From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 21 16:20:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 15:58:51 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Board Size. Maintaining Council's Focus (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eric... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:25:48 -0600 (CST) >From: Ron Fleig >Subject: Re: Galleron: Board Size. Maintaining Council's Focus (fwd) > For Galleron, by Tibor > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 10:41:41 -0500 > It seems that, for roughly the same travel cost as the current board size and > meeting schedule (4x7=28), we have two other alternatives: > 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 > I think the argument for a larger board is not simply to spread the workload, > but to allow a broader and more diverse board. > > Galleron > I like the idea of a larger board with committees with the board meeting infrequently and the committees meeting as needed. What if a larger board (20 or more members) were to meet twice a year at the two "great war's" - Pensic and Estrella? They occur about six months appart and at opposite sides of the country. Expenses could be cut drasticly and much more exposure to the populas in general would be gained. Eric the Wanderer of the Flying Dragon's Cave Ron Fleig urfleig@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 04:30:52 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, 22 Feb 1996 10:48:54 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Fiacha: Recalls and Reversals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I agree wholeheartedly with Fiacha's analysis, but I'm not quite ready to endorse his pesimistic conclusion quite yet. If there is to be any meaningful solution to the problem of responsibility, the information and timing issues need to be addressed first, and I think they can be fixed fairly quickly and efficiently, the board willing (as some of its members claim it is). I believe that the indirectness, complexity and opaqueness of the ways information gets passed on, is a big part of the problem. By the time the regular participant gets to hear about a board decision, it's been filtered through several official layers and passed around the grapevine considerably. So, if the participant gets sore about what (s)he believes is a negative way the decision will influence his/her game, the reaction can very well regard an intermediate officer's interpretation, or simply a rumor. Then, if said member goes and writes a letter to the board, or takes local action to sabotage the implementation of the decision, the board feels it's being unfairly attacked, and starts digging trenches instead of listening to what people have to say and explaning its decisions. This is a great way to foster miscommunication. If the board really *is* prepared to listen to people's opinions, it ought to be willing to tell them directly *what* there is to have an opinion about. A way that could be implemented fairly quickly would be appointing a board representative (ombudsman?) to keep in touch with Kingdom chroniclers and provide them with information about the board's activities: "the next board meeting is on (date) in (place), and such and such matters are on the agenda"; "at its latest meeting the board discussed X and decided Y". ( One reason why people don't comment on board candidates is, they aren't only unfamiliar with the candidates, they don't even know what the board really does and how. ) An official WWW site for board information wouldn't hurt either. Everyone in the SCA doesn't have net access, but most local groups have someone who has. Even Mongolia has its own Internet service, and the government of Georgia (Caucasus, not US) has its own home page. So why not the SCA board? No matter what model we end up with for board appointments, there will always be a need for direct, fast channels for official information. More straight information, faster and more directly, less secrecy, no sob stories of the kind we've been getting officially from the board ("we mean so well and it's so lonely at the top, we've had to do this but we can't tell you why, and you wouldn't understand anyway, so just be nice and run off and play and trust us..."), would have saved lots of bad blood all around in the past two years. Could we suggest to the board that it should learn from this and fix the communication problem? /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 07:15:42 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, 22 Feb 1996 04:00:22 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In response to my post, Justin wrote: >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? One key to this problem (oversight of an ultimate body) lies in changing the nature of the responsibilities. It is much easier for a group to provide oversight without falling across either line of over- or under-management if they are dealing on a higher level of abstraction. One example of this is the principle of civilian control of the military. (I use this example cautiously, and narrowly). The "civilians" are not concerned with the same issues as are the military--they are dealing with another level of abstraction--and so can more easily, though of course not perfectly, walk the line of acceptable oversight. As long as the board is dealing with the same issues as the crowns and society officers they will be likely to sometimes act when they shouldn't and neglect to act when they should. Given this scenario, a direct way for the board to avoid these excesses is to work harder at understanding the complex issues that present themselves in these decisions--more work for the directors. So one part of the answer is that there is benefit in changing the nature of the oversight group. A second part of one answer lies in the resulting openness of the board procedings. If the board serves as chief administrative body, as is now the case, it would be pure folly to open the deliberations to all comers. Civility is an important part of our Society, and part of civility is refraining from causing embarrassment when possible, even of those probably guilty of some infraction. I would enjoy the Society less if all of the complaints made against Crowns, officers and other prominent people were made public--especially as this would then provide a wonderful forum for those wishing to receive more attention. We could, of course, develop a detailed set of rules covering evidence, testimony, adjudication procedures, etc. in order to protect the innocent (as well as the guilty) but again, this is not the sort of thing I wish to see in the Society. One of the reasons we are able to be different, to feel different is that we do not regularly air our soiled things for all to enjoy. This aspect of the Society should not change. However, if the board were not reviewing administrative decisions to see if they would come to the same decision if faced with the same information (as is historically the case) but rather was charged with determining whether the actions of the various leaderships of the Society were moving us in the right direction, most board meetings could be open. Decisions such as "should we require membership in order to participate in martial combat" would be reviewed not by attempting to decide which side really has the toughest lawyers, or whether we really do need to cover our subscription liabilities or six month's reserves, but rather by reviewing whether this complex of decisions (seldom simple or isolated) is moving us closer or farther from the society we collectively wish to become. It may be that the board would say, "this is a move in the wrong direction--it is costing us too much of what should be most important to us--therefore we need to solve our financial problems in way that will not jeopardize our identity." It may also be that the board would say "this is indeed a good decision, for not only may it address our financial situation, but it is in accord with our desired future." It is because the board is dealing with issues of values and not specific administrative decisions that the deliberations can be open. There are thus few situations in which the board could brush off dissent by saying "we know things we can't tell you--trust us." Thus a second part of the answer is that all board meetings could be held openly and publically. A third part of one answer is that the board would not be responsble for generating these positions as product, but rather for building and maintaining and preserving the process by which these positions are derived. The difference is crucial. The board would not be charged with meeting together to decide what the Society ought to look like in the future, but rather with finding ways to engage members of the society with each other so that positions can be forged or distilled (pick your a&s metaphor) from the dialog. It would be naive to suggest that the board could simply write a series of questionnaires to find out what everyone agrees upon. I am fairly confident that most of us don't agree on much. But if we are to have a society, and not just another club, we must focus more on the community aspects of our relationships, and this takes work. It is worth the attention of the board of directors. People in An Tir should understand how the Society is played in Calontir. This does not mean that we should all play alike, but that we should be aware of some of the possibilities for play that exist. I also believe that as people learn more about the concerns of people from other areas (perhaps even >from other parts of their own kingdom) that some of the "weird" practices might become more understandable, and common ground, once obscured by provincialism, might become visible. With hard work at a task worthy of the efforts of some of our most skilled and experienced people we can together move and be moved towards consensus on key issues. Perhaps this will result in some people recognizing that they really would be better off in another group with resonant goals. Perhaps it will make the Society even more attractive by clearly making a statement about who we are and why. We all should be constructive participants in working to find, identify or perhaps create the sorts of common values that will tie us together more closely than will any voting structure. I am concerned that much of the discussion so far places the emphasis on creating a guillotine by which bad people can be frightened into compliance, rather than on a way to engage more people in building something together. Some examples of board-encouraged/led/sponsored/acknowledged activities could include kingdom college sessions on different visions for the future of the SCA, moderated "town hall" or althing-like sessions at large events in which people are encouraged to discuss difficult issues with civility, sponsored "cultural exchange" projects between kingdoms, printed "white papers" presenting pros and cons of various possible courses. Without too much regard to the specific vehicles, I intend to point here to the role of the board as process-oriented, as charged with the ongoing development of a continuing dialog across the entire Society. It is true that the board will be called upon to interpret the developed vision for the Society in their role as overseers of the kingdoms and society officers, but this role is one of holding these decisions up to a standard--not of unilaterally deciding what the standard should be this quarter. This fourth point, then, provides accountability for if we are talking among ourselves about these important issues, it will be quickly and unequivocally apparent if the board should tell us that we all agree on some value on which we are agreed in our opposition. Further, if we are not talking among ourselves, then it is apparent that the board is not performing its duty, which is to facilitate that discussion. Justin, I hope I have answered your question directly. The short answer is that true accountability comes in the diversity of the task and in real contact among the various constituents--not in direct command, appointment or removal authority. Some of the most effective accountability currently in the SCA is exercized by people who have no formal authority over those who formally have near-total authority. This accountability is real, although it will never show up on an organizational chart. But I take most organizational charts to be pleasnt conceits, at best (another tale). Let us take care with which problems we choose to replace our current problems. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 09:37:10 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: 982 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 09:26:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1326538.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> from "Roy Gathercoal" at Feb 22, 96 04:00:22 am Greetings from Tibor. Gareth wrote: 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? Well, I think those ideas, while not perfect, are decent successive approximations. I can't think of any other, post-facto ideas. But, the word post-facto is key. I think that (once we settle these agenda items) that we ought to consider preventing errors, instead of correcting them. Gareth, while you are speaking well and clearly for the lack of perfection of these approaches, you do not undermine them: you merely demark their limitations. Is a decent solution better than no solution at all, merely because it is imperfect? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 11:08:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:56:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Council on Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I appreciate Galleron's efforts to get us to settle something and I think the discussion and the straw vote have been fruitful. But in thinking about proposals, do we have to get specific? There is a strong thrust to come up with a proposal that has every t crossed and i dotted. "The board should consist of this many members, be formed in this way, with meetings at this time, and members can be removed in this fashion." The idea is that such a proposal would definitively "fix" things if the board adopts it. But the Council would also serve its purpose with more general recommendations. I am seeing much more agreement on what's wrong than on what is the best way to fix it. If the Council could endorse things like what Catrin just posted with a strong united voice wouldn't this send a stronger message to the board than a more specific proposal with several minority reports attached? A specific proposal can generate so much quibbling over details (in the council, in the board, among the membership) that the point of the proposal can get lost. If at the end of our time the Council can give the Board and the people a clear statement of our expectations for the future, something to measure all specific actions against, it would prove more useful in the long run. Our real concern is not whether the board is elected, it is how the board works with the membership. We are talking about elections as a way to improve how the board works with the membership. Our real concern with the number of board members, how the board meets, where the board meets, how long terms are, and how to get rid of board members is how to improve how the board works with the membership. I think it would be better to concentrate on stating clearly and firmly what the goal is. Earlier someone mentioned a Bill of Rights--I wouldn't call it that exactly, more like a Statement of Direction. From the start I have maintained that what is on paper--the bylaws, corpora, basic structure--is sound. The trouble comes in unstated policy, how those things are being carried out. That is what we need to focus on. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 11:12:56 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, 22 Feb 1996 17:31:40 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 10:26:05 -0500 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >To: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se >Subject: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues > >Catrin, in a message dated 96-02-22 04:20:50 EST, you write: > >>An official WWW site for board information wouldn't hurt either. > >There is one now, reachable through the SCA web page at: >http://www2.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/sca/ >(soon to change to: http://www.sca.org) > >Get to it through people and customs. Its URL is: >http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/sca/customs/BOD.html > >Currently, the only board info on there now is the names of the directors, >e-mail links for most of them, and pictures of some of them. > >However, I don't see any reason why the board couldn't post the agenda for >the next board meeting there, as well as the text of the most recent board >proceedings. > >And, while the current TI schedule may mesh poorly with the dates for the >board meetings, I don't see any reason why you couldn't shift one or the >other enough to give time for a decent summary of major decisions to appear >in the next TI. You'd still have a lag because of printing and mailing time, >but it would be reduced. > >I think both of these things are worth doing, regardless of what else the >Council decides. > >On another matter, what are typical terms and sizes for elected nominating >committees in the European non-profits you are familiar with? Does the seven >member nominating committee I suggested a while back, with staggered two year >terms, sound reasonable if we have a 7-9 member board? > >Normal US practice is to have the nominating committee a subset of a rather >larger board. However, I am reluctant to make proposals that will increase >board expense, since it seems to be a red flag for a lot of Scadians. I don't >want sensible reform proposals to fail because of negative reactions to >increased expense: I would rather see that dealt with as another issue. > >You can post this if you like > >Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 11:29:23 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: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 17:48:29 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues Comments: To: WMclean290@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/sca/customs/BOD.html Thanks for the information. It *is* a bit symptomatic, though, that I didn't know, although I'm both computer literate and interested in SCA politics. *Having* a site does little good if the only way for people to find out about it is by stumbling over it while surfing. When my office went on the Web, we spread the word in all available paper publications precisely because we *wanted* people to be able to find us. Posting the board agenda and proceedings there would seem pretty natural to me; obviously the board doesn't find it so. >And, while the current TI schedule may mesh poorly with the dates for the >board meetings, I don't see any reason why you couldn't shift one or the >other enough to give time for a decent summary of major decisions to appear >in the next TI. You'd still have a lag because of printing and mailing time, >but it would be reduced. The delay would still be fairly absurd, that's why I suggested direct contact with kingdom chroniclers. Suddenly we're into the nature and identity of TI: either it's supposed to be a fairly classy medievalist magazine, or a vehicle for disseminating SCA organizational information. I don't think we can have it both ways, as the technical requirements for these two types of publications are practically each other's opposites. >On another matter, what are typical terms and sizes for elected nominating >committees in the European non-profits you are familiar with? Does the seven >member nominating committee I suggested a while back, with staggered two year >terms, sound reasonable if we have a 7-9 member board? The groups I'm active in are fairly small-time, ranging from ten to a few hundred members, so they manage fine with nominating committees consisting of 1-3 people; presumably the SCA would need more than that, or maybe not, depending on what kind of information you'd require from the candidates. Our nominating committees get elected along with the rest of the board (or the part of the board that needs replacing) at the annual business meeting. >Normal US practice is to have the nominating committee a subset of a rather >larger board. Over here, the nominating committee is normally technically *not* a subset of the board. It's an independent entity just like the auditor(s). The theory is that those who select future board candidates, and those who check on the board's handling of the finances, must not themselves be part of the board. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 12:49:26 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 45 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:28:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Communication between Corp and Membershi To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Corporation information cannot be shifted down to the Kingdom Newsletters, at least not in the big Kingdoms. TI can do a better job and still be a classy re-creationist magazine. In the Middle, it is difficult to wedge in all the event announcements groups want to put it. The allowed space and frequency of announcements has been shrinking for years, in an effort to get in the basic event announcements that groups want in. This and *Kingdom* info announcements have long ago squeezed out all general interest material -- at least until our current Chronicler by heroic efforts one presumes, created some Middle Pages with non-event, non-officer (usually) related material. The irony is that 90% of the events listed in the MK newsletter are too far away for you to even consider going to -- no matter where you live. This is a consequence of two factors: overlarge kingdoms, and overcentralized communications. The Corporation and the Board fought for years to force everyone to put everything that really counted in the Kingdom newsletters, and now we got this problem. But back to TI: The Fall 1995 issue of TI has, not counting the inside cover's listing of officers 1 page and 1/2 of corporate communications -- and the half page is the Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation required by the USPS. This is hardly overkill! TI could easily run four pages of good info about issues facing the Society and the Corporation every issue. Put it in the back, where it will not offend the eyes of those who want to build better armor or pavilions (no scorn intended -- this should be the primary role of TI). Put it in small print. Those who are really interested will read it anyway! Make sure that the key policy issues and not just routine officer reports get put in (and DO NOT saddle the TI editor with making this decision). And ENCOURAGE the use of WWW, e-mail, and special interest printed newsletters for all sorts of communication. The Board itself, and any body faced with sorting out game issues in the future has got to be far more open. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 13:05:37 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: 682 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:54:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: Council on Board To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960222105642_150657002@mail06.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Feb 22, 96 10:56:43 am Greetings from Tibor. Alisoun wrote: There is a strong thrust to come up with a proposal that has every t crossed and i dotted. "The board should consist of this many members, be formed in this way, with meetings at this time, and members can be removed in this fashion." The idea is that such a proposal would definitively "fix" things if the board adopts it. But the Council would also serve its purpose with more general recommendations. But, that would run quite contrary to the Board's request for proposals, and their specific approval of the style and format of the IKC banishment proposal. We had best give them what they want in terms of style. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 14:15:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 14:03:34 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1326538.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> (message from Roy Gathercoal on Thu, 22 Feb 1996 04:00:22 -0800) Gareth replies to my question about Board accountability with a three-pronged approach, which I would summarize as: -- Changing things so that the Board isn't trying to meddle at the same levels as their administrators; -- Opening up the Board proceedings to the public, insofar as possible; -- Changing the Board's orientation, to focus on engaging the Society in a dialog on the issues, instead of making the decisions themselves. -- The upshot being that this sort of reorientation will produce a truer accountability than a formal mechanism is likely to. (Correct me if I've misrepresented you here.) Overall, I mostly concur -- I think that a refocus such as you describe will at least greatly reduce the frequency with which things run off the rails, since the Board won't be trying to micromanage the Society. Still, it leaves me a little nervous. I am, frankly, an organizational pessimist -- I believe that *every* organization breaks down sooner or later, and that you need some checks and balances for when it does. We're still talking about leaving all the *formal* power in the hands of the Board, although encouraging them to use it extremely sparingly. This'll probably work most of the time. I'd still be more comfortable if we had some means, other than loud nasty uprisings, to deal with the rare occasions that it doesn't. (In other words: I think you're right; I'm just nervous about whether this is completely sufficient.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "How many Norsemen does it take to light a candle? Why bother with a candle? There's a monastery just over the next hill." -- Cariadoc and/or Bjalfi Thordharson From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 14:35:29 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 58 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 14:06:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: My reaction to Straw Vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My reactions to the Straw Poll I have looked over the latest straw poll that I have (2/19) and drawn the some conclusions. First, let me state a key assumption. The Grand Council has some validity as a reflection of opinion in the Society at large; at least, of the opinions of people who have strong opinions. Otherwise we might as well give up, right? Starting here, the straw poll seems to indicate that few of the methods suggested for choosing the Board have a hope in hell of being accepted by the people of the Society. The only options that have substantial support (8 or more people in favor) are: 1. Current method. (Least popular 8/6) 1a. Current maethod with a separte nominating committee. (10/4) 2a. Direct election by all members who ask for ballots. (9/4) Looking at thev otes and reading the commentary, I think the Grand Council is torn between two considerations. Consideration One is the need for some change that will allow the membership to control the Board in a more efficient manner. Consideration Two is a great reluctance to politicize Board selection; there is a skepticism that the real improvement that might be gained will be too small to justify the cost -- not the monetary cost, but the cost to the atmosphere we are trying to create. The force of C. 2 in our own ranks is much greater. I see the fact that many people have not voted at all as a symptom of the power of C. 2. So also the fact that even those who worry a lot about C. 1 seem to want some very simple change, that is not too intrusive or divisive. Staying with the status quo is not very popular, and think that is due to two factors: (1) the s.q. has failed us before and (2) no change in the method of selecting the Board will seem very inadequate to many people who have no trust in the Board. This distrust may or may not be alleviated by some other selection method; however, this distrust is itself a problem in running any kind of SCA, Inc. one can imagine (even radical decentralization in my view). Given all this, I am surprised that the one alternative on the straw poll for bringing membership dissatisfaction with Board *decisions* instead of *personnel* #8, which allows enough dissatisfied people to force a poll on a controversial issue, has so little support. Put me down as supporting it. QUESTION for Serwyl,, Catrin, Arthur, Bertram, Terras, Alban, Nathan, Michael. WHY don't you like it? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 15:43:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:31:35 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Janna G Spanne on Thu, 22 Feb 1996 17:31:40 +0100) Galleron writes: >>An official WWW site for board information wouldn't hurt either. > >There is one now, reachable through the SCA web page at: >http://www2.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/sca/ I *think* you are incorrect. Wolfgang's page has been around for a long time, and is incredibly useful (and is the de facto home page for the Society), but last I checked it had no official imprimateur. Anyone know otherwise? If not, I'd say the right thing to do is for the Board to acknowledge that this really *is* effectively the Society Home Page, and make some use of it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Let me just open this review by saying that there are few things which enhance a midnight film experience more than pogo-hopping kung fu vampires. It's the sort of subtle plot element that a good Hong Kong martial arts film is known throughout the world for, and ENCOUNTERS OF THE SPOOKY KIND, PART II, is a fine addition to the hall of fame." -- from "SIFF Reviews", by Moriarty From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 15:57:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:41:49 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:31:35 EST, Mark Waks writes: > Galleron writes: > >>>An official WWW site for board information wouldn't hurt either. >>> >> >> There is one now, reachable through the SCA web page at: >> http://www2.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/sca/ >> > > I *think* you are incorrect. Wolfgang's page has been around for a long > time, and is incredibly useful (and is the de facto home page for the > Society), but last I checked it had no official imprimateur. Anyone > know otherwise? If not, I'd say the right thing to do is for the > Board to acknowledge that this really *is* effectively the Society > Home Page, and make some use of it... Justin is right. it is _reachable_ through the SCA-west page. Actual address of the official SCA-page is http://www.sca.org/ It is _heavily_ under construction using rodmur and siobhan Medhbh as protagonists. Fast Eddie is the one pushing it. * * * 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 Thu Feb 22 16:21:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 16:09:19 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <45710.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> (message from Flieg Hollander on Thu, 22 Feb 1996 12:41:49 -0800) Flieg mentions: > Actual address of the official SCA-page is http://www.sca.org/ Ah, I see -- I hadn't realized this actually existed yet. This one *is* the official SCA Home Page, or at least says it is. Doesn't contain much of anything yet, except for the Rialto Intro to the SCA, which I've been using for recruiting for several years. Okay, so it looks like people are on top of this issue, to at least some degree; I don't think we need worry about it excessively... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "My most humble and abject apologies if I have ever by word or deed given you the slightest cause to believe that I considered your opinion to be of any importance." -- Tadhg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 19:08:48 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 18:57:55 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: Galleron: Timing and Information Issues >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:31:35 EST." > <9602222031.AA03573@dsd.camb.inmet.com> >Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 15:18:34 -0800 In a previous message, Mark Waks writes: >Galleron writes: >>>An official WWW site for board information wouldn't hurt either. >> >>There is one now, reachable through the SCA web page at: >>http://www2.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/sca/ > >I *think* you are incorrect. Wolfgang's page has been around for a long >time, and is incredibly useful (and is the de facto home page for the >Society), but last I checked it had no official imprimateur. Anyone >know otherwise? If not, I'd say the right thing to do is for the >Board to acknowledge that this really *is* effectively the Society >Home Page, and make some use of it... Speaking for the folks who are holding the "sca.org" name for the society: Edward, after the last board meeting, commissioned us to go ahead and create an official web site. It exists, under construction, at http://www.sca.org Rodmur is the webmaster, and Aldric, Edward, and I are consulting gophers. ;-) We're working on our differences about what, where, and how. Watch for more fun stuff soon -- Edward is really committed to getting lots of good info up on the web. You can reach us with suggestions at "webfolk@sca.org" siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 19:19:57 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: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:10:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Whoa, there! We're getting into philosophical discussions again. What happened to the election proposals? Is there anyone else out there in the vast wasteland who agrees with me in that, since we have a good straw poll, we should formalize it into a proposal for the Board? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 19:33:51 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 102 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:08:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan: Mandatory Membership & Behavior To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Morgan: ========================= I have not had much time to review the many lengthy messages that have come to me, but am at a conference now and can read and type between speakers. (Portable computers should be every child's birthright!) Because of the volume, I am only going to respond to those items which are of especial note or require comment, in my view. Feel free to disagree. I'll start by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with Finnvarr's point that four pages of corporation-related information in TI would hardly be out of line if the information is there. We would, as someone else notes, have to adjust either the publishing schedule (easier) or the Board meetings to allow the production of content. I don't think the lagtime on printing is as great as a third someone implied; I can ask Meredydd AFTER this weekend, as she is getting her Laurel on Saturday and is focussed on non-TI things at the moment. Alysoun said, at the end of a long discourse on her history in and view of the SCA and the Dreame: >> 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. I don't think so. Yes, one year people may be elected along certain lines -- but another year it may be very different. Look at the US Congress. Majority flips among conservative and liberal, Democrat and Republican. So? >> Can we develop a middle ground where we can all live comfortably? No. Why should we? >> Or if not, can we work toward a gradual separation into >> different organizations? Why should we? I'm sorry, Alysoun, I don't see how the situation is as bad as you have painted. In some of my groups we have had the childish folk you have described, especially as three groups in which I have been or am an officer were university-based. Either we try to train them to be more productive, well-behaved members, or we hoped they would go away in a few years aftr they graduated. It didn't always work, but it can be quite impressive to see how well comeone improves when given a good model and complimented when they conform. Yes, it sounds like rearing a two-year-old. For some people, it's not much different. In sum, I agree with Katerine's response. I think that Alysoun gave a very coherent response to Katerine, which gave me a differetn perspective. It is appropriate for the SCA, Inc., to have an overall image to the outside world that is appropriate and not likely to scare people off. It is also appropriate to encourage behavior that will not violate various federal and state laws, no matter how non-period. However, I do not know that merely legislating behavior is going ot improve things; people need to take responsibility for their actions and the actions of others. If nobody heeds the statute or rule, and nobody is willing to enforce it, what's the point? Tibor is quite correct when he says: "the word post-facto is key. I think that (once we settle these agenda items) that we ought to consider preventing errors, instead of correcting them." Catrin had some good points: >> If the board really *is* prepared to listen to people's opinions, >> it ought to be willing to tell them directly *what* there is to >> have an opinion about. >> No matter what model we end up with for board appointments, >> there will always be a need for direct, fast channels for >> official information. More straight information, faster and >> more directly, less secrecy, . . . . . >> Could we suggest to the board that it should learn from this and >> fix the communication problem? I think that this is critical. It has been alluded to by others. I was at the April Board Meeting following the January one (1994), and it really bothered me to have Board memebrs tell us over ales that they WANTED to do stuff, but were barred from so doing. Or that they had information which we could not pass on, but which would explain things -- and often bits of that information, too. We didn't need to hear this in a pub at 2:00am. We needed to hear it in the auditorium at 2:00pm. ---= Morgan From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 22 19:54:37 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 41 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 19:33:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Communication between Corp and Membe To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Dani ========================== On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: >Corporation information cannot be shifted down to the Kingdom Newsletters, >at least not in the big Kingdoms. ....In the Middle, it is difficult to >wedge in all the event announcements groups want... My preferred solution would be to move Corporate announcements to the Kingdom newsletters -- and adjust the subsidies to pay for them. If such announcements came to forty pages a year, for example, the subsidy could be increased by an issue's worth of printing and two ounces worth of first class postage. (I'm simplifying: The pages would be spread out over the year, and the Chronicler would decide which issues to boost to three ounces.) I believe this could actually be cheaper than the current system - as well as significantly more timely. >But back to TI: The Fall 1995 issue of TI has, not counting the inside >cover's listing of officers 1 page and 1/2 of corporate communications... I had occasion to do some page-counting for the year preceeding that: It came to 17.5 pages of corporate communications in the previous four issues of TI - not counting such borderline cases as 3YC announcements. The count would presumably have been lower if officers were required to account for the money spent running their comments. The largest single category in TI is what I'd characterize as "modern middle ages" -- articles on such topics as how to shop for fabric, how to pack for a camping event, how to run a kitchen at a feast, etc. ----- Dani of the Seven Wells dani@telerama.lm.com "[Take] one ounce of aconite, two ounces of good arsenic, a quarter of a pound of pork fat, a pound of wheat flour, and four eggs. Make bread of this..." -- Le menagier de Paris From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 23 03:37:26 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, 23 Feb 1996 09:59:29 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Dani: Communication between Corp and Membe To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >My preferred solution would be to move Corporate announcements to the >Kingdom newsletters -- and adjust the subsidies to pay for them. Exactly. The BoD stuff doesn't need fancy paper - what counts is that the correct information should reach the individual member as soon as is feasible after a decision has been made, or in time for the members to react to an agenda item before the relevant meeting. That means it should be fast and frequent, and Kingdom newsletters serve that purpose far better than TI. The kind of BoD info that I have in mind is time critical in exactly the same way as event announcements and it shouldn't be made to wait for nifty layout or because of a messup at the printers. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 23 11:24:18 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: 449 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:13:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I1IWETZBN69EIU40@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Feb 22, 96 07:10:01 pm Whoa, there! We're getting into philosophical discussions again. What happened to the election proposals? Is there anyone else out there in the vast wasteland who agrees with me in that, since we have a good straw poll, we should formalize it into a proposal for the Board? Yes, Alban, I do. But, what with running a major event in a week, and new responsibilities at work, I haven't much time to write it. Do we have volunteers? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Feb 23 11:27:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 11:15:32 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I1IWETZBN69EIU40@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) >Whoa, there! We're getting into philosophical discussions again. What >happened to the election proposals? Actually, I think this particularly philosophical discussion is immensely relevant to the election thing. It's a question of ends and means. Remember, elections are not (primarily) an end, they're a means to the end of improving Board accountability. Gareth's point is that there are considerably better ways to achieve real accountability than elections. I think he's mostly right -- regardless of whether elections are good or bad, I concur that *redefining* the Board's role is more important. The real question is: are elections *inimical* to that redefinition? I think Gareth thinks so (although I'm not sure); I believe Tibor believes not. Myself, I haven't decided yet, but I don't think it's a crazy idea... > Is there anyone else out there in >the vast wasteland who agrees with me in that, since we have a good straw >poll, we should formalize it into a proposal for the Board? Well, I suspect we should formalize it into *several* proposals for the Board, one for each of the options that didn't sink like a stone, and present the Board with the general opinion on each of those options. I'm still waiting for some of those options to get written into some sort of real proposal, though. (Not least, the current method -- I'd prefer to vote on something a little more clearly codified...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "If you're thinking about becoming a squire, know what you're getting into before you say `yes'. Have an idea of what your relationship will be (or what you want out of a relationship). Remember, stand for something, or you'll fall for anything." -- Sir Chrystofer Kensor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Feb 24 20:16:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 20:02:50 -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 To Tibor I don't see that what Edward wants and what IKAC does means that we have to offer specific proposals. However, if you all are set on it, ok. How about putting a stiff 100% agreed-upon preamble in front of them? I.e., "we all agree that the board needs to . . ." and then we can offer our specific proposal(s). [Provide a rationale] On Communications: We can also send a note of encouragement to the board--just in case future boards aren't as keen on websites etc. Board communication will be greatly improved if we and the board quit thinking in terms of reporting decisions. The board needs to do more advance work and more long-term work. You all did not seem to be interested in Ghita's letter on fund-raising, but this is the sort of stuff I want to see coming out of the board. Not "give us a quick answer before the next meeting" or a "quick reaction to what we just did", but "set the boundaries within which we can work in the future." What methods does the membership think are acceptable? TI will be good in this regard because the time factor is not so critical. In the long run this should cut down on the number of things needing a quick response. Lonely at the top and Board size The board must view the collective society while most of the members are concerned only with a part of it. And the board must give due weight to how the outside world sees the society, when most members don't stop to think about it. And the board should think about long-term direction. The board also must deal with specific cases which probably don't need to be public. All this contributes to a sense of isolation, regardless of how the board is formed. Whether they realize it or not, members have a vested interest in the big picture, the public image, and the Society of the future. Just as we need to pry the board's tight little fingers off some of this stuff we need to convince the membership to put their hands on it. It's a two-way street. I have worked with very efficient large committees in other groups which organized in working subcommittees of equal "power" with the main committee chair serving as a coordinator (as opposed to an executive). The differences between these committees and the SCA board is that they maintained a substantial number of senior members who could train incoming people and the work was well-defined. I do not think we can institute this in the SCA in the near future, but it may be a goal worth working toward. Some board work could be delegated to regional or kingdom committees which would be a training ground and would be able to tailor the work to the local area, as well as upping the interface between board-level considerations and the membership. This was mentioned earlier. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Feb 25 13:42:43 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 10:22:20 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9602212058.AA16972@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from the Chairman, Unless I am mistaken, it is time to spend a month voting on the assorted proposals for selecting members for the Board. We have a clear proposal from Hossein for a total membership election. We have a not so clear proposal for maintaining the status quo. We have one or two other informal proposals. I request volunteers to track votes for each proposal and post summaries of the vote counts with the current wording of each proposal twice a week for the next four weeks. If the first summary is not posted by next weekend, I will not guarantee the proposal appearing in the next report to the Board. Regards Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Feb 25 19:51:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 19:36:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha, I take it from your agenda announcement that it would be appropriate to post the rationale for my proposal and a full text of it in the next few days so that a formal vote can proceed. Is this a proper inference? Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 26 10:56:13 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: 3282 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:37:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Open Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 09:44:06 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Open Issues Please forward to GC Well, I suspect we should formalize it into *several* proposals for the Board, one for each of the options that didn't sink like a stone, and present the Board with the general opinion on each of those options. I'm still waiting for some of those options to get written into some sort of real proposal, though. (Not least, the current method -- I'd prefer to vote on something a little more clearly codified...) -- Justin Yup. As I see it, the significant open issues are: Self-Elected Board/Separate Nominating Committee Several significantly different suggestions have been made: Alysoun: 3 member appointed committee, gathers and forwards comments but does not recommend Galleron: 5 member appointed committee, gathers comments and selects short list Gareth: Committee selected at random Lancelin : Committee actually chooses board. His preferred selection methods are: Chosen at random from volunteers Appointed by kingdoms This duty given to IKAC ( I note that the last two methods give a fairly large committee. My own feeling is that five is sufficient. The GC nominating committee showed that three well chosen people can do a good job of fair and balanced selection, but that the three person committee can be derailed if something happens to one of them.) Suffrage for Proceedings Subscribers Only: There was some discussion of reducing the price of the board proceedings. Presumably this would require somewhat more condensed content. Would someone who wants to push this idea be more specific on this point? In my opinion, charging people $15 extra to vote (the current price) will stoke accusations of cash based elitism. Suggestions not dependent on election method chosen, but which will effect how the by-laws are modified: Shift to 1/3 of Board elected each year in single annual election, even if board continues to elect self Morgan: Larger board with relaxed meeting requirements Me: Larger board meeting anually with smaller executive committee meeting more often My proposal for forced polling on controversial issues. Does everyone really dislike the idea, or was my outline with the straw poll inadequate?. If you do dislike it, why? Communications: Catrin and Alysoun make a number of good points on communication issues. Mostly I agree, with the minor caveat that the time difference for reporting board actions between TI and kingdom newsletters will not be very large with the right schedule. East Kingdom newsletter needs copy about four weeks before mailing, TI's editor told me she can take board stuff six weeks before mailing if she know's it's coming and has some advance notice on length. Pehaps less good for reporting agenda. I agree with Alysoun that at least as important as the agenda and decisions made is putting proposals major policy changes before the membership way in advance. Deadlines are less critical then. Can we make communications recommendations another agenda item? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 26 11:13:26 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 8 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 10:51:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Communications issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron said: > Can we make communications recommendations another agenda item? I concur Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 26 13:03:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:44:24 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Communication To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Siobhan... -- Justin >From: "Pat McGregor" >Subject: Re: Alysoun: Communication >In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Feb 1996 20:02:50 EST." > <960224200250_230456005@emout10.mail.aol.com> >Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 21:58:01 -0800 In a previous message, "Carole C. Roos" writes: >On Communications: >We can also send a note of encouragement to the board--just in case future >boards aren't as keen on websites etc. That would be great, speaking as one of the committee and knowing how hard it was to get this thing up and running. AElflaed and I proposed, in mid 1994, that the board could put out, if it wished, a 8-12 page newsprint newsletter with more timely information than TI, on a monthly or 6-week basis, with not a lot of effort and not huge amounts of money. One of the big arguments about TI was that board communications were stale before they even hit the editor's desk. It might be worth reconsidering. (And no, I'm not even hinting at volunteering. My life's not worth that much right now. ;-) ) siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 26 13:13:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 12:53:05 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Recalls and Reversals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:09:16 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Recalls and Reversals Master Justin! I just got back from a conference, and looke in on what is going on at the Grand Council. I think that people may, possibly, be going in the direction of going overboard in this matter. Fiacha wrote: >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. Actually, various methods such as forced general plebicites, can have rather unfortunate effects. Consider for a moment Japan under the Meiji Constitution. Under the Meiji Constitution, it was very easy for either the Minister of the Army or the Minister of the Navy to bring to down the government. The result was that the government was held hostage by these two ministers and inderectly, by junior ranked officers in their respective military organizations. This at times had disasterous consequences. Essentially, forced referendae can have the same dellitereous effect. A conscerted minority can simply suspend or reverse a decision by the Board of Directors. Any plebicite called specificially for such referendae will, in general, be ignored by the general population. A plebicite associated with a general election will get more attention. However, scheduling such a plebicite with a general election will, require either up to a 23 month delay in reconsidering issues or will require suspending implementation of board actions for a similar period. Either of these solutions will have their own problems. Anticipating board reversals in the face of a referendum petition is doing little more than what prevailed two years ago. This is simply saying that the Board of Directors will pay attention to a sufficiently loud hue and cry. One possible approach is for their existing some sort of society wide court of appeal separate from the Board of Directors. However, a large number of the members of the Grand Council seem to be uncomfortable with such an institution. 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 26 13:46:27 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, 26 Feb 1996 20:01:56 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Communications issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Galleron said: >> Can we make communications recommendations another agenda item? >I concur >Finnvarr YES. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 26 13:55:07 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: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 20:11:18 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Galleron: Open Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > Suffrage for Proceedings Subscribers Only: > There was some discussion of reducing the price of the board proceedings. > Presumably this would require somewhat more condensed content. Would someone > who wants to push this idea be more specific on this point? In my opinion, > charging people $15 extra to vote (the current price) will stoke accusations > of cash based elitism. Considering what we've said about an official WWW site, etc etc, I'd really prefer to make it "proceedings readers" instead of "subscribers". Also, *if* the information/communication issue can be resolved so that the entire general membership gets access to proper information about the Board's work, the "proceedings readers" category would become fairly artificial. In that case, I think that we should go back to seriously discussing the option of giving a vote to anyone who asks for a ballot. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Feb 26 22:51:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 19:31:17 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602260036.TAA27172@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, On Sun, 25 Feb 1996, Greg Rose wrote: > Fiacha, > I take it from your agenda announcement that it would be appropriate > to post the rationale for my proposal and a full text of it in the next > few days so that a formal vote can proceed. Is this a proper inference? > > Hossein/Greg Indeed it is. I am looking for champions for all of the popular approaches to come forward that formal votes can proceed for them too. Regards Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 10:09:47 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: 5361 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:55:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron re: Recall and Repeal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 17:02:53 -0500 Subject: Galleron re: Recall and Repeal Please forward to GC Solveig writes: "Actually, various methods such as forced general plebicites, can have rather unfortunate effects." True, which is why I didn't propose one. Instead, I suggested a mechanism by which a significant petition could trigger a non-binding poll, and require the board to publish the results. The effect on the board would be purely moral and informal, but based on history, probably often effective. The board, however, would not be legally bound by the results of the poll. How is this different from the informal pressure brought to bear during the time of the troubles? Well, it gives both board and Society some quantitative data on how the Society as a whole feels. When pay-to-fight was introduced, sufficient noisy pressure convinced the board to back down. Yet the only *quantitative* data available, the survey the board ran a while before pay-to-fight was introduced , suggests that a strong majority of the Society actually approved of the measure. Since the proposal is relevant to the current agenda items of repeal and recall, which Fiacha has not yet formally tabled, and since it would not preclude the council coming back to more binding measures later, can the council vote on it as well? For those who have forgotten the proposal, it is: 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. 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. 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 petioners 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 porportion 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 non-binding vote of confidence on a director or directors. In that case the poll question would be "The performance and actions of Director X on the board have not been in the best interests of the Society" Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 10:12:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:59:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I was going to repost my original but the computer seems to have eaten it. I'm reconstructing it and welcome input from those leaning toward this approach to make it more agreeable. Rationale: To allow the Board discretionary powers in forming its body while making the selection process more visible to the membership Points: 1. Small (I suggested 3) independent nominating committee 2. Open nominations 3. Nominating committee advertises broadly (applicants' statements on website with periodic updates; board needs posted) 4. Periodic feedback to applicants (nominating committee provides blind report to applicants as well as to board file) If you accept open nominations, there is no need to worry about how to form the nominating committee--they could be appointments. If you want the nominating committee to make the selections or provide a short list, then we have to consider how its members are selected and whether they are working on some agenda, etc. As constructed, the only subjective task the nominating committee has is in making the blind reports and how subjective that is depends on what the letters from the membership look like. If people would write the things more like a business reference it should not be difficult--very personal letters would be more tricky. Note that if we insist on blind reports, we reduce the effectiveness of old-boy networks. Since some of you on the council are "old boys" I want you to be aware of this. Such networks can be valuable but I believe that the general perception is negative. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 10:14:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:59:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Galleron's forced poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Could you run through this again? I'm not worried about this procedure holding the board hostage because unlike Japan's military, we have no disciplined body to make a clear response. It bothers me that we have no real way of polling the membership--it is very difficult to assess opinion unless you go by who is screaming loudest at any one moment. Having some formal procedure in place might make people feel better, but I don't think it's the best route in the long run. As near as I can tell some people are likely to be upset by just about anything that comes down the road. In other words at any point in time somebody would like to circulate a petition about something. What we need is a way of picking up on broad dissatisfaction but not something so sensitive that it registers every localized tremor. If the board will work more in advance (I just got my copy of the Pale and am very impressed with the corporate information) we should eventually grow out of this need. The emphasis is on "eventually" because people are going to have to learn how to do this and I hope the board does not give up on it. Take the fund-raising letter, for example. I have no confidence at this point that the option favored by the majority of players will be the option favored by the majority responding to the letter. It would be great if it works out the same, which would positively reinforce this approach, but it could just as well not. We have not established a habit for this--members aren't accustomed to responding, many may be surprised to discover support for an option they consider unthinkable, etc. It will take time for the membership to learn how to guide and educate the board (and the more divided the membership the longer it will take), but surely this is where we want to go. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 13:46:47 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <199602271455.JAA12601@abel.math.harvard.edu> with last message <199602271455.JAA12601@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: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 14:11:47 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron re: Recall and Repeal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602271455.JAA12601@abel.math.harvard.edu> Yes to Galleron's Petition to require membership polling -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 16:02:02 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, 27 Feb 1996 12:36:55 -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, problems with elections To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor asks (fairly, I believe) >Gareth, while you are speaking well and clearly for the lack of perfection of these approaches, you do not undermine them: you merely demark their limitations. Is a decent solution better than no solution at all, merely because it is imperfect? I would suggest three reasons why these varied solutions, based in formal selection and removal processes, are potentially not good solutions. I am not saying, of course, that any of these could not work, but that they will not likely effectively address the problems we are intending to fix, and might possibly add more problems. 1. Those plans which rely on a popular vote, or a vote of some SCA body (such as the crowns, seneschals, IAC, etc.) run the risk of introducing into our Society the "I didn't vote for him" syndrome. By this I mean that when one has voted against a victorious candidate, it is very easy to enjoy any unpopular decisions in which this director is involved. It is true that in a certain sense we have this with each of our directors (I didn't vote for any of them) yet there is an additional dynamic that occurs once you force people to take a stand for or against, to vote. In New Hampshire there are now far fewer "undecideds" than there were two weeks ago--the act of committing oneself to a formal decision tends to lead one to commit to that person, and against the competition. Thus, it is likely that if there were to be a real choice of candidates (unlike the window dressing elections of most large diverse organizations) each director will have been voted against by a significant portion of those voting. This is an undesirable situation. 2. Partly as a result of this phenomenon, people tend to employ selective hearing in the time before an election. It is unpleasant to vote for someone who holds positions with which I do not agree, so there is considerable incentive for me to reduce cognitive dissonance by understanding what someone has said in a particular light. Note that given the natural ambiguity of language, each hearer will always make interpretations. It is easy for me to select interpretations that make me feel a little better about voting for a particular person. This is not necessarily a bad thing--for it allows me to be even more supportive of the candidates of my choice--until they actually win and have to make some tough decisions. This is to be expected and we would not be conducting this discussion if tough and potentially unpopular decisions were unlikely. Assuming (for the sake of argument) that our board candidates will be of a higher moral quality than are the majority of people in the SCA (among whom opinions change on a frequent yet irregular basis) and so the candidates are not simply saying one thing to get elected then acting in a different fashion such discrepancies between what I expected when I voted for this director and what I got in the way of the tough decisions can be explained in many ways, including ambiguities of language or complexities unknown to me. This is a potentially nasty situation, but again assuming a high moral character all around, I still have to live with the unpopular decisions, and this is going to create a new set of dissonances. I can deal with these (again) in several ways. I can tolerate them for awhile if I have a high capacity for ambiguity/unresolved issues. This, I believe to be a wonderful solution, but one not likely in the majority of people (including, probably me). I could also say "this director knows what should be done, I will just trust." This is also potentially a noble solution, but if it was in fact practiced by most SCA people, we would not have problems with the current system. I could also say "this so-and-so lied to me (or waffled) telling me one thing to get elected and then doing something else once safe in office." This is a most undesirable situation, and one, I fear that is likely. Now if directoral candidates were not campaigning for office (broadly defined as giving me reasons to vote for them) then I would have no basis, and no need, to develop expectations about how they would rule on a particular issue, or class of issues once elected. Because I am not forced to commit to a vote, I do not need to solicit, or even to attend to, information about how these candidates would vote. Therefore I would be less likely to experience betrayal once the elections are over and the decisions start flowing. In decision making, as in many other things, the devil is in the details. 3. Several of these solutions give the appearance of granting real influence to the people of the society, yet in order to produce an effective board, this will need to be mostly appearance. For example, if we continue to maintain an active administrative board, we will be well served by maintaining a broad diversity in our board members. We would be poorly served by a board composed entirely of dukes, of people from the two or three largest kingdoms, or of those whose primary modern experience is accounting. This does not mean that there should be no dukes, large-kingdom folk or accountants on the board, but rather that as long as we have a people's board (instead of a professional board) we should attempt to maintain broad diversity. This is not to say the board is representative, for we would require a board of hundreds or even thousands of directors in order to meaningfully capture the diversity that is present throughout our membership. Yet without even an attempt at representation, we should value diversity. Yet diversity cannot easily happen at the level of the voters. Even with broad knowledge of the skills, interests, abilities and backgrounds of each of the current board members (which would require much information to be distributed to all voters) if we are to be electing multiple directors at one election, the voters would need to know who was also going to be elected in order to cast their vote for a balanced board. Say for example, that there is a real need for someone with accounting experience on the board, and of the seven (or ten, or twenty) nominees, there are three with significant accounting experience. Without knowing whether one or more of these candidates are to be elected, I would not know whether I should vote for one of them or for all three. But if I vote for only one, it is possible that no accountants will be elected, for each accountant will receive only a portion of the votes cast for an accountant. If I vote for all three, it is possible that all three will be elected, and thus we will go from a board with too few, to a board with too many accountants (I will leave it to individual imaginations as to the results, good or bad, of such a board). Further, unless we structure our society in radically modern ways (e.g., establishment of political parties. . .perhaps the monarchists and parliamentarians?) we will need detailed information about people in order to make truly informed decisions about their worthiness to serve on the board. If we rely on certain channels for this information (such as official information sheets written by the board) then our decisions will actually be in the hands of the authors. We will have the appearance of participation, but the real decisions will be made behind closed doors. We could combat this by establishing multiple channels of information, but this then simply privileges the positions of those in control of the established channels. If we see too many channels created, in order to dilute the influence of the official channels, then we have in essence significantly changed our Society by the introduction of parties centered around information channels. So although voting for board candidates may give the appearance of offering real control to the people, unless we invest a great deal of time, resources and effort into this process, the reality will be that the same small group still controls the outcomes. The trappings of democracy may be the real opiate of the people. You might be saying "well this is no different than the situation we have now-a small group of people selects the board members." I agree, and that is my central thesis so far. Adding elections, without significantly (and I believe ill-advisedly) changing the nature of the Society will change nothing except appearances. So why do it? I would prefer to be honest and straightforward about what is happening, rather than to count on hegemonic processes to run the show as we sit back with astonished looks pasted on our faces. This is not to say that we should not ensure that our board of directors does not run amuck, or even to stray too far from our center. This is why accountability is important. My preference is to see our current procedure for removing a director strengthened by allowing the current requirements for impeachment to result in automatic removal, then to focus the directors on questions that can be discussed entirely in the open and to explicitly charge them with leading us all in developing the important discussion about what we should become. They should be charged with the important and difficult task of working to ensure that all voices are heard, and to constantly push towards consensus. To recognize when we are in basic agreement on important issues and to be able to craft statements that capture the spirit of that which we are in agreement. They should be charged with overseeing those making the day-to-day administrative decisions, the officers of the society to ensure that the decisions made are in accord with the directions that the people have set. The board should be proactive, not reactive. Finally, accountability should come through this exposure of the board to us. We will see what the board is doing, we will be able to sit in on nearly all of their deliberations. It is true that we should have recall procedures available for use in emergency situations-when a director says "I don't care what you think, or what my job is supposed to be, I have the power to do what I want." At that point we ought to have a mechanism for booting the fool. But this sort of all-or-nothing measure suffers from its stringency. Most people will be reluctant to take action to throw someone out entirely. If the only punishment available is the death sentence, most petty thieves will be set free. Further, an astute director determined to do wrong will be able to fairly easily block this sort of formal action. As evidence I would point to those few Crowns who have managed, time and again, to break the confidence of the people, break kingdom and corporate rules and still survive their reigns. In many cases, this is because they can rally just enough supporters to cast just enough doubt on their accusers to stall until the issue goes away. A director would be able to do this very thing. Again, we have the appearance of control without its substance. So in summary, I suggest that the proposed voting measures suffer by failing to deliver real control, and that true accountability would come from direct contact, open meetings, and a separation of the administrative functions (which should be conducted privately) from the oversight functions. Further, I believe that the most important issue before us, and the basis upon which we should be guided, is a careful and collective agreement on what our Society should be about. This should be the work of the board. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 16:04:05 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, 27 Feb 1996 12:40:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Fwd: Lancelin: Open Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Roy, will you forward this to the GC list for me? Thanks! - Grant Greetings from Lancelin. My thanks to Galleron for mentioning my proposal. I think that many either missed or misunderstood it, probably because I put in too much preamble. Specifically, it is *not* for a nomination committee. (I think that nominations should be completely open, provided a standard set of criteria for candidates are met.) It is for a selection committee. > Lancelin : Committee actually chooses board. His preferred selection methods > are: > Chosen at random from volunteers > Appointed by kingdoms > This duty given to IKAC > > ( I note that the last two methods give a fairly large committee. My own > feeling is that five is sufficient. The GC nominating committee showed that > three well chosen people can do a good job of fair and balanced selection, > but that the three person committee can be derailed if something happens to > one of them.) I prefer the first method myself, and yes, five members seems about right. The GC committee is a good example to bring up. Choosing five selection committee members at random from among those willing to serve seems to me to be similar to our modern jury selection process. We should presume that the people so selected will be competent to render decisions if given all available information (about Board candidates) and carefully defined parameters (the selection criteria). Because the process is narrowly defined, there is no need to worry about the committee members' biases (regional or otherwise). The Board members would continue to be selected via an informed and reasoned dialog on the basis of SCA and mundane experience, Board balance, and needed skills. But, THE BOARD WOULD NO LONGER BE SELF-SELECTING. This point is, I think, key to satisfying the membership. Nominating committees do not address this. A couple of details to avoid problems: The selection committee members would need to be chosen at random and notified by someone *not* on the Board-- perhaps the Society Seneschal. The criteria for selecting directors could be set by the Board, but it must be published to the membership. The fact that the criteria are published, and are actually implemented by a separate group, avoids the appearance or actual occurrence of any "hidden agenda" in director selection. Galleron also asks: > Can we make communications recommendations another agenda item? I encourage the Council to give this the highest priority. This is the heart and soul of the problems between the membership and the Board. If this is addressed, the membership and the Board can solve the rest of the problems together. 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); Tue, 27 Feb 1996 09:50:16 -0800 Received: by Wright-Patterson AFB Mailgate Tue Feb 27 11:56:12 1996 Received: by rerw.wpafb.af.mil with Microsoft Mail id <31336273@rerw.wpafb.af.mil>; Tue, 27 Feb 96 11:58:43 PST From: "Root, Grant G. (ASC/SMOC)" To: "Gareth (Roy Gathercoal)" Subject: Lancelin: Open Issues Date: Tue, 27 Feb 96 11:50:00 PST Message-ID: <31336273@rerw.wpafb.af.mil> Encoding: 62 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 16:35:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 13:20:48 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Proposal for Nominating Committee for Selection of Candidates for Board of Directors of the SCA Inc. by Frederick of Holland Premise: That the Board will continue to be self-selecting. However, they will establish a nominating committee to screen applicants. In order to have the largest possible pool of applicants, nomination shall not be screened. Since this method does not involve much in the way of changes to the current Governing Documents except for the establishment of the Nominating Committee, the Policies and Procedures for the Nominating Committee are given together with proposed Procedures for Nomination to the Board of Directors. I have attempted to balance confidentiality with freedom of information, and to allow some freedom of the Board to act in its own interest while keeping some control in the hands of those closer to the Kingdoms. This is presented as a complete proposal, but I welcome constructive criticism or proposed amendments. Advantage: Few or no changes to Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws. Complete freedom of nomination and comment by membership. Allows Board input on desired expertise, etc. Allows Board freedom to determine its members based on such intangibles as "ability to play well with others" and personal interactions with current Board members. Disadvantage: Not "representative" or "democratic" (although it is at least as representative as the Electoral College). Actual Proposal: Proposed Charter for Nominating Committee for the SCA, Inc. Board of Directors. To be established by a vote of the Board. I. Composition and Selection of the Committee The Nominating Committee of the SCA, Inc. (Hereafter, NCSCA) shall be comprised of one person selected by each of the various recognized Kingdoms of the SCA and one person appointed by the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. A. Each Kingdom and the Board shall select, by whatever means they deem proper, one member of the NCSCA. Each Kingdom and the Board shall publish and maintain a policy for such selection. B. Members of the NCSCA shall serve two year terms, starting on May 1 and ending on April 30. The terms of half of the members shall expire each year. If a member of the NCSCA resigns before their term is expired, a replacement shall be selected by the Kingdom within three months of the resignation. If the resignation is within six months of the normal end of the term, the selection shall be for the next complete term. Otherwise the selection shall be to fill the unexpired term. C. Each Kingdom shall decide what limits, if any, there shall be on number of consecutive terms which may be served by a member of the Committee. D. Each Kingdom and the Board shall establish a method of removal of their NCSCA member should he or she be deemed by the selecting body as unworthy of continued appointment. The Kingdoms and the Board shall publish and maintain such policies. E. Any member of the NCSCA who does not fulfill the duties of their office as defined below shall be deemed to have resigned. A replacement shall be selected as in section I.B. above. The determination of failure to fulfill duties shall be made by the remainder of the Committee under rules to be established by the Committee. II. Duties of members of the Committee. A. Selection of a Coordinator of the Committee. 1. The Coordinator shall serve a one year term. 2. The Coordinator shall be selected by majority vote of the members of the NCSCA. Any member may volunteer to be coordinator and publish such intent during the month of September. The votes shall be collected from October 1 to October 15 and the Coordinator shall assume his or her office on 1 November and maintain that office until 30 October the following year. B. Establishment of Rules of Operation. 1. The members NCSCA shall establish whatever additional rules they may decide are needed to execute the duties of their Committee. 2. Unless such rules are in violation of Federal or State Law, the By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation of the SCA, Inc., or the provisions of this Charter, the Board of Directors shall not act to set them aside. C. Recruitment of nominees for Director of the SCA, Inc. 1. Each member of the NCSCA is expected to encourage members of the SCA, Inc. to volunteer to be nominated to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. Such encouragement shall not be limited to people residing in their Kingdom. 2. Members of the NCSCA may volunteer themselves to be nominees to the Board. If they are appointed to the Board they will be deemed to have resigned from the NCSCA. C. Commentary on nominees for Director. 1. It is the responsibility of the NCSCA to publish the list of nominees in Tournaments Illuminated and in any other suitable forum and to make sure that this list is well-publicized. 2. Members of the NCSCA shall familiarize themselves as completely as possible with the qualifications of _at_least_ one of the nominees. 3. Members of the NCSCA shall read all commentary on all of the nominees to the Board of Directors. They shall seek out additional commentary when it seems advisable to do so. 4. Commentary on Board nominees shall be confidential and shall not be revealed to anyone outside the Committee except members of the Board of Directors. Names of the commenters shall be removed from the commentary when it is presented to the Board. 5. Any nominee may request to see the commentary on him or herself. This will be provided with the names of the commenters removed in order to encourage candid commentary. Any nominee may submit additional data at any time to answer commentary or to provide additional information. D. Presentation of candidates to the Board of Directors 1. Each year two months prior to the Second Quarter Meeting of the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. the NCSCA shall select a "short list" of six potential Directors to be presented to the Board for possible selection as new Directors in the regular selection process by the Board of Directors. 2. The Chairman of the Board shall give the Committe a list of needed expertise and qualities which the Board feels that it needs in candidates for the next year. This may include such things as geographical diversity, talents and training, etc. 3. Selection of the short list shall be based on the abilities of the candidates as shown by their resumes and experience and on the commentary received by the Committee, in combination with the expressed needs of the Board. 4. If the Board, due to resignations or other actions, needs to select more than two Directors during the year, the Board may request up to three more nominees from the NCSCA for each Director which needs to be selected. If the need appears during the year, the NCSCA shall provide a list of additional candidates within two months of the request. 5. All members of the NCSCA must participate in the selection of the short list. Failure to do so constitutes resignation from the Committee. 6. The list of names on the "short list" will be accompanied by a summary of commentary on the nominee. The Board may request the complete commentary on the nominee if they so desire. If they so request, all commentary must be sent to them in time to be of use in Board deliberations. III. Startup Proceedures for NCSCA. A. Initially, one half (or one half +1) of the appointees shall be appointed to two year terms, and the remaining members shall serve one year terms. The Kingdoms and/or the Board appointee which will have initial one year terms shall be selected by lot. B. The first Coordinator of the NCSCA shall be chosen by lot from the members with two year terms. He or she shall serve for one year and such additional time until the regular selection process can take place. Policy on Nomination to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. A. Any natural person over the age of 21 may be suggested as a nominee to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. Nomination may be made by any member of the SCA, Inc. and shall be sent to the NCSCA Coordinator. Self-nomination is acceptable. B. The nominee must accept the nomination. Acceptance of the nomination shall be in the form of a letter to the NCSCA Coordinator accepting the nomination, accompanied by a resume of the person's experience. Nominees may also submit position papers and any other documentation which they feel may better describe their abilities and desirability as candidates. No person who accepts a nomination may be denied their place on the list of nominees. C. A nomination remains effective for three years from the date of acceptance or until the nominee withdraws his or her name from consideration. Nominations may be renewed without prejudice by a letter >from the nominee stating his or her wish to be extended for an additional three years. D. The list of all current nominees, and of the current short "short list" shall be published in every issue of Tournaments Illuminated and shall be publicized or published in any other way deemed appropriate by the NCSCA. ! * * * 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 27 19:03:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 18:44:49 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <48049.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> (message from Flieg Hollander on Sun, 25 Feb 1996 13:20:48 -0800) Flieg posts a detailed and interesting proposal for a serious nominating committee. Overall, it's not bad; it provides the Kingdoms with some check on things, but leaves the Board in charge. I don't think it's the be-all and end-all solution to our problems, but might well be a good component of one. Specific kibitzes: > 2. Members of the NCSCA may volunteer themselves to be >nominees to the Board. If they are appointed to the Board they will be >deemed to have resigned from the NCSCA. No -- when they allow their names into consideration, they resign. This is necessary; otherwise, they have a strong edge, simply because they are "in the face" of the other members of the committee. It's harder to be frank and open when the person being discussed is in the (virtual) room with you. > 4. Commentary on Board nominees shall be confidential and >shall not be revealed to anyone outside the Committee except members of >the Board of Directors. Names of the commenters shall be removed from >the commentary when it is presented to the Board. Hmm; I don't know if I like this. On the one hand, I can easily see the motivation -- so that people aren't afraid of reprisals -- but it cuts both ways. It's very easy to be unduly nasty about someone who doesn't ever get to know your name. But it might be enough to allow the candidates access to their commentary, and the right to rebut, as proposed... > 1. Each year two months prior to the Second Quarter Meeting of >the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. the NCSCA shall select a "short >list" of six potential Directors to be presented to the Board for >possible selection as new Directors in the regular selection process by >the Board of Directors. We all know what this means, but the eventual policy ought to spell out somewhere what that "regular selection process" is. > B. The first Coordinator of the NCSCA shall be chosen by lot from >the members with two year terms. Among such members who are willing. I can easily see someone being willing to participate in the NCSCA, but not eager to co-ordinate it. >Nomination may be >made by any member of the SCA, Inc. I'm not sure I see any reason for this restriction. It doesn't raise my hackles as some do, but I'm always against restrictions without cause, and I'd say non-member participants are, in general, just as qualified to *nominate* as anyone. (Note that we are *not* talking about any kind of voting here, just nomination.) > B. The nominee must accept the nomination. Acceptance of the >nomination shall be in the form of a letter to the NCSCA Coordinator >accepting the nomination, accompanied by a resume of the person's >experience. We ought to explicitly state that the NCSCA will solicit such letters (that is, they'll tell the person that they've been nominated, and ask if they accept). Often, people are nominated without being told. Overall, a good, well-thought-through proposal. Not a panacea, but a nice variant... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "DEFINITION: The Rialto - a very large `post' revel" -- Bertram of Bearington From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 20:00:00 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <48049.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> with last message <48049.flieg@garnet.berkeley.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: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:21:43 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <48049.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> Yes to Flieg's proposal -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 20:24:10 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 12 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:53:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Flieg's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Definitely worth considering. However, I agree with Justin that allowing people nominated for the Board to work within the NC would be an abuse. Should there be a restriction on NC members, so that they would have to be off the NC for a year before they could be nominated/elected to the Board? We would want to avoid a revolving door effect: Now I'm on the NC, now I'm on the Board, now I'm Kingdom Seneschal, etc. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 20:42:31 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 20:25:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Galleron's Polling Idea To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am inclined to dislike forced polling, simply because the board won't have to do anything with it other than go through the process. So, how about we try something along the lines of "The Board of Directors is encouraged to conduct regular polls of the membership on matters of importance." Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Feb 27 20:58:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:40:54 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Tue, 27 Feb 1996 18:44:49 EST, Mark Waks writes: > Flieg posts a detailed and interesting proposal for a serious > nominating committee. Overall, it's not bad; it provides the Kingdoms > with some check on things, but leaves the Board in charge. I don't > think it's the be-all and end-all solution to our problems, but might > well be a good component of one. > > Specific kibitzes: > >> 2. Members of the NCSCA may volunteer themselves to be >> nominees to the Board. If they are appointed to the Board they will be >> deemed to have resigned from the NCSCA. >> > > No -- when they allow their names into consideration, they resign. > This is necessary; otherwise, they have a strong edge, simply because > they are "in the face" of the other members of the committee. It's > harder to be frank and open when the person being discussed is in > the (virtual) room with you. Hmmmm....Hadn't thought of that. On the other hand, they are also going to be much better known to the NCSCA and that puts them at somewhat of a disadvantage, too. I think it all balances out and I will leave this section as it stands, at least for the moment. > > >> 4. Commentary on Board nominees shall be confidential and >> shall not be revealed to anyone outside the Committee except members of >> the Board of Directors. Names of the commenters shall be removed from >> the commentary when it is presented to the Board. >> > > Hmm; I don't know if I like this. On the one hand, I can easily see > the motivation -- so that people aren't afraid of reprisals -- but > it cuts both ways. It's very easy to be unduly nasty about someone > who doesn't ever get to know your name. But it might be enough to > allow the candidates access to their commentary, and the right to > rebut, as proposed... > That was the point of the "right to rebuttal section". > >> 1. Each year two months prior to the Second Quarter Meeting >> of the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. the NCSCA shall select a >> "short list" of six potential Directors to be presented to the Board >> for possible selection as new Directors in the regular selection >> process by the Board of Directors. >> > > We all know what this means, but the eventual policy ought to spell > out somewhere what that "regular selection process" is. In this case I deliberately left it vague so that the regular selection process could change without changing the Charter. > > >> B. The first Coordinator of the NCSCA shall be chosen by lot from >> the members with two year terms. >> > > Among such members who are willing. I can easily see someone being > willing to participate in the NCSCA, but not eager to co-ordinate it. > > >>Nomination may be >> made by any member of the SCA, Inc. >> > > I'm not sure I see any reason for this restriction. It doesn't raise > my hackles as some do, but I'm always against restrictions without > cause, and I'd say non-member participants are, in general, just as > qualified to *nominate* as anyone. (Note that we are *not* talking > about any kind of voting here, just nomination.) OOPS! That was supposed to be "member of the SCA" with the deliberate implication of vagueness on what constituted a member. The next publication of the proposal will DELETE the INC. (and probably rephrase it.) > > >> B. The nominee must accept the nomination. Acceptance of the >> nomination shall be in the form of a letter to the NCSCA Coordinator >> accepting the nomination, accompanied by a resume of the person's >> experience. >> > > We ought to explicitly state that the NCSCA will solicit such > letters (that is, they'll tell the person that they've been > nominated, and ask if they accept). Often, people are nominated > without being told. Good point. I'll try to write that into the next version (soon). My assupmtions got away from me. > > Overall, a good, well-thought-through proposal. Not a panacea, but > a nice variant... > Not meant to be a panacea. Meant to be workable. * * * 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 27 20:58:26 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:45:56 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Flieg's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:53:00 PST, Steve Muhlberger writes: > Definitely worth considering. > > However, I agree with Justin that allowing people nominated for the Board > to work within the NC would be an abuse. > > Should there be a restriction on NC members, so that they would have to > be off the NC for a year before they could be nominated/elected to the > Board? We would want to avoid a revolving door effect: Now I'm on the > NC, now I'm on the Board, now I'm Kingdom Seneschal, etc. > > Finnvarr > As I noted in my reply to Justin, I think it cuts both ways, but that's two people whom I respect who see it as a problem. I'm going to have to rethink that. What do you and Justin think about the possibility of "onto the short list/off of the NCSCA"? On the other hand, I don't see the necessity for a time-delay for NCSCA to Board transition if we don't allow for NCSCA members to be nominees (or even if we do). NCSCA is a training ground in part for the process of thinking globally rather than in Kingdom-specific terms. Many of the things that will make a good NCSCA member will also make a good Board member. Current events show that it is hard to get people to volunteer for overall-type jobs and we don't want to restrict things too much. * * * 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 28 08:52:17 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: 816 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:41:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Flieg's proposal Comments: To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <63957.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> from "Flieg Hollander" at Feb 25, 96 05:45:56 pm As I noted in my reply to Justin, I think it cuts both ways, but that's two people whom I respect who see it as a problem. I'm going to have to rethink that. What do you and Justin think about the possibility of "onto the short list/off of the NCSCA"? I have lots of thoughts about this particular proposal, but not a lot of time... On this point, however, I can be succinct. I believe that it is very important that the NC be Caesar's wife: in that regard, no member of the NCSCA can be promoted by the NCSA for a decent period of time... define decent as you wish, Flieg: it's your proposal. This shouldn't prevent the Board from having the right to pluck a member of the NCSCA off that committee, and onto the Board, if they so choose. As long as there is not even a taint of favoritism. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 28 11:31:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:15:56 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Flieg's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <63957.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> (message from Flieg Hollander on Sun, 25 Feb 1996 17:45:56 -0800) Flieg asks: > As I noted in my reply to Justin, I think it cuts both ways, but that's >two people whom I respect who see it as a problem. I'm going to have to >rethink that. What do you and Justin think about the possibility of "onto >the short list/off of the NCSCA"? No, it's not enough. The crucial element is that they have to be off the committee when it's discussing them -- by the time they're on the short list, it's much too late. While I don't feel quite as strongly as Finnvarr about having an interval between being on the NC and becoming a nominee (revolving doors are a fact I've gotten used to), I *do* think that, at a minimum, acceptance of a nomination is implicitly a resignation from the NC... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: The History of Usenet "More seriously, the cabal worked for a while. Then it stopped working, and we tried something else. At the time this seemed like the end of the world as we knew it, in reality it was evolution in action (the dinosaurs, as they saw the comet streaking down towards impact, probably reacted similarly. "Shit. Now we'll never get talk.bizarre rmgrouped before those damn mammals take over.")" -- Chuq From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 28 12:27:29 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: 3038 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 12:08:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Flieg Plan, Forced Poll (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 11:56:11 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Flieg Plan, Forced Poll Please forward to GC Flieg Plan Overall, I think this would be an improvement on what we have now. I do have one quibble and two larger observations. In I.B. :"If a member of the NCSCA resigns before their term is expired, a replacement shall be selected by the Kingdom within three months of the resignation." Shouldn't that be "selected by the body that appointed that member", since one of the members is appointed by the board? One disadvantage to the plan is that it yields a fairly large committee, and one that will be still larger in a few years. Not a fatal problem, since the GC and IKAC has shown that even larger committees can function, but you do pay penalties as the size goes up. What about the notion of letting each kingdom and the board put up one candidate each for the nominating committee, and selecting five by lot to serve? In part II: B. Establishment of Rules of Operation. 1. The members NCSCA shall establish whatever additional rules they may decide are needed to execute the duties of their Committee. Based on the experience of the GC, and especially if the committee has as many members as the kingdoms plus one, I strongly suggest that the Council write up a suggested set of rules for holding votes, etc., based on our own experience so that the NC doesn't have the same problem the Council did getting up to speed. The NC can, of course, change them later if it doesn't like them. Forced Poll Alysoun wrote: "Having some formal procedure in place might make people feel better, but I don't think it's the best route in the long run." Let me emphasize that I view this as a belt-and-suspender sort of thing, used in addition too, rather than instead of, some of the other changes we have talked about. My own prefence would be to see it used either with an elected board (suffrage on request) or (2nd choice) a self elected board with a separate nominating committeee. As written, you could use it with either. Alysoun: "What we need is a way of picking up on broad dissatisfaction but not something so sensitive that it registers every localized tremor. One possibility that I've been mulling over is requiring that not more than 60% of the minimum number of signatures to trigger the petion may be satisfied by any single kingdom. Reactions? Alban: "I am inclined to dislike forced polling, simply because the board won't have to do anything with it other than go through the process." Directors didn't "have to" resign during the Troubles, either, but they did. The idea here is to give the board better feedback on what the Society wants, even when it is disinclined to ask for it. Having the option to do so would be at worst harmless, and would sometimes be effective. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 28 12:55:21 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, 28 Feb 1996 19:15:53 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Galleron: Open Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > ..., I suspect we should formalize it into *several* proposals for > the Board, one for each of the options that didn't sink like a > stone, ... > -- Justin Okay, here's my favorite "skeleton". Those of you who like the "voluntary vote" option, help me put more flesh on the bones, or take it apart, or something. My model presupposes that the Board keeps the membership informed by 1) publishing its agenda, decisions and current policy questions in the Kingdom newsletters, 2) keeping this information and the Board proceedings accessible on an *official* WWW site, and 3) making proceedings accessible on paper by subscription. The Board has 12 members; 9 form a quorum. A member may be absent from 2 Board meetings a year. Normally, 4 members are replaced in each year's election. (I'm not married to this particular setup, but it seems practical.) A five member nominating committee (NC) is selected at random from volunteers outside the Board. Its task is to consult the Board and select a short list of nominees. Any member of the SCA can propose a Board candidate, including him/herself. Any NC member who is proposed and accepts Board candidatcy must be replaced on the NC. The short list is presented e.g. in TI or in a supplemet to the Kingdom newsletter. Anyone interested in voting can either register as a voter on the SCA membership form, or ask for a ballot when the election is announced/the short list presented. (This could be connected to everyone covering the mailing costs of their ballot.) The voters may cast either a positive or a negative vote for each candidate - there should be a way of saying "her? no way!" as well as saying yes. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Feb 28 14:33:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 11:20:06 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Galleron: Flieg Plan To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Wed, 28 Feb 1996 12:08:59 -0500, Mark Schuldenfrei writes: > For Galleron, by Tibor. > > > In I.B. :"If a member of the NCSCA resigns before their term is > expired, a replacement shall be selected by the Kingdom within three > months of the resignation." > > Shouldn't that be "selected by the body that appointed that member", > since one of the members is appointed by the board? Yes -- Thank you.... > > One disadvantage to the plan is that it yields a fairly large > committee, and one that will be still larger in a few years. Not a > fatal problem, since the GC and IKAC has shown that even larger > committees can function, but you do pay penalties as the size goes up. > > What about the notion of letting each kingdom and the board put up one > candidate each for the nominating committee, and selecting five by lot > to serve? One of the things that I thought important about this plan was the fact that it would automatically mean that at least one person in the NCSCA would probably _know_ each nominee. Reduction of the size of the Committee increases the "who's she?" factor. The large size was deliberate. > > In part II: > B. Establishment of Rules of Operation. > 1. The members NCSCA shall establish whatever additional > rules they may decide are needed to execute the duties of their > Committee. > Based on the experience of the GC, and especially if the committee has > as many members as the kingdoms plus one, I strongly suggest that the > Council write up a suggested set of rules for holding votes, etc., > based on our own experience so that the NC doesn't have the same > problem the Council did getting up to speed. The NC can, of course, > change them later if it doesn't like them. > That's an idea, but I don't want to make it a part of the Charter. * * * 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 28 20:12:22 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 19:52:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: re Flieg To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L First my great thanks to Galleron for posting me my missing proposal. It appears that the noble Duke has covered everything I considered important. His proposal has a larger committee and it comes up with a short list, but since he has considered how to select the committee members, these are no great matters. I would like to see a statement from the nominees posted along with their names--it's rather much for TI, but not for a website--but I can take that up under communication. I do like the idea of the committee being something of a training ground for people interested in board work (as other board-level committees should be) but think Finnvarr and Justin are right about the timing between membership on the committee and being on the short list for the board. In politics the appearance of conflict of interest is as pertinent as the actual thing--we might think the committee was ignoring good people in favor of their own ambition. I'm willing to go with Flieg's version. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 29 09:48:08 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 85 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 09:36:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan on Board & Nominating Committee To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Morgan ========================================= I was away for a few days, and have had little time since my return to catch up on all the messages, so please forgive me if any of this sounds stale: Galleron is correct that if we relax the attendance requirements, Board members are required to give advance notice. I suggest no later than the previous meeting. There can be a confirmation period about a month ahead of the meeting in case one of the "nos" wants to attend, in order to get tickets and rooms. (On my in-town Board, we give notice a week ahead.) I would counter Galleron's assessment of how little the directors of most NFPs do, but maybe I am more active than your average Director. (Having chaired two lengthy committee meetings int he last three weeks.) I like Eric's suggestion of the Board meeting at Pennsic and what-was-Estrella. (I haven't heard if they will rename the war at the new site.) This also lets the committees have the flexibility to meet wherever and whenever and HOWever is convenient or appropriate to their activity. I agree with those who say corporate announcements should be in Kingdom newsletters. They will be more speedily in the hands of the populace, given the current printing deadline and Board meeting schedule conflicts. One item that nobody has mentioned: TI is used as a PR tool for the SCA, Inc. Why should our internal matters be on display to people who are not part of the group, who have no interest and are getting the magazine for its information? Galleron's polling sugestion has the advantage that if the Board insists it has data to support its view, the populace can require a fresh poll -- which may show that current feelings are quite different. I'm not sure I like Alban's use of "matters of importance" without some definition -- who's to say what's important? And further, who's to say what's regular: annual, quarterly, only if a sufficiently "important" matter arises? Alysoun's suggestion on the nominating committee is a good one, but I would add some minimal signature requirement for self-nomination. I have seen a couple real doofuses self-nominate, and I think that anyone who can't generate, ssay, a dozen signatures of members in support of the nomination has no right beign a candidate. Yes, some may have a household big enough to generate the required signatures even if they are a doofus, but this could eliminate a few horrors. Justin, Finnvarr, Tibor and Alysoun are correct: You can be EITHER on the Nominating Committee, OR a candidate for the Board, but NOT BOTH. I would require that the resignation come technically before the nomination, but I've been doing a lot of work in the area of fiduciary duties lately, and non-competition clauses. If the candidates are allowed to rebut, they don't necessarily need to know who said what. People may not want to comment if they have a fear that their name will be revealed and they can be the subject of reprisals (and I have seen some nasty reprisals). If the candidate can say, "someone said I rhino-hide, but I don't, and here are people you can ask about it," that should be adequate without sending them off in search of whomever made the statement. Overall, I like Flieg's suggestion, with the various modifications. Would saying "active participant" work better than "member"? I also like Lancelin's suggestion, especially because it takes the selection process AWAY from the Board, much like (allegedly) the US College of Electors. Siobhan and AElflaed's suggestion of a periodic Board newsletter is good. (What about four-folded 14" paper? Easier than newsprint.) Our Kingdom newsletter is already overcrowded with Curia messages, awards, and eventually (often halfway through) you finally get to the Event announcements. It's in really small type, too. Having the information come separately means more space in the newsletter for Kingdom information; the Board material is in a discrete place where I can find it easily; it would (hopefully) be in an easily-readable point size; and could be more timely than you'd get with nwsletters, which still have a three-to-six weeks time lag. Additionally, we have a general populace nominating or voting system, these could be included in the Board newsletter. ---= 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 29 10:45:46 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, 29 Feb 1996 09:30:42 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 10:30:43 >From: "James D. McManus" >Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal > >Policy on Nomination to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. >> >> A. Any natural person over the age of 21 may be suggested as a >>nominee to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. Nomination may be >>made by any member of the SCA, Inc. and shall be sent to the NCSCA >>Coordinator. Self-nomination is acceptable. >> >I strongly object to the age limitation. In this country and for all other SCA purposes a person over the age of 18 is considered a responsible adult. (Drinking aside...) >We have members, who at age 18, have about 18 years of SCA experience. > >I am concerned about the following line. > >Nomination may be made by any member of the SCA, Inc. >We need the type of member defined. >The only voting members of the SCA, Inc. are the Directors. > >Aside from this one small but major objection and the need to clarify "member", >I find this to be an excellent and well constructed motion and I support it highly. > >Magnus > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 29 11:18:17 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: 463 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:07:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199602291530.JAA22108@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Feb 29, 96 09:30:42 am >I strongly object to the age limitation. In this country and for all other SCA purposes a person over the age of 18 is considered a responsible adult. (Drinking aside...) >We have members, who at age 18, have about 18 years of SCA experience. SCA experience is not necessarily the mitigating factor. We are talking about running a multi-million dollar corporation. Holding out for some additional age and maturity is not necessarily foolish. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 29 11:31:26 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, 29 Feb 1996 17:18:21 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My apologies for the waste of bandwidth, but I had a major crash today and lost at least 12 mail messages. If you have copies of your GC messages from February 28 or 29, particularly those concerning suffrage on request, please mail them to me. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 29 11:55:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 11:43:45 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Flieg Plan, Forced Poll (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eric... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 08:27:46 -0600 (CST) >From: Ron Fleig >Subject: Re: Galleron: Flieg Plan, Forced Poll (fwd) >In-Reply-To: <199602281709.MAA11566@abel.math.harvard.edu> On Wed, 28 Feb 1996, Mark Schuldenfrei wrote: > For Galleron, by Tibor. > Alysoun: > "What we need is a way of picking up on broad dissatisfaction > but not something so sensitive that it registers every localized > tremor. > > One possibility that I've been mulling over is requiring that not more than > 60% of the minimum number of signatures to trigger the petion may be > satisfied by any single kingdom. Reactions? > > Galleron This is a good idea going in the right direction with the 60% requirement but it probably should be more like 30% max from any one kingdom. There are some areas of the Known World that have a large population in a small geographic area (ie. Caid, West). In an area like this you could conceivably get 60/40 % of 1000 signatures within a 100 mile radius area. I think this is what it is desired to avoid. If you have to have four kingdoms involved (30/30/30/10 %) it ensures that the dissatisfaction is fairly well widespread, at least a fifth of the KW. Eric the Wanderer of the Flying Dragon's Cave Ron Fleig urfleig@neiu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Feb 29 12:33:34 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: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 18:21:41 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Sorry! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Also apologies for the erroneous subject line of my previous SOS message ... New computer... new software... /Catrin (ashamed) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 1 03:55:19 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, 1 Mar 1996 09:36:18 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Galleron: Proposal: Suffrage on Request To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron wrote it. I like it and thank him for finding the time and energy to do the job. /Catrin >PROPOSAL FOR DIRECT ELECTION OF THE BOARD > >Outline of Proposal > >Nine member board is elected by the voting membership, >which is defined as all sustaining, associate, family, or >international members who ask to become voting members, >plus all subscribers to board proceedings. Candidates may >be placed on the ballot either by the nominating committee >or by petition. > >The five member nominating committee is elected >by the voting membership at the same time as the board. > >Directors would no longer be expected to attend every >meeting, being allowed to attend as few as two per year, >one of them being the January meeting, without censure. >The full board is encouraged to delegate part of its workload >to smaller sub-committees that meet as needed. > >Discussion of Proposal > >Under the current self-elected board many members feel >disenfranchised and powerless. The decisions of the board >lack the legitimacy that comes from the consent of the >governed. On the other hand, there is a significant aversion >in the Society to electoral politics. This proposal allows >election of the board, but only by those members that consent >to be exposed to the political process. > >Under this plan candidates are normally vetted by a nominating >committee. This retains many of the benefits of the current >system's ability to produce carefully balanced, well considered >boards. However, it is also possible to get on the ballot by >petition, to allay concerns about the potential of self-selecting, >self-perpetuating elites. > >The board size has been expanded to nine. This is not >essential to the proposal, and if someone loathes it I'll reconsider. >However, a nine member board meshes well with the election >cycle, spreads the workload more, gives a somewhat more >diverse board, and allows directors the flexibility of not >attending every meeting. > >Truth-in-Lending Disclosure > >Much of this proposal is lifted wholesale from Hossein's >well organized plan. I have also lifted bits from Flieg's > > >Proposed changes to By-laws > > >V.A. STATUTORY MEMBERS 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 > >VI.B NUMBER OF DIRECTORS The authorized number of >Directors of the Society shall be not less than five (5) and not >more than nine (9) until changed by amendment of this >Article of the By-Laws. > >VI.C change "appointed by the Board from the advisory >membership" to "elected from among the membership" > >VI.E. ELECTION AND TERM >1. ELECTION > a. CANDIDATES. Any member of the corporation is eligible >to be a candidate for the Board of Directors, providing that: > 1. The candidate will have reached the age of twenty-one >(21) years by the official date of the election's >commencement; > 2. The candidate has submitted by the announced >deadline a petition containing the signatures and membership >numbers of fifty (50) members of the corporation who support >the candidate's candidacy. This requirement shall be waived for >candidates proposed by the nominating committee; > 3. The candidate has submitted by the official deadline >a signed statement of his/her willingness to serve if elected >and proof of membership (e.g., membership number); > 4. The candidate has submitted by the official deadline >a statement of no more than two hundred and fifty (250) >words, explaining his/her background and reasons for >candidacy to be published with the official ballot. > 5. No person may be elected to the Board of Directors >for more than two consecutive terms. > b. ELECTION PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be >followed in the election of the Board of Directors: > 1. One third of the directors will be elected each year. > 2. All members of the corporation under V.A above will >be sent by mail under the same cover from the corporate office >at the official date for the election's commencement: > a. A listing of the statements of the candidates in >alphabetical order by legal name. No officer or agent of the >corporation will alter the statement of any candidate, except >as required by law (e.g., libel or obscenity); > b. A ballot containing the mundane and society names >of the candidates on which the members of the corporation >may vote for up to five candidates. They may also vote against up >to five candidates. > c. A statement of the official deadline by which the >ballot must be postmarked to be counted. > d. An envelope addressed to the corporate office in >which to return the ballot. Postage for returning the ballot is >the responsibility of the member of the corporation. > 4. Ballots postmarked after the official deadline for >return to the corporate office are void. > 5. The ballots will be counted seven days after the >official deadline for receipt of ballots by the corporate office >manager and two agents designated by the Board of Directors. > Any member of the corporation may observe the counting of the >ballots. > 6. Negative votes will be subtracted from positive votes >for each candidate. The three candidates receiving the highest >vote totals will be elected; the two next highest runners-up will be >designated alternates. > 7. Ties will be decided by lot. > 8. The results of the election, including all vote tallies, >will be published in all kingdom newsletters within two months >of the completion of the official tally. The Board of Directors >will certify the election and inform the candidates of the >official tally within one week of the completion of that tally. > 9. Any candidate may request a recount within two >weeks of the completion of the official tally. Recounts will be >conducted in accordance with the procedure established in I.C.5 >above within two weeks of receipt of the request for recount. > No candidate may request more than one recount. Results of >recounts will be published in all kingdom newsletters within >two months of the completion of the recount. > c. DIRECTORS-ELECT. Directors-elect may participate in >all deliberations of the Board of Directors prior to the >commencement of their terms, but may not vote until >commencement of their terms as directors. > d. OFFICIAL DEADLINES. The following official deadlines >will be followed for election of directors: > 1. Deadline for submission of candidacy materials: 15 >January; > 2. Mailing of ballots: 15 March; > 3. Deadline for postmark of ballots: 30 April; > 4. Date of official tally: 7 May; > 5. Date by which candidates must be informed of >official tally results: 15 May; > 6. Deadline for requests for recount: 28 May; > 7. Deadline for completion of recount: 4 June; > 8. Commencement of term as directors for directors- >elect: January board meeting. > e. IMPLEMENTATION. The three most senior directors at >the time of adoption of this proposal will vacate their >directorships at the conclusion of the first election. In each >of the next two succeeding years two of the remaining >non-elected directors in order of seniority will vacate their >directorships at the conclusion of each year's election. > >2. TERM >Directors will serve for three year terms, with one third of the >terms ending each year. Should a Director be unable to serve >his or her full term, the remaining Directors shall either leave >the position vacant until the end of the term (as long as >the number of active Directors does not go below five as >specified in VI.B), appoint one of the alternates to fill the remainder >of the term, or elect an additional director at the next scheduled >election to fill the remainder of the term. > >VI.J. ACTION AT A MEETING; QUORUM AND REQUIRED VOTE >A majority of the Directors, but not less than five, will constitute a >quorum for the transaction of business. A vote of the majority of >directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall >be the acts of the Board except as a lesser or larger vote may be >required by the laws of the state of California, these By-Laws, or >the articles of incorporation of the corporation. > >(Note that the By-Laws do require a greater vote for changing >Corpora (two thirds of directors) or the By-Laws (unanimous)) > >VI.L COMMITTEES change to: >The Board may establish such standing or special committees > from time to time as it shall deem appropriate to conduct the >activities of the corporation and to advise the Board, and shall >define the powers and responsibilities of such committees. A >committee may have such specific powers as may be >determined by the Board, except that it shall not have the >power to (a) amend these By-Laws or the Articles of >Incorporation, (b) approve any action or exercise any authority >requiring the approval of more than a majority of a quorum of the >Board under the laws of California, The Articles of Incorporation, >or these By-Laws, or (c) take any other action which may not be >delegated to it under the laws of California. > >Such committees may include persons who are not on the >Board, but no committee of which persons other than >Directors are voting members shall be authorized to act or to >omit to take any action on behalf of the corporation or the Board. > >1. NOMINATING COMMITTEE >a. Election, Qualifications, and Term: A nominating committee >of five members will be elected at the same time as the >directors. They will serve for two years, and be elected on a >two year cycle, with three terms ending in the first year, and >two in the second. The election procedure will otherwise be >the same as that described for directors in VI.E. A member >of the nominating committee may not accept a nomination >for director while they are a member of the nominating committee. >Members of the committee may not serve two consecutive terms. > >b. Duties. > 1.The Nominating Committee will nominate sufficient >candidates to insure that there are at least as many candidates >for directors in each election as the number of vacancies plus >two, and at least as many candidates for the nominating >committee as the number of vacancies plus one. > 2. The committee shall encourage members of the Society >to volunteer to fill these positions. A potential candidate may be >suggested by any participant in the society, or the potential >candidate may suggest him or herself. > 3. The committee shall publish the names of all potential >nominees at least six months before the deadline for submission of >candidacy materials, and solicit comments and additional potential >candidates. All commentary shall be confidential, and not revealed >to anyone outside the nominating committee, except that any >potential candidate may request to see the commentary on >himself or herself. This will be provided with the names of the >commenters removed to encourage candid commentary. Any >potential candidate may submit additional data at any time to >answer commentary or to provide additional information. > 4. At least three months before that deadline, the >committee will publish its tentative list of candidates and call for >additional comments. > >c. Implementation. At least six months before the beginning of >the first election the Board will appoint an interim nominating >committee. Three members will be appointed to serve until the >completion of the first election, and two until the completion of >the second. At that time the board will turn copies of all Board >nominee comments over to the interim committee. > >Change to policy: >Directors would no longer be expected to attend every >meeting, being allowed to attend as few as two per year, >one of them being the January meeting, without censure. >Except in cases of sudden personal emergency, a >director must give notice that they do not intend to attend >a meeting at the time of the preceding Board meeting. >The full Board is encouraged to delegate part of its workload >to smaller sub-committees that meet as needed. > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 1 11:51:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:33:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal: Suffrage on Request, & Proposal Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (janna.spanne@kansli.lth.se) Galleron posts a very nice, solid proposal for how to handle direct election by the interested membership. I like it; I think it's the best direct-election plan I've seen to date. I've been chewing a little on what to do next, and have a suggestion. This is mainly aimed at the Chair, but I'm posting it publically so others can comment. Given the situation, we're really not trying to come up with The One True Selection Mechanism -- it's pretty clear that no mechanism is going to be a panacea, and the Board itself is clearly going to have to make the final decision. That being that case, our task is to lay out the options clearly, and provide as much information as we can, to inform them in their decision. I've been pondering the various proposals, and finding that many are acceptable to me, but I like some more than others. I suspect I'm not alone in this. So, I'd like to propose a sort of "dual-track" vote when we start actually voting on the proposals. First, for each proposal, we hold a simple approval/disapproval vote, where you get to say yes, no, or abstain. This gives the Board an idea of whether there are strong splits over a proposal, and therefore how controversial it is likely to be. Second, overall, we run a preference ballot of some sort. My inclination would be to give each councillor a certain number of "points" to distribute among the various proposals, which he or she can allocate as desired. (I've used this method in various other contexts, and found it to be easy and useful.) These point totals get tallied and presented to the Board, to give them an idea of the depth of support for each proposal. If we had to come up with a single answer, it would be foolish to run dual ballots like this, because they might well come up with conflicting answers -- they prioritize differently. But that is precisely what we *want* here: to give the Board as well-rounded an idea as possible of how people feel about the options. I think it suits the situation well, and commend it to the Council... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "REMEMBER: Only *you* can prevent more postcards to Craig Shergold!" -- From EFFector Online 2.11 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 1 12:08:03 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 4 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:44:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Justin's voting proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L A very good idea. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 1 12:33:54 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 37 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 10:20:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Nominating committee To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I apologize for not posting on a more regular basis, but I was doing a great deal of international travel at the beginning of the year and I've only recently caught up in my reading. I like what I've seen so far in the suggestions and I think that it will be a fairly inexpensive method of choosing Board members without the Board being a self-nominating group. In terms of size for the nominating committee, I like 7 with 6 chosen randomly from volunteers and one being a Board member (to help link the committee to the Board). I fear that a group larger than 7 may become too unwieldy, and a group smaller than that may make unbalanced decisions. In regard to who may be on the nominating committee, I would suggest that they must be members (defined as being a sustaining member ). I've always supported the notion that officers should be paying members even though I'm against requiring membership to participate at events. Members could be chosen based on kingdom (with an established rotation) or from the pool of all volunteers. I suspect that choosing by kingdom would be perceived as most equitable method as it removes the possibility that one geographic area will be overrepresented. On the topic of geography, I'll be starting a new job within my company (Director of Internal Controls for the Aerospace Sector) that will be mainly based in Torrence, California. I will be returning home to Rochester, NY on a regular basis until the end of the year (as my wife is finishing med school there), but I won't be around the East Kingdom as much as I have been. From my understanding of the original process to staff up the Grand Council, the kingdom appointments were a method to staff up quickly and to have some geographical dispersion. I was the East Kingdom appointee and I'm wondering if there will be a problem with me being based more out of the West. regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 1 15:26:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 12:03:23 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Fw: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Serwyl accidentally sent this just to me rather than to the whole list: -Flieg ------------------------------ From: Serwyl@aol.com Wed, 28 Feb 1996 20:01:31 -0500 To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Nominating Committee -- Formal Proposal Overall, I like Flieg's proposal, and could support it with the adjustments agreed to so far. I have to agree with Justin though that a member of the nominating committe should withdraw at the point their name is put into consideration for the Board. Flieg, I think we need this separation to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. It may be unlikely, but a person could use his or her position on the committee to lobby for themselves. Also, members may feel more constrained in their commentary when the object is involved in the discussion. Serwyl ----------------------------- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 1 23:48:18 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, 1 Mar 1996 23:29:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal: Suffrage on Request, & Proposal Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor said "Given the situation, we're really not trying to come up with The One True Selection Mechanism -- it's pretty clear that no mechanism is going to be a panacea, and the Board itself is clearly going to have to make the final decision. That being that case, our task is to lay out the options clearly, and provide as much information as we can, to inform them in their decision." This is why I suggested writing up that informal straw poll as a more formal proposal to the Board. It'd give a fair "sense of the committee", because it lists the options and yea/nay votes. Right now, we seem to be reinventing the wheel, and going over (if I may mix metaphors) ground that we've gone over last month. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 2 08:28:29 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: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 14:16:04 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal: Suffrage on Request, & Proposal Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >First, for each proposal, we hold a simple approval/disapproval vote, >... >Second, overall, we run a preference ballot of some sort. My inclination >would be to give each councillor a certain number of "points" to >distribute among the various proposals, ... Good idea. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 2 10:08:50 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 25 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 09:44:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Reinventing the wheel To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban said: >Right now, we seem to be reinventing the wheel, and going over (if I >may mix metaphors) ground that we've gone over last month. I disagree. The bare idea of having a nominating committee and no elections did not look nearly so appealing to me as Flieg's proposal. The detailed nature of that proposal allowed me to see its advantages and how it might be sold to the membership at large. The proposals we have on elections similarly mean a great deal more than saying, "we'll have everybody who's interested/informed vote." The Board does not have an infinite time to look at, evaluate, and fine-tune proposals. They quite rightly want us to do some of the hard work (taking some of the load off the Board is something we all want anyway). This is why Edward Z liked the format of the IAC proposal on banishment. I agree with Alban, though, that we should write up the straw vote for the Board's information. That vote shows that we considered a number of different options and that most of them couldn't get even 3 or 4 people to support them. This IS important information, and may save time at the Board level when someone says, "why didn't they consider option W?" Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 2 18:33:10 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: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 17:14:13 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Proposal: Suffrage on Request To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L A well written and thought out proposal. I vote "NAY", against it on the basis that creating an electoral process will cause more problems than it will solve. The idea of a nine member Board and missing one or two meetings (but not the annual meeting) is attractive. Tho I have to vote against it, it is much better than some of the options which we considered. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 3 21:01:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 18:41:24 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron re: Justin's voting proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:27:16 -0500 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron re: Justin's voting proposal Please forward to the GC Justin, I like you voting proposal too. The only disadvantage is that it would take two rounds of voting. An alternative, which doesn't allow quite as fine gradations of opinion, but which would be quicker, would be to let people vote either: YES, yes, abstain, no, NO. Then you'd report their votes as yes or no in all caps or Upper and lower case, the same way I reported votes on the straw poll. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 4 18:51:35 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 48 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 14:32:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Writing up Straw Poll To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FORWARDED FROM: Steve Muhlberger Return-Path: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 10:46:11 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com Message-Id: <960304104610_159683847@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: STEVEM@einstein.unipissing.ca Subject: Galleron: Writing up Straw Poll Finnvarr, in a message dated 96-03-02 09:56:21 EST, you write: >I agree with Alban, though, that we should write up the straw vote for the >Board's information. That vote shows that we considered a number of >different options and that most of them couldn't get even 3 or 4 people to >support them. This IS important information, and may save time at the Board >level when someone says, "why didn't they consider option W?" > Yes. I've been working all along on the assumption that we'd do something like that. Make it an attachment to the election report, and strip out the ones that got voted on as formal proposals. The structure of the whole report would be: 1. General Statement. "The Council agreed that the current system of selecting the board could be improved. Here are two or three things you could do that most of the council liked better than the status quo, and why we liked them. We carefully debated a whole bunch of options, but most of them were even less acceptable than the current method. They, and the results of the straw poll we ran on them, are at the back." "The Council strongly recommends that the Board publish the proposals, solicit comments, and poll the membership before coming to a final decision." 2. Summary of formal proposals, with votes that each received. 3. Formal Proposals in order of preference 4. Summary of methods that went down in flames, and the results of the straw poll. You can post this if you like Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 4 19:11:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:54:16 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Greetings from the Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are running out of time! Please declare your votes. Please remember that we have a Board meeting coming up soon and that we need to have something concrete to report. We all need to cast our votes on all of the proposals, even Justin's degree of support deal. Please vote and please vote soon. I don't mind seeing requests to modify existing proposals, provided that you vote for the current incarnation at the same time. To get the ball rolling a bit further, my votes are UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - YES NOMINATING COMMITTEE - NO STATUS QUO - NO GALLERONS PROPOSALS - ABSTAIN and ABSTAIN Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 4 20:13:40 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, 4 Mar 1996 19:59:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L universal suffrage general election - yes Nominating committee (in any form) - no status quo - tentative no (I can live with it, but I much rather have something else) Galleron's proposals - nope. nope. Alban (who, when I read Fiach's suggestion that we get on with it, started humming, for no good reason, "Get along, li'l dogies, get along." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 4 23:28:10 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 23:09:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha, My votes are: UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - YES NOMINATING COMMITTEE -- NO STATUS QUO -- NO GALLERON'S PROPOSALS -- NO Hossein Ali Qomi/Gregory Rose From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 4 23:47:38 1996 Return-Path: References: <199603050409.XAA21110@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 23:32:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603050409.XAA21110@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> Hi Fiacha, My votes are: Universal Sufferage General Election -- YES Nominating Committee -- NO Status Quo -- NO Galleron's Proposals -- NO My best -- Bertram From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 00:09:11 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, 5 Mar 1996 00:33:24 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Council's Focus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - no NOMINATING COMMITTEE - NO STATUS QUO -yes GALLERONS PROPOSALS - yes yes -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 08:48:45 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:29:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: My vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - YES NOMINATING COMMITTEE - NO STATUS QUO - NO GALLERONS PROPOSALS - yes From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 09:15:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:58:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun's vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (Fiacha--can we send a note supporting the website effort for the next board meeting? We can send a more detailed communication proposal later, but it never hurts to be timely) UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - no NOMINATING COMMITTEE (Flieg's) - YES STATUS QUO - no GALLERONS PROPOSALS (which ones?) I have very strong NO for sufferage on request and for sufferage by subscription. Both entail an unnecessary wrinkle of keeping a voters list and if such a list is not kept, what's the point? Plus the whole problem of timing and processing. If we do go to elections, the people who are interested will vote and those who are not won't. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 09:56:45 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383" Content-Id: Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:38:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: An Election Proposal:subscription sufferage To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: Those familair with the song 'But mr. Adams...' from 1776 may understand why I waited so long to write this. i was really hoping somone else would... The short form of it is that it is the 'sufferage by subscription' proposal. it envisons three tiered membership in the SCA; International, Regional, and Local memberships. Voting membership in the SCA inc. would equate to an International/Umbrella Corporate membership. This proposal also relies heavily on the creation of a useful Corporate/international newletter dealing specifically and entirely with legal, finacial, and procedural issues including regular reports on the financial status of the corp, the nature of our insurance policy, the issues ABOUT to be dicussed or acted on, and especially on the postiosn of the various players in the drama.. a regualar flow of relevent information is essential to an electoral process. It unfortunately costs money, and I have been given reason (by other GC members thoughts on general elections) to doubt the general memberships willingness to subsidzie the quality of info neccesary... ( not just publishing costs mind you but time in analysis, professional minutetaking and abstractions and indexing etc.) BOARD ELECTION PROPOSAL:Subscription Sufferage I. ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS A. ELECTORS. All persons holding a subscription to the minutes of the SCA board of Directors meetings publication will be members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. B. CANDIDATES. Any member of the corporation eligable to vote is eligible to be a candidate for the Board of Directors, providing that: 1. The candidate will have reached the age of eighteen (18) years by the official date of the election's commencement; 2. The candidate has submitted by the announced deadline a petition containing the signatures and membership numbers of fifty (50) members of the corporation who support the candidate's candidacy; 3. The candidate has submitted by the official deadline a statement of no more than two hundred and fifty (250) words, explaining his/her background and reasons for candidacy to be published with the official ballot. 4. No person may be elected to the Board of Directors for more than two consecutive terms. C. ELECTION PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be followed in the election of the Board of Directors: 1. Elections will be conducted as needed through the quarterly publication of the proceedings of the SCA inc. 2. Ballots are to be set out in the issue following the issue containing the election announcement and candidate information. 3. Election results are to be publisheed in the issue of the Proceedings flowwing the issue contaning the Ballot for that election. 4. The ballots will be counted seven days after the published deadline for receipt of ballots by the corporate office manager and two agents designated by the Board of Directors. Any member of the corporation may observe the counting of the ballots. 6. candidates receiving the highest vote totals will be elected 7. Ties will be decided by lot. 8. The results of the election, including all vote tallies, will be published in all kingdom newletters within two months of the completion of the official tally. The Board of Directors will certify the election and inform the candidates of the official tally within one week of the completion of that tally. 9. Any candidate may request a recount within two weeks of the completion of the official tally. Recounts will be conducted in accordance with the procedure established in I.C.5 above within two weeks of receipt of the request for recount. No candidate may request more than one recount. Results of recounts will be published in all kingdom newsletters within two months of the completion of the recount. D. DIRECTORS-ELECT. Directors-elect may participate in all deliberations of the Board of Directors prior to the commencement of their terms, but may not vote until commencement of their terms as directors. F. IMPLEMENTATION. The most senior remaining non-elected director will be replaced by an elected director every other quarter II. RECALL OF DIRECTORS+++ A. DEFINITION OF RECALL. A director who has been recalled is removed from the Board of Directors effective from the date of the recall action. Recall may occur for any reason. B. RECALL PROCEDURES. Members of the Board of Directors may be recalled by any of the following procedures: 1. Throught theregular survey instrument to be published in the quarterly proceedings of the SCA inc. 2. Submission of a petition to the Board of Directors containing the signatures and membership numbers of at least one thousand five hundred (1,500) members of the corporation. The eligibility of signators must be determined within five *5) working day following delivery of the petition to the corporate office; recall will be effective upon verification. C. REPLACEMENT OF RECALLED DIRECTORS. recalled directors will be replaced through the normal election process. ---2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383-- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 11:34:11 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, 5 Mar 1996 17:23:04 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Catrin's vote and comments To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm not terribly clear about what we're voting for. A bit of specification might have been in order. Here's the best I can do: UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - yes NOMINATING COMMITTEE as such - yes plus current system - no plus general election - yes plus suffrage on request - YES STATUS QUO - NO GALLERONS PROPOSALS (which ones?) If this refers to his suffrage on request proposal, - YES We've had another proposal since, ARTHUR's subscription suffrage variety. It illustrates the danger of making *too* specific and elaborate proposals - most of it is just fine, and I'd say YES to it, but... ...the thought of a petition being the only way to become a candidate bugs me considerably. Most available systems favor charismatic people with big households in big kingdoms anyway, and there's a danger in endorsing "bigger is better" indiscriminately. A nominating committee has a better chance to consider the Board's needs. Why not let the two systems complement each other, i.e. any member can nominate any member including him/herself, and a candidate can get on the ballot (the short list) either through the nominating committee or by petition. As to how to conduct this vote, Mr Chairman, how about a "modular" approach? I.e. set up a list of elements such as "general election - subscription suffrage - suffrage on request - selection by Board - candidatcy by petition - nominating committee - etc" and let people vote for and against the ones they like/dislike. That way anyone can get at everything they find important and really vote for their favorite model, e.g. "general election + candidatcy by petition" or "nominating committee + selection by Board". /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 11:43:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:31:49 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Justin's Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:54:16 -0800) Okay, my turn -- UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - abstain NOMINATING COMMITTEE - yes STATUS QUO - abstain GALLERONS PROPOSALS - yes -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Federalism and its effects "...there is no natural law which causes fragmentation of societies. We live in a constant tension between powers that seek to unite, and powers which sever and divide." -- William de Corbie From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 11:55:45 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:43:49 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Status Quo Votes, & other Voting Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:54:16 -0800) Fiacha has asked me to tally the ballots for the "status quo", since no one seems to be actively championing it. I've started to do so, but may have missed some off-the-cuff votes before I started tallying. I currently have: Fiacha -- NO Alban -- weak no Hossein -- NO Bertram -- NO Modius -- yes Arthur -- NO Alysoun -- no Justin -- abstain If you're not listed here, please re-vote -- you probably voted before I started recording. If I've made any errors, please correct me. I *had* planned on posting a summary of what the status quo means (as I understand it), but everyone seems to be voting without it. Does everyone have a reasonably clear idea of how things currently run? If not, I'll try to write it up. I've also been asked to run the preference tally I mentioned before; it may provide additional information on top of the "case-based" voting we're doing here. I need to know, though -- are we counting in Arthur's just-sent proposal? The number of points allocated in this sort of vote depends on how *many* proposals there are to choose among. Also, could the proponents of each proposal please repost a "definitive" version of the proposal? At least some (eg, Flieg's) were still undergoing some revision when last I checked. I'd like to put these definitive versions on the Web page, both for reference and for the historical record. (And I want them posted here, so people can be certain of what they're voting for, before it's too late to change their votes...) -- Justin Wearing his Sec'y hat for a minute 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 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 13:46:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 13:30:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Corwyn's Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION -abstain NOMINATING COMMITTEE - yes STATUS QUO -no GALLERONS SUFFERAGE on request PROPOSAL - YES As per justin's note, I'd really like to see any final versions of these proposals ASAP. Particularly the "universal sufferage" proposal, which I haven't seen at all. I reserve the right to change my votes based on further versions. And, thanks to Flieg and Galleron for the proposals I have seen. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 16:24:13 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: 22324 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:04:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Tally, Questions, and Proposals (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Tue Mar 5 14:40 EST 1996 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 14:38:51 -0500 Message-ID: <960305143850_238203939@mail02.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron: Tally, Questions, and Proposals Content-Type: text Content-Length: 21132 Please forward to GC While I think a unified tally would be nice, Fiacha is currently asking the champions of each of the proposals to run separate tallies. Until or unless he changes his mind, I'll do the tallies on mine. Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan (Members become voting members on request, they elect nine member board. Candidates placed on ballot by nominating committee or by petition. Five member NC elected at same time as board.) Full Proposal Below YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, CORWYN NO: MAGNUS, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) Full Proposal Below YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, ABSTAIN: Fiacha Since several Councilors used type size to indicate the strength of their feelings, I am again running each name in caps or upper and lower case, depending on how they printed their vote. If I've misstated your intention, let me know. I also may have omitted some votes posted before March 1st, my browser crashed and I'm missing postings before that date. Please correct me if I have. Would Councilors please be specific about which plan they are voting for? While Hossein's is the only complete, formal universal suffrage proposal, and Flieg's the only self-electing/separate nominating committee plan worked up as a formal proposal, I understand that there are more proposals in the pipeline. So say "Nominating Committee (Flieg Plan)" or whatever. Also, would Councilors that are working on their own proposals let the rest of us know, so that Justin knows what to do about his preference poll? If anyone wants me to, I will also offer my plan in a universal suffrage version (unchanged except for definition of electorate), a seven-member board version (3/2/2 tri-annual election cycle, otherwise unchanged) or a self-electing version (Nominating Committee as per Flieg plan, rolling annual elections with alternates and nine-member board as in my plan.) However, I'll only do this if a Councilor asks for one or more of these. I note that Bertram and Alban voted against my specific proposal, although they voted in favor of limited suffrage on the straw poll. What have I done wrong? Alysoun writes: "I have very strong NO for sufferage on request and for sufferage by subscription. Both entail an unnecessary wrinkle of keeping a voters list and if such a list is not kept, what's the point? " It's not that much trouble. You simply pretend that the election materials are another publication on your database, just like the board proceedings and newsletters from other kingdoms. And if Hossein is correct that we might face legal challenges if some ballots go out in TI and some by mail, and to avoid that problem we must mail all ballots, then suffrage-on-request would save you a lot in printing and distributing the ballots, since it is probable that only a minority of the membership would take the option. In Hossein's proposal, and therefore in mine, which borrows shamelessly from it, the candidates are informed of the result of the election by May 15th, and recounts, if any, are completed by June 4th. They do not, however, start their term until the January board meeting. Is so great a delay necessary or desirable? I see that there might be little time for them to make travel arrangements to attend the third quarter meeting, but perhaps their term could start at the fourth quarter meeting. I have raised the question of whether the petition for polling should set a limit on how much of the required number of signatures may be satisfied from any one Kingdom. Ron Flieg has suggested 30%. Any reactions? Text of Proposals PROPOSAL FOR DIRECT ELECTION OF THE BOARD Outline of Proposal Nine member board is elected by the voting membership, which is defined as all sustaining, associate, family, or international members who ask to become voting members, plus all subscribers to board proceedings. Candidates may be placed on the ballot either by the nominating committee or by petition. The five member nominating committee is elected by the voting membership at the same time as the board. Directors would no longer be expected to attend every meeting, being allowed to attend as few as two per year, one of them being the January meeting, without censure. The full board is encouraged to delegate part of its workload to smaller sub-committees that meet as needed. Discussion of Proposal Under the current self-elected board many members feel disenfranchised and powerless. The decisions of the board lack the legitimacy that comes from the consent of the governed. On the other hand, there is a significant aversion in the Society to electoral politics. This proposal allows election of the board, but only by those members that consent to be exposed to the political process. Under this plan candidates are normally vetted by a nominating committee. This retains many of the benefits of the current system's ability to produce carefully balanced, well considered boards. However, it is also possible to get on the ballot by petition, to allay concerns about the potential of self-selecting, self-perpetuating elites. The board size has been expanded to nine. This is not essential to the proposal, and if someone loathes it I'll reconsider. However, a nine member board meshes well with the election cycle, spreads the workload more, gives a somewhat more diverse board, and allows directors the flexibility of not attending every meeting. Truth-in-Lending Disclosure Much of this proposal is lifted wholesale from Hossein's well organized plan. I have also lifted bits from Flieg's Proposed changes to By-laws V.A. STATUTORY MEMBERS 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 VI.B NUMBER OF DIRECTORS The authorized number of Directors of the Society shall be not less than five (5) and not more than nine (9) until changed by amendment of this Article of the By-Laws. VI.C change "appointed by the Board from the advisory membership" to "elected from among the membership" VI.E. ELECTION AND TERM 1. ELECTION a. CANDIDATES. Any member of the corporation is eligible to be a candidate for the Board of Directors, providing that: 1. The candidate will have reached the age of twenty-one (21) years by the official date of the election's commencement; 2. The candidate has submitted by the announced deadline a petition containing the signatures and membership numbers of fifty (50) members of the corporation who support the candidate's candidacy. This requirement shall be waived for candidates proposed by the nominating committee; 3. The candidate has submitted by the official deadline a signed statement of his/her willingness to serve if elected and proof of membership (e.g., membership number); 4. The candidate has submitted by the official deadline a statement of no more than two hundred and fifty (250) words, explaining his/her background and reasons for candidacy to be published with the official ballot. 5. No person may be elected to the Board of Directors for more than two consecutive terms. b. ELECTION PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be followed in the election of the Board of Directors: 1. One third of the directors will be elected each year. 2. All members of the corporation under V.A above will be sent by mail under the same cover from the corporate office at the official date for the election's commencement: a. A listing of the statements of the candidates in alphabetical order by legal name. No officer or agent of the corporation will alter the statement of any candidate, except as required by law (e.g., libel or obscenity); b. A ballot containing the mundane and society names of the candidates on which the members of the corporation may vote for up to five candidates. They may also vote against up to five candidates. c. A statement of the official deadline by which the ballot must be postmarked to be counted. d. An envelope addressed to the corporate office in which to return the ballot. Postage for returning the ballot is the responsibility of the member of the corporation. 4. Ballots postmarked after the official deadline for return to the corporate office are void. 5. The ballots will be counted seven days after the official deadline for receipt of ballots by the corporate office manager and two agents designated by the Board of Directors. Any member of the corporation may observe the counting of the ballots. 6. Negative votes will be subtracted from positive votes for each candidate. The three candidates receiving the highest vote totals will be elected; the two next highest runners-up will be designated alternates. 7. Ties will be decided by lot. 8. The results of the election, including all vote tallies, will be published in all kingdom newsletters within two months of the completion of the official tally. The Board of Directors will certify the election and inform the candidates of the official tally within one week of the completion of that tally. 9. Any candidate may request a recount within two weeks of the completion of the official tally. Recounts will be conducted in accordance with the procedure established in I.C.5 above within two weeks of receipt of the request for recount. No candidate may request more than one recount. Results of recounts will be published in all kingdom newsletters within two months of the completion of the recount. c. DIRECTORS-ELECT. Directors-elect may participate in all deliberations of the Board of Directors prior to the commencement of their terms, but may not vote until commencement of their terms as directors. d. OFFICIAL DEADLINES. The following official deadlines will be followed for election of directors: 1. Deadline for submission of candidacy materials: 15 January; 2. Mailing of ballots: 15 March; 3. Deadline for postmark of ballots: 30 April; 4. Date of official tally: 7 May; 5. Date by which candidates must be informed of official tally results: 15 May; 6. Deadline for requests for recount: 28 May; 7. Deadline for completion of recount: 4 June; 8. Commencement of term as directors for directors- elect: January board meeting. e. IMPLEMENTATION. The three most senior directors at the time of adoption of this proposal will vacate their directorships at the conclusion of the first election. In each of the next two succeeding years two of the remaining non-elected directors in order of seniority will vacate their directorships at the conclusion of each year's election. 2. TERM Directors will serve for three year terms, with one third of the terms ending each year. Should a Director be unable to serve his or her full term, the remaining Directors shall either leave the position vacant until the end of the term (as long as the number of active Directors does not go below five as specified in VI.B), appoint one of the alternates to fill the remainder of the term, or elect an additional director at the next scheduled election to fill the remainder of the term. VI.J. ACTION AT A MEETING; QUORUM AND REQUIRED VOTE A majority of the Directors, but not less than five, will constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. A vote of the majority of directors present at any meeting at which there is a quorum shall be the acts of the Board except as a lesser or larger vote may be required by the laws of the state of California, these By-Laws, or the articles of incorporation of the corporation. (Note that the By-Laws do require a greater vote for changing Corpora (two thirds of directors) or the By-Laws (unanimous)) VI.L COMMITTEES change to: The Board may establish such standing or special committees from time to time as it shall deem appropriate to conduct the activities of the corporation and to advise the Board, and shall define the powers and responsibilities of such committees. A committee may have such specific powers as may be determined by the Board, except that it shall not have the power to (a) amend these By-Laws or the Articles of Incorporation, (b) approve any action or exercise any authority requiring the approval of more than a majority of a quorum of the Board under the laws of California, The Articles of Incorporation, or these By-Laws, or (c) take any other action which may not be delegated to it under the laws of California. Such committees may include persons who are not on the Board, but no committee of which persons other than Directors are voting members shall be authorized to act or to omit to take any action on behalf of the corporation or the Board. 1. NOMINATING COMMITTEE a. Election, Qualifications, and Term: A nominating committee of five members will be elected at the same time as the directors. They will serve for two years, and be elected on a two year cycle, with three terms ending in the first year, and two in the second. The election procedure will otherwise be the same as that described for directors in VI.E. A member of the nominating committee may not accept a nomination for director while they are a member of the nominating committee. Members of the committee may not serve two consecutive terms. b. Duties. 1.The Nominating Committee will nominate sufficient candidates to insure that there are at least as many candidates for directors in each election as the number of vacancies plus two, and at least as many candidates for the nominating committee as the number of vacancies plus one. 2. The committee shall encourage members of the Society to volunteer to fill these positions. A potential candidate may be suggested by any participant in the society, or the potential candidate may suggest him or herself. 3. The committee shall publish the names of all potential nominees at least six months before the deadline for submission of candidacy materials, and solicit comments and additional potential candidates. All commentary shall be confidential, and not revealed to anyone outside the nominating committee, except that any potential candidate may request to see the commentary on himself or herself. This will be provided with the names of the commenters removed to encourage candid commentary. Any potential candidate may submit additional data at any time to answer commentary or to provide additional information. 4. At least three months before that deadline, the committee will publish its tentative list of candidates and call for additional comments. c. Implementation. At least six months before the beginning of the first election the Board will appoint an interim nominating committee. Three members will be appointed to serve until the completion of the first election, and two until the completion of the second. At that time the board will turn copies of all Board nominee comments over to the interim committee. Change to policy: Directors would no longer be expected to attend every meeting, being allowed to attend as few as two per year, one of them being the January meeting, without censure. Except in cases of sudden personal emergency, a director must give notice that they do not intend to attend a meeting at the time of the preceding Board meeting. The full Board is encouraged to delegate part of its workload to smaller sub-committees that meet as needed. 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 memberbership 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. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 17:09:19 1996 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 15:48:00 CT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Mike.Andrews" Subject: Michael Fenwick: vote(s) on proposals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Michael Fenwick. Fiacha wrote: >Please vote and please vote soon. At least he didn't exhort us to vote early and vote often. My votes are: gallerons proposals - no, and no nominating committee - no status quo - no universal sufferage general election - yes -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 19:33:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:19:12 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Status Quo Votes, & other Voting Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:43:49 EST, Mark Waks writes: > Fiacha has asked me to tally the ballots for the "status quo", since no > one seems to be actively championing it. I've started to do so, but may > have missed some off-the-cuff votes before I started tallying. I currently > have: > > Fiacha -- NO > Alban -- weak no > Hossein -- NO > Bertram -- NO > Modius -- yes > Arthur -- NO > Alysoun -- no > Justin -- abstain > OK, I'm confused -- a lot. I see people voting No for Nominating Committee who said "yes" to my proposal. Fiacha's list of things to vote on does _not_ as far as I can tell, include any of the specific proposals (although some people seem to be including them in the votes), and I haven't even posted the final version of my proposal yet! Now Justin, you seem to be keeping tally only on _one part of the vote!_ What is going on here???? > If you're not listed here, please re-vote -- you probably voted before I [...trimmm] I'll vote when I figure out what's going on here. What's the deadline for voting? Fiacha didn't say -- he just said, "we need to close this off". We have a Board Meeting coming up for which the deadline is April 1, three plus weeks away. There isn't a tearing hurry. > > Also, could the proponents of each proposal please repost a "definitive" > version of the proposal? At least some (eg, Flieg's) were still > undergoing some revision when last I checked. I'd like to put these > definitive versions on the Web page, both for reference and for the > historical record. (And I want them posted here, so people can be > certain of what they're voting for, before it's too late to change > their votes...) I will be posting a "definitive version" of my proposal either later today, or perhaps tomorrow. I will be prefacing it with a comment, that I wish people to vote, not on it per se, but on the question: "Should this be proposed to the Board as a _Possible_ proposal. In addition, I would like to see the voting _re_started_ following modification of the two election proposals so that we are looking at specific proposals, not general ideas. We already had a polling on general ideas. --- Flieg (who is totally confused about why the sudden rush to vote when comments on the proposal are still coming in.) * * * 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 Mar 5 19:44:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:26:59 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603052141.QAA19518@listserv.aol.com> Greeting from Fiacha, Please note that all systems in which the appointment of directors is not made by the board will require that we reincorporate. We may need someone to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of changing the State in which we are incorporated. Second. I have been contemplating a proposal for distribution of voting materials via the corporate web site. It is my belief that while net access was restricted two years ago, larger fractions of the populace have gained access since then and more can be expected to do so before such a scheme could be implemented. If the next cycle of membership cards could include a magic number in addition to the membership number, members could even submit their votes electronically which might simplify counting them too. Is anyone interested in seeing such a proposal fleshed out? Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 19:49:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:36:57 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:26:59 -0800, Nigel Haslock writes: > Greeting from Fiacha, > > Please note that all systems in which the appointment of directors is not > made by the board will require that we reincorporate. We may need someone > to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of changing the State in > which we are incorporated. > > Second. I have been contemplating a proposal for distribution of voting > materials via the corporate web site. It is my belief that while net > access was restricted two years ago, larger fractions of the populace > have gained access since then and more can be expected to do so before > such a scheme could be implemented. If the next cycle of membership cards > could include a magic number in addition to the membership number, > members could even submit their votes electronically which might simplify > counting them too. Unless the entire country (and Canada and others) are wired for computer to the same extent that they are now wired for telephone; this proposal is not a good thing at all. I know that a _lot_ of our membership in the West is of marginal income and have _no_ computer! Given their employment, they are unlikely to have computers in the next five years, much less two or three. And it seems to me that unless you have that universality, then the idea of having two ways to vote makes things _much_ more confusing, expensive and likely to fail. * * * 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 Mar 5 20:25:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 17:12:08 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Formal NCSCA Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- This is the revised version of my proposal for a Nominating Committee. I have changed a couple of things: Eilis pointed out a good reason for not allowing members to be in nomination; the fact that the members of the committee see the commentary with the names on it. So that has been changed. But I have allowed that they can go directly off the NCSCA into the list. I cleaned up a few dates and typos and the like. I did not change the age limit of 21 for nominees. The age limit is strictly arbitrary, but there is a big difference in most people's maturity level between 18 and 21. (Besides if the rest of the Board wants to go to a bar, we shouldn't leave the "underage" person out.) I dropped the whole member of the SCA, Inc. bit for who can nominate. I put explicitly that the Coordinator has to write to the nominees within a month to give them their chance to accept. I put a little more detail in the startup of the NCSCA. This is NOW a formal proposal. Please refer to it as NCSCA Proposal. If you feel that it should be sent to the Board as a _possible_ change please say so. If you support it as well, please say that. (Note these are two separate things.) I request advice from Fiacha as to who is supposed to be collecting the "votes". Revised March 5, 1996 -- Proposal for Nominating Committee for Selection of Candidates for Board of Directors of the SCA Inc. Commentary:Premise: That the Board will continue to be self-selecting. However, they will establish a nominating committee to screen applicants. In order to have the largest possible pool of applicants, nomination shall not be screened. Since this method does not involve much in the way of changes to the current Governing Documents except for the establishment of the Nominating Committee, the Policies and Procedures for the Nominating Committee are given together with proposed Procedures for Nomination to the Board of Directors. I have attempted to balance confidentiality with freedom of information, and to allow some freedom of the Board to act in its own interest while keeping some control in the hands of those closer to the Kingdoms. This is presented as a complete proposal, but I welcome constructive criticism or proposed amendments. Advantage: Few or no changes to Articles of Incorporation or By-Laws. Complete freedom of nomination and comment by membership. Allows Board input on desired expertise, etc. Allows Board freedom to determine its members based on such intangibles as "ability to play well with others" and personal interactions with current Board members. Disadvantage: Not "representative" or "democratic" (although it is at least as representative as the Electoral College). ====================================================================== Proposed Charter for Nominating Committee for the SCA, Inc. Board of Directors. To be established by a vote of the Board. I. Composition and Selection of the Committee The Nominating Committee of the SCA, Inc. (Hereafter, NCSCA) shall be comprised of one person selected by each of the various recognized Kingdoms of the SCA and one person appointed by the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. A. Each Kingdom and the Board shall select, by whatever means they deem proper, one member of the NCSCA. Each Kingdom and the Board shall publish and maintain a policy for such selection. B. Members of the NCSCA shall serve two year terms, starting on May 1 and ending on April 30. The terms of half of the members shall expire each year. If a member of the NCSCA resigns before their term is expired, a replacement shall be selected by the appropriate Kingdom or Board within three months of the resignation. If the resignation is within six months of the normal end of the term, the selection shall be for the next complete term. Otherwise the selection shall be to fill the unexpired term. C. Each Kingdom shall decide what limits, if any, there shall be on number of consecutive terms which may be served by a member of the Committee. D. Each Kingdom and the Board shall establish a method of removal of their NCSCA member should he or she be deemed by the selecting body as unworthy of continued appointment. The Kingdoms and the Board shall publish and maintain such policies. E. Any member of the NCSCA who does not fulfill the duties of their office as defined below shall be deemed to have resigned. A replacement shall be selected as in section I.B. above. The determination of failure to fulfill duties shall be made by the remainder of the Committee under rules to be established by the Committee. II. Duties of members of the Committee. A. Selection of a Coordinator of the Committee. 1. The Coordinator shall serve a one year term. 2. The Coordinator shall be selected by majority vote of the members of the NCSCA. Any member may volunteer to be coordinator and publish such intent to the rest of the NCSCA during the month of September. The votes shall be collected from October 1 to October 15 and the Coordinator shall assume his or her office on 1 November and maintain that office until 31 October the following year. B. Establishment of Rules of Operation. 1. The members NCSCA shall establish whatever additional rules they may decide are needed to execute the duties of their Committee. 2. Unless such rules are in violation of Federal or State Law, the By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation of the SCA, Inc., or the provisions of this Charter, the Board of Directors shall not act to set them aside. C. Recruitment of nominees for Director of the SCA, Inc. 1. Each member of the NCSCA is expected to encourage members of the SCA, Inc. to volunteer to be nominated to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. Such encouragement shall not be limited to people residing in their Kingdom. 2. Members of the NCSCA may be suggested as be nominees to the Board. If they wish to accept such nomination, they must resign from the NCSCA prior to accepting the nomination. D. Commentary on nominees for Director. 1. It is the responsibility of the NCSCA to publish the list of nominees in Tournaments Illuminated and in any other suitable forum and to make sure that this list is well-publicized. 2. Members of the NCSCA shall familiarize themselves as completely as possible with the qualifications of _at_least_ one of the nominees. 3. Members of the NCSCA shall read all commentary on all of the nominees to the Board of Directors. They shall seek out additional commentary when it seems advisable to do so. 4. Commentary on Board nominees shall be confidential and shall not be revealed to anyone outside the Committee except members of the Board of Directors. Names of the commenters shall be removed from the commentary when it is presented to the Board. 5. Any nominee may request to see the commentary on him or herself. This will be provided with the names of the commenters removed in order to encourage candid commentary. Any nominee may submit additional data at any time to answer commentary or to provide additional information. E. Presentation of candidates to the Board of Directors 1. Each year, two months prior to the Second Quarter Meeting of the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. the NCSCA shall select a "short list" of six potential Directors to be presented to the Board for possible selection as new Directors in the regular selection process by the Board of Directors. 2. The Chairman of the Board shall give the Committee, in a timely fashion, a list of needed expertise and qualities which the Board feels that it needs in candidates for the next year. This may include such things as geographical diversity, talents and training, etc. 3. Selection of the short list shall be based on the abilities of the candidates as shown by their resumes and experience and on the commentary received by the Committee, in combination with the expressed needs of the Board. 4. If the Board, due to resignations or other actions, needs to select more than two Directors during the year, the Board may request up to three more nominees from the NCSCA for each additional Director which needs to be selected. If the need appears during the year, the NCSCA shall provide a list of additional candidates within two months of the request. 5. All members of the NCSCA must participate in the selection of the short list. Failure to do so constitutes resignation from the Committee. 6. The list of names on the "short list" will be accompanied by a summary of commentary on each nominee. The Board may request the complete commentary on a nominee if they so desire. If they so request, all commentary must be sent to them in time to be of use in Board deliberations. III. Startup Proceedures for NCSCA. A. Initially, one half (or one half +1) of the appointees shall be appointed to two year terms, and the remaining members shall serve one year terms. The Kingdoms and/or the Board appointee which will have initial one year terms shall be selected by lot. B. The Kingdoms and the Board shall have six months from the time of passage of this charter to determine their method of selection of members of the NCSCA and to select their first member. C. The first Coordinator of the NCSCA shall be chosen by lot from the members with two year terms who volunteer to accept the position. He or she shall serve for one year and such additional time until the regular selection process can take place. Policy on Nomination to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. A. Any natural person over the age of 21 may be suggested as a nominee to the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. Nomination may be made by any participant in SCA activities and shall be sent to the NCSCA Coordinator. Self-nomination is acceptable. The Coordinator must notify each potential nominee within four weeks of the fact of their nomination, and ask if they wish to accept the nomination. B. Each nominee must accept the nomination. Acceptance of the nomination shall be in the form of a letter to the NCSCA Coordinator accepting the nomination, accompanied by a resume of the person's experience. Nominees may also submit position papers and any other documentation which they feel may better describe their abilities and desirability as candidates. No person who accepts a nomination may be denied their place on the list of nominees. C. A nomination remains effective for three years from the date of acceptance or until the nominee withdraws his or her name from consideration. Nominations may be renewed without prejudice by a letter >from the nominee stating his or her wish to be extended for an additional three years. D. The list of all current nominees, and of the current "short list" shall be published in every issue of Tournaments Illuminated and shall be publicized or published in any other way deemed appropriate by the NCSCA. This is a minimum publication requirement. Additional avenues of communication regarding the nominees and their positions should be developed by the Committee. ====================================================================== * * * 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 Mar 5 20:45:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 20:31:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Serwyl: Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION: NO NOMINATING COMMITTEE (Flieg's Proposal): YES STATUS QUO: weak yes (we can survive with it if need be) GALLERON'S SUFFERAGE ON REQUEST: no Sufferage by proceedings subscribers: YES GALLERONS FORCED POLLING PETITION: no I'm not sure that the format we are using for this vote is all that helpful. We seem to be voting for broad themes rather than specific proposals in some cases, and for specific proposals in others. There appeared to be some support for Flieg's Nominating committee proposal but the idea of a nominating committee looks like a distant runner in the actual tally. We would have had a much clearer picture of the choices if we had decided on WHAT to vote on before this poll began. As it is, some people (myself included) are voting on proposals that weren't part of Fiacha's initial list. Those votes are essentially wasted. I'm afraid we catapulted the cart way out ahead before the horse was even out of the barn.... Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 21:13:38 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:03:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha suggests that the election of directors would mandate a reincorporation, because they will not longer be appointed by the board. Stupid question time: could things be worded such that the elections are held unofficially, sort of, and the winning candidates be then officially "appointed" by the board? Or is this too far around the bend? OR would reincorporation be the best simplest route? Also suggested was having voting implemented on the web site. For now I'd suggest hardcopy votes, to simplify matters, to ensure everything goes right, to provide simple backup, etc.....For the first election or two, you'd want to keep things simple to work out all the kinks - and only then would you want to add different voting techniques. In other words, Keep It Simple to start. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 22:17:34 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 21:55:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I must agree with Serwyl that our current vote is on categories that are fuzzy and not well understood, QED. It's like a confusing duplication of the straw poll we had earlier. I like both Flieg's plan and, less strongly, the idea of ballots on request. If re-incorporation is the cost of having universal or near-universal suffrage, it leans me pretty strongly towards Flieg's proposal. Could we have clarification on this? Also, could we have a better balloting process, preferably between the proposals that have had enough support to get written down? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 22:34:56 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:23:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: I suspect the most optimistic projection of SCAdians with net access for the next 2 to five years still isnt going to top 50%. rough guess is closer to 30%... on the other hand thats a pretty big savings on printing and mailing costs.... On Tue, 5 Mar 1996, Nigel Haslock wrote: > Greeting from Fiacha, > > Please note that all systems in which the appointment of directors is not > made by the board will require that we reincorporate. We may need someone > to investigate the advantages and disadvantages of changing the State in > which we are incorporated. > > Second. I have been contemplating a proposal for distribution of voting > materials via the corporate web site. It is my belief that while net > access was restricted two years ago, larger fractions of the populace > have gained access since then and more can be expected to do so before > such a scheme could be implemented. If the next cycle of membership cards > could include a magic number in addition to the membership number, > members could even submit their votes electronically which might simplify > counting them too. > > Is anyone interested in seeing such a proposal fleshed out? > > Fiacha > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 22:46:35 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 22:35:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Serwyl: Votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960305203148_439048594@emout10.mail.aol.com> I think it has been helpful in clarifying here the support is and isnt, on general issues, as well as a tree around which we stay focussed. it may been an evolving "what we seem to think as of now" compilation rather than a true vote, but that just makes it useful in a different way... > I'm not sure that the format we are using for this vote is all that helpful. > We seem to be voting for broad themes rather than specific proposals in some > cases, and for specific proposals in others. There appeared to be some > support for Flieg's Nominating committee proposal but the idea of a > nominating committee looks like a distant runner in the actual tally. We > would have had a much clearer picture of the choices if we had decided on > WHAT to vote on before this poll began. As it is, some people (myself > included) are voting on proposals that weren't part of Fiacha's initial list. > Those votes are essentially wasted. I'm afraid we catapulted the cart way > out ahead before the horse was even out of the barn.... > > Serwyl > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 5 23:50:03 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383" Content-Id: Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 23:36:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Subscription Sufferage Proposal V1.1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info. ---2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: BOARD ELECTION PROPOSAL:Subscription Sufferage I. ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS A. ELECTORS. All persons holding a subscription to the "Proceedings of the SCA Inc. Will be members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. B. CANDIDATES. Any member of the corporation eligable to vote is eligible to be a candidate for the Board of Directors, providing that: 1. The candidate will have reached the age of eighteen (18) years by the official date of the election's commencement; 2. The candidate has submitted by the announced deadline a petition containing the signatures and membership numbers of fifty (50) members of the corporation who support the candidate's candidacy, ...Or nomination by a member of the BOD or a search commitee the BOD may designate for that purpose, OR any former Kingdom Great officer Or former BOD member upon thier request. 3. The candidate has submitted by the official deadline a statement of no more than two hundred and fifty (250) words, explaining his/her background and reasons for candidacy to be published with the official ballot. 4. No person may be elected to the Board of Directors for more than two consecutive terms. C. ELECTION PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be followed in the election of the Board of Directors: 1. Elections will be conducted as needed through the quarterly publication of the proceedings of the SCA inc. 2. Ballots are to be set out in the issue following the issue containing the election announcement and candidate information. 3. Election results are to be publisheed in the issue of the Proceedings flowwing the issue contaning the Ballot for that election. 4. The ballots will be counted seven days after the published deadline for receipt of ballots by the corporate office manager and two agents designated by the Board of Directors. Any member of the corporation may observe the counting of the ballots. 6. candidates receiving the highest vote totals will be elected 7. Ties will be decided by lot. 8. The results of the election, including all vote tallies, will be published in all kingdom newletters within two months of the completion of the official tally. The Board of Directors will certify the election and inform the candidates of the official tally within one week of the completion of that tally. 9. Any candidate may request a recount within two weeks of the completion of the official tally. Recounts will be conducted in accordance with the procedure established in I.C.5 above within two weeks of receipt of the request for recount. No candidate may request more than one recount. Results of recounts will be published in all kingdom newsletters within two months of the completion of the recount. D. DIRECTORS-ELECT. Directors-elect may participate in all deliberations of the Board of Directors prior to the commencement of their terms, but may not vote until commencement of their terms as directors. F. IMPLEMENTATION. The most senior remaining non-elected director will be replaced by an elected director every other quarter II. RECALL OF DIRECTORS A. DEFINITION OF RECALL. A director who has been recalled is removed from the Board of Directors effective from the date of the recall action. Recall may occur for any reason. B. RECALL PROCEDURES. Members of the Board of Directors may be recalled by any of the following procedures: 1. Through the regular survey instrument published in the "Proceedings of the SCA inc." As specified in section III 2. Submission of a petition to the Board of Directors containing the signatures and membership numbers of at least one thousand five hundred (1,500) members of the corporation. The eligibility of signators must be determined within five *5) working day following delivery of the petition to the corporate office; recall will be effective upon verification. C. REPLACEMENT OF RECALLED DIRECTORS. recalled directors will be replaced through the normal election process. III Publication of the "Proceedings of the SCA Inc." A) the "Proceedings of the SCA inc." Shall be published not less than quarterly with at least on issue published one month prior to each regular BOD meeting, and except in cases emergency, suplemented prior to special meetings of the BOD. B) The 'Proceedings' issue following an emergency meeting must contain as full an account as possible of the nature of the emergency, and the deliberations of the BOD C) CONTENTS: the "Proceedings" are requried to coantain the following elements. 1) The complete agenda for the next BOD meeting, with complete wording of any proposals beign consedered for action. 2)Candidate information and Ballots to fill any BOD vacancies which have occurred or will occur prior to or in the month following the next publication of the proceedings. 3) A nonbinding survey instrument designed to be mailed back to the SCA inc. and raplidly collated/tallied, which shall contain a) A standing space for a recall petition b) any question a BOD member wishes to place there as well as a space for response c) any items up for formal vote 4)An abstraction of the most recently passed board meeting with full formal wordings of actions voted on by The BOD and whether or not they were approved. 5) The mostly recently approved and as yet unpublished minutes of the BOD, including the complete transcript and with an index. 6) detalied reports on the finances and insurance coverge fo the SCA inc. 6) such letters to BOD members/the BOD as the BOD member/BOD wish to publsih with thier response ---2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383-- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 08:43:20 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <61929.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> with last message <61929.flieg@garnet.berkeley.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: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:10:51 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Formal NCSCA Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <61929.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> yes to flieg's ncsca peoposal -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 08:47:29 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: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:12:22 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Subscription Sufferage Proposal V1.1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: no to the subsc. suff. prop v1.1 -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius