doesn't get us a good committee.) Many of you seem quite willing to entrust the game to a small elite body--what is it about the Interkingdom Council that promotes this trust? Can it be applied to the Board? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 13:07:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 12:52:06 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Serwyl: Answer to Morgan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960201211944_412477319@emout06.mail.aol.com> (message from Chuck Hack on Thu, 1 Feb 1996 21:19:45 -0500) Serwyl writes: >I would be very suprised if even in a Knowne World election that votes did >not fall into geographic lines. I think you're right that there would be some geographic effect, but I think you're strongly over-estimating it. There are a couple of counter-effects here: 1) Just because someone is well-known in an area, doesn't mean they're going to get that area's votes. I know many, maybe most, of the people from the East who would be likely to run for the Board. I know that some of them hold views I find highly distasteful. I'd be likely to actively try to *prevent* such people from winning. That's less true of someone from another Kingdom, who I don't know as well. So being well-known locally can hurt, as well as help. 2) Kingdoms are pretty big places, and the fact is that not all that many people are really well-known in them, *especially* in the bigger Kingdoms. Remember, the big Kingdoms aren't nearly as cohesive as Trimaris -- there are really very few people who are broadly known across an entire Kingdom, and only a smallish fraction of the populace is active at the "Kingdom level". *I* may know most of the likely faces, but I doubt that more than 10% or so of the Kingdom does. And while some people will vote for someone *solely* because they are from the same Kingdom, I doubt all that many will. 3) This effect doesn't happen in a vacuum. I think most people are going to be aware of the issue, and will take it pretty seriously. Particularly in the model where you actually have to be pro-active in order to vote, I suspect most of the electorate would take their responsibility well, and vote more on views and issues than simple geography. 4) Finally, the SCA is increasingly global in its outlook. Honestly -- I really suspect that this biggest single voting bloc would be the Rialto, not a geographic entity at all. Now, this could be just as bad. But it's not geographic. In short -- you're right that this is a factor. But I suspect that while it would be statistically significant, it wouldn't be destabilizing; I don't think *most* people would vote on geography, just some... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Since I had never seen a space suit with a hoop skirt before, I paused to admire her ingenuity. Clearly, she was playing Space: 1889." -- John O'Neil From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 13:52:13 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: 3705 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:38:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: revised election proposal outline, other matters (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:09:50 -0500 Subject: Galleron: revised election proposal outline, other matters Please forward to GC: Upon reflection, I have decided that anything that increased Board costs, however well justified, would draw massive protest. So I've revised my plan as follows: 15 member board meets once a year. Five directors elected each year. 5-7 member executive committee chosen by board to handle routine decisions between meetings of the board. Meets face to face three times a year besides annual meeting. All but three or so of executive committee are drawn from the same part of the country, just like the Good Old Days. You can do this because you have the big board to set broad policy and stop them if they start favoring narrow regional interests. The number of plane tickets/hotel rooms then becomes 15x1 plus 3x3=24: less than current 4x7=28 Look: better governance, reduced cost. What a deal! The rest of the proposal remains as before . Sewyl writes: "Another issue in Society wide elections: Imagine you are Duke Morgan of the Middle Kingdom, population somewhere in the bezillions... Imagine I am Duke Serwyl of Trimaris (a really big stretch...). Your name recognition is likely to be much higher than mine, and your chances of election (all other things being equal) similarly enhanced." Speaking as a resident of the Big East, I don't find that to be consistant with my own experience. First of all, we're a mobile country and we move around a lot. The current directors from Atlantia and Meridies used to live in the East at one point, as did Flieg and Cariadoc (I am old enough to remember both of them thumping me on the head). And, living in the southern part of the East, I frequently go to events in Atlantia. I know lots of Atlantians better than most people in my own kingdom. Second, name recognition cuts both ways: "Ahh, Duke Flapjack. I remember when he was King of the East....those were evil times" Third, the big kingdoms are so big that being from the same big kingdom doesn't go very far to insure that the populace will have heard of you, or vote for you if they hadn't Fourth, at least in the East, I suspect that "Oh, yeah, Duke Galleron, he was king once or twice, wasn't he?" wouldn't get you very far in an election. Matter of kingdom size and our attititudes towards royalty and royal peers, I suppose. The bottom line is that one the most recent list of Board nominees there are several from other kingdoms that I would vote for cheerfully, one from the East that I would vote against with enthusiasm, and one from the East that I would abstain on because I haven't a clue who he is. Gareth wrote, expessing a concern that certain interests would be under-represented on a board dominated by ex-royalty: > in other cases they are focused on a particular aspect of the society > which may not be dominated by former royalty (depending on the kingdom, > could be rapier fighting, embroidery or equestrian things). Flieg answered: "But these are "special interests", and can be represented by anyone who will listen to the PAC's." There's a concept. EmbroiderPAC. RapierPAC. HorsebackPAC. SlashandhackPAC. FeastocratsnackPAC Seriously, Flieg, don't you think it's possible that ex-royalty will pay more attention to some activities in which only a minority of the Society participate (such as tournament combat) than others (the ones Gareth mentioned)? Galleron "Tournaments Are My Life" de Cressy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 14:07:01 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 13:53:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Elections and Recall To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960202123542_212444764@emout04.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >An additional concern: There is a tendency on the Council to shove >responsibilities and power onto non-board bodies (nominating committee, >Interkingdom Council). This limits the board as it now exists, but why >doesn't it just mutliply the problem in the long run? Arguably. On the other hand, by spreading things out, it reduces the chance of a meltdown -- a single committee succumbing to groupthink doesn't have the power to derail everything, only it's own bailiwick. This isn't everything, but it's an improvement, in that it doesn't put all our eggs in one basket. Ideally, though, there should be checks and balances between these bodies, so that no single body has too much authority to screw things up without broader consent. No, I don't have a specific model in mind here. But it's really the larger issue that we're working around here: how do we constitute bodies with the authority to do the right thing, but enough checks to prevent (or correct) massive screwups? We're not going to find a perfect system (no one has), but odds are we can do better than currently (which has essentially no checks at all at the top). >Many of you seem quite willing to >entrust the game to a small elite body--what is it about the Interkingdom >Council that promotes this trust? Well, bear in mind that I don't see the IAC *as* a "small elite body" in the sense that the Board (or, indeed, the GC) is. The whole reason I see it as a plausible keeper for Corpora is that it is a forum that could perform inter-Kingdom diplomacy, which I think is the only right way to control the game itself. In other words, it isn't a think-tank -- it's a UN. And yes, that model makes it hard to change things much, since it depends largely on the consent of the governed states. I see that as a virtue, myself... (And yes, this is a bit different from the way the IAC is now constituted. I'm quite explicit that the IAC *could* do this job, but would need some fixing up first.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "A Marvel Zombie is someone who doesn't let minor concerns like art or story quality limit their purchases of Marvel products. Marvel Zombies know Stan Lee is God, so all Marvel Comics must be purchased, and all non-Marvel Comics must be shunned, lest one be lead into paths of unrighteousness. Originally, 'Marvel Zombie' was a slur used to refer to people who buy Marvel products, but the zombies have taken the label for their own, proud to have the necessary lack of thought and taste to warrent being compared to a mindless piece of walking carrion." -- James Nicoll From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 18:06:42 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: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:37:46 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: re Magnus on Power to Recall without Power to Elect? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > >ps electing replacements could be left as the only power and duty remaining > >to a lame duck, removed director. > >Galleron was specifically addressing this case, where there are few >(or one) person, who has already been removed, doing the selection. In >which case, the chance of a disaster increases considerably... > Thanx for possible language adjustment. I certainly did not mean that one (1) director would choose a whole Board. Voting for new directors could be left to the whole board, outgoing or not. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 2 18:09:49 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: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 16:37:44 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Division of Duties To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >>If rulings on the rules of the game were the responsibility of a separate >>body than the Board, the Court of Appeal that I am so tiresome about, then >>again, the illusion of a monolithic, irresponsible, and power-hungry center >>might be somewhat dispersed. One possibility is that the BoD could make changes to Corpora or to the "rules of the Game" but they would not be effective until approved by all the Kingdoms. Likewise, the Kingdoms, or any one of them, or the College of Heralds, or the Marshallate could make reccommendations to the BoD which would be approved by BoD and Kingdoms. For Game rules, we could either skip the step in which the BoD votes or leave them in as a buffer against change. No separate Court of Appeals would be required, but it would be difficult to enact major changes. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Feb 4 16:56:38 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: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 15:33:09 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Magnus: Proposal re BoD Selection To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My proposal for BoD Selection: "The GC does not at this time recommend The Board of Directors change it's method of selecting Directors." If the majority of members of the GC vote for this proposal it will be time to shift our focus to other priorities; Division of Duties or some such. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 09:02:39 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: 1609 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 08:53:33 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Proposal Outline: Nominating Committee (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 17:26:41 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Proposal Outline: Nominating Committee Please forward to GC Regardless of whether we elect the Board or they elect themselves, I propose we junk the current roling quarterly elections and go to single, annual election. If we keep the seven member board we can define the cycle and make the change as per Hossein plan. The current cycle has nothing to recommend it besides ancient custom. It just turns the listing of nominees into a continual blur. Three issues before election, Nominating Committee calls for more candidates for nomination in TI Two issues before election, they print list of candidates for nomination and call for comments, and call for more suggestions.. One issue before election, they print short list, capsule bios, and include a return postcard with boxes to rate short list candidates on a scale of 1-5 or "no opinion", small space for comments with encouragement to include send back card in envelope with more comments on separate sheet. Nominating Committee of 3-7 may be either: 1)appointed by self-electing board 2)chosen by large elected board from among their own number 3)elected at same time as seven member elected board If general elections are held, nominating committee may waive petition requirement for inclusion on ballot for suitable candidates. if board elects self, they forward short list to board with any comments and their own recommendation. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 09:06:13 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: 467 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 08:55:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Division of Duties To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602022237.QAA04660@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Feb 2, 96 04:37:44 pm Greetings from Tibor. Magnus suggested: One possibility is that the BoD could make changes to Corpora or to the "rules of the Game" but they would not be effective until approved by all the Kingdoms. Likewise, the Kingdoms, or any one of them, or the College of Heralds, or the Marshallate could make reccommendations to the BoD which would be approved by BoD and Kingdoms. Magnus, seriously, why do you seem to prefer dictum over consensus? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 10:31:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 10:23:17 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: BoD size and cost To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 20:45:50 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: BoD size and cost Master Justin! Someone came by and I forgot to suggest one more calculation. Has anyone estimated the actual cost of a general election. My guess is that it is considerably more than a dollar per person (corporate cost) before you finish adding up all of the costs. Mailings from the professional societies that I belong to are easily running that much per head. Basically, I am asking you guys to try cranking at least a few figures. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Barbara Nostrand | 148 Howland Ave. Toronto M5R 3B5 | | Philander Smith College, Little Rock | 416-920-9122 | | DeMoivre Institute, Toronto | nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 10:50:43 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: 381 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 10:42:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Magnus: Proposal re BoD Selection To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602042133.PAA22612@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Feb 4, 96 03:33:09 pm Greetings from Tibor. Magnus moved: "The GC does not at this time recommend The Board of Directors change it's method of selecting Directors." I haven;'t figured out what we SHOULD do, but I know what we shouldn't. Nay. I am certain we can simplify the process, make it accountable, and improve the quality and reduce the Board workload on recruitment of Directors. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 11:19:12 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 10:59:59 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal Outline: Nominating Committee (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602051353.IAA18958@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Mon, 5 Feb 1996 08:53:33 -0500) Galleron writes: > Regardless of whether we elect the Board or they elect themselves, I propose > we junk the current roling quarterly elections and go to single, annual > election. > [...] > The current cycle has nothing to recommend it besides ancient custom. I mostly concur, but with one caveat: the current method *does* make sense given how often we're burning out Board members. Of course, *that* is a clear and present problem, which I think we need to deal with. If the Board workload can be brought down to sane levels, so we're not constantly *losing* Board members, then I agree -- annual elections make more sense... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "... since i am writing for myself, i only write the interesting parts -- the beginnings, the character conflicts, and the inevitable reconciliation and subsequent sex." -- gypsy From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 15:50:48 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: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 14:04:19 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal Outline: Nominating Committee (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 08:53 AM 2/5/96 -0500, you wrote: >For Galleron, by Tibor. > > Regardless of whether we elect the Board or they elect themselves, I propose > we junk the current roling quarterly elections and go to single, annual > election. If we keep the seven member board we can define the cycle and make > the change as per Hossein plan. > > The current cycle has nothing to recommend it besides ancient custom. It just > turns the listing of nominees into a continual blur. > > > Galleron I agree with this. It seems much more efficient and clean than the current procedure. I vote Yes for this proposal. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 5 15:54:33 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: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 14:04:21 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal Outline: Nominating Committee (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I mostly concur, but with one caveat: the current method *does* make >sense given how often we're burning out Board members. Of course, >*that* is a clear and present problem, which I think we need to deal >with. If the Board workload can be brought down to sane levels, so >we're not constantly *losing* Board members, then I agree -- annual >elections make more sense... > > If extra replacement directors are selected at the same time as the regular elections, then this too will make Once a year more practical. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 6 06:13:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 11:40:21 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: SCAGC-L Digest - 4 Feb 1996 to 5 Feb 1996 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >For Galleron, by Tibor. > > Regardless of whether we elect the Board or they elect themselves, I propose > we junk the current roling quarterly elections and go to single, annual > election. AYE. > One issue before election, they print short list, capsule bios, and include a > return postcard with boxes to rate short list candidates on a scale of 1-5 or Naah, just a box to check those you would like to have on the board, and leave blank for those you have no opinion on (or dislike!). Makes for easier tallying of votes. ------------------ >> If the Board workload can be brought down to sane levels, so >>we're not constantly *losing* Board members, then I agree -- annual >>elections make more sense... >If extra replacement directors are selected at the same time as the regular >elections, then this too will make Once a year more practical. > >Magnus AYE. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 6 18:26:08 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 10 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:11:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: regional representation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr >>>> Gunwaldt here Has anyone considered that any representative system based on regional support will dramatically increase the number of regions desiring representation? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 04:04:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 02:18:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: lightening board's workload To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L now that elections seem to have died down, might i suggest we turn to removal? and after that, i'd suggest we turn to how to lighten the board's workload. i toss the following idea out, not for immediate decision- making, but to rattle around in your brains (like it's been doing in mine) for a while. i sort of think we might want to take it up by the end of february or early march, after we deal with the removal issue? broadly, what i suggest is that the responsibilities of the present board of directors be split, such that: 1) the new board of directors of the sca, inc., deals with mundane business affairs and certain very broad areas affecting the mundane/historical re-creation interface, and that it keeps its hands off of intra-kingdom affairs, such as banishments from the royal presence, elevation of below-kingdom groups (including reading said elevations into the minutes, which, as far as i can tell, is something totally useless to be reading in an official minutes). it should also deal with specifically, and only, affairs of business within the united states. this new board would have as its purpose: A) what the board is required to do by mundane law and fiduciary traditions. for example, annual budgets. officially approving bank accounts (needed occasionally by the local banks' internal requirements). filing irs tax returns. B) what the board really, really ought to do by sca and corpora traditions. for example, deciding whether to advance a principality to kingdom. run the stock clerk's office (although there has been some discussion on sca-reform about this - but, for the sake of discussion, if there should be a stock clerk, it should be here, not in 2) below.) 2) there should be a separate entity created for co-ordinating "The Game" (tm) between countries and between kingdoms. this would be the group with several working sub-groups; such sub-groups would, oh, for example, set fighters and armor standards, maintain the heraldic rules for submissions, decide the functioning of banishments, and the other items that keep us one vague community. (i.e., a sort of conglomeration of the college of arms, ikac, grand council, college of seneschals, arts&sciences groups....) in general, the new entity deals with everything else the new board shouldn't deal with at all. note that such sub-groups could, if they wanted to, incorporate separately with a section in their bylaws stating that they would follow certain guidelines laid down by "The Game, Inc.". this would allow, e.g., the college of arms to become the College of Arms, Inc., file their own taxes, collect their own fees, set their own rules (more or less), and agree to abide by "The Game" (tm). having such sub-groups become semi-independent would lessen the load on the new board without changing The Game as she is played on the basic level (i.e., the mundane effects would change, but nothing would happen that Lord Joe Schmoe would notice or care about. unless Lord Joe were Laurel Sovereign.) there'd be two boards, then: the Board of Directors of the SCA (U.S.), Inc., and the Working Group of the SCA (worldwide). the first would have elections as we've discussed here, and the second could, as well, or have some members elected and others serve by virtue of their office (e.g., a 20-member working group board would have 1 elected member from each kingdom, plus the Earl Marshall, the Laurel Sovereign, the Steward (for lack of a better term)...., each group selecting its head by its own internal rules.) alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 06:15:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:40:01 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Board election/removal/workload To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L What's up, is the (s)election question totally dead? How did the straw poll go? What proposal(s), if any, do we work on? Could someone list the different removal/veto suggestions we've had so far, so the discussion can move on? Or do we move on to the matter of Board workload? Alban's proposal is a good starting point. I'll get back to the problems later, right now Mundania calls. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 06:24:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:32:05 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: regional representation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Gunwaldt here > >Has anyone considered that any representative system based on >regional support will dramatically increase the number of >regions desiring representation? Good point. It might pose a problem, or create a dynamics, depending on what you mean by representation. The problem would arise if every self-defined region insisted on having a representative on the Board. I see no practical solution to that, but no real reason why it should be necessary either. On the other hand, if we for example elected one Board member per kingdom (a solution I'm personally not terribly in love with), the various regions would presumably pressure their kingdom's electors, whoever they were, to consider the regions' views and problems. That way the election process might become less kingdom-centered and the risk of the official Middle or East or whatever kingdom views taking over might diminish pretty drastically. Strong regions are actually a possible answer to some of the problems in a system based on geographical representation (although not enough to make me really like such a system). /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 09:48:50 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: 2530 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:39:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Election Costs (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 16:53:18 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Election Costs Please forward to GC: Solveig asked for an estimate of election costs, and wrote: "My guess is that it is considerably more than a dollar per person (corporate cost) before you finish adding up all of the costs. Mailings from the professional societies that I belong to are easily running that much per head" It could, but it needn't. Remember that the kingdom newsletters are averaging a bit over a dollar per head, and they're much longer than election materials are likely to be. Here's one rough estimate. It assumes fairly spartan production (inexpensive paper, black ink only) and is based on a print run of several thousand. A shorter print run would be more expensive: Per piece cost: 3rd class postage (non-profit): $.11 8.5x11" self mailer,printed both sides: $.05 Labeling and mailing: $.02 Total: $.17 Obviously, in this case the voters would need to provide a return stamp and envelope, and candidate statements would need to be short. For a little bit more, you could add: Mailing envelope: $.05 Return envelope: $.05 2nd page of election material: $.05 Separate ballot: $.05 Total with above: $.37 A business reply card costs an extra $.30 per piece returned, a business reply envelope costs an extra $.40. You would also pay an annual fee to do this of $205.00. If 10% were returned doing this would add three or four cents marginal cost per voter. You could easily spend more: better stock, first class postage, printing in two colors, pictures of the smiling candidates. Small print runs could easily double your printing cost, and you need at least 200 pieces to qualify for the bulk rate. However, if you don't get too fancy, and if you are mailing third class non-profit rate to either the full membership or several thousand members that ask to become voters, you should be able to get the ballots out for something between twenty five and fifty cents each. If we can distribute the ballots in TI without creating questions of discrimination among the different classes of voting members, you can figure $600 per page per side for the election materials, and perhaps $500 to print and bind in a ballot. Counting the ballots is another question, but with the few thousand we can expect to get it shouldn't be too arduous. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 09:48:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:00:46 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Galleron Re: Board election/removal/workload To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Catrin: >In a message dated 96-02-07 06:36:43 EST, you (Catrin) write: > >>What's up, is the (s)election question totally dead? >>How did the straw poll go? What proposal(s), if any, do we work on? > >My understanding of the current situation is that we are now supposed to be >developing specific proposals for (s)election, removal, and repeal or >reconsideration of specific Board actions. Proposals put forward so far: > >Magnus "Leave it as it is" >Cariadoc Election and Removal (a while back) >Hossein Election and Removal >My "Election Baseline", buried in my selection review and later straw poll >My "Outline of Election Proposal" and its revision, suggesting a 15 member >elected board meeting annually, which chooses a 5-7 member executive >committee meeting quarterly. >Alysoun's proposal for separate nominating committee added to current process > >I'm guessing that one reason it's quiet right now is that various councilors >are beavering away off line on their proposals, or revisions of proposals. >Except for the ones who think the status quo is just fine, who won't be >submitting proposals and are drumming their fingers, waiting for us to get >this out of the way. Then again, maybe everyone is furiously firing proposals >into the ether, where they are disappearing. > >Tibor is preparing a tally of the straw poll, and vetting it against the GC >list. > >By my preliminary, unvetted, unofficial count the only plans with more yeas >than nays are the current method and direct election options. The clear >leaders seem to be suffrage on request (six yes, no nos) current plan with >separate nominating committee (six yes, two no), and suffrage for board >proceedings subscribers (three yes, no no, but added partway through so maybe >there are some nos we don't know about) > >Of course, anyone can work on any proposal they like, but it seems to me most >productive to concentrate on the above. > >Feel free to pass this on to the GC > >Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 09:49:23 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:03:01 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Galleron Re: Board election/removal/workload To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron says: >>My understanding of the current situation is that we are now supposed to be >>developing specific proposals for (s)election, removal, and repeal Thanks for the clarification & preliminary count of the straw poll. >>... suffrage for board >>proceedings subscribers (three yes, no no, but added partway through so maybe >>there are some nos we don't know about) I've got a feeling that this proposal didn't get a fair deal. In the *text* for the straw poll it was somehow included in the "suffrage on request" option, but it disappeared in the poll digest. I suspect that some people who voted in favor of "suffrage on request" meant precisely that, and others were thinking of Tibor's version, with "minutes subscribers" included. There may be quite a bit of confusion in there. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 09:52:56 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: 863 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:41:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Polling on nominees (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:20:12 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Polling on nominees Please forward to GC: I suggested that the nominating committee, even if the board continues to self elect, do the following: > One issue before election, they print short list, capsule bios, and include a > return postcard with boxes to rate short list candidates on a scale of 1-5 or Frithif wrote: "Naah, just a box to check those you would like to have on the board, and leave blank for those you have no opinion on (or dislike!). Makes for easier tallying of votes." I think you at least want separate spaces for "no" and "no opinion". There is a world of difference between "never heard of the guy" and "I know him, and he shouldn't be on the board" Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 10:24:24 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: 1114 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:03:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: regional representation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3117FE87@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Feb 6, 96 05:11:00 pm Greetings from Tibor. Gunwaldt asked: Has anyone considered that any representative system based on regional support will dramatically increase the number of regions desiring representation? Considered, sure... but knowing that doesn't help you... (:-) I don't think "dramatically" is the right word. "Tend to increase" is more the phrase, I suspect. Frankly, (pardon the upcoming pun) I think there is already a tendency toward desiring increasing sovereignty. Rights to create awards, a sense of increasing locality, etcetera. There are already sufficient rewards that make "Kingdom-itis" a going concern. Certainly, there is a dramatic upswing in the number of Principalities, and groups with intentions of becoming Kingdoms, even without regional representation. (An Tir, Middle, Atenveldt, East all have very active tendencies that way right now.) I don't think that a regional representation system for the Board is really much of an accelerant for that natural process, nor do I think that removing it would have any retardant affect. I look forward to opinions to the contrary. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 10:34:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:07:37 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: lightening board's workload To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I0WYQ3CRAA9BWEHW@delphi.com> Greetings from your Chairman, On Wed, 7 Feb 1996, Alban St. Albans wrote: > now that elections seem to have died down, might i suggest we turn to > removal? Please do. > and after that, i'd suggest we turn to how to lighten the board's > workload. This is a request for a new agenda item and has been noted as such. PLease dostpone further discussion until we resolve board appointments, removals and mechanisms to persuade the board that they have made a mistake. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 10:49:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:24:41 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602071441.JAA05447@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from the Chair, I have two people chomping at the bit claiming that they have their respective crown;s approval to replace the original crown appointee who has quit but not sent in a formal resignation. I request the advice of the council in how to deal with these individuals. Consider this to be a vote on the principle of such a transfer. Fiacha p.s. At present, both candidates have been asked to get the previous councillor to send in a resignation and to get their crown to send a letter requesting the appointment. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 11:12:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:27:31 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Galleron back to Catrin Re: Board election/removal/workload To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Catrin, who agrees completely with Galleron's comment. >In a message dated 96-02-07 09:27:49 EST, you (Catrin) write: > >(Quoting me) >>>... suffrage for board proceedings subscribers (three yes, >>> no no, but added partway through so maybe >>>there are some nos we don't know about) > >Catrin: >>I've got a feeling that this proposal didn't get a fair deal. In the >>*text* for the straw poll it was somehow included in the "suffrage on >>request" option, but it disappeared in the poll digest. I suspect that some >>people who voted in favor of "suffrage on request" meant precisely that, >>and others were thinking of Tibor's version, with "minutes subscribers" >>included. There may be quite a bit of confusion in there. > >Yes, but that's not such a big problem in the long run. Any detailed proposal >for "suffrage on request" can be easily rewritten to be voted on as "suffrage >by board proceedings" (they're not really minutes) just by changing the >definition of the electorate, and the cost estimate. Then the Council can >vote on both detailed proposals, plus any others. > >My take on the straw poll is that some form of limited suffrage will probably >please the most people while displeasing the least. In practice, I don't >think there is a lot of difference between pure "suffrage on request" and >"suffrage on request plus to proceedings subscribers"- virtually everyone >that subscribed to the proceedings would want ballots if given an option, and >the only difference would be some possible postage savings. > >Pure "suffrage only for proceedings subscribers" is a different matter, and I >personally don't like it as well (although I like it much better than no >elections at all). My feeling is that subscribing to the minutes won't >actually help me that much in choosing which candidates to vote for, and it >seems perverse to ask me to pay $15 (or whatever) for the proceedings just to >save the Society eleven cents in postage for ballots. > >Feel free to pass this on to the GC > >Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 11:12:59 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 17:20:06 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I have two people chomping at the bit claiming that they have their >respective crown;s approval to replace the original crown appointee who >has quit but not sent in a formal resignation. >p.s. At present, both candidates have been asked to get the previous >councillor to send in a resignation and to get their crown to send a >letter requesting the appointment. Notify the previous councillors and their crowns that, unless they react against it within some reasonable time (one week?), the old councillors will be considered as having resigned & the new ones as having been appointed. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 11:32:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:12:17 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:24:41 -0800) Fiacha asks: >I request the advice of the council in how to deal with these >individuals. Consider this to be a vote on the principle of such a >transfer. >[...] >p.s. At present, both candidates have been asked to get the previous >councillor to send in a resignation and to get their crown to send a >letter requesting the appointment. For crown appointees, I think this is appropriate. The purpose of the crown appointees was to make sure we had an adequate Kingdom balance, and to provide the Kingdoms with a little confidence in the GC. I'd say that it makes sense to allow the Kingdoms to choose the replacement, provided: a) It is done with the consent (preferably desire) of the previous appointee, the new appointee, and the Crown; b) The Board approves (since all GC appointments are technically done by the Board) -- this should be mostly a rubber-stamp, but I think it's probably necessary. So overall, I think you're pursuing this correctly... Or, in voting terms: aye. -- Justin Who notes that this applies *only* to the Crown appointees... Random Quote du Jour: `In fact, Douglas Adams considers his worst Internet experience "constant mail along the lines of 'How do I know you're not an imposter?'". On the other hand, Neil Gaiman's worst experience was when his CompuServe mailbox "filled up with the kind of letter that's the computerised equivalent of ringing up a celebrity and going 'Coo, I can't believe I'm actually talking on the phone to Mick Jagger. Coo. So you're really Mick Jagger, eh? Gosh. Um. So. Um. Whatcha doin' these days Mick?'"' -- from Internet World From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 11:45:26 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: 980 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:34:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Feb 7, 96 07:24:41 am Greetings from Tibor. "The Chair" asked about replacements. Thinking about it just as we think about Directors, I'd say that we should balance new appointees with our needs, and their qualifications. Not merely based upon Kingdom or residence. Of the representatives who have resigned, or are resigning, most have been almost completely inactive. Either we've been crippled all along, or those shoes do not demand filling at this time. Contrariwise, I think increasing the size of the GC *without compelling reason* is going to make our current jobs harder. Is kingdom of residence such a factor? (Checking Myrdin and my positions on most issues, I'd say not... :-) I'd say, invite them to comment, but let's not increase the size of the committee until need or reason compels us. (On the other hand, perhaps there are reasons I am glossing, or unaware of.) Perhaps the two gentles in question would like to toss an opinion in? I'd be PLEASED to forward them. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 12:46:29 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: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:04:34 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11:12 AM 2/7/96 EST, you wrote: >Fiacha asks: >>I request the advice of the council in how to deal with these >>individuals. Consider this to be a vote on the principle of such a >>transfer. > Sure, sounds fine: AYE From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 13:49:55 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: 1494 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 13:28:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Gareth of Stonemarche, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: "Gregory D. Dearborn" Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members (fwd) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 12:17:38 -0500 (EST) Greetings! Here's my tuppence. Please forward to the list. Gareth of Stonemarche --------------------------- Unto the Grand Council does Gareth of Stonemarche send greetings. Tibor made many good points why you shouldn't replace the two kingdom representives with new appointees. One reason *to* replace them: politics. The replacements might not have any skills needed by the GC, as Tibor pointed out, and thus not add a lot to the discussion. But the kingdoms involved might want to have official representive on the GC anyway. The kingdoms might feel that not having representation on the council is unfair, and a legitimate cause of complaint or dissension. Also, even if the new represitives don't add much from the GC's point of view, they still might be serving their kingdoms well by reporting back GC developments and serving as the official spokesperson of their kingdom. Besides, they might turn out to be very fine GC members and add bring a lot to the table. It could happen. I think it's best to let kingdoms reappoint the absent council members to avoid potential political pitfalls. Your servant, Gareth of Stonemarche (Greg Dearborn) Interested Observer of the GC gdd@world.std.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 15:17:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:35:47 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:24:41 -0800, Nigel Haslock writes: > Greetings from the Chair, > > I have two people chomping at the bit claiming that they have their > respective crown;s approval to replace the original crown appointee who > has quit but not sent in a formal resignation. > > I request the advice of the council in how to deal with these > individuals. Consider this to be a vote on the principle of such a > transfer. > > Fiacha > > p.s. At present, both candidates have been asked to get the previous > councillor to send in a resignation and to get their crown to send a > letter requesting the appointment. > Sounds like the right thing to do, for formal consideration. The Crown Appointees stay Crown Appointees, but they have to: 1) Formally resign to the Chair. Their replacements have to get their Royalty to: 2) Send a letter of appointment to the Chair. * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 16:15:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: KINCORA1@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:00:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Rolland Smith Subject: notice from Kyle To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Kyle, This is to let the GC know that I am resigning, Fiacha has already been notified. There are a number of reasons ranging from work, to involvment with other hobbies which take my time and energy, and I don't feel that I have been more than marginally effective. Some of the debate has been quite good and very interesting, other parts have been very circular and sometimes monopolized by to few people. All in all I still have high hopes for the GC and wish to stay on the mailing list for a while, don't want to be completely out of the loop, and with your permission like to make the occassional (very occassional) comment. My replacement, with my crowns' approval, is Duke John the Bearkiller, aka John Fulton. He is known to some of you, for the rest, he has around for a very long time, active all the while, only recently stepping down from the board. He brings to the discussion a great deal of knowledge and experience of the SCA atlarge as well as the inner workings of the BoD. I think you will find him informative and able to supply answers to many of the questions we've had. There have been a number of discussions based entirely on conjecture and supposition, simply because we didn't have up to date information. John should be able to add substance. I hope you will make him welcome and take atvantage of his knowledge. Is there to be a meeting at the war? I still want to put names with faces. In service....... Kyle From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 16:47:36 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: 5255 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 16:26:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Proposal: Petition to Require Membership Polling (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron by Tibor. Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Wed Feb 7 16:09 EST 1996 From: WMclean290@aol.com Subject: Galleron: Proposal: Petition to Require Membership Polling Please forward to GC I have suggested that if a membership petition of sufficient size compelled the board to poll the membership on major issues, this would be a good way to send a message to the board on policy. Here is proposal to implement this: PETITION TO REQUIRE MEMBERSHIP POLLING A) The board is encouraged to poll the membership on any matters concerning the goals and direction of the society, whenever they believe that doing so would justify the expense. They are also encouraged to publish the results of such polling. Letters or petitions of any size may be taken as evidence in favor of doing so. However, on receipt of a petition by 1% of the membership, meeting the requirements set out in B), the board must poll the membership and publish the results. B) REQUIREMENTS FOR PETITION 1) The name, address, and phone number of one or more members willing to represent the petitioners must be attached to the petition. 2) The petition must contain the signatures and membership numbers of a number of members supporting the petition equal to 1% of the membership, and: 3) The text of a statement the petitioners wish to accompany the polling, and: 4) The text of the actual question the petitioners wish to ask. While the statement may attempt to persuade, the question itself must be phrased as neutrally as possible. C) POLLING OPTIONS The board may attach its own statement to the polling. It may, at its discretion, use any one of the following options: 1) Statement(s) printed in TI, with reply card bound in. 2) Mail polling of 10% or more of the membership, or of the voting membership if any, but not to less than 1,000 members. Names will be selected by the nth name method, so that if 10% of the membership is polled, the poll will be sent to every tenth name, and if 20%, to every fifth name. 3) Subscribers as in 1) above and non-subscribers as in 2) above, with reply cards distinguished in some way to allow separate analysis 4) If the board, in addition to the above, wishes to poll non-member participants, it may use the following method: five copies of the poll sent to every local seneschal, with instructions to hand them to the first five non-member participants to register at that seneschal's next local event. Again, the reply cards would be distinguished in some way to allow separate analysis. D) STATEMENT CONTENT Although the board may suggest changes to the petitioners' statement, it may only require such changes as are required by law, such as libel or obscenity E) POLLING COST If it believes that doing so is in the best interests of the Society, the board may at its discretion have the Society bear the entire costs of the polling. If it does not, it may require the petitioners to bear a reasonable share of the polling costs, as follows: 1) For statements published in TI, the cost of the space required for the petitioners' statement at TI's regular advertising rates, and one half the cost of the reply card. 2) For polls distributed separately, one half the cost of the polling. If the statement of either the board or the petitioners is so much longer than that of the other party that it increases the cost of printing or mailing, that party must bear the additional cost. 3) Either party may voluntarily agree to bear the cost of sending the polling to a greater proportion of the society than the minimum required, or the two parties may agree to divide the extra cost. F) REASONABLE JOINT STATEMENTS To minimize cost and to avoid irritating the membership, the board and the petitioners are urged to agree on a joint statement that is reasonable, fair, and non-adversarial. Friendly agreement on such a statement should be taken by the board as evidence in favor of having the Society bear the entire cost of the polling. ARGUMENT: Note that this procedure also gives a method of carrying out a vote of confidence on a director or directors. In that case the poll question would be "The performance and of Director X on the board have not been in the best interests of the Society" Section E) is intended to reduce the extent that the Society must bear the costs of pollings to satisfy narrow regional interests, to discourage frivolous pollings, and to encourage fair, reasonable, and non-inflammatory polling statements. While the results of the polling are not binding upon the board, it would give the board reason to take stock and reconsider its action. In the late unpleasantness, public pressure was in fact effective, while the formal mechanism of impeachment was not. And if you do the numbers, you will see that the cost of such a polling is fairly low: Mailing to 10% of the membership could cost less than $1000, and yet give results that would be statistically useful. If the sampling is carried out properly, as few as a hundred responses can still give you useful results. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 18:58:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 18:44:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As far as the original Crown appointees go, I feel we ought to let the Kingdoms choose new representatives as they see fit if the original appointee is no longer active. Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 7 21:16:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 21:01:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The original idea of kingdom appointees was a way to speed the appointment of GC members while the nominating committee was up to its collective chin in vetting applications. It was a one-shot event. I do not think that it vested the crowns with the unilateral right to appoint a GC member whenever the one they originally appointed decides to resign. We spent nearly a year getting up to speed; I see no reason to have to go through the process again with replacements. Even if all the kingdom appointees resigned, I do not believe that that would leave any kingdom unrepresented. I don't see the point of trying to get a full 40 members when we have enough problem getting concensus among ourselves as is. We don't need to perpetuate an ad hoc arrangement. If Fiacha requires a vote, I am against replacing resignations unless we fall below 20 members. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 01:14:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: KINCORA1@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 01:03:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Rolland Smith Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L One last quip from Kyle, Tibor writes >Thinking about it just as we think about Directors, I'd say that we should >balance new appointees with our needs, and their qualifications. Not merely >based upon Kingdom or residence. Could be seen as loading the GC to obtain a particular political outlook "we know what's best for us" kind of stuff. Something that has been complained about very long and loud in these discussions. >Of the representatives who have resigned, or are resigning, most have been >almost completely inactive. Either we've been crippled all along, or those >shoes do not demand filling at this time. Moving to the listserver cut a good number of people off at the knees, and besides, 3 people posting 8 times a day does not insure progress, merely lots of mail to shuffle through. A rather elitist attitude, only those with ample time and triple digit typing speeds can play? >Contrariwise, I think increasing the size of the GC *without compelling >reason* is going to make our current jobs harder. why??? sound like something someone sayed "tyranny of the minority" I won't go into the sizes of fish and ponds. >Is kingdom of residence such a factor? (Checking Myrdin and my positions on >most issues, I'd say not... :-) I think it is, that is why I have taken the time and trouble to find a suitable replacement. Had there been another member from Meridies I might have let it slide. Our original size was to A) get a cross section of the populace B) make sure every kingdom could be heard from, otherwise there wouldn't have been kingdom appointees. Without substantive diversity, the GC is no better then the many of the cliques we've complained about, insular and selfserving. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 03:28:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:47:21 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth says: > The kingdoms might feel that not having representation > on the council is unfair, and a legitimate cause of complaint > or dissension. Also, even if the new represitives don't add much > from the GC's point of view, they still might be serving their > kingdoms well by reporting back GC developments and serving as > the official spokesperson of their kingdom. Absolutely right. Someone mentioned a "we know what's best" attitude as a pitfall to beware of. I agree. Hossein says: >Even if all the kingdom >appointees resigned, I do not believe that that would leave any kingdom >unrepresented. Trust is fine, control is better, and this one is really easy to check. Do we have as many active Grand Councillors as there are kingdoms? And where's everybody from? - Besides, I don't feel terribly happy about being the only active Drachenwalder around. Knowing that Frithiof is out there lurking helps a lot. (I've no idea about Bertrik.) >... I am against replacing resignations unless we fall below 20 >members. If there are willing replacements, why not. Having to go through a new selection process would be a different matter. /Catrin PS: My posting on the current replacement issue presupposed that Fiacha had received no reaction to his request to the potential new members to straighten things out with their Crowns. Obviously my assumption was wrong and I apologize. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 14:18:54 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: 5125 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:03:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960208010343_315970195@emout06.mail.aol.com> from "Rolland Smith" at Feb 8, 96 01:03:45 am Greetings from Tibor, responding to "One last quip from Kyle" Could be seen as loading the GC to obtain a particular political outlook "we know what's best for us" kind of stuff. Something that has been complained about very long and loud in these discussions. With due respect, I'm afraid this makes me a little defensive. I was one of the three people who helped appoint the remaining members of the GC, after the Kingdom appointees were done. And, took a lot of heat for it. My apologies if my reactions, thereby, are skewed: my perspective is off in this area. I believe that the GC was, at the time we completed filling the remaining seats, VERY well balanced for background, location, and just about everything except gender. And, for gender, it matched our applicant pool, if not societal percentages, moderately well. The natural case of attrition is not necessarily one that leads to loading a particular outlook: nor would I say that such an outlook is present. Goodness knows, we have our extremes on board even now, as well as a strong center position. Evidence of bias would be MUCH appreciated. Unsupported accusations of loading or bias are NOT. My primary concern, in this matter, is effectiveness of result. I want good outcomes of proposals that have been thoroughly examined. To that specific end, I wish to see some evidence that new appointees (and, appointees made in the manner described) would probably produce outcomes. (Not predictable outcomes: but proposals that are well thought out.) It seems that most of the GC that has spoken so far, feels differently than I. So be it. Again, pardon my testiness and tone, but I will be damned straight to hell if an honest opinion of mine, when solicited, is treated as deserving of accusations of bias and a desire to stack results. I was in a position to stack results, and I am certain I did not abuse it. Moving to the listserver cut a good number of people off at the knees, and besides, 3 people posting 8 times a day does not insure progress, merely lots of mail to shuffle through. A rather elitist attitude, only those with ample time and triple digit typing speeds can play? That eliminates me, on two scores. I MAKE time for this endeavor, because I feel it worth while. And, my typing speed is pitiful. I'd written: >Contrariwise, I think increasing the size of the GC *without compelling >reason* is going to make our current jobs harder. Kyle answered: why??? sound like something someone sayed "tyranny of the minority" I won't go into the sizes of fish and ponds. Please, say what you are thinking. This smells (fishily? :-) like innuendo. I have worked on a lot of projects, professionally and Societally. I find that smaller committees are more efficient. It has been noted (even by you) that our natural "speaker ratio" is a relatively consistent and small fraction of the committee. Frankly, perhaps I am something of an elitist when I say the following... if the balance of the GC is merely going to cast votes, without providing opinions and points for discussion as we try to reach consensus, then I don't think we need them. This relegates them to a flapper for the Board, who also votes without being part of proposal creation. We don't need two Board votes. (Worse, many idle members are not even voting...) Please, answer my original point. What would make us a better committee? Whatever that is, let's do that. I am finding the observation of polity and legitimacy difficult to refute. But I think we all probably assign that differing values. Clearly, my personality is prone to "Do the best you can, no matter what people think." This makes me prone to discount the popularity value... I'd asked: >Is kingdom of residence such a factor? (Checking Myrdin and my positions on >most issues, I'd say not... :-) Kyle answered: I think it is, that is why I have taken the time and trouble to find a suitable replacement. Certainly, I think John (in and of himself) is a well suited person to be a member of the GC, on his own merits. (We've spoken on the phone, some few weeks ago, so HE knows I speak the truth on this matter.) But, Kyle, would you please speak as to why kingdom of residence is an important factor? Had there been another member from Meridies I might have let it slide. Our original size was to A) get a cross section of the populace B) make sure every kingdom could be heard from, otherwise there wouldn't have been kingdom appointees. Without substantive diversity, the GC is no better then the many of the cliques we've complained about, insular and selfserving. With respect, are you certain that was the forming Board's intent, or are you back-forming potential reasons? Because my memory doesn't support your assetions. The only reason I recall was C. Speed of formation. The nominating sub-committee was charged with issues of balance by Kingdom and style of populace. Have you read our report? Have you read it recently? If so, don't you think it suggests other than you are proposing? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 14:58:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 21:15:56 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor says: >I believe that the GC was, at the time we completed filling the remaining >seats, VERY well balanced for background, location, and just about >everything except gender. ... So what's wrong with trying to keep it that way by replacing kingdom representatives who quit with people from the same kingdom? >... I wish to see some evidence that new appointees (and, appointees made >in the manner described) would probably produce outcomes. ... Presumably, they've volunteered for the job. That indicates interest. You can't really mean that, if one kingdom representative does nothing and then quits, you'll assume that everybody appointed by that kingdom will be passive. >I'd written: > >Contrariwise, I think increasing the size of the GC *without compelling > >reason* is going to make our current jobs harder. I must 've missed something. Who's proposing to increase the size of the GC? To the best of my knowledge, it's a question of keeping it fairly constant. >... if >the balance of the GC is merely going to cast votes, without providing >opinions and points for discussion as we try to reach consensus, then I >don't think we need them. ... (Worse, many idle members are not even >>voting...) So, the obvious solution is, if the passive guys step down and we can replace them fairly easily, let's do it. Then there's hope of getting someone more active. >But, Kyle, would you please speak as to why kingdom of residence is an >important factor? Considering how often people hit each other over the head with inter-kingdom anthropology, I'd say it's up to Tibor to prove that kingdom of residence is irrelevant. >With respect, are you certain that was the forming Board's intent, or are >you back-forming potential reasons? ... The only reason I recall was C. >Speed of >formation. ... That's the way I remember it too. Letting each kingdom appoint someone was a way to get hold of a bunch of potential Council members in a hurry. Still, it had the positive side effect of all kingdoms having a chance at representation. If their original representative is passive or steps down, they should have the choice between living with it and replacing him/her. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 15:15:51 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 13:16:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Choosing the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Months ago, I floated an idea for indirect elections in which people in local groups would choose their seneschals, these local seneschals would choose higher level seneschals, until finally some layer of high up seneschals, as an informed electorate, would choose the Board. Well, I've been thinking about a written proposal for this, and I have concluded it can't be done. Indirect elections only work if the units that have a vote are incontestable. In the USA, Presidential elections are indirect (though I wonder how many people really understand that), and this is tolerable in a one-person-one-vote era because no one seriously disputes the importance of the states. (In Canada, the principle of "equality of provinces" is not uncontested!) The only candidates for incontestable units we have are Kingdoms -- and I'm not sure they are all that incontestable (US states only break up into new states under the most unusual circumstances -- none have since 1863, and that was the result of war). In any case, I'm not in favor of a Board elected by the Kingdoms, for all the reasons that have been cited. This leaves me considering the other alternatives: elections by natural persons, and no elections at all (i.e. the status quo). I do not think that electing the Board -- or, rather, not electing the Board -- had any real influence on the Big Crisis. I do not think, howver, that the Board will have enough moral authority to make changes in the way the business affairs of the SCA are managed, or to maintain a necessary level of supervision of the game -- whatever that level is -- without shedding the taint of "self-appointed." So this sends me back to looking at Hossein's proposal and Galleron's various posts. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 15:24:48 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 13:52:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As regards the _original crown appointees only_, I vote Aye to their replacement by the crowns. More specifically, I support Catrin's suggestion: >Notify the previous councillors and their crowns that, unless they react >against it within some reasonable time (one week?), the old councillors >will be considered as having resigned & the new ones as having been >appointed. >/Catrin One week sounds fine. While Flieg's suggestion is both more professional and elegant, my feeling is that if we wait for letters, we wait "until the world ends". Particulalry given that the resigning members have been almost totally inactive, according to Tibor (?). A few new voices cannot but help our task. Speaking from my professional experience, smaller groups may be more efficeient, but can lead to a more homogenous mind-set for a comittee. While inefficiency is undesirable, so is a restricted range of opinions and information. Two new members are more likely to increase informational diversity, than to substantially increase the chaos level. Hopefully, too, it will help with the previous low (and sometimes embarrassing) response rate to votes. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 15:27:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:17:34 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602081903.OAA13194@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:03:59 -0500) Tibor writes: >My primary concern, in this matter, is effectiveness of result. Which I concur with, but I don't think it's the *only* concern. I do think there's an element of popular legitimacy here -- it's useful for the GC to be perceived as a reasonably "fair" (if not wholly representative) body. With regard to your later point: >The only reason I recall was C. Speed of formation. This does *not* match my recollection; I recall kingdom-diversity as a real, if not driving, issue at the time. It didn't get discussed much in the nominating committee, because the decision to have Kingdom appointees had already been made. But I remember talking about it *before* the nominating committee, when we were batting around how to set this thing up. Overall, I think it's worthwhile to handle this as suggested by Fiacha. It has relatively low cost -- I don't believe we have so many active members that one or two more involved voices are going to be terribly harmful. (Particularly given that Bearkiller has been *acting* more or less like a member of the Council for months anyway.) And it helps preserve just a shade of political legitimacy, which I think is useful if we recommend anything that rocks the boat. It's not deadly critical (and I do think people are starting to get a little shriller than the issue deserves, in both directions), but on par I think it's a good idea... -- Justin Also involved in the original formative process... Random Quote du Jour: Re: Ask Dr. Internet! 7. What is "Bandwidth?" As capacity on the Internet has increased, people have begun to transmit material other than simple text. One notable example is audio recordings of rock concerts. These audio files are much larger than even very long books, so they have become a standard unit of network usage. One Rolling Stone song equals one "band" width, and so on. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 16:26:06 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: 969 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:12:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960208135216_217266755@emout10.mail.aol.com> from "Corwyn da Costa" at Feb 8, 96 01:52:18 pm Greetings from Tibor. Corwyn wrote: A few new voices cannot but help our task. Speaking from my professional experience, smaller groups may be more efficeient, but can lead to a more homogenous mind-set for a comittee. While inefficiency is undesirable, so is a restricted range of opinions and information. Two new members are more likely to increase informational diversity, than to substantially increase the chaos level. But, by observation, we can see that we are not exactly operating with a homogenous mindset. Heck, even Hossein and I bump heads on occassion. I keep appealing to the evidence. Clearly, a losing tactic... (:-) Is it time for negative campaign ads, yet? John, if you are still reading this: please don't presume this is about you qua you. This is in NO WAY in personam. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 16:49:08 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, 8 Feb 1996 15:27:01 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I know! Why don't we have a Society wide election to choose the replacement G.C. Members.... We could put the ballots in the.... What? "Shut up Magnus"? Oh? O.K., Sorry..... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 17:48:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 17:32:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Corwyn Tibor writes ------------------------------------------------- Greetings from Tibor. Corwyn wrote: A few new voices cannot but help our task. Speaking from my professional experience, smaller groups may be more efficeient, but can lead to a more homogenous mind-set for a comittee. While inefficiency is undesirable, so is a restricted range of opinions and information. Two new members are more likely to increase informational diversity, than to substantially increase the chaos level. But, by observation, we can see that we are not exactly operating with a homogenous mindset. Heck, even Hossein and I bump heads on occassion. I keep appealing to the evidence. Clearly, a losing tactic... (:-) Is it time for negative campaign ads, yet? John, if you are still reading this: please don't presume this is about you qua you. This is in NO WAY in personam. Tibor ----------------------------------------------------- My point is not that the GC is _presently_ ahomogenous mindset, but rather: 1. That the smaller we get, the more likely it is to happen. More people and new voices can help prevent this. And, 2. Frankly, potential diversity in the person of two new voices who are "champing at the bit" sounds like a fine idea. We are about developing new ideas, not streamlining discussion down to nothing. As I've said, I can't see two more people causing the GC to break down into chaos, or become noticably less efficient than it is now. So, exactly what evidence are you appealing to ? The fact that some of us don't accept your presentation of it, in a good spirited way, in the spirit of discussion hardly means that we are unwilling to or unable to accept evidence in general. I'm trying to appeal to evidence too. The evidence that suggests that our group dynamics are unlikely to be significantly disrupted, and likely to be improved by adding two members. Why such worry about two new voices ? We have a new chair and organizational structure, and so far, things have been moving very well. Lets trust that a structure that works for (realisticaly ) twenty members will work for twenty-two. If it fails, then, boy howdy, did we make a mistake. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 19:00:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:42:25 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960208135216_217266755@emout10.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 8 Feb 1996, Corwyn da Costa wrote: > As regards the _original crown appointees only_, I vote Aye to their > replacement by the crowns. > > More specifically, I support Catrin's suggestion: > > >Notify the previous councillors and their crowns that, unless they react > >against it within some reasonable time (one week?), the old councillors > >will be considered as having resigned & the new ones as having been > >appointed. > > >/Catrin > > One week sounds fine. One week is not fine by me. We are used to dealing with email and have come to expect responses in a day or two. Expecting a crown to be that pro-active when they may not have email is utterly unreasonable. I maintain the view that it is the duty of the candidate to chivvy both the retiring councillor and the crown into sending the necessary messages. Notice that I am not so interested in the current cases but I am interested in setting a workable precedent. Fiacha > While Flieg's suggestion is both more professional and elegant, my feeling is > that if we wait for letters, we wait "until the world ends". Particulalry > given that the resigning members have been almost totally inactive, according > to Tibor (?). Given an inactive councillor, I am willing to accept the crown's assertion that the 'Kingdom appointee' has resigned. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 8 23:28:21 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 23:12:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! While I am prepared to go along with whatever the majority decides on replacement of resigned GC members, I find the equation of "choice by the crown" with "representative of the kingdom" something at which even as ardent a royalist as I cringes. I have lived in kingdoms where the crown cared deeply about the preferences of its subjects and I have lived in kingdoms where the crown couldn't have given a flying f**k what the populace thought about anything. That empirical data suggests how unreliable an equation we're talking about here. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 00:34:14 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: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 00:23:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L i also support the replacement of retir(ed)(ing) kingdom appointees by new kingdom appointees. it's fast, it's cheap, it'll end this tiresome discussion soon, so we can get back to discussing more important issues. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 04:50:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:09:58 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha says: >... >One week is not fine by me. We are used to dealing with email and have >come to expect responses in a day or two. Expecting a crown to be that >pro-active when they may not have email is utterly unreasonable. I originally said "some reasonable time". Make an educated guess how long snail mail takes to and from wherever they are, and give them an extra week to think about it. >I maintain the view that it is the duty of the candidate to chivvy both >the retiring councillor and the crown into sending the necessary messages. People without sufficient pull or charisma *can* and frequently *do* get ignored, even (and maybe especially) in the SCA, even if they have important stuff to say. My suggestion was supposed to cover the case where someone has been harrassing the relevant people for weeks and not gotten more than a "yeah, sure", out of them >Notice that I am not so interested in the current cases but I am >interested in setting a workable precedent. Me too. So ask the candidates to sort it out with their predecessors and crowns within some reasonable time, and then give the crowns the ultimatum to *make* them react. >Given an inactive councillor, I am willing to accept the crown's >assertion that the 'Kingdom appointee' has resigned. Hmm... There *may* be crowns that are blissfully unaware of the existence of the GC. I know our last two would have been if I hadn't told them. They won't check on their appointee on their own initiative. The new candidate may be the only person aware that something needs doing. We're looking for active, interested people, who may have something to contribute, right? So don't let a yawning crowned head stop them indefinitely. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 09:40:18 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: 5414 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:29:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Janna G Spanne" at Feb 8, 96 09:15:56 pm Greetings from Tibor. As a background note: I am getting the distinct feeling that Hossein and I are in the clear minority at this time. Since both Fiacha and Edward seem inclined, and Ed Morrill has already approved, I am more "attempting to make my thoughts clear" than "trying to win an argument that is well lost". This doesn't mean that I believe Kingdom appointments are a good idea: just that I recognize a losing battle when I have one. (:-) I wrote: >I believe that the GC was, at the time we completed filling the remaining >seats, VERY well balanced for background, location, and just about >everything except gender. ... Janna answered: So what's wrong with trying to keep it that way by replacing kingdom representatives who quit with people from the same kingdom? Umm, because we used a wider criteria than just Kingdom of Residence, Catrin. Just because you have the happy accident of living somewhere, doesn't mean that you have your background happens to balance out the rest of the GC. >... I wish to see some evidence that new appointees (and, appointees made >in the manner described) would probably produce outcomes. ... Presumably, they've volunteered for the job. That indicates interest. You can't really mean that, if one kingdom representative does nothing and then quits, you'll assume that everybody appointed by that kingdom will be passive. That is indeed a presumption: that they have volunteered. I know of at least two cases where the original Kingdom appointees *were* volunteered, by their Crown. As for your drawing that second conclusion, that is not at all what I was thinking. In fact, if I was secure in the feeling that any replacement appointee would be mostly passive, I wouldn't bother debating the issue: why debate a decision that would make no difference? I'd written (some time before): >Contrariwise, I think increasing the size of the GC *without compelling >reason* is going to make our current jobs harder. Janna answered: I must 've missed something. Who's proposing to increase the size of the GC? To the best of my knowledge, it's a question of keeping it fairly constant. Ahh, sorry, I was unclear. Right now, the core size of the active GC is far smaller than the number of "warm bodies" appointed. I was thinking "active core" and was not clear. >... if >the balance of the GC is merely going to cast votes, without providing >opinions and points for discussion as we try to reach consensus, then I >don't think we need them. ... (Worse, many idle members are not even >>voting...) So, the obvious solution is, if the passive guys step down and we can replace them fairly easily, let's do it. Then there's hope of getting someone more active. Agreed: trading deadwood for deadwood is a waste of time, but also a non-issue. But, as Corwyn pointed out, larger committees have the disadvantage of being less efficient. (His downside, that they exhibit group thought process, has obviously not happened here.) >But, Kyle, would you please speak as to why kingdom of residence is an >important factor? Considering how often people hit each other over the head with inter-kingdom anthropology, I'd say it's up to Tibor to prove that kingdom of residence is irrelevant. Irrelevant? No, just minor. I'm more interested in a broad spectrum of Societal interests: different levels of success in our award structure, different professional and non-Societal experiences, age spectrum, gender, and so forth. Kingdom of residence is relatively minor. Two other arguments. I would suggest that most Crowns will appoint a "similar kind" of person. Someone with combat experience, mostly, of a large number of years in the Society, generally male, and without much regard for their mundane experiences. Not a source of diversity of background. Finally, for many, residence is a happy accident. My life has taken me to two Kingdoms: both quite different from one another. Hossein, as an extreme example, has lived in well over half the Kingdoms of the Society. OK, now it is someone elses turn. What makes Kingdom of residence of such overwhelming importance, that it overrides all other considerations? >With respect, are you certain that was the forming Board's intent, or are >you back-forming potential reasons? ... The only reason I recall was C. >Speed of >formation. ... That's the way I remember it too. Letting each kingdom appoint someone was a way to get hold of a bunch of potential Council members in a hurry. Still, it had the positive side effect of all kingdoms having a chance at representation. If their original representative is passive or steps down, they should have the choice between living with it and replacing him/her. With respect: our master here is the Board, not the Kingdoms. In this regard, it is important that each Kingdom have representation. To that end, I would be interested (honestly) in perhaps making certain we have a Meridian presence: Kyle was (if my memory is working) the only Meridian on the Council. BUT: I don't think having the Crown choose such a replacement is the best way to satisfy all our other, collateral, goals. It is important to me that we have not just a balanced committee, but a successful one. There are other, better ways to promote that outcome. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 09:47:28 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: 859 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:35:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602082127.PAA31351@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Feb 8, 96 03:27:01 pm Magnus wrote, in jest. I know! Why don't we have a Society wide election to choose the replacement G.C. Members.... Magnus, it's a good way to bring us back to point, and to make things clearer, actually. We report to the Board. The Board, therefore, has the ultimate say to the GC. (In fact, I wonder if we have lost sight of that fact: the Board will control appointments, and has the real control over delgation of that power.) Part of electing the Board, is to demonstrate that the Board is responsible to the participants. So, in fact, I *had* considered having elections to the GC: but, when I asked myself "who is the constituency" the answer was "the Board" And, they already vote on new members. We are, after all, debating how we "recommend" new members of the GC. A Society wide election is not appropriate. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 10:56:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:26:51 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602091435.JAA18474@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from the Chair, Someone suggested that the council as a whole vet replacement. I disagree but I will allow anyone who cares to to express an opinion and I will publicise any opinion submitted privately (in keeping with Tibor's stance on the original vetting of GC candidates). Artos Barefoot wishes to replace Baroness Isabeau and represent Lochac John Bearkiller wishes to replace Kyle and represent Atlantia Fiacha p.s. This issue is dead as of Monday morning. I you have anything to say, say it real soon. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 12:11:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:51:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha, I think you mean John Bearkiller to represent _Meridies_, not Atlantia, unless there have been some profoundly strange territorial cessions of which I am unaware:-). Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 12:34:33 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:07:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: New members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I say let the Crowns appoint replacement "kingdom" members to the GC if they wish. Anything else I think cuts away at our credibility. I also think that it is high time that Galleron and Morgan, who have done more work than most "official" members, be put on the Council. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 12:47:56 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 30 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:19:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Choosing the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded, a little edited, by Finnvarr >>> Finnvarr, in a message dated 96-02-08 15:03:31 EST, you write: >I do not think that electing the Board -- or, rather, not electing >the Board -- had any real influence on the Big Crisis. I suspect it had an indirect influence on the course, if not the cause, of the blow-up. When people got upset, they started looking around for tools to either make the board change its mind or to change the board. The tools at hand were writing letters, foaming on the Rialto, and bringing a petition of impeachment. They didn't get what they wanted with the first two so they reached for the third. With an elected board they would have had a fourth choice: waiting until the next election and voting in new directors that thought differently. With an elected board the only time you really need a recall motion is when the whole board is letting Uncle Bruno steal the office furniture (and in that case you can call the Attorney General). For policy differences you just need the patience to wait until the next election. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 12:52:30 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:37:50 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 11:09:51 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members >John, if you are still reading this: please don't presume this is about you >qua you. This is in NO WAY in personam. > > Tibor No offense taken at all. Kyle approached me a while back to take his place. I thought there might be a problem with replacement and told Kyle that. He got back to me and said he would contact everyone to get it "okayed". I did not want this to interrupt the GC's debates. Sorry. John the Bearkiller From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 12:54:10 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:36:57 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu >Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 11:04:42 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members >Artos Barefoot wishes to replace Baroness Isabeau and represent Lochac >John Bearkiller wishes to replace Kyle and represent Atlantia > > Fiacha > >p.s. This issue is dead as of Monday morning. I you have anything to say, >say it real soon. Ah, John is from Meridies. Thanks, John From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 16:23:53 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 12:35:45 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Fri, 9 Feb 1996 07:26:51 -0800, Nigel Haslock writes: > Artos Barefoot wishes to replace Baroness Isabeau and represent Lochac > John Bearkiller wishes to replace Kyle and represent Atlantia > > AYE * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 20:06:27 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: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 19:55:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L fiacha said >John Bearkiller wishes to replace Kyle and represent Atlantia you know, i coulda sworn john came from meridies; if he's still >from there, but "represents" atlantia, you know, i think this would solve the whole kingdom-representation argument. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 20:12:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 20:01:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: minor estrella question? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L a minor point, really: i was wondering who's going to estrella, and if there's any interest in having an (in)formal meeting there? alban, estrella virgin. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 21:14:59 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 17:57:58 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602091651.LAA10333@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> You are right, as usual. Fiacha On Fri, 9 Feb 1996, Greg Rose wrote: > Fiacha, > I think you mean John Bearkiller to represent _Meridies_, not > Atlantia, unless there have been some profoundly strange territorial cessions > of which I am unaware:-). > > Hossein/Greg > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 9 21:40:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 18:23:56 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Replacement of Council Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I10S8B3ZMA96X526@delphi.com> Thank you everyone for correcting my brain fart. Kyle represented wherever it was that he came from and he want John to take over from him. Hossein is currently living in the same place but for a whole bunch of reasons represents whatever he thinks is right rather than what the people nearby think. I can't be relied on to remember who lives where but I'll keep trying to ensure that they get the governance they deserve. My apologies to Kyle and John for misplacing them. Love Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 10 00:31:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 00:19:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: New members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr, I can just barely swallow the idea of kingdom appointees being replaced by new appointments by the crowns. I am utterly and irrevocably opposed to any further increase in the GC's size. We are already damned near too unwieldy to accomplish anything expeditiously. Adding numbers will simply make the problem more severe. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 10 01:41:22 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 01:30:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: straw poll response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My straw vote: Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about Your choices are: 1)Current method - NO 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee -*NO* 2)Direct election by whole membership - 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -yes 3)Indirect election by local seneschals - 4)Indirect election by regional group - -no 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - 5)Election of one director per kingdom -NO 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom - NO 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - NO 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes -no Please add and poll for: 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes - *YES* (!) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 10 07:14:07 1996 Return-Path: References: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 06:58:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: straw poll response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Here's Bertram's straw vote, folks: o Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) o Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. o Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about Your choices are: 1) Current method - NO 1a) Current method, separate nominating committee - NO 2) Direct election by whole membership - YES (Choice #3) 2a) Direct election by all members who ask for ballots - YES (Choice #2) 3) Indirect election by local seneschals - NO 4) Indirect election by regional group - - NO 4a) Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - NO 5) Election of one director per kingdom - NO 6) Appointment of one director per kingdom - NO 7) Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - NO 8) Petition for polling, regardless of other changes - NO Please add: 2b) Direct election by members who pay for a new category of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling - YES (Choice #1a) (Cost of this should be LESS THAN sub to Bd. Minutes) 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes - YES (Choice #1b) (Bd. Minutes subscribers would automatically be "Voting Members" with added costs of pollings included in subscription, but could also buy "Voting Memberships" without Bd. Minutes subscriptions) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 10 17:16:32 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Schuylab@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 17:04:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Eichling Von Amrun Subject: Re: Eichling: Estrella To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Eichling, Yes, I will be at Estrella Saturday noon thru Sunday ~ 6pm. Yes, I would like to meet some of the individuals on the council. Does anyone have the site, and taint of organization necessary, to volunteer their encampment as a meeting place? I agree with the steps that Fiacha has taken to replace kingdom appointed GC members (irrespective of their _actual_ point of origin perhaps...). Now, as Magnus has prompted, let's get back to business. Eichling From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 06:46:55 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:35:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: thinking it through To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As I've said before, making the current process more visible would suffice for me, but . . . Finnvarr is concerned with the perceived legitimacy of the Board and he knows the Society better than I do. As near as I can understand it, this sense of legitimacy would not rest so much on actual participation in Board selection (i.e., we don't really expect everyone to vote) as much as on removing the "self-selection" so that people feel that they could vote if they wanted to. Now if this is true, will having a special voting category (a type of membership, or those who subscribe to the minutes or whatever) establish the same confidence? As I see it the process would work out the same in either case. We have universal sufferage and only those people who are keen on this kind of stuff will send in their ballots. If we have a voting class it would be made up these same people. In the first case, if the Board ticks off non-voting people, they will become board-watchers and vote in the future. In the second case, they will become board-watchers and subscribe to the minutes so they can vote in the future. Depending on the cost and difficulty of a voting privilege, there could be some difference in the groups. There would be those people who would vote if the ballot were ready to hand (in TI) who would not go to the trouble of writing off for a ballot. Again depending on cost and difficulty, there might be a difference in how ticked-off people would have to be to join the voting class. Considerations: money being a sore subject, how will people see any scheme which requires more money and effort to be able to vote? Since we assume that the majority of players will not join this voting class, how will they perceive the legitimacy of a board elected by a defined minority? Note that unless there is amazing turnout all elections will involve only a minority. The difference is in distinguishing the voting group. There is plenty of dissatisfaction with "in-groups" (old timers, curia, whoever) and these are the people most likely to join the voting class. How does this come across to Everyman? If we do have voting, I'm leaning toward "everybody can vote" and would want the whole process to be as simple and boring as possible. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 08:17:41 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 80 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 07:54:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan on Board Elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I've been quiet because most of the messages were the digression on replacing GC members. As I am not on GC, I take no position on this topic. I do have a few things to say about some of the messages on Board elections. Alysoun said: "Before I was part of the Council, I thought the SCA was more consistent--a view derived from comparing national materials with local experience. I have since learned that there are distinctive differences by region/kingdom, although I do not know how deep these differences are. If these differences are significant, then an election/recall system will force politicalization." I disagree. It depends upon how the system is set up, for one thing, and there are ways to devise the system to minimize this potential. I think that some of Galleron's suggestions do this, and I think that my suggestion of limiting nominees to those from Kingdoms which do not have a Board member can further dilute any effect politicization might have. I have lived in more than one Kingdom, and currently have close ties in three besides the one in which I reside. I have always been very aware of the differences, and think it is part of the charm of our Kingdoms. They can be quite deep, Alysoun, but this adds to the variety of views and experiences. Alysoun also asked "what is it about the Interkingdom Council that promotes this trust?" I have to say that I do NOT trust them, not having seen much action from them and knowing the personality and origin of at least one member. Thereare others I know and do trust, but maybe because I am not on their list I have no knowledge of their activity, therefore not a very high comfort level. Justin makes some good points in his respone to Alysoun, especially in his reasoning why the IAC should be in charge of Corpora. Galleron has an excellent point that the current system of rolling elections is no good. It had the added disadvantage that the Board is constantly getting new members up to speed, where if they had annual meetings there would be one for getting up to speed and three in which actual work could be accomplished. I don't like Galleron's proposal of the 15-member Board with a 5-7 member Executive Committee. Seems like a lot more paperwork with a lot less benefit. I do like Galleron's proposal on polling, with the postcard etc. Include spaces for the people to write names and member number. And I agree with Galleron and all the others about the need to include "NO" as well as "no opinion" -- there have been some on the list against whom I would like to cast a vote, and not risk them getting on the Board by the ignorance or indifference of others. The addition can be simple: +1 for a 'yes,' 0 for a 'no opinion,' and -1 for 'no.' This could lead to a negative total -- and what does that tell you?! Alban's proposal about reorgnaizing the Board and other structure of the SCA, Inc., and "The Game" (TM) is hard to read, but pretty good. Galleron's proposal on polling the membership concerning proposed changes is quite interesting. I don't know if joint statements would work -- why not parallel statements, limited to a certain length, that can be printed ina two-column format like some PRO/CON discussions are presented in magazines? This can allow members to compare the two sides and reach a better decision than a joint statement would. After all, if the two sides can agree on a statement, shouldn't they be able to agree overall? Having the two views separately expresed will allow members to weigh and compare them more usefully. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 11:28:19 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: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:10:36 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Choosing the Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 12:19 PM 2/9/96 PST, you wrote: >Forwarded, a little edited, by Finnvarr > >>>> >Finnvarr, in a message dated 96-02-08 15:03:31 EST, you write: > >With an elected board the only time you really need a recall motion is when >the whole board is letting Uncle Bruno steal the office furniture (and in >that case you can call the Attorney General). For policy differences you just >need the patience to wait until the next election. > If we had a mechanism in place to remove Directors or to reverse decisions, would people wait until the next election? Some I suspect might well use these procedures right there on the spot. I suspect Patience would only be used by some if they couldn't drum up enough support for impeachment. What do you all think? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 12:49:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:37:58 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: straw poll response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller. (No, he's not a full member of the Council yet, but given the circumstances I think his input is useful in the straw poll...) -- Justin From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:51:02 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: straw poll response >My straw vote: >Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) >Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. >Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about >Your choices are: >1)Current method - Yes, with some avenue added to impeach Board (with teeth) >1a)Current method, separate nominating committee -YES >2)Direct election by whole membership - >2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -yes >3)Indirect election by local seneschals -no >4)Indirect election by regional group - -no >4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes -no >5)Election of one director per kingdom - >6)Appointment of one director per kingdom - no >7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - no >8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes -no > >Please add and poll for: > >9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes - yes John From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 13:01:45 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:36:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: New members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu >Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 20:43:52 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: New members >Finnvarr, > I can just barely swallow the idea of kingdom appointees being >replaced by new appointments by the crowns. I am utterly and >irrevocably opposed to any further increase in the GC's size. We >are already damned near too unwieldy to accomplish anything expeditiously. >Adding numbers will simply make the problem more severe. > >Hossein/Greg Greg, I don't think replacing an inactive Kingdom appointee with someone who will be active to be a bad thing. It also won't increase the size of the GC. Perhaps a new member of two might help. John From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 12 22:56:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:14:36 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Fw: from Hal Ravn (IAC) re Morgan: GC comments To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg to GC - Hal asked, and I think it's relevant to Morgan's comments. ------------------------------ From: Dorothy J Heydt Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:13:58 -0800 (PST) To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: GC comments Hi, Flieg.... Could you forward the following stuff? --Hal ---- >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Morgan wrote:](forwarded by Finnvaar) > >Alysoun also asked "what is it about the Interkingdom Council that promotes >this trust?" I have to say that I do NOT trust them, not having seen much >action from them and knowing the personality and origin of at least one >member. Thereare others I know and do trust, but maybe because I am not on >their list I have no knowledge of their activity, therefore not a very >high comfort level. > >Justin makes some good points in his respone to Alysoun, especially in his >reasoning why the IAC should be in charge of Corpora. The IAC is functioning as a consultive body. At present, we don't actually *have* a mailing list (we're just e-mailing material to each other). There are plans to change that, and I, for one, would be in favor of opening access to interested parties. The one caveat here is that we do tend to name names when discussing actual problems remanded to our attention. So far, no one has brought any real inter-Kingdom problems to our atttention, so we have been looking at various parts of _Corpora_ that either we, or the Board, think may need attention. The first of these that we produced a working report on is banishments. The text of that report was posted to rec.org.sca. If anyone wants a copy, feel free to send me e-mail and I will supply a copy. Copies have been sent to all kingdom seneschals as well. One thing about that report I would commend to the attention of the GC. The format of the report was developed in consultation with a Director and more than one director has stated that the format is one the Board can actually work with. --Hal Ravn, IAC West & Chairman (Hal Heydt) c/o djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 00:57:21 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:43:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: New members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L John, I think there are three separable issues involved in the questions of replacing Crown appointees to the GC and adding other new members to the GC. These issues are: 1. Crown appointment is no guarantee that the "kingdom" appointees represent anybody but the Crown. I happen to think that that is not a particularly great impedment, since I don't think that the GC as a whole was selected by a democratic, representative process. But the advocates of replacing the "kingdom" appointees keep insisting that these appointees are necessary because kingdoms must be "represented," and the proposed method simply doesn't guarantee that. 2. Adding new members to the GC without opening applications again to anyone who wishes to apply seems in principle unfair to me; it smacks of cronyism. Going through another round of vetting and appointing new GC members seems deeply unreasonable. This judgment is, I grant, contrary to my self-interest, since at least one of those whom Finnvarr proposed has publicly supported by BoD election proposal, but it is a matter of principle for me that the GC must not merely appear to be fair in its procedures, but must actually try to achieve fairness to the best of its ability. 3. We seem to have a coherent, cooperative group in the GC which has begun to make progress on substantive issues. We have done this with about 1/4 of the appointees to the GC effectively not participating, most as a matter of personal choice. This suggests to me that roughly 30-some participants is an effective size for the GC, and probably some attrition further would improve its effectiveness (I base this on the fact that with 30-some active members we took one hell of a long time to get organized at all). I deeply regret that we are on opposite sides of this issue (you being a "kingdom" replacement candidate), since, frankly, I would rather have you on the GC than some of my current colleagues (apologies for speaking bluntly, but I should think this has been obvious in the past). But I do not think it is my place to insist that people be added just because I agree with them on many issues. I think there are matters of principle, as I stated above, at stake here. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 04:49:54 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:16:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I believe that asking Crowns to select council members is a really bad idea. 1. It backdoors an attempt at representation which privileges smaller kingdoms. 2. It assumes that the Crowns are the key decision makers for each kingdom, that all kingdoms are like those in which when the Crown orders, people act silly (if there are such kingdoms--certainly not yours, whichever that is). 3. It assumes that Kingdoms are geographically balanced. They are not. Period. 4. It says that we are a representative body. We are not, and should not pretend to be. Each of us ought to take the SCA as our entire constituency--not some segment of it. If something would be hurtful to the people of one kingdom, members of this council should be willing to oppose the measure, even if it would benefit the kingdom in which they happen to reside. 5. It assumes that kingdoms are homogeneous in philosophy or approach. Even though it is more likely, for instance, to find a monarchist in An Tir than in the Middle, there are monarchists in the Middle, and Curia-ists in An Tir as extreme as any in the other kingdom. Perhaps the "tradition" as currently defined in some kingdoms is as much an artifact of a small rather homogeneous group in that kingdom than it is a representation of most of the people in that kingdom. 6. This changes the assumptions underlying the council after the fact and without specific board direction. (Unless Edward is speaking for the board. . but I did not get that impression) I suggest that we suggest a three person nominating committee to solicit and review resumes, then submit the list to the board for approval, just as it was done originally. We could suggest who the three people should be, and I suspect the board would say "fine." But let us not court controversy by changing something that is not that big of a deal. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 04:51:48 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:16:39 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Response to Tibor To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor wrote: > But, as Corwyn pointed out, larger committees have the disadvantage of being less efficient. (His downside, that they exhibit group thought process, has obviously not happened here.) I would disagree, slightly. I believe it is probable that the size of the forum and the vociferousness of many of these exchanges has encouraged some who have good opinions and excellent viewpoints to remain silent. I am a vocal person. But I no longer need someone to remind me that there is no reliable correlation between noise level and amount of thought. Sometimes people who are quiet are actually thinking about something other than how to effectively counter the last person's attack. Please note that I do not intend this to be a message directed at anyone. Tibor's quote is merely a convenient hook for a point I think could be relevant. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 05:52:57 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:12:06 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth says: >I believe that asking Crowns to select council members is a really bad idea. Certainly. Just as bad as asking them to select BoD members, as has been proposed, or kingdom seneschals, as they do all the time. >3. It assumes that Kingdoms are geographically balanced. ... Excuse a non-native speaker: what does this mean? Similar in size? In population? Or...? >4. ... Each of us ought to take the SCA as our entire >constituency--not some segment of it. ... Correct. On the other hand, we all do have different backgrounds and we tend to pose problems differently and see different answers. Having gotten most of one's SCA experience in, say, An Tir, is just as relevant as being a non-fighter, a peer, a mundane political liberal, or having a law degree. >5. It assumes that kingdoms are homogeneous in philosophy or approach. Even >though it is more likely, for instance, to find a monarchist in An Tir ... Without attempting to refute your point, let's not forget that people do make this kind of generalization all the time. For instance, you most probably a priori expect a woman to be interested in children and a man in machinery. Anyone who has recently been involved in an "interkingdom anthropology" debate knows how relevant these prejudices, more or less well founded, are to many of those who discuss the working of the SCA. The GC isn't representative, but it should be concerned with credibility and with how the SCA in general (if there is such a beast) perceives us. >6. This changes the assumptions underlying the council after the fact and >without specific board direction. Huh? A number of GC members were originally proposed by the kingdoms (not appointed - technically, the Board appointed them), with nobody asking to check how each kingdom chose its candidate. (In reality, I suspect that the Crowns chose the original GC candidates pretty much as they choose seneschals: in some places the job just went to the King's closest buddy, in other places they had a call for volunteers, someplace else someone told the Queen that X would make a good GC member and X didn't yell "no" loud enough, and, what do we know, someplace maybe they even held an election, and the Crown simply endorsed the result.) Not letting kingdoms replace their appointees might from a kingdom's perspective certainly look like changing the premises, and it might hurt our credibility considerably. >I suggest that we suggest a three person nominating committee ... *If* we agreed that we need to appoint new GC members other than if a kingdom wishes to replace "its" appointee, this would be the obvious way to go. > But let us not court controversy by >changing something that is not that big of a deal. Exactly - see my comment on (6). /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 09:48:18 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: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:45:32 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Straw poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Vote yes for any you like (including the current method) >Vote no for any that are unacceptable to you. >Leave blank those you don't have strong feelings about >Your choices are: >1)Current method -yes, but with some standard way of removing Board members >1a)Current method, separate nominating committee - >2)Direct election by whole membership -no >2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots -no >3)Indirect election by local seneschals -no >4)Indirect election by regional group - -no >4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes -NO >5)Election of one director per kingdom -no >6)Appointment of one director per kingdom -YES >7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - >8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes -no >9)Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes -no Terras -- joe (573) 882-2000 ccjoe@showme.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 Tue Feb 13 09:49:14 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: 4910 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 09:36:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Re 15 Member Board and Other Matters (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor (sorry for the delay in posting. Yesterday we had no working systems at work.) Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 11:17:30 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Re 15 Member Board and Other Matters Please forward to GC In a message dated 96-02-12 08:06:49 EST, Morgan writes: >I don't like Galleron's proposal of the 15-member Board with a 5-7 member >Executive Committee. Seems like a lot more paperwork with a lot less >benefit. > Morgan, let me explain some of the advantages of this model. It is, as I said, very common, and many non-profits of our size have even larger boards: a thirty member board would not be surprising in a 25,000 member international organization. The fifteen member board is actually towards the low end of the range, but I've chosen it because the directors would have to travel far and we're trying to keep costs down. The advantages: DIVISION OF LABOR Currently, each of our directors is responsible for oversight of the routine operations of the SCA, examination of the budget, hearing grievances, considering new directors, and, in their remaining free time, guiding the long term future of the SCA. Naturally, they burn out on a regular basis. The current model, where the board is the executive committee and the executive committee is the board, was fine for the small organization we were when the by-laws were written in 1968. Not so good now. In the "Big Board" model, 5-7 of the board would serve on the executive committee. *Different* directors would serve on the grievance committee (in this particular case, you would probably want to put it in the by-laws that no member of the executive committee could serve on the grievance committee). The budget and nominating committee would also be composed mostly of different directors. The idea is to spread the work out among all the directors, so that everyone isn't doing everything. In a sense, the board is moving towards that model now, with the two finance committees, the GC, the IAC. The difference is that the current committees are purely advisory: the power to make decisions rests entirely with the seven member board. FLEXIBILITY AND DEPTH Under the current model, if you lose two directors the board stops functioning and has to elect some new ones immediately. With a big board, if you lose a member or two from, say, the executive committee, there are plenty of other directors to move up to replace them. And if a useful director is overwhelmed by some mundane crisis, they can drop off of the more arduous committees without leaving the board entirely. Incoming directors prove themselves on the less critical committees before they get to where they can do some real damage. This replaces the current probationary period, which, as Tibor pointed out, could be problematic if we move to an elected board. DIVERSITY Currently, it is very difficult to afford to fly in someone from outside of North America four times a year. Once a year is much more feasible. The 15/5 board makes it easier to give the overseas members a direct voice. And a fifeen member board means that most kingdoms will have someone on the board most of the time, instead of only half the time under the current structure. CHECKS ON GROUPTHINK One of the risks of the current system is that a small board, working closely together over time, will develope a homogenous mindset. With a big board, if one of the committees starts to lose touch, the larger board has the power to reign it in. There's still the risk that the whole board will slip into groupthink, but it's harder with a larger, less self-contained, group. CHECKS ON EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE There are a number of restraints on the executive committees power to make non-routine decisions under this kind of structure. The most important are that the executive committee has no power to change the by-laws, and it has no power at all when the entire board is meeting. Morgan also writes: "Galleron's proposal on polling the membership concerning proposed changes is quite interesting. I don't know if joint statements would work --" Often they wouldn't. The proposal doesn't require them, just encourages them. Just seems nicer to be non-adversarial when possible Bertram wrote: "2b) Direct election by members who pay for a new category of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling - YES" I considered something like that earlier. Then I calculated that a single annual election, mailed third class non-profit, would cost about 25-50 cents per voter. The amount of money involved didn't seem to justify the complication and recordkeeping required to charge extra. It just seemed like mouse-milking. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 12:41:11 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:15:12 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Fwd: Lancelin: Intro and Board Selection To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth- Please forward this to the Grand Council for me. Thanks! Greetings to the Grand Council from Lancelin Peregrinus. I don't think I've posted to you before, so I'll briefly introduce myself. I have participated in the Middle Kingdom since joining the SCA thirteen years ago. I've served as an officer for most of that time, as my shire's Pursuivant and as my barony's Chronicler, Seneschal, Champion and Pursuivant. I subscribed to the Board minutes for many years before they were discontinued. I have been following the discussions of the Grand Council since the first Chronicle. I have an idea for Board selection that I don't think anyone has mentioned yet. (Some have been similar.) It seems to me to be a solution that accomplishes several goals with minimal structural change. First, I'd like to state some premises. Everyone will find something to disagree with here, but this is what I'm working from: 1) People are unhappy with the Board. Many have focused part of their frustration on the fact that the Board is "self-selecting" instead of being popularly elected in some way. This is nowhere near the whole problem, and may not be ANY of the problem. Or there may be subtle prejudices at work that *do* tend to perpetuate the same Board mindset to some extent. Regardless, the perception of the members (most of whom don't know exactly how the selection process works) is that self-selection smacks of arrogance and cronyism. This makes any bad decisions made by the Board look even worse. 2) In spite of the popular perception, there are some very good things about the current selection process. (It may or may not be the best possible.) Most of the Board members that I have been familiar with are among the most sensible and respected people I know. The criteria for evaluating candidates as specified by the Board's Procedures Manual (and described here on the list by Gareth) make a lot of sense, and the Board takes them seriously. Moreover, the Board discusses the new candidates in the context of its current needs. This type of intelligent, negotiated selection for various kinds of balance should be retained if possible, while minimizing any harmful prejudice. 3) Popular election of Board members will probably yield worse results than the current system. I am assuming for the sake of argument that members of the populace are as competent to make a decision as members of any smaller group (such as the Board). However, they are operating under two disadvantages. Firstly, they do not possess as complete information on the candidates. When material is distributed to the entire populace, it must be very limited in volume and somewhat guarded in content. Secondly, the voters are not able to discuss the candidates with each other (in toto) and reach a consensus or total solution of any kind. No negotiation or compromise is possible. I believe that election works reasonably well in a shire-sized group, but less well as the group increases in size and cannot meet face-to-face. 4) I don't think being elected will improve the goals, attitudes and methods of individual directors. The idea that it will is an article of faith to many in democratic cultures, but IMO it doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. Pick a specific example and it rapidly breaks down. How could we have chosen Lord A and avoided Master B? What specifically would Duchess C have done differently if she had been elected? (Thinking out specific examples is left as an exercise to the reader...) 5) I love our medieval structure, but I do not want to route too much control through the kingdoms. In particular, I do not want Board members to "represent" a particular crown or kingdom, but rather to be responsible to the Society as a whole and its individual members (e.g. me!). On the other hand, there seems to be significant desire for geographic representation at some level, to make sure that no one area gets forgotten or ignored. 6) Simplicity is very important here. For most of us, this is a hobby. This is where we relax. Most folks don't want a complex system to deal with, they don't want to follow what the Board or the GC is doing. (Trust me, I've tried to get people interested!) The handful of dedicated movers-and-shakers are too busy already. Let's keep it simple and out of people's faces. (Whew! I'm getting to it, honest...) OK, given those premises, my idea is this: 1) The Board size and function stays about the same. (Sure, there should be some adjustment in workload and detail level, but that's another issue.) 2) Nominations would be accepted from any member. Anyone meeting a minimal, uniform set of qualifications would be eligible. 3) The criteria and method of choosing the directors stays about the same EXCEPT... it's done by another relatively small group of people, NOT the Board. The same negotiated discussion with the same complete information is accomplished, but the objectivity is enhanced. 4) This selection committee can be chosen in a number of ways. The only real requirements are that it be small enough to meet and reach a decision, and that it be charged with choosing the new directors according to the standing criteria and the requests of the current Board, NOT the wishes of "constituents." Note that the selection process for this group is less critical, because they are not making decisions for the SCA. They have a clear job to do and a specified way of doing it. Their actions would be documented to the membership and the Board. Some possible methods are: a) Members chosen at random and asked to serve (as in Gareth's nominating committee). b) Members chosen at random from among volunteers. Probably easier and cheaper, and it lets those who are unhappy put their money where their mouth is by volunteering. b) One member chosen by each kingdom. This gives the kingdoms some participation in the process. Yeah, there are problems with this, but they are less important in this scenario. An individual member of the selection committee can hardly have undue influence, and blocks of kingdoms are unlikely when selecting people to serve on the Board (as opposed to deciding emotionally charged game issues like the Combat Tatting peerage :-). c) The IKAC. Well, why not? They already exist, and have at least a geographical balance. I'm not sure how many members they have, and whether they will remain active. d) The committee members *could* be generally elected, but that loses the simplicity and cheapness that is half of the reason for the method. (It would still result in better decisions than electing the Board members, though.) HOWEVER, if a particular kingdom feels strongly about democracy, method (b) would allow them to hold a smaller intra-kingdom election at their own expense. OK, that's it. Sorry again about the length. I have tried to take into account as many of the good ideas from the recent discussions as possible, even though not all are credited. Please feel free to tear this to bloody shreds and put it back together however you like. Lancelin -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= RFC822 Headers Follow =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- X-ENSMTPTo: rgathercoal X-ENSMTPSubnet: foxmail Received: from scn1.nmc.wpafb.af.mil (129.48.23.254) by gateway.gfc.edu with SMTP (Apple Internet Mail Server 1.0); Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:24:30 -0800 Received: by Wright-Patterson AFB Mailgate Fri Feb 9 18:06:33 1996 Received: by rerw.wpafb.af.mil with Microsoft Mail id <311BFE39@rerw.wpafb.af.mil>; Fri, 09 Feb 96 18:08:57 PST From: "Root, Grant G. (ASC/SMOC)" To: "Gareth (Roy Gathercoal)" Subject: Lancelin: Intro and Board Selection Date: Fri, 09 Feb 96 18:03:00 PST Message-ID: <311BFE39@rerw.wpafb.af.mil> Encoding: 125 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 13:25:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 10:04:38 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Greetings from the Chair, In the light of last weeks discussion I am making this policy decision. 1. If one of the original Kingdom appointees to the council decides to resign and if they recommend a replacement and if the current Crown of their Kingdom of original residence supports their chosen replacement, then I will recommend to the board that the replacement be admitted to the Council. 2. I will not make the recommendation until I have message from the appropriate Crown attesting that the conditions have been met. I will happliy accept an email message for this purpose. I do not feel that it is part of my job to actively seek out new members for this council. We are an open council. People who have something to say are welcome to say it. If they are persuasive, they will influence the dicisions of the council. Both Morgan and Galleron are examples of such people. I really do not believe that we can afford another 6 month delay while we repeat the selection process for new members. I do believe, however, that we have enough people on the council to offer not only well thought out recommendations but also well stated objections to those recommenations. It is when the voices of discontent fall silent that I will begin to worry. Replacement of council members will go on the agenda for future discussion. The current topics are Board Appointment Proposals, Board Member Removal and How to overturn a Board Decision. Can we please focus on these issues. Fiacha, Chairman From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 17:32:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:17:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Fiacha: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha writes, as chair ---------------------------------------- Greetings from the Chair, In the light of last weeks discussion I am making this policy decision. 1. If one of the original Kingdom appointees to the council decides to resign and if they recommend a replacement and if the current Crown of their Kingdom of original residence supports their chosen replacement, then I will recommend to the board that the replacement be admitted to the Council. 2. I will not make the recommendation until I have message from the appropriate Crown attesting that the conditions have been met. I will happliy accept an email message for this purpose. I do not feel that it is part of my job to actively seek out new members for this council. -------------------------- Excellent. kingdom appointees to be replaced by kingdoms, any others not to be replaced at this point. Good compromise. Sounds like we actually have official closure on an issue; which was the point of the new discussion structure and chair. Let's move on. By the way, is the straw poll on selecting the board an official one (ie originated by the chair ?)? My impression was that it wasn't. Feel free to correct me on this one. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 13 19:51:05 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation with last message 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, 13 Feb 1996 20:18:55 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Hear, Hear, Chairman. Good decision! How bout takuing our straw poll and publishing the findings? -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 14 09:54:46 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nathan Clarenburg Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:42:05 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nathan Clarenburg Subject: Re: straw poll response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: 1) Current method - yes 1a) Current method, separate nominating committee - YES Either requires better impeachment techniques than current system. 2) Direct election by whole membership - NO!! 2a) Direct election by all members who ask for ballots - no 3) Indirect election by local seneschals - no 4) Indirect election by regional group - - no 4a) Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - no 5) Election of one director per kingdom - 6) Appointment of one director per kingdom - 7) Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - no 8) Petition for polling, regardless of other changes - no Please add: 2b) Direct election by members who pay for a new category of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling - NO (Cost of this should be LESS THAN sub to Bd. Minutes) 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes - no Nathan nathan@cis.ksu.edu * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * . * "Nobody ever escaped punishment for unrighteous treatment of a cook." -- Menander's "Dyskelos" (ca. 300 BC) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 14 10:35:18 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: 253 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:24:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Fiacha: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960213171743_143324248@emout07.mail.aol.com> from "Corwyn da Costa" at Feb 13, 96 05:17:44 pm By the way, is the straw poll on selecting the board an official one (ie originated by the chair ?)? Not only was it not official, and had nothing to do with the chairman, but it came from Galleron, who is not even (technically) on the GC. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 14 11:09:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:57:46 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: New members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@MSUVX1.MEMPHIS.EDU >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 00:42:39 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: New members Greg, Thanks for explaining your feelings on the "new member" issue. As a potential "newcomer", I am biased toward the Kingdom replacement idea. You, as someone who has lived through the creation and viability of the GC feel differently. Okey-dokey! No hard feelings either way. If I am accepted, cool. If not, I will continue to read and think and throw in comments now and then. John From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 14 11:47:06 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: 4417 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:35:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Straw Poll Tally (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:13:03 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Straw Poll Tally Please forward to GC Here are the results of the non-binding straw poll. By a large margin, the most acceptable method seemed to be some sort of direct election/limited suffrage (eight yes/one no for suffrage on request) There actually seems to be some sort of (gasp) consensus that most people could live with this. Suffrage by board proceedings was also popular, but a caveat follows. The next runner up was self elected board/separate nominating committee, with seven yes/four no. Direct election by the whole membership and the unchanged current method were both opposed by a very strong minority. Although the poll was scheduled to end on February 4th, I included Councilors posting afterwards: it did not effect the relative rankings. I included only Councilors that posted directly to the listserve. I did not include Bearkiller's vote (although I would be happy to make it retroactive once he is official), again, including it would not have affected the relative rankings. Many councilors emphasized particular votes with exclamation points, all caps, etc. Their names are shown in capital letters. I have renumbered 9),"election by subscribers to board minutes" as 2b), and I have reworded both it and 2a) slightly for clarity and consistency with the text of original posting. Caveats: "election by subscribers to board proceedings only" was added spontaneously in the midst of the polling, so we may be missing both yeas and nays that we would have gotten if it had been included from the beginning. Certainly several Councilors expressed strong concerns about perceptions of "cash-based elitism" in earlier discussion of this method. However, it is easy enough to include a "suffrage for proceedings subscribers" variant when the council is considering specific proposals: only the definition of the electorate, the method of delivering ballots and the cost need to change. Note that only a minority of the current effective GC responded to the polling. I would be happy to accept any corrections, changed votes, or additional votes. However, I believe Fiacha would like the Council to concentrate on the writing and discussion of specific proposals on selection and removal of the board, and ways to reverse unfortunate board actions. Please do not let this poll inhibit you from bringing forward any relevant proposal that you think is in the best interests of the Society. TALLY 1)Current method 6/5 YES: FLIEG, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Terras, Eichling, Modius NO: Catrin, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Alban, 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee 7/4 YES: Flieg, Justin, Alysoun, Modius, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Eichling, NO: Catrin, ARTHUR, Bertram, Alban, 2)Direct election by whole membership 5/4 YES: Catrin, FINNVARR, Frithiof, Bertram, Alban, NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Terras, Eichling, 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots (as well as any subscribers to board proceedings) 8/1 YES: Justin, CATRIN, FINNVARR, Frithiof, Arthur, Bertram, Eichling, Alban, NO: Terras, 2b)Direct election by subscribers to board proceedings only 5/1 YES: SERWYL, CATRIN, ARTHUR, Bertram, EICHLING NO: Terras, 3)Indirect election by local seneschals 0/9 YES: NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Catrin, Finnvarr, Frithiof, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Alban, 4)Indirect election by regional group 2/7 YES: Catrin, Finnvarr, NO: Flieg, SERWYL, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Alban, 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes 2/6 YES: Justin, Finnvarr, NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Bertram, TERRAS, Eichling, Alban, 5)Election of one director per kingdom 0/6 YES: NO: SERWYL, FINNVARR, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom 1/8 YES: TERRAS, NO: Justin, SERWYL, CATRIN, FINNVARR, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Alban, 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals 1/9 YES: Modius NO: Justin, SERWYL, CATRIN, FINNVARR, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Eichling, Alban, 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes 1/6 YES: FLIEG, NO: SERWYL, Catrin, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Alban, Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 14 12:00:12 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: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:43:29 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Fiacha: On selecting Council members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10:24 AM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote: > By the way, is the straw poll on selecting the board an official one (ie > originated by the chair ?)? > >Not only was it not official, and had nothing to do with the chairman, but >it came from Galleron, who is not even (technically) on the GC. > By it's nature, is not a Straw Poll designed to be unofficial? As I understood, it was not a vote to be reported out, but rather taking the temperature of the pool. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 14 13:14:06 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: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:55:40 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: straw poll response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron: My votes were sent out as about the third person to vote but didn't make it into your tally: Below are my straw votes > 1) Current method - YES > 1a) Current method, separate nominating committee - yes > > > > 2) Direct election by whole membership - no > 2a) Direct election by all members who ask for ballots - no > 3) Indirect election by local seneschals - no > 4) Indirect election by regional group - - no > 4a) Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes - no > 5) Election of one director per kingdom - no > 6) Appointment of one director per kingdom - no > 7) Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals - > 8) Petition for polling, regardless of other changes - > > Please add: > > 2b) Direct election by members who pay for a new category > of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling - no > (Cost of this should be LESS THAN sub to Bd. Minutes) > > 9) Direct election by subscribers to the Board Minutes - no > Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 08:39:09 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: 1994 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 08:26:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Morgan's comments on Bod selection (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Tetchubah (newer Director) by Tibor. Reformatted to fit within 80 columns. Forwarded message: From: Carolyn Richardson Date: 14 Feb 96 16:24:37 Subject: Morgan's comments on Bod selection Just my 2 cents on the recent discussion - post if you like. Morgan wrote on Feb 12: >Galleron has an excellent point that the current system of rolling elections >is no good. It had the added disadvantage that the Board is constantly >getting new members up to speed, where if they had annual meetings there >would be one for getting up to speed and three in which actual work could be >accomplished. I'd have to disagree on this - the rolling _selections_ method is much better (when it can be used) than electing an entire board at once. The biggest problem lately has been that there have been too many burn-outs or expired terms in one meeting (like October 1995, where one term expired and 2 directors resigned). If you think the Board spends too much time getting one or two new members up to speed now, think of that problem multiplied by whatever final numbers you think is feasible _at_one_meeting_. Nothing would get done at the annual meeting - no one would know what was going on, particularly if the entire Board were replaced. Technically, having to replace 1 director every 6 months (the way it's supposed to work) is far more feasible and results in the least disruption. Having to get 5/7/15/21 new Board members up to speed in one meeting would be disasterous, and who would do it? Renee? Sedalia (or whoever is Soc Sen)? Most of the people I know on this list don't think very highly of either and would resent having to rely on them for information. I think the idea of a nominating committee separate from the Board is your most viable solution (just my opinion) and is the one least likely to encounter vehement opposition from the membership. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 09:25:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:13:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Board member removal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I need some straight talk on this one. It is significant that a former board member has targeted this as a primary concern. What does that mean? Isn't it the case that the easiest and quickest route to removal is by the board itself? I have pointed out earlier that board members are in the best position to judge whether any individual member is a problem--most of us would have to work off of hearsay. If it is the case that board members just want to shirk this responsibility--"sure, he should be removed, but I don't want to do it"--somebody needs to sit them down and give them a long lecture. If it is the case that the board is intimidated by such a person--i.e., that such a person dominates the others--then expanding the board would be a good idea (and has other) benefits as Galleron has noted). If it is the case that relying on this form of removal as the first choice encourages groupthink (in a dominated board the removal might be used to eliminate opposition), again expanding the size of the board would be helpful. Some members of this council have served on the board or have privy information. I do not. I need a better idea of what the difficulty really is. Am I correct that in reaching the decision on required membership etc., board members who opposed this measure tended to quit the board? What sort of dynamics were at work? Is this an example of the problem or does the concern go back earlier? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 10:00:07 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 61 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:39:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Removing Board Members To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have no first hand and no recent info on this topic. However, I do have some old second hand info. I was the Board member picked to replace Mike Woodford (Woodford of Lorien). Thus I heard from the members who got rid of him why they did. As I recall, they found it extremely difficult to work with him in the room because he was such an excellent manipulator. Then one meeting, he could not make it, and the atmosphere was so utterly different, so sensible and straightforward, that they knew they had identified a serious problem. Of course, Woodford was known for his desire to completely change the structure of the SCA, a pretty contentious program. This was never cited as the chief reason to get rid of him. In fact, I don't remember it coming up at all. I do have the impression, however, that his inability or unwillingness to contribute to anything but his own agenda was at the root of the unpleasant atmosphere he created. A humorous sequel: When I showed up the next meeting after Woodford was tossed, I caused quite a stir. Apparently I look *a great deal* like Woodford. Only one person at the meeting, Rob Himmelsbach (Bish) knew me >from before; at the first cigarette break, he was surrounded by people asking discreetly but fearfully, "Is this some kind of joke?" (They were *very* discreet; I only found out about this many months later.) Serious considerations. Does the attested ability of one person to screw up the Board mean we should have a larger Board? One argument in favor has been offered, more or less, by Alysoun and Galleron. In a larger group, there should be less group think. On the other hand, the larger group proposed by Galleron will have no cohesion and thus a limited ability to act as a check on the smaller executive committee. If a person with the traits attributed to Woodford got control of the executive committee, one big meeting a year of people who otherwise don't know each other will not be that much of a check except in the most extreme situations, and maybe not then. Most of the time they will believe what the officers and the executive committee tell them, simply because they will have had less acquaintance with the workings of the corporation and the Board specifically. The converse situation, in which they believe nothing the others tell them, will be no more productive. Tetchubah's post makes a very good point about the time it takes to orient Board members. I found that the first year I was learning, the second year I was with it, confident and energetic enough to take a leadership role, and the third year I was tired and good mainly as The Voice of Experience. I would say that one election a year is still a good idea. But maybe feeding in the elected members meeting by meeting instead of all at once might help the orientation process. (Believe it or not, one of the things we new directors learned back then was how to stay OUT of issues we didn't have to get involved in; slavery in kingdom A***, famous duke banished from Crown Tournament in another kingdom beginning with A***.) Has it occurred to anyone that one reason the Board is burning out faster is that ALL of them travel to EVERY meeting? Jet lag was a big problem for us Eastern Time Zone members ten years ago. Having three or four directors in the same time zone as the usual meeting place had its advantages. (Back then there were at least two directors from the Bay Area and one from Caid.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 10:44:06 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: 1070 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 10:21:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron Re: Morgan's comments on Bod selection (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:27:33 -0500 Subject: Galleron Re: Morgan's comments on Bod selection (fwd) Please forward to GC Morgan wrote on Feb 12: >Galleron has an excellent point that the current system of rolling elections >is no good. It had the added disadvantage that the Board is constantly >getting new members up to speed, where if they had annual meetings there >would be one for getting up to speed and three in which actual work could be >accomplished. Tetchubah answered: "I'd have to disagree on this - the rolling _selections_ method is much better (when it can be used) than electing an entire board at once." I agree. What I was suggesting was that one third of the board be elected each year in a single election, rather than electing a single new director every six months. I was arguing against the current version of rolling elections, not rolling elections in general. I believe that is what Morgan meant as well. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 13:43:42 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, 15 Feb 1996 12:27:01 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Groupthink To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L It has been my experience that with larger Boards (15-20) there is a greater tendency for groupthink. The leader and small group of supporters (3-5) run most things. Most of the rest kind of figure that they (executive committee) are the ones that know what is going on and let them lead. Sometimes with disastrous results. The one advantage with a larger group is the odds that there will be one or two to stand up to the "leaders". Sometimes this person feels like a voice crying out in the wilderness, but sometimes the board can be shocked out of it's groupthink long enough to fix things. Never having worked directly with our BoD, I've only got the stories. These seem to point to the possibility that one or two strong voices can pull the group into a unanimous decision against their better judgement. Was that a factor of size, or just a peculiar combination of strong and weak wills? $0.02 plus a question from Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 14:10:56 1996 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, 15 Feb 1996 08:03:16 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Response to Catrin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Catrin asked:\ >>3. It assumes that Kingdoms are geographically balanced. ... Excuse a non-native speaker: what does this mean? Similar in size? In population? Or...? I apologize for my lack of clarity. I suspect it has nothing to do with your command of English, but rather of mine. What I intend to say is that kingdoms are not the same size, and often do not conform to modern socio-political boundaries. This is an argument against taking kingdoms to be representative of the SCA population. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 16:35:30 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: 2493 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:21:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Revised Straw Poll Tally 2/15 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:13:04 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Revised Straw Poll Tally 2/15 Please forward to GC I have revised my straw poll tally to include postings by Nathan and Magnus TALLY 1)Current method 8/5 YES: FLIEG, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Terras, Eichling, Modius, Nathan, MAGNUS NO: Catrin, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Alban, 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee 9/4 YES: Flieg, Justin, Alysoun, Modius, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Eichling, NATHAN, Magnus NO: Catrin, ARTHUR, Bertram, Alban, 2)Direct election by whole membership 5/6 YES: Catrin, FINNVARR, Frithiof, Bertram, Alban, NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Terras, Eichling, NATHAN, Magnus 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots (as well as any subscribers to board proceedings) 8/3 YES: Justin, CATRIN, FINNVARR, Frithiof, Arthur, Bertram, Eichling, Alban, NO: Terras, Nathan, Magnus 2b)Direct election by subscribers to board proceedings only 5/3 YES: SERWYL, CATRIN, ARTHUR, Bertram, EICHLING NO: Terras, Nathan, Magnus 3)Indirect election by local seneschals 0/11 YES: NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Catrin, Finnvarr, Frithiof, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Alban, Nathan, Magnus 4)Indirect election by regional group 2/9 YES: Catrin, Finnvarr, NO: Flieg, SERWYL, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Alban, Nathan, Magnus 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes 2/8 YES: Justin, Finnvarr, NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Bertram, TERRAS, Eichling, Alban, Nathan, Magnus 5)Election of one director per kingdom 0/7 YES: NO: SERWYL, FINNVARR, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Magnus 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom 1/9 YES: TERRAS, NO: Justin, SERWYL, CATRIN, FINNVARR, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Alban, Magnus 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals 1/10 YES: Modius NO: Justin, SERWYL, CATRIN, FINNVARR, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Eichling, Nathan, Alban, 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes 1/7 YES: FLIEG, NO: SERWYL, Catrin, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Alban, Nathan This one came in too late in the polling for meaningful results, but just so Bertram doesn't think I'm suppressing it: Direct election by members who pay for a new category of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling 1/2 YES: BERTRAM NO: NATHAN, Magnus Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 17:18:20 1996 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 15:57:00 CT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Mike.Andrews" Subject: Michael: Straw Poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Sorry so late. Life keeps getting in the way. 1)Current method NO 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee YES 2)Direct election by whole membership NO 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots (as well as any subscribers to board proceedings) YES 2b)Direct election by subscribers to board proceedings only YES 3)Indirect election by local seneschals NO 4)Indirect election by regional group NO 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes NO 5)Election of one director per kingdom NO 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom NO 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals NO 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes NO Direct election by members who pay for a new category of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling NO -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra In the past two years, Namron has lost Lady Kathy, Baron Bjorn, and Baroness Caitlin, Wiesenfeuer has lost Master Edward and Baron Subodai, Moonschadowe has lost Alexander Franz von Luchsenberg, and Northkeep has lost Lady Kendra Kenmare. Pray for them, and for us. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 15 18:33:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 15:12:11 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Recalls and Reversals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602141635.LAA11834@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, We seem to be having inordinate difficulty in coming up with options for telling the board that they have taken leave of their senses. I can think of a number of reasons why this might be and I will take a few moments to expound on them. First there is the issue of responsibility. As long as there is no one who is responsible for elevating someone to the board, there is no one to turn to to demand that they fix things when the board does something objectionable. Second, there is the issue of information. As long as the board can say "You don't understand. On the basis of the available information, there was no other viable option. By the way, that information is confidential so you cannot ever know what happened" the membership is stuck. Finally, there is the issue of timing. Once a decision is announced, it takes months to get a reaction from the membership, much longer than it takes to get the change implemented (partly because some of the reaction is delayed until the change affects the way the members play the game). Therefore, it is my opinion that we will not be able to come up with an standard effective means of forcing the Board to reverse itself. It is also my opinion that we will not be able to force the board to fire one of its members. I consider this to be depressing as it causes frustration in the membership and leads to directors being hounded into retiring. I am about ready to table both of these issues and call for votes on the appointments proposals. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 16 10:31:08 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 15 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:08:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Recalls and Reversals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I don't entirely agree with Fiacha. The forced-poll provision suggested by Galleron might work to reverse an unpopular action. It would be difficult, but the very possibility would be salutary. Once a petition started rolling around the KW and getting a significant number of signatures, this alone might get the Board to reconsider. As to impeaching individuals, I have no hope that this could be done sensibly by the membership at large. All too easily this could end up being a case of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons (or the wrong reasons). Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 16 11:04:22 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: 762 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:52:18 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron Re: Recalls and Reversals (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 10:37:40 -0500 Subject: Galleron Re: Recalls and Reversals Please forward to GC Fiacha writes: "Therefore, it is my opinion that we will not be able to come up with an standard effective means of forcing the Board to reverse itself. It is also my opinion that we will not be able to force the board to fire one of its members." It's not just that we're a bunch of dummies, either. I don't know of anyone, anywhere, that has found a workable way to do these things to a self-elected board. If you let the members elect the board, of course, you have a number of options, including waiting until the next election. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 16 12:19:17 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 39 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 11:54:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: 15 member Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr >>> Finnvarr, in a message dated 96-02-15 09:50:26 EST, you write: >Has it occurred to anyone that one reason the Board is burning out faster is >that ALL of them travel to EVERY meeting? Jet lag was a big problem for us >Eastern Time Zone members ten years ago. Having three or four directors in >the same time zone as the usual meeting place had its advantages. (Back then >there were at least two directors from the Bay Area and one from Caid.) > Good point. I don't see any reason why it always has to be the same time zone, though. You could have an executive committee with several Western members for a few years, then the East/Atlantia could have a turn, then the Middle... You also write: "If a person with the traits attributed to Woodford got control of the executive committee, one big meeting a year of people who otherwise don't know each other will not be that much of a check except in the most extreme situations, and maybe not then." You are probably right that if we had had a 15 member board back at the beginning of the Troubles, they probably wouldn't have said: "Wow! Directors X and Y have completely subverted the executive committee! We need to remove them immediately!" However, there is at least a chance that some of them would have said: "Mandatory membership? Gosh, maybe we need the money, but it'll sure piss off a lot of people. Maybe we need to think of something else..." You can forward this if you like. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 16 14:22:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 14:07:39 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: 15 member Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Bearkiller... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu >Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 12:42:10 -0600 (CST) >Subject: Re: Galleron: 15 member Board >Forwarded by Finnvarr > >Finnvarr, in a message dated 96-02-15 09:50:26 EST, you write: > >>Has it occurred to anyone that one reason the Board is burning out faster is >>that ALL of them travel to EVERY meeting? Jet lag was a big problem for us >>Eastern Time Zone members ten years ago. Having three or four directors in >>the same time zone as the usual meeting place had its advantages. (Back >then >>there were at least two directors from the Bay Area and one from Caid.) >> > >Good point. I don't see any reason why it always has to be the same time >zone, though. You could have an executive committee with several Western >members for a few years, then the East/Atlantia could have a turn, then the >Middle... One of the major reasons for Board burnout is the length of time one must sign on to be on the Board. Unless a person manages to get a shortened term (caused by a resignation), you must serve a 3 1/1 year term. Four meetings a year can be handled by most people, but, when you have to attend 14 meetings over almost four years, that is a big investment of your life. So......most Board members do not serve out their terms. I was lucky. I signed on for a one year term (filling out someone else's slot) and was asked to serve a six month extension. Technically, I finished out my term. My wife and I could not envision serving another two years. The only person within the last ten years or so to serve a complete 14 meeting term was AJ. I suggest that whatever Board election process the GC arrives at have a term limit of no more than three years (or less). >You also write: >"If a person with the traits attributed to Woodford got >control of the executive committee, one big meeting a year of people who >otherwise don't know each other will not be that much of a check except in >the most extreme situations, and maybe not then." > >You are probably right that if we had had a 15 member board back at the >beginning of the Troubles, they probably wouldn't have said: "Wow! Directors >X and Y have completely subverted the executive committee! We need to remove >them immediately!" However, there is at least a chance that some of them >would have said: "Mandatory membership? Gosh, maybe we need the money, but >it'll sure piss off a lot of people. Maybe we need to think of something >else..." > >You can forward this if you like. > >Galleron More members on the Board during the 1994 January meeting might have brought common sense with them. While I believe that 15 members on a Board will only increase the number of people willing to micromanage things, perhaps a nine person Board might be good balance between representation and effective management. John From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 16 20:21:03 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 19:59:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Bearkiller's post To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I felt pretty crispy after 2 1/2 years. I wonder if a slightly shorter term would be all that bad? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 16 21:01:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 17:42:47 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Bearkiller's post To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31255505@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 16 Feb 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > I felt pretty crispy after 2 1/2 years. I wonder if a slightly shorter term > would be all that bad? > > Finnvarr Interesting. Could someone analyze the records and work out the mean term served over the last 10 years? Could someone also find out if any director has been replaced at the end of their probationary period? Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 17 08:21:03 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 08:11:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: re Fiacha To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha said, "it is my opinion that we will not be able to come up with an standard effective means of forcing the Board to reverse itself." If we are looking for a neat quick formal process, I'm inclined to agree, but then I don't consider this so terrible. As I've pointed out before, the bottomline moral of the membership debacle was that the membership CAN make the board reverse itself. Now most of you will be quick to say that we do not want to go through that kind of angst again. Why did we have angst? Because people felt that it was something that had to be fixed immediately or else the whole Known World would collapse, which is nonsense. The main thing that is wrong here is that too many people think the World is inhabited by bullies and toadies. They think that the board "owns" the society and we have to do what they say. I've pointed out before the problem of equating our organization with governments and businesses. The board does not have an army, it doesn't control our paychecks. It cannot run things. The power is in the collective membership. We are the ones who pay the bills; we are the ones who do the paperwork; and we are the ones who can make our displeasure known. It takes a while by this route, but it is effective and if everyone remains calm the game can go on in the meanwhile. (And I still take it that the game is what it is all about.) >From this point of view the greatest danger to the Society is not a wayward board but a confused membership. If it were the case that everyone agreed that membership should not be required, the board wouldn't have made the decision and if it had, due to total isolation and insanity, my model of response would probably have been the reaction. The fact is that a substantial number of members agreed with the board action. SO the problem is not the board, but a split in the membership on this issue. Now it is much easier to focus on a recognized group of a few people, but if that is not the root of the problem, how much "fixing" can we really do? Why is it that a substantial number of members want required membership? How do they think that will improve the SCA? What do they think the purpose of the SCA is? What is behind the other side's thinking? And what other tensions are there that could become major issues? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 17 22:58:23 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 114 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 22:36:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan to Galleron and Others To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It has been a long week and the posts wre pithy, so I waited to reply, until I could give them due consideration. Now, before I settle in with Gene Kelly: Galleron, I have reviewed your details about a fifteen-member Board. Part of my background is that I sit on the board of an NFP. We do not expect the entirety of the Board at every meeting, and we do not have an executive committee. When a meeting is called, everybody gets the agenda and necessary supplementing materials. Those who can, come, and when we have a quorum the meeting begins (this may take a half-hour or so after the official starting time). If a Board member fails to attend a certain number of meetings, that person is dropped/replaced. We do have subcommittees, some of which include necessary staff of the NFP, those involved in the day-to-day operations. However, these subcommittees cannot act independently except within their particular assignments. Action is taken by the subcommittee reporting to the Board, discussion on the report, and a Board vote. I see your point that with a fifteen-member Board we would reach critical minimum much more slowly, giving the board time to regroup and, if necessatry, elect new members, or the ability to continue to function until the next election even if all seats are not filled. I concur that there should be checks on the executive committee, or we are right back where we started; and that the executive committee and grievance committee be separate. Would it make sense to add this to your proposal, that not all Board members need attend in person every Board meeting? For now, they do, and that can be a problem. I am just not sure I like the executive committee model, because it really can't do much. However, if a quorum of Board members met every quarter, and each Board member could miss one or two meetings per year (not in sequence), that might be a way to answer many of the problems of the current system and my reservations about your 15/5 proposal. Board members could be required to attend the January meeting, for example, and could miss at least one of the others without penalty, as long as enough other members appeared to make the quorum. And, to answer Magnis' concern, it is harder to get groupthink when a different collection of Board members may be appearing at every meeting. You are correct that Tetchubah misunderstood my issue about getting director up to speed. Electing one-third of the Board every annum gives one meeting in four where you are getting people up to speed, and three meetings in which to actually work. Lancelin's summary of a nominating committee is pretty good, and along the lines I previously proposed but more clearly outlined. I would add that having candiates on the rolls for two or three years is disconcerting, and there should be a way to indicate that a candidate is not acceptable and therefore off the list. Alysoun asked some good questions at the end of her message -- are they rhetorical, or how can we find some answers? One reason *I* have heard for required memberhip is to ban the Tuchux from Pennsic, but there have to be more substantial ones. I agree with Galleron and Finnvarr's responses to Fiacha about the difficulty of forcing reversals or impeachment. I can see an easy way to get the Board to RECONSIDER actions, but not force reversal, impeachment, or removal. One of the reasons is the lack of communication; during The Troubles we got a lot of "we know the reasons and you don't, so your comments are invalid." If the membership is stonewalled while changes take effect, it slows the process while inflaming the opposition. However, there is no convenient way for the Board to communicate with the membership at large; the TI publication schedule is just before Board meetings, as I recall, and the Rialto is no good because even many of the members who have email consider the ratio of noice to news there unacceptably high. As to the general speculation that having more Board members in January 1994 would have eliminated the Troubles -- it's a fun game, right? But having more Board members, who might bring fresh eyes and different experiences, can be a help overall, and they may be less inclined to capitulate when faced with major issued and blanket problems. It took only one small boy who was not going to be cowed to note that the Emperor had no clothing, and soon everybody else saw it, too. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Feb 18 18:15:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 18 Feb 1996 18:03:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Galleron: Straw Poll Tally (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron, Since I voted in the straw poll prior to the splitting of item 2 into 2a and 2b, my vote more correctly should be: 2a- NO 2b- YES This changes the totals a bit on 2a, which had more support in your first taly. I believe it is now at 8/4. It still has a favorable response from a majority of those that replied but the disapproval rating has gone from 1 to 4, a fairly significant increase. Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 09:44:26 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: 3075 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 09:33:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Aylsoun: re Fiacha (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Katerine/Angharad/Terry, by Tibor Forwarded message: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 96 15:26:52 EST From: jtn@eng2.uconn.edu (Terry Nutter) Subject: Aylsoun: re Fiacha Please pass on to the Grand Council. Thanks yet again! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Greetings to the members of the Grand Council, from Katerine Rountre. Alysoun writes: > If we are looking for a neat quick formal process, I'm inclined to > agree, but then I don't consider this so terrible. As I've pointed out > before, the bottomline moral of the membership debacle was that the > membership CAN make the board reverse itself. But I wonder if that is really so. Please consider: between fall 1993 and January 1994, the board not only imposed pay-to-fight and pay-to-play, but altered fundamental sections of the by-laws, and raised membership costs drastically without any very adequate explanation. The national requirements of pay-to-fight and pay-to-play have been reversed. But the protections in the by-laws that made both _impossible_ prior to January 1994 not only have not been restored, but have not even been officially _reconsidered_: there is nothing in the Board Minutes suggesting that the Board has even given serious thought to giving back that part of what it took away -- and took away in a process that violated several procedures and a provision in the by-laws. The increased dues, along with a number of other measures, were argued (insofar as they were) on the basis of need. But there has been no corporate explanation of the fact that the expense side of the corporate budget roughly doubled between 1992 and 1994, and remains at not much less than twice pre-1993 levels. We still have the drastically increased dues, with no apparent discussion of why it is necessary, once we get out of the hole one irresponsible Board sunk us in, that this level of support continue. We are building reserves _very_ fast with membership dues at this level: which, by itself, proves that the level is far higher than costs would justify, had past Boards behaved responsibly. But the current cost levels are being treated now as the baseline, with no discussion of roll-back. The Board did _lots_ of bad things in a six month period. It has reversed two of them. (It has also started acting far better on the financial front.) But it certainly has _not_ reversed anything like all the actions that caused the crisis. Perhaps one moral of the crisis is that it is possible, with enough desparate action on enough parts, to make the Board reconsider a small number of its errors. Sadly, I am often rather more convinced of another moral, that I would like to think is cynical and unwarranted, although finding evidence of that is not always easy, namely: that if you threaten to cut off our heads long and loudly enough, you can make us thank you for merely taking our right arms instead. Katerine/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 11:19:14 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 11:00:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Re Morgan & Terry To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I wrote the Board supporting required membership but said that raising the fee was a mistake. I supported it at that time because our shire had many more non-members than members. This presented all sorts of practical problems >from how many newsletters to print to what size meeting room to get. But the bigger issue was that a substantial portion of the non-members used the SCA as an occasion for immature, silly, and tacky behavior. They would help at events (twice a year) but were disruptive the rest of the time. It did not seem right that people who wanted to do medieval things were thwarted by people who treated the whole thing as a joke. Realizing that I shall look like a total villian, I want to explain my view on the board actions. I understood the whole thing as an effort to reposition the SCA. The combination of changing the membership requirements and fee is a common repositioning tactic. During this same period there were certain announcements through the kingdom seneschals and plans for up-scaling TI that fit very well with this construction. So, yes, I supported repositioning, but I thought they were going about it in a poor fashion--way too quickly for one thing. What's relevant here is the discrepancy between the SCA as it was being played out (the local Society?) and the SCA as it was presented in corporation literature (Forward into the Past, the Handbook, TI, etc.). If there had been no corporate model--just the SCA as played locally--I would never have joined. But because there was the corporate model and I thought that was the way it was supposed to be, the thing to do seemed to be to kick the local model into shape. And I expected help from the larger organization. It would be a mistake to see this as an anomaly. When you all talk about "The Society" I doubt you mean what we had in our shire at that time, but how can I know what you do mean? I'm willing to believe that there are local versions which are greatly superior to the corporate model, but I know there are versions which are much less. The only version that I can pin down at all is the corporate version because it is in print and it is promoted as the SCA. This produces an orientation to the whole thing that is very pro-board, pro-corporation, and not especially tolerant of some deviations. This is one very serious cleavage in our broad membership. There are others: not everyone reads the corporate model in the same way, not everyone shares the same traditional model. These cleavages are like fault lines and the membership will split on issues. I worry about board election because it could promote these fractures. Maybe that is good--formalize the conflict and duke it out, winner take all. But I would rather work on long-term strategies to minimize conflict. Can we develop a middle ground where we can all live comfortably? Or if not, can we work toward a gradual separation into different organizations? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 15:48:03 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: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:24:58 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Aylsoun: re Fiacha (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > But the protections in the by-laws that made both _impossible_ prior to > January 1994 not only have not been restored, but have not even been > officially _reconsidered_: there is nothing in the Board Minutes suggesting > that the Board has even given serious thought to giving back that part of > what it took away -- and took away in a process that violated several > procedures and a provision in the by-laws. > > Would someone be so kind as to Precisely and in some detail explain this portion? Thanx Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 17:29:33 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: 2647 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 17:19:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 14:01:27 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Various Please forward to GC Bearkiller and Finnvarr raise the question of whether the current Board terms are too long. I would argue that the problem is not their absolute length, but their length in relation to the workload. Certainly many nonprofits not only have three year terms, but often have directors serve for two consecutive terms. This is nice because you get more mileage out of your better directors. We really do demand more of our board than we should. Many volunteer directors of substantial non-profits have a workload a tenth of ours. I don't think this stems from some perverse desire of the board to micro-manage: everything I've seen suggests that the board would much rather be King Log than King Stork. Rather, it is in good part because the board is forced by default to be the only formal mechanism of accountability for kingdom administrations. In most sensible organizations this mechanism is performed by representative government at the regional level. But that is another agenda item. While the Council is discussing optimal board size, I highly recommend chapter four of "Parkinson's Law". Not only is it a hoot, but there is an excellent discussion of the dynamics of different size committees. (Parkinson argues that the size at which a committee becomes absolutely useless as such falls somewhere between twenty and twenty-two members "depending, of course, on variations of age, climate, and sobriety") Does anyone else have personal experience to add to the big board/small board question? Alysoun writes: "From this point of view the greatest danger to the Society is not a wayward board but a confused membership. If it were the case that everyone agreed that membership should not be required, the board wouldn't have made the decision and if it had, due to total isolation and insanity, my model of response would probably have been the reaction. The fact is that a substantial number of members agreed with the board action. SO the problem is not the board, but a split in the membership on this issue." Not just that the membership was divided, but that there was no effective mechanism to tell the board what the preponderance of the membership wanted. Even if the board deeply desires to serve the wishes of the Society, it's awfully hard to tell what the Society wants when the only thing you have to go on is a small, or even a large, pile of angry letters. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 17:31:12 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: 3174 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 17:16:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Revised Straw Poll Tally 2/19 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For you-know-who, by you know who. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:55:30 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Revised Straw Poll Tally 2/19 Please forward to GC I've revised the tally to reflect Michael's vote and Serwyl's clarification. Current method/separate nominating committee, and direct elections/limited suffrage remain the leaders, with membership suffrage and unchanged current method facing strong opposition. All other options are in the dust. The Council seems to be getting closer to voting on specific proposals. Both David and Hossein have brought forward election plans. Do they wish the Council to consider them unchanged, to submit revised proposals, or to withdraw them? I'm not urging any particular choice, but would like to know. TALLY 1)Current method 8/6 YES: FLIEG, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Terras, Eichling, Modius, Nathan, MAGNUS NO: Catrin, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Alban, Michael, 1a)Current method, separate nominating committee 10/4 YES: Flieg, Justin, Alysoun, Modius, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Eichling, NATHAN, Magnus, Michael, NO: Catrin, ARTHUR, Bertram, Alban, 2)Direct election by whole membership 5/7 YES: Catrin, FINNVARR, Frithiof, Bertram, Alban, NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Terras, Eichling, NATHAN, Magnus, Michael, 2a)Direct election by all members who ask for ballots (as well as any subscribers to board proceedings) 9/4 YES: Justin, CATRIN, FINNVARR, Frithiof, Arthur, Bertram, Eichling, Alban, Michael, NO: Terras, Nathan, Magnus, Serwyl 2b)Direct election by subscribers to board proceedings only 6/3 YES: SERWYL, CATRIN, ARTHUR, Bertram, EICHLING, Michael, NO: Terras, Nathan, Magnus 3)Indirect election by local seneschals 0/12 YES: NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Catrin, Finnvarr, Frithiof, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Michael, Alban, Nathan, Magnus 4)Indirect election by regional group 2/10 YES: Catrin, Finnvarr, NO: Flieg, SERWYL, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Alban, Nathan, Magnus, Michael, 4a)Seneschals elected upward regardless of other changes 2/9 YES: Justin, Finnvarr, NO: FLIEG, SERWYL, Bertram, TERRAS, Eichling, Alban, Nathan, Magnus, Michael, 5)Election of one director per kingdom 0/8 YES: NO: SERWYL, FINNVARR, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Eichling, Magnus, Michael, 6)Appointment of one director per kingdom 1/10 YES: TERRAS, NO: Justin, SERWYL, CATRIN, FINNVARR, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Alban, Magnus, Michael, 7)Appointment by Board, monarchs, and unelected seneschals 1/11 YES: Modius NO: Justin, SERWYL, CATRIN, FINNVARR, FRITHIOF, Arthur, Bertram, Eichling, Nathan, Alban, Michael, 8)Petition for polling, regardless of other changes 1/7 YES: FLIEG, NO: SERWYL, Catrin, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Alban, Nathan, Michael, This one came in too late in the polling for meaningful results, but just so Bertram doesn't think I'm suppressing it: Direct election by members who pay for a new category of "Voting Membership" which covers costs of polling 1/3 YES: BERTRAM NO: NATHAN, Magnus, Michael, Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 17:43:22 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: 7342 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 17:29:15 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Alysoun: Re Morgan & Terry (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Katerine/Terry/(Angharad), by Tibor. [Gently reformatted] Forwarded message: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 14:19:59 EST From: jtn@eng2.uconn.edu (Terry Nutter) Subject: Alysoun: Re Morgan & Terry Greetings to the members of the Grand Council, from Katerine Rountre. Alysoun has argued (if I understand her) that 1. Many people who participate in the SCA behave in ways that do not contribute to the goal of medieval recreation, and in some cases detract from it; 2. Many of these people do not pay dues; 3. She perceived the actions of raising dues and requiring membership as trying to prevent this kind of behavior, and bring local actions more into the "recreating the middle ages" framework described in the governing documents; and 4. She perceives requiring memberships (and possibly raising fees, but not as drastically as the Board did) a common corporate means to the "reshaping" she saw as the goal in 3. I find myself responding with two brief rants, and a longer point. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rant One: The Board can hardly hope to make everyone else obey the formal rules by setting an example of breaking them. There are provisions in the by-laws that talk about what you have to do to alter by-laws and Corpora. The Board did not follow them in January 1994. Illegal actions on the part of the central authority are hardly likely to bring about a sudden increase in respect for the rules. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rant Two: There are lots of people in the Society, who are here to do many different things. Even the governing documents are not nearly so clear on what we "ought" to be doing as Alysoun seems to be saying. I happen to like artifacts, research, and activities that have a solid historical basis (although I don't seem to see that as nearly so opposed to silliness as Alysoun does); but I never heard a voice from a burning bush that told me I could impose that preference justly on the rest of the Society, and if anyone else has, they haven't told me about it. I do not think it is the Board's place, or the Grand Council's place, or anyone else's, to define the One True Way To Play SCA and try to exclude everyone who doesn't make the cut. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Those said.... It seems to me that there are two huge misconceptions behind Alysoun's argument: first, that the Board's actions were motivated by a desire to enforce a focus on medieval recreation, and second, that central legislation can make people at the local level act the way others would like them to. In response to the first: from both internal documents and personal reports, it seems clear that there were three motivations behind the Board's actions: a perception on the part of some directors (almost entirely false) that enforced membership would solve certain potential legal problems; a perception on the part of some directors (also false in January, though Board actions made it largely true by the following fall) that the Corporation was in economic trouble and had to raise a lot of money, and the way to do that was to try to force money out of people; and a long- standing plan to "professionalize" the corporation. There was also a suggestion in some quarters that a fourth motive may have played a part for some directors: a desire to reduce the number of people participating. But none of this had anything to do with how people act in local meetings. That issue was not addressed, and there was no intention to address it. In response to the second: people don't act silly because they are not paying dues. They act silly because that is what they want to do. Making them pay dues will not make them stop acting silly. It is more likely to give them the impression that they now have a legal _right_ to act as silly and disruptive as they please, and otherwise to participate any way they feel like (that doesn't actually break laws) -- having paid for it. There are only three ways that I know of to address disruptive behavior, and they all require _local_ action. The first is to provide an example of fun that looks inviting and that is not disruptive. (That is, you can try to convince people that they can have more fun playing with you than fooling around by themselves.) This requires that there are enough people supporting what you are doing to have a fair chance at competition. The second, which only works if the large majority disapprove of the behaviors in question, is for the group to make it clear that it will not tolerate them (and will not play with people who disrupt its activities). The third, which seems to work best in most actual situations, where there are largish overlapping groups that want to do different kinds of things, is to provide separate venues, clearly advertized, for the different sorts of things people in your group like to do together, and then to protect those venues. You go to the ones that interest you, and skip the rest. While this does not prevent silly behavior, it separates it from re-creations and activities in support of re-creations, so that that behavior is no longer _disruptive_. What won't work, no matter how you slice the cake, is having some central authority off somewhere say "Nobody be silly or disrupt meetings." The people who tend to act disruptive are very good at ignoring such proclamations. And having that authority _just_ raise dues and require that people pay them in order to go to events won't even create a proclamation to be ignored. If you are looking to the corporation to make everyone in the SCA develop an interest in history (or for that matter in anything else), you are looking in the wrong place. No matter what the corporation does, and no matter how it is organized, these problems will remain, and will have to be dealt with locally. As a final note: I lived for a long time in a barony populated mostly by college students. For a variety of historical reasons, a high percentage of our participants tended to be paid members. And had Alysoun come to one of our meetings, I doubt she would have seen much difference between it and what she was used to, right down to never knowing how much space we'd need. There are lots of ways that the structure of the organization can affect the actual game. Lord knows that raising dues enough and requiring memberships can cut the total numbers, which would change us; but there's no reason to believe that in doing so, it will select for people who act any particular way (except economically). With respect: I think that in considering issues of corporate structure, it is crucial to focus on goals that the corporation can realistically be expected to approach, and effects that corporate actions can realistically be expected to achieve. Changing human nature, and making everybody want the same things, do not make that list. -- Katerine/Terry From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 19 17:58:12 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: 1280 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 17:40:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Aylsoun: re Fiacha (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602192024.OAA01833@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Feb 19, 96 02:24:58 pm > But the protections in the by-laws that made both _impossible_ prior to > January 1994 not only have not been restored, but have not even been > officially _reconsidered_: there is nothing in the Board Minutes suggesting > that the Board has even given serious thought to giving back that part of > what it took away -- and took away in a process that violated several > procedures and a provision in the by-laws. Magnus asked: Would someone be so kind as to Precisely and in some detail explain this portion? Surely. By Laws V.C.2 was modified from: "[...] While all participants in the Society's activities are encouraged to become members, membership is a requirement only for persons holding office or entering formal competition for the privilege of holding office. Participation in tournaments, revels, re-creations, or other Society events does not require membership." This language was struck from the By Laws, and the section rewritten. The Board also violated it's bylaws, and the policy and procedures manual, in the process of making the change: it held a meeting later that day when the error was pointed out: also in a fashion that violated the bylaws. Never the less, the language was treated as if it were adopted. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 20 00:11:06 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, 19 Feb 1996 23:54:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: 15 member Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (I'm back after an absence for Estrella. Therefore, this and a couple of following messages will probably say things those who stayed behind have already said - but I want to get my two cents in immediately after reading the messages, rather than after reading everything. I'm old and senile, you know.) A couple of messages received at this end Thursday and Friday referred to Board member burn-out, which was tied into a faint thread about increasing the size of the Board which would lead to sub-committees. I think. The main alternative to increasing the Board membership to decreas individual workload is, of course, decrease the overall workload of the Board. This leads me to remind y'all of a faint proposal I posted a couple of weeks ago: split the Board into the Board of the SCA, Inc. (America), and the Board of the Dream (tm) to handle non-mundane issues. Reread it. And, please, stay focussed. We've got less than a year to go. alban (who's changing style because of previous commentary). From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 20 11:26:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:11:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Re Terry To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hang on, I am not making this as an argument. I am explaining how I saw it at the time and it is relevant because there are a good many people out there who not only feel this way but would be a lot more comfortable if the whole thing was professionalized. First, I have to underline that I'm not pushing scholarly papers. In trying to be polite, I used "immature, silly, and tacky" to describe the behavior that was troublesome and may have given an impression that some people were being too noisy for the rest of us to work. No. I am talking about rude, crude, and coarse behavior--behavior that would be actionable as harassment, behavior that would not be permitted in a public place such as a park and could be considered illegal if not an outright felony. And when I said "medieval" activities, I mean SCA things like respecting royalty. If we keep trying to push this into a party mavin/authenticity mavin mold we are going to miss the whole problem. My reconstruction of board actions I'll bet that the primary reason for repositioning was in consideration of legal matters. A professional--and we had one at the time--would put very high priority on public image, because he would know that it is too expensive to ignore it. Being named in court as contributing to delinquent behavior, being placed on black lists by church communities, being refused sites or having local groups banned on campus--this is bad stuff. An organization cannot let these things slide--they accumulate and multiply. But how can we afford to run here and there stomping out brushfires? Better to reduce the possibility of these things happening by presenting a better image. One way to make the organization more "respectable" is to consolidate a "respectable" membership. And, like it or not, there is a strong correlation in the US between respectability and socioeconomic status. The general thought is that wealthier citizens have more to lose and therefore are more circumspect in their behavior--education etc also comes into play. If you require membership and raise the dues (and rumor has it that they considered an even stiffer hike), you immediately alter the membership profile. On Versions and Styles Terry describes three approaches. These are seen as the usual options whether we are talking local level or the Known World. 1) Articulate an attractive model and invite people to play. This is exactly what the corporate model is and there are a good many people who want to play that model. 2) Let it be known that certain behaviors won't be tolerated. This will be push and shove until some group achieves a critical mass. As Galleron pointed out--the board has no way to determine the druthers of the majority and neither do we. Do we want board elections to be the proving ground? 3) Separate ways: This option hasn't been fully discussed but it is a way of avoiding the conflict in 2). So far plans for dividing the SCA have been based on geography--no one seems willing to think of dividing it by game model, yet that is where the tension is. This isn't something to do with a stroke of the pen--it would be a gradual, self-selecting process. I want there to be a 4). I wonder how different the versions really are. Can we tinker with the model the corporation presents to defuse tensions? Are there things that we could recommend that would help us to grow together? We are running out of time as a council for making any kind of study (are some kingdoms more prone to these tensions than others and why? Are some groups immune to them and if so what can we learn from them?) but we can recommend that such studies be made. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 20 11:26:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 11:11:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Re Terry To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hang on, I am not making this as an argument. I am explaining how I saw it at the time and it is relevant because there are a good many people out there who not only feel this way but would be a lot more comfortable if the whole thing was professionalized. First, I have to underline that I'm not pushing scholarly papers. In trying to be polite, I used "immature, silly, and tacky" to describe the behavior that was troublesome and may have given an impression that some people were being too noisy for the rest of us to work. No. I am talking about rude, crude, and coarse behavior--behavior that would be actionable as harassment, behavior that would not be permitted in a public place such as a park and could be considered illegal if not an outright felony. And when I said "medieval" activities, I mean SCA things like respecting royalty. If we keep trying to push this into a party mavin/authenticity mavin mold we are going to miss the whole problem. My reconstruction of board actions I'll bet that the primary reason for repositioning was in consideration of legal matters. A professional--and we had one at the time--would put very high priority on public image, because he would know that it is too expensive to ignore it. Being named in court as contributing to delinquent behavior, being placed on black lists by church communities, being refused sites or having local groups banned on campus--this is bad stuff. An organization cannot let these things slide--they accumulate and multiply. But how can we afford to run here and there stomping out brushfires? Better to reduce the possibility of these things happening by presenting a better image. One way to make the organization more "respectable" is to consolidate a "respectable" membership. And, like it or not, there is a strong correlation in the US between respectability and socioeconomic status. The general thought is that wealthier citizens have more to lose and therefore are more circumspect in their behavior--education etc also comes into play. If you require membership and raise the dues (and rumor has it that they considered an even stiffer hike), you immediately alter the membership profile. On Versions and Styles Terry describes three approaches. These are seen as the usual options whether we are talking local level or the Known World. 1) Articulate an attractive model and invite people to play. This is exactly what the corporate model is and there are a good many people who want to play that model. 2) Let it be known that certain behaviors won't be tolerated. This will be push and shove until some group achieves a critical mass. As Galleron pointed out--the board has no way to determine the druthers of the majority and neither do we. Do we want board elections to be the proving ground? 3) Separate ways: This option hasn't been fully discussed but it is a way of avoiding the conflict in 2). So far plans for dividing the SCA have been based on geography--no one seems willing to think of dividing it by game model, yet that is where the tension is. This isn't something to do with a stroke of the pen--it would be a gradual, self-selecting process. I want there to be a 4). I wonder how different the versions really are. Can we tinker with the model the corporation presents to defuse tensions? Are there things that we could recommend that would help us to grow together? We are running out of time as a council for making any kind of study (are some kingdoms more prone to these tensions than others and why? Are some groups immune to them and if so what can we learn from them?) but we can recommend that such studies be made. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 20 14:04:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 13:49:53 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Re Terry To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960220111106_327587377@emout10.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes about problems in her local group: >No. I am talking about rude, >crude, and coarse behavior--behavior that would be actionable as harassment, >behavior that would not be permitted in a public place such as a park and >could be considered illegal if not an outright felony. Understood -- but still, I think, largely irrelevant. I've seen behaviour such as you describe, more than a few times. In my case, it's mostly been *paid* members who've perpetrated it. Correlation doesn't demonstrate causation. You're right that a somewhat clearer understanding of what the game is about *might* help this somewhat. But that's mostly or entirely orthogonal to the membership argument -- a professional Corporation isn't necessarily going to fix this problem, nor is it necessary to fixing it. And, frankly, I am *extremely* skeptical that *any* high-level approach will work for the problem you describe. The fact is, the SCA is not homogeneous, nor is it ever likely to become so. (Nor would I particularly like to see it become such.) That being the case, local culture seems to have far more to do with these problems than anything else. We haven't tended to experience this problem so severely around here, mostly because it has been firmly squished whenever it's arisen. I know that's of little comfort, if you don't have that culture inculcated -- there may not always *be* an easy solution to such problems... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Avoidification of neologisms strengthenifies your prosification." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 20 23:51:08 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:37:33 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: On accountability and oversight To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Briefly, I would suggest that it is not possible to have an effective oversight body charged with evaluating the quality of decisions and possessing less information than the body they oversee. You can rely on a strict code (e.g. Constitution with an active interpreting court) against which the other body can measure actions (not "was it wise" but "was it legal"). You can also rely on experts, people experienced in that position (e.g. an oversight committee of former directors). You otherwise base oversight on popular opinion. In a large and diverse group, I cannot at this time see a way in which you could effectively do this and a) keep the focus of our events and local meetings on the medieval b) avoid the deleterious work of demagogues (for you would need to quickly arouse the interest of a large number of people and passion, especially that independent of the hard work of balanced perspective, is the quickest and easiest way to do this) and c) give the board the freedom to act with self volition, rather than on an "opinion poll of the week" model or a "do nothing because they are looking over our shoulders" model. I believe the best route to accountability lies in holding the board accountable for engaging the society in an ongoing discussion of the truly important issues, then in forging guiding statements. This process requires neither secrecy, discretionary handling of sensitive information, nor special (generally unavailable) knowledge. Let the officers, the administrators, do the administrating, held accountable for the direction decided upon by the membership and expressed by the board. Different kinds of decisions requiring different kinds of oversight. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 21 10:59:44 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: 3000 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:46:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Board Size. Maintaining Council's Focus (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:41:41 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Board Size. Maintaining Council's Focus Please Forward to GC It seems that, for roughly the same travel cost as the current board size and meeting schedule (4x7=28), we have two other alternatives: Morgan's relaxed attendance requirement: If directors were allowed to miss up to two meetings a year, and attended an average of three, a nine member board would have about the same number present at each meeting as the current board, and about the same travel cost (3x9=27) Presumably you would want to require advance notice from directors not attending, or you might have four directors fly to a distant city only to discover that they had no quorum. I would also presume you would want to modify the by-laws to allow the board to make at least some decisions by a vote of a majority of the directors present, rather than a majority of the total number of directors as the by-laws now require. Otherwise, if only a minimum quorum is present you'd need a unanimous vote to do anything, right? One of the things I like about this plan is that it allows the committees of the board to meet face to face as needed each quarter, which is a weakness of the 15/5 plan. (unless you budget additional travel for that) 15/5: With 15 directors attending one annual meeting a year, and otherwise acting as committees of correspondence, and a 5-7 member executive committee (with all but four from the same part of the country) meeting three additional times to transact routine business, your travel cost is 15+(3x4)=27 Since any of these options would work with any of the more popular board selection options, but would require some modification of the specific details of the final proposal (number of directors chosen in each election, etc.) I suggest that the selection proposals all be framed on the basis of the current seven member board, and board size be a separate question, either on the same ballot or a different one. Alban writes: "The main alternative to increasing the Board membership to decrease individual workload is, of course, decrease the overall workload of the Board." Yes, but the two aren't mutually exclusive. If you cut the board workload in half, and spread it over twice as many directors, you'll still have each director doing more than the directors of most non-profits. I would also like to see the board spin off some of its functions, but that is a later agenda item. I think the argument for a larger board is not simply to spread the workload, but to allow a broader and more diverse board. Speaking of the agenda, hasn't some of the current discussion wandered a bit away from the current subjects of board selection and removal, and ways to cause the repeal or reconsideration of unfortunate board actions? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 21 11:00:17 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:46:36 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: On accountability and oversight To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1315720.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> (message from Roy Gathercoal on Tue, 20 Feb 1996 20:37:33 -0800) Gareth writes: >I believe the best route to accountability lies in holding the board >accountable for engaging the society in an ongoing discussion of the truly >important issues, then in forging guiding statements. This makes a good deal of sense, but I'm having trouble making it concrete. In what *way* would you hold them accountable? This really is the nub of the issue -- what is the best method to hold the Board accountable for their actions? Elections are one method that people have been propounding; removal and/or vetos of some sort are another. None are by any means ideal. Any better ideas? (In other words -- I largely agree with your goal here, but I think we need more than just saying, "The Board is accountable for this"; we need something at least *vaguely* resembling an enforcement mechanism, some way of determining whether the goal is being accomplished, and expressing that...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Haggis: makes 3 Haggis, enough for 8-10 if the guests are Scottish. Enough for 50 if your guests are Norwegian!" -- Jeff Smith