From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 11:26:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:13:48 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Status Quo Votes, & other Voting Issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <58753.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> (message from Flieg Hollander on Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:19:12 -0800) Flieg writes: >Now Justin, you seem to be keeping >tally only on _one part of the vote!_ What is going on here???? I think you've missed the point of what I was saying. I *am* tallying the votes just for "status quo" -- keeping things as they are now. In general, I believe Fiacha intended that the proponents of each proposal would tally the votes for that proposal (although I don't think he made that entirely clear). There are no active proponents of status quo (although there are several people who would like to keep it), so Fiacha asked me to tally that, as well as my preference-vote thing. > 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. Actually, I somewhat disagree. Based on the past, I'd say that three weeks is just barely enough time to vote, prepare the results, and get them to the Board in time for the meeting. (It would be Very Nice if the Board had the results sometime *before* the meeting itself, so they could think about them a little.) We really do need to get our act together ASAP. (Yes, it's all moving a shade too fast all of a sudden, but I think we did need a fire lit under peoples' collective butts...) > 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. We *are* voting on specific proposals, not general ideas. I believe that Fiacha has confused people a bit with the way he phrased his kickoff message, but we are *very* specifically voting on proposals. "Universal Suffrage" means Hossein's Proposal; "Nominating Committee" means yours. (God only knows where Cariadoc's went.) People should make sure they understand what they've voted for, and change their votes if necessary. (I don't think there's any need to shut down the voting and restart -- we can afford to let people change their minds, which is easier.) "Status Quo" *is* currently sort of a general idea, but only because I've gotten no one who particularly cares about seeing it written up in proposal form. And yes, you're right that it's vaguely silly to be voting on your proposal before you've finalized it, but I think anyone actively following the discussion has a reasonably good idea of what the final form is going to look like. My yes vote is based on the assumption that the points we discussed before will be dealt with... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Suicide Squid...lives...but...for...how long?!...How long?" "Damn it Jim, I'm a doctor, not a sushi chef" "Th' tentacles, they nae can take much more of this!" "Fasinating...since it has no shoulders, the Vulcan nerve pinch is ineffective" "Suicide Squid was inwented in Mother Russia" -- Dialogue from Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Squid From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 11:31:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:18:19 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:26:59 -0800) Fiacha writes: >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. Interesting; I'm not sure whether I favor this *quite* yet or not. Certainly within the next two years it'll make sense -- the recent announcement of AT&T getting into the ISP business means that cheap Internet access is about to become more-or-less universal. On the other hand, I think it's going to be as few more years after that before it is reasonable to *demand* Internet access; I'd guess five years, minimum. So a plan along these lines would need to include some mechanism for the individual member to say whether he wants to receive a paper ballot, or deal with it electronically. This has merit, and could be made to work, but I don't know if it's quite time for it yet... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "[By the way, I've always wondered about this: Before he became Caspar the Friendly Ghost, was he Caspar the Friendly Terminally Ill Child, Caspar the Friendly About To Be Brutally Murdered Child, or Caspar the Friendly Horribly Mangled in a Terrible Accident Child?]" -- Dr. Foo From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 11:35:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:21:24 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <59818.flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu> (message from Flieg Hollander on Tue, 5 Mar 1996 16:36:57 -0800) Flieg writes: > Unless the entire country (and Canada and others) are wired for computer >to the same extent that they are now wired for telephone Note that the Net *is* approaching universality at this point. However, as you say, not everyone has a computer, and won't for some time. > 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. Not necessarily. This is a factor, to be sure, but if we went into it open-eyed, and designed carefully, it wouldn't add *much* confusion. And the costs of electronic polling would be *wildly* lower -- a tiny fraction of paper polls. This could make it worthwhile to run a hybrid system... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I always thought that you could really make a bundle, starting in about 1990, with a company that did nothing but fixed all date routines, so the world wouldn't end on Jan 1, 2000." -- Dave Harrington From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 12:27:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:06:52 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Subscription Sufferage Proposal V1.1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here.... In message Tue, 5 Mar 1996 23:36:36 -0500, arthur dent writes: > > > 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 [[...trimmed for space...]] Arthur?? Is this yours, or is this Galleron's? It looks like a 1.1 of Galleron's but without some of the details that Catrin posted. Now admittedly all "subscription suffrage" proposals will look similar, but sometime's it's hard to tell what's going on here. * * * 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 Mar 6 12:31:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 08:59:42 -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 Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:13:48 EST, Mark Waks writes: > Flieg writes: > >>Now Justin, you seem to be keeping >> tally only on _one part of the vote!_ What is going on here???? >> > > I think you've missed the point of what I was saying. I *am* tallying > the votes just for "status quo" -- keeping things as they are now. That's what I said; you're only tallying part of the vote. > In general, I believe Fiacha intended that the proponents of each > proposal would tally the votes for that proposal (although I don't > think he made that entirely clear). Which is entirely different from the way the last two polls ran. Why the change? It is not convenient or easy for me to tally the votes and separate those who are voting for/against an abstract concept vs. those who are voting for Hossein's /mine/ Galleron(1)/ etc. Galleron will have even a harder time since he isn't even directly connected. [.trimm for space...] > > Actually, I somewhat disagree. Based on the past, I'd say that three weeks > is just barely enough time to vote, prepare the results, and get them > to the Board in time for the meeting. But that's what the April 1 deadline _is_; time for the BoD to see it. [...more trim...] > > We *are* voting on specific proposals, not general ideas. I believe > that Fiacha has confused people a bit with the way he phrased his > kickoff message, but we are *very* specifically voting on > proposals. Where does it say that. And what about Arthur's proposal which just came out? This is too much of a rush-to-judgement. [...trimm...] > change their votes if necessary. (I don't think there's any need to > shut down the voting and restart Yes there is: I have deleted a whole bunch of votes from people and if I am supposed to be keeping the damned things I don't have the initial votes to keep. And without a deadline when do I know when to stop? * * * 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 Mar 6 12:49:58 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 12:33:09 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Subscription Sufferage Proposal V1.1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Tue, 5 Mar 1996 23:36:36 -0500) I'll toss in an "abstain" on the current version of Arthur's proposal... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "If someone worships The Great Pumpkin as the architect of the universe, can he become a Mason and use the Peanuts collection of cartoons as the book of supreme moral guidance?" -- Nick Jovanovic From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 13:58:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:45:51 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gareth of Stonemarche; I have some comments below... -- Justin >From: "Gregory D. Dearborn" >Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal >Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 11:53:38 -0500 (EST) >In-Reply-To: <9603061621.AA08817@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Mar 6, 96 11:21:24 am Greetings from Gareth of Stonemarche. Flieg wrote: > > 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. And you (Justin) replied: > Not necessarily. This is a factor, to be sure, but if we went into it > open-eyed, and designed carefully, it wouldn't add *much* confusion. > And the costs of electronic polling would be *wildly* lower -- a tiny > fraction of paper polls. This could make it worthwhile to run a hybrid > system... Yes, I think "designed carefully" is the operative phrase here. It's true that the polls must include the option to vote by snail-mail. Although we can't require everyone to have email, it is almost a certainty that many people in each kingdom will have good email connectivity. Perhaps there could be several volunteer paper vote counters that could email the results of their counts to the central email address. The address could actually be linked to a computer program that sent a confirmation of the ballot. The tallying of the votes and checking of membership numbers could also be automated. Even if not many people wanted to vote by email, I think setting up this system would permit us to run the ballot without having to centralize volunteer vote counters or use a vote counting service. It would be thus more manageable and cheaper than the alternatives. If you don't think this is totally daft and reasonably on topic, please forward it to scagc-l. Thanks! Your servant, Gareth --------------------------------------- A bit more thought on the subject, from Justin: I've been mulling on this for the past couple of hours. Some considerations: Implementing it would be neither trivial nor terribly hard. Writing the Web site itself would be easy enough; I could do it in a day or so with adequate-but-inefficient CGI Perl, or a couple of days for really solid Netscape API code, in C, with a better file structure. I'm confident that this is easily doable by volunteers. Modifying the Registry computer to cope is a project of unknown size. It *seems* like it should be easy enough to assign a random number to each member, print it on their card (or somewhere on their renewal packet), and export that to the Web site. On the other hand, experience has demonstrated that the Registry computer is a mess, and one can't count upon being able to make changes. This *could* be an expense, depending on how bad the situation really is. As someone (I forget who) mentioned, this wouldn't take care of the entire Society. It might well take care of a large fraction, though, maybe enough to be worth the bother. If we combined this with a positive checkoff for receiving postal ballots (which a fair number of people would probably not bother with), I could easily see dropping the expense of direct election by half. Given that many (although not all) of the people who dislike direct election do so because of cost, this has some definite merit. I probably wouldn't make this a full separate proposal, but a possible "modular" amendment to Hossein's or Galleron's proposal, which might (or might not) make them more attractive. Not sure on how to vote on that, though... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Humans... God's attempt to pass the Turing test." -- maya From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 14:01:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 10:39:12 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Voting and Chaos To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9603061733.AA09056@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from Fiacha (wearing his Chairman's hat) Ladies and Gentlemen, at the beginning of January, the issue of appointing directors to the board was stated to be the topic under discussion. There was no argument. At the beginning of Febuary, the topic changed to a request for formal proposals for appointing directors and general discussion on recalling directors. At the end of Febuary, I asked for voting to commence on the formal proposals and offered a week for people to get their acts together to firm up existing proposals. Flieg managed to do this. We now have less than four weeks to conduct the votes, gather dissenting opinions and write a report for the board. To my mind, a vote is complete when at least half of the council has voted for or against it or when two thirds of the council has cast their vote. However, in order to be included in the report, the votes must be complete by March 25. Dissenting opinions must be written by March 27 to be included in the report. Going back to the current state of affairs. I believe that the council lost two weeks handling the straw poll which was why I stated my dislike for the poll at its instigation. However, the results suggested that there was a significant amount of support for the status quo. Thus I asked Justin to run a poll for the Status Quo. As with the previous successful pollings, I had hoped that the person who framed the formal proposals (i.e. Hossein and Flieg and Galleron) would count the votes for their proposal and would regularly post both the current state of their proposal and the votes cast for the previous incarnation, i.e. the way Arthur pioneered. Finally, the votes I cast yesterday were for the specific formal proposals not for the underlying concepts. My apologies to Cariadoc, but I overlooked any proposal that had not generated memorable discussion during the month of Febuary. I hope this clarifies matters, Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 14:16:15 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, 6 Mar 1996 19:58:08 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Voting and Chaos To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >As with the previous successful pollings, I had hoped that the person who >framed the formal proposals (i.e. Hossein and Flieg and Galleron) would >count the votes for their proposal ... > >Finally, the votes I cast yesterday were for the specific formal >proposals not for the underlying concepts. ... Fine. You could've *said* so. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 15:34:29 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 12 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:10:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: My votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg's NC proposal: YES Universal suffrage: yes Suffrage by request: yes Galleron's forced polling proposal: yes No opinion on anything else. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 15:41:21 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:14:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Oops! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I find I DO have an opinion on something else. While I am all in favor of the Corporation using the net for all sorts of communication, I do not favor distribution of voting materials this way. Plenty of people without computers will react viscerally to such a move at this time. They will feel that some "THEY" (fill in your own paranoid blanks) have hijacked the Society and left them out. They will see the Corp as becoming less accessible and more elitist rather than less. For voting, use the mails. There are disadvantages, but the mails are universal. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 18:15:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 14:56:40 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Oops! - Voting by email To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <313E1EB2@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Greetings from Fiacha, I was not suggesting email as the primary means of distribution or of data collection. I was thinking in terms of 'Here is a cheap way to enhance distribution for the limited distribution proposal. Reconsideration has gotten me to the point of thinking that folks with connected computers might act as automated polling stations as a back up for surface mail. As such, this issue becomes a gloss on any voting proposal and I will save it until such details become an issue on the floor, perhaps as an adjuct to the discussion of communications between the board and the populace. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 18:54:10 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:39:00 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetinmgs from Artos. Fiacha wrote: 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. I reply: I don't quite see the necessity to re-incorporate. Perhaps a change to the by-laws or other governing documents may be necessary, but it's not obvious to me that a change of this nature to the construction of the board is inconsistent with the nature of the incorporation. I have found the California Corporations Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html), and have scanned the provisions on directors and governance of corporations (Chapter 3, sections 300-318). Nothing that I can see (in an admitedly cursory inspection) gives me the impression that we would need to do anything more than modify the by-laws. Fiacha wrote: 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? I reply: I tend to agree somewhat with those who believe that this move is premature in the current degree of universality of web access, so I would not like to see this method used in the immediate future for voting per se, though I see no reason why such a scheme should not be available as an option in the future, once we have a stable system of voting set up and running. I think a somewhat better use for this idea is to conduct the non-binding polls that someone posited earlier. It's certainly true that the net-connected community in the SCA is a minority, and the results of such polls might be skewed, but if the polls are non-binding, it shouldn't matter all that much. Also, in any non-compulsory poll, however conducted, only interested or motivated people vote, which skews the result. Even in compulsory polls, informal votes skew the result. To quibble over details, a better method would be to us email rather than the web. Set up a moderated list on which the questions are posted, and the moderator can tally the votes. The web page can be used to enrol/unenrol people for the list. Naturally there is a possibility of fraudulent registration, but I doubt this will be a significant problem. Artos Barefoot (Richard Lesze) lesze_richard@tandem.com Lochac, West. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 20:34:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 20:17:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Hossein: Reposted Election Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein. I have had several requests for a reposting of my election proposal. Here it is. Hossein/Greg BOARD ELECTION PROPOSAL: I. ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS A. ELECTORS. All persons holdings sustaining, associate, family, or international memberships will be members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. B. 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 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 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. C. ELECTION PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be followed in the election of the Board of Directors: 1. Elections will be conducted in three-year cycles. In the first year of the cycle, three directors will be elected. In each of the second and third years of the cycle, two directors will be elected. The terms of directors will be three years. 2. All members of the corporation under I.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 legal and society names of the candidates on which the members of the corporation may vote for up to three candidates in the first year of the election cycle and up to two candidates in in each of the second and third years of the election cycle; 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. In elections conducted in the first year of the cycle, the three candidates receiving the highest vote totals will be elected; in elections conducted in the second and third year of the cycle, the two 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. E. 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: 28May; 7. Deadline for completion of recount: 4 June; 8. Commencement of term as directors for directors- elect: January board meeting. F. 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 the first election following adoption of this proposal, three directors will be elected. 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. 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. Majority vote of the Board of Directors; recall will be effective immediately. 2. Two-thirds majority vote of the Crowns and Kingdom Seneschals of the Laurel Kingdoms; the king, queen, and kingdom seneschal of each kingdom will each have one vote for purposes of recall; recall will be effective upon receipt of notification of the vote at the corporate office. 3. 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 days following delivery of the petition to the corporate office; recall will be effective upon verification. C. REPLACEMENT OF RECALLED DIRECTORS. Replacement of a recalled director will take place at the next regular election of directors. The number of directors to be elected will be increased by the number of recalled directors if at least a full year of the recalled directors' terms remains. The regular director positions will be filled first, and the remaining recalled positions will be filled by the candidates receiving the next highest number of votes. Candidates elected to replace a recalled director will serve the remainder of the term of the recalled director. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 21:31:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 18:11:02 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603061541.AA13625@POST.MIS.TANDEM.COM> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 6 Mar 1996, Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot) wrote: > I don't quite see the necessity to re-incorporate. Perhaps a change to the > by-laws or other governing documents may be necessary, but it's not obvious to > me that a change of this nature to the construction of the board is > inconsistent with the nature of the incorporation. I have found the > California Corporations Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html), and have > scanned the provisions on directors and governance of corporations (Chapter 3, > sections 300-318). Nothing that I can see (in an admitedly cursory > inspection) gives me the impression that we would need to do anything more > than modify the by-laws. I believe that you are mistaken. I suspect that we could weasel word around the issue but I doubt that the Attorney General's office would be impressed. I have also been lead to believe that reincorporating is not a big deal. It does not mean dump the corporation and start over, it means filing some papers that say we have had an internal administrative reorganization. When the first incorporation was done, the SCA was primarily Californian and so the issue of where to incorporate was probably never considered. Now we know that the corporation is international and so we should put some effort into investigating the advantages and disadvantages of each state as the place to incorporate. California seems to go overboard in protecting the individual from rapacious corporations and so Directors and Officers Liability Insurance is expensive. If there are states in which this is not true, the savings in insurance may pay for the reincorporation and offset the annual costs or running the elections. Remember that incorporating in some other state does not mean that we need to move the office there. Moving the office is a completely separate issue. I would love someone more knowledgable to take over this investigation, preferably someone not already on the council. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 6 22:18:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:06:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Alban: explanation of votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (After writing all of this offline, I suddenly realize my votes haven't changed _all_ that much - but I figured I might as well pretty up the language, and add explanations. I also haven't voted here on Hossein's proposal; that'll come in the next day or two.) I'm falling back on personal privilege, changing my mind, and requesting that my new, improved votes are the following: Arthur Dent's Voting-by-Subscription Proposal: No. I now prefer universal suffrage. "Any paying member can vote" may not be the rock-bottom cheapest method out there, but it's the simplest, fairest, and least likely to incur cries of elitism. Galleron's 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.): No. (Galleron asks "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?" Nothing, really; I've changed my mind. I've decided that universal suffrage is the best way to go, and that nominating committees other than the present system (the SCA as a committee of the whole) are, not really a bad idea, but an unnecessary waste of time and effort.) Galleron's Mandatory Polling Thang: Again, no. He proposes that mandatory polling must be done upon request of 1% of the membership. This would mean a principality could request and require a polling, leading to costs, confusion, voting, and general brouhaha, on an issue which may or may not be of any interest to the remaining 99% of the membership. ("The Principality of Azaz hereby requests and requires the Board of Directors poll the membership on the following question: Should the Prince of Azaz be forced to wear purple socks when he is on the list field." Appended is a list of everyone in the Principality, all of whom are in favor of the polling. 250 signatures appended.) I see he includes a method by which a group could pay for the polling - but it still takes up too much time on something that may be more or less worthless. If the proposal could be modified so as to suggest a wide geographic basis for the request, (say, at least one third of the signatures must be from a different principality/kingdom/barony) I might (not would, might) change my vote. Note also that I do like this method specifically for votes of confidence in a specific director(s). Flieg's NCSCA proposal: No. Note: While I do not agree with nominating committees, I will defend to the death their right to be talked about. In other words, send 'em up to the Board. Alban (lusting after an online editor) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 06:46:23 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 03:29:00 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. I respond to Fiacha, who wrote in reply to me: You said: I believe that you are mistaken. I suspect that we could weasel word around the issue but I doubt that the Attorney General's office would be impressed. I reply: You are absolutely correct. I was mistaken. I looked at the part for ordinary corporations. There is a completely different part called Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, which starts at section 5110. Article 2 (sections 5220-5227) tited "Selection, Removal and Resignation of Directors" allows the existence of corporations of this type to either have members or to have no members. I believe the SCA is such a corporation without members. If this is so, its articles or by-laws must state that it is so (section 5310). In either case, a simple change to the articles or by-laws would, I think, be sufficient. Changing the by-laws can be done by majority vote of the directors (section 5150, 5034 and 5310), as can changing the articles (section 5812(b)(3)). In either case I think re-incorporation would not be necessary. Thank you for forcing me to do my research better (I might still have not done it well, but it is better than last time). You imply that discussing this is a waste of time. If this is so, why did you bring the subject up in the first place? You said: I have also been lead to believe that reincorporating is not a big deal. It does not mean dump the corporation and start over, it means filing some papers that say we have had an internal administrative reorganization. I reply: As long as the SCA maintains its incorporation under the California code, what you say may be quite true, and also the same as what I said albeit in different words. You said: When the first incorporation was done, the SCA was primarily Californian and so the issue of where to incorporate was probably never considered. Now we know that the corporation is international and so we should put some effort into investigating the advantages and disadvantages of each state as the place to incorporate. California seems to go overboard in protecting the individual from rapacious corporations and so Directors and Officers Liability Insurance is expensive. If there are states in which this is not true, the savings in insurance may pay for the reincorporation and offset the annual costs or running the elections. I reply: Thank you for the history lesson. If the SCA is now an international organisation, why do we assume that the USA is the best place to incorporate? Also, why is the best structure a corporation? If the SCA incorporates outside the USA, there are other incorporation models that may be more appropriate to the needs of the Sociaty. For instance, the SCA in Australia is an association rather than a corporation, incorporated under different legislation from the corporations legislation. The Associations Incorporation Act is a much simpler code than the Companies Act (which governs corporations), and allows considerable latitude while providing the protection required from incorporating. It's considerably cheaper to set up an association than a company, and the governing body is not as exposed as a board of directors (the association is governed by a committee rather than a board). As far as I could see, neither the California code nor the Federal code provide for such structures, though the one of the mentions unincorporated associations, which presumably don't afford the protection of incorporated bodies. Other countries may have other structures even better suited to our purposes, and even cheaper to create and run. You said: Remember that incorporating in some other state does not mean that we need to move the office there. Moving the office is a completely separate issue. I reply: Granted. This was never an issue, at least for me. I have no particular interest in where the head office is, though somewhere cheap is more attractive than somewhere expensive. You said: I would love someone more knowledgable to take over this investigation, preferably someone not already on the council. I reply: I agree. Why someone not on the Council? Do we have no-one on the Council qualified to do this research? Artos Barefoot. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 09:36:11 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 25 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 07:25:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: My votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I've had a little while to look at the proposals and here are my votes so far: Universal suffrage: yes Nominating committee: YES Forced Polling: no Status quo: no In the end, I believe that voting by the membership is the only way that members will feel that the board represents them. I think that the nominating committee can be implemented quickly and it removes the "self-selecting" problem with the current selection process. I fear that organizing a way to vote will take a while and I'd want change as soon as possible. regards, Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter ps - Can someone send me directions on how to change my e-mail address in the master list so I can continue to post once I move to my new job? My current one will be active for at least a month, but I'll also have another one soon (same company but each mail server has a different scheme). From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 09:40:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:31:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: vote clarification To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L First I suggest that we pull Galleron's proposal on forced polling out of this lot of proposals because it is on a somewhat different topic and needs more chewing over. To Flieg: I support sending your proposal to the board and I vote for it (but you knew that, didn't you?) Third, Arthur's proposal is very interesting, especially the comments on membership in the first version. If the SCA continues to grow, something like this may be down the road, but I think it would be a big mistake to jump into it now. Fourth, universal sufferage has not been discussed as fully as some of the others. My impression was that we generally agreed that we did not want to introduce politics, but that impression may have been based only on who spoke out. Are all the people interested in this option thinking of it solely in terms of individuals, as opposed to an electoral system? I.e., instead of isolated individuals turning in their votes, votes would be collected at various branch points: the shire turning in a collected vote. Finally, on sufferage by request or by subscription. Keeping a database is not a simple proposition. (I will remind you of the various complaints about membership cards.) Both of these versions require the continual updating of the database and a processing lead time. How close to the voting deadline can one request and receive a ballot? How long should one be a subscriber before being eligible to vote? Once in the database, do you stay there or have to request a ballot each time? What about subscription renewal? These types of questions are very relevant given the nature of our membership--there is a tendency to rely on phone calls, photocopying, and last-minute communication. Offering sufferage and then making it "difficult" (given the temperment of the members) strikes me as not good. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 11:04:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 10:49:26 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alban: explanation of votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I218DV4V8U99E1O3@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban writes: >Note: While I do not agree with nominating committees, I will >defend to the death their right to be talked about. In other words, >send 'em up to the Board. Which reminds me: IMO, *all* of the current proposals should be sent to the Board. This is really why I supported the straw poll -- to determine which proposals weren't even worth that time and bother. I think that any proposal we get so far as voting on *should* be sent to them, with commentary about how well it fared and why. (For example, the status quo vote is currently *very* negative; that's still valuable information...) Information about what we think *won't* work is also useful to the Board in making this decision... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You can remain a teaching assistant forever, basing your stay on the inability to finish your course load. This right is protected under the most famous maxim of humanity: those who cannot learn history are condemned to repeat it." -- Kent From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 13:16:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:56:06 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603070332.AA4409@POST.MIS.TANDEM.COM> Greetings from Fiacha, I believe that the choice of being a non-member corporation is made in the articles of incorporation. To change them we must reincorporate. This means that we have an opportunity to make other changes and that we need to consider them. This was part of the point of my original comment. The other point was that there will be a cost associated with making this change and we need to be aware of what we are recommending. On Thu, 7 Mar 1996, Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot) wrote: > Thank you for the history lesson. If the SCA is now an international > organisation, why do we assume that the USA is the best place to incorporate? It is not necessarily the best place but, as everyone who has studied the international issues is aware, most nations require that a business be incorporation in their nation in order to conduct business there. Further, the SCA's current assets in the USA would be lost if the corporation disbanded in the USA. This is bound up with the 501c(3) status. Since the assets include the branch funds and other declared assets such a move would be unacceptable to the majority of the membership. > I agree. Why someone not on the Council? Do we have no-one on the Council > qualified to do this research? If someone has the necessary knowledge and would like to share it, I would be exstatic. Otherwise I believe that council members have enough to do without picking up a major research project. > Artos Barefoot. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 19:53:04 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, 7 Mar 1996 15:02:43 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: my votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I would strenuously emphasize that we are premature in voting on a recommendation. None of the proposals have presented the sort of complete information that would be required to make a confident recommendation. We are to be doing more than simply reporting our individual preferences--we should be doing the hard work of threshing through the many implications and potential problems with any plan. If we propose something to the board, only to have them rightly respond "that is all well and good, but this, or this or this prevents us from implementing this plan" we will have shown ourselves to be not much further ahead of the group of people sitting around the campfire at the conclusion of an event. Friends, the board doesn't need another of these groups. I did not expect that any of this stuff would be easy. I hope that no one here believed so. There has been so much good work done so far, let us not stop because of some arbitrary timeline. My votes are abstentions, for I can not in good faith vote for a proposal with only the level of understanding that I now have. I take my responsibility to provide wise council to prevent me from acting prematurely if the situation does not warrant such speed. I do not intend to imply that any who are quicker on the analysis, or who have information that I have not yet seen (such as, how will each of these proposals be affected by the laws of the various countries in which we play--I would hate to see us commit the same error which we have so roundly criticized others for committing; and how much will each of these cost? I have seen some preliminary guesses as to costs, but, unless I have missed it, I have not seen a financial impact analysis for these various proposals) These are but two examples of the sorts of questions we should explore in more depth before we recommend something. Our credibility as a council should not be taken lightly. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 19:57:30 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, 7 Mar 1996 19:40:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Artos asks >If the SCA is now an international organisation, why do we assume that the USA is the best place to incorporate? Well, to maintain 501(c)(3) status, to protect officers from having their personal finances attached in case the SCA is sued, and for various other financial and legal reasons. In other words, because incorporation is, in general,a good thing for multi-million dollar entities. Yes, the SCA should have a group incorporated within the U.S. Now, whether the international thing we call the Society should itself be incorporated within the U.S.,I cannot say - but there should be an SCA (US), Inc. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 20:16:40 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: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:58:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: my votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth mentions something that merits further discussion: >(such as, how will each of these >proposals be affected by the laws of the various countries in which we play The SCA, INc., is presentlyincorporated withni the UnitesdStates. Nevertheless, there are paying members outside the US. Is it legal, right, and proper that non-citizens can vote for directors for a 501(c)(3) board? (My inclinations would tend toward the "yes they can" side of the issue, but one wonders: does California incorporation rules allow for foreigners to vote in such a manner?) I don't believe the small associations up in Canada for the SCA groups up there allow Americans to vote in their directors; I'm wondering if the SCA corporation down here, in California, can be allowed to accept non-American votes. Perhaps this would be a sufficient cause to separate the SCA (US) Inc. >from The Society, allowing Americans to vote for the American version of the corporation, and allowing everyone in the world to vote for the The Society's board? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 22:27:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 18:43:00 +1600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Artos: Corporate Structure To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. I asked Fiacha: >If the SCA is now an international organisation, why do we assume that the USA is the best place to incorporate? Alban answered: Well, to maintain 501(c)(3) status, to protect officers from having their personal finances attached in case the SCA is sued, and for various other financial and legal reasons. In other words, because incorporation is, in general,a good thing for multi-million dollar entities. Yes, the SCA should have a group incorporated within the U.S. I reply: Well, yes. I never intended my question to be interpreted to mean that I thought that having a corporate existence in the USA was not a good idea. I was asking why the top-most entity in the corporate structure had to be in the USA. Incorporating is good, for all the reasons you list, and probably more. WARNING: Rant mode on. The SCA already has, whether it admits it or not, a multi-level corporate structure. The context of my question (I thought) was the jurisdiction of incorporation of the top-most entity in the structure (assuming there is one). I would like to see the Council discuss the best multi-national corporate structure for the SCA in the long term, not just how to tweak the current system to appear a little nicer. In particular I would like to see discussion on the implications for the current management paradigm of top-down control (particularly alternatives, like corporate sovereignty); a redesign of the membership system to better reflect the way the SCA actually does things in the different places it operates, including a set of principles that ensure that minimal amounts of money need to be transferred across national boundaries; how to address the fundamental tyrany of distance. Then I would like to see a plan of how to get there from here. In the process of developing this plan, we should, I think, (without wishing to pre-empt the discussion on structure) recognise that the current SCA Inc is as parochial and nation-bound as any of the other SCA incorporated bodies (eg, the Australian association and the Canadian companies), which probably means that the best solution is to create a new top level organisation based in whatever country seems best. The Council should recognise that the SCA Inc is operating in two distinctly different modes simultaneously: as a local corporation and as an international co-ordinating body. These two roles are not easily reconcilable (which is, I think, one reason (of many) for the Nordmark problems of the recent past and present). The sooner we give the SCA Inc a way to divest itself of their international co-ordination responsibilities the happier they are likely to be, and the happier the SCA outside the USA is likely to be. Rant mode off. Artos Barefoot. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 7 23:06:23 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:53:00 +1600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. I respond to Fiacha: You said: I believe that the choice of being a non-member corporation is made in the articles of incorporation. To change them we must reincorporate. I reply: What exactly do you mean by "reincorporate"? Do you mean that the SCA Inc is wound up and another different corporation (say, SCA2 Inc) is created? Or do you mean that the articles of incorporation are amended pursuant to section 5812(b)(3) of the California Corporations Code? I hope you mean the latter, because it seems to be a straight-forward submission of forms, whereas the former involves all the bank accounts being closed and all the money and other assets being transferred to another 501(c)(3) corporation (presumably SCA2 Inc). You said: This means that we have an opportunity to make other changes and that we need to consider them. This was part of the point of my original comment. The other point was that there will be a cost associated with making this change and we need to be aware of what we are recommending. I reply: I though the oportunity to make changes was what the BOD was offering us by creating the Council. The cost of the changes is something the BOD will have to balance against what it sees as the benefits of the changes we propose. I don't think we should take those costs into consideration. Rejecting proposals on cost grounds is the Board's prerogerative, and we should leave it to them. Artos Barefoot. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 00:17:20 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:04:33 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Hossein: Reposted Election Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603070117.UAA18419@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> > B. RECALL PROCEDURES. Members of the Board of Directors > may be recalled by any of the following procedures: > 1. Majority vote of the Board of Directors; recall will be > effective immediately. > recalling a director by a simple majority of the other directors feels just a bit too casual for me to be comfortable with it. even two thirds majority on a simple motion would still make removal a too simple way of changing the balance of the board. I do understand that there may be circumstances in which such a measure is neccesary, but they'd probably be so obvious to all. (such a s a major PR or legal liability ( a director found mundanely guilty of embezzelment at thier work during thier term, or invovled in a high profile crime case, or perhaps even a huge lack of discretion or respect for thier coleages...) how about making it 'uninanimous minus one' or 'unanimous minus two with each vote confirmed two weeks after the initial vote' (cooling period) ? > BOARD ELECTION PROPOSAL: > > I. ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS > A. ELECTORS. All persons holdings sustaining, associate, > family, or international memberships will be members of the > corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. this part gets tricky on family memberships... does a family of five get one vote , one vote per adult, or one vote per family member, even minors? and if we choose one vote per adult, do our family memberships specify how many adults are in each family membership? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 00:23:35 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:12:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Roy Gathercole:my votes:not yet! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1427707.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> I'm very inclined to agree. the best we can hope for out of the current vote is to say to the BOD "here are the two or three plans we think are a good idea and we'll get back to you with SPECIFIC plans , costs of implementation , and possible benefits/drawbacks/side effects later" the hard part is knowing how much later and organizing ourselves for constructive and cumulative work in paralel instead of discussion... ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 00:31:05 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 00:15:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: change of addresses.... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'll be changing e-mail addresses this month ( no really , I mean it this time!) how will I get my new one on this list? my current mailing address is 10 division street Malden MA 02148 617-322-1769 ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 16:10:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 09:19:20 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: my votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg here -- In message Thu, 7 Mar 1996 19:58:58 -0500, "Alban St. Albans" writes: > Gareth mentions something that merits further discussion: > >>(such as, how will each of these >> proposals be affected by the laws of the various countries in which we >> play > > The SCA, INc., is presentlyincorporated withni the UnitesdStates. > Nevertheless, there are paying members outside the US. Is it legal, > right, and proper that non-citizens can vote for directors for a > 501(c)(3) board? (My inclinations would tend toward the "yes they can" > side of the issue, but one wonders: does California incorporation rules > allow for foreigners to vote in such a manner?) I know this is possible generically because the American Crystallographic Association has lots of members in Canada, but is incorporated in the U.S. and it votes for President and Secretary and the like without concern for country of origin. I don't think CA is that mucho strange. > * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc. *** *** *** flieg@garnet.berkeley.edu _|___|___|_ |===========| (((Flieg Hollander, Chemistry Dept., U.C. Berkeley))) ====================== Old Used Duke ===================== [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection.] From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 16:52:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 13:16:55 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: my votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 23:14:45 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: my votes Noble Cousins! Lord Alban St. Alban wrote: >The SCA, INc., is presentlyincorporated withni the UnitesdStates. Nevertheless, >there are paying members outside the US. Is it legal, right, and proper that >non-citizens can vote for directors for a 501(c)(3) board? (My inclinations >would tend toward the "yes they can" side of the issue, but one wonders: >does California incorporation rules allow for foreigners to vote in >such a manner?) How would the law distinguish between citizens, permanent residents and non- citizens in this matter? As it stands, it is rather common practice for 501(c)3's to extend sufferage to non-residents. I live in Canada and regularly receive ballots from a variety of 501(c)3's. Further, even European residents and citizens have appeared as candidates for high office in the American Mathematical Society. Similarly, U.S. citizens are free to join the Canadian Mathematical Society. I don't recall the CMS having any mechanism to determine the nationality of its members. Maybe I should look at one of their forms. >Perhaps this would be a sufficient cause to separate the SCA (US) Inc. >from The Society, allowing Americans to vote for the American version >of the corporation, and allowing everyone in the world to vote for the >The Society's board? Please do not extend the rising tide of nationalism into the society itself. If anything, do the division based upon current residence. People living in an area and therefore subject to the rules being promulgated for that area are the interested parties in the matter. Organizationally, the Society could use an SCA - Interational with a variety of affiliated corporations such as SCA - U.S.A. which should be separately incorporated from the international body. For a variety of mundane reasons, I do not think that there will ever be an all-encompassing SCA - Canada, so the international corporation should permit fairly open affiliation. 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 Fri Mar 8 17:18:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 10:27:35 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Roy Gathercole:my votes:not yet! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Greetings from the Chair, On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, arthur dent wrote: > the best we can hope for out of the current > vote is to say to the BOD "here are the two or three plans we think are a > good idea and we'll get back to you with SPECIFIC plans , costs of > implementation , and possible benefits/drawbacks/side effects later" This is not at all the way I see things and is not the way that I will be writing my report. The import of my words will be, Here are the proposals that the council discussed and the depth of support that the council has for each of them. The council is now considering "x". We have plenty of other issues to consider and we cannot afford to spend the rest of the year polishing these proposals or otherwise frittering away our time. I would like to remind you that Hosseins proposal was first posted nearly a month ago for you to comment on its lacks. I am disappointed that the complaints that it is lacking start now that it is being voted on. Fliegs proposal is a little different and I am sure than he will be happy to include additional details as the voting continues. Finally, we are offering the board a choice rather than a single recommendation. That being the case, I have no problem offering to refine the proposal that they favor, but such a refinement need not take place until they have chose one of the proposals. Fiacha p.s. Part of my hurry now is to make up for the time we wasted last year. Part of my hurry is a feeling that if we keep listening to the voices saying "We're going too fast", we will be disbanded without ever having achieved anything. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 19:28:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:04:05 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: Legal Questions, Various Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:21:13 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: Legal Questions, Various Issues Please forward to the GC Gareth, Artos, and others have raised some valid questions. I think they should be fairly straight-forward to answer if someone will do the necessary research. Isn't David/Cariadoc now at a California Law School? Morgan? The Tibor legal research team? Anyone? Must members of a US Non-Profit 501(c)3 be US citizens or residents to vote for Directors? To serve as officers or Directors? (I hope the last isn't a problem, since we've been doing it for years) If the SCA wishes to reorganize as a member corporation, is it sufficient to file amended article of incorporation, or must a new corporation be formed? In any case, what would it cost to reorganize? Would there be advantages to reorganizing in a different state? Would distributing some ballots in TI and some by mail be valid grounds for a complaint of discrimination among different classes of voters? Would some ballots going out in the first-class TIs and some in the third-class copies be grounds for such a complaint? Also, can we get an estimate from the SCA's printer on what it would cost to print, label, stuff, and mail (assume third-class non-profit rate) election materials consisting of a ballot for twelve candidates, the equivalent of two 8.5"x11" pages (both sides) of election materials, a mailing envelope and a return envelope. Get estimates for both a print run of 25,000 (universal suffrage) and 8,000 (a not unreasonable guess of the number that would go for suffrage on request: I would be suprised if it was as high as 50% of the membership, or as low as 10%, assuming we made it easy to become a voting member with a check-off box on the membership application) I think this question would be more appropriate coming from someone actually on the Council. Earlier I asked: "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. " Could there be some feedback on this question? Artos writes: "The Council should recognise that the SCA Inc is operating in two distinctly different modes simultaneously: as a local corporation and as an international co-ordinating body. These two roles are not easily reconcilable (which is, I think, one reason (of many) for the Nordmark problems of the recent past and present). The sooner we give the SCA Inc a way to divest itself of their international co-ordination responsibilities the happier they are likely to be, and the happier the SCA outside the USA is likely to be." A perfectly valid topic for later discussion. I had made a proposal along these lines myself a while back. However, even if there is a separate international corp., SCA, Inc. (USA) will still have to choose its directors somehow, so our current discussion is still relevant. On the Hossein Plan, Arthur writes: "this part gets tricky on family memberships... does a family of five get one vote , one vote per adult, or one vote per family member, even minors? and if we choose one vote per adult, do our family memberships specify how many adults are in each family membership?" I think we can afford to do the simple thing, and let all family members vote. Sure, some of the kids will vote unwisely, or be unduly influenced by their parents, but they'll tend to cancel each other out. They're not such a huge slice of the electorate that we need to worry about the dangers that much. Family memberships are a minority of the total memberships, and a lot of them are adults. Galleron : From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 19:55:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:08:45 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: Tally, updated 3/7, Amended Proposal, New Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:19:28 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: Tally, updated 3/7, Amended Proposal, New Proposal TALLY Updated 3/7 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.) Last posted 3/5 YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, CORWYN, Finnvarr NO: MAGNUS, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Forced Polling Petition 1.1 (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) Amended Proposal Below YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin ABSTAIN: Fiacha I welcome correction of any errors or omissions. I have revised my forced polling petition to say that no more than 30% of the required total may be satisfied from any one kingdom. The proposal is otherwise unchanged. I had offered to make such a change earlier, but was waiting for feedback. Thank you, Alban. I am also offering my election proposal in a universal suffrage version. This is in addition to the limited suffrage version, not instead of it. Please vote on both. While I like the Hossein Proposal in broad outline, there are some details I have problems with. I had mentioned these concerns earlier, and believe that Hossein strongly prefers to do it his way. The details are: Nominating Committee: I have concerns with petition being the only way onto the ballot, for all the reasons Catrin mentioned. Also, it will deny us many otherwise qualified candidates who lack the political drive to gather signatures. It's not that we have an excess of good candidates now, and all you have to do is write yourself in. I think nominating committee and petition are belt and suspenders. Alternates: I think we'll need them until we prove we have the burnout problem solved. Recall: Like Finnvarr, I have real concerns about the wisdom of binding recall by the general membership. During the Troubles there was a disturbingly common willingness to tar and feather the entire board , good and bad together. Recall by Kingdom Establishments: Under Hosseins Proposal, if the board comes up with some sensible limitation on the power of the crowns or seneschals, and monarchy doesn't like it, they can yank the board, even if everyone else likes the idea. That makes me nervous. Recall by Petition: I've got problems with 6% of the membership being able to recall the board. On any mutually exclusive decision, you could have a committed minority on each end of the spectrum yanking the board any way it turns. The notion assumes either: a) a minority that feels strongly should have the power to recall the board, or b) no more than 9% of the people that hold an opinion will ever sign a petition. This seems unproven and unprovable. If you *must* have recall by the membership, I really think Cariadoc's proposal, where a petition triggers a special election, is much better. Then at least you have some assurance that a majority actually disapproves. And unless the Director has some reason to think he'll prevail in the special election, he'll just resign. The only difference between my Universal Suffrage Proposal and my Suffrage on Request proposal is the definition of the members of the corporation. NEW PROPOSAL: GALLERON UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE Changes to By-Laws: V.A. STATUTORY MEMBERS All persons holding sustaining, associate, family, or international memberships are members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. 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. AMENDED PROPOSAL: 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, (amended 3/7: with not more than 30% of that number being satisfied by members from any one kingdom), 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 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. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 20:48:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 20:35:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: the priority problem To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I want to take up Artos's rant. Artos says: I would like to see the Council discuss the best multi-national corporate structure for the SCA in the long term, not just how to tweak the current system to appear a little nicer. In particular I would like to see discussion on the implications for the current management paradigm of top-down control (particularly alternatives, like corporate sovereignty); a redesign of the membership system to better reflect the way the SCA actually does things in the different places it operates, including a set of principles that ensure that minimal amounts of money need to be transferred across national boundaries; how to address the fundamental tyranny of distance. There are members of this Council who are not convinced that there should be a corporation, multinational or otherwise, or if there must be some corporate entity, they would favor some minimalist expression. Conversely, there are those who would favor a more sophisticated central entity. This divide hamstrung the Council from the start and whatever progress we are making now seems to stem from a silent agreement to concentrate on tweaks. Artos says: Then I would like to see a plan of how to get there from here. In the process of developing this plan, we should, I think, (without wishing to pre-empt the discussion on structure) recognise that the current SCA Inc is as parochial and nation-bound as any of the other SCA incorporated bodies (eg, the Australian association and the Canadian companies), which probably means that the best solution is to create a new top level organisation based in whatever country seems best. I fully agree that SCA inc is parochial and in more ways than being US-centered. A parochial organization is made up of parochial people and this is significant in two ways. First it means that by and large we lack the skills and resources to see the broader context; second, it means that we prefer the familiar but limited view. In this regard I agree with Justin that the Society functions as a society; it is very difficult for us to make an objective assessment of our common enterprise. We cannot say what our purpose is, we cannot say what direction it should lead, and so we cannot say what structures would best serve us. We can only note where a pinch is felt and try to ease it through adjustment. This is no way to run an national, much less multinational, organization, but it is very much the way societies grow and develop. The question in my mind is what are the ties that bind us? Why do people want to be in the SCA? It hasn't patented medieval re-creation, it offers no particular program, not even a lot of program materials. For the US and at least parts of Canada, the answer can be based on convenience, but how can that hold for Australia? Unless we have a better grasp of why it is we want to be together, I would be very hesitant in creating a new entity on the international level. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 8 20:59:55 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, 8 Mar 1996 20:47:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Roy Gathercole:my votes:not yet! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Having finally had time to read Hossein's proposal, and having said I'd vote on it, sooner or later, my vote is Yes - unless it's significantly changed by Ye Process of COmmentary. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 9 17:45:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 54 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:23:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Morgan on Reincorporation and Directors To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Morgan. ================================= As Artos found, reincorporation may not be needed to change from an appointed to an elected Board, if it can be changed by a modification to the Articles or Bylaws, wherever it appears. (I am in Caid right now and brought no SCA paperwork, so I can't look it up.) Fiacha's point that the SCA, Inc., is a nonmember corporation may also be changed by a modification, but I can't say this with surety from where I am. I know that in Illinois, certain changes may be made to the Articles of Incorporation without having ro reincorporate. If reincorporation is a possibility, I know of at least two state that offer broader protections to the Directors of not-for-profits than California. Artos, and others who have made the same arguments before him, may be correct that the SCA, Inc., should be a USA- or North-America-based corporation, and sister entities in other countries. This makes sense on several legal levels. However, the sheer percentage of SCA members (howevre defined) who are in the USA/NA suggests that the governing/umbrella body is appropriately located in the USA at this time. I think that Hossein's suggestion of a mere fifty signatures to get on the ballot is entirely inadequate; for a membership of approximately similar size, one NFP with which I work requires at least one-hundred. Fifty is the size of a reasonably active Shire or Barony, and I think a candidate should be able to show a slightly broader base of support. I think that until a statistically-significant portion of the SCA has reliable 'net access, electronic voting will not be useful, and you have the additional problem of ensuring that people vote by either paper or email but not both. (Being from Chicago, eventually, I can say things like this.) I've been trying to catch up and don't see much else on which I will comment. I won't volunteer to do the research on corporate governance because I know that there are GC members who prefer to do their own. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Temporarily located in the Barony of Calafia Kingdom of Caid From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 10 02:09:40 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 01:58:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: universal sufferage proposal 51% can un-elect 49% To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: On re-reading the re-posted universal sufferage proposal I noticed that 51% of the board has the power to un-elect the other 49% at will. I think to myself 'hmmm. thats probably not a good idea. better bring it up' As with other propsoals now on the floor I sort o' assumed the author would look up and go "Oh yeah , missed that point." and scribble off a quick ammendment. despite your words on the other matter we are in substantial agreement as to the outcome. "heres what we thought on the matter. pick one and we'll get back to you with an actual plan and impact/ cost studies..." I.E. it aint a finished 'you can implement this now' product. We, or somebody will have to do a bit more actual work before its in a form the board can use for more than a ' we like this one, finish it up.' sort o' decision. On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, Nigel Haslock wrote: > Greetings from the Chair, > > On Fri, 8 Mar 1996, arthur dent wrote: > > > the best we can hope for out of the current > > vote is to say to the BOD "here are the two or three plans we think are a > > good idea and we'll get back to you with SPECIFIC plans , costs of > > implementation , and possible benefits/drawbacks/side effects later" > > This is not at all the way I see things and is not the way that I will be > writing my report. > > The import of my words will be, Here are the proposals that the council > discussed and the depth of support that the council has for each of them. > The council is now considering "x". > > We have plenty of other issues to consider and we cannot afford to spend > the rest of the year polishing these proposals or otherwise frittering > away our time. I would like to remind you that Hosseins proposal was > first posted nearly a month ago for you to comment on its lacks. I am > disappointed that the complaints that it is lacking start now that it is > being voted on. Fliegs proposal is a little different and I am sure than > he will be happy to include additional details as the voting continues. > > Finally, we are offering the board a choice rather than a single > recommendation. That being the case, I have no problem offering to refine > the proposal that they favor, but such a refinement need not take place > until they have chose one of the proposals. > > Fiacha > > p.s. Part of my hurry now is to make up for the time we wasted last year. > Part of my hurry is a feeling that if we keep listening to the voices > saying "We're going too fast", we will be disbanded without ever having > achieved anything. > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 10 06:27:13 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: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 06:52:43 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: New Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: No to Gallerons new Universal sufferage -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 10 22:52:10 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: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 21:30:58 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron Universal Suffrage To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Again, well done but I magnus vote: NAY to such membership elections I also vote : Nay to forced polling btw my e-mail account fried last week so I missed all of last weeks messages could all current proposals be digested? thanx Magnus In Service to the Shire of the Inner Sea, Principality of the Northshield, Kingdom of the Middle, Grand Council and the Society, but most of all to the Dream, Magnus MagUire From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 03:55:14 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, 11 Mar 1996 09:44:11 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Roy Gathercole:my votes:not yet! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha says: >We have plenty of other issues to consider and we cannot afford to spend >the rest of the year polishing these proposals or otherwise frittering >away our time. ... > >Finally, we are offering the board a choice rather than a single >recommendation. That being the case, I have no problem offering to refine >the proposal that they favor, but such a refinement need not take place >until they have chose one of the proposals. Couldn't agree more. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 04:09:55 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, 11 Mar 1996 09:58:56 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Galleron: Legal Questions, Various Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron comments: >Artos writes: >"The Council should recognise that the SCA Inc is operating in two distinctly >different modes simultaneously: as a local corporation and as an >international >co-ordinating body. These two roles are not easily reconcilable (which is, I >think, one reason (of many) for the Nordmark problems of the recent past and >present). The sooner we give the SCA Inc a way to divest itself of their >international co-ordination responsibilities the happier they are likely to >be, and the happier the SCA outside the USA is likely to be." > >A perfectly valid topic for later discussion. I had made a proposal along >these lines myself a while back. However, even if there is a separate >international corp., SCA, Inc. (USA) will still have to choose its directors >somehow, so our current discussion is still relevant. I agree completely. We have an agenda item called "simplifying Board workload". I propose that we (re)open it when we're through with the present Board selection/replacement/veto issue, and discuss the international matter in this context. (I'd very much like to be in on the discussion and I'll be abroad and off-line for the next month, March 18-April 10 to be precise.) /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 04:31:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Schuylab@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 04:18:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Eichling Von Amrun Subject: Eichling: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fellow members of the GC; I have been out of touch for a while, and would like to present my votes. In an effort to catch up on what has been occurring, I found it helpful to encapsulate a brief summary of the proposals under discussion. These are not intended to be appallingly accurate, but to capture the gist of the salient issues. I have included them in case they may be of assistance to others trying to unravel the same knot. Before I place my votes, per se, I have comments on a couple of other issues: Fiacha-- I too have wondered if I would die of old age before the GC gave rise to a coherent product. I thoroughly endorse Justin's concept of the straw poll being a valuable to the BoD as an indication of the 'universe' of topics we were considering, as well as the more substantial vote on the actual proposals. Voting online-- I am currently involved with setting up and training medical laboratories to use a computer system which also incorporates a billing module. Most of our customers want to begin billing MediCal/Medicare electronically _immediately_. We have learned to insist that they do a couple of billing cycles on paper before they go to electronic transmissions, as the number of variables involved in beginning two new processes simultaneously almost insures that no productive work will occur. Whether or not the use of e-mail to reduce voting/polling costs is feasible is a matter for discussion, but please, if you should decide to implement it _do the first couple of votes by standard mail_! Currently Active Proposals: 1) Fleig's Nominating Committees Proposal (NCSCA) (amended) Distinguishing characteristics: Leaves the structure of the BoD and By-Laws pretty much the same, but creates a committee of members from each kingdom, plus a BoD representative, to compile a list of candidates from which the BoD selects its new members. Eichling's vote: Yes Rational: Significantly better than the current system while disturbing the waters very little. I like the one-rep-per-kingdom as it introduces kingdom representation in the upper echelons while keeping kingdom partisanship off the BoD. 2) Houssein's Universal Suffrage Proposal Distinguishing characteristics: All official members vote for ~5 person BoD with term of 3 years. Contains recall provisions. Eichling's vote: No Rational: Intrudes into SCA's ambiance. Small BoD, increased stress levels. I like the concept of including recall provisions, but much has been well said about the chance of producing a BoD reduced to disfuctionality by constantly countering contention, or fear of same (see 'increased stress levels'). 3) Arthur Dent's Subscription Suffrage Proposal Distinguishing characteristics: Subscribers to BoD Proceedings constitute voting membership. Recall provisions included. Description of Proceedings publication included. Eichling's vote: Yes Rational: But a somewhat hesitant, "Yes." I'm still wary of the recall (I endorse the concept, just uncertain as to the mechanism. As in Houssein's proposal, the BoD itself should be able to initiate a recall. And I while I do want the BoD to feel responsible, I don't want to place them under a sword of Damocles.). 4) Galleron's Proposal for Suffrage on Request Distinguishing characteristics: 9 member board with 3 year terms. Voting constituency is comprised of all official members who request voting rights plus all Proceedings subscribers. Directors required to attend January meeting plus one other each year-- subcommittees meet as needed. Nominating committee also elected. Negative votes as well as positive votes. Eichling's vote: Yes Rational. I really like some things about this proposal. I wish it would have a head-on collision with Arthur's and I'll vote on the outcome. I prefer just the Proceedings subscribers as constituency...better informed and longer range view (less susceptible to local get-out-the-vote campaigns, I think). Nominating committee may be superfluous. I've never tried negative votes, but the idea is intriguing and I'm willing to give it a shot. 5) Galleron's Proposal for Universal Suffrage Distinguishing characteristics: ibid., but voting constituency is all official members. Eichling's vote: No Rational: I regard forcing corporate matters into everyone's face as a liability. Additionally, one of the advantages of the proceedings-subscribers constituency is that they both care enough to want to be informed and have the information available. 6) Galleron's Petition to Require Membership Polling Distinguishing characteristics: 1% of membership (<30% from any one kingdom) may force the BoD to initiate a non-binding poll of membership opinion. Eichling's vote: Yes Rational: I'm not certain of the exact format, but we need something along these lines to keep grievances from going from the 'campfire-grousing' to the 'firing-squad' level of popular sentiment, without any formal communicating/venting/triage mechanism in between. 7) Status Quo In the straw poll, I indicated that I could accept a continuance of the current mode of operation. Well, I think that there are enough ideas here that are a significant improvement over our current SOP that there is no need to continue that support. Eichling's vote: No Incidentally, Sir Myrdin, welcome to Caid. If you would like to get in touch, my work number is (805) 296-4994, home is (818) 364-7904. You may ask for either Eichling or Janet Chennault. (You're invited to my fighter practice.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 11:15:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:59:33 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: other proposals? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha et al What is the status of each of the following proposals?: My proposal that we support the current method of electing Directors. and The proposal for a separate nominating committee. (I forget who drafted this proposal) My preference is that we vote on 1. No change and 2. No change except adding the nominating committee. These were two relatively popular ideas in the Straw poll, but nothing much has been mentioned of them lately. (forgive me if they were discussed last week, but my mail was down. Magnus In Service to the Shire of the Inner Sea, Principality of the Northshield, Kingdom of the Middle, Grand Council and the Society, but most of all to the Dream, Magnus MagUire From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 11:20:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:59:35 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Eichling's summation, Magnus' votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:18 AM 3/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >Fellow members of the GC; > >I have been out of touch for a while,(as have I, Magnus) and would like to present my votes. In an effort to catch up on what has been occurring, I found it helpful to >encapsulate a brief summary of the proposals under discussion. These are not >intended to be appallingly accurate, but to capture the gist of the salient >issues. I have included them in case they may be of assistance to others >trying to unravel the same knot. Very helpful, thanx... >Currently Active Proposals: > >1) Fleig's Nominating Committees Proposal (NCSCA) (amended) > Distinguishing characteristics: Leaves the structure of the BoD and >By-Laws pretty much the same, but creates a committee of members from each >kingdom, plus a BoD representative, to compile a list of candidates from >which the BoD selects its new members. Magnus' vote: YES > Rational: Significantly better than the current system while disturbing >the waters very little. I like the one-rep-per-kingdom as it introduces >kingdom representation in the upper echelons while keeping kingdom >partisanship off the BoD. (I, Magnus couldn't state my rational any better either) > >2) Houssein's Universal Suffrage Proposal > Distinguishing characteristics: All official members vote for ~5 person >BoD with term of 3 years. Contains recall provisions. > Magnus' vote: NO >3) Arthur Dent's Subscription Suffrage Proposal > Distinguishing characteristics: Subscribers to BoD Proceedings >constitute voting membership. Recall provisions included. Description of >Proceedings publication included. Magnus' vote: no >4) Galleron's Proposal for Suffrage on Request > Distinguishing characteristics: 9 member board with 3 year terms. > Voting constituency is comprised of all official members who request voting >rights plus all Proceedings subscribers. Directors required to >attend January meeting plus one other each year-- subcommittees meet as >needed. Nominating committee also elected. Negative votes as well as >positive votes. Magnus' vote: no > Rational: I do like what Eichling has set out as "Distinguishing Characteristics" I don't think a major force feeding of "democracy" will help the current problems, I do think it will add another layer of cost and confusion. This is enough reason for meto vote against it. The way it is set up does make it less objectionable than some of the other theories. >5) Galleron's Proposal for Universal Suffrage > Distinguishing characteristics: ibid., but voting constituency is all >official members. Magnus' vote: NO > Rational: Even more Forcefeeding of democracy to Monarchists and other Medievalists.>liability. >6) Galleron's Petition to Require Membership Polling > Distinguishing characteristics: 1% of membership (<30% from any one >kingdom) may force the BoD to initiate a non-binding poll of membership >opinion. > Magnus' vote: yes Rational: I'm changing my vote to hesitantly back this proposal. Being nonbinding it should be OK. It can be used to focus attention. I don't know if 1% is large enough to keep it from being abused, but... >7) Status Quo > In the straw poll, I indicated that I could accept a continuance of the >current mode of operation. > Magnus' vote: yes Rational: Even tho I was one who proposed this idea, I currently support, as my first choice, a nominating committee (see proposal #1) along with the BoD continuing to vote for new members. Magnus In Service to the Shire of the Inner Sea, Principality of the Northshield, Kingdom of the Middle, Grand Council and the Society, but most of all to the Dream, Magnus MagUire From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 13:04:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1002 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 12:51:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I1ZRQO88I49AMKKY@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Mar 5, 96 09:03:37 pm Alban wrote: 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? Re-incorporation would be important: as the laws of California are very involved with they types and forms of true membership. On the other hand, the cost of re-incorporation could be held to a tiny minimum. As an aside, I too am finding the format and content of the current vote to be heinously confusing. I think we need a short summary description of each of the items we are voting for or against, as well as a description of the types of votes. In other words, a real ballot. Until then, I cannot cast a vote I am willing to be bound to: I am too confused. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 14:38:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 11:14:44 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: Unified Tally 3/11 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:43:22 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: Unified Tally 3/11 Galleron Here Greetings, Fiacha. I know you want the champions of each proposal to post their own tallies, but I=92ve noticed that they haven=92t been doing so. Yo= u can post this, or not, as you wish. If you don=92t want to, I will also send yo= u a tally of just my own proposals. Here=92s the votes I=92ve seen as of 3/11. I invite Councilors to correct a= ny errors or omissions. In particular, please correct me if I have mistakenly interpretted general support for a proposition as support for a particular proposal. I invite anyone that also wants to post tallys for their own individual proposals to do so. I invite someone on the Council to take over running this unified tally, since I cannot post directly to the list, and will be away from my machine March 22-27. For that reason, and to give people ample time to change their votes, I wil= l freeze my proposals no later tham March 20th. I invite the champions of oth= er proposals to do the same. As before, to better show degree of support/loathing, I've put each Councilor's name in the same size type as he/she put their vote. Please correct any that do not accurately reflect your intent. Flieg Plan (Each Kingdom and Board selects one member of=20 nominating committee that submits a short list of potential candidates to the board, from which=20 board chooses new directors) Last posted /revised 3/5 YES: ALYSOUN, Justin, SERWYL, FINNVARR, MYRDIN, Corwyn, Justin, Eichling, MAGNUS NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, MODIUS=20 ABSTAIN: Hossein Plan (Seven directors elected on 3/2/2 triannual cycle by entire=20 membership. Entry onto ballot by petition only. Recall by vote of majority of Directors, 60% of monarchs and kingdom seneschals,=20 or petition of 1,500 members) Last posted 3/6 YES: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, Myrdin, Finnvarr NO: Modius, Alysoun, SERWYL, Eichling, MAGNUS ABSTAIN: Justin, Corwyn Arthur Plan (Subscribers to Board Proceedings are voting members. Entry=20 onto ballot by petition, by candidates chosen by board or its search committee, or for former Directors or Kingdom great officers who=20 volunteer. Recall provisions included) Last posted/revised 3/3 YES: SERWYL, Eichling NO: Modius, Alban, Magnus, Alysoun ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan=20 (Members become voting members on request, they=20 elect nine member board for three year terms. Candidates=20 placed on ballot by nominating committee or by petition. Five=20 member NC elected at same time as board. Directors=20 permitted to attend as few as two board meetings a year) Last posted 3/5 YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, CORWYN, Finnvarr , Eichling NO: Magnus, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, ALYSOUN ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant (As above, but all members may vote) Last Posted 3/8 YES: NO: Modius, MAGNUS, Eichling ABSTAIN: Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct=20 and publish non-binding poll of membership) Last posted/revised 3/8 YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin, Eichling, Magnus NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin,=20 ABSTAIN: Fiacha Status Quo YES: Modius, Serwyl, Magnus NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Alysoun, CATRIN, Corwyn, Michael, Myrdin, Eichling ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 16:44:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:24:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Votes, and "I want another Choice!" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Please accept my amended votes: Galleron Universal Sufferage varient: no Status Quo: Abstain. (I originally gave this a weak yes on the basis we could live with it if we had to. Upon reflection I would rather have the Board see us as unified in desiring change. The current 3 yes votes, and any added in the future, could be constued as active support of the status quo. Thus my decision to abstain and allow Status Quo to go down in flames rather than have at least significant minority support). On a side note, I have to agree with Eichling that I'd love to see a voting proposal that combines Arthur's proposal and Galleron's Limited Sufferage: Features: 1. Voting by subscribers to the proceedings only 2. Larger Board with an option of missing a certain number of meetings 3. Nominating committee (although not the type Galleron proposes, more like the Flieg plan with a representative from each Kingdom). Unfortunately I don't have much time in which to write this up (just reading email eats up most of my free time). Does a plan with these features even appeal to anyone besides myself? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 20:16:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 17:01:00 +1600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Artos: the real problem To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. This message started life being a response to Alysoun responding to my rant. It has taken on a life of its own. I find myself expounding my vision for the furure SCA from not only the corporate perspective but from the medieval, for, whether we like it or not, the two are inextricably bound. Halfway through a paragraph in response to Alysoun, I suddenly realised what the real problem was. It's the reason why the Council was, as she says, hamstrung early on, and is the reason why we are content to tweak rather than reform. The real problem is that we don't think the SCA is really broken. We are not prepared to suggest truly fundamental reform because we don't truly believe in its necessity. Worst of all, we don't recognise true reform when it sneaks up on us and bites us. This is what has happenned with the proposals that deal with members electing the board. We think this is a tweak, but it's really a fundamental reform. In the wrong direction. This is reform rather than tweaking, because, even though it would take (IMHO) only a smallish change to the Articles and By-Laws, it would involve a large change in the culture of the SCA. This change would force the SCA to become politicised. Real power is wielded by the Board, not by Kings and Queens. This is the message the GC is sending to the populace by making this change, and however the electorate is defined, it creates a completely new game to play. Of course there will still be Kings and Queens, but for a significant portion of the populace the real game is no longer medieval in its essence, but mundane. Is this not the nub of the problem, that the mundane controls the medieval? Is this not the way in which the SCA is broken? Even now, the SCA Inc (a mundane entity) has complete and intimate control over the known world (a medieval entity). But how could it be otherwise? The corporate laws of every jurisdiction I know of assume that a corporation will have a centralised control structure (usually a board of directors), and this assumption is reinforced by requirements such as the California Corporations Code Section 5210, which I wil quote in full if someone requests it. This is where the assumption of power by the board comes from. It's certainly not an unreasonable interpretation of section 5210 that the board must control every facet of the corporation's behaviour directly and completely, and it is in keeping with the clear intent of the section that the board have responsibility for, and power over, the corporation. But it's by no means the only reasonable interpretation. For instance, the board can delegate its powers over the medieval side of the corporation to a committee (however composed) and leave it to its own devices. All it would take is an instrument of delegation to be adopted by the board. Of course, once the instrument came into force, the board would have to voluntarily refrain from acting contrary to the committee (except in the (presumably) very rare and unusual circumstances that the committee's actions are wrong and need to be corrected). Now with this simple change, we cannot reverse the inappropriate power layering that is at the core of the problem, but it's a possible start. The real solution, IMO, is for the corporate structure to be smaller than the medieval structure. This means a number of small, geographically concise, corporations, preferably completely contained within kingdoms. This allows the kingdom the possibility of exercising direct influence over the corporation. The corporations can exist to serve the kingdoms. The corporations can have a hierarchy above the lowest level, in order to take advantage of economies of scale for such things as membership menagement, publications and stock management, but there should be no power vested in the hierarchy. The corporations in this model can be membership corporations or not, as is appropriate. The corporations can delegate their power to the appropriate seneschal, reigning royalty, or not, as appropriate. Almost infinite flexibility is automatically achieved. The medieval is served by the mundane, as it should be. Problems of parochiality still need to be addressed by this model, as do other questions like how money flows around the structures, who owns what, how we ensure some kind of homogeneity, and so on, but these are details we can mull over later. How do we achieve this new arrangement? The first step is to create one or more of the smaller corporations. Each legal jurisdiction may provide its own unique solution. For instance, in Australia, the SCA is not a corporation but an association. Associations are usually non-profit community organisations. They are not taxed, and can own land, sue and be sued and in general do anything a corporation or individual can do except operate as an investment for a non-member. The major advantage, though, is that they are much cheaper to set up and run than companies. The cost of setting one up is less than $100, and the filing fees for annual returns are less than $30. Companies are much more expensive. If there is similar legislation in some of the States of the USA, the costs of setting up the small corporations there would be minimal. The first one is likely to be the hardest. It should be chosen and set up carefully. Once complete, it can be used as a model for others. The board can set up a committee to oversee and assist the small corporations to start up, floating them if necessary. Once there is one small corporation, the SCA Inc will have started the process of divesting itself of the power to control the known world. Eventually, we can dismantle the SCA Inc with little or no impact on anyone. The corporations will by then have started to set up structures to take advantage of economies of scale, and the kingdoms will have started the process of collectively managing the medieval game. Please don't respond to this message yet, or if you do, don't respond to the list. The time has not yet come for this discussion. I post this now because ideas like this require mulling over and do not benefit from instant responses. This is a vision, not a blueprint. I can see the tops of mountains, so I know where they are, but that doesn't mean I know who lives in the valleys. Thank you for your patience and time. Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 11 23:17:38 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-2137581699-789255080-826036569=:12383" Content-Id: Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:04:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Subscription Sufferage Proposal V1.2 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: ( I think I missed some of your suggestions... flag me on them again please) side note: among the benefits of the 'proceedings' publication ASIDE from flexible elections,votes fo confidence and vetos, as well as keep the board in touch with members and members informed about the board, is keeping the BOARD informed about the board,...a proffesional, well funded and staffed publication devoted to keeping them informed as it were... could help. BOARD ELECTION PROPOSAL:Subscription Sufferage v1.2 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, Any former Kingdom Great officer Or former BOD member upon thier request shall be nominated. 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 THREE consecutive terms. C. ELECTION PROCEDURES. The following procedures will be followed in the election of the Board of Directors: the board of directors to consist of 7 members serving three year terms. Any two members may be excused by the board from attending a given meeting , however, failure to attend for three consecutive board meettings will result in removal. 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 a vote of confidence triggered through the regular survey instrument published in the "Proceedings of the SCA inc." Should 30% of the voting membership request a vote of confidence through thier survey instrument, a ballot containing the names of all sitting directors will be published in the next issue of the proceedings 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 With at least 500 signitures from each of three different kingdoms. The eligibility of signators must be determined within fifteen working days 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 petition for a vote of no confidence b) any question a BOD member wishes to place there as well as a space for response c) any items up for formal vote, d) any item passed by the board in their last meeting AND a response area for a 'petition to veto'. Any measure which 20% of the voting membership marks for veto shall be held in suspension for one BOD meeting and should the board elect to repass the same measure, it shall also include in that issue of the PROCEEDINGS a referendum on the matter including theri rational and a veto ballot for that measure. a Veto by 33% of the voting membership shall overide a board decision in this case. 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 Mon Mar 11 23:34:12 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 23:10:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Galleron re: universal sufferage proposal 51% can un-elect 49% Comments: To: WMclean290@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960311140513_443562145@mail04.mail.aol.com> actually I think its less likely to be used in a SELF selecting board than in an elected one, becaue if they didnt want someone there, they wouldnt have picked them (for the most part). For the most part I agree that it would probaly remain a non-issue. BUT like any broad and powerful law that lies dormant, we'd all be kicking ourselves for letting it be the day it got misused in a heated faction fight by people who, for the best of motives thought that the survival of society rested on thier (correct) opinions prevailing... On Mon, 11 Mar 1996 WMclean290@aol.com wrote: > Arthur, in a message dated 96-03-10 01:59:33 EST, you write: > > >On re-reading the re-posted universal sufferage proposal I noticed that > >51% of the board has the power to un-elect the other 49% at will. I think > >to myself 'hmmm. thats probably not a good idea. better bring it up' > > Under the current By-Laws, the Board has the power to do that now. It's > actually much less pernicious with an elected board than with our current > self-elected one, since in that case abuse of that power will probably just > insure that the elected replacements will be even less to the liking of the > group pulling off the purge. > > You can post this if you like. > > Galleron > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 08:55:53 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: 2058 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 08:46:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Mar 6, 96 06:11:02 pm Greetings from Tibor. Fiacha wrote: I have also been lead to believe that reincorporating is not a big deal. It does not mean dump the corporation and start over, it means filing some papers that say we have had an internal administrative reorganization. Certainly, that seems to have been the case with the 1989 re-incorporation. (Technically, whenver the bylaws change, they must be re-filed with California, re-incorporation isn't that much harder.) When the first incorporation was done, the SCA was primarily Californian and so the issue of where to incorporate was probably never considered. Now we know that the corporation is international and so we should put some effort into investigating the advantages and disadvantages of each state as the place to incorporate. California seems to go overboard in protecting the individual from rapacious corporations and so Directors and Officers Liability Insurance is expensive. If there are states in which this is not true, the savings in insurance may pay for the reincorporation and offset the annual costs or running the elections. There are good and bad points to California. On the one hand, insurance is expensive, both because of the frequency and cost of litigation, and because the state is "consumer friendly". On the other hand, it has very generous indemnity provisions for volunteer Directors, and it protects them very thoroughly. I have a pamphlet, now about 2 years old, that describes the liability insurance provisions for non-profits on a state by state basis. I am sure I could order a new one, when we need it. Remember that incorporating in some other state does not mean that we need to move the office there. Moving the office is a completely separate issue. Some states require an office be kept: some don't. Usually, you can hire an attorney to maintain your "business presence" in the state, for a tiny retainer. Fiacha, I am going to resist your siren call for investigation of this issue, until it becomes an agenda item. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 09:22:43 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 836 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:13:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Artos: Universal sufferage proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603070332.AA4409@POST.MIS.TANDEM.COM> from "Richard Lesze" at Mar 7, 96 03:29:00 am Greetings from Tibor. Artos wrote: Thank you for the history lesson. If the SCA is now an international organisation, why do we assume that the USA is the best place to incorporate? It may not be. However, while it isn't strictly necessary, it is currently a considered a convenience by the membership that is active within the US to have a tax-exempt non-profit corporation. Given that this would gove the overwhelming majority of the participants in the Society, it does seem like a natural confluence of power. Any corporation that control something like 95% of the people who play, is a pretty effective force. (Number selected off the top of my head.) We have discussed (last year) the value of having confederations of international corporations and whatnot. We may again: but it isn't the current agenda item. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 09:46:37 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: 513 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:35:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alban: explanation of votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9603071549.AA25786@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Mar 7, 96 10:49:26 am Greetings from Tibor. Justin wrote: Which reminds me: IMO, *all* of the current proposals should be sent to the Board. If I were on the Board, this would make me VERY cross. I'd want the distilled essense of the work that was done by a committee: otherwise, I might as well just read the Rialto, and vote on any declaritive statement made there. Anyone who has made a proposal that doesn't receive at least a decent amount of support from the GC, is always free to submit it as a private person. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 09:52:35 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: 18653 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:39:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Tally, Amended Proposal, New Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Please, note the serious delay, for which I apologize. I badly damaged my wrist last week, and am only now getting to back email (sigh, over a thousand messages to go.) It is possible that he has had someone else submit his work in the mean time: given the choice between delaying his note another two days while I finish my email, or sending it twice, I have chosen the sin of potentially sending it twice. I shall do this with all his messages, until I catch up. Administrivia note: I shall be on blissful vacation from March 16-23, and cannot forward mail for anyone. Presume it will take me a day or two to catch up after that time. (Email arrives in my box at a rate of around 250 messages a day...) Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 11:24:39 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Tally, Amended Proposal, New Proposal Please forward to GC TALLY Updated 3/7 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.) Last posted 3/5 YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, CORWYN, Finnvarr NO: MAGNUS, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) Amended Proposal Below YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin ABSTAIN: Fiacha I welcome correction of any errors or omissions. I have revised my forced polling petition to say that no more than 30% of the required total may be satisfied from any one kingdom. The proposal is otherwise unchanged. I had offered to make such a change earlier, but was waiting for feedback. Thank you, Alban. I am also offering my election proposal in a universal suffrage version. This is in addition to the limited suffrage version, not instead of it. Please vote on both. While I like the Hossein Proposal in broad outline, there are some details I have problems with. I had mentioned these concerns earlier, and believe that Hossein strongly prefers to do it his way. The details are: Nominating Committee: I have problems with petition being the only way onto the ballot, for all the reasons Catrin mentioned. Also, it will deny us many otherwise qualified candidates who lack the political drive to gather signatures. It's not that we have an excess of good candidates now, and all you have to do is write yourself in. I think nominating committee and petition are belt and suspenders. Alternates: I think we'll need them until we prove we have the burnout problem solved. Recall: Like Finnvarr, I have real concerns about the wisdom of binding recall by the general membership. During the Troubles there was a disturbingly common willingness to tar and feather the entire board , good and bad together. Recall by Kingdom Establishments: Under Hosseins Proposal, if the board comes up with some sensible limitation on the power of the crowns or seneschals, and monarchy doesn't like it, they can yank the board, even if everyone else likes the idea. That makes me nervous. Recall by Petition: I've got problems with 6% of the membership being able to recall the board. On any mutually exclusive decision, you could have a committed minority on each end of the spectrum yanking the board any way it turns. The notion assumes either: a) a minority that feels strongly should have the power to recall the board, or b) no more than 10% of the people that hold an opinion will ever sign a petition. This is unproven and unprovable. If you *must* have recall by the membership, I really think Cariadoc's proposal, where a petition triggers a special election, is much better. Then at least you have some assurance that a majority actually disapproves. And unless the Director has some reason to think he'll prevail in the special election, he'll just resign. The only difference between my Universal Suffrage Proposal and my Suffrage on Request proposal is the definition of the members of the corporation. NEW PROPOSAL: GALLERON UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE Changes to By-Laws: V.A. STATUTORY MEMBERS All persons holding sustaining, associate, family, or international memberships are members of the corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. 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. AMENDED PROPOSAL: 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, (amended 3/7: with not more than 30% of that number being satisfied by members from any one kingdom), 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 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. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 13:15:37 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: 1271 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:00:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: vote clarification (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Again, apologies for the delay. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:46:29 -0500 Subject: Re: Alysoun: vote clarification Please forward to the GC Alysoun, In a message dated 96-03-07 09:30:55 EST, you write: >How close to the voting deadline can >one request and receive a ballot? How long should one be a subscriber before >being eligible to vote? Once in the database, do you stay there or have to >request a ballot each time? What about subscription renewal? Once a subscriber asks to become a voting member, they remain one until they either stop being a subscriber, or ask to stop getting ballots. With our database, I presume you'd have the same time lag between subscribing and getting onto the list of people to get ballots as you would for getting the publications and your membership card. However, I suppose you could do the same thing you do with the membership cards: tell people what the delay is. Suppose it's sixty days. If they sign up in the sixty days before the election, and include a self-addressed envelope, the registry pops the election materials into the envelope when it comes in, and mails it out with the rest. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 14:09:41 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 13:54:50 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: other proposals? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603111559.JAA07067@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus asks: >What is the status of each of the following proposals?: > >My proposal that we support the current method of electing Directors. Current votes: Fiacha -- NO Alban -- weak no Hossein -- NO Bertram -- NO Modius -- yes Arthur -- NO Alysoun -- no Justin -- abstain Catrin -- NO Corwyn -- no Michael -- no Serwyl -- abstain Finnvarr -- abstain Myrdin -- no Eichling -- No Magnus -- yes -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "CHIPPED BEEF ON TOAST: The only known dish to be specifically outlawed by the Geneva Convention." -- Henry Beard From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 15:02:54 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 11:39:00 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: response to Artos To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Artos writes: > This is what has happenned with the proposals that deal with members electing the board. We think this is a tweak, but it's really a fundamental reform. In the wrong direction. I would put it a slightly different way-instead of beginning with the question "where should we be going and what will it take to get there?" we seem to be saying "I like the looks of this road better than that, let's see where it leads." These questions are fundamental, and do have consequences far beyond what has been discussed so far. This is the big part of the problem which has lead to the mistakes the board has made in the past, and it is a mistake I fear we are willing to suggest the board make again. We should realize, as best we can, the consequences of our recommendations before we make recommendations. If we don't do that, we are no better off as a body than as 40 (or 20) individuals making independent recommendations. Don't need a GC for that, we have the Rialto and a dozen other electronic fora (in that those without access to email have been excluded anyway). Saying that six of us think this is a good idea and three don't shouldn't be much help to the board. After all, we are not a representative body, and so no one should take our votes to be representative of any larger group. We were not selected because we are the wisest people in the society. I don't belong in that group. I believe we were selected because our diverse positions, experiences and abilities would allow us to hash out the weaknesses and strengths of the various possible approaches, finding the hidden problem that would keep one >from working at all, or working towards disaster. Thus, what we should be doing is working out the intricacies of a vision, a road map for the Society. I just don't see how deciding whether our directors should be elected without a clear idea of what role directors ought to have could be of much help. We could offer ourselves as a scape goat for the board ("don't yell at us, the GC-you guys--recommended this" ) but this won't get us closer to a better Society. We should not sit through endless haggling. But that is not the only option to beginning by selecting from among a number of roughed-out proposals. Artos brings up the question of power relations in the SCA. This is a fundamental question, and one that ought to be considered before any proposal is endorsed or rejected. A related key question should be "who is steering the ship?" Should the board be primarily administrative or judicial or governmental in nature (that is, concerned primarily with keeping things running, ensuring that everyone plays right, or with leading us all in a particular direction)? Should we be governed by a body or by a document which is interpreted by that body? Are some founding principles, a universal set of principles, or the current will of the majority to be the guiding light? In essence, each of the proposals answers these questions, though I am not sure that we all have considered whether we like the answers. The more universal, detailed and public the selection process the more we are saying "the board is a powerful body." The more quiet and behind the scenes the selection, the more we say "this is less important." Now there are, of course, many ways of sending conflicting messages-some of the most powerful bodies are secret. But the attention paid selection is one of the powerful messages, nonetheless. Artos asks whether the mundane should control the medieval. I would suggest that we have suffered by trying to separate the two. This should be an important question for discussion, a point at which each proposal is measured. Historically there has been a fundamental assumption behind the board, that it should intrude as little as possible into the medieval side of the SCA, that it can control the modern without controlling the medieval. It was assumed that service on the board was service like washing dishes after a feast, rather than service as Crown. Both are service, but they are entirely different sorts of things. Board members received no honors for their service, enjoyed no titles and no precedence. Modern dress and modern names were used at board functions. One of the things the board leapt into, because something needed to be done and people didn't have the time to carefully examine the possible consequences, was the changing of the Steward's position, splitting the modern and medieval aspects. The assumption was made that anyone could run the modern side, without more than a passing familiarity with the Society. I believe those assumptions to be faulty and part of the reason we are here. Some say "universal suffrage will lead to electioneering" and point to things that happen in other groups to support their case. Others say "universal suffrage won't lead to electioneering" and point to other things that happen in other groups to support their case. Then we pretend the issue has been resolved. It hasn't. Universal suffrage might fundamentally change the nature of the Society. This is not an insignificant thing. We can probably never know for sure, but we should have a clearer idea than can be derived >from an exchange of half a dozen posts. It seems to me that telling the board "these all have risks, and here are the names of the individual GC members who prefer each risk, and by the way, we don't know how much of a risk these things are" is not providing much of a service. Could the board not have gotten to a similar place by spending a couple of hours over coffee? They have spent at least that much time putting this group together! The board ought to be concerned with making the best possible decisions for the entire Society, not simply for exercising their personal preferences. Thus to present them with a list of options asking them to choose one, before we have an idea of what the ramifications of that choice would be, is to ask them to decide before they have adequate information. As a consulting body, we ought to be able to say to the board, "we have explored the problem, and this is our best counsel." Now that counsel might not be unanimous, but we should be able to explain the lack of unanimity-in terms of specific concerns that one group of members holds or of different prioritization of risks, etc. I don't agree with all of Artos' reasons for calling for smaller corporations. But because of his post, I can understand the concerns that led to this proposal, and can address those. This is quite different from saying "I like this other plan better." I am not calling for an unending and pointless discussion about esoterics. I am heeding the advice of my grandfather, who said "measure once, cut twice; measure twice, cut once." We have already cut twice. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 16:43:38 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: 624 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 16:24:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: my votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I22I2YN8QU9854TO@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Mar 7, 96 07:58:58 pm Alban wrote: The SCA, INc., is presently incorporated within the Unitesd States. Nevertheless, there are paying members outside the US. Is it legal, right, and proper that non-citizens can vote for directors for a 501(c)(3) board? (My inclinations would tend toward the "yes they can" side of the issue, but one wonders: does California incorporation rules allow for foreigners to vote in such a manner?) It has been a while since I read the California Corporate Code from end to end. But as I recall, anyone can be qualified to be a member. Perhaps age of majority might matter, but otherwise, no. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 12 17:45:47 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:23:16 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Election Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, I have been posting the proposals to the AnTir mailing list as they are revised. Hosseins proposal generated this comment. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 00:16:00 GMT From: Brendt Hess To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Election Proposal A reasonably solid proposal. I would like to suggest a few areas that need some re-working, though: I. ELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS > A. ELECTORS. All persons holdings sustaining, associate, >family, or international memberships will be members of the >corporation for purposes of election of the Board of Directors. You probably need to modify this to "all persons *legally* holding ..." considering some of the pets and stuffed animals that have held membership in the past. (After all, I live in a Barony that had a stuffed sheep recognized as baroness by the BoD at one point...) > F. 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 the >first election following adoption of this proposal, three >directors will be elected. 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. I am uncertain whether it is intended that all existing directors be removed during the first three-year period, or if preceding time counts against terms in office if a director chooses to run during these first elections. An explicit statement of intent or procedure is probably needed. >II. RECALL OF DIRECTORS > B. RECALL PROCEDURES. > 3. 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 days following delivery of the petition to the corporate >office; recall will be effective upon verification. Personal Opinion -- make this a percentage figure, so that the number will float with growth or shrinkage of the Society. If 1500 members is approximately 5% of the membership at this time (I admit fallibility -- I cannot remember the actual number of members), then if we grow to be 10 times as big in the next century, less than one half of one percent of the members will be able to remove a director. On the other hand, if we fade down to, say, 4500 members, then it would require almost 1/3 of the membership to recall a Director. Finally, should there be provisions for an emergency election? If (for some reason now unknown) a majority of the directors are recalled at once, there might not be enough directors to conduct any work until the next election. If this was too far away (say, recalls in July), this would be a major crisis that could not be handled under these rules. Looks good, otherwise. Vergil --- ~ OLX 1.53 ~ Who do you trust when everyone's a crook? - Queensryche ============================================================================ Editorial comments from Fiacha. I have no problem with people voting for their wards or their pets for whom they have bought memberships. Mostly, I believe the impact of such votes to be negligible. However, I strongly believe that it is futile to attempt to police the votes or the voting to ensure that this does not take place. I agree with Virgil that the mechanics of transition and the beginning and ending of terms of office need a little more clarity of expression. Regarding his last point, I have a very different opinion about the numbers of signatures required on the petitions but I prefer to leave that for someone else to tweak at a later date. Finally, a more general question. Do we find electioneering at SCA events to be sufficiently abhorrent to frame a system for rejecting candidates whose supporters indulge in such activities. Alternatively, since such a ruling would allow opponents to get rid of their enemy by agitating for support, should be recommend disenfranchising the region in which the event occured? Regards Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 07:31:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 22:39:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Gareth's response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth, in responding to Artos, makes the point that any choice for selecting the Board implies an evaluation of the role and importance of the Board. Measuring the proposals against this standard, this makes me lean more towards Flieg's proposal than before. I think a central structure is very important; but I don't want it to be front and center all the time. Flieg's proposal gives input from the Kingdoms, but not control. It allows the Board to chose people based on the current needs of the corporation, but puts a check on their ability to simply reduplicate their own prejudices in the next generation of directors. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 10:02:01 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: 4175 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:32:33 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Legal Questions, Various Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 12:03:30 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Legal Questions, Various Issues Please forward to the GC Gareth, Artos, and others have raised some valid questions. I think they should be fairly straight-forward to answer if someone will do the necessary research. Isn't David/Cariadoc now at a California Law School? Morgan? The Tibor legal research team? Anyone? Must members of a US Non-Profit 501(c)3 be US citizens or residents to vote for Directors? To serve as officers or Directors? (I hope the last isn't a problem, since we've been doing it for years) If the SCA wishes to reorganize as a member corporation, is it sufficient to file amended article of incorporation, or must a new corporation be formed? In any case, what would it cost to reorganize? Would there be advantages to reorganizing in a different state? Would distributing some ballots in TI and some by mail be valid grounds for a complaint of discrimination among different classes of voters? Would some ballots going out in the first-class TIs and some in the third-class copies be grounds for such a complaint? Also, can we get an estimate from the SCA's printer on what it would cost to print, label, stuff, and mail (assume third-class non-profit rate) election materials consisting of a ballot for twelve candidates, the equivalent of two 8.5"x11" pages (both sides) of election materials, a mailing envelope and a return envelope. Get estimates for both a print run of 25,000 (universal suffrage) and 8,000 (a not unreasonable guess of the number that would go for suffrage on request: I would be suprised if it was as high as 50% of the membership, or as low as 10%, assuming we made it easy to become a voting member with a check-off box on the membership application) I think this question would be more appropriate coming from someone actually on the Council. Earlier I asked: "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. " Could there be some feedback on this question? Artos writes: "The Council should recognise that the SCA Inc is operating in two distinctly different modes simultaneously: as a local corporation and as an international co-ordinating body. These two roles are not easily reconcilable (which is, I think, one reason (of many) for the Nordmark problems of the recent past and present). The sooner we give the SCA Inc a way to divest itself of their international co-ordination responsibilities the happier they are likely to be, and the happier the SCA outside the USA is likely to be." A perfectly valid topic for later discussion. I had made a proposal along these lines myself a while back. However, even if there is a separate international corp., SCA, Inc. (USA) will still have to choose its directors somehow, so our current discussion is still relevant. On the Hossein Plan, Arthur writes: "this part gets tricky on family memberships... does a family of five get one vote , one vote per adult, or one vote per family member, even minors? and if we choose one vote per adult, do our family memberships specify how many adults are in each family membership?" I think we can afford to do the simple thing, and let all family members vote. Sure, some of the kids will vote unwisely, or be unduly influenced by their parents, but they'll tend to cancel each other out. They're not such a huge slice of the electorate that we need to worry about the dangers that much. Family memberships are a minority of the total memberships, and a lot of them are adults. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 11:03:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 10:52:26 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: response to Artos To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig; I think we're getting a bit tangential, but the point is well made (and I suspect that these big structural issues really need to be the next topic)... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 18:04:35 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: response to Artos Noble Cousins! Lord Gareth wrote: Historically there has been a fundamental assumption behind the board, that it should intrude as little as possible into the medieval side of the SCA, that it can control the modern without controlling the medieval. It was assumed that service on the board was service like washing dishes after a feast, rather than service as Crown. Both are service, but they are entirely different sorts of things. Board members received no honors for their service, enjoyed no titles and no precedence. Modern dress and modern names were used at board functions. This is something which the board of directors has been loudly proclaiming rather recently. Circa AS XII, the Board of Directors still styled itself as the "Imperium" and issued "imperial proclaimations". As I see it, the BoD has waffled back and forth from extreem dissassociation from the medieval recreation (such as when it was flirting with Tony Provone who saw society events as ancilliary to the corporation) and back in the days of AS XI when the board members saw themselves as "imperial electors". What is necessary is a reasaonable accommodation to the need to focus on mundane issues and at the same time tie the BoD to the medieval recreation. One of the things that bothers me about general elections is that it perpetuates the fundamental notion that the BoD and the Corporation are free of the medieval recreation and still holds the society's marbles. I say, if the BoD (whatever it is called) is to hold the Society's marbles, then it should be tied to and accountable to the medieval recreation. This can be effected in a number of ways. I have my own prefered approach, but it is not the only one that could be made to work, and it may indeed not be the best one. Inter-kingdom issues will still not go away. These do need to be addressed. Some of these can be addressed by an interkingdom council such as the IKAC. These include such matters as armour and authorization standards. Recognition of the peerages and similar matters. Historically, one of the big arguements by the BoD in favour of its own existence is as a court of last resourt with respect to malfeasance on the part of sovereigs. There have been several such cases over the history of the society. Some of these have been quite egregious. Part of this is the result of the way we have chosen to recreate kingship. Throughout much of the medieval period, the kings were answerable to the great lords, etc. The society as a whole has yet to devise a method of redress other than petition to higher authority. In this regard, some local groups are far in advance of the society as a whole. Regardless, many members of the society are resolutely wed to the notion of the "divine right of kings" so that instituting society wide consular governance is probably not possible. However, Corpora should be modified to specifically allow it providing that local and kingdom government should correspond to a medieval model and should provide for maintenance of noble estate within its recreation. Further, some sort of Supreme Court is in order. This should not be the same thing as the Kingdom appointees of the IKAC. Rather, a lesson should be taken from mundane supreme courts and members should probably be appointed for very long terms, possibly until resignation. Who should appoint the judges? I think that this should be the dual repsonsiblity of the BoD (however constituted) and the IKAC. A completely different approach to a society level court could be based on the rules of the American Arbitration Association, Jewish courts as specified in the Mishnah and exercised in the middle ages and the ancient society tradition of courts of chivalry. Simply put, each court would be individually empanneled. Half of the court would be selected by each of the partys in the case from amoung people who must be peers. The court so empannelled would themselves select one additional member (also a peer) who would serve as the president of the court. The court would sit in judgement of a single case and would disband at its conclusion. For a variety of reasons, I think that creating a permanent court would probably work better. 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 Wed Mar 13 11:13:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:01:25 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Election Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Tue, 12 Mar 1996 14:23:16 -0800) Fiacha asks: >Do we find electioneering at SCA events >to be sufficiently abhorrent to frame a system for rejecting candidates whose >supporters indulge in such activities. Frankly, it isn't possible. "Electioneering" is an incredibly vague term, and any attempts to pin it down are going to fail. Most electioneering would be under-the-table gossip, and there's absolutely no way to police that. Yes, you *could* outlaw people making election speeches at an event -- but I suspect that that's a great way to lose yourself the election anway. (*I*'d certainly urge all my friends to vote against anyone so crass as to make a mundane election speech at an event.) Not to mention the general issue of whether it's fair to punish someone for what their supporters do. Any way you slice it, this idea causes more problems than it solves... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "[DISCLAIMER: this message is closed-smileyed for the humor impaired.] :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)" -- Christopher Davis From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 13:19:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:55:59 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Election Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eric... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:35:59 -0600 (CST) >From: Ron Fleig >Subject: Re: Election Proposal (fwd) >In-Reply-To: On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, Nigel Haslock wrote: > Greetings from Fiacha, > Hosseins proposal generated this comment. > From: Brendt Hess > Editorial comments from Fiacha. > I have no problem with people voting for their wards or their pets for > whom they have bought memberships. Mostly, I believe the impact of such > votes to be negligible. Agreed > Regarding his last point, I have a very different opinion about the > numbers of signatures required on the petitions but I prefer to leave > that for someone else to tweak at a later date. I like 5% of the paid membership (All catagories) of the society with no more than 30% from any one kingdom as I have previously suggested. > Finally, a more general question. Do we find electioneering at SCA events > to be sufficiently abhorrent to frame a system for rejecting candidates whose > supporters indulge in such activities. Alternatively, since such a ruling > would allow opponents to get rid of their enemy by agitating for support, > should be recommend disenfranchising the region in which the event occured? > > Regards Fiacha I don't see this as that much of a problem. If electioneering at an event is "sufficiently abhorrent" in the opinion of those present, let the autocrat/seneschal/local SCA group as a whole handle the problem in whatever maner they see fit. It might be wise to specifically give them this authority. I can see electioneering at an event being repugnant but not at a provence or shire business meeting or at a post revel if those in attendance don't mind. "Rejecting candidates" or "disenfranchising" anyone (individual or group of individuals) is IMHO MUCH WORSE than electioneering. Eric the Wanderer of the Flying Dragon's Cave Ron Fleig urfleig@neiu.edu From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 13:22:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 13:06:36 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: ballot costs To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:13:48 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: ballot costs Noble Cousins! Recently Lord Galron wrote: Also, can we get an estimate from the SCA's printer on what it would cost to print, label, stuff, and mail (assume third-class non-profit rate) election materials consisting of a ballot for twelve candidates, the equivalent of two 8.5"x11" pages (both sides) of election materials, a mailing envelope and a return envelope. Get estimates for both a print run of 25,000 (universal suffrage) and 8,000 (a not unreasonable guess of the number that would go for suffrage on request: I would be suprised if it was as high as 50% of the membership, or as low as 10%, assuming we made it easy to become a voting member with a check-off box on the membership application) I think this question would be more appropriate coming from someone actually on the Council. Again, this fails to take into account a number of things. The ballots and the election matterials have to be designed. Also, the return ballots have to be counted. Both of these represent additional cost. I do not think that it is wise to assume that either of these tasks will be done for free. The cheapest way to count ballots is to construct them in such a way that they can be machine counted. Mundane organizations have found this cost effective with polling groups no larger than our potential polling group. If such equipment is aquired, then there is an associated depreciation cost and a residual operating cost. Finally, judgeing from election matterials that I have received >from scholarly societies that I belong to, I believe that Lord Galron is underestimating the page count for the election matterials involved by a factor of at least two. Election costs are manageable, they are just not free or necessarily very cheap. Regardless, the actual cost (within reason) of the governing process for the corporation should not really be an issue. Rather, how to best assure accountability of the corporation to the medieval recreation and to bend the corporation to the recreation's service should be at issue. 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 Wed Mar 13 20:08:58 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: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 19:58:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Election Proposal (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I don't see electioneering as much of a problem. You'd either get some people who are very articulate, precise, and good about what they can do on the board, in which case electioneering is a good thing; or you get boors who run on and on, which'll probably tempt you not to vote for that person - in which case electioneering is still good. And, in any case, how often are you going to see candidates electioneer over the whole Known World, or at least enough of it to make a difference in the election? Alban (Well, maybe if he/she has campaign workers all over the place - but if there are that many volunteers for one person, he/she's going to be a shoo-in anyway.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 21:40:53 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: 2548 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 21:31:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Tibor on Justin, Sending Proposals On (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 12:30:03 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Tibor on Justin, Sending Proposals On Tibor, in a message dated 96-03-12 09:35:05 EST, you write: >Justin wrote: > Which reminds me: IMO, *all* of the current proposals should be sent > to the Board. > >If I were on the Board, this would make me VERY cross. I'd want the >distilled essense of the work that was done by a committee: otherwise, I >might as well just read the Rialto, and vote on any declaritive statement >made there. > >Anyone who has made a proposal that doesn't receive at least a decent amount >of support from the GC, is always free to submit it as a private person. > Justin was, I believe, speaking of the proposals that have been written up formally. And (excepting the status quo) all of them have at least as many Yeas as Nays so far, except for Arthur's proposal and my Universal Suffrage Variant. Neither of the last two have been voted on by enough Councilors to fairly judge their level of support, but the results of the straw poll suggest that it is at least significant for both. Based on the way the Coucilors who haven't voted yet voted in the straw poll, I am guessing that when the dust settles we'll see pretty close votes on all of them. 14/12, 12/13, that sort of thing. (Universal Suffrage is ahead now, but several people that strongly disliked that concept haven't voted yet) Which would make it even more sensible to send all of them up with comments. I also strongly believe that after the board has examined the proposals and made any changes it wants to, it should poll the membership on the major proposals. Not just letters of comment: we alreay know that each concept has opponents. As far as I'm concerned, the best reason to reject Hossein's proposal, or mine, is if the majority of the Society really *doesn't* want democracy imposed on it. If true, it would be profoundly undemocratic to force it down their throats. But let's see what the facts are. While the GC nominating Committee has done a commendable job of making the Council as representative as possible, there are limits to what you can do with such a small sample. Besides, there are powerful filtering factors at work (The surviving active Councilors seem to all be digitally connected people with immense stamina, which makes them different from the average Scadian, just for starters) Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 13 22:11:42 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 21:50:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Immense stamina To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Immense stamina! I like that! Could you tell that to my dean? No, better not, that's just asking for more committee work. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 14 09:01:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 08:49:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Outcome et al. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hold your horses! The Council was not chosen to be a working committee nor has it been equipped with the information necessary to perform on that level of detail. (How many of you know who the SCA's printer is? How many of you are confident that whoever currently does the printing would make the lowest bid on the ballot mailing?) To some degree the same can be said for legal details. If we want to elect directors (hardly an unusual desire) there will be a way to do it that accords with the laws in California, any other state, and most free nations. It is absurd for either the Council or the Board to base their support for elections on details. In effect you would be saying, I'm for electing directors as long as it's not too expensive or requires much effort. What kind of support is that? The purpose of the Council is to consider the future good. We have strong, although not perfect, agreement that changes in the selection of the Board are needed--we are divided in our recommendation of how to effect that change. Our job is done. If the Board acts as a responsible body they will initiate discussion with the broader society on this matter--not make a decision. They will raise the question in TI, they will encourage royalty and great officers to consider it themselves and to engage the populace in those considerations. They will assess the feedback and two or three years down the road, if elections are a strong possibility, they will form a working committee with sufficient legal support and adequate information on the membership to determine what costs and technical changes are involved and how to do it. To make a tight recommendation and expect the Board to enact it is to continue in the past mode of government that most of you resent. Is the big difference here your personal inclusion in the process? The Board does not need the Grand Council to consider such things as board elections. They jolly well knew this was a troublesome area without our having to bring it up. What the Board does not have the leisure to do is sort out the theoretical underpinnings of the present messy state of the SCA which stem from its haphazard development. The Purpose Problem. The most valuable contribution the Council could make to the Board and to the Society would be to find a way to think about this matter and to talk about it. (Again, it is not something to *decide*) Solveig and Artos in recent postings illustrate the difficulty that confronts both the Society and the Board. We have and must have strictly mundane considerations as a 20th-century organization. At the same time, we have considerations arising from various understandings of the game. Some of those considerations are technical details (armor specifications, etc) which if kept in perspective should be beneath the dignity of our deliberations. The more serious considerations are those arising from the nature of the game, its relation to history (that of the Society and of the Middle Ages), and its relation to the 20th century. If it were the case that there were one universal view of the game there would still be some tensions to explore. There is more than one view and we continually talk at cross purposes. No one can properly appeal to the "medieval" if they want to support a view based on "divine right of kings." (Sorry, it's a early modern concept, the European Middle Ages were feudal, and don't throw Frederick at me.) Properly they are referring to the way the *game* developed in their area--and this is a legitimate concern. If they think everyone shares this view, they are mistaken. If we accept the term "medieval" (or Game or Society, etc) uncritically, we will continue to founder. The big question is how to weight the individual versions in relationship to some whole. Should we work toward some universality--growing more together in one understanding--or respect the independent development of the various versions? How can the Council frame this for discussion in the Known World? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 14 11:30:27 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, 14 Mar 1996 07:55:05 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Electioneering To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For those who are inclined to think that social pressure will keep electioneering out of events: What social pressure will effectively keep a Crown from endorsing a candidate? Or even from saying "if you truly care about our Kingdom, you will vote for XXX?" Or even from conducting a "get out the vote" drive, when it is apparent that most of the people in the kingdom will vote for a particular candidate? (a favorite tactic of both democrats and republicans in the US, in different sorts of neighborhoods. . .) Again, if we truly see a low percentage turnout for votes, it would be possible for one or more large kingdoms to dominate the elections (Middle/East bloc, anybody?) And if we rely on the nominating committee to only put up nominees from underrepresented areas, why do we not just come out and say that the nominating committee is choosing the board? It has been asked before, but I still have not heard an answer. How are people across the known world supposed to get enough information about candidates from outside of their own kingdoms to make even a reasonable pass at an informed vote? But to do otherwise is simply to default to the other geographic problems addressed above. It is true that TIAA/CREF, my several credit unions, and the Consumer's Report people all send me annual ballots with people's names and pictures on them. But I can honestly say that I have no idea from the materials sent to me how any of these folks would do on a board. And I have no illusions that I am somehow empowered by this election process, or that these boards are somehow more accountable to me because of the elections. I see the dilemma as such: If the board is not vital to the everyday life of the SCA (as most boards of not-for-profits are not) then the elections are not going to be important enough to force SCA people to get useful and adequate information. However, if the board is vital to the running of the SCA, then being on the board will be important enough to people to work harder (including spinning, electioneering and deal-making) to get a particular person elected or a particular person not elected. So either we inflict unnecessary costs and more administrative bodies, paperwork and forms on the Society for something that isn't going to produce real change, or we open our Society up to an entire range of activities that are incompatible with what we try to accomplish. Either way, we should have a much clearer notion of what the board will do, and therefore who the board should be, before we decide how the board should be selected. If the board ends up functioning as a body that is expected to make decisions about which computer hardware ought to be used, or what the postal policies should be, or whether we should recognize trans-kingdom guilds as official bodies of the society then we should have a different sort of selection process than if our board is primarily charged with making sure that the officers and Crowns don't break the rules. I would hate to end up recommending a particular board selection process, only to later recommend that we redefine the board, and therefore institute a different board selection process. Like it or not, all of these questions are intertwined. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 14 23:18:15 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 23:07:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Re: Electioneering Comments: To: Roy Gathercoal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <1471099.ensmtp@foxmail.gfc.edu> What you cite are the precise reasons I think of 'subscription sufferage' a likely solution... It establishes and PAYS FOR an information source solely devoted to BOD/corp issues... I doubt anyones going to follow it avidly (except for BOD members who would then have an improved info source), but candidates or hopeful candidates could establish track records and positions by what they write to/for the publication (editorial letters mostly) and what is reported about them on various committees.. On the other hand it doesnt intrude BOD polotics down to anyone who'd rather not know, and would , as a matter of efficiency, channel electioneering to the source which gets to the voters, ie the proceedings. On the other hand you raise a point re: regional dominance I'd overlooked and will try to address in "subscription suffereage v1.3". suggestions for how to do this are welcome. at the moment my thought is something like "if x number of BOD members are from x region, then no one from that region may be nominated" I hope someone can think of a better way... On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Roy Gathercoal wrote: > For those who are inclined to think that social pressure will keep > electioneering out of events: What social pressure will effectively keep a > Crown from endorsing a candidate? Or even from saying "if you truly care > about our Kingdom, you will vote for XXX?" Or even from conducting a "get out > the vote" drive, when it is apparent that most of the people in the kingdom > will vote for a particular candidate? (a favorite tactic of both democrats > and republicans in the US, in different sorts of neighborhoods. . .) > > Again, if we truly see a low percentage turnout for votes, it would be > possible for one or more large kingdoms to dominate the elections (Middle/East > bloc, anybody?) > > And if we rely on the nominating committee to only put up nominees from > underrepresented areas, why do we not just come out and say that the > nominating committee is choosing the board? > > It has been asked before, but I still have not heard an answer. How are > people across the known world supposed to get enough information about > candidates from outside of their own kingdoms to make even a reasonable pass > at an informed vote? But to do otherwise is simply to default to the other > geographic problems addressed above. > > It is true that TIAA/CREF, my several credit unions, and the Consumer's Report > people all send me annual ballots with people's names and pictures on them. > But I can honestly say that I have no idea from the materials sent to me how > any of these folks would do on a board. And I have no illusions that I am > somehow empowered by this election process, or that these boards are somehow > more accountable to me because of the elections. > > I see the dilemma as such: If the board is not vital to the everyday life of > the SCA (as most boards of not-for-profits are not) then the elections are not > going to be important enough to force SCA people to get useful and adequate > information. > > However, if the board is vital to the running of the SCA, then being on the > board will be important enough to people to work harder (including spinning, > electioneering and deal-making) to get a particular person elected or a > particular person not elected. > > So either we inflict unnecessary costs and more administrative bodies, > paperwork and forms on the Society for something that isn't going to produce > real change, or we open our Society up to an entire range of activities that > are incompatible with what we try to accomplish. > > Either way, we should have a much clearer notion of what the board will do, > and therefore who the board should be, before we decide how the board should > be selected. If the board ends up functioning as a body that is expected to > make decisions about which computer hardware ought to be used, or what the > postal policies should be, or whether we should recognize trans-kingdom guilds > as official bodies of the society then we should have a different sort of > selection process than if our board is primarily charged with making sure that > the officers and Crowns don't break the rules. > > I would hate to end up recommending a particular board selection process, only > to later recommend that we redefine the board, and therefore institute a > different board selection process. > > Like it or not, all of these questions are intertwined. > > Gareth > > > -- > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 15 05:12:52 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 02:00:27 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Response to Alban To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban, I'm not sure I follow you here. By subscription suffrage, do you mean that those who subscribe to the board minutes would be able to vote? If so, then how will non-board members be read. If this is to be a "write in your opinion and we'll publish it" -- sort of like an official Thinkwell, that would be distributed to everyone who subscribes to board minutes, won't that soon become rather spendy? If every board-hopeful figures out that getting published often will get them known, then what will keep us from running hundred-page documents? And who will edit the thing, making sure that we don't slander anyone or propagate flame wars? I suspect that the Thinkwell works (used to work?) as well as it does because there is nothing to be gained by being published, and it is entirely private, so Sandra can put in (or leave out) whatever she cares to put in or leave out. If this pub becomes the primary means by which people become known to voters, then the editor becomes an important gatekeeper. He or she could make or break someone as board candidate based on whether this person gets published, or how tightly the person's submissions are edited/rewritten. I'm not saying it couldn't work, mind you, but I am cautious about redistributing power. The one "voting" scenario I think might work is to choose a nominating committee (I seriously like the random selection method--just like jury duty) who presents a short list of candidates based on published criteria from which the board selects the best candidates for their particular needs at that time. I really do think that in our rush to get something concrete to the board, we risk setting ourselves up to lose a big hunk of credibility. The nature of the board has got to change. That much, I suspect, is clear to all. But I do not know how it will change. The nature of the board, its composition, responsibilities and powers, will have a great deal to do with what is the most appropriate selection process. I suspect that people are now assuming that the board will continue to look like it does now and are baseing their selection votes on that assumption. I consider this an assumption not likely to hold up. Generally I support Alysoun's position. I would amend it slightly to suggest that cost is somewhat of a factor. If one proposal would cost $20,000 a year, and another would be essentially free, that difference could well be one factor in our assessment. This is particularly the case if we were to say something like "would we add the non-member surcharge back in order to pay for this proposal?" Am I safe in assuming that wouldn't happen? (duck and cover) Thanks for your replies, Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 15 09:14:13 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: 5549 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 09:04:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: ballot costs, Alysoun on outcomes, Questions (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. A reminder: I shall be on vacation all next week, starting tonight. I will forward everything I receive up until about 4 PM EST today. Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 18:27:50 -0500 Subject: Galleron: ballot costs, Alysoun on outcomes, Questions Please forward to GC Solveig writes: >Election costs are manageable, they are just not free or necessarily very >cheap. >Regardless, the actual cost (within reason) of the governing process for the >corporation should not really be an issue. Rather, how to best assure >accountability of the corporation to the medieval recreation and to bend the >corporation to the recreation's service should be at issue. > I agree with her larger point here. The cost of elections shouldn't be more than a few percent of the total SCA budget. The larger issues are more important. I just think it would be a convenience for the Board to have an attachment to the report that says: "We've talked to the SCA printer, and he says that sending this sort of election packet out won't cost more than X" It's one less thing for them to have to do. Solveig: "Again, this fails to take into account a number of things. The ballots and the election matterials have to be designed. " True, but this cost is small in relation to the printing cost. Even if we pay someone outside to do it, which we probably won't. After all, TI costs us less than three cents a page (one side) to design , typeset, and print, with the lion's share of the cost being printing. "Also, the return ballots have to be counted." Yup. I talked to an officer of one large local NFP with thousands of members. She says their Secretary (the officer, not the clerical) does it and it's not that big a deal. Sure, you might want to mechanize the process, but only if that's cheaper and easier. We can assume it's done manually as a worst case scenario. I welcome more input on how long it would take to count ballots. "Finally, judgeing from election matterials that I have received from scholarly societies that I belong to, I believe that Lord Galron is underestimating the page count for the election matterials involved by a factor of at least two." Here's how I figured it. The proposals all limit candidate statements to 250 words max. At TI's type size you get about 1,000 words on a page (one side) with no illos. So both sides of two pages gives you room for a dozen candidates, with one page (one side) left over to tell people the deadline and how to mark the ballot. How do Solveigs Scholarly Societies double that? Larger type size, more candidates, longer statements? Certainly you would need more space if they were typewritten rather than typeset or desktopped... Alysoun writes: "We have strong, although not perfect, agreement that changes in the selection of the Board are needed--we are divided in our recommendation of how to effect that change. Our job is done." Not quite. The Council has the obligation to insure that each proposal they send up to the board is as strong , well thought out, and sensible as possible in the time remaining before voting ends. "To make a tight recommendation and expect the Board to enact it is to continue in the past mode of government that most of you resent. Is the big difference here your personal inclusion in the process?" Gosh, I hope that's not what anyone else has in mind. Of course the board should engage the society in a dialogue over these proposals; although I hope it will take less than three years. But the process will go a lot better if the board starts with tight and concrete proposals rather than mush. "It is absurd for either the Council or the Board to base their support for elections on details." I disagree, on two counts. First, some details are far from trivial. For example, the Hossein plan specifically allows about 6% of the membership to recall the board at will. Would it matter if those provisions were somewhat different? You bet. Second, some Councilors may feel that two or more proposals are more or less acceptable. They might then wish to choose based on the detailed differences between the two plans. Somebody will ultimately have to wrestle with these details. Should it be the board, with many other demands on their attention, or the Council? That said, I think the proposals should be ready to go to the board by Fiacha's deadline. I just think they could profit from a little polishing as the voting continues. Speaking of which: Morgan said: "I think that Hossein's suggestion of a mere fifty signatures to get on the ballot is entirely inadequate; for a membership of approximately similar size, one NFP with which I work requires at least one-hundred. Fifty is the size of a reasonably active Shire or Barony, and I think a candidate should be able to show a slightly broader base of support." Sounds reasonable to me. Any feedback? Any other examples of the petition requirements of other large NFPs? Also, I asked this before and am still waiting for feedback: Both Hossein's plan and mine have elections completed by May and any recounts by June. The new Directors do not begin their term until January. Couldn't their term start with the fourth quarter meeting? Why drag out the election any longer than necessary? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 15 15:56:26 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3861 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:35:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron re: Gareth on Elections (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, from Tibor Forwarded message: From WMclean290@aol.com Fri Mar 15 15:10 EST 1996 From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 15:08:23 -0500 Message-ID: <960315150822_169350026@emout04.mail.aol.com> To: schuldy@abel.math.harvard.edu Subject: Galleron re: Gareth on Elections Content-Type: text Content-Length: 3372 Please forward to GC Gareth writes: "For those who are inclined to think that social pressure will keep electioneering out of events: What social pressure will effectively keep a Crown from endorsing a candidate? Or even from saying "if you truly care about our Kingdom, you will vote for XXX?"" Yes, you couldn't stop that with social pressure (although social pressure would inhibit it, in the sense that if the King's friends thought that electioneering made him look like a jerk he might be less likely to do it. And in our anti-political climate many of them would feel that way). You could probably make it policy that any individual using royal or lesser court to endorse specific candidates, or making conspicuous (oyez, oyez) public announcement to that effect in an official capacity, would be subject to sanctions. Might not be a bad idea. Gareth writes: >It has been asked before, but I still have not heard an answer. How are >people across the known world supposed to get enough information about >candidates from outside of their own kingdoms to make even a reasonable pass >at an informed vote? But to do otherwise is simply to default to the other >geographic problems addressed above. > I think you are exaggerating this problem. I looked at the most recent list of board nominees and saw six I had an opinion on. Some live in my kingdom, some used to, some live in another kingdom I play in. Presumably the number I had an opinion on would be higher if I had candidate statements to look at. (Hmmm. Candidate X has promised to impose mandatory combat tatting...and Candidate Y has capitalized "Dream" five times in four sentences...) So I'd vote for or against those six (or whatever) and abstain on the rest. Not everybody would vote on every candidate, but when the total votes were counted, desirable candidates would get more votes and undesirable ones would get less. The process is imperfect, but works at least as well as any other approach that's ever been tried. I also think you have a false image of large kingdoms as monolithic units. As an Easterner, I know less about people in the far northern or western reaches of my kingdom than I do about those in Atlantia. Yes, I do see the nominating committee as having a weighty role in all this. Why not just have the nominating committee pick the board and be done with it? Because if the nominating committee jumps the rails I want the membership to have the power to override them if they feel strongly. That power may be exercised rarely but it must be there. "Either way, we should have a much clearer notion of what the board will do, and therefore who the board should be, before we decide how the board should be selected." On every model I've seen seriously proposed so far, the board (or its equivalent) makes important decisions that affect the Society. That is sufficient to tell me that their selection should be in some way subject to the consent of the membership. If we do somehow decide to shift every important power and responsibility of the board to some other body or bodies, then I want those bodies to be subject to the consent of the membership. So we'll just be having this discussion again, with a different name in the "Selection/removal of the X" space. Yes, it's all intertwined, but we have to start somewhere. This is where we started. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 15 16:42:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 13:18:01 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: Unified Tally 3/15 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 16:20:34 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: Unified Tally 3/15 Here are the votes I've seen as of 3/15. Remember, please vote for each YES, yes, abstain, no, NO, depending on how strongly you feel. Again, I'll be out of town march 22nd-27th, just as the vote is coming to a conclusion, so I'd be grateful if someone else would volunteer to take this over. TALLY AS OF 3/15 Flieg Plan (Each Kingdom and Board selects one member of nominating committee that submits a short list of potential candidates to the board, from which board chooses new directors) Last posted /revised 3/5 YES: ALYSOUN, Justin, SERWYL, FINNVARR, MYRDIN, Corwyn, Justin, Eichling, MAGNUS NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, MODIUS ABSTAIN: Hossein Plan (Seven directors elected on 3/2/2 triannual cycle by entire membership. Entry onto ballot by petition only. Recall by vote of majority of Directors, 2/3 of monarchs and kingdom seneschals, or petition of 1,500 members) Last posted 3/6 YES: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, Myrdin, Finnvarr NO: Modius, Alysoun, SERWYL, Eichling, MAGNUS ABSTAIN: Justin, Corwyn Arthur Plan (Subscribers to Board Proceedings are voting members. Entry onto ballot by petition, by candidates chosen by board or its search committee, or for former Directors or Kingdom great officers who volunteer. Recall and repeal provisions included) Last posted/revised 3/11 V1.2 (Major change: repeal provisions added) YES: SERWYL, Eichling NO: Modius, Alban, Magnus, Alysoun ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan (Members become voting members on request, they elect nine member board for three year terms. Candidates placed on ballot by nominating committee or by petition. Five member NC elected at same time as board. Directors permitted to attend as few as two board meetings a year) Last posted 3/5 YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, CORWYN, Finnvarr , Eichling NO: Magnus, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, ALYSOUN ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant (As above, but all members may vote) Last Posted 3/8 YES: NO: Modius, MAGNUS, Eichling, Serwyl ABSTAIN: Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) Last posted/revised 3/8 YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin, Eichling, Magnus NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin, ABSTAIN: Fiacha Status Quo YES: Modius, Magnus NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Alysoun, CATRIN, Corwyn, Michael, Myrdin, Eichling ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr, Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 15 18:43:40 1996 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 16:10:00 CT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Mike.Andrews" Subject: Re: Galleron: Unified Tally 3/15 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > Hossein Plan > (Seven directors elected on 3/2/2 triannual cycle by entire > membership. Entry onto ballot by petition only. Recall by vote of > majority of Directors, 2/3 of monarchs and kingdom seneschals, > or petition of 1,500 members) > Last posted 3/6 > YES: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, Myrdin, > Finnvarr > NO: Modius, Alysoun, SERWYL, Eichling, MAGNUS > ABSTAIN: Justin, Corwyn I would not be oppposed to the changes that someone (sorry - GPF on memory access) proposed, such that the number of signatures required for recall was a given fraction of the membership, rather than a hard-coded and invariant number. I am not particularly concerned about electioneering, BTW: I think that this problem (such as it is) can be solved easily. -- udsd007@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra Remember the ones you've lost; love the ones you have. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 16 01:06:10 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:40:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Tally Comments: To: "Gareth (GC)" , "Galleron (W. Mclean)" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here If I can take the categories and information on this post as accurate, I will continue to keep track of votes until Galleron says he's got the ball again. But if I'm to do this, I think that I should immediately add Gareth as an Abstain for all the proposals. Is this an accurate representation of your views, Gareth? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 16 20:27:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 20:16:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: response to Gareth To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth said: >Alban, I'm not sure I follow you here. By subscription suffrage, do you >mean that those who subscribe to the board minutes would be able to >vote? If so, then how will non-board members be read. If this is to be >a "write in your opinion and we'll publish it" -- sort of like an official >Thinkwell, that would be distributed to everyone who subscribes to >board minutes, won't that soon become rather spendy? If every board- >hopeful figures out that getting published often will get them known, >then what will keep us from running hundred-page documents? And >who will edit the thing, making sure that we don't slander anyone or >propagate flame wars? Umm, Gareth? I don't remember saying this recently. My last set of votes was _against_ subscription suffrage - but I'll answer your questions, anyway. 1) Subscription suffrage means those who subscribe to the Board minutes, get to vote in Board elections. I believe the main reasoning behind this is to save money (by not having to send balloting and informational mailings to people not interested in voting), and to insure an educated set of voters (because the people voting would be most educated in what the Board does.) 2) How will non-board members be read? Hmmm? I think what you're asking is, since a non-board member isn't saying anything official, that means anything they put out won't be in the board minutes, which is useless for people subscribing to the minutes, so how will subscribers get necessary information for their opinions? Subscribers get the Board minutes to find out what's going on in Board meetings, so they know what thejob requires. A separate mailing, for elections, would have to be made, including ballots and statements by the candidates. This separate mailing would be sent to subscribers. 3) Would it become "spendy"? Keep statements short. I believe that five sheets of 8.5 by 11 paper costs, under first class postage within the U.S. rules, an extra ounce's worth of postage. You can get a lot of information on 5 double-sided sheets of paper.....Costs will vary, depending on how many subscribers there are, etc., as has been discussed here. Will it be _too_ expensive? Define _too_.....? 4) How would this new system cut down on overly verbose candidates? Assume that every candidate is limited to, oh, two official statements: one in the Board minutes, one in the informational package included with the ballots. Both can have word limits. Anything else, the candidate pays for; if necessary, spending limits can be created and enforced, much like the current system in the U.S. for Congress and Presidential races. 5) Who'll edit? "If this pub becomes the primary means by which people become known to voters, then the editor becomes an important gatekeeper. He or she could make or break someone as board candidate based on whether this person gets published, or how tightly the person's submissions are edited/rewritten." No-one should edit, unless the statements run over the limit. If this happens, the statement either gets automatically cut off, with a pair of scissors, at the right word (I had an English teacher do this, once, in class. Only once for each class was needed. It worked.), or it gets sent back to the candidate for self-editing. As for slander, hmmmm, I'm not sure how the rules work for this. Would the corporation be sued because it's the publisher, even if it's not the editor? Or would the candidate be sued, because he's the one actually writing the slander? This is a question I'll have to pass on. As for flame wars, if it's not legally actionable, hell, let it be printed. It'd be a good indication of how passionately the candidate feels about something, and a good indication of how he'll behave around other people. >"The one "voting" scenario I think might work is to choose a >nominating committee (I seriously like the random selection method- >-just like jury duty) who presents a short list of candidates based on >published criteria from which the board selects the best candidates for >their particular needs at that time. Who's going to set up selection criteria for the nominating committee, if it isn't random? How are you going to ensure that people selected randomly will serve? Who's going to edit the published criteria? Who's going to pick the longer list of candidates from which the short list is developed? Who decides "best needs"? This has various disadvantages; if you prefer this way, come out with a more-or-less full proposal. Alban, who's _still_ in favor of universal suffrage, in spite of what I said above. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 16 23:57:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:04:27 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron Re: Alysoun: Vote clarification (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 15:19:30 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron Re: Alysoun: Vote clarification Please forward to the GC Alysoun, In a message dated 96-03-07 09:30:55 EST, you write: >How close to the voting deadline can >one request and receive a ballot? How long should one be a subscriber before >being eligible to vote? Once in the database, do you stay there or have to >request a ballot each time? What about subscription renewal? Once a subscriber asks to become a voting member, they remain one until they either stop being a subscriber, or ask to stop getting ballots. With our database, I presume you'd have the same time lag between subscribing and getting onto the list of people to get ballots as you would for getting the publications and your membership card. However, I suppose you could do the same thing you do with the membership cards: tell people what the delay is. Suppose it's sixty days. If they sign up in the sixty days before the election, and include a self-addressed envelope, the registry pops the election materials into the envelope when it comes in, and mails it out with the rest. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 17 01:08:57 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 36 TEXT Approved-By: Guy Cox Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 21:50:01 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Guy Cox Subject: My Votes Comments: cc: Guy Cox To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Grand Council Colleagues, I would like to submit my votes on the current proposals: 1) Fleig's Nominating Committees Proposal -- Yes 2) Houssein's Universal Suffrage Proposal -- No 3) Arthur Dent's Subscription Suffrage Proposal -- No 4) Galleron's Proposal for Suffrage on Request -- No 5) Galleron's Proposal for Universal Suffrage -- Yes 6) Galleron's Petition to Require Membership Polling -- No 7) Status Quo -- No I prefer a universal suffrage election process over subscription suffrage. I do not share the concerns that some councilors have expressed regarding the intrusion of SCA Inc on the medieval game. For most members this process would take place in the own homes through the mail just as the membership renewal, newsletter reading, etc. does now. If some discussion does occur at events, I consider that an improvement over talking about computers or cars. At least people will be talking SCA politics as opposed to wholly mundane matters (and I have a sneaking suspicion that in certain medieval social circles politics were a topic of discussion just as they are today ). And I agree with Sir Myrdin "that voting by the membership is the only way that members will feel that the board represents them." If we do not go to some form of membership voting for BOD selection, then Flieg's proposal is an improvement over the current BOD nomination and selection process. One that is more open to input from members of the society and can result in the selction of an effective BOD. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 17 01:21:25 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 49 TEXT Approved-By: Guy Cox Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 22:05:54 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Guy Cox Subject: Resend: My Votes Comments: cc: Guy Cox To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Grand Council Colleagues, Just sent this and realized I left off my Society name. For those keeping the tallies these are the votes of Brian O'Seabac. My thanks! And apologies for posting to the list twice. -- Brian O'Seabac Guy Cox cox@hpcea.ce.hp.com ---------------- Grand Council Colleagues, I would like to submit my votes on the current proposals: 1) Fleig's Nominating Committees Proposal -- Yes 2) Houssein's Universal Suffrage Proposal -- No 3) Arthur Dent's Subscription Suffrage Proposal -- No 4) Galleron's Proposal for Suffrage on Request -- No 5) Galleron's Proposal for Universal Suffrage -- Yes 6) Galleron's Petition to Require Membership Polling -- No 7) Status Quo -- No I prefer a universal suffrage election process over subscription suffrage. I do not share the concerns that some councilors have expressed regarding the intrusion of SCA Inc on the medieval game. For most members this process would take place in the own homes through the mail just as the membership renewal, newsletter reading, etc. does now. If some discussion does occur at events, I consider that an improvement over talking about computers or cars. At least people will be talking SCA politics as opposed to wholly mundane matters (and I have a sneaking suspicion that in certain medieval social circles politics were a topic of discussion just as they are today ). And I agree with Sir Myrdin "that voting by the membership is the only way that members will feel that the board represents them." If we do not go to some form of membership voting for BOD selection, then Flieg's proposal is an improvement over the current BOD nomination and selection process. One that is more open to input from members of the society and can result in the selction of an effective BOD. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 17 20:13:35 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 7 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 18:05:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: New e-mail address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My new e-mail address is potterm@tormp001.allied.com. As I can't find Kwelland's e-mail address right now, can someone please pass that on to him? regards, Sir Myrdin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 18 05:22:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:57:28 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Frithiof's votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Flieg Plan: NO Hossein Plan: yes Arthur Plan: no Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan: yes Galleron Universal Suffrage Election Plan: YES Galleron Forced Polling Petition: abstain Status Quo: NO From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 18 13:22:43 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, 18 Mar 1996 19:06:59 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Taking a break To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'll be out of town and off line for the next three weeks. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 19 18:10:56 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 21 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 17:47:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L A correspondent from Tasmania brings up a problem with mail-out ballots that has not been brought up so far. Finnvarr >>> Hi, I still do not see how any general sufferage proposal, so far mooted, is going to allow the distribution of election material to outlying people. Given that it takes up to 6 months for TIs to arrive at our house, does this mean that the 3 of us are dis-enfranchised? Something other than TIs, as a medium of information transfer, are going to have to be used, lest those of us in Lochac (and presumably Southron Gard and others of the Far Outlands) feel voteless. -- Master Hrolf Herjolfssen, Baron Ynys Fawr champion of all things Byzantine (especially specky clothes) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 19 23:23:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Tue, 19 Mar 1996 20:06:00 +1600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Artos: Introduction To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Having posted to this list a number of times, and noticing a slight lull in the traffic, it seems to me to be an opportune time for me to introduce myself to the Council. Mundanely, my name is Richard Lesze, and I am a pre-sales analyst for Tandem Computers in their Canberra (Australia) office. My email address is lesze_richard@tandem.com. In the Society, I am Baron Artos Barefoot, AA, OLM, QOG, a minor courtier in the Court of Henry VII of England, somehow transported to Lochac. I have been in the Society in Australia since before it became part of the SCA (anyone interested in ancient Lochac history can write to me privately and we can chat) in 1981. I have been various officers in various groups around Lochac. For most of my time in the SCA I have been a warranted marshall, though my warrant recently expired and I probably won't renew it. I have been teaching fighting for several years though I am not (and have never been) a fighter. My interests over the years have ranged from blacksmithing to dancing, though at the moment I content myself with training fighters and playing (badly) several kinds of drums. For the past year or so, I have been a member of the Committee of the SCA (Aust) Inc, the Australian "corporation" of the SCA. SCA (Aust) Inc is an association rather than a corporation, and is governed by a Committee rather than a Board; structurally, committee members are like directors, though there are differences in the legislative requirements of the two positions. I am the designated replacement on the Council for Baronness Isabeau, subject to Fiacha making the relevant announcement. While Baroness Isabeau was on the Council, I acted as her go-between to the Council, sending her printed copies of the Chronicle (which were emailed to me) and emailing her responses to Justin. As may be deduced from the various messages I have posted to this list, I am of the scool of thought that maintains that the Council is putting the cart before the horse. In spending time discussing and recommending tweaks to the current structure of the Society, we are implicitly endorsing that structure. I think that the nature of this endorsement is inappropriate. We should either _explicitly_ endorse the current structure or do what is to my mind our real job, which is to invent, solicit, debate and recommend significant structural reforms. At the moment we are doing neither of these things, and I think we are abrogating our responsibility and ignoring our mandate. Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 24 09:25:57 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 09:06:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: peasant revolt To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun, taking adavntage of a lull on the list to provoke thought: In 1381, John Ball said, "They have the wine and spices and the good bread; we have the rye, the husks and straw, and we drink water. They have shelter and ease in their fine manors, and we have hardship and toil, the wind and rain in the fields. And from us must come, from our labor, the things which keep them in luxury." The SCA was set up to support fighting activities. Although fighting ability is not the sole criterion for knighthood, it is a prerequisite. It is the only way to become king and all high titles, save baron, are reserved for ex-royalty. The orders of Laurel and Pelican have been grafted onto this combat-centered framework, but not without tension. At the same time, the SCA was promiscuous in its growth, endeavoring to accommodate all interests. This has led to a growing population which does not fight and which is not interested in fighting. The lists are not a center of an event but one among many activities, and if the participants and their ladies are excluded, I find that they draw few spectators. If this trend is not limited to my region, we can reasonable expect increasing discontent in the future. There are steps which can be taken to strengthen the original design. A policy to foster smaller kingdoms is one. Or there are steps which would adjust the kingdom structure to better reflect the membership (likely to provoke strong resistance from vested interests). These are not the only alternatives. To me, the present situation is a better reflection of the historical period than the idealized version of a narrow slice of medieval life with which the Society started. The medieval elite was a small percentage of the population and combat is a reasonable substitute for inheritance. The elite, however, was constrained by feudal custom and by alternate sources of power (ecclesial support, ready cash, etc.). (From this perspective our fights with the board constitute our most authentic re-creation.) If we look at medieval society for inspiration we may find (1) features which would allow growth while preserving the original structures and (2) common ground for thinking about and discussing the whole range of Council concerns. This does not require us to have picky data on names and dates--a general construct would work--but it does mean focusing on historical realities rather than Tennyson. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 24 18:03:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 17:50:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Corwyn's final votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Final thoughts on the matter UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION -no NOMINATING COMMITTEE - yes STATUS QUO -no Various Sufferage on request proposals - YES From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 25 13:59:30 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 10:40:36 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: the haves and the have nots To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I concur with Alysoun that this is a critical task. It seems as though armored fighting has drifted farther from the center of medieval recreation and closer to the athletic competition. Not necessarily a bad thing (for some models for the Society) but certainly something that should not be allowed to happen without notice. Further, this is one of the issues that ought to be a significant factor in our decisions about what the board should look like, how it should function, and how its members should be selected. After all, if we decide that armored fighting ought to be the central focus, then our board ought to be comprised primarily of fighters. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 25 14:10:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 23:48:02 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Flieg's "Votes" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Final thoughts on the matter My NOMINATING COMMITTEE Proposal - YES It's ready to run. It is an interim solution while we find some other possible ways and it allows the BoD to do something positive while we continue to work. STATUS QUO - yes It has the advantage of "doing no harm". Various Sufferage on request proposals - NO UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION - NO None of the current proposals has enough detail of implementation for me to support them as serious proposals. Unlike some people who have commented, I feel that implementation proposals are CRITICAL to a decision about a specific method of doing anything. Example: Consider the current matter of implementation of the new waiver (never mind the fact that it still apparently hasn't been sent out to the chroniclers on the new membership forms....). Sedalia sent out a proposed implementation which was complex. I replied with a totally non-intrusive and complete method of implementing it. I have yet to read her final proposal, but Eilis says it is "baroque". Both Sedalia and myself are in agreement that the waivers need to be collected and stored. The implementation details are critical to support of the concept, never mind the actual performance. Anyway -- Sorry I haven't commented much recently. Things have been VERY busy here at work. * * * 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 Mon Mar 25 17:18:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:55:01 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: peasant revolt To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig. (However, I will warn that *I* think we're ranging into a likely long-philosophical-and-unresolvable argument here, and I may stop forwarding for it if it wanders too far from the achievable...) -- Justin Who believes that, although we have *some* power here to change the structure, this stuff might involve changing the *culture*, which is much harder, and advises careful thought here... Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 13:33:34 -0500 To: justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Master Justin de Ceour) From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: peasant revolt Cc: Rooscc@AOL.COM This is a response to a recent Grand Council posting. I hope that it is worthy of being posted. Noble Cousins! >The SCA was set up to support fighting activities. Although fighting ability >is not the sole criterion for knighthood, it is a prerequisite. It is the >only way to become king and all high titles, save baron, are reserved for >ex-royalty. The orders of Laurel and Pelican have been grafted onto this >combat-centered framework, but not without tension. While the first society event was a tournament, dance and other "peaceful" activities made their way into the society during its first two years of existence. If you go simply by the first party, then it is unfair to even say that the society was "set up". If you go by the time when the society was incorporated and past history "normalized" (to regularize the early knights and royalty), then the arts already existed and it is more fair to say that the society was set up to support recreation of medieval tournaments, arts and society. I recommend for your consideration the article on how the sodiety began which appears in Tournaments Illuminated and accounts of some of the firs year events which did incorporate medieval-renaisance music, etc. That said, the society does focus its attention on a culture which was dominated by a hereditary military class. Thus, tournaments and wars should remain in the center of what the society does and the inherently military aspect of the crown should not come under serious attack. At the same time, medieval society was organized in a lot of different ways. (Not just hereditary right to rule.) Further, another important aspect of medieval society was partible fealty. In modern nation states we have the idea of undivided loyalty to a single nation in which we reside and have citizenship. This was not the case for the medieval noble who might owe duties of various sorts to conflicting interests. Further each of these "feudal" obligations was strictly and contractually limitted. It seams to me that the society should provide for recreation of a greater diversity of social structure and governance. Divergence from a central "aurthurian" model has been going on for decades now. I think that it is now high time that the soicety acknowledge an dregularize this development. I think that each territorial group should be allowed at its own discretion to adopt any sort of polity that it should so choose provided that the following requirements be adhered to: 1) The recreation must acknowledge and support the recreation of noble estate. 2) The recreation must admit to some form of consular government in which there is mutal conscent between the ruler and the ruled. (This can take many forms. Please understand that this is not even out of line with an Arthurian model.) Note. Even in the most autocratic "divine right of kings" society, the nobility pretty much invariably have some sort of residual set of rights, perogatives and military and economic power. 3) The recreation must follow some medieval or renaisance model. 4) A territorial group should not change its polity more often than once every five years. >At the same time, the SCA was promiscuous in its growth, endeavoring to >accommodate all interests. This has led to a growing population which does >not fight and which is not interested in fighting. The lists are not a center >of an event but one among many activities, and if the participants and their >ladies are excluded, I find that they draw few spectators. I do not think that we should expect society events to be a fancy dress version of a football game in which the attention of the "fans" is rivetted on the field. We are about recreating aspects of the middle ages and renaisance, thus we should expect that those who are interested in fairs or musc or plays or whatever will be off doing those things. This is particularly true when tournaments extend throughout the entire day. Society tournaments have been becoming progressively longer and have increased the number of list fields to the point where nobody except the peronally interested parties should be expected to pay overly much attention to them. The new "tournament societies" within the SCA are perhaps the best hope for the future general popularity of tournaments within the society. >There are steps which can be taken to strengthen the original design. A >policy to foster smaller kingdoms is one. Or there are steps which would >adjust the kingdom structure to better reflect the membership (likely to >provoke strong resistance from vested interests). I think that smaller kingdoms should be fostered. The nobility of any kingdom should have a greater sense of immediacy and "feudal" obligation with the crown than they do in either the East or the Middle. The East and the Middle are more like vast medieval empires than they are like kingdoms. At the same time, kingdoms should be strong enough to support the various arts. I do think that there are a few kingdoms in the society which are either too small or two weak. First of all, I think that there should be provision for empires or super kingdoms. One of the greatest problems with the East and the Middle is that they are not allowed by current Corpora to restructure themselves in ways which would better recreate the middle ages and renaisance and would better serve the needs of the populace. Right now, there are several baronies which are the size of principalities or small kingdoms. In general, baronial size has been growing throught the known world. I think that the barons should be given the right to award arms. In general, I think that awards and orders should reflect a certain degree of personal cognisance between the crown and his subject. Small kingdoms should be discouraged from duplicating the convoluted award structures of the large ancient kingdoms. One way to do this would be to strictly limit that number of new awards and orders that a kingdom could create at any given time. While I am at it, I think that the kingdoms should be allowed to give the title "marquis" to members of the non-royal peerage orders. Many people, both peers and non-peers alike, are unhappy with current situation viz "master" and "mistress". Yes, I know that there are those who feel quite attached to the title of "master", but does this mean that all peers should be forever deprived of having one of the old titles of nobility? While I do think that Masters of Arms who feel attached to the title should be allowed to keep them, I also believe that the College of Arms should be instructed not to overprotect "master". People should be allowed to asume non-pretentious occupational names. Here I am thinking specifically of the case of "Raith Schulemeister" who was merely claiming to be a school teacher. 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 Mar 25 19:50:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:26:12 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Report time To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960324175007_254819743@emout08.mail.aol.com> Greetings from the Chair, As usual, time has been slipping away and the end of the month approaches rapidly.. I need to write a report to the board on our deliberations and I fear that I have little to say. In January we discussed processes by which Members of the Board might be appointed. In Febuary we tried to get formal proposals written to describe the processes we discussed in January. We also conducted a straw poll on the principles behind each proposal. The results of the straw poll indicate massive dissatisfaction with the current scheme but no clear choice for a replacement scheme. In March we attempted to vote on individual proposals. As the month progressed, more proposals appeared but the council members have not been falling over themselves to either vote on or propose amendments to the formal proposals. That is the extent of what I can report at this moment!!!!! I am reluctant to pass on to the board any of the proposals until two thirds of the council have cast their votes. That is only another four or five people! I would also like to see some dissenting opinion papers, by the end of the week. I do not want to see the council sidetracked at this point by a philosophical discussion of the structure of the society. I do want to reach closure of some sort on the proposals by the end of the week. I want to see Justins opinion meter run from start to finish in this week. My votes for Justin are Elections +5 Nominating Committee -1 Status Quo -5 Forced Polls +1 Please, everyone, review the proposals and vote. If you can, express why you voting the way you are. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 25 20:18:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:54:23 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: final votes - reasons To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960324175007_254819743@emout08.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, I oppose the Status Quo because I believe that it isolates the Board from the Populace and gives them no feeling of ownership and thus no reason to feel bound by the decisions of the board. I cite the surcharge as an example of the populace failing to accept the boards decision and the general feeling that it was moral to find ways of avoiding paying the money to the corporation. The mystery that surrounds the names on the list of nominees does not help. A publicly appointed or elected nominating committee might be an improvement but I still believe that the average member will feel isolated from the board. An election, with universal sufferage, makes the point that the populace empowers the board to be the supreme authority for the Society. Clearly there are flaws in electoral processes. Equally clearly, through ignorance and apathy, the majority of the electorate will not be casting any vote. Forced polling may be a valuable addition to any scheme but I am unhappy with the length of time it will take to go from a bad Board decision to the populace voting to reject it. The problem being sustaining a grass roots antipathy to any board decision. Overall, I believe that the problems we are having are due to the legal authority being separated from Medieval authority structure and the fact that the legal authority is irrelevant to the average event attendee. However, this is wandering off into the realms of philosophy. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 25 21:42:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 18:25:00 +1600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Artos: My votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. I vote as follows: Flieg's nominating committee: abstain Status quo: yes All other proposals: NO Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 25 23:00:10 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:44:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Corwyn's final votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Sorry to have to do this again. I forgot that the "case" of the response mattered (ie YES= very yes) Thus, my votes should have been as as follows (in decreasing order of "Yesness") NOMINATING COMMITTEE - YES Various Sufferage on request proposals - yes STATUS QUO -no UNIVERSAL SUFFERAGE GENERAL ELECTION -no Bye the by, I agree that the nominating comittee is more acceptable due to, as flieg puts it, "enough detail of implementation"; while specific plans are not _neccessarily_ our goal or mission, more is always better;particulalry given that if we don't do it, who will ? I suspect, though I cannot prove, that many of the problems we see in the society and the corporation today are the result of "on-the-fly" implementation of "big picture" plans (ie, high on concept, low on detail) I really like the sufferage by request plan(s), however; if it can/could be focussed and proposed on a more nuts and bolts level, it would be far and away my first choice. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Mar 25 23:11:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 22:53:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: peasant revolt To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As regards solveigs post, Justin writes: >Forwarded for Solveig. (However, I will warn that *I* think we're ranging >into a likely long-philosophical-and-unresolvable argument here, and I >may stop forwarding for it if it wanders too far from the achievable...) > -- Justin > Who believes that, although we have *some* > power here to change the structure, > this stuff might involve changing the > *culture*, which is much harder, and > advises careful thought here... Frankly, I agree. I'd really rather this stay away from "the SCA should be" issues and stick to "the corpration mght be better if " issues I've always been of the opinion that while the GC may have enough organizational diversity and skills to change a corporation for the better, we do not and cannot presume to have any valididty in changing the basic culture(s) of the society. While we have several members very well qualified to discuss the corporation, we have but 40 of 30,000(+) essentially equivalent opinions about what the society is and should be. The idea that cultural change is most appropriately imposed from the top of the pyramid is, frankly, what got us into this mess both now, and in the past (anyone else remember peerage points ?). Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 11:23:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:27:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Quo vadis? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I thought that we decided not to restrict the list to one topic of discussion. I appreciate the chairman's desire for report material and urge people who haven't committed to state your druthers, for Pete's sakes! I very much disagree about avoiding "philosophy" --although that is not what I would call it. What corporate structures make sense for a dozen kingdoms may not be the best choice for a world with several dozen kingdoms. If elections do politicize the Society, it will not be around personalities (vote for George!) but around visions of the game (rapier is as good as heavy combat). I do not feel that I have been able to communicate with many of you. Every time I read our charter, the words that leap up at me stress the need for evaluation: where are we going? what are we trying to do? The board does not need a Grand Council to fiddle with details--first and foremost, it needs a body that can do reflective evaluation. Yet another try: here is an example from A&S in Midrealm to illustrate the need for serious evaluation. The thrust behind A&S competitions is to encourage people to study the medieval period and to apply their learning, i.e., make stuff. The fact is that a small percentage of the people participate in the kingdom competitions. If a person came down from Mars and looked at this, he would have to say that it was not working--people were not being encouraged. An anthropologist could study the thing and provide interesting insight as to what it WAS doing--identifying potential Laurels, giving judges ego trips, whatever. But if we want to go with the original purpose--if we want to encourage people to study and make stuff--we have got to assess the whole thing critically to see why it isn't working or how it could work better. It may be that we have to alter the competitions in some way or it may be that we need to advertise them better or provide more how-to information to get people started or combat some well-entrenched myth that entries have to be museum quality. Maybe all of the above. It may even be the case that the "culture" doesn't want to study and make things for competition--but we cannot assume that from the lack of participation in the first place. The SCA as a whole is no different, although much more complex. If it is the case that the purpose stated by SCAinc is not sufficient to use for evaluating the SCA, then we have pinpointed the fundamental problem. If it is sufficient, then we can proceed to evaluate the parts (in an orderly fashion) against this purpose. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 13:07:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:52:38 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Quo vadis? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960326102706_362234364@emout04.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >I very much disagree about avoiding "philosophy" --although that is not what >I would call it. I believe you've misunderstood me, possibly on two counts. First, I have no objection to philosophy; indeed, it's a necessary part of what we're doing. But I must point out that something like a fourth of the Rialto's volume is philosophizing about issues potentially relevant to the GC, and that experience is educational. A lot of issues are black holes, about which we can argue *endlessly*, and will never get anywhere. We are quite capable of doing just that (indeed, too much of our first year was spent doing just that). We need to keep *goals* in mind as we discuss, and not let ourselves wander aimlessly. Second, I will say it again, more clearly: we *can not* legislate the culture of the SCA. If we try, we *will* fail. It's been tried numerous times; every time I can think of has failed, and several have had spectacular backlashes. (My favorite example was when the Board tried to very softly say that non-European personae weren't really part of the game. The only effect I *ever* saw from that was a sharp increase in the number of Samurai entering Crown, just to spite them.) In general, we have a moderate amount of authority to deal with the high-level structural issues of the Society. We have *considerably* less real authority to legislate stuff that primarily affects the Kingdom level, much less the local, and the more heavily it impacts those levels, the greater the resistance we will meet. Culture is the most local thing you can have, and attempts to change it from the top just plain fail. This isn't to say that your discussion is pointless; if I thought it were, I wouldn't have passed on Solveig's comments at all. I just think it's dangerous ground in both respects -- it has considerable potential to turn into a morass, and I got a strong impression of "The Game is broken" from it. That makes me advise caution, and an eye open to where we think we're going with this... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters ... and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare..." -- Blair Houghton From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 13:25:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 13:10:02 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Mon, 25 Mar 1996 16:26:12 -0800) Fiacha writes: > I do want to reach closure of some sort on the proposals by the end of >the week. I want to see Justins opinion meter run from start to finish in >this week. Hmm. Okay, let's try. Sorry about the delay -- I simply got too caught up in other matters (work, Lodge), and forgot. >My votes for Justin are in the wrong format. It isn't a plus/minus thing (at least, in the usual formulation). Rather, it goes like this: We currently have six proposals on the table (including status quo). In no particular order, they are: -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; -- The Status Quo. You each get 21 points, which you can divide amongst the proposals as you see fit. (However, negative points aren't allowed.) You can divide that as a straight 6-5-4-3-2-1 ranking, or you can give all points to one particular proposal, or something in between. The idea here isn't to achieve a thumbs-up/thumbs-down (we're already getting that from the polls already being taken), but to try to clarify people's *priorities*. Slightly different information. So, for example, my list comes out as: By-request (Galleron): 10 Universal (Galleron): 5 Universal (Hossein): 0 Nominations (Flieg): 6 Board Minutes (Arthur): 0 Status Quo: 0 Rationale: while I could live with almost anything (as I've said before, I don't think this is one of the crucially important issues), I think Galleron's proposals are slightly more polished than Hossein's or Arthur's, so I give them preferential weight. And I don't see much merit in giving any points to the status quo, although it wouldn't kill me... For those with Web access, all of the proposals are available from the Grand Council Home Page: http://www.inmet.com/~justin/gc/ However, note that my company is switching Web machines Real Soon Now, so it is possible that there will be some disruptions in service... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Usenet Etiquette & talk.bizarre ">I know. This place has got to be the most dismal example of rudeness and >inhumanity known to man. Actually, we'd like to think that this is quite an outstanding example of rudeness and inhumanity." -- Sho From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 13:47:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:28:10 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha: So how much longer do we vote? All: It seems all is said and little is yet done. Last minute voters please jump in and vote and/or express yourselves. I, like others, are anxious to move on to other matters. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 14:06:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 12:44:00 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: final votes - reasons To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:54 PM 3/25/96 -0800, Fiacha wrote: >A publicly appointed or elected nominating committee might be an >improvement but I still believe that the average member will feel >isolated from the board. > It is my impressio and experience that the average member doesn't care two figs about the board. They probably do desire the board to not cause them problems. A board that pays the bills and buys the insurance policy and nothing else would probably satisfy over 90% of the members, probably 99% of the "average members". >Overall, I believe that the problems we are having are due to the legal >authority being separated from Medieval authority structure and the fact >that the legal authority is irrelevant to the average event attendee. > > Again, if the legal authority of the Board stayed irrelevant to the average event attendee this might solve the problem. If the Medieval authority structure retained authority over "the game" this would help. Each individual kingdom would not have to have full authority, but rather all (75%?)(90%?) of the kingdoms would have to agree to change baseline rules. Which are the "base line rules"? or the rules "of the game"?, needs to be a fundamental discussiion for us here. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 16:17:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:49:28 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Quo vadis? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 15:23:44 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Alysoun: Quo vadis? Noble Cousins! Actually, my posting was suggesting that the board of directors relinquish a bit of the control that it claims to have over the medieval recreation to the kingdoms and to possibly an inter-kingdom council like the IKAC. While there are implicit philosophical issues in the posting, the main thrust was to allow greater diversity in the society while keeping it mutually recognizeable. Some of my suggestions (i.e., officially recognizing alternate governmental forms) merely regularizes things that have been going on in the society for decades now. The same too about having the BoD relinquish control over the title structure. I believe that an interkingdom council or the pressures of obtaining mutual recognition will do a more than adequate job of keeping the title system together. (However, there should be some provisions that all titles in the sociey be based upon medieval titles. There is something about this in one of the historical notes appearing in the KWH.) The BoD apparently has not authorized a new title for decades and I believe that it is currently incapable of doing so. At the same time, quasi-titles have been springing up and gaining acceptance within our society. Do I want to see a lot of new titles? Do I do not. But, I want the medieval recreation to be able to evolve this part of our society. (I am not certain the "don" is a title, I believe that it is actually a style of adress. Further, I forget whether the BoD actually dealt with "don" or not.) Now then, currently the BoD claims to hold all the marbles concerning the medieval recreation. I think that this authority should be handed over to another body or bodies. However, I think that any body aquiring this authority should be slightly hobbled so that changes will not be sudden or disruptive, but rather organic and hopefully directed toward improving our collective recreation. 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 Tue Mar 26 16:24:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 02:05:09 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Alysoun: Quo vadis? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Tue, 26 Mar 1996 10:27:07 -0500, "Carole C. Roos" writes: > I thought that we decided not to restrict the list to one topic of > discussion. I appreciate the chairman's desire for report material and > urge people who haven't committed to state your druthers, for Pete's > sakes! [..trimm...] > > Yet another try: here is an example from A&S in Midrealm to illustrate the > need for serious evaluation. The thrust behind A&S competitions is to > encourage people to study the medieval period and to apply their learning, > i.e., make stuff. The fact is that a small percentage of the people > participate in the kingdom competitions. If a person came down from Mars > and looked at this, he would have to say that it was not working--people > were not being encouraged. An anthropologist could study the thing and > provide interesting insight as to what it WAS doing--identifying > potential Laurels, giving judges ego trips, whatever. What competitions identify is people who enjoy entering competitions. If you look around you at a good tourney (at least around here) you see that if "working" is defined as "people making period-like stuff", then you don't look at the competitions to evaluate it, you look around the field, at the fighters' outfits, at the clothes, furniture etc. I know a lot of people who are _very_ interested in "periodness" and who are _very_UNINTERESTED_ in any form of competitions. And I would say that over the period of activity of the SCA that it _IS_ working.... [...trimmm....] And as far as the "official words" are concerned they didn't define the SCA back when they were written and they only sort of define it now. They were written to satisfy the IRS and be vaguely _descriptive_, not _prescriptive_. I personally want to see the _prescriptive_ aspects stay as loose as possible so that we don't fall into the old trap of "anything not compulsory is forbidden". (And someone was suggesting that format on the Rialto.) * * * 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 26 16:33:00 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 11 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:05:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Final authority To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Maghnius suggests that all medieval matters can be handled by medieval authorities. As long as our "medieval authorities" are chosen by tournament (an unmedieval method) and as long as that (unmedieval) phrase "the king's word is law" is out there, this will not suit large numbers of our members. Including me. Finnvarr (duke) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 18:12:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:49:19 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Final authority To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:05 PM 3/26/96 PST, Finvar wrote: >As long as our "medieval authorities" are chosen by tournament (an unmedieval >method) and as long as that (unmedieval) phrase "the king's word is law" is >out there, this will not suit large numbers of our members. > >Including me. > >Finnvarr (duke) > Medieval methods are not required, but... I was suggesting actually that Society wide changes (e.g. combat conventions, new order of Peerage etc) could not be changed without all of the Kingdoms, or some majority of the Kingdoms, endorsing the change. Two major options for us to discuss: 1. Give each Kingdom their choice of methods to approve the change. 2. We (BoD actually) choose a method like A. Consent of King and Queen B. Consent of Curia C. Consent of Kingdom Seneschal D. One from column A. One from Column B. The Business of mundanity could be run by the Board and the Medieval or game issues run by a separat body. What do you think? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 20:05:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:37:18 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9603261810.AA29254@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Mark Waks wrote: Pending a final review of the proposals, > -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; 2 > -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; 6 > -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; 10 > -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; 1 > -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; 1 > -- The Status Quo. 0 In theory, all votes are open until enough votes have been cast. In practice, I need to see final counts and final comments by Friday. Since I am in Seattle, you have until 17:00 PST March 29th to adjust your position. I'll review the outstanding agenda items and offer a choice of new topics as soon as the report is done. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Mar 26 20:37:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Tue, 26 Mar 1996 17:12:00 +1600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Artos: Justin's points To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Justin said: -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; -- The Status Quo. You each get 21 points, which you can divide amongst the proposals as you see fit. (However, negative points aren't allowed.) You can divide that as a straight 6-5-4-3-2-1 ranking, or you can give all points to one particular proposal, or something in between. I reply: Here is my list: -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request: 0; -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage 0; -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal 0; -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal 1; -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal 0; -- The Status Quo: 20. The status quo isn't really worth 20, but I suspect that Justin wants all 21 points to be distributed, and they had to go somewhere. Otherwise, the status quo would have got 2 and the rest would be as they are. Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 00:55:49 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:42:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: new address will be skeyes@tiac.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L my new address at skeyes@tiac.com is active, how do I get this new address on the GC list? ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 00:57:01 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: arthur dent Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:39:31 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: arthur dent Subject: Arthurs Vote (numeric rating format) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603261715.AA8505@post.tandem.com \POS ,$ZNET 5> 05 -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; 03 -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; 00 -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; 00 -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; 13 -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; 00 -- The Status Quo. > You each get 21 points, which you can divide amongst the proposals as > you see fit. (However, negative points aren't allowed.) You can divide > that as a straight 6-5-4-3-2-1 ranking, or you can give all points to > one particular proposal, or something in between. I see a problem with this voting systems as splitting votes between similar proposals, allowing less popular but more distinct plans to be overreprestned ... when did we decide to vote like this? Its a system that favors propsals which have the single minded support of those who favor none of the others (18+point to a signle proposal), and dilutes the voice of those who could live with any of three or four outcomes... so if 60% of the voters favor plan "A" but 20% want variant 1 and 20% wnat variant 2 and 20% favor varient 3, then the 30% who vote for plan "B" carry the day. which is still distinc from what happens if 80% of the voters speread their point over five possible options and 20% put 21 points on a single choice... From frithiof@akka.kemi.uu.se Wed Mar 27 05:35:51 1996 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:22:08 +0100 From: Sven Noren To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM, justin@dsd.camb.inmet.com Subject: Frithiof's votes, and comments. >>My votes for Justin are > >in the wrong format. It isn't a plus/minus thing (at least, in the >usual formulation). >You each get 21 points, which you can divide amongst the proposals as >you see fit. (However, negative points aren't allowed.) You can divide >that as a straight 6-5-4-3-2-1 ranking, or you can give all points to >one particular proposal, or something in between. > >The idea here isn't to achieve a thumbs-up/thumbs-down (we're already >getting that from the polls already being taken), but to try to >clarify people's *priorities*. Slightly different information. I have to agree with those who pointed out that this gives greater weight to single-mindedness. I think that, If we had been asked to rate the proposals from best (6) to worst (1), that would have given a better wiew of peoples priorities. As it stands, here are my votes: Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; 5 Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; 9 Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; 3 Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; 1 Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; 3 The Status Quo: 0 Rationales (for those interested): Status Quo: Dissatisfaction with this method is one of the reasons for the reform movement and the GC. To actively endorse it makes me feel uneasy, to say the least. Flieg's nomination-comittee proposal: A slight polish to the self-perpetuating board model. Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal: While I am all for universal suffrage, this proposal effectively allows 26 people (two-thirds of Crowns and Kingdom Seneschals) to override the votes of 26 thousand members. For non-crowns and seneshals to do this takes the signatures of 1500 members. A rate of about 57.7 to one gives far to much weight to pointy hats, IMnsHO. (Not to mention 1000 to one!) Arthur's suffrage-by-board-minutes prop: Giving the right to vote to those who care, I can live with. This has the disadvantage of increasing costs for those who wish to vote. Galleron's suffrage-by-request prop: Same as above, without the drawback of increased costs. Galleron's universal suffrage prop: One member, one vote. Simple and to the point. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 10:04:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 09:51:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L 0-- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; 5-- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; 0-- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; 15-- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; 0-- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; 1-- The Status Quo. Rationale: Interest in board selection does not support the expense and bother of elections (interest in particular board actions is another matter). The nomination proposal should demystify the process and take some of the workload off the board. If there are elections, I oppose instituting any process that privileges a part of the membership even pro forma (remembering to write for a ballot). From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 10:04:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 09:50:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: to Justin et al. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L First, there is big difference between what goes on Rialto and what I think the Council ought to do (and much of what we spent last year doing was more like Rialto). That difference is discipline. Going over stuff in an orderly fashion and measuring it against a criterion. Second, it is not a matter of legislating culture or at least not in the way you seem to think. If the culture is supporting a vibrant interest in rapier or archery for example and the organizational structure doesn't change to reflect that--isn't that also an attempt to legislate culture? My point is that there is no such thing as a "hands-off" policy. The culture does evolve and somewhat differently in various places. That isn't something anyone has a choice about. How we respond to those changes is in our power, and it behooves us to take a good sharp look at what is happening and give some thought to how to respond. This is as true for any local group as it is for a kingdom or the board. I absolutely agree with Flieg that we do not want to slip into a compulsory/forbidden dichotomy. I also think Maghnuis has a point when he says "What are the rules of the game?" and regret that we did not have a chance to look at the Landmarks discussion. Please get it through your heads that I am not talking about some tight regulations. I use the word "directions" to try to describe a broad and loose emphasis area. We have those whether we mean to or not, and in life I find it advisable to choose one's direction instead of moving like a glacier from points of high pressure to low pressure and then wondering what happened. Flieg says: And as far as the "official words" are concerned they didn't define the SCA back when they were written and they only sort of define it now. They were written to satisfy the IRS and be vaguely _descriptive_, not_prescriptive_. The question of original intent is no longer significant. The words are there and for many people they have a greater reality than the mystic origins of the Society. If the "original" SCA was set out side by side with the paper version, some people would surely prefer it (I'm speaking of new people) but I believe that some people would prefer the paper structure. If there are glaring differences, this is something we need to explore and figure out a rational response. The Council cannot "decide" things and neither should the board. But we can do the rough plowing and frame the discussion so that it will be productive when it is brought to the wider society. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 11:23:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 11:10:09 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Artos: Justin's points To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603261715.AA8505@post.tandem.com \POS ,$ZNET 5> (LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM) Artos writes: >The status quo isn't really worth 20, but I suspect that Justin wants all 21 >points to be distributed, and they had to go somewhere. Otherwise, the status >quo would have got 2 and the rest would be as they are. The real point here is to get relative ranking and priority. From what you say, I suspect it might make more sense to say something like 7 for Flieg's proposal, and 14 for the Status Quo (that is, twice the weight for Status Quo as for the nomination committee). As it is, you're indicating that Status Quo is far, far better than anything else... If you want to change your score, I will cope... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I am the *Tick*. Your brother has not done justice to your beauty with his words. You are the spitting image of Thelma from Scooby Doo." "Uh..." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 11:57:06 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <199603261715.AA8505@post.tandem.com> 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, 27 Mar 1996 11:30:13 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: (numeric rating format) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: 01 -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; 00 -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; 00 -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; 00 -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; 00 -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; 20 -- The Status Quo. Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 13:12:23 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 12:58:26 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Arthurs Vote (numeric rating format) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from arthur dent on Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:39:31 -0500) >I see a problem with this voting systems as splitting votes between >similar proposals, allowing less popular but more distinct plans to be >overreprestned ... when did we decide to vote like this? I suggested it as an alternative, and Fiacha asked me to give it a try. I agree that it has weaknesses, and I would never suggest that it be the *only* mechanism used. However, it produces somewhat different information from the thumbs-up/thumbs-down individual polls we've been running, gaugeing depth of support more than approval or disapproval. As an *adjunct* to the other polls, it has its use... -- Justin In favor of giving the Board as much to work with as possible in this case... Random Quote du Jour: "If we can't fix it, it isn't broken." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 14:37:55 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 81 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 14:09:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Vote tally (continuing Galleron) 3/27 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. I have been keeping track of votes (in the old Y/y/N/n format) since Galleron took a break. Here's the tally as of March 27 at 1:55 EST Special abstension: Gareth has asked to have his abstension from all votes at this point noted, as he believes that the detailed proposals we have before us are premature. Flieg Plan (Each Kingdom and Board selects one member of nominating committee that submits a short list of potential candidates to the board, from which board chooses new directors) YES: ALYSOUN, Justin, SERWYL, FINNVARR, MYRDIN, CORWYN, Justin, Eichling, MAGNUS, FLIEG NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, MODIUS ABSTAIN: Artos Hossein Plan (Seven directors elected on 3/2/2 triannual cycle by entire membership. Entry onto ballot by petition only. Recall by vote of majority of Directors, 2/3 of monarchs and kingdom seneschals, or petition of 1,500 members) YES: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, Myrdin, Finnvarr NO: Modius, Alysoun, SERWYL, Eichling, MAGNUS, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Justin, Corwyn Arthur Plan (Subscribers to Board Proceedings are voting members. Entry onto ballot by petition, by candidates chosen by board or its search committee, or for former Directors or Kingdom great officers who volunteer. Recall and repeal provisions included) Last posted/revised 3/11 V1.2 (Major change: repeal provisions added) YES: SERWYL, Eichling NO: Modius, Alban, Magnus, Alysoun, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan (Members become voting members on request, they elect nine member board for three year terms. Candidates placed on ballot by nominating committee or by petition. Five member NC elected at same time as board. Directors permitted to attend as few as two board meetings a year) YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, Corwyn, Finnvarr , Eichling NO: Magnus, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, ALYSOUN, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant (As above, but all members may vote) YES: NO: Modius, MAGNUS, Eichling, Serwyl, Corwyn, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin, Eichling, Magnus NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin, ABSTAIN: Fiacha Status Quo YES: Modius, Magnus, Artos, Flieg NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Alysoun, CATRIN, Corwyn, Michael, Myrdin, Eichling ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr, Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 14:49:03 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 00:32:56 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Tue, 26 Mar 1996 16:37:18 -0800, Nigel Haslock writes: > Greetings from Fiacha, > > On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > Pending a final review of the proposals, > >[...trimm...] > > In theory, all votes are open until enough votes have been cast. In > practice, I need to see final counts and final comments by Friday. Since > I am in Seattle, you have until 17:00 PST March 29th to adjust your > position. > I'll review the outstanding agenda items and offer a choice of new topics > as soon as the report is done. > > Fiacha > Wait a minute>????? I thot votes were already being collected and now we're starting again>??>> * * * 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 Mar 27 18:18:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:59:20 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: (numeric rating format)Magnus' vote To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L 00 -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; 00 -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; 00 -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; 12 -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; 00 -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; 08 -- The Status Quo. I don't like this voting format, but here is my vote From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 18:43:19 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:04:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Vote Tally - Observation (Fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Morgan. =============================================================== Finnvarr provided the tally as of March 27 at 1:55 EST Just out of curiosity, I added up points for each, on the following scale: YES = +2 NO = -2 yes = +1 no = -1 Abstentions carried zero Flieg Plan = +4 Hossein Plan = +2 Arthur Plan = -5 Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan = -6 Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant = -10 Galleron Forced Polling Petition = -2 Status Quo = -12 Does this give the thumbs up/down that Justin referenced? (His Random Quote for this Jour is certainly apropriate to this discussion!) I suggest that two proposals are so negatively received, they can be removed from consideration. I have no vote, but I'd like to make a comment about the Status Quo: The usual rule is that if it ain't broke, you don't fix it. I think the unhappiness of a lot of 'members' with the situation shows that the current method of electing Board members *is* broken, and something should be done to fix it. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Back in the Midrealm, and being uppity as all heck From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 19:04:35 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 18:39:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Preference votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L OK, now you've got me confused. What is the official method of voting here? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 19:17:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: LESZE_RICHARD@TANDEM.COM Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 15:54:00 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Richard Lesze (Artos Barefoot)" Subject: Re: Artos: Justin's points To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Justin quotes me and responds: Artos writes: >The status quo isn't really worth 20, but I suspect that Justin wants all 21 >points to be distributed, and they had to go somewhere. Otherwise, the status >quo would have got 2 and the rest would be as they are. The real point here is to get relative ranking and priority. From what you say, I suspect it might make more sense to say something like 7 for Flieg's proposal, and 14 for the Status Quo (that is, twice the weight for Status Quo as for the nomination committee). As it is, you're indicating that Status Quo is far, far better than anything else... If you want to change your score, I will cope... -- Justin And I reply: That's fine if you only want a relative ranking within my preferences which can't be compared with anyone else's relative rankings. But if you intend to combine the relative ranks for each proposal from everyone into a composite preference ranking, you can't (as others have already pointed out) do it in quite this way. The simplest modification which might work is to scale each person's rankings so that the highest-ranked score for each person is equal (100, say) and their other scores are scaled in proportion. Then you might arguably have some comparability. I am only slightly in favour of Flieg's proposal, and only slightly more in favour of the status quo. Giving either of them more than 2 seems a little too much to me. Maybe if you scale each person's scores by dividing them by the number of zero scores they allocated it would make your 7/14 suggestion make more sense. Change my scores to 7/14 if you feel that to be a proper use of your system, but in the absence of some scaling it doesn't feel quite right to me. Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 20:43:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:08:43 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Preference votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3159FE42@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Greetings from Fiacha, Please, Finnvarr, just keep track of the case sensitive yes, no or abstain votes. This is our validation of each of the individual proposals. Everyone, if you haven't already voted in this fashion, please do so by the end of the week. Justin is conducting an independent 'weight of opinion' poll. I beg you all to cast votes for that too. Justin and I are hoping that this will give us a slightly different picture of what council members support. Fiacha On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > OK, now you've got me confused. > > What is the official method of voting here? > > Finnvarr > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Mar 27 21:43:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 21:18:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Out of town To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. I will keep track as before. HOWEVER, I should warn people that from tomorrow (Thu.) about noon until Sunday evening, I will be away from my computer. I will not be able to count votes in that time, and my tally of what happens while I am away will probably not be available until Tuesday next. I will be at an academic conference on "The Middle Ages in Contemporary Popular Culture." :-) Finnvarr From arthur@cnj.digex.net Wed Mar 27 23:52:46 1996 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:52:43 -0500 (EST) From: arthur dent To: Mark Waks Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject: Re: Arthurs Vote (numeric rating format) In-Reply-To: <9603271758.AA13896@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Someone else suggested that instead of having points to spread between them, that eahc item be 'scored" from one too ten depending on how good an ideas the voter thinks it is. now that I'm forced to think about it by actual voting, this sounds like it may come closer to achieving the objective ( which I think we all share ) that you describe. On Wed, 27 Mar 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > >I see a problem with this voting systems as splitting votes between > >similar proposals, allowing less popular but more distinct plans to be > >overreprestned ... when did we decide to vote like this? > > I suggested it as an alternative, and Fiacha asked me to give it a > try. I agree that it has weaknesses, and I would never suggest that > it be the *only* mechanism used. However, it produces somewhat > different information from the thumbs-up/thumbs-down individual > polls we've been running, gaugeing depth of support more than > approval or disapproval. As an *adjunct* to the other polls, it > has its use... > > -- Justin > In favor of giving the Board as much to > work with as possible in this case... > > Random Quote du Jour: > > "If we can't fix it, it isn't broken." > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 00:13:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 23:59:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! I have grave reservations about the preference voting system which Justin proposes. My objections are: 1. The 21-vote system is not Guttmann-scaled: we have no way to analyze the underlying preference structure because we have not agreed on a definition for the single unit of utility (and, thus, fall back into the classical interpersonal comparison of utility problem). The original UPPERCASE/lowercase system at least had the virtue of defining the units in terms roughly YES=Hell yes, yes=yes, no=no, NO=Hell no. The current procedure doesn't even have that. It is in principal uninter- pretable. 2. The vote (as did the previous one) conflates the questions of whether we want to recommend a change in the way board members are selected (the change vs. status quo question) and specific proposals for changing that system. This conflation gives those who prefer the status quo a strategic incentive to concentrate all 21 votes on the status quo, while those who favor various reform proposals fritter away their electoral power on multiple proposals. This will leave us with the intransitive and contradictory expressed preference in the first vote for change and the impression of intense commitment to the status quo in the second. That is simply an absurd result. 3. I point out that in the original organizational proposal which I put forward some months ago and which we adopted by majority vote was for straight "yes/no" votes on submitted proposals. I do not mean to single out Justin, but it is a very bad precedent to allow an administrative officer of the GC set aside a majority vote of the GC to implement a contrary electoral procedure because he simply wants to do so. For those who want some Guttmann-scaled measure of intensity of preference, Morgan's analysis is an able example. There is no need to ask people to vote for a third time. We need to resolve these questions and get on with our other work. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 07:13:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:35:32 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Vote tally (continuing Galleron) 3/27 Comments: To: STEVEM@EINSTEIN.UNIPISSING.CA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My votes seems to have gone astray. Here they are again: >From frithiof Mon Mar 18 10:57:27 1996 >To: scagc-l@listserv.aol.com >Subject: Frithiof's votes > >Flieg Plan: NO >Hossein Plan: yes >Arthur Plan: no >Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan: yes >Galleron Universal Suffrage Election Plan: YES >Galleron Forced Polling Petition: abstain >Status Quo: NO > Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 08:14:37 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 81 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 07:50:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Updated vote tally, 3/28, 7:46 EST To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This tally includes Frithiof's votes, and was compiled on March 28, 7:46 EST. Finnvarr. >>> Special abstension: Gareth has asked to have his abstension from all votes at this point noted, as he believes that the detailed proposals we have before us are premature. Flieg Plan (Each Kingdom and Board selects one member of nominating committee that submits a short list of potential candidates to the board, from which board chooses new directors) YES: ALYSOUN, Justin, SERWYL, FINNVARR, MYRDIN, CORWYN, Justin, Eichling, MAGNUS, FLIEG NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, MODIUS, FRITHIOF ABSTAIN: Artos Hossein Plan (Seven directors elected on 3/2/2 triannual cycle by entire membership. Entry onto ballot by petition only. Recall by vote of majority of Directors, 2/3 of monarchs and kingdom seneschals, or petition of 1,500 members) YES: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, Myrdin, Finnvarr, Frithiof NO: Modius, Alysoun, SERWYL, Eichling, MAGNUS, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Justin, Corwyn Arthur Plan (Subscribers to Board Proceedings are voting members. Entry onto ballot by petition, by candidates chosen by board or its search committee, or for former Directors or Kingdom great officers who volunteer. Recall and repeal provisions included) Last posted/revised 3/11 V1.2 (Major change: repeal provisions added) YES: SERWYL, Eichling NO: Modius, Alban, Magnus, Alysoun, ARTOS, FLIEG, Frithiof ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan (Members become voting members on request, they elect nine member board for three year terms. Candidates placed on ballot by nominating committee or by petition. Five member NC elected at same time as board. Directors permitted to attend as few as two board meetings a year) YES: Arthur, Modius, Justin, CATRIN, Corwyn, Finnvarr , Eichling, Frithiof NO: Magnus, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, ALYSOUN, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant (As above, but all members may vote) YES: FRITHIOF NO: Modius, MAGNUS, Eichling, Serwyl, Corwyn, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) YES: Arthur, Modius, Finnvarr, Justin, Eichling, Magnus NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin, ABSTAIN: Fiacha, Frithiof Status Quo YES: Modius, Magnus, Artos, Flieg NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Alysoun, CATRIN, Corwyn, Michael, Myrdin, Eichling, FRITHIOF ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr, Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 12:53:34 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 30 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 12:27:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: On Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Galleron by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Galleron here. I'm back and can pick up the tally for the case-sensitive yes-no vote. I would welcome someone on the Council doing it, since I cannot post directly. Some comments: Morgan's analysis (YES= +2, yes= +1, etc.) is good. One caveat: since both Arthur's plan and my universal suffrage variant came in later than the others, many of those who have voted on other proposals haven't voted on those two yet, so it's a bit premature to evaluate the results of voting on them. Please vote on them with the yes-no case sensitive format if you haven't already! I gather that Fiacha has extended the voting deadline to Friday the 29th. I agree with those who feel that the "distribute-21-points" Justin vote is likely to give some misleading results because of vote splitting. Rating each proposal 1-10 would have been better, but I doubt the Council can switch gears and get in a meaningful vote on that system by the 29th. Again, please vote! As Justin said, the proposals have all been posted on the GC website. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 13:36:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:17:13 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Preference votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Wed, 27 Mar 1996 17:08:43 -0800, Nigel Haslock writes: > Greetings from Fiacha, > > Please, Finnvarr, just keep track of the case sensitive yes, no or abstain > votes. This is our validation of each of the individual proposals. > > Everyone, if you haven't already voted in this fashion, please do so by > the end of the week. > > Justin is conducting an independent 'weight of opinion' poll. I beg you > all to cast votes for that too. Justin and I are hoping that this will > give us a slightly different picture of what council members support. > > Fiacha Flieg here -- FREEDOM; I WON'T. (OK, who wrote the book this is a reference to....) I've already voted twice on this stuff, and it ain't worth a third vote. The YES,yes,abstain,no,NO system gives a good indication of preference; we don't need yet another way to waste our time. Besides, the stone counting method doesn't work. Shall I case 7 for my proposal -- the only one I really _like_ and then 14 for the status quo? How do you rank mild dislike? *pfui* PPFUF, Forever! *grump* * * * 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 Mar 28 15:05:21 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, 28 Mar 1996 13:41:18 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11:59 PM 3/27/96 -0500, you wrote: There is no need to ask people to vote for a third time. We need to >resolve these questions and get on with our other work. > > I find myself agreeing with Hossein on this matter entirely. It was an iteresting idea to use the 21 point voting, but in practice it doesn't seem to be really useful, but rather a waste of time and energy. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 15:15:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:55:23 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L *Sigh*; this may well be turning into far more of a brouhaha than it's worth. Look, the entire point here, from the beginning, was simply that the individual polls don't give us a ton of information about depth of sentiment. That's already fairly clear to me, from the few responses I *have* gotten, contrasting with the individual polls; for example, it is *glaringly* clear that, although there are relatively few people who support the status quo, the depth of that feeling is pretty passionate. That isn't nearly as obvious, at least to me, >from the individual votes. Some people have had constructive suggestions. I appreciate that, but I do rather wish they had been put forth when I first broached the idea (a month ago), or when Fiacha publically asked me to go with it (several weeks ago), rather than now when it's rather too late. I don't pretend to be an expert in statistics; I had simply suggested one model that I've seen work decently well in the past for gathering this kind of information. But, frankly, if it's going to distract us in a major way, it isn't worth it. While I would like to give the Board broader information than we otherwise have available, I do *not* want this turning into a major distraction. As I've said before, I largely agree with Gareth -- this entire issue is really a side-discussion from much deeper and more central problems that we need to wrestle with. If this vote is going to distract us even further, I'm simply going to drop it... -- Justin Who refuses to get his ego too bound up in what started life as simply a suggestion Random Quote du Jour: "However, much like Phoenix, Jesus returns as Dark Jesus and threatens to return again whenever sales drop or the writing staff of the Bible and its various spinoffs (such as the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower) run out of new ideas." -- from the King Chris Edition of the Bible, courtesy tyg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 15:16:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 13:50:32 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: On Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Again, please vote! As Justin said, the proposals have all been posted on the >GC website. > Again, what is the address for the Website? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 15:30:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 14:03:40 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 02:55 PM 3/28/96 EST, you wrote: > > -- Justin > Who refuses to get his ego too bound up in > what started life as simply a suggestion > Good, cuz it sounded like a good idea at first, it just didn't work out. This is also my opinion about the various voting procedures that we have come up with. It looks like they address the problem, but... Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 18:31:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:20:40 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: On Voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199603281950.NAA09549@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) >Again, what is the address for the Website? http://www.inmet.com/~justin/gc/ -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I have no mouse and I must click." -- Richard Sexton From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 19:29:54 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, 28 Mar 1996 19:15:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'd be tempted to put 21 points *against* the 21-point system of voting, but that would complicate things overly much. As John Adams said, in _1776_, "Now, vote! Dammit." Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 19:51:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 19:37:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Justin's Points To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, --1-- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request: --0-- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage --0-- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal --9-- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal --8-- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal --3-- The Status Quo: . From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 22:24:31 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <315AB7D5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <315AB7D5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> 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: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:43:26 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Updated vote tally, 3/28, 7:46 EST To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <315AB7D5@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> If we are continuing with the UPPERCASE / lowercase voting, then change all my votes to UPPERCASE. -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Mar 28 23:06:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 21:52:02 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) Comments: To: fiacha@PREMIER1.NET To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Nigel Haslock said: > On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > Pending a final review of the proposals, > > > -- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request; > 2 > > -- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage; > 6 > > -- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal; > 10 > > -- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal; > 1 > > -- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal; > 1 > > -- The Status Quo. > 0 given the above choices, I vote for status quo. Can we move on now? Terras -- joe (573) 882-2000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 01:16:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:56:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin, Apologies if you took my remarks on the 21-vote system as a personal criticism. Perhaps I should have raised the objections when Fiacha first talked about intensity measures, but there wasn't enough information on the specifics for me to offer useful suggestions. And I'm only able to skim the GC list on some days, since I'm teaching three sections of statistics/econometrics this semester and trying to finish a lengthy article on the use of nonparametric linear discriminant analysis to disambiguate episcopal attestations in 10th century Anglo- Saxon charters. If I'd seen the specific proposal earlier, I'd have said something earlier. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 04:09:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 03:58:36 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Corwyn's non-guttmanized votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Okay, I hope this is it for now on this. My point is this: I want some change in the present system, and I want it to be as unintrusive as possible; I want our proposals to be as concrete (not neccessarily detailed) as possible; and I want to be done voting on this for now. --6-- Galleron's proposal for suffrage-by-request: --0-- Galleron's proposal for universal suffrage --0-- Hossein's universal-suffrage proposal --8-- Flieg's nomination-committee proposal --7-- Arthur's suffrage-by-Board-Minutes proposal --0-- The Status Quo: . Okay. Now, may I suggest that a motion for the floor is to develop a plan for financial oversight on the corporation ? I'd also like to see a plan developed for _corporate_ oversight to 1. ensure that the senior corporate offices cannot be merged into the board positions again and 2. limit or at least delay the ability of the board to alter corpora and/or documents of incorporation. By the way. I love all the 1776 quotes. A fine fine musical- and vastly amusing. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 11:22:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 11:06:51 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Corwyn's non-guttmanized votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960329035835_258949225@emout04.mail.aol.com> (message from Corwyn da Costa on Fri, 29 Mar 1996 03:58:36 -0500) Corwyn writes: >Okay. Now, may I suggest that a motion for the floor is to develop a plan >for financial oversight on the corporation ? While I agree that this definitely needs to be talked about, I think this probably isn't quite the time yet. As Gareth's been saying for months, we really need to go deal with the *major* structural issues at this point, before we go much further on the details. Some of these issues include: -- International structure: how should the SCA, Inc deal with other countries? -- Duties of the Board: it's clearly hideously overloaded, so what *should* the Board be doing, and what should be handled by other organizations? -- Relationship of Corporation and Society: I think this one's a potential black hole, with a lot of religion, but we *do* have to figure out a general model, because a lot of the rest hinges on it. Et cetera -- this is just a few of the major issues, off the top of my head, and there are probably others. I think we need to address this stuff now, because the more detail-oriented issues may well wind up getting obviated by the answers from these... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: First Knight "Few expect a Hollywood movie to stand too much on ceremony, of course, particularly if those ceremonies predate the invention of Diet Coke by 14 centuries; and nobody expects a Hollywood movie not to step on the toes of the historians in the audience. But this one brings up its knee, lets out a gleeful cry and really slams that foot down on as many toes as it can locate. Imagine Harpo Marx morris dancing and you're almost there." -- Tom Shone From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 11:41:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 17:13:51 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > As Gareth's been saying for >months, we really need to go deal with the *major* structural issues >at this point, before we go much further on the details. > >Some of these issues include: > >-- International structure: how should the SCA, Inc deal with other > countries? >-- Duties of the Board: it's clearly hideously overloaded, so what > *should* the Board be doing, and what should be handled by other > organizations? >-- Relationship of Corporation and Society: I think this one's a > potential black hole, with a lot of religion, but we *do* have to > figure out a general model, because a lot of the rest hinges on it. > >Et cetera -- this is just a few of the major issues, off the top of my >head, and there are probably others. I think we need to address this >stuff now, because the more detail-oriented issues may well wind up >getting obviated by the answers from these... > > -- Justin This motion, if such it is, heartily seconded! Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 16:03:57 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:40:12 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Yes/No Voting Summary, 1500 EST, 3/29/96 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 15:05:55 -0500 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Yes/No Voting Summary, 1500 EST, 3/29/96 I've updated the yes/no vote based on my best information as of 1500 EST 3/29/96. My best understanding is that Fiacha needs to close voting by 1700 PST (Fiacha, correct me if I'm wrong) Please vote on all proposals using this format if you haven't already. I've listed Terras as a "yes" on the status quo, for example, but I don't know if he's NO, No, or abstain on the others (I could guess based on the straw poll, but don't want to. People do change their minds) Special abstension: Gareth has asked to have his abstension from all votes at this point noted, as he believes that the detailed proposals we have before us are premature. Flieg Plan (Each Kingdom and Board selects one member of nominating committee that submits a short list of potential candidates to the board, from which board chooses new directors) YES: ALYSOUN, Justin, SERWYL, FINNVARR, MYRDIN, CORWYN, Justin, Eichling, MAGNUS, FLIEG, Brian NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, MODIUS, FRITHIOF ABSTAIN: Artos Hossein Plan (Seven directors elected on 3/2/2 triannual cycle by entire membership. Entry onto ballot by petition only. Recall by vote of majority of Directors, 2/3 of monarchs and kingdom seneschals, or petition of 1,500 members) YES: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Catrin, Michael, Myrdin, Finnvarr, Frithiof NO: MODIUS, Alysoun, SERWYL, Eichling, MAGNUS, ARTOS, FLIEG, Corwyn, Brian ABSTAIN: Justin, Arthur Plan (Subscribers to Board Proceedings are voting members. Entry onto ballot by petition, by candidates chosen by board or its search committee, or for former Directors or Kingdom great officers who volunteer. Recall and repeal provisions included) Last posted/revised 3/11 V1.2 (Major change: repeal provisions added) YES: SERWYL, Eichling, CORWYN NO: MODIUS, Alban, Magnus, Alysoun, ARTOS, FLIEG, Frithiof, Brian ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan (Members become voting members on request, they elect nine member board for three year terms. Candidates placed on ballot by nominating committee or by petition. Five member NC elected at same time as board. Directors permitted to attend as few as two board meetings a year) YES: Arthur, MODIUS, Justin, CATRIN, CORWYN, Finnvarr , Eichling, Frithiof NO: Magnus, BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, ALYSOUN, ARTOS, FLIEG, Brian ABSTAIN: Fiacha Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant (As above, but all members may vote) YES: FRITHIOF, Brian NO: MODIUS, MAGNUS, Eichling, Serwyl, Corwyn, ARTOS, FLIEG ABSTAIN: Galleron Forced Polling Petition (Petition by 1% of the membership requires board to conduct and publish non-binding poll of membership) YES: Arthur, MODIUS, Finnvarr, Justin, Eichling, Magnus NO: BERTRAM, HOSSEIN, Alban, Michael, Serwyl, Myrdin, Brian ABSTAIN: Fiacha, Frithiof Status Quo YES: MODIUS, Magnus, Artos, Flieg, Terras NO: FIACHA, Alban, HOSSEIN, BERTRAM, ARTHUR, Alysoun, CATRIN, Corwyn, Michael, Myrdin, Eichling, FRITHIOF, Brian ABSTAIN: Justin, Finnvarr, Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 20:02:30 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 19:45:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Galleron: Yes/No Voting Summary, 1500 EST, 3/29/96 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! I present a preliminary analysis of the votes reported by Galleron today. Looking at the raw votes we see: PROPOSAL YES NO Abstain Flieg's Plan 11 9 1 Hossein's Plan 10 9 1 Galleron's Limited Sufferage 8 10 1 Galleron's Forced Polling 6 7 0 Status Quo 5 13 3 Arthur's Plan 3 8 2 Galleron's Universal Sufferage 2 7 0 Only Flieg's plan and my plan received pluralities in the raw votes. The preference-intensity-ordinal-ranking votes (YES, yes, no, NO), when coded from strongest preference to weakest (YES=2 > yes=1 > abstain=0 > no=-1 > NO=-2), reveal essentially the same pattern as the raw votes. Summing these ordinal rankings, we see: PROPOSAL TOTAL Flieg's Plan +6 Hossein's Plan +1 Galleron's Limited Sufferage -4 Galleron's Forced Polling -5 Galleron's Universal Sufferage -7 Arthur's Plan -8 Status Quo -14 A positive score indicates net positive support; a negative score indicates net opposition. On this basis I would recommend to Fiacha that he report to the Board that the GC has recommended Flieg's plan and my plan, together with both the raw votes and the ordinal rankings. The other plans lack both a straightforward plurality and ordinally-ranked positive support. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 20:03:13 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, 29 Mar 1996 19:48:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Gareth, Justin, and Frithiof feel that it's almost time to deal with major structural issues. Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I have just the thing.... Solveig and I have been discussing this over on sca-reform, and it may be a thing to start the discussion off? I toss the following idea out again; it made its first appearance in early February, on the Grand Council list also as a trial balloon. Broadly, what I suggest is that the responsibilities of the present board of directors be split, such that: 1) There be a new board of directors of the SCA (U.S.), Inc., that deals with mundane business affairs and certain very broad areas affecting the mundane/historical re-creation interface, and that it keeps its hands off of intra-kingdom affairs, such as banishments from the royal presence, elevation of below- kingdom groups (including reading said elevations into the minutes, which, as far as I can tell, is something totally useless to be reading in an official minutes). It should also deal with specifically, and only, affairs of business within the United States. This new board would have as its purpose what the board is required to do by mundane law and fiduciary traditions. For example, annual budgets; officially approving bank accounts (needed occasionally by the local banks' internal requirements); filing IRS tax returns. It would also run certain other mundane services as the board sees fit, e.g., a Stock Clerk, although such services could also be contracted out to independent contractors. In any case, such things are purely mundane, and should/could be run by a purely mundane set of directors. (Each country could have its own Stock Clerk, of course - but there is a case to be made for One Central Stock Clerk, which either sends out inventory en masse to other countries, or subcontracts individually with each non-U.S. corporation for reprinting rights. But this is detail, and I want to get back to the Big Picture.) 2) There should be a separate entity created for co-ordinating "The Game" (tm) between countries and between kingdoms. This would be the group with several working sub-groups; such sub- groups would, oh, for example, set fighting and armor standards, maintain the heraldic rules for submissions, decide the functioning of banishments, figure out how big a group should be and the requirements for advancement to the next level, and the other items that keep us one vague community. (i.e., a sort of conglomeration of the College of Arms, IKAC, Grand Council, college of seneschals, arts&sciences groups....) In general, the new entity deals with everything else the present Board shouldn't deal with at all. Note that such sub- groups could, if they wanted to, incorporate separately with a section in their bylaws stating that they would follow certain guidelines laid down by "The Game, Inc." This would allow, e.g., the College of Arms to become the College of Arms, Inc., file its own taxes, collect its own fees, set its own rules (more or less), and agree to abide by "The Game" (tm). Having such sub- groups become semiindependent would lessen the load on the new board without changing The Game as she is played on the basic level (i.e., the mundane effects would change, but nothing would happen that Lord Joe Schmoe would notice or care about. Unless Lord Joe were Laurel Sovereign.) There'd be two new boards, then: the Board of Directors of the SCA (U.S.), Inc., and the Working Group of the SCA (worldwide). The first would have elections as we've discussed here, and the second could, as well, or have some members elected and others serve by virtue of their office (e.g., a 20-member Working Group board would have 1 member from each kingdom, plus the Earl Marshall, the Laurel Sovereign, the Steward (for lack of a better term)...., each subgroup/kingdom selecting its head by its own internal rules.) Now, a question is, when a principality decides to go kingdom, who makes the final choice? The country's SCA, Inc/Ltd./Pty/Dmbh (or whatever the German equivalent is)? Or The Working Group of the SCA? Reducing the present Board to a purely U.S. Board would cause some serious attitude adjustments, but it's doable, and won't be unbearably difficult if the Board and the populace decides it's a Good Thing. The Working Group, however, would require major paradigm shifts all over the place, which means to me that, while it's a good, logical thing, it may not actually be workable in the real world. So, I'd like to ask two things: 1) Is such a Working Group worth the effort? 2) If it is worth the effort, how do we get from here to there? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 20:36:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:05:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Financial oversight To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L With all due respect to Justin, I could not disagree more strongly regarding the importance of addressing the issue of financial oversight. One of the major functions of the Board is raising and administering the corporations funds; it was this function which more than anything lead to the fiasco that brought this council into being. It was this function, and those actions which more than ANY issue in the last ten+ years which raised a gigantic hue and cry of outrage among the populace, 98% of whom mostly want (quite rightly) the board to deal with the mundane stuff and leave them alone. Quite frankly it was the handling of the budget for the last two years which has generated more distrust and ill-will towards the corporation than any of the other ill-advised actions of the board that I can recall. A major part of the corporation/society relationship is based on money. The last two years have been _dominated_ by this issue. the power to raise and spend money from the membership is _not_ a detail. It IS a broad important issue, and it iIS a major structural issue. How may the board raise money, and how may they spend it. Money was the spur that drove the board to its actions, and, let us not forget, a major part of the whip used to force compliance (remeber the war of the lillies insurance issue ? Remember the non-member surcharge controversy). The powers of the board with regard to finances must drive any discussion of how the corporation and indeed the society is to be structured in the future. Further, "make them stop wasting our money and asking for more" is without a doubt the most common response I've heard when trying to find out what people want the GC to be doing. (Unfortunately, the other common response is "Oh ? Does the GC still exist ?") We must address this issue. Why else are we here ? Yes, to examine the structure of the corporation (and etc) but ALSO to examine what went wrong at that infamous Milpitas board meeting. The self-perpetuating insular nature of board membership was clearly part of the issue. So too was financial mismanagement, secrecy and total lack of accountability. We have I feel made significant (if slow) progress on dealing with the first. What have we done about the second ? Do we really feel that deciding how the corporation is paid for and what the financial obligations of the members and kingdoms are is somthing that should be talked about last ? Eventually ? Folks, it took us one month and three different polls to collect votes from 40 people on 5 (?) proposals on the same topic ? When will later be ? Never, I suspect. This IS an issue which will take a fair amount of time, discussion and (yes) research; the sooner started, the more likely we'll have a report before "we die or the world ends". Therefore: I formally propose that a major focus of the grand council's discussion for April shall be the board's financial powers, with specific focus on 1. The development of financial oversight methods to both limit and define the powers of the board regarding A. Raising funds for corporation business (expenses, maintenance, salaries, insurance etc) B. Major and unusual expenses (major new equipment, new hires, etc. ) C. Raising funds to respond to Fiscal emergencies (including disclosure, time limitations, individual kingdom contributions) 2. The development of open, regular and consistent fiscal and budgetary reporting systems to the society including both projected budgets (before implementation) and results of past budgets. 3. The development of systems allowing empowered input from the kingdoms and populace on budgetary and financial matters. Okay. Any seconds ? Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 20:52:22 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, 29 Mar 1996 20:37:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Board Finances To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Aren't there budget and financial committees being formed even as we speak? Ummm, while I can understand why finances come under our purview, I'd much rather let those other committees have a go at solving the Great Financial Questions of the SCA; we should go on to other matters. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Mar 29 21:49:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 21:34:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Board Finances To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban writes : >Aren't there budget and financial committees being formed even >as we speak? Good question. Are there ? By who ? What exactly are they covering ? Why would they do a better or worse job than the GC. What else do we have to do with our time ? Could you find out, or at least elaborate ? >I'd much rather let those other committees have a go at solving the Great Financial >Questions of the SCA; we should go on to other matters. Well, I'd rather not. We really shouldn't abandon resposibilities we were set up to address because some other committee somewhere might be dealing with some issues that may or may not be similar. Alban, this is _not_ meant as a personal criticism of you or of your opinion, but your post touches a major issue for me regarding the usefulness of the GC: specifically the attitude that we are hear to handle the big vague issues (or at least to argue about what they are), to argue about what was just said, to argue about how to vote, to argue about what the charter should have said, to argue about what we are arguing about, etc., and that we have all the time in the world to do it, rather than to actually try and help the present board redress specific problems. In my opinion, of particular priority should be those problems that nearly caused several kingdoms to leave the SCA, for Heavens sake, and that CAN be adressed by specific action. And yet, we spend a MONTH compiling multiple votes that at best half of the members bother to participate in. Sigh. Rant off. Corwyn From arthur@cnj.digex.net Fri Mar 29 23:17:25 1996 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 1996 23:17:22 -0500 (EST) From: arthur dent To: Mark Waks Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Subject: Re: Call for Preference Votes (was Re: Report time) In-Reply-To: <9603281955.AA28329@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NOT a waste of time.. like you, I guess many of us didnt see the shoertcomings till we actually tried it. It wasnt a waste of time, it was an experiment that needs tuning. the constructive suggestion of a ten point scale was made, and may be useful for the next time we try to evaluate multiple postions on s single topic improving the process by whcih we do business *is* business. ___________________________________+__________________________________ "Romance is the Art of Expressing the truth beautifully"--Me. "Any Mildly gothic, renn/SCA types with RPG tendencies in the central NJ area want to come out and play?" arthur@cnj.digex.com On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > *Sigh*; this may well be turning into far more of a brouhaha than it's > worth. > > Look, the entire point here, from the beginning, was simply that the > individual polls don't give us a ton of information about depth of > sentiment. That's already fairly clear to me, from the few responses > I *have* gotten, contrasting with the individual polls; for example, > it is *glaringly* clear that, although there are relatively few > people who support the status quo, the depth of that feeling is > pretty passionate. That isn't nearly as obvious, at least to me, > from the individual votes. > > Some people have had constructive suggestions. I appreciate that, > but I do rather wish they had been put forth when I first > broached the idea (a month ago), or when Fiacha publically > asked me to go with it (several weeks ago), rather than now > when it's rather too late. I don't pretend to be an expert > in statistics; I had simply suggested one model that I've > seen work decently well in the past for gathering this kind > of information. > > But, frankly, if it's going to distract us in a major way, it > isn't worth it. While I would like to give the Board broader > information than we otherwise have available, I do *not* want > this turning into a major distraction. As I've said before, I > largely agree with Gareth -- this entire issue is really a > side-discussion from much deeper and more central problems that > we need to wrestle with. If this vote is going to distract us > even further, I'm simply going to drop it... > > -- Justin > Who refuses to get his ego too bound up in > what started life as simply a suggestion > > Random Quote du Jour: > > "However, much like Phoenix, Jesus returns as Dark Jesus and threatens to > return again whenever sales drop or the writing staff of the Bible and its > various spinoffs (such as the Book of Mormon and the Watchtower) run out of > new ideas." > -- from the King Chris Edition of the Bible, courtesy tyg > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 30 01:39:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 01:23:45 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Response to Corwyn: finances To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I wrote: >>Aren't there budget and financial committees being formed even >>as we speak? Corwyn wrote back: >Good question. Are there ? By who ? What exactly are they covering ? >Why would they do a better or worse job than the GC. What else do >we have to do with our time ? Could you find out, or at least >elaborate? >From the Calontir newsletter, the _Mews_, April 1996, issue 198, page 4, in a letter from the Calontir seneschal: "....Carolyn Richardson of the Board has also sent out a call for anyone interested in serving on the Finance Committee or Budget Committee. Please send applications to her no later than April 14, 1996. Her contact information is", followed by Tetchubah's name, address, phone number, and email address. Obviously, since they're still being formed, I do not know what they're covering. Ask Tetchubah. What else do we have to do with our time? Every other issue that the Board concerns itself with, up to and including what issues the Board _should_ be concerning itself with. Later, I said >>I'd much rather let those other committees have a go at solving the >>Great Financial Questions of the SCA; we should go on to other >>matters. Corwyn responded >Well, I'd rather not. We really shouldn't abandon resposibilities we >were set up to address because some other committee somewhere >might be dealing with some issues that may or may not be similar. >Alban, this is _not_ meant as a personal criticism of you or of your >opinion, I'm not offended. The point at which I've become too rigid in my opinions that I'd take offense at someone disagreeing with me is the point I'll resign from the GC. (Mind you, I leave open resigning because of frustration - but not because of offense. ) >but your post touches a major issue for me regarding the usefulness of >the GC: specifically the attitude that we are hear to handle the big >vague issues (or at least to argue about what they are), to argue about >what was just said, to argue about how to vote, to argue about what the >charter should have said, to argue about what we are arguing about, >etc., and that we have all the time in the world to do it, rather than to >actually try and help the present board redress specific problems. In >my opinion, of particular priority should be those problems that nearly >caused several kingdoms to leave the SCA, for Heavens sake, and that >CAN be adressed by specific action. >And yet, we spend a MONTH compiling multiple votes that at best >half of the members bother to participate in. >Sigh. Rant off. Corwyn? I agree with you in general. We need to fix problems. I don't agree with you on this one issue, that the GC _must_ discuss financial issues, because we don't have the time and because other committees will look into it. And, in order to go on to other things, this is the last reply on this issue I'll make. Lord knows we do have things to talk about. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Mar 30 20:30:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 20:16:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: solveig on banishment To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L From: IN%"nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca" 30-MAR-1996 19:32:11.51 To: IN%"ALBAN@delphi.com" CC: Subj: banishments Return-path: Received: from comoro.yorku.ca ([v+NPvktUa6jvAVH+mBkupWvhmixNfNub]@comoro.yorku.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I2YM0CF5OW9EEKG7@delphi.com> for ALBAN@delphi.com; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 19:32:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from pascal.math.yorku.ca (pascal.math.yorku.ca [130.63.214.141]) by comoro.yorku.ca (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id TAA36736 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 19:32:03 -0500 Received: from [130.63.122.123] (ellen6.slip.yorku.ca [130.63.122.146]) by pascal.math.yorku.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA16188 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 1996 19:31:58 -0500 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 20:54:02 -0500 From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: banishments To: ALBAN@delphi.com (Lord Alban St. Alban) Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lord Alban! Like I told you when we had the discussion on reform. Banishment from the Royal Presence is already not subject to appeal. The real change would be with a level 2 banishment notice of which is currently sent to the board, but which as a strictly intra-kingdom affair should (in my opinion) stay at the kingdom level with review by a kingdom council of peers, curia, whatever. Absolute banishment is currently being done by the BoD and I was saying that that should go down to a kingdom court with review by a society wide court separate from the BoD. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar Note. Please post this to the GC mailing list as I can not do so directly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 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 Sun Mar 31 09:19:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 09:07:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Corwyn & agenda To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In the past year the Board has decided to move to the general accounting procedure and has produced a booklet explaining that procedure etc for the Known World exchequery. The booklet was accepted last fall. I haven't seen it. They are soliciting input on forms of fund-raising. They are forming committees. These things have been communicated through member publications and the request for input also appeared on kingdom electronic lists. All of this indicates to me that the Board fully agrees with your assessment that past boards have been at fault in the handling of finances and a high priority should be given to getting finances on an even keel. I don't see how we can do this better than it is currently being done unless we want to move to a higher level of discussion: that is, what is the abstract relation of SCA inc. to finances. And that is wrapped up in the vague discussion of what is the purpose of SCA inc. And that, in my mind at least, depends a great deal on what the SCA more broadly is all about. The other topics that you mention are very interesting. You will have to give me some background on the great officer thing--why it is a concern? Discussing some provision for ensuring that substantive changes to the corporation (those which would require changes to the articles of incorporation) and to the corpora are in accordance with the wishes of the membership strikes me as vital. I also think that a range of policy decisions (those which do not require a change in print, but represent a change in the interpretation of what's in print) also should have a mechanism for member approval. The reason that talking about the relation of the corporation to the society is such a black hole is because it is difficult to find a common ground for such a discussion. We have at least the following positions: 1) that the kingdom is the relevant unit; 2) that the individual member/participant is the relevant unit; 3) that the collectivity of members/participants (i.e., the Society) is the relevant unit; 4) that the corporation is the relevant unit. Too often sweeping proposals are made which are based on one of these positions without articulating that position. The assumption seems to be that of course we all share that view, when in fact we don't. For example, David's proposal from last fall seemed predicated on the relevancy of the kingdom. This proposal makes excellent sense to me when we are discussing national entities--it does not make sense to me in the US. Justin's concern for the Society makes sense in some areas, but it seems to presuppose a homogeneity that I do not find existing. The tendency of East Kingdom to dismiss the concerns of the Society in Midrealm leads me to distrust that position. While no one has come out strongly for the corporate position, the failure to consider mundane realities (to wave a hand of dismissal at public relations, for example; to refuse responsibility beyond one's own circle) indicates to me a great need for some body to be in charge of these matters. While there is at least lip service paid to the position of the individual as the relevant unit, the focus slips to kingdom or Society, prehaps because this view can support the corporation just as well as it could support some other structure. We also have a great tendency to take the present discussion and stick it into a mold. There are two problems here. The first is dismissing something because it has been discussed before--some other time and place. If an idea keeps popping up, that in itself is significant and needs to be looked at. The second is that knee jerk reactions restrict creative development. If everytime someone says "history" or "education" an anti-authenticity mavin reaction sets in, we will never be able to develop a concept of history and education beyond the authenticity mavin model. And if the authenticity mavin model is so strong as to establish this knee-jerk reaction--that in itself needs to be considered. The Council was well-chosen in that these different positions are represented. A council which did not have this diversity would have zipped right along and gotten a lot of stuff done which would eventually smack right into the folks holding these positions. To a certain extent this is the problem with the board--people willing to serve on the board don't posit the society or the kingdom as THE relevant unit. It is also a problem with anti-board groups, because they undervalue the corporate position. If rather than trying to agree on one position, we validate all of them (and possibly others I didn't pick up on) we may be able to move forward in this touchy area. This will require admitting that no one position is totally *right*, that no one position can answer all the problems. Rather than wasting time asserting a position, we look at how the question at hand impacts each view. If we come up with some model that is acceptable from all vantage points, then by God! we can go back to our manors and rest in peace. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Mar 31 13:26:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:14:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun (again) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L After posting my last, I have worried that my words were murky and needed a more concrete example. The question: What is the SCA all about? --Not historical re-enactment. This does not prevent any individual pretending (in his or her own head) to be a historical person; it does not prevent Henry VIII look-alike contests or a re-creation based on a historical event, like a Battle of Hastings tournament. This decision would seem to rest on the Society as the most relevant unit in that the corporation and kingdoms could support re-enactment just as well as the game we have. Individuals who want a re-enactment club should look elsewhere. --Not a life-size Dungeons and Dragons Game. Again a person could play a D&D version privately in the imagination, and a group could have an Enchanted Tournament, with accumulated magic points or some such. Kingdoms could support a D&D version; corporation can't with the present incorporation and tax status; the Society wants a stronger tie to history than straight D&D. Individuals wanting a D&D-based club should look elsewhere. The above is an effort to illustrate how we can use the different positions to focus on where the tensions are. If in fact the Society by-and-large rather be D&D, and the only thing in the way of that is the present corporate structure, it's clear what should be done. If in fact the Society is split or ambiguous on this--say that we are developing a stronger D&D tendency or that some kingdoms are very D&D while some are not--it's not so clear what to do about it, but we at least know what road we need to travel (as opposed to fighting over who appoints kingdom seneschals without acknowledging the real tension.) I picked these two cases because they are not controversial (are they?). I would like to see what you all think is controversial. The one I would throw in the pot is the "living history" model. The only place I have seen this stated is in corporate materials and it appears to have been a corporate effort to make the "game" look more highbrow. The kingdoms as structured have no relation to living history and the Society as a whole is not geared for it. The SCA does support individual efforts at this, but it remains a private effort. Moreover, the corporation has damaged the SCA by putting forth this model because 1) it falsely presents what we are doing which has a value of its own; 2) it promotes confusion about the historicity of our activities; 3) it provides support for certain agendas within the SCA which are not in and of themselves about living history. I think the best thing to do is to tell the corporation to drop that image. Alternately, a viable living history component could be developed within the SCA as an area for future growth without altering the existing system. That is, a recognition that this fits with the "game" in a substantial enough way that it should be formally recognized as a dimension of the SCA, but that it is not THE game. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 00:52:13 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 00:39:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: She does have a point.... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L From: IN%"nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca" 31-MAR-1996 13:37:05.43 To: IN%"ALBAN@delphi.com" CC: Subj: RE: Finances Return-path: Received: from comoro.yorku.ca ([GYgbDHdtX76RvTR2EtYQZWbdtI3fZkZN]@comoro.yorku.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V5.0-7 #10880) id <01I2ZNVGCBAO9EF1Q7@delphi.com> for ALBAN@delphi.com; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:37:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from pascal.math.yorku.ca (pascal.math.yorku.ca [130.63.214.141]) by comoro.yorku.ca (8.6.12/8.6.11) with ESMTP id NAA42037 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:35:47 -0500 Received: from [130.63.122.117] (roseanne09.slip.yorku.ca [130.63.122.117]) by pascal.math.yorku.ca (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA14873 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 1996 13:35:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 14:57:42 -0500 From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Finances To: ALBAN@delphi.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Lord Alban! If you guys spent less time arguing about the shape and size of the table and conducted both fewer and quicker polls you might be surprised at how much more you would be able to accomplish. Again, the guys in Philadelphia had a lot less time to do what they did. Maybe that is why they accomplished more. To date, I do not know of a single thing that the Grand Council has accomplished except possibly asking the BoD to look at Master Bertram's pre-existing out-sourcing proposal. Basically, proposals and other stuff are not written by committees, they are agreed to by committees. Each of the different tasks generated by the Grand Council should be assigned to small working groups for consideration and they should cough up proposals written] by one or two individuals. As I recall, Jefferson wrote the declaratation of independence and Madison wrote the constitution. What could be done is white papers could be put forth and then suggestions and demands made upon it to handle the various points of view put forth by the council. Once you can get most people to agree to a working document, it should be sent to the BoD. Maybe everyone should give a self-introduction and say what is important to them about the society and state what they consider to be non-negotiable. I then suggest talking about the so-called non-negotiable things first. For about a month and try to figure out how to preserve as many of them as possible. (Some of them will almost certainly conflict.) 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 Apr 1 06:16:42 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: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 03:01:39 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I have stated several times my concerns about voting, and about voting too soon. I fear, however, with most of the posts talking about votes, if I do not vote I will disenfranchise myself. So my votes are 21 points for the status quo. It needs to be fixed, but none of these proposals fixes more than they break. But again, all of this will change when we get around to discussing the role of the board. Who the board should be and what qualities should be represented are important determinants of what the best selection process should be. A technically oriented board will look very different from a represent diversity board which will look different from an oversight board etc. And what happened to the proposals to simply add a nominating committee to the current situation, with the board still selecting its own members? (I don't mean a society-wide elected committee, but rather something simple) I still have not seen any estimates about what these various proposals will cost, especially in terms of people hours and educational time, etc. How many of us believe that we should consider the human costs before we suggest changes to structures? Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 06:16:50 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 03:01:18 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: Fwd: Lancelin: Eliminating Members' Rights To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Roy- Would you please forward this to the GC list? Thanks! ----------------------- Greetings from Lancelin! I wonder if it has occurred to many of us that the various "universal suffrage" and "suffrage on request" plans would eliminate what is currently a basic right of all SCA participants? Under the current system, anyone who has an opinion about one of the Board nominees has the right to express that opinion in full to the people who will be making the decision. Gareth and Finnvarr will know better than I, but I believe those opinions are valued and carefully considered in the selection process. My understanding is that such letters of comment are relatively rare, and therefore provide a strong voice to those who are in a position to have strong opinions about the nominees. If the membership selects directors based only on brief statements by the candidates, the people with strong opinions about candidates will have their input reduced to a single "Yes" or "No" vote among hundreds or thousands of other votes. (I think we've established that these candid comments about the nominees cannot be passed along to the entire membership, for reasons of confidentiality and cost.) It is true that in some of the plans involving both a nominating committee and a vote, the committee could consider the opinions. Some of the worst cases could be culled out based on negative comments (with appropriate investigation, I hope). However, the rest of the commentary would simply vanish into thin air once the slate of nominees was chosen, and would have no influence on the final selection of the new Board members. If one of these plans is recommended to the Board, and especially if it is ultimately brought before the membership, I hope that it is made clear to everyone that what is currently a basic right of all participants is being eliminated. Not only that, but a useful source of relevant data will have been removed from the selection process as well. Lancelin -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= RFC822 Headers Follow =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- X-ENSMTPTo: rgathercoal X-ENSMTPSubnet: foxmail Received: by Wright-Patterson AFB Mailgate Tue Mar 26 10:40:46 1996 Received: by rerw.wpafb.af.mil with Microsoft Mail id <31583AD6@rerw.wpafb.af.mil>; Tue, 26 Mar 96 10:43:34 PST From: "Root, Grant G. (ASC/SMOC)" To: "Gareth (Roy Gathercoal)" Subject: Lancelin: Eliminating Members' Rights Date: Tue, 26 Mar 96 10:40:00 PST Message-ID: <31583AD6@rerw.wpafb.af.mil> Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 07:12:58 1996 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:00:24 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Please disregard my post of a few minutes ago. . .I have reconsidered and believe I should try one more time to communicate my concerns. I apologize for any confusion. I have stated several times my concerns about voting, and about voting too soon. Thank you, Finnvarr and Justin, for acknowledging this position. The current situation needs to be fixed, but none of these proposals fixes more than they break. I'm not sure we even have a good idea of what needs to be fixed. Sort of like a medical quack prescribing some snake oil that is "good for what ails you--whatever might ail you." If we are talking about a fix, then lets start from a clear understanding of what we have (diagnosis) and look at what is likely to address the current dangerous (not simply annoying) deficiencies. For example, how many members currently write letters of comment on board nominees? What weight are given to these letters? I don't recall an option, for example, that would center on educating our members to take advantage of the structures currently in place. The "status quo" option seems to be implicitly a "nothing needs changing" position. What about those who might think that something needs to be changed, but that what should change is not primarily structural? If, on the other hand, we are talking about starting something better from scratch, then we should be addressing what it is that we wish to accomplish first. To accept a structure without a clear idea of what we wish to accomplish is naive, to recommend a structure in order to later force acceptance of a particular end is dishonest. I believe we are neither naive nor dishonest. But I do fear that we are so bound to certain cultural values (such as efficiency, speed and power) that we might be failing to see the advantages of some values that are not marketed by modernity (such as consensus, reflection and care). Some seem to indicate that the board has the time to carefully consider the ramifications of the major changes we are contemplating, but that we do not have the time. This does not fit with my understanding of the history of the board, much of which is driven by time pressures. I must believe that the board is going to rely on us to nearly make the decision--if not explicitly, at least by means of gatekeeping. If this is not the case then why are we here? The GC will have been a profound waste of time if the board will pore over each option, pros and cons, as we are doing before they come to a decision. Why not simply do it themselves? If we do sort through the information, deciding which information is relevant, then our role is much more than gatherer of information and collector of opinions (or votes). But in order to do this we must have a reason for recommending what we offer as relevant information and opinions. So we can work over lots of specifics, and make piecemeal recommendations to the board. If so, chances are good that either one coalition on the GC will prevail at most times and that dissenting voices will become marginalized or just become inactive--in which case the effect of these specific changes will be to lead us toward an unspoken teleological position, or that different coalitions on the GC will prevail each time in which case some changes will work one direction and others will work in other directions and the society will end up being pulled apart by a self-conflicting structure. So again, all of this will change when we get around to discussing the role of the board. Who the board should be and what qualities should be represented are important determinants of what the best selection process should be. A technically oriented board will look very different from a represent diversity board which will look different from an oversight board etc. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 08:34:10 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:23:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Re: Alysoun: Corwyn & agenda (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >The reason that talking about the relation of the corporation to the society >is such a black hole is because it is difficult to find a common ground for >such a discussion. We have at least the following positions: >1) that the kingdom is the relevant unit; >2) that the individual member/participant is the relevant unit; >3) that the collectivity of members/participants (i.e., the Society) is the >relevant unit; >4) that the corporation is the relevant unit. Excellent post. My experience has been that there are two additional perspectives: 5) that the Peers are the relevant unit. I have a friend in Atenveldt who was recently "Pelicaned." Her comment at Estrella was that she was deeply troubled by the extent to which people *now* listened to her opinion as having merit, when she was the same person with the same opinions before she was peered. and 6) that the Households are the relevant unit. At least in this corner of the Knowne World, households have the real power. Kings come and kings go, but the impact of the households who sponsor these Kings is a recurrent force. Some would say for good, others for ill, but the power and impact is certainly substantial. Again, nice post. Lord Watt Kidman University of St. Hildegard windward@hevanet.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 11:01:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:45:23 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Financial oversight To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960329180525_458159263@mail02.mail.aol.com> (message from Corwyn da Costa on Fri, 29 Mar 1996 18:05:25 -0500) >With all due respect to Justin, I could not disagree more strongly regarding >the importance of addressing the issue of financial oversight. You miss my point, Corwyn. I don't dispute that this issue is important; it's *very* important. But it's also premature. I mean, you immediately follow with: >One of the major functions of the Board is raising and administering the >corporations funds *This isn't obvious*. This is why we need to deal with, eg, the issues of international structure now. The way funds get handled may well be significantly affected by the issue of how the SCA, Inc relates to the rest of the world. It's certainly affected by the question of what the responsibilities of the Corporation are, since those responsibilities drive much or most of the budget. Really, I think you're looking too narrowly. We need to address the *general* question of checks and balances, not just on the budget. And if we don't know what the Board's long-term structure is, trying to discuss how we're going to put checks on it is short-sighted... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Translation for the masses "Ah. `Avaritia commoda est.' Latin for `my bird is a toilet.'" -- Duncan MacCullagh From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 12:13:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:58:37 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Mon, 1 Apr 1996 04:00:24 -0800, Roy Gathercoal writes: > Please disregard my post of a few minutes ago. . .I have reconsidered and > believe I should try one more time to communicate my concerns. I > apologize for any confusion. Flieg here -- I hope that people will take this into account concerning my reply to Gareth's post. * * * 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 Mon Apr 1 12:16:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Nupop-Charset: English Approved-By: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 08:56:59 -0800 Reply-To: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Flieg Hollander Subject: Re: votes To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In message Mon, 1 Apr 1996 03:01:39 -0800, Roy Gathercoal writes: [...trimmm....] > And what happened to the proposals to simply add a nominating committee > to the current situation, with the board still selecting its own members? > (I don't mean a society-wide elected committee, but rather something > simple) Excuse me, but I worked hard to make my NCSCA proposal _simple_. And it is a proposal to just "add a nominating committee to the present system", and _you_ didn't comment on it when it came out (and you still haven't). Gareth, I'm almost as conservative a reformer as you are, but this message was a bit much for me. It smacks of complaint without effort. > I still have not seen any estimates about what these various proposals > will cost, especially in terms of people hours and educational time, etc. > How many of us believe that we should consider the human costs before we > suggest changes to structures? No estimate on mine because the costs, both in time and in money were minimal in my estimation. * * * 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 Mon Apr 1 13:03:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:37:45 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Corwyn & agenda To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960331090721_459035839@mail04> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >We have at least the following positions: >1) that the kingdom is the relevant unit; >2) that the individual member/participant is the relevant unit; >3) that the collectivity of members/participants (i.e., the Society) is the >relevant unit; >4) that the corporation is the relevant unit. Interesting way of looking at it; I think I concur that this is at least one axis of the semi-religious argument about overall structure. Good point... >Justin's concern for the >Society makes sense in some areas, but it seems to presuppose a homogeneity >that I do not find existing. Just to clarify: I do *not* presuppose homogeneity; just the opposite. One of the reasons I tend to support decentralization in most respects is that our attempts to come up with "one-size-fits-all" solutions >from the top tend to fail so badly. (Or, at least, chafe most groups terribly.) I'm very, very aware of the fact that the SCA varies a *heck* of a lot, both in game and structure, from Kingdom to Kingdom. (Indeed, Barony to Barony.) I think that's a strength, although dangerous if pushed to extremes. I *do* like to think that we have *some* common ground to the game, at least; that was largely the motivation for the Landmarks thing, to try and tease out those commonalities. I have to admit that I'm less confident than I used to be (and have concluded that it's tangential to the structural questions), although I still suspect that there's a common ground down there... >If rather than trying to agree on one position, we validate all of them (and >possibly others I didn't pick up on) we may be able to move forward in this >touchy area. This will require admitting that no one position is totally >*right*, that no one position can answer all the problems. Rather than >wasting time asserting a position, we look at how the question at hand >impacts each view. If we come up with some model that is acceptable from all >vantage points, then by God! we can go back to our manors and rest in peace. A reasonable attitude, and probably the only way we're going to get anywhere -- it *is* clear that some kind of middle-ground compromise is the only solution we *can* get, if we can get any solution at all. (I accepted a long time ago that my taste for radical decentralization wasn't going to win the day.) The question is, what sort of middle ground can we find? I *am* curious to hear other reactions to Alban's suggestion, which resembles suggestions for compromise I've seen several times before. While I certainly would want to debate the details, I like the overall model... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Now, you may say that not all of them were supposed to be torn down. Well, building demolitions are like potato chips. Ya can't just take one. Ya gotta have 'em all at once." -- Claude Wreckingball From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 13:15:00 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4217 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 12:58:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: The GC & Board Finances (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Tetchubah, by Tibor. (For those that don't know, Tetchubah is a Director, and has a lot of financial experience, including time working for everyone's least favorite government entity... April 15th, anyone?) I reformated a bit. Forwarded message: From Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com Mon Apr 1 12:50 EST 1996 From: Carolyn Richardson Date: 1 Apr 96 9:48:48 Subject: The GC & Board Finances Tibor, could you please post this to the GC list for me? Ghita brought it to my attention. Corwyn writes: >>Aren't there budget and financial committees being formed even >>as we speak? >Good question. Are there ? By who ? What exactly are they covering ? Why >would they do a better or worse job than the GC. What else do we have to do >with our time ? Could you find out, or at least elaborate ? I posted requests to several of the SCA-lists and also mailed letters to all the Kingdom seneschals and exchequers requesting volunteers for both the Budget Compliance Committee and the Finance Committee. Applications for both were due to me by TODAY, either via email or snail mail. I've received about 7 or so applications for the committees so far and beginning sometime this week (to allow for late volunteers) will start going over them to see who gets what committee. Once these committees are reestablished, the BCC will be charged with oversight of the budget and whether or not our actual expenses are in compliance with it - my intent is to send out copies of the financial statements to its members MONTHLY, so that they can see what is going on and que stion anything they feel is amiss in a timely manner. The Finance committee's primary responsibility will be to discuss possible longer term issues such as fundraising (both long term and in an emergencey) and to get feedback from the membership regarding their ideas for such fundraising. They will also look into better ways to handle the Corporate funds. >In my opinion, of particular >priority should be those problems that nearly caused several kingdoms to >leave the SCA, for Heavens sake, and that CAN be adressed by specific action. >And yet, we spend a MONTH compiling multiple votes that at best half of the >members bother to participate in. I don't think Nordmark's leaving was specifically tied to money, Corwyn. Rather they didn't really want to play the same game we are playing. Money may have been part of it but I don't think it was the biggest part. Corwyn goes on to say in another note (which I won't copy here since it's rather long) that he feels that the GC should be addressing the issue of how the board gets and receives it's money, and should provide some sort of oversight of this. With all due respect, I don't think that the GC should have any business in providing financial oversight of the corporation - if there's anything that a Board of Directors is charged to do in any corporation this is it. Unfortunately, the Bod has been so overloaded with dealing with other things that the Bod shouldn't have to deal with (like recognizing groups and far too many banishments) that very little has been done in the way of finances in the last 2 years. I see this changing rapidly since Ghita and I both take a very keen interest in what the finances of the corporation are. There is no point in having the GC duplicating the work of committees already chartered by the Bod to do that work. A small committee (of about 5 people each) will be able to discuss and react to financial issues much faster the the GC ever could, and speed is of the essence IF anything critical should come up. If you want the Board to act more responsibly financially, then start discussing ways to lighten the Board's load with regard to issues that shouldn't involve the Board at all. IMO, that should be everything that ISN'T part of the mundane corporation. If you want more information on what I think the Board should forgo doing, ask Alban to publish my list of complaints that I posted to the Reform board. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 13:43:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:27:07 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun (again) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960331131409_181983011@mail06> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun asks one of Those Hard Questions: >The question: What is the SCA all about? (This is, I will note, what the whole Landmarks thing was about. It's a very hard question to answer well, and there are probably no answers that are *universally* accepted, although there are probably some that are *commonly* accepted.) We were actually discussing this quite recently on one of the local lists (sca-east or carolingia, I forget which), and Steffan came up with a rather nice take on it, to the effect that the SCA exists as an environment within which people can re-create period. That's pretty vague, and has some notable holes, but I find it a nice summary of my attitude. Note that the word "re-create" is deliberately left vague; the SCA, plain and simply, doesn't agree on what it means. >The one I would throw in the pot is the "living history" model. The only >place I have seen this stated is in corporate materials and it appears to >have been a corporate effort to make the "game" look more highbrow. The >kingdoms as structured have no relation to living history and the Society as >a whole is not geared for it. The SCA does support individual efforts at >this, but it remains a private effort. I should note, as someone who *is* starting to do semi-serious living history within the SCA (as part of a tavern set in Calais, 1596), I pretty much agree with this, particularly the last sentence. Ideally, the SCA shouldn't *impede* attempts at serious living history, but it clearly isn't the focus of the club. Do you really perceive the Corporation as having put forth this model as its public image? I see the comparison to living history and re-enactment groups made regularly, but usually just as a simplification -- around here, for instance, the easiest way to explain the SCA is to say that we're sort of like the Revolutionary War folks, except earlier. It isn't entirely accurate, but it gets the idea across quickly (and associates us mentally with a pretty well-regarded hobby). I haven't noticed anything *official* putting us forth as a real living history group, though. What are you thinking of? > I think the best thing to do is to tell the corporation to drop that >image. Alternately, a viable living history component could be developed >within the SCA as an area for future growth without altering the existing >system. I think that's happening already, but I really doubt that much good could come of too much formal involvement in it. I mean, most of the worst *in*authenticities in the Society come from the formal structure; doing living history means, more than anything else, ignoring much of that formal structure... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Can I go *play*?" "Sure, son, but don't go too far." "It's nice to have a peaceful moment together to relax and enjoy..." *FOOSH* "Reeeowrrr!" "I think it's time you set off the fireworks." "Gee, and the cat's hair was just starting to grow back." -- from Midvale From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 13:59:19 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 13:35:56 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Morgan: Yes/No Voting by Point System To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan... -- Justin >Date: 29 Mar 96 18:15:22 EST >From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@compuserve.com> >Subject: Morgan: Yes/No Voting by Point System I took Galleron's update and came up with points based upon this scale: YES = +2 NO = -2 yes = +1 no = -1 again, abstentions carry zero Flieg Plan = +3 Hossein Plan = 0 Arthur Plan = -6 Galleron Limited Suffrage Election Plan = -4 Galleron Universal Suffrage Variant = -8 Galleron Forced Polling Petition = -2 Status Quo = -13 |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Back in the Midrealm, and being uppity as all heck From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 16:32:40 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:15:57 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I2X88A103S99KIGM@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Okay, I'm going to start discussing Alban's suggestion. Fiacha, if you want to decide that this topic is currently out of order, now's the time to say so. I *think* we're ready to move on, and I believe this, in various forms, is the topic we *need* to discuss next. (Not only does a lot hang on it, it's *expressly* the topic the Board wants us working on.) Concisely, I understand the core of Alban's proposal to be: -- Split the work currently done by the Corporation into stuff still appropriate for a US-centric, relatively mundane corporation (and presumably similar corporations, as appropriate, in other countries), and stuff appropriate for a more globally-oriented group of *some* flavor (ignoring for the moment whether that group is legally constituted as the Board of some corporation or not). -- Subdivide the work of that global group into such sub-groups as are appropriate. Am I approximately correct here, Alban? Okay, first question: how do people react to this general structure? Based on the long arguments I've had over the past year (both here and in the Membership WG), I'd say that *something* like this is likely the right way to go. But I'd like to hear argument against the general concept now, if there is any, before we start debating details. I'm interested both in whether anyone feels that this is too radical (eg, we shouldn't even be changing the corporate structure) or too conservative (eg, this is still too centralized). (Note one important point: there really is *not* an issue here about whether we should have corporations in other countries. We have those already, and the Board is at this point actively encouraging them. Given the constraints of the laws of various countries, we *have* to have legal status in at least some of them. The issue, rather, is how they relate to each other, and to the overall body.) We do need to recognize some of the consequences of this structure. Not least: it's not likely to drive down costs. We're talking more people involved at various areas of the top; this *could* wind up costing more. On the other hand, it isn't clear that we have any choice -- the Board *is* clearly wildly overloaded, and that work needs to be delegated out somehow. With caution and forethought, we may be able to avoid *major* additional cost from this structure. (Largely by structuring it so that not too many people need to go flying around the world, no one is so laden as to require a salary, and there is sensible fiscal oversight.) I will also warn everyone upfront: we *are* going to start dancing among a whole lot of difficult, intertwined issues. For example, the whole "membership" question is intimately tied up in this. (Indeed, the reason I've been quiet about membership was that I was waiting for this discussion to start.) I don't believe that there is any way to neatly separate these issues, but we should try to keep the strands of the discussion orthogonal whenever we *can* do so without damaging the debate. As I've said, this appears to me to be the beginnings of a middle ground; I've been in numerous discussions that have driven around to something like this. It is a compromise, with all the good and bad implied by that -- it *is* still over-centralized by my tastes, and might be too unfocused by others'. But I think it's at least plausible, and could lead to something that works... So -- discussion? -- Justin Who finds this topic a shade intimidating, but thinks that it's really the key mission of the GC... Random Quote du Jour: "How do I know you're the murderer, sir? Simple. You've got more lines in the screenplay than anyone else." -- from KlingKlangKlatch From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 16:41:30 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2921 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:19:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Why this isn't 1776, Solveig (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, from Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:00:20 -0500 Subject: Galleron: Why this isn't 1776, Solveig Please forward to GC Solveig writes: "If you guys spent less time arguing about the shape and size of the table and conducted both fewer and quicker polls you might be surprised at how much more you would be able to accomplish. Again, the guys in Philadelphia had a lot less time to do what they did. Maybe that is why they accomplished more." Sure, if we shipped the entire GC to a room in Philadelphia and shut off the air-conditioning, it would probably make progress more quickly. But that isn't an option, is it? This is a different medium from face-to-face meetings, with a different pace. Yes, we could hold fewer and qucker polls. We could have just held the straw poll, stuck to the one week deadline originally planned, and left it at that. At that time it suggested a strong consensus in favor of limited-suffrage general elections, and broad support of the status quo. Hmm, maybe not so useful after all. Seriously, if you want to get reasonable results from these polls, and especially if you're going to give people time to change their votes after the proposals are ammended, you have to give them at least a couple of weeks. And I still maintain that the straw poll saved us time overall, by saving us from wasting time writing up detailed proposals for concepts that would have dropped like a rock. " Each of the different tasks generated by the Grand Council should be assigned to small working groups for consideration and they should cough up proposals written by one or two individuals." Been there, tried that. The Council had at least one small working sub-committee, examining membership issues. I gather that it drowned under the volume of postings from the main list. With a physical sub-committee you can go off into another room and close the door. With a virtual one things work differently You could shut down the entire GC main list while the sub-committees beavered away on their own separate mailing lists. Might work, but you'd have to shut down the GC's other work while you figured out how to do it. Sort of late in the game for that. What's actually happening isn't so very different from the model you propose. Individuals have coughed up proposals, and the Council as a whole suggested modifications and voted on them. My primary disapointment in the process so far has been the lack of discussion of possible amendments, and the limited voting on the later proposals. There was a glitch in how the preference vote was designed, but we'll know better next time. Getting to actual action (as opposed to pontification) is slow, but that's the medium. Galleron "Someone open up a window!" 1776 From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 17:30:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:07:11 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: New topic for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, Everything is taking longer than planned. It seems clear that there is little or no interest in discussing mechanisms to remove Board members. The topic is tabled until someone starts making a fuss about it. In skimming some of the postings from early January as well as the more recent postings, I would like to open up international issues and board communications for a while. International Issues. Assertion 1. The Board and the SCA Inc. exist to serve the membership in the USA as far as mundane matters are concerned. Foreign corporations exist to provide these services in their respective countries. What services in the SCA Inc attempting to provide to foreign nationals that should be handled locally? What is the relationship between the various corporations? What services are being provided locally that should be provided globally? Assertion 2. The rules of the game are what unifies the global membership. Are the rules of the game written down in any one place? Or, Is Corpora intended to be the totality of the rules of the game? What game defining rules are written down and who is responsible for maintaining them? Should all of the rules be written down? Should the Board be directly involved in maintaining any of the rules? Assertion 3. Only in the USA is the corporation which provides mundane services activly involved in maintaining global rules for the game. Communications Issues Assertion 1. The populace has no confidence that writing letters to the board has any effect on the policy decisions that the board makes. Assertion 2. The board lacks a timely, effective means of informing the populace, either nationally or internationally. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope that this is enough for you to chew on while I finish the report and scan my files for other outstanding agenda items. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 17:34:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 17:19:08 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Why this isn't 1776, Solveig (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604012121.QAA12575@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Mon, 1 Apr 1996 16:19:28 -0500) Galleron writes: > Been there, tried that. The Council had at least one small working > sub-committee, examining membership issues. I gather that it drowned under > the volume of postings from the main list. Actually, that's not entirely true -- for most of its active lifespan, the Membership WG had far *more* volume than the main list did. It eventually went inactive partly because the main list was picking up (when it went interactive), and partly because we'd largely mined out the topic -- we eventually found ourselves mostly rehashing the same ground. We didn't come up with One True Membership Model, but we did wind up with several major alternatives to play with. We hadn't gotten around to writing them up yet, because the main GC list wasn't ready to do anything with them. Maybe sometime soon -- I think we *are* nearing the time to deal with this stuff. Like I said, it's all intimately related... -- Justin Who will need to go back to the archives and recollect the details of the proposal he was to write up... Random Quote du Jour: "*Vet*... What on Earth is a *Vet*??" -- an alien in a cat suit... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 18:28:03 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:08:40 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: New topic for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Mon, 1 Apr 1996 14:07:11 -0800) Fiacha writes: >Assertion 1. The Board and the SCA Inc. exist to serve the membership in the >USA as far as mundane matters are concerned. Foreign corporations exist to >provide these services in their respective countries. A reasonable goal; however, it isn't clear to me that this is currently the case. Certainly we aren't well-structured to facilitate this, since the duties of the Board are so heavily mixed together. >What services in the SCA Inc attempting to provide to foreign nationals >that should be handled locally? Possibly stock clerk, membership, general rules and regs. (To be fair, I think that the current Board is quite sensitive to this issue, and trying to fix it. But there's a ways to go yet.) >What is the relationship between the various corporations? Is, or should be? Very different. The relationship clearly currently *is* that the SCA, Inc. controls things, and the non-US national corporations are subordinate. Arguably, there should be a separate co-ordinating body, and the SCA, Inc should have a role comparable to (if necessarily larger than) the other national corporations. >What services are being provided locally that should be provided globally? IMO -- none. However, that is clearly debatable. >Assertion 2. The rules of the game are what unifies the global membership. I'll buy that, with the caveat that "the rules of the game" is extremely (perhaps necessarily) vague. >Are the rules of the game written down in any one place? Or, Is Corpora >intended to be the totality of the rules of the game? What game defining >rules are written down and who is responsible for maintaining them? > >Should all of the rules be written down? Are they written down? Clearly not. Corpora only defines a fraction of the formal laws of the Society (the Kingdoms and branches define far more), much less the overarching culture (most of which isn't written down anywhere). Should they all be? Definitely not. "The game" is the culture itself. Trying to write down the "rules" for such a thing is futile, and probably destructive. Even setting down the Landmarks -- a very loose attempt to extract the *outlines* of the game, rather than the details -- proved to be a lot of work, and ultimately rather controversial. Frankly, I'm suspicious of attempts to over-codify. Much of human understanding is impossible to codify -- language is a convenient communications mechanism, but it's no substitute for actual understanding. We can come up with rough approximations, but we are going to inevitably do damage to the concepts as we codify them. That's sometimes worthwhile, but definitely not always. And even codification needs to happen at appropriate levels. That is clearly at least *sometimes* relatively low in the hierarchy. >Should the Board be directly involved in maintaining any of the rules? Well, *some* body probably should, whether by fiat or co-ordination. That body may or may not be the Board of the SCA, Inc -- that's one of the Big Issues here, as is the model of rule maintenance. >Assertion 3. Only in the USA is the corporation which provides mundane >services activly involved in maintaining global rules for the game. Correct, I believe. >Assertion 1. The populace has no confidence that writing letters to the >board has any effect on the policy decisions that the board makes. Yes, I would say that this is broadly true... >Assertion 2. The board lacks a timely, effective means of informing the >populace, either nationally or internationally. Also true, and unfortunate. However, I'm not *completely* convinced that any mechanism is going to be wholly effective, simply due to the considerable apathy of the majority of the players to the structure and running of the game. I think that the best one can strive for is to effectively inform the *interested* populace. That's a bit easier, but we still have a long ways to go before it's the case... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "clone, n. -- 1. An exact duplicate, as in "our product is a clone of their product." 2. A shoddy, spurious copy, as in "their product is a clone of our product." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 18:51:58 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 34 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:34:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Corporations, Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I believe that it is necessary to separate membership in the US corporation >from membership in the SCA. Partly this is a reaction to the aggravating experience of buying money orders for over 20 years. This is reinforced by the fact that we in Ontario have often been required to do things that were unnecessary, cumbersome, and on the verge of illegality because of US laws or circumstances. I am at the same time a strong believer in having a central authority -- a Court of Appeal -- to sort things out in the game. I believe that SCA monarchs must be subject to review in the exercise of powers that owe their efficacy to the legal powers of the Corporation's ability to shut down an event. Banishment, threats to pull fighting authorizations to enforce obedience, and other powers of the crown have been misused, and will be misused. Similarly, I believe in the continuation of a basic law of the SCA that establishes a few permanent rules: the definitions of the Peerages, the method of selecting monarchs, the standardization of a few titles. Monkey with these and you will split the Society. Remember that Martin Luther did not intend to split the church, merely to clean out the abuses of the Universal Church. Nevertheless, his actions did split the church. We need an international body to maintain a few rules of the game, and a reorganization of mundane business responsibilities in line with international boundaries and law. I expect that the US corporation will continue to provide a lot of services to the whole SCA for a long time to come, but to channel all the business through the US neither makes sense nor is sustainable. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 19:16:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:03:24 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Don't mean to seem nosey (though I have been following all the Maillist stuff): But is there a report for this quarter? It needed to be in Milpitas TODAY..... ? EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 19:55:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:37:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Alysoun: Corwyn & agenda To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin said >I *am* curious to hear other reactions to Alban's >suggestion, which resembles suggestions for compromise I've seen >several times before. While I certainly would want to debate the >details, I like the overall model... You're not the only one....I posted it, and to date *no-one's* said anything, either here or to me personally. I take it this great silence means everyone approves of it? Alban, lonely in Standing Stones From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 1 19:56:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win16; I) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Approved-By: Steve Muhlberger Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:42:59 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Organization: Nipissing University Subject: What is the SCA? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. Here's my favorite definition of the SCA, reprinted with permission from ThinkWell #16, August 1993. The author is Sir Needham Bledsoe, mka Needham Winget: SCA Culture vs. Historical Recreation The SCA is, for me, a work in progress. I do not believe that we recreate the Middle Ages. It is too large a time frame, and there are too many realities forced on us by our current era. It seems to me that it is truer to say that we use history as a foundation and role model to create something new. Call it a world, call it a subculture or call it a cult it’s probably a little of each. If we were recreating, choices would be simple. We would know exactly what to do, say, wear and be. It’s all there in the history books. History gives us tales of honor, glory and chivalry, along with tales of plague, persecution and narrow-mindedness. We want the one but not the other, so we set about creating something new, something that forges modern thought patterns with the acceptable ideals of the Middle Ages clothed in the doable ways of the Middle Ages. We are a work in progress. What the SCA was yesterday is not what it is today, and tomorrow it will be new again. Each time a period item is brought into the SCA for the first time our world expands. Each time our modernness clashes with the Middle Ages and we are forced to work around this conflict our world is changed. I think we are involved in a great work of art. It is perfomrance art that uses many mediums to come to life. It is performance art based on the theme of what we like about the Middle Ages. It is permormance art that is created by each person wo comes and plays the game. It is performance art created by a big committee. Each new item, idea or concept must be judged by the committee. Is it riht for the work of art we are creating? This is where the nightmares can begin. Committees are not designed for agreement. You must fight, you must plead and sometimes you must give a little. Most often committees created something that is different from what each member of the committee had in mind. This is wherre there is conflict. This is where there is emotion. This is where there is passion. The battle is joined to decide what is right for this work of art. it is tiring and sometimes painful to continually be at this process of selection. It would be nice to be done with it but if we are ever done with it we are done with it. Hang up your garb, folks, the party is over. As much as we might want to put the system on auto-pilot it can’t happen. If you want to have a say in this work of art you must stay on your toes. Why would anyone want to do this? Because we know it’s important, we’re just not sure why. >>>Finnvarr here again. You may want to ask yourself, how does such negotiation and debate take place on an international level? I would suggest that it usually can't; that the evolution of the SCA is almost entirely on the regional and Kingdom level. Whether we can stay a single community indefinitely is the question. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 04:50:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:26:38 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: The GC & Board Finances (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tetchubah was responding to Corwyn: >>In my opinion, of particular >>priority should be those problems that nearly caused several kingdoms to >>leave the SCA, for Heavens sake, and that CAN be adressed by specific action. >>And yet, we spend a MONTH compiling multiple votes that at best half of the >>members bother to participate in. > >I don't think Nordmark's leaving was specifically tied to money, >Corwyn. Rather they didn't really want to play the same game we are >playing. Money may have been part of it but I don't think it was the >biggest part. Well, quite a few of us do want to play, actually. Those who wanted to leave was the outgoing Baron and the Founding Baron of Nordmark, together with some of the other founders of Nordmark, and many of the newer members. Those who wanted to stay are mostly members who have been in the SCA for a few years and know how it works. Nordmark has had sort of a population explosion these last few years, and many of the new members wasn't really sure of what the SCA was about and how it worked. Sending money to US for no apparent gain was part of the dissatisfaction, but I think the biggest part was being ordered from above how to do things. Frithiof Skaegge, Shire of Aros, Crown Principality of Nordmark, Drachenwald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 07:34:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 07:24:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Corporations, Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316092B8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Apr 1, 96 06:34:00 pm > I believe that it is necessary to separate membership in the US corporation > from membership in the SCA. > Partly this is a reaction to the aggravating experience of buying money > orders for over 20 years. This is reinforced by the fact that we in Ontario > have often been required to do things that were unnecessary, cumbersome, and > on the verge of illegality because of US laws or circumstances. > I am at the same time a strong believer in having a central authority -- a > Court of Appeal -- to sort things out in the game. I believe that SCA > monarchs must be subject to review in the exercise of powers that owe their > efficacy to the legal powers of the Corporation's ability to shut down an > event. Banishment, threats to pull fighting authorizations to enforce > obedience, and other powers of the crown have been misused, and will be > misused. > Similarly, I believe in the continuation of a basic law of the SCA that > establishes a few permanent rules: the definitions of the Peerages, the > method of selecting monarchs, the standardization of a few titles. Monkey > with these and you will split the Society. Remember that Martin Luther did > not intend to split the church, merely to clean out the abuses of the > Universal Church. Nevertheless, his actions did split the church. > We need an international body to maintain a few rules of the game, and a > reorganization of mundane business responsibilities in line with > international boundaries and law. I expect that the US corporation will > continue to provide a lot of services to the whole SCA for a long time to > come, but to channel all the business through the US neither makes sense nor > is sustainable. > Finnvarr That looks like # 3 on "MY" list..... Chairman....vote....international. Anyone who would like to write to me about my opinions on this, please feel free....But with BOD and Pennsic....:-) EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 10:36:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:25:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Forwarded message To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 08:23 AM 4/1/96 -0500, Watt Kidman wrote: >My experience has been that there are two additional perspectives: >6) that the Households are the relevant unit. > > At least in this corner of the Knowne World, households have the real >power. Kings come and kings go, but the impact of the households who sponsor >these Kings is a recurrent force. Some would say for good, others for ill, >but the power and impact is certainly substantial. I find this statement interesting as Watt and I reside within the same Kingdom, and given the size of our Kingdom are not all that distant from each other. Within the game that I play, households have a negligible presence. Of the people that I actively play with on both the local and kingdom levels, I am aware of few that are involved in households and even less aware of the effect that these households may have on these people. This is not to say that Watt is wrong in his perceptions, but rather that the games that we play are often far removed from what others around us are playing, even within relatively small local areas. One of the good things about the society IMO is this diversity. Unfortunately, because of this diversity we largely do not have a good idea of who or what we are. One of the useful things I think the GC could undertake would be the methodology (probably a poll) to quantify the nature of our society. I think given the diversity of the GC that you could avoid many of the pitfalls of past polls, and hence end up with some useful data. I find it hard to see how one can sensibly suggest changes to our society without first knowing what our society is. Jean Louis de Chambertin Barony of Madrone, Antir From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 10:36:41 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:24:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: international, plus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L So far, and we've touched on the topic before, no one has put forth an argument that SCAinc should control the world. I have never gotten answers to the questions of why non-North American groups are in SCAinc to start with and of how much of the non-North American membership is US citizen (esp. military). Considerations relating to the topic: 1. US military may feel that staying with the US corp is more convenient. (Why form a corp in Samoa if the only players are on base?) 2. Corporations and kingdoms are not necessarily congruent. In the US we have one corp, many kingdoms; in Europe, one kingdom, many corps (and the US citizen factor appears to be unevenly distributed). This is where we start to see some of the problems of trying to split mundane and game. If we think about a world federation, what's the relevant unit? 3. Game universality: If we exclude US military (who rotate back to the US), why are we concerned about keeping particulars universal? Suppose a different peerage system is adopted in Australia--what is the big deal? 4. If the whole reason that non-US groups are in SCAinc is due to size and newness (that is, a national group forms a corp to open a bank account, but does not have enough people to staff an office, print membership cards, produce publications, etc.), we can expect this to change as they grow. Now they need the recognition of the original SCA (represented by SCAinc) to "exist"--to feel that they are viable. At some point (and I suspect this is what's happening) they can exist in and of themselves. The question is what does association with US-SCA offer at this point? 5. And why in the future would national groups need to appeal to an international court? (You are using kingdoms as the relevant unit.) Why wouldn't they appeal to some group within their own corporation which would be more familiar with the legalities and social morays of the area? PLUS On the Living History Thing. It was mentioned sufficiently in the materials sent me when I first inquired about joining for me to believe that this was in fact what the whole thing was about. (I am no dummie) I have met other people who made the same mistake--many of whom did not stay with it when they saw their error. I have also met people who still thought that's what we were doing--that SCA feasts were close approximations of the real thing, for example. Some people have posted me on this: It is not the case that living history has to be done like colonial Williamsburg--i.e., everybody agreeing on one place, one period--and what I said about encouraging this dimension without making it THE game was exactly that--no thought of requiring everyone to do it. We do admire people who maintain a detailed persona--whose costume, accessories, encampment, etc. are all in one period. (It makes no difference that the next camp is of another period.) We admire it, but we don't do as much as we could to encourage it. My point is that we should not promote it as what the whole thing is about--and/or if we really think it is a GOOD deal and want more of it, consider how to encourage it. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 10:54:14 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <316092B8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <316092B8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:29:40 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Corporations, Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316092B8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> In regard to Finvarr's posting concerning the continued role of the monarch, peers, and standardization of titles, I agree fully. I would also add that we need to also include a space for Rapier combatants, who in some kingdoms (Ansteorra for one) make up a strong portion of the authorized fighters. Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 11:03:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 10:42:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Corporations, Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr >>> I agree with Finnvarr, Alban, and Justin. I think we need to split the "Setting the basic rules of the game for the known world" and the "meeting the mundane requirements of a US nonprofit for purely US operations" among two different entities. It'll be a pain, but neater, cleaner, and fairer in the long run. And if the GC as a whole thinks it's just to much of a pain to consider, we should find out right now, because the decision to do it or not will affect almost everything else. A few observations: If there is a SCA-World and SCA regionals, with SCA-US as one among many regional corps, it seems that the logical place for TI, CA, and the other Society wide publications is ultimately with SCA-World. At least their production, if not their mailing list functions. Those publications are for everybody, and economies of scale are important. We don't have to make the change immediately, but that's where it should end up. Someone has to decide when principalities become kingdoms. The principality in question will often straddle two or more regional corporations/associations/whatever. So the final decision should probably rest with SCA-World. But the process should be as objective as possible. Having sufficient members, a majority polling in favor in the region in question, satisfaction of mundane requirements, and perhaps some minimum number of peers should establish a presumption that you can go kingdom. We pretend that the corporation does mundane stuff and the kingdoms do the game. A neat distinction, but not really true as things stand now. Officers in the Kingdom hierarchy fulfill all sorts of mundane requirements; keeping track of money, sending reports in for tax purposes, etc, etc. And many Kingdoms straddle entirely different international jurisdictions. It seems to me that either Kingdom borders shouldn't straddle international or other jurisdictional boundaries, (difficult, although we could be less promiscuous about it than we are now), or, those essentially mundane responsibilities could be split off from the kingdom hierarchy. After all, why does our medieval "King" have to be the one who decides who keeps track of our 20th century money? At the very least, seneschals and treasurers should be accountable to their regional corp, because it's the regional corp whose neck is on the block if the reporting is inadequate. And that's where their reports should go. Not to Milpitas, unless their group is a US one. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 11:27:14 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 47 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 11:04:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Universality To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >3. Game universality: If we exclude US military (who rotate back to the US), >why are we concerned about keeping particulars universal? Suppose a different >peerage system is adopted in Australia--what is the big deal? I will point out an "interest" on my part before I pursue my point. My daughter and my squire will be King and Queen of Drachenwald after June. (They are neither Americans nor military.) The question Alysoun asks is a good one. I think it should be posed to the overseas natives. Nobody put a hammer-lock on Australians and New Zealanders to force them into the SCA. In fact, I know that they were encouraged (perhaps unofficially) by people in SCA, Inc. to go their own way because they might not only avoid some organizational hassles, they might do a better job -- with titles, for instance. Similarly, no one put a hammer-lock on the Far Isles (the original native British SCA group) to join the SCA. They eventually decided what they wanted to do was better pursued outside of the SCA entirely, but it took them years to come to that conclusion. Some of them, some of the time, liked the idea of belonging to a big Known World. I met these people and they did not tag along because they were too stupid or disorganized to do the job themselves. In fact, they were remarkably intelligent and capable people. My guess is that the original Lochacians were, too. I think that the universality question is a little more complicated than it seems on first glance. If it were that simple, all of Nordmark would have left a long time ago. Even if we could ignore Europe and the Pacific, we would still have the problem of Canada. The corporate structure of the SCA has always hampered the growth of the SCA in Canada (though of course the proximity of US groups has been a very big advantage to some of the Canadian ones). Kingdom and Principality boundaries will not neatly follow international boundaries on this continent, but corporate ones must adopt themselves to the various legal regimes that exist. There will be an all-Canadian kingdom in the near future, so the problem of coordination of game rules must be faced in a North American context. Since no one in Australia or New Zealand is screaming (at least screaming loudly) to be let out of the Game, to have the freedom to create new peerages or whatever, free from imperialistic American influence, we should come up with a structure that will accomodate a membership that exists in many different nations. If people in far away nations want to peel off later, they are perfectly free to do so. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 12:27:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:13:47 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: What is the SCA? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3160A243.6DF6@einstein.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Mon, 1 Apr 1996 19:42:59 -0800) Finnvarr quotes a definition of the SCA: >It is >performance art created by a big committee. >Each new item, idea or concept must be judged by the committee. I agree with most of the statement, except this bit. We don't judge our works by *a* committee, we do so by *many* committees. The game *does* vary, a lot, from place to place. The larger "committee" more or less tacitly lays out the boundaries within which we work. Within those boundaries, we have sub-"committees" laying out local standards... A small distinction, but an important one, IMO... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "...one nation, under Popeye, indiviskable..." -- Mark G. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 12:29:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 12:18:10 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: New address To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Myrdin... -- Justin >From: "Potter, Michael" >Subject: New address >Date: Mon, 01 Apr 96 20:43:00 PST My new address is: 1851 Rhodes Street Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 I don't have a phone yet, but if someone needs my number send me an e-mail and I'll reply privately to you. Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter ps - my new job is very demanding, but I'm at least reading what is arriving every day. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 13:16:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 13:03:23 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Ellisif; a few comments from me at the bottom... -- Justin >Date: 2 Apr 1996 10:54-EST >From: Monica.Cellio@NL.CS.CMU.EDU >Subject: Re: Topics for discussion >In-Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list's message of Mon, 1 Apr 1996 161557 EST Can you provide an example of something that is inappropriate for an international body, appropriate for a national one, and inappropriate for the kingdoms? I don't see why we need *two* layers of centralized bureaucracy (that can be corrupt, waste money, etc), but I might be convinced otherwise. The kingdoms are the right place to send matter that aren't SCA-wide, in my opinion. Ellisif ------------ I'd say that there's only one strong argument for having a single "SCA-US, Inc", namely efficiency. *If* there is economy of scale in it, then it may be worthwhile. I don't put forth any strong opinion about whether there *is* any economy of scale in it, at this point... (Related to this: there might be some advantages iff the Kingdoms find it too much work to separately incorporate. I suspect this is an over-emphasized boogeyman, but needs to be thought about...) -- Justin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 14:17:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:01:49 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Corporations, Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316092B8@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Mon, 1 Apr 1996 18:34:00 PST) Finnvarr writes: >I am at the same time a strong believer in having a central authority -- a >Court of Appeal -- to sort things out in the game. I believe that SCA >monarchs must be subject to review in the exercise of powers that owe their >efficacy to the legal powers of the Corporation's ability to shut down an >event. It must be pointed out that the first sentence doesn't *necessarily* follow from the second. We *could* definitely come up with structures that are quite binding, that operate entirely within the confines of a Kingdom. The Kingdoms have heretofore mostly not created anything like that, but that's at least partially because they've always had the fallback of the Board -- if things get too off-kilter, you can always appeal. If the Kingdoms didn't have that fallback, you can bet that they'd develop internal checks and balances right quick. However, I will grant that there is a measure of convenience in having a final Court of Appeal of some sort; it has its own problems, but it's probably *easier* than setting up genuinely rigorous internal mechanisms in each Kingdom. Note, however, that this Court *probably* should be just that, instead of being mushed together with many other duties, as the Board currently has. And it should be quite willing to decline jurisdiction when a problem really should be internal (which the Board hasn't done often enough). >Similarly, I believe in the continuation of a basic law of the SCA that >establishes a few permanent rules: the definitions of the Peerages, the >method of selecting monarchs, the standardization of a few titles. Monkey >with these and you will split the Society. Substantially true. Again, this was the purpose of the Landmarks discussion -- to figure out what those permanent rules really are. I'm not sure that this is the right body to discuss that matter in detail, but someone, sometime, is probably going to have to figure that all out. >We need an international body to maintain a few rules of the game More or less true. Anyone care to argue the point? While I don't think the statement is *entirely* true -- I think the SCA could survive without any central body at all -- I've concluded that our internal culture is well-suited to having a central (but moderately weak) co-ordinating authority... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "44. I can't concentrate because Big Bird keeps singing to me about the number `4'." -- from "New Improved Delusions" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 15:05:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 14:53:00 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: international, plus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960402102438_183182839@mail06> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >I have never gotten answers >to the questions of why non-North American groups are in SCAinc to start with I suspect the real answer is: inertia. At the beginning, it probably seemed to make sense -- *everyone* was a member of the SCA, Inc., and there wasn't much reason to make exceptions. After all, it wasn't very expensive. As time has passed, it's made less and less sense, but there hasn't previously been enough impetus to examine the issue carefully. *Does* anyone have any persuasive arguments why the international groups should be subordinate to the US-based Corporation? (Again, this is separate from the general question of whether there should be some central co-ordinating body -- I'm specifically interested in whether anyone even *cares* to defend the current structure.) >1. US military may feel that staying with the US corp is more convenient. >(Why form a corp in Samoa if the only players are on base?) Which probably *does* make a modicum of sense, when a group is mostly or entirely US military. (Which was once largely the case in Drachenwald, but that ended some while back.) >2. Corporations and kingdoms are not necessarily congruent. In the US we have >one corp, many kingdoms; in Europe, one kingdom, many corps (and the US >citizen factor appears to be unevenly distributed). This is where we start to >see some of the problems of trying to split mundane and game. If we think >about a world federation, what's the relevant unit? Okay, this is a good concrete instance of the question you posed earlier, and I think I grok it better. I'll toss in an opinion: the Kingdoms. The main purposes of the global organization seem to mainly relate to the Kingdoms: -- It should keep the Kingdoms playing approximately the same game; -- It should have some kind of "high court", to prevent abuses of power within the Kingdoms. There are ways in which it *might* relate to the Corps. -- for example, co-ordinating (and probably printing) TI -- but those seem to be "weaker" missions, and considerably less critical, than the Kingdom-related ones. So I would opine that the global organization probably relates most directly to the Kingdoms. Anyone care to argue contrariwise? >3. Game universality: If we exclude US military (who rotate back to the US), >why are we concerned about keeping particulars universal? Suppose a different >peerage system is adopted in Australia--what is the big deal? A lot of people will say, "culture shock" -- that this makes it too difficult to move from one area to another. Frankly, I think this is a bit overstated; it's *already* a major culture shock to move, and I suspect that the details of titlature wouldn't add all that much complexity. Indeed, it could even clarify things, since titles are *not* as equivalent from place to place as people like to pretend they are. But the real reason is cultural identity. There is a real desire to hang together as a single world-wide club. The little details help us to focus that sense of unity. They're basically arbitrary -- one could choose a very different set of effective Landmarks, and still *get* that sense of unity. But they *are* the ones we've got. And as Finnvarr said, you couldn't change them without a disastrous ruckus. (And some details *are* worth keeping more or less in track, like the general combat mechanism. Note, however, that these things are best served through communication and co-ordination, rather than being dictated from the top; hence, my suspicion that the global body's main job is co-ordination.) >5. And why in the future would national groups need to appeal to an >international court? (You are using kingdoms as the relevant unit.) Why >wouldn't they appeal to some group within their own corporation which would >be more familiar with the legalities and social morays of the area? Makes some sense; as I've said, this certainly *could* work. But people are used to authority figures, and many like having them around. I suspect we'd get considerable resistance from most of the Kingdoms if we tried to toss them out into the cold cruel world of reality, and forced them to create their own checks and balances. (We could do it. Just not without a lot of argument.) >On the Living History Thing. It was mentioned sufficiently in the materials >sent me when I first inquired about joining for me to believe that this was >in fact what the whole thing was about. Fascinating. Do you know whether these materials were official stuff >from the Corp, or from a more local level? I haven't noticed this strong a claim in the Corporate stuff -- but then, I haven't examined the Corporate stuff all that closely. If it *is* presenting that impression, I'm not at all certain that it's intentional; it could simply be badly presented. Or, possibly, it was written intentionally that way, by someone with an agenda to push. It's worth teasing this problem out a little, to address it. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: >From the Top Ten List of how Peter David Died -- "10. Shouldn't have tried to change careers to stand up comic. 9. New Marvel policy: all writers must be *real* Marvel Zombies 3. Took a packet of Rit, added water...oops, that's how Peter David dyed. 2. New Marvel promotion; cover ink of X-Factor #71 reprint made of writer's blood, sales higher than expected. 1. Terminal jealousy of Suicide Squid." -- tyg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 16:28:06 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 61 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:01:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: following up Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Let me follow up Justin's remark that without the Corp. kingdoms would have to have their own checks and balances, be "forced into cold reality." This is a multi-sided problem. In this very forum, we have had people resisting (including me sometimes) the "politicization" of SCA institutions, because of "apathy." Rather than "apathy," I would say that people resist voting for Directors, etc., because that is not why most of them joined the SCA. The same thing applies within Kingdoms: we would like our monarchy to be "pure" and "apolitical" and many people glory in the fact that the "SCA is not a democracy" -- resisting any kind of electoral or conciliar methods for running kingdoms or smaller groups. Of course, there is a cold reality out there, and we have dealt with that by having the ultimate authority in the hands of people who wear 20th century clothing, meet in ordinary meeting rooms, and call each other by their real names. The advantage of this method is that these people have been for most of the SCA's history drawn for more than a single kingdom; if a case comes before them we can hope for a disinterested view -- at least disinterested compared to what we would get if review of royal actions was entirely by people from the kingdom affected. If any of you think really gross abuses of royal authority can be handled better by internal courts, or entirely by face-to-face interaction, I think we must live in different realities. I believe there is a place for more representative institutions within Kdms, and hope that the future Kingdom of Ealdormere will have some effective councils that will give some guidance to the royalty -- we have a ten year start on one such institution. However, there is only so much you can expect >from "democratization" or "parliamentarization" of the SCA. People want politics, especially formal politics, to be unobtrusive in their SCA experience. They don't want a bigger and more obtrusive stage for the big egos and the political junkies to strut upon. Adding a big parliamentary stage next to the big, already existing monarchical stage, will strike very few people as an improvement. Removing review and certain types of mundane business from the medieval game has served us well in some respects. Having a review by disinterested parties (easier to find farther from the scene) makes sense. The real trick will be to have a review body that is: 1) Not entirely dominated by dukes, duchesses, and former kingdom seneschals 2) Not entirely North American 3) Reasonably balanced between the "King's Word is Law" religion and the "We only have kings because the MA did but we really think they are dirt" faction. :-) Finnvarr Finnvarr's quote du jour: Geneticist to pregnant wife: "I don't know why you're so excited; it's merely a biological process and you're just along for the ride." (As are we all.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 16:33:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:17:55 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 17:15:21 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Topics for discussion Noble Cousins! Mistress Ellisif asks: >Can you provide an example of something that is inappropriate for an >international body, appropriate for a national one, and inappropriate >for the kingdoms? I don't see why we need *two* layers of centralized >bureaucracy (that can be corrupt, waste money, etc), but I might be >convinced otherwise. First of all, it seems to me that an inflation adjusted SCA "membership" is probably less expensive now than it was twenty years ago. I keep hearing all of this stuff about the increadible expense of the SCA, but I really do not think that it is all that expensive. Now then, the need for an international corporation is largely symbolic. It allows various national corporations (including whatever occurs in the United States of America) to exist on equal footing. I reject the notion that we need to have 3 levels of incorporation unless affiliated groups choose to do things that way. For a variety of reasons, I do not think that there will be a national Canadian corporation anytime soon, and I doubt that the local corporations already existing in Canada will simply go away should a "national" corporation be formed by somebody or other. Does there need to be anything other than local corporations? (Note, a kingdom can have multiple local corporations within it. This is already the case in some places.) Basically, a central service corporation offering a variety of publishing and other support services to local corporations makes a lot of sense. Such a corporation should probably be independent from any specific U.S. localized territorial group or collection of groups. This corporation would handle the existing stock clerk, registery, Chronicler, Free Trumpet Press, etc. What the central corporation would not do is sponsor ANY events or own ANY regalia or other property intended for use in the medieval recreation. Such things would be taken care of by the local corporations. Please remember, the SCA,Inc. does not exist outside of the United States of America and has possibly questionable existence outside of the Republic of California. (Note. Last time someone claims to have actually checked on this matter, the SCA, Inc. had not yet registered with the secretary of state as a foreign corporation in a number of the New England States.) I am only convinced of the legal existence of the SCA, Inc. within the Republic of California. Yes, I know, people act like it exists all the time, but that is not quite the same thing. The need for national corporations per-se is the one which I question the most. Saying that there should be national corporations seems to me to presume more corporate homogeneity and universiality within a nation-state than may actually exist. There are all sorts of odd things within single "countries". Last I heard, both the United States and Canada each have a Code of Napoleon jurisdiction within a sea of English Common Law jurisdictions. This can have a number of interesting effects. Also, as the Pennsic site book always likes to point out, the law is "different" in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (still a Common Law jurisdiction.) There is no gaurantee that things will work the same in Scotland as they do in England (note there are even Scott's pounds as distinct from English pounds) and recently Czechlosovakia broke up into two countries. I say that local corporations should exist to make sure all of the local "i"'s and "t"'s are properly dotted and crossed without burdening a local group in NewCastle on Tyme with something that only applies in San Marino or Bahrain. Explicitely national corporations are probably not necessary. Whether to have a patchwork of local corporations, a national corporation or both together should be a strictly local affair. Note. There is generally speaking no impediment for a seneschal to hold titular office in multiple jurisdictions. Consequently, a lot of the necessary corporate stuff can even be largely invisible. Regardless, the society should probably maintain corporate existence in each jurisdiction in which it operates. This can be achieved through a combination of local corporations and registration of foreign corporations. However, none of these should be the be all and end all of the whole. No territorial agregate (however large) should be lording it over the rest of the society. 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 Tue Apr 2 16:58:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:42:28 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: following up Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3161C296@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:01:00 PST) Finnvarr writes: >Of course, there is a cold reality out there, and we have dealt with that by >having the ultimate authority in the hands of people who wear 20th century >clothing, meet in ordinary meeting rooms, and call each other by their real >names. >[...] >If any of you think really gross abuses of royal authority can be handled >better by internal courts, or entirely by face-to-face interaction, I think >we must live in different realities. Why do you think the above two concepts (mundane authority and local authority) are mutually exclusive? I said nothing about parliaments or democracy -- I said that problems *could* be dealt with at a local level. And so they could; anything we are doing at the global level *could* be done at the Kingdom level. The cost is somewhat more duplication of effort; the benefit is lessened central workload, and more sensitivity to local culture. >Having a review by disinterested >parties (easier to find farther from the scene) makes sense. Yes and no. It does tend to produce less *biased* results. However, it also may lead to poorer sensitivity to surrounding issues -- something that makes eminently good sense in Kingdom A may be pretty terrible-looking to someone from Kingdom B. As I said, there are benefits -- but there are also costs... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "While Albert Einstein is queueing to enter heaven, he meets three men. He asks about their IQs. The first replies 190. `Wonderful,' exclaims Einstein. `We can discuss my theory of relativity'. The second answers 150. `Good,' says Einstein. `I look forward to discussing the prospects for world peace'. The third mumbles 50. Einstein pauses. `So what is your forecast for GDP growth next year?'" -- from The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 17:27:26 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 48 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:57:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Back to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. Justin said: >Why do you think the above two concepts (mundane authority and local >authority) are mutually exclusive? I don't. >I said nothing about parliaments or democracy -- I said that problems >*could* be dealt with at a local level. I know. >And so they could; anything we are doing at the global level *could* be done >at the Kingdom level. True. >The cost is somewhat more duplication of effort; the >benefit is lessened central workload, and more sensitivity to local culture. I disagree. The cost is a certain kind of politicization, and an increased divisiveness. >However, it also may lead to poorer sensitivity to surrounding issues -- >something that makes eminently good sense in Kingdom A may be pretty >terrible-looking to someone from Kingdom B. As I said, there are benefits -- >but there are also costs... The kind of disputes I'm talking about do not pit Kdm A against Kdm B, or Kdm A against the Corp. They pit two factions, one of which controls the power of the Crown, against each other. The issue, whatever its origin, comes down to whether the rules and due process are being observed. If resolution of such things is kept within the Kdm, fair results may or may not be produced; same with resolving them by an outside group, who could blow it big time. Obviously. But in the Kdm the resolution will necessarily be a divisive contest of political mobilization. Otherwise it is not really a serious problem at all. This is why appeal to a group that is part of neither faction has its advantage. This is why real countries have supreme courts and the doctrine of judicial independence. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 17:56:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 17:39:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Back to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3161CF92@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 16:57:00 PST) Finnvarr writes: >If resolution of such things is kept within the Kdm, fair results may or may >not be produced; same with resolving them by an outside group, who could blow >it big time. Obviously. But in the Kdm the resolution will necessarily be a >divisive contest of political mobilization. I don't buy it. *If* problems are handled on a strictly ad hoc basis, then you're right about the effects. But a well-organized, formal court of appeal, with reasonably long standing and a fairly well- distributed makeup, shouldn't be especially prone to this. Kingdom-level dispute resolution *can* certainly be highly politicized. But there's absolutely no reason it *has* to be; it just requires careful thought and design *before* problems arise... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for very long." -- Boris Yeltsin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 18:18:59 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 43 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 17:55:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Necessity To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin: >I don't buy it. *If* problems are handled on a strictly ad hoc basis, >then you're right about the effects. But a well-organized, formal >court of appeal, with reasonably long standing and a fairly well- >distributed makeup, shouldn't be especially prone to this. The well-organized, formal court of appeal we have, with a reasonably long standing and fairly well-distributed makeup, is the Board of Directors. No Kingdom has a reasonably long-standing tradition of internal appeals. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) Many of them have a great tradition of ad hoc solutions to highly personalized and political problems. >Kingdom-level dispute resolution *can* certainly be highly >politicized. But there's absolutely no reason it *has* to be; it >just requires careful thought and design *before* problems >arise... And when is this period *before* problems arise that you are talking about? In talking about the advantages of appeal I was not theorizing. I have seen the Board intervene relatively quickly and very decisively to resolve abuses on the Kingdom level. Many more have abuses have probably been deterred by the very existence of the Board's role as court of appeal. What I am arguing for here is not something new. It is something we have. I am arguing that this should continue, and that as someone of long political experience in the SCA I will be more comfortable if it does. What I don't think is desirable or sustainable is for the Board of the SCA, Inc. (in its probable future as the corporate structure ONLY for the USA) to continue this role. Finnvarr -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You can build a throne out of bayonets, but you can't sit on it for very long." -- Boris Yeltsin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 19:01:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:40:13 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Internationalization and Rules To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604022117.AA16464@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from Fiacha, My take on this is that the SCA Inc. owns the rules and so owns the right to control the rules. However, the only rules it can own are the written ones. That means Corpora and the Rules of the Lists, the Marshals handbook, the rules used by the College of Heralds and that is about it. The fiscal rules for treasurers is tied to US requirements. The chirurgeonate is tied to US requirements. The seneschalate seems moretied to US requirements than anything else so I might be mistaken. None of the other offices generate rules, instead that satisfy US reporting requirements or provide services. (Heralds argue that they do not rule but provide a service, however, I view the service as rule bound and unaffected by national requirements so I lumped them is as defining rules for the game. The marshalate is really bound by US requirements but defines the minimum armor and weapons standards which I believe is a unifying rule). The first thing that I see here is that the Heralds created a modern analogue of a period organization, extended it throughout the known world and provide a service with minimal impact on the Board. Thus, I would like to copy their technique for other game related rules and services. Note that the marshals do operate in much the same way. The question I end up with is "who can take over Corpora?" The related point is to look at the remaining national services. The Arts and Sciences hierarchy is of dubious value even in the US. The Exchequer needs to report to a corporation within the host nation. The Chronicler is the most difficult position to analyse. The Chirurgeonate needs to operate according to national law. Reporting internationally would seem likely to cause confusion. Thus, my idea would be to have the SCA Inc. license corporations to use the written rules for an annual per capita fee, waiving any such fee that fall below the threshold of being economic to tranfer to a US bank account. In addition, The SCA Inc would offer foreign subscriptions to TI and Knigdom newsletters independently of membership and as close to cost as can be arranged. The per capita fee for foreign nationals would be an attempt to recover the cost of their share of the upkeep of the rules maintenance organizations, including the Board of the SCA Inc. if that were left as the court of appeal. The concept needs more work, but does it appeal to anyone else? Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 19:21:06 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 13 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 18:55:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Fiacha's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I like it on first take. However, I must note that quite recently I have heard complaints about the College of Arms as an unresponsive and unnecessary blight on the SCA landscape. The phrases "makework" and "unmedieval" have been included in these complaints. Whether this is relevant to the discussion or not, I don't know, but I thought I should report on these comments. The College of Arms may not be a burden on the Corporate structure, but some people -- people who like good heraldry, even -- think of it as a burden on the Game. And one that derives its authority from the corporate clout of the SCA, Inc. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 2 21:59:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 21:47:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Ellisif asks about whether there's something inappropriate for the international group, appropriate for the national corp, and inappropriate for the kingdoms. I've got one: filing of the requisite IRS tax forms. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 03:18:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:55:23 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Alysoun: international, plus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alysoun wrote: >So far, and we've touched on the topic before, no one has put forth an >argument that SCAinc should control the world. No, it _should_ not, but for the moment it's trying to. That's one of the things that need to change, IMO. > I have never gotten answers >to the questions of why non-North American groups are in SCAinc to start with Well, in order to become an official branch of the SCA we need to have a certain number of SCA,Inc. members, and our officers need to be members, too. >and of how much of the non-North American membership is US citizen (esp. >military). Of the 100-some SCA members in Nordmark about two are US citizens, none of them military. > Considerations relating to the topic: >2. Corporations and kingdoms are not necessarily congruent. In the US we have >one corp, many kingdoms; in Europe, one kingdom, many corps (and the US >citizen factor appears to be unevenly distributed). This is where we start to >see some of the problems of trying to split mundane and game. This is _why_ we have to split mundane and game! _Because_ corps and kingdoms are not the same. On a smaller level corps and branches are congruent; Nordmark = Sweden, Polderslot = Netherlands, AArnimetsae = = Finland, &c. The reason that Nordmark grew to be such a huge barony was at least in part that it was one corporation. (The distance between the most far-flung cantons, Torsheim and Frostheim, is 1250 km; or about equal to San Francisco - Vancouver...) >If we think about a world federation, what's the relevant unit? I don't think we need a world federation of mundane corporations. Some kind of mutual-recognition-treaty re: memberships between corps should suffice. Maybe an umbrella organization could facilitate cooperation, but I don't think it need to be a big affair. A federation of kingdoms, to help keep the rules of the game reasonably similar could be a good idea, though. >3. Game universality: If we exclude US military (who rotate back to the US), >why are we concerned about keeping particulars universal? Suppose a different >peerage system is adopted in Australia--what is the big deal? To ensure mutual recognition. If I meet someone in a pointy hat, I can tell how he got it and why. Likewise, if I meet someone with a Laurel medallion I can be reasonably sure that I can talk arts or science with hir. To me, international contacts are rather important. >4. If the whole reason that non-US groups are in SCAinc is due to size and >newness (that is, a national group forms a corp to open a bank account, but >does not have enough people to staff an office, print membership cards, >produce publications, etc.), we can expect this to change as they grow. Now >they need the recognition of the original SCA (represented by SCAinc) to >"exist"--to feel that they are viable. At some point (and I suspect this is >what's happening) they can exist in and of themselves. The question is what >does association with US-SCA offer at this point? Well, it does offer a certain amount of international recognition as I mentioned above, but apart from that; not much. Hence the Nordmark crisis. >5. And why in the future would national groups need to appeal to an >international court? (You are using kingdoms as the relevant unit.) >Why wouldn't they appeal to some group within their own corporation which >would be more familiar with the legalities and social morays of the area? Depends if the question concerns mundane legal matters or game terms. If the game is regulated by an international body, that body should have the last say in interpreting the rules. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 03:40:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:17:35 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Topics for discussion To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Can you provide an example of something that is inappropriate for an >international body, appropriate for a national one, and inappropriate >for the kingdoms? Swedish non-profit organizational laws and customs? No business of an international body, very appropriate for a swedish corp, but not for Drachenwald (which covers the whole of Europe). > Ellisif Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 08:49:44 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 08:12:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Universality To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L An Australian response, forwarded by Finnvarr >>> Hi, Feel free to forward if you wish. The question on universality boils down to how much the "benchmarks" are important and what they are. I have a strong feeling that, similar to the way the Kings Word is Law has changed within different parts of the society, there will be many other facets that are mutable, and will yet still let us play the same game. Just reverting for a moment to "real" history (with due deference to the problems of saying what that is), there were very few institutions that were totally in common across Western Europe, from Kingdom to Kingdom. This includes such basics as land tenure arrangements. Why should we be different. Hrolf One of the founders in Lochac and happy to continue as he is, but acknowledging that he is thoroughly brainwashed to the Western Way, From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 10:25:12 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:14:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Growth, Development, and Game To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L "The Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. (SCA) is a non-profit educational organization devoted to the study of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. It is part of the 'living history' movement, which means that members try to reproduce various aspects of the culture and technology of their period, as well as doing more traditional historical research. . . . Society events are open to the public, but it keeping with the emphasis on living history rather than dramatic performance, all attendees are expected to make an attempt to preserve the atmosphere . . ." Justin, that's from my copy of the Organizational Handbook (SCA intro)--I didn't save the other materials. Solveig has told me that my use of "living history" is not standard. I disagree with her, but for clarification: I understand *re-enactment* to be scripted--the Battle of Gettysburg goes the same way every time it's fought. *Re-creation* varies with context. Outside SCA use, think of those character performances like Mark Twain using selections from his works. The actor re-creates Twain as accurately as possible but he's not re-enacting him and has to use imagination to fill in details. *Living history* concentrates on aspects of daily life; it is not scripted. Popular examples are often permanent and large-scale ventures, but occasional and small-scale activities are also living history. The opportunity for children to meet a "prairie homesteader" and help her churn butter is doing living history in the classroom. THE GAME I think there is THE Game in the SCA although it's played in differing degrees and with individual interpretations. It's not re-creation; it's creation. It's about making the imaginary real. It's not about making the Middle Ages come alive so much as making the Known World come alive. This is a real kingdom, this is a real king, I'm a real knight, etc. History is a prop. This is the reason we use persona names when we aren't in persona, register "arms," have "titles," want royalty to have functional power instead of just form. The Dream is not about feeling you are in the Middle Ages--because there are other, more effective ways to do that--it's about feeling you are in a real world. This is not the game I came to play and my description is clumsy. The game is not clumsy and I wish some of the rest of you would take a stab at articulating it. Certainly I have a strong temptation to push for my game (expressed reasonably well at the start of this message) and even when I try to be objective, I know this orientation colors my thought. I see three dangers to The Game. The first is the effort--intentional or not--by SCAinc to co-opt it. This combined with the great tolerance of game-players means that there are a lot of members like myself who work on a different axis and emphasize different political/structural features. From my perspective kings need no real power at all. The second is growth. While raw numbers increase, we don't know that game-players are increasing at the same rate. The third is development. Some people like doing the same thing over and over; most people move on to a new level. The Game has to accommodate this development and on a world wide level as well as for individuals. Justin and I have conflicting views of how possible it is to impact the Society. I think he is reacting to an idea of "imposing things from the top" and misunderstands me. I am for encouraging, not imposing. This does mean that some body (board or whatever) makes a decision about what to encourage, but the Society is not compelled. If there is not some means of encouraging the game and tying these other games into it, there is the real possibility that the game will get lost in the shuffle. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 10:26:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:15:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Galleron Re: Alysoun: international, plus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alysoun, In a message dated 96-04-02 10:26:01 EST, you write: >3. Game universality: If we exclude US military (who rotate back to the US), >why are we concerned about keeping particulars universal? Suppose a different >peerage system is adopted in Australia--what is the big deal? People move. Even from Australia. Or suppose Nordmark goes Kingdom. Probably just a matter of time. Or suppose the Canadian part of the East or the Middle goes Kingdom. Now suppose one of those Non-US kingdoms institutes the hypothetical combat tatting peerage. And suppose a combat tatting peer moves a few mile across the border into a kingdom that doesn't recognize that peerage. Somebody is going to be unhappy. Either the peer, who isn't one anymore, or the kingdom forced to recognize the hated combat-tatting peerage for the new subject of the kingdom, or everybody, while they argue about it. That said, I don't think it should be SCA,inc.(USA) that makes the call on changes to peerages and other basic game rules. I think it should be the separate SCA-World entity that Alban, Justin, and Finnvarr have been advocating. You can forward this to the GC if you like Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 11:05:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 10:31:35 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: international, plus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604030755.AA15999@akka.kemi.uu.se> (message from Sven Noren on Wed, 3 Apr 1996 09:55:23 +0200) Frithiof's response to one of Alysoun's questions struck me as telling: >> I have never gotten answers >>to the questions of why non-North American groups are in SCAinc to start with > >Well, in order to become an official branch of the SCA we need to have a >certain number of SCA,Inc. members, and our officers need to be members, >too. Or, in other words -- because membership in the *game* has hitherto been defined (in large part) in terms of membership of the One True Corporation. The non-NA groups felt (probably correctly, I'm afraid) that they couldn't be part of the game without being members of the Corp. This is also closely tied up in the crisis of two years ago -- the SCA went through some serious conflict over how central membership in the Corporation really was. Start thinking about this one, folks -- it's another of the issues we're going to have to deal with. The Membership WG spent a lot of time arguing around on this one: what constitutes "membership" of the game? I will say in advance that we are *not* going to reach clear consensus on this issue, so people should be thinking in terms of acceptable compromises... (I think it likely that the model will change somewhat -- it clearly does *not* make sense for everyone to be members in the SCA, Inc. the way we have it now. But there is a broad expanse of possibilities for what it should change into, ranging from something rather similar to the current model to things quite different.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "What is this? Where is everyone? Oh shit. I'm dead. And I told Gwendolyn I'd be back for dinner. Hello? Hello? Anyone there? This is worse than I imagined. And I thought being dead was like a long vacation, except you don't get paid. Oh nononono! Here comes God and I haven't any clean underwear!" -- from KlingKlangKlatch From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 12:38:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:21:23 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Universality To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 08:12 AM 4/3/96 PST, you wrote: >An Australian response, forwarded by Finnvarr there will be many other facets that are mutable, and will yet >still let us play the same game. Just reverting for a moment to "real" >history (with due deference to the problems of saying what that is), there >were very few institutions that were totally in common across Western >Europe, from Kingdom to Kingdom. This includes such basics as land tenure >arrangements. Why should we be different. > >Hrolf We should be different so as to avoid war and conflict. (except of course Pennsic, Lillies, Estrella, etc). The Benchmarks, International rules or whatever we call them should not be all encompassing. What they do cover should be difficult to change. Some of my suggestions include rules for 1. Membership standards and cross acceptance 2. Titles 3. Minimum weapon and armor standards 4. College of Heralds standards 5. Time period covered 6. Minimum rules for financial accounability Some additional guidelines without precise rules should remain in place as well: 1. Chivalrous and Courtly behavior 2. Attempt at pre 17th Century garb at events. There are some other "Rules" that may or may not belong: 1. How a Sovereign is chosen 2. How Kingdom laws may be promulgated 3. Rules for exiles Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 12:42:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:26:42 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Necessity To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3161DCF2@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 17:55:00 PST) Finnvarr writes: >The well-organized, formal court of appeal we have, with a reasonably long >standing and fairly well-distributed makeup, is the Board of Directors. Right, but we're already talking about messing with that. I mean, I *think* we are all agreed that the Board *can't* continue as the effective Court -- it's too big a job, and distracts the Board from what it *should* be doing. Whatever scheme we create, we're going to be shaking the tree a bit. The question is simply how. >And when is this period *before* problems arise that you are talking about? Whenever; the point is that the structures are created independently, rather than in response to specific problems. You are certainly correct that the Kingdoms have a long tradition of dealing with problems ad hoc, and that this is a method that can not work -- it *will* inevitably politicize. In-Kingdom review *can* work, but it requires setting up general structures when things are quiet, rather than reacting to the problems as they come. And yes, it requires good faith and honesty on the part of the people constructing it. I can't believe that that's in such short supply as to make the project impossible. Frankly, I'm not interested in spending endless time on this; I think we *are* going to wind up with some kind of High Court, because I don't think all of the Kingdoms are going to be willing to take responsibility for themselves. The point is simply that they *could*, if they had the motivation... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I'm your all-wise cosmic-type mentor! You can't send me to my room!" -- Kent Nelson From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 12:47:25 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 11:29:54 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Alysoun: international, plus To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10:31 AM 4/3/96 EST, Justin wrote: >Frithiof's response to one of Alysoun's questions struck me as telling: > > what constitutes "membership" of the >game? I will say in advance that we are *not* going to reach clear >consensus on this issue, so people should be thinking in terms of >acceptable compromises... > The question might also be: What constitutes membership for what purpose? with sub-questions: What kind of membership is required to fight? What kind of membership is required to be an officer? What kind of membership is required to go to an event? What kind of membership is reqiuired to buy a magazine? What kind of membership is rquired to vote? I've definitely got 30-40 members in my Shire. Two of us are authorized as fighters. About 5 of us are officers. Probably not more than 15 or so buy a magazine. Probably not more than 12 vote when we make them. Probably not more than 4 would vote if it was not a poll taken at a meeting. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 12:57:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:37:39 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Internationalization and Rules To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Tue, 2 Apr 1996 15:40:13 -0800) Fiacha asks: >The question I >end up with is "who can take over Corpora?" I would say that this is the main point of the global organization, and is really the *definition* of that organization -- it's dealing with such rules as need to be global. That *should* be the definition of Corpora, although it isn't precisely so now... >The Arts and Sciences hierarchy is of dubious value even in the US. Agreed -- while local officers sometimes serve a good purpose, the global hierarchy rarely does. >The Exchequer needs to report to a corporation within the host nation. Check; this one's clearly tied to the Corporations. (Much more clearly than the Seneschalate is.) >The Chronicler is the most difficult position to analyse. Do we need a global hierarchy here? While local newsletters are certainly a Good Thing, I've seen no evidence at all that the reporting structure serves any useful purpose. >The Chirurgeonate needs to operate according to national law. Reporting >internationally would seem likely to cause confusion. Almost certainly; the laws here can be counted upon to vary a lot. (Heck, they vary a lot *within* the US, much less internationally...) >Thus, my idea would be to have the SCA Inc. license corporations to use >the written rules for an annual per capita fee, waiving any such fee that >fall below the threshold of being economic to tranfer to a US bank account. Suggestion: when talking about the future, I think it's useful to clarify what you mean by "SCA Inc". I interpret what you're talking about here as the SCA-World body, as opposed to the SCA-US body. These might have some formal connection, but I suspect there is considerable benefit in *not* being the same entity. (I perceive a very real conflict of interest in them being the same body, as evinced time and again in the history of the Society -- we have *always* structured things to be easiest for the US, pretty much regardless of how hard they are internationally.) So the question is: are you talking about the current SCA Inc, or a more deliberately global body? It isn't clear from your message... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Madonna's acting: Just like Todd McFarlane's art... Very pretty lady(ies), but no emotional depth. She handles "lust" very well, but her best one after that is "boredom"." -- Alexx From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 13:13:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 12:57:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: Growth, Development, and Game To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960403101350_368264384@emout10.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun cites: > ... It >is part of the 'living history' movement > [...] >Justin, that's from my copy of the Organizational Handbook (SCA intro)--I >didn't save the other materials. I will say that I'm surprised that someone handed you the Organizational Handbook; I think of that as primarily an administrative tool, and I would never *dream* of giving it to a novice. Still, you are clearly right -- this does give a misimpression of what we do, particularly to those who actually understand what the living history movement is. I think most members of the LHA would find this either hilarious, or disturbing. While you *could* apply the term "living history" to the SCA, we're quite a lot different from any group I know that uses the term seriously. As I've said before, I've seen living history in the SCA, but it certainly doesn't describe our overall game at all well... I wonder who is responsible for maintaining the Handbook. This problem ought to be pointed out, and the paragraph rewritten. I don't think this represents a real agenda on the part of the Corporation -- I think it's someone putting their own opinion in the wrong place, and you hit it while your impressions of the SCA were still forming, so it made a deeper impression than it would on most people... >I think there is THE Game in the SCA although it's played in differing >degrees and with individual interpretations. Careful; this is dangerous ground. While you might be right, you *will* find, if you move around the Society a bit, that many of the things that you take as sacred aspects of The Game just aren't so elsewhere. As I've said before, teasing out those commonalities is right tricky... Or, as Steffan aptly quoted on a local mailing list recently: "The problem with `The Dream' isn't `Dream'. It's `The'." > This is the reason we use persona names when we aren't in persona, >register "arms," have "titles," want royalty to have functional power instead >of just form. The Dream is not about feeling you are in the Middle >Ages--because there are other, more effective ways to do that--it's about >feeling you are in a real world. Sorry, I know *plenty* of people who will violently disagree with that last sentence; they really are dead-serious about "The Dream" being about feeling that you're in the Middle Ages. (Although I think that most would agree that it's *also* about feeling that you're in the real world.) We rarely succeed, but many folks take it as a goal... I do agree with your concerns, though. > Justin and I have conflicting views of how possible it is to impact the >Society. I think he is reacting to an idea of "imposing things from the top" >and misunderstands me. I am for encouraging, not imposing. This does mean >that some body (board or whatever) makes a decision about what to encourage, >but the Society is not compelled. Reasonable; I still don't think it'll work. I mean, this *is* what happened in my favorite case. The Board didn't say, "Everyone outside Western Europe should go away" -- they just tried to say that such people were outside the core of the game, and should be considered guests. Not a wholly unreasonable statement. The reaction was swift and violent, and as far as I can tell had the long-term effect of solidifying the presence of, eg, Far Eastern personae in the Society. My perception, which is definitely subjective and anecdotal, is that the SCA is decidedly mulish about *any* attempts to regulate the game >from the top; backlashes are common, even standard. I think that, if you want to change the game, it has to be done with *major* grassroots discussions and effort; suggestions from the center will flatly fail. The only times I *have* seen culture change is when one person goes on a crusade to *convince* people, at the local level, that a suggestion would improve things. That can work, but it's hard to scale it larger than the Kingdom level... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Nazgul is Nazgul, and he is the Sysop, and we had better believe in him or he might pull the plug." -- wolfen From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 15:58:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:44:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Is there a report for this quarter? Comments: cc: gendy@panix.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Edward writes: >Don't mean to seem nosey (though I have been following all the Maillist >stuff): >But is there a report for this quarter? It needed to be in Milpitas >TODAY..... >? >EDWARD Z Interesting question. So, was there a report ? If so, can we see it ? If not, why not ? If there was no report, also why not ? Or are we to buisy discussing the *BIG* issues to actually do what we are here to do, which last I heard, was to provide reports to the Board ? So, now that we've decided to ignore finances and recall of board members, and discuss the structure, form and content of the SCA, will this deliberation actually result in a timely report or just three more months of arguing about membership, straw polls, voting how we vote, whether we've voted, and guttmanization of votes ? This isn't just a flame folks. This is a member expressing serious and continued concern over the effectiveness, usefullness and neccessity for the GC and the effort put into it by the members. I'd appreciate some discussion on this issue. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 15:59:57 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 21 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:46:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Benchmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus: >The Benchmarks, International rules or whatever we call them should not be >all encompassing. What they do cover should be difficult to change. Right on the money. In fact, I would say that we already have all the rules we can reasonably use in the Benchmarks in Corpora. Some of what is in Corpora (like the minimum size for shires) need not be part of the Benchmarks. But distinguishing between the essential and the non-essential will take the wisdom of Solomon. > 1. How a Sovereign is chosen This is one of those issue that will split the Society if changed. Anybody want to put some money on the contrary proposition? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 16:17:41 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 27 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:02:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: SCA and Living History Comments: cc: Sandra Dodd To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I don't know if philosophizing of this sort is appropriate to the discussion, but here goes (I'll keep it short). The SCA began with a real interest (at least of some people) in real medieval fighting, music, costume. The same people also had an ethical goal, in the creation of a Society that encouraged chivalry and honor (and as it progressed, virtuousity in the arts). If what you are doing is not just a show for an audience (and it was never that), than what you have is a community (or community of communities). You cannot exercise these virtues without a Society, and you can have no Society without rules and standards appropriate to the present day people and circumstances involved. Rules and standards that cannot duplicate past rules and standards. Pure re-enactment or living history focused on a particular time and place works quite differently than the SCA. There is no point wringing our hands about this -- our weakness as re-enactors is our strength as a community. I would go beyond what Needham said in his "performance art" description, brilliant as it is. The SCA constitutes a stage for the exercise of moral virtue -- otherwise we would not care so much about it. If we and others blow the moral aspects far more often than we would like, if some people never get the moral dimension at all, I don't see any reason to be surprised. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 17:10:01 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:44:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Tibor writes (quoting me) >>Interesting question. So, was there a report ? >Just seconds ago, Fiacha asked me to give a quick proof-read of the report, >so he can send it out. I expect he will make it available to everyone. >Having written one or two of these myself, I recall exactly how hard it can >be to boil down discussion into a report that contains as little bias as >possible. >Fiacha is working hard, guys: on real life and on the report. As are we all Tibor. It still is VERY frustrating to have this happen. I've also presented reports, both in the society and outside, and yes, it is hard. However deadlines matter, both in the real world and in this world. I'm not just singling out Fiacha, but rather pointing to how it is symptomatic of the whole proccess of decision making in the GC. This isn't just a few days late, it is, in fact, two months late. We just spent three months on what was to be a one month cycle. We had multiple votes, which took a month+ to collect, and included at least two deadline extentions. It is clear to me that the cultural norm of the GC is that we have as much time as we want to do anything, and that deadlines are optional. This is not condusive to ever producing anything substantive, as evidenced by our abysmal track record thus far, including the present cycle. >>This isn't just a flame folks. This is a member expressing serious and >>continued concern over the effectiveness, usefullness and neccessity for the >>GC and the effort put into it by the members. I'd appreciate some discussion >>on this issue. >Just a flame? No need to flame, Corwyn. >I too have been giving some serious thoughts to our effectiveness, and the >time this endeavor takes away from other projects... flaming doesn't help. > Tibor Okay, perhaps I should have said "this is NOT a flame, folks". I agree that flaming doesn't help. Neither does skipping discussion of difficult questions by scolding me for mentioning the word "flame". So, how 'bout _sharing_ some of these thoughts, rather than focussing on the "F word" in my post, and effectively ignoring the substantive question ? Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 18:36:23 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:07:40 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Grand Council Report for First Quarter 1996 (fwd) Comments: cc: ghita@mcs.com, meloleary@aol.com, eilis@haas.berkeley.edu, w.colbert2@genie.geis.com, crichard@cch.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Board Members all have paper copies of this in the mail, complete with attachments. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- To: SCA Inc. Board of Directors From: Nigel Haslock/Fiacha Mac Neill Subject: Grand Council Report for Jan to April 1996 ACTIONS REQUIRED OF THE BOARD Please confirm the appointments of Richard Lesze/Artos Barefoot and John Fulton/John Bearkiller to the Council. Please consider the recommendation of the Council that the Board Members be appointed by some different mechanism than is presently used. Attached are two proposals roughly equally endorsed by a significant portion of the council. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE COUNCIL The Council discussed mechanisms for selecting and appointing Board members at great length. It was unable to reach a concensus on a single mechanism although only a small minority staunchly supported the current mechanism. A straw poll was taken, after which a number of ideas were discarded. The council then produced a set of formal proposals and conducted a vote on these proposals in which each councilor could indicate strong or weak support or weak or strong opposition. All but two proposals were, on balance, opposed. These two proposals are therefore presented for your consideration. The Council also discussed mechanisms for the membership to indicate either a lack of confidence in specific Board members or in the decisions of the Board as a whole. The Council was unable formulate a separate proposal as a result of this discussion. The Council has now moved on to discuss relationships between the SCA Inc. and related corporations in other nations. The Council is also considering how to improve communications between the Board, the Corporate Officers and the general membership. The Council wishes to admit Richard Lesze to replace the Crown appointed member for Lochac, and John Fulton to replace the Crown appointed member for Meridies. The Council does not wish to reopen the membership selection process to replace any other members who have resigned or gone inactive. A public meeting of the Council will take place at 3YC. Respectfully Yours Fiacha, Chairman =============================================================================== Summary for the Board Minutes The Council asks that the appoinments of Richard Lesze/Artos Barefoot (Lochac) and John Fulton/John Bearkiller (Meridies) be confirmed. The Council offers two proposals for appointing Board Members and recommends the the Board adopt one of them to replace the current system. One involves a nominating committee, the other involves annual elections by the general membership. A meeting of council members is scheduled for 3YC. Members of the populace are invited to attend. =============================================================================== Attachment 1 -- A Proposal prepared by Flieg Hollander {Text copied from Justin's archive} ====================================================================== Attachment 2 -- A Proposal prepared by Greg Rose {Text copied from Justin's archive} ============================================================================= Attachment 3 -- Final Tally of Votes Cast {Text taken from Galleron's summary of Friday 29th but omitting Galleron's editorial comments} From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 18:39:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:14:45 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: Fiacha's suggestion, Kingdom/Corp. Congruence (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 16:59:48 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: Fiacha's suggestion, Kingdom/Corp. Congruence Please forward to GC Fiacha, in a message dated 96-04-02 18:48:18 EST, you write: >Thus, my idea would be to have the SCA Inc. license corporations to use >the written rules for an annual per capita fee, waiving any such fee that >fall below the threshold of being economic to tranfer to a US bank account. I think a better way to do this would be for SCA-World to allow corporations that meet certain conditions to call themselves "SCA", and to recognize the awards their game groups hand out as having the same portability across the Known World that they have now. As you suggest, they would make some sort of payment to SCA-World to support it. Licensing the rules of the game? Don't see how that's practical. "I'm sorry. We'll have to sue you for your unlicensed use of the phrases King(tm), Queen(tm), and The Dream(tm)" (Come to think of it, maybe the SCA *should* collect royalties on the last. A penny a usage would probably fund TI...) "In addition, The SCA Inc would offer foreign subscriptions to TI and Knigdom newsletters independently of membership and as close to cost as can be arranged. " Not quite independently of membership. Members of SCA regionals, or the SCA regionals themselves could buy them at cost. Non-members should pay more. And the Kingdom newsletters probably shouldn't come from SCA-World, although it might offer list management functions to the Kingdoms. One other funding notion. You could make people that appeal to the International Grievance Committee and lose pay a reasonable contribution to it's expenses. If you really wanted to be Medieval, you could make it a profit center. It might encourage Kingdoms too lazy to come up with their own reasonable grievance reviews to do so. Something important to think about. Several Kingdoms stretch over more than one country, and thus should be covered by more than one corp. (or whatever). The current system is simple, if unfair. All Kingdom officers are ultimately accountable to Milpitas. Legally, this is necessary because they can take actions that can mess up the corporation. (I concede that the Seneschal of Nordmark probably really needn't be an officer of SCA,Inc.(US). But if they are an officer of that corporation, they need to be accountable to Milpitas) One kingdom/one corp doesn't present problems. The Kingdom officers are accountable to the relevant corporation. But what if there is more than one corp. in the kingdom? What if, for instance, the King of the East takes some action, contrary to Canadian law, that endangers the Quebec corp.? (There is one, right?) What if the Quebec board is required to take action and the US board doesn't want to? I see three possible solutions Multi-corporation Kingdom officers (and Kings) are accountable to SCA world, which has power of removal, dicipline etc. What we have now, but I'm not sure every such question needs to go that far up the food chain except as a last resort. Kingdom officers and Monarchs have purely game powers. That would pare monarchs mostly down to the power to give out awards and banish people from their presence. Fine with me but I bet a lot of other people won't like it. Multi-Corporation Kingdoms have a Kingdom Board, with some Directors appointed by each corporation. Comments? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 18:40:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 18:20:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Fwd: Galleron Re: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded from Galleron, with his permission, and my thanks. Anyone else ? Corwyn --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Galleron Re: Is there a report for this quarter? Date: 96-04-03 17:40:09 EST From: WMclean290 To: CORWYN Corwyn, in a message dated 96-04-03 16:49:43 EST, you write: >So, how 'bout _sharing_ some of these thoughts, rather than focussing on the >"F word" in my post, and effectively ignoring the substantive question ? > OK, here's mine. This is a slow medium. It isn't face to face. The Hossein proposal, if memory serves, contemplated a two month cycle, not a one month cycle (one month arguing about proposals, one more actually voting) That said, the GC can do better than it has. I suggest: Fiacha appoints that second assistant he was supposed to have under the Hossein proposal. This wasn't all supposed to be on his back (Yes, Tibor is his assistant chair, but was out of town for a bit, right? The sort of situation that makes two assistants a good idea...) The next time we hold a vote on multiple proposals, the Councilors also rate each proposal 0-10, with 10=strong approval, 5=complete indifference, and 0=I would rather have pins stuck in my eyes. The preference ranking was a good idea, but started too late and had the wrong methodology. The next time we hold a vote, would all Councilors PLEASE vote on all proposals? By the deadline? Or at least register an abstention? The number of votes cast on Arthur's Proposal, and my Universal Suffrage Variant, were particularly disapointing. You can pass this on to the GC if you like. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 18:58:05 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:35:22 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960403164439_184077943@mail04> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Corwyn da Costa wrote: > Tibor writes > (quoting me) > >>Interesting question. So, was there a report ? > > >Just seconds ago, Fiacha asked me to give a quick proof-read of the report, > >so he can send it out. I expect he will make it available to everyone. > >Having written one or two of these myself, I recall exactly how hard it can > >be to boil down discussion into a report that contains as little bias as > >possible. And then I rewrote it, and emailed it to Fast Eddy and made paper copies and mailed them out and then edited it and posted it here. > As are we all Tibor. It still is VERY frustrating to have this happen. I've > also presented reports, both in the society and outside, and yes, it is > hard. However deadlines matter, both in the real world and in this world. I agree. Fortunately, this deadline is non fatal. It just cost me more time and money to mail individual copies instead of letting Renee do the copying and stuffing the repot in with everything else in the packet. > I'm not just singling out Fiacha, but rather pointing to how it is > symptomatic of the whole proccess of decision making in the GC. This isn't > just a few days late, it is, in fact, two months late. We just spent three > months on what was to be a one month cycle. I'm sorry. You are mistaken. The rules we are operating under require a minimum of a month for discussion and another month for getting proposals ready for voting. > We had multiple votes, which > took a month+ to collect, and included at least two deadline extentions. The straw poll was both unofficial and against my wishes. It was taken at a time when we had no formal proposals and were still arguing concepts. The only official poll was run in March and the starting date slid because the proponents of the proposals were seriously compaisant about persuading coucilors to vote for their proposals. > It > is clear to me that the cultural norm of the GC is that we have as much time > as we want to do anything, and that deadlines are optional. This is not > condusive to ever producing anything substantive, as evidenced by our abysmal > track record thus far, including the present cycle. I agree with some of this. Your goal for the next three months is to produce a model for the SCA Inc. that recognizes the mundane differences between nations while providing central support for and supervision of the medieval game that we participate in. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 3 19:57:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 19:45:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha writes: >I'm sorry. You are mistaken. The rules we are operating under >require a minimum of a month for discussion and another >month for getting proposals ready for voting. I stand corrected. However, spending 4+ weeks on a vote that barely got half of the members to participate is abysmal, as is the amount of time we spend NOT discussing the floor topic. So, then. may I propose a timeline as follows for discussion of Fiachas topic, and thereafter: Discussion of topics: first 4 weeks in april Presentation of proposals: last week in april (hard deadline for a proposal to be presented for further discussion and amendment: May 1) Modification of presented proposals, final discussion, caucusing, vote trading etc, first three weeks of may Vote called May 23; no further amendments to proposals: final versions reposted this day. Hard deadline for votes to be received: May 30 I would also suggest that from May 21-28 members should submit proposals for the next cycle's topic. Final decision on topic to be announced June 1. Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 09:49:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:38:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter 1996 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Apr 3, 96 03:07:40 pm > > Board Members all have paper copies of this in the mail, complete with > attachments. This report is not in the Milpitas Office "BY" April 1, 1996. EDWARD Z -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 10:59:13 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: 2228 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:44:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960403164439_184077943@mail04> from "Corwyn da Costa" at Apr 3, 96 04:44:39 pm Greetings from Tibor. Corwyn answered me: Okay, perhaps I should have said "this is NOT a flame, folks". I agree that flaming doesn't help. Neither does skipping discussion of difficult questions by scolding me for mentioning the word "flame". So, how 'bout _sharing_ some of these thoughts, rather than focussing on the "F word" in my post, and effectively ignoring the substantive question ? I am finding that this list is taking a great deal of my time, and producing little of worth. I am also finding that I simply no longer have the time I would require to try and change that on my own. (Shame on me, but it's the truth.) Writing proposals, counting votes, doing the research is just not compatible with the workload I have at work, or the Societal interests I have. I either need to work harder on the committee, in an attempt to change it and improve it, or admit that I am throwing stones when I am a sinner too. I've been trying to figure out how I can best promote the sort of changes I want within the Society. Working at this level, and in this way, is not as productive as I would have hoped. I have no regrets: but our discussions are (with rare exceptions) not so much meetings of the minds and the product of research and effort, but postural displays of our own pre-conceived notions, and some quibbling over details. The end results of such deliberations are just not suitable for the Board as action items, nor as deep background. My motivation has been to improve the "standard of living" in my local group. I suspect I can do that better by improving things locally, and ignoring the Board level most of the time, until it gores my ox again. I find myself desiring to either improve the GC,or leave it. And, I don't have the time to improve it. This has a flat flavor in my mouth. My local group just held a senschalate election: I'd stood for election, and had promised to resign from the Grand Council if I won, in order to devote my unsplit time and energies to the position. I lost the election: but imagine my surprise when I found my only disappointment was that I had no real reason to abandon the GC! Am I the only person who feels this level of discontent? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 11:24:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:07:29 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Fiacha's suggestion, Kingdom/Corp. Congruence (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:14:45 -0800) A couple of comments on Galleron's comments: >As you suggest, they would make some sort of >payment to SCA-World to support it. Another of the Big Issues: financial support for SCA-World. Anyone have any mechanisms *other* than per-capita membership? This has some nasty black holes in it, in particular leading back into issues of who is a "member". Related: there will need to be some sort of fiscal check on SCA-World; otherwise, it's *much* too easy to do a repeat of two years ago. (Which largely arose because it was too easy for the center to keep spending money, with no serious check on how *much* money it could ask for.) >One other funding notion. You could make people that appeal to the >International Grievance Committee and lose pay a reasonable contribution to >it's expenses. The libertarian in me likes it, but I suspect it'll go down like a lead balloon... >Kingdom officers and Monarchs have purely game powers. That would pare >monarchs mostly down to the power to give out awards and banish people from >their presence. Fine with me but I bet a lot of other people won't like it. It's not quite possible, unless you redefine the officers a bit. At the least, the Exchequer clearly needs some mundane authority; odds are good that the Seneschal does as well, although I'm less certain. But it *is* possible that we could split the authority chains. I'm not sure if this would be good or bad in its effects; some of each, I suspect. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Creative Waivers "My friend Bill is here to fight, So's someday he can be a knight. If he takes a shot right on his head And his helmet breaks, he'd wind up dead. But Bill knows all this, you see, And he waives all indemnity. Crush his finger, break his arm, Cause him grievous bodily harm, My boy Bill can promise you, He may call you names, But he will not sue." -- "Shylock the Paymaster" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 11:31:47 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:15:04 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Benchmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31630E0E@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Wed, 3 Apr 1996 15:46:00 PST) Finnvarr writes: >Some of what is in Corpora (like the minimum size for shires) need not be >part of the Benchmarks. But distinguishing between the essential and the >non-essential will take the wisdom of Solomon. Possibly true, but it's clearly necessary. I simply can't buy the notion that all of Corpora, in its current form, is eternal and unchanging -- that's wildly unrealistic. >> 1. How a Sovereign is chosen > >This is one of those issue that will split the Society if changed. Anybody >want to put some money on the contrary proposition? Well, it's unfortunately probably an untestable bet, but I *would* take it, with some caveats. I think that there is definitely *some* latitude in sovereign-selection. I mean, if a Kingdom chose to use some other tourney method than simple double-elimination, that probably wouldn't cause many waves. (Heck, it's happened, with things like archery rounds, or participation of the consorts.) You might be able to go further; I've long maintained that the Acrean style (tourney for the early rounds, then melee, then war) would probably work pretty well, although it would (for better *and* worse) introduce a bit of politics. The further you go from the current model, the likelier that you'd get Big Politics and/or Schism. But that's a range, and a *very* broad one -- there's quite a lot of latitude before it got to the extremes... (Choosing Monarchs by Tourney *may* be a Landmark of the SCA; it's one of the more hotly-debated ones. But I'd say that the *exact* tourney style we usually use isn't one...) -- Justin Yes, this is approaching a tangent, and no, I'm not interested in a long debate about Royalty Selection... Random Quote du Jour: "Check in was fun... `I'd like to check in three to Sweden...' presenting the tickets... `Yes sir... would you put your carry on bag on the scale?' `No, that's one of the passangers'. `Yes, sir, would you put _their_ bag on the scale.' `No, I didn't make myself clear. That is not a bag belonging to a passanger... that bag is the passanger.' `Excuse me sir... did you say the BAG is the PASSANGER?' `Yes, and it would like a window seat.'" -- From "The Lump", by Thomas Ignatius Perigrinus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 12:16:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1644 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:04:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: More Procedural Suggestions (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron by Tibor Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:59:48 -0500 Subject: Galleron: More Procedural Suggestions Please Forward to the GC Some more suggestions for next time: Do a unified tally on multi-proposal votes from the start. If someone doesn't volunteer, assign the job. For fairness, someone who will do it regularly, but hasn't written one of the proposals. The idea of having each proposal author keep his own tally just confused the Council, and it didn't work. Post the proposed quarterly report at least two days before it needs to go out. Gives the Council a chance to comment first, and helps to avoid further missed deadlines. This is not simply a slam of Fiacha. I also blame the Councilors who didn't vote, or who didn't vote on all the proposals. Fiacha held it till the last minute to wait for your votes, and they never came. Which brings up another issue. I believe that the actual active strength of the Council is not much over two dozen. Besides the Councilors that have formally resigned, there are many Councilors who, as far as I can tell, haven't posted since the Council was formed. It is reasonable to wait until 2/3 of the Council has voted before calling a vote complete: unless a third of the "Council" isn't really there at all. I agree that there's no need to elect new Councilors. The Council has more important things to do. But I do think it's necessary to weed out the deadwood, so that the Council knows what it's actual active roster is. There is a procedure for this, right? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 12:24:23 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 26 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:58:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Worthwhile? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr This forum has always been a risk. Not only is the subject inherently difficult, the medium is a new one in which the rules and methods of productive discussion have yet to be worked out. How many millenia did it take to develop parliamentary procedure? The GC can only preliminarily chew over some of the big questions. It has no power to implement anything, which means the people who do have the power will have to rediscuss. The room for changing things from the top, by Board or anyone, is very limited (something that I knew when I was on the Board 10 years ago). Having been on the Board, I always had limited expectations for how much could be accomplished here. Having put as much work into this as I have, I am unwilling to quit now. We have succeeded in figuring out a lot of things that won't work, and suggesting some things that might. I think our upcoming discussion of the corporate/kingdom/game structure on the international level is a discussion that must take place, a discussion that the Board will have little time to initiate as they tackle more pressing stuff. I am not looking forward to the membership discussion, but I think it should take place, too, for similar reasons. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 12:39:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 11:26:03 -0600 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Benchmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11:15 AM 4/4/96 EST, Justin wrote: >Finnvarr writes: >>Some of what is in Corpora (like the minimum size for shires) need not be >>part of the Benchmarks. But distinguishing between the essential and the >>non-essential will take the wisdom of Solomon. > >Possibly true, but it's clearly necessary. I simply can't buy the >notion that all of Corpora, in its current form, is eternal and >unchanging -- that's wildly unrealistic. > No, not eternal and unchanging, but tough to change. If there is anything that needs immediate changing, we should addresss that now so that if we make it even More difficult to change later there won't be a problem. Magnus PS what is the address where one may find Corpora online? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 12:41:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 12:23:55 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Is there a report for this quarter? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604041544.KAA21500@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:44:58 -0500) Tibor asks: >Am I the only person who feels this level of discontent? I'm not quite there yet, although I can certainly understand it. Personally, I'm regarding the current discussion as the critical one, which I've been waiting for for a while now. IMO, it's really what the Council was created for: to figure out the Big Picture. Either we succeed in doing that, on a reasonable and finite timetable, or we pack up and go home... -- Justin Who expected this process to be long, slow, and painful, and thus hasn't gotten terribly discouraged by being right... Random Quote du Jour: "Characters like Wolverine and the Punisher do not exist in real life. Spinach doesn't *really* have the effects described in Popeye (if it did, patrons of Greek restaurants would have conquered the Earth long ago). Clive Barker isn't babysitting your children." -- from "Some Things to be Thankful About" by Adam-Troy Castro From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 13:18:58 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 09:57:44 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter 1996 (fwd) Comments: To: "E. F. MORRILL" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604041438.JAA05526@panix.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, E. F. MORRILL wrote: > > > > Board Members all have paper copies of this in the mail, complete with > > attachments. > > > This report is not in the Milpitas Office "BY" April 1, 1996. I admitted that. I offer to submit my resignation for failure to fulfil the duties of the office. Fiacha > EDWARD Z From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 13:42:02 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 13:17:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quart Comments: To: gendy@panix.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I offer to submit my resignation for failure to fulfil the duties of the >office. > Fiacha This would be ridiculous. Stay on, Fiacha. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 14:32:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2366 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:21:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Worthwhile? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31642CBA@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Apr 4, 96 11:58:00 am This forum has always been a risk. Not only is the subject inherently difficult, the medium is a new one in which the rules and methods of productive discussion have yet to be worked out. How many millenia did it take to develop parliamentary procedure? Good questions. (I hate it when historians ask questions like that...) On the other hand, by way of counter-example, CSOS was an all email crew. There are members of it that I have not even seen pictures of. (And any committee that has both Tadhg Liath and Arval on it has diverging opinions, as any experienced herald can tell you.) Somehow, using the same medium, we managed to get a LOT done, and come to a number of very interesting conclusions and compromises. I KNOW that email committees can function effectively. I've also used them at work, for years. Was the difference esprit-de-corp? Was it motivation? Was it privacy? Was it the knowledge that if we "didn't hang together, we would surely hang separately"? The GC can only preliminarily chew over some of the big questions. It has no power to implement anything, which means the people who do have the power will have to rediscuss. The room for changing things from the top, by Board or anyone, is very limited (something that I knew when I was on the Board 10 years ago). Having been on the Board, I always had limited expectations for how much could be accomplished here. So did I. I'm afraid we are starting to fail my basic litmus test: "Am I proud to be here". While we are just starting to come together, I am not sure that any of us is proud of our contribution to the Society so far. Having put as much work into this as I have, I am unwilling to quit now. We have succeeded in figuring out a lot of things that won't work, and suggesting some things that might. I think our upcoming discussion of the corporate/kingdom/game structure on the international level is a discussion that must take place, a discussion that the Board will have little time to initiate as they tackle more pressing stuff. I am not looking forward to the membership discussion, but I think it should take place, too, for similar reasons. The question is not merely "is there a net good". The relevant question is "For the same effort, can I create a greater good another way." I don't know. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 15:18:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2004 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:05:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding and Accountability (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:01:42 -0500 Subject: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding and Accountability Please forward to GC Here's one way way to handle funding and oversight of SCA-World, based on the association model David floated a while back. SCA-World is a Corporation, and regional SCA Corporations are members of it. Each pays SCA-World a certain amount per member of the regional Corp. They also pay for subscriptions to TI for their members that want them (if SCA-World delivers) or for copies that they distribute themselves. They also pay SCA-World for any list management services it provides. (Some would want to maintain their own registry, others wouldn't) Alternatively, SCA, inc.(US) might provide list management services for other Corps. The Board of SCA-World is elected by the member Corporations. Each receives a number of votes proportional to their membership. Each regional corp. would have considerable leeway in determining its own formal membership requirements. Those with a low membership/participant ratio would have less voice per participant in choosing the SCA-World board, on the other hand, those with a high member/participant ratio would be paying more per participant to the international organization. That doesn't seem unfair to me. Individual memberships in SCA-World might also be possible. In short, SCA-World is responsible for determining limits of the game and common ground for different kingdoms, providing final review of grievances, and producing services like TI. Regional Corps responsible for tax reporting on operations within region, meeting mundane legal requirements, insurance, and making sure that their subscribing members get TI and appropriate Kingdom newsletters. Could encompass a nation, province, or portion of a nation congruent with a kingdom. Comments? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 15:53:24 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 11 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:27:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > The Board of SCA-World is elected by the member Corporations. Each receives >a number of votes proportional to their membership. Problem: Note that the Canadian SCA is already divided into a number of locally based corporations, at least in W. Canada. Geography would make a single corp. for Canada prohibitively expensive. If one corp. represents Calgary and environs, and another corp. represents the United States of America, how does this proportional business work out? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 15:54:21 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: 158 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:28:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding and Accountability (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604042005.PAA05505@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Apr 4, 96 03:05:47 pm I'd note that Galleron's proposal is remarkably like the format of the AAA: an international organization with branches in Canada, Mexico and the US. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 16:14:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:56:03 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding and Accountability (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604042005.PAA05505@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Thu, 4 Apr 1996 15:05:47 -0500) Galleron proposes a model for how SCA-World might work, and asks for comments. Overall, I like it. In particular, I have to say that I like the notion of control of SCA-World being proportional to the size of the member Corporations. While this does have a disadvantage or two (the usual issues of small vs. large member states), it means that the US, in particular, could organize however it winds up making sense. It could continue to be under a single all-encompassing Corporation, or smaller ones could break off for regions. That's a nice flexibility; it means we don't have to solve every problem now. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "... panic can be a great breeder of massive inspirations." -- Lady GraziaGeralda Louisa de Navarra From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 17:00:48 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <3161EB7A@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <3161EB7A@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> 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: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:30:41 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: College of Arms To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3161EB7A@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> In regards to a college of arms on an SCA corporate level I need to again touch on a comment I posted a while ago.. Some see the college of arms as unnessesary. Remember some Kingdoms do not have a well developed heraldric support system and they rely on the corporate level to provide that expertise. Why don't we ask the Laurel and Pelican Soverigns at Arms D-aud and Talon. Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 17:20:27 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <199604042005.PAA05505@abel.math.harvard.edu> with last message <199604042005.PAA05505@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: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:52:55 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding and Accountability (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604042005.PAA05505@abel.math.harvard.edu> We need to be careful not to design a structure in which the BoD is now the oversight entity over SCA-World and then tiny bods overseeing SCA-regional. Modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 17:27:48 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:13:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter 1996 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Nigel Haslock" at Apr 4, 96 09:57:44 am EDWARD Wrote: > > > > This report is not in the Milpitas Office "BY" April 1, 1996. > > I admitted that. > > I offer to submit my resignation for failure to fulfil the duties of the > office. > > Fiacha > Enough grandstanding.... EDWARD -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 17:32:28 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 14:06:49 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding and Accountability (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604042056.AA18005@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Mark Waks wrote: > Overall, I like it. In particular, I have to say that I like the > notion of control of SCA-World being proportional to the size of the > member Corporations. I was assuming that control of 'The Rules' would derive from the 'Game' side of things, i.e. via Kingdom hierarchies, much as happens at present rather than via some corporate hierarchy which I via as being irrelevant to how the game is played. > -- Justin I was also thinking that member corporations would include reciprocal membership rights so that member counts in Corpora could be left alone. On another point, historically, much has been made of seneschals mundane authority deriving from the need to sign binding contracts to rent sites. I begin to suspect that this is more of a pious hope to limit their personal liability than anything else. Finally, we need to cover the case of a group starting up in an area without a corporate unbrella. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 18:08:00 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 13 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:38:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I don't see a need for the Game governing body to be a board of a legal corporation. I have no brilliant thoughts on how to select and control such a body, but running it as a super-corporation, whose members are dozens of other corporations, was not really what I had in mind. The corporate model here seems sterile to me. There are plenty of people who have a hard time relating to SCA Inc. now. How on earth could they relate to SCA-World, of which SCA Inc. (USA or local) is only a member? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 20:10:46 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 16:45:21 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: back to Fiacha on "A Model" (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:50:51 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: back to Fiacha on "A Model" Please forward to the GC In a message dated 96-04-04 17:14:13 EST, you write: >I was assuming that control of 'The Rules' would derive from the 'Game' >side of things, i.e. via Kingdom hierarchies, much as happens at present >rather than via some corporate hierarchy which I via as being irrelevant >to how the game is played. Oh? Who writes Corpora right now, Board or Kings? I invite you to suggest a model in which Kingdom hierarchies, in something remotely like their present form, control SCA-World. Don't forget to include a funding mechanism. And remember that SCA-World is being suggested as the ultimate appeal mechanism for these same kingdom hierarchies. "I was also thinking that member corporations would include reciprocal membership rights so that member counts in Corpora could be left alone." Is reciprocal the word you want? I assume you are suggesting that a game branch could fulfill its membership count requirements from the members of any of the regional corps. within the right geography. If so, I agree "Finally, we need to cover the case of a group starting up in an area without a corporate unbrella." Good point. Individual memberships in SCA-World until they need local corporation? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 22:15:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 22:00:02 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha I debated sending this by private email, but since you posted your offer of resignation in public, I'll respond in public. Fiacha, this is not intended as more nagging about the report; believe me, I understand your position. However, having recently completed graduate school, I admit I learned quite a few VERY hard lessons about deadlines and letting other people use my time up. I'm just hoping to pass these along far less painfully. For starters: No I don't think you should resign; unless your posting to that effect is going to be the sumtotal of your response to the issue. The effective response is not to either shift blame (which you haven't done) or to threaten to quit, but rather to show how you intend to prevent it >from happening again. May I humbly suggest (again) a tighter discussion and voting schedule ? The two month timetable I posted yesterday differs from the three month timeline you suggested in that it doesn't require four+ weeks to vote on the issues, and allows far more time to prepare a report for the next meeting. The focusing of discussion at four weeks would also help to start a proposal well before the deadlines. Whatever you do, whatever timeline you choose, the KEY is setting and _keeping_ deadlines: as I see it, one of the main rasons the report was late was that the voting deadlines were extended due to a disgustingly low response rate; nonetheless, as a result YOU are the one catching scolding for missing your deadline, and not, may I add, those councellors who couldn't be bothered to vote in a reasonable amount of time. Granted, a minimal response would have looked bad, but not as bad as having your responsibilities compromised. The GC is VERY poor at keeping deadlines, at least partially because there seems to be no consequence for blowing them. The only one who can get individually scolded under this system is, unfortunately, you. The only one who can protect your deadlines is also you. Seriously hoping to help Corwyn FYI this is the timeline again: So, then. may I propose a timeline as follows for discussion of Fiachas topic, and thereafter: Discussion of topics: first 4 weeks in april Presentation of proposals: last week in april (hard deadline for a proposal to be presented for further discussion and amendment: May 1) Modification of presented proposals, final discussion, caucusing, vote trading etc, first three weeks of may Vote called May 23; no further amendments to proposals: final versions reposted this day. Hard deadline for votes to be received: May 30 I would also suggest that from May 21-28 members should submit proposals for the next cycle's topic. Final decision on topic to be announced June 1. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 4 23:34:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 23:19:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Benchmarks To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L (Old message...) Finnvar feels that "How a sovereign is chosen" would split the society if changed. I'm not sure that's true - as long as the method chosen doesn't stray tooo far from the chosen path. I, personally, would like to see more of the 6-Fold Tourneys that were done in the Mists way long ago..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 10:25:34 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <960404220000_264407773@mail02.mail.aol.com> with last message <960404220000_264407773@mail02.mail.aol.com> 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: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 09:56:45 CST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960404220000_264407773@mail02.mail.aol.com> I concur with Corwyn's posting on timing. It was very similar to my message when I first steped into the GC. Let's reign the leash in tight people. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 10:56:58 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:35:53 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Thorvald... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 17:42:21 -0700 (MST) >From: James Prescott >Subject: Re: Galleron: A Model for SCA-World Funding >In-Reply-To: <31645D67@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > > The Board of SCA-World is elected by the member Corporations. Each receives > >a number of votes proportional to their membership. > > Problem: Note that the Canadian SCA is already divided into a number of > locally based corporations, at least in W. Canada. Geography would make a > single corp. for Canada prohibitively expensive. If one corp. represents > Calgary and environs, and another corp. represents the United States of > America, how does this proportional business work out? As a former vice-president of the corp. representing "Calgary and environs", I think we could readily work out some kind of external cooperative arrangement among all Canadian corps to have a common delegate or delegates to any international coordinating body. If one delegation doesn't work, two (East/West) almost certainly would. All my best, Thorvald Grimsson/James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) (PGP user) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 15:48:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:26:51 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960404220000_264407773@mail02.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Corwyn da Costa wrote: > May I humbly suggest (again) a tighter discussion and voting schedule ? The > two month timetable I posted yesterday differs from the three month timeline > you suggested in that it doesn't require four+ weeks to vote on the issues, > and allows far more time to prepare a report for the next meeting. The > focusing of discussion at four weeks would also help to start a proposal well > before the deadlines. The purpose of a four week voting period is to allow proposers the opportunity to resive their proposals and voters to revise their votes. I don't want to change this. I do suspect that two months is too long of a discussion period however and will cheerfully call for proposals and votes faster. There is provision to demand an extension to the discussion period. I encourage everyone to remember it if things seem to be moving too fast. It is also clear that we are not going to have time to argue details of proposals into something the majority can agree on. My best hope now is that we can suggest to the board outlines of proposals and not ready to implement tomorrow proposals. I would be exstatic to be proven wrong on this point. > Seriously hoping to help Much appreciated > Corwyn Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 16:19:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:53:31 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: back to Fiacha on "A Model" (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Galleron wrote: > Oh? Who writes Corpora right now, Board or Kings? It seems to me that the Board is carefully not rewriting Corpora at this time and that they have asked either us, a Grand Council representing all physical locations of the Society and all manners of participation in the Society, or the IAC, a council of kingdom representatives, to review and revise Corpora. The Board owns and controls Corpora but is trying to ensure that changes do not gore anyones oxen. > I invite you to suggest a model in which Kingdom hierarchies, in something > remotely like their present form, control SCA-World. Don't forget to include > a funding mechanism. And remember that SCA-World is being suggested as the > ultimate appeal mechanism for these same kingdom hierarchies. SCA-World appoints the a rechartered Grand Council to recommend changes to Corpora and gives veto powers over the recommendations to the IAC. Both councils remain unfunded, operating at the expense of their members. The rechartering of the GC includes term limits and a mechanism for replacing retiring members without unbalancing the level of representation. > "I was also thinking that member corporations would include reciprocal > membership rights so that member counts in Corpora could be left alone." > > Is reciprocal the word you want? I assume you are suggesting that a game > branch could fulfill its membership count requirements from the members of > any of the regional corps. > within the right geography. If so, I agree Membership in any member corporation counts equally for any purpose where Corpora has membership counts. I was thinking specifically of Canada and population counts for branches and branch elevations. Canada because shires have incorporated separately but need to count their membership towards principality and kingdom status, even if the principality or kingdom includes parts of both Canada and the US. > "Finally, we need to cover the case of a group starting up in an area > without a corporate unbrella." > > Good point. Individual memberships in SCA-World until they need local > corporation? No! Memberships are in the mundane corporations, not SCA-World. A statrup group may do better as an unincorporated association. I had no specific plan in mind when I wrote that and was fishing for options. In the US, branch creation is a burden on the seneschallate, working for the kingdom more than the corporation. I might propose shifting branch creation to the chatelaines office, within the kingdom and forcing incipient status until a mundane umberella if adopted or created. To make this proposal fly, we may need to look for ways to split the seneschalls duties into mundane/corporate and game/kingdom. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 16:54:16 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 43 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:20:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: SCA-World To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr here. I think it would be madness to make SCA-World a replica of what we have today. I believe that a useful SCA-World would have two functions. 1. Defining and enforcing (in so far as possible!) a basic set of SCA rules. 2. Protecting the name and reputation of the SCA. Both of these come down to a certification of groups, a mechanism for appeals about interpretation of the rules made by lesser bodies in certain clearly defined cases, and perhaps a certain amount of legislative power (big gulp). I don't think SCA-World should take over publications from SCA, Inc. I think instead that the whole membership and publications policy needs re-thinking. Membership (however defined) must be substantially uncoupled >from subscriptions. SCA, Inc., (USA) could continue to run TI, and anybody anywhere could buy it. Kingdom newsletters could be run in the USA in much the same way as they are now, or not. But for kingdoms (entirely) outside the USA, other arrangements should be made. (Those pesky overlapping kingdoms are in trouble again, but what's new about that?). Insurance could be arranged more flexibly than it is now, if there is an advantage to doing so. (One big policy for North America might end up being the best deal!) If SCA-World is basically a certification body, an appeal court, and rarely a legislative body, then I don't see it having a big budget. This doesn't make funding questions go away, but it should simplify things. If you insisted that SCA-World take over publication functions currently run by the SCA, Inc., you would be creating a monster. I think that anything more complicated than what I have just suggested has no chance whatever of being implemented, and if it were implemented, we would soon be sorry. The tricky questions boil down to two: 1. What would be contained in the rules (Landmarks) enforced by SCA, Inc.? 2. Who would be on the Board/Court of Appeal/whatever that did the work? I don't have any answers! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 17:00:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:22:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Schedule: fwd frm Galleron To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Both Fiacha and galleron have made essentially the same point, that the voting IS part of the discussion, and an important point; this makes sense to me, too upon looking back. The problem with timing is not the voting per se, but rather continuing voting past the decision deadlines. Fair enough. Galleron included a revised timetable which seems to be an excellent way to accomodate this proccess _without_ extending the cycle. I'm in favor of the change. Lets go. Corwyn --------------------- Forwarded message: Subj: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter Date: 96-04-05 11:03:46 EST From: WMclean290 To: CORWYN One comment on your proposed schedule. In the past, the voting has been an essential guide to the amendment process. Before the voting started, all available evidence suggested that a limited suffrage proposal was going to be the least unacceptable option. It wasn't until the voting was underway that it became clear that universal suffrage was preferred. So I'd like to see your schedule modified as follows: Voting begins May !st, but votes can be changed until May 30th. Modification of presented proposals, final discussion, caucusing, vote trading etc, first three weeks of may Vote called May 23; no further amendments to proposals: final versions reposted this day. Hard deadline for votes to be received: May 30 Post if you like. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 18:05:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:49:43 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: SCA-World To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3165B8CF@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:20:00 PST) Finnvarr suggests: >I believe that a useful SCA-World would have two functions. > >1. Defining and enforcing (in so far as possible!) a basic set of SCA rules. Enforcement would probably be by recognition. That is, in this model, SCA-World's legitimacy would largely derive from the sub-groups' (Kingdoms?) confidence in it as the arbiter of the game. If it is doing its job well, and it says that a Kingdom/Region/Whatever isn't really playing our game, then the other Kingdoms might withhold recognition on that basis. I suspect no one would really want that, so it does provide a measure of enforcement power, without being overwhelming. (Although slightly more centralized, this is comparable to the way Masonry deals with the problem -- no group really wants to be considered a pariah, so everyone stays within the Landmarks.) >I don't think SCA-World should take over publications from SCA, Inc. Interesting set of observations. I suspect we'll encounter some religious argument here -- some folks really do see TI as being fundamentally bound up with the identity of the SCA. I rather agree with you here, though, and the argument for your position is strong: >If SCA-World is basically a certification body, an appeal court, and rarely a >legislative body, then I don't see it having a big budget. And if we can keep its budget lightweight, the chance of making it *work* is much higher. Veeery interesting... >1. What would be contained in the rules (Landmarks) enforced by SCA, Inc.? We're not going to answer this one completely here; if we got so far as agreeing that some sort of Landmarks were necessary, I'd consider that real progress. Past discussions have made it *vividly* clear that a real set of Landmarks would need considerable popular legitimacy, and that's only going to come from the most grassroots discussion we can get. I would *deliberately* let this process stretch out over the better part of a year, and broaden it as much as possible. To get the structure, we might need a *concept* of Landmarks, but we probably don't need the exact ones while we build. (Bearing in mind the purpose that Landmarks would serve here: they are simply so that SCA-World could evaluate, with some measure of objectivity, whether a group was still "compatible" with the rest of the Society. They wouldn't be comprehensive rules, just a very light outline. They also aren't strictly necessary, but may be a good idea; otherwise, the game can get defined rather arbitrarily, as it has often been heretofore. It's also worth noting a curiosity from Masonry -- despite the concept, the written Landmarks are *not* entirely consistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, yet things basically work anyway. This suggests that we may have some latitude for flexibility. For example, the mere existence of an ongoing discussion in the Society about its identity *could* serve as an adequate guide...) Just to be contrary for a moment: there is, of course, an even lighter-weight solution, that also doesn't strictly require Landmarks -- mutual recognition of Kingdoms. Instead of having any sort of central body making the decisions, the Kingdoms themselves decide whether other Kingdoms are "compatible", by treaty. This is the fully decentralized model; it's a shade more work, but enormously flexible. Worth bearing in mind; this is approximately how Masonry works, with lots of cross-recognition and mutual representatives (ambassadors)... >2. Who would be on the Board/Court of Appeal/whatever that did the work? Well, I think that there are at least two bodies here, effectively a legislature and a judiciary. Hopefully they'd both be small and lightweight, but I think the current Board mess well illustrates the hazards of mixing jobs together too much... As for the actual membership -- hmm, lessee. It needs to be *fairly* representative, at least as much so as the current Board, maybe more. Alysoun's question of what is the important granularity comes into play here; I suspect that the relevant grain is the Kingdom. Probably *some* kind of mechanic by which the bodies were selected by the Kingdoms, although I can think of at least three or four possible models that fit in there. For the legislative body, simple representation is distinctly possible; I have little problem with it being moderately large. For the Court, it would probably have to be a bit more manageable, so a more sophisticated mechanism might be needed. Strawman suggestion: the "legislature" has one representative from each Kingdom, selected however the Kingdom sees fit. (Maybe.) This body is not intended to meet face-to-face at all often, but should correspond; members are required to have at least basic email capability. The "Court" is made up of five members of the Society, not members of the "legislature", chosen by the "legislature" with a specific eye towards being reasonably diverse, and being good (read: impartial) judges. They would probably need to meet a little more often, but would hopefully be able to also conduct much business by email. Discussion? It has some notable holes -- for example, it gives smaller Kingdoms somewhat disproportionate influence -- but seems like it would probably work. I'm less and less worried about demanding email access for business; while it's far from ubiquitous, we are quickly approaching the point where anyone who *wants* email can get it. But none of this represents more than about five minutes' thinking, so I'm mostly looking to provide some alternatives to discuss and examine... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I don't why you folks don't just trust in the Guardians of OA's collective judgement. After all, could the people who brought us the Anti-monitor, the psions, and the Manhunters make a mistake?" -- JDN From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 18:13:32 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 17:07:15 EST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: back to Fiacha on "A Model" (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:53:31 -0800) Fiacha writes: >SCA-World appoints the a rechartered Grand Council to recommend changes to >Corpora and gives veto powers over the recommendations to the IAC. Both >councils remain unfunded, operating at the expense of their members. The >rechartering of the GC includes term limits and a mechanism for replacing >retiring members without unbalancing the level of representation. Possible, provided that the GC charter was completely re-examined. The GC's current structure is poorly suited to a long-term body; I think that we'd need to be quite open to addressing those problems, if it were to become one. It's an option, though -- *some* body should probably be responsible for long-term planning and philosophy. Whether that's called the GC or not is a side-issue. (I have long been assuming that this body would be the Board, but it's unclear whether SCA-World will *have* a Board in the formal sense. We'll see.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Newsgroups, on the other hand, are on-going discussions with no deadlines, no editing, and often no content." -- Evelyn Leeper From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 19:21:56 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:27:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: SCA-World To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr. --------------------------------------- > The Board of SCA-World is elected by the member Corporations. Each receives >a number of votes proportional to their membership. I see now I may have been unclear. I meant that in electing the SCA-World Board, each group member gets votes proportional to its individual membership. Once elected, the Board would be one-person-one vote. Galleron You can forward this... . From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 19:23:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 35 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:26:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: SCA-World To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Finnvarr, you write: "I don't see a need for the Game governing body to be a board of a legal corporation." and: "The corporate model here seems sterile to me" I know that just the mention of the word "Corporation" is going to cause negative reactions for a lot of people. But it is one of the mechanisms that I understand best for giving an entity existance beyond the span of individuals. And if TI, Stock Clerk, etc, aren't going to forever be appendages of SCA(US), it seems that they should be sitting under a corporate wing. Of course, they could be a Corporation and the Game Governing Body could be something else entirely separate. You could have the SCA-World body elected directly, although there would be some complications. One of the advantages of the regionals-as-members model is that there is no need to maintain a worldwide registry. You could say that membership in the rgional gave you the right to vote on the SCA-World governing body. It would involve shipping voting materials to th regional registries for them to mail, or the regionals shipping mailing labels to SCA-World. Plus listings of the current members, so the votes could be verified. I'd love to hear other models for how to give the Game Governing Body permanence, authority, funding, and accountability. But the model I've described seems to work well for a lot of other groups. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 5 21:37:43 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, 5 Apr 1996 21:21:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hey! Finnvar doesn't like the idea of the world body being a board of a corporation. How about _my_ idea, of the game governance being members of already-existing, non corporate boards, like the CoA, the Marshallate, the college of seneschals, and reps from each kingdom, with the govrning members being elected as appropriate from each sub-group? Or have y'all forgotten me already? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 6 01:20:31 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:00:29 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Galleron: more back to Fiacha on "A Model" (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 16:48:40 -0500 From: WMclean290@aol.com To: fiacha@premier1.net Subject: Galleron: more back to Fiacha on "A Model" Please forward this. Fiacha, In a message dated 96-04-05 16:00:57 EST, you write: >SCA-World appoints the a rechartered Grand Council to recommend changes to >Corpora and gives veto powers over the recommendations to the IAC. Possibly. But who appoints SCA-World? Remember, just rewriting Corpora isn't enough. Someone has to interpret it. I'll give you one example. Suppose, after much argument, everyone decides to retain the bit in Corpora about Kings being chosen by tournament. Three days later, Kingdom X decides to let contenders be represented by champions. Kingdom Y decides to do it the medieval way and have the victor chosen by a panel of Ladies (with nine being chosen at random from among the wisest and most prudent, each group putting forward one). Kingdom Z includes non-combat categories. Kingdom A decides to push the envelope and have a chess tournament (Corpora doesn't say it has to be a *combat* tournament....) Kingdom B decides to have their Tournament Acre style. Which of these are consistant with Corpora? None of them violate the letter. Which ones violate the spirit? And someone, somewhere, has to act as a final check on royal abuses. Can these sort of questions be resolved effectively by e-mail committees in a timely fashion? If not, you'll need to budget something for the travel costs required by face-to-face meetings. "To make this proposal fly, we may need to look for ways to split the seneschalls duties into mundane/corporate and game/kingdom." Or split into two separate offices Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 6 01:39:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 22:07:17 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Schedule: fwd frm Galleron To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960405162220_463266126@emout08.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Corwyn da Costa wrote: > Both Fiacha and galleron have made essentially the same point, that the > voting IS part of the discussion, and an important point; this makes sense to > me, too upon looking back. The problem with timing is not the voting per se, > but rather continuing voting past the decision deadlines. Fair enough. > Galleron included a revised timetable which seems to be an excellent way to > accomodate this proccess _without_ extending the cycle. I'm in favor of the > change. Lets go. Yes. > Corwyn > > --------------------- > Forwarded message: > Subj: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter > Date: 96-04-05 11:03:46 EST > From: WMclean290 > To: CORWYN > > One comment on your proposed schedule. > > Voting begins May !st, but votes can be changed until May 30th. > > Modification of presented proposals, final discussion, caucusing, vote > trading etc, first three weeks of may > > Vote called May 23; no further amendments to proposals: final versions > reposted this day. > > Hard deadline for votes to be received: May 30 > Galleron I foresee one major problem. Once again, this will not leave me enough time to do the report, partly because of 3YC. Pull it up a week and I can cope (I hope!) Fiacha From nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca Sat Apr 6 08:17:44 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 09:37:46 -0500 To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Galleron: more back to Fiacha on "A Model" (fwd) Cc: fiacha@PREMIER1.NET Noble Cousin! I was going to put off writing a response to Lord Gallron's most recent missive, but something in it really caught me eye and I was prompted to write this response much more soon. Please, please, please post the thing to the Grand Council mailing list for me. Solveig ---------- Noble Cousins! I wish to comment on a recent posting by Lord Galleron who is the author of the various quotes in this missive. >Possibly. But who appoints SCA-World? The question here is basically whether to make the thing: a) self-appointing (which would put no control over it just like the present SCA-California) b) appointment by general election (which makes it in principle answereable to the general membership), c) appointment by member corporations (which strongly emphasises the mundane side of things) or d) appointment by member medieval groups regardless of corporate structure (which makes SCA-World answereable to the medieval recreation). Personally, I prefer making the directors answereable to the medieval recreation. We are a medieval club and not some ancilliary activity of a mundane corporation. However, I also belive that discussion of how to select the directors of SCA-World or regional Corps is very much premature at the moment. Why not figure out more important stuff about the SCA-World board and overall SCA structure first and maybe some of the alternatives will look more or less appropriate. >Remember, just rewriting Corpora isn't enough. Someone has to interpret it. >I'll give you one example. Suppose, after much argument, everyone decides to >retain the bit in Corpora about Kings being chosen by tournament. ... >Which of these are consistant with Corpora? None of them violate the letter. >Which ones violate the spirit? In approximately AS XII, kings were "elected" through combat in Crown Tournament AND by the kings of the Known World. Basically, this crown tournament business has not been as immutable as some people like to believe. At the same time, Lady Kathryne (then Lady Angharad) is quite correct about the inherently conservative nature of the Society. Even with a wide open clause in Corpora (and in the landmarks proposal it was even wider than what Lord Gallron suggested -- the most reason version of the Landmarks proposal merely required recreating some medieval method of selecting a monarch and another required that it be essentially open) it is unlikely to drift very far from what we have now. Regardless, there are ways to institutionally limit drift. 1) require approval by a superior body such as the IKAC prior to changing how monarch are elected or 2) another involves requiring ascent by a kingdom council or 3) another method simply depends upon some sort of insitutional delay such as a year. As seen from SCA law ca. AS XII, the first approach is already a part of SCA tradition. >And someone, somewhere, has to act as a final check on royal abuses. Here, my favorite approach is to require each of the kingdoms, etc. to institute some sort of consular government. This is quite medieval incidentally. This could be in the form of an althing, a privey council, a council of knights, a council of barons, even a council of royal peers. It doesn't really matter to me as long as it exists and it is relatively slow to change. (Like requiring such a change to take effect in the subsequent reign. Basically, it could change each reign to suit the incoming royals, but they would have to convince the outgoing royals of its worth.) >"To make this proposal fly, we may need to look for ways to split the >seneschalls duties into mundane/corporate and game/kingdom." > >Or split into two separate offices This last thing is what prompted me to write in the first place. NO NO NO! This posting demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the origin of the seneschalate. The existence of the seneschalate IS to split the mundane and medieval side of things. Originally there were only kingdoms and then baronies. The king and baron held authority over the medieval recreation. The seneschal held authority over mundane affairs. The seneschal has always been a MUNDANE office. It has a medieval names because in the early days of the society all offices (including members of the BoD) had medieval names. I personally think that all offices should have medieval names as it helps to remind office holders of what the corporation is supposed to be doing. The corporation is there solely to provide a legal existence for the medieval recreation so that it can function within a modern society. 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 Sat Apr 6 10:38:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:25:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: 1st things first To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L You all are excited and running full tilt into the New World Order. Let's take this a step at a time since both short-term and long-term planning must be considered. The first point we want to address is how to recognize non-US groups without tying them to regulations and paperwork geared for US groups. Two factors here: (1) we have no current means of recognizing SCA groups except through membership in SCAinc and (2) SCA inc tends to treat non-US groups the same as US groups. Starting with (2): The first plank in our proposal should be that SCAinc change its policy toward non-US groups. The new policy would acknowledge that non-US groups do not have to have the same relationship to SCAinc as US groups and that non-US groups may have a range of relationships to SCAinc as appropriate to their individual situations. This is stating the obvious, but sometimes how the obvious is stated makes a difference on where you end up. Note that at this point we are not changing the relationship of US groups to the corporation (that's another issue) and we are stressing that a one-size-fits-all arrangement may be a goal but is not practical in the short term. We are defining the posture of SCAinc to SCA groups beyond the US--that SCAinc wants to foster the development of SCA activities worldwide, but need not accept the full responsibility for them. Much of the regulation and paperwork originates below the level of corpora. Some of it can be easily altered or eliminated by mutual agreement (that's on a case-by-case review so nobody has a rug pulled out from under them). Some regulations /paperwork may be tied to current SCAinc obligations but can be altered in the near future. (Say, for example, that the current policy for site insurance was written to include non-US groups that don't need it--those groups will have to continue filling out the unnecessary forms until SCAinc gets the policy readjusted.) Some of this stuff will require careful planning and legal advice to renegotiate--for instance, revenue reporting for IRS. In some cases SCAinc will move toward divestment, in others there may be something like a subsidiary status. (I have no doubt there are ways to do this, but I don't know what they are and which approach is most applicable for which non-US group. It may be that SCAinc has to "sell" SCA-Canada to the relevant corps; or it may be that it can simply "close" its Canadian operations.) Right now we are looking at the corporate view and not arguing details. We want to agree on the general direction SCAinc should go. Back to (1): Can we develop a way to recognize SCA groups in terms of other relevant units? (Whatever new body we establish, I think developing additional axis is important for keeping unity in the game and for balancing power. See note below.) My best and only suggestion is that kingdoms, specifically Royalty, institute recognition by sending royal greetings to other groups. This is in keeping with medieval traditions and the game--it is not complicated nor especially expensive. Upon taking the throne the monarchs send a greeting message to at least every other kingdom and principality. This would seem a useful beginning for shaping a sense of a world game not channeled through corporations. (Since the point is not going through corporations, how can the Council suggest this to the royalty?) NOTE: History is helpful for the present. In our Middle Ages, SCAinc functions as "Rome" and we fight over pretty much the same issues as kings and popes did through the pre-Reformation period. (Debate this with me off the list if you like.) What's curious is that everytime you all attempt to get rid of "Rome" you create a new one. Does this mean that a "Rome" is necessary or are we not thinking straight? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 6 11:16:07 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 34 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 10:52:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Response to Alysoun To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Good post. Most of the unnecessary paperwork and regulation of non-US groups may or may not originate at a level lower than Corpora, but SCA officers at lower than corporate levels enforce it because they feel that they have been charged to treat all groups alike, even though this defies logic and even legality. In the Middle Kingdom, Canadian groups are required to fill out all the financial reporting forms needed for the IRS, even though the IRS does not want that information. SCA bank accounts in Ontario are set up on a US model, even though the legality of doing this is doubtful. (In An Tir, I hear, the Kingdom Exchequer has wised up and does none of this.) We've had similar problems in the past with Chirurgeon policies. I think that the MK officers, who have a tremendous amount on their plate at any given time, have done this out of inertia, and a feeling that they do not have the authority to make significant changes. I think the Board of the SCA, Inc. needs to set the parameters of relationships between the US corp and non-US groups, otherwise nothing much will be done at those lower levels. As to Rome. I think Rome is indeed necessary. If there is no Rome, no symbol of ultimate sovereignty, then the units that used to make up Rome will all claim ultimate sovereignty, and there will be no law binding upon them, save the law of war. I have in mind a book on the comparative history of city-states, in which the authors argued that without an overarching set of imperial institutions, systems of city-states do not survive. Relevance to the SCA? People do, I think, want to feel that they belong to a big Society as well as a kingdom and a local barony. Without some common institutions and standards, they won't have it. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 6 21:39:10 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 42 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 21:14:00 PST Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: SCA-World To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gwydion by Finnvarr. ___________________________________________________________ I've been following the "SCA-World" thread on the GC list. May I be so bold as to offer an observation? If we remove US Laws and Insurance and all of the mundane crap, what service does SCA Inc. provide? It provides a common rule-base such that the "game" is essentually compatible across Kingdom boundaries. Knights from Kingdom X have the same precedent as Knights in Kingdom Y. The scope of reenactment is the same as well. That's all that's really necessary to the game, yes? So why not take Corpora and give it to a "SCA-World" body that acts as an ISO/ANSI body. It would maintain (but not necessarily govern) the standards and rules that would be required to be compatible across the Known World. Corporations such as SCA-US or SCA-Canada can set up their own internal structures for reporting and insurance as best suits their local government laws and customs. As long as they adhere to the "ISO" standard of what the game of SCA is, they get a seal-of-approval. This tells other approved corporations that they may recognize the ranks and titles of members within that corporation. If they don't quite pass, so what? I'm told some SCA groups have strong ties to Markland and/or the Tuchux for example. Why not? I guess the point is, why not let the individual corps handle their own business in whatever manner is easiest and cheapest from them as long as they play the same "game"? As to how the SCA-World body is actually set up, I don't see them doing anything other than granting stamps-of-approval. How they are selected is a different matter... how are the real ISO/ANSI bodies selected? Thanx for your time... If you didn't find this complete drivel you may pass this on to the GC... Gwydion From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 7 00:07:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Sat, 6 Apr 1996 23:52:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter 1996 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Edward, Is it really necessary for the Chairman of the Board to twice publicly insult the chairman of the GC over the fact that he sent the GC report to each Board member rather than to the Corporate Office? I don't recall your having picked a fight over something so chicken-shit before and, frankly, didn't expect it of you. Did you happen to open a left-over bottle of whatever it was Tony Provine was serving to your predecessors? Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 7 12:00:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: ghita@Mercury.mcs.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Susan Earley Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 10:41:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Susan Earley Subject: Re: Response to Alysoun To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3166CE01@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> On Sat, 6 Apr 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > Good post. > > Most of the unnecessary paperwork and regulation of non-US groups may or may > not originate at a level lower than Corpora, but SCA officers at > lower than corporate levels enforce it because they feel that they have > been charged to treat all groups alike, even though this defies logic > and even legality. In the Middle Kingdom, Canadian groups are required to > fill out all the financial reporting forms needed for the IRS, even though > the IRS does not want that information. SCA bank accounts in Ontario are set > up on a US model, even though the legality of doing this is doubtful. (In An > Tir, I hear, the Kingdom Exchequer has wised up and does none of this.) > We've had similar problems in the past with Chirurgeon policies. > Actually, the groups in Canadian AnTir are (except for 1) associated with Canadian NPOs. In January, we changed our policy to extend an already existing procedure to include them - the college/university group negative report. This report exists to allow those branches using university accounts (and thus, their tax ID) to notify us that their money is already being reported to the IRS by that university and so they don't need to report to us. We added separate incorporations to this, so if a Canadian branch is a part of a Canadian NPO, they just fill out this part of the negative report form (after they notify the Society Exchequer). As far as I know, no other Canadian branches are affiliated with Canadian NPOs and so they report to us as a default. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@mcs.net Brookfield, IL "Not a Duchess, but I play one on TV" Director, SCA, Inc. Purpure, a sword palewise or between two winged cats rampant combatant, that to dexter Argent, that to sinister Or. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 7 18:49:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 18:37:05 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Schedule: fwd frm Galleron To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha writes with regard to a scedule for discusssion: (from Galleron's modification) >> Voting begins May !st, but votes can be changed until May 30th. >> >> Modification of presented proposals, final discussion, caucusing, vote >> trading etc, first three weeks of may > >> Vote called May 23; no further amendments to proposals: final versions >> reposted this day. > >> Hard deadline for votes to be received: May 30 >> Galleron >I foresee one major problem. Once again, this will not leave me enough >time to do the report, partly because of 3YC. >Pull it up a week and I can cope (I hope!) Faster proccess ? Sure, lets give it a try. So, subtract 7 days from each deadline ie focussed discussion, voting starts and proposals posted: april 24 final versions of plans may 17; final votes cast. final deadline for votes may 24. Tight but workable. Lets see how it works... Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 7 21:48:40 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Sun, 7 Apr 1996 20:36:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Grand Council Report for First Quarter 1996 (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604070452.XAA19113@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Apr 6, 96 11:52:21 pm > > Edward, > Is it really necessary for the Chairman of the Board to twice > publicly insult the chairman of the GC over the fact that he sent the > GC report to each Board member rather than to the Corporate Office? > I don't recall your having picked a fight over something so chicken-shit > before and, frankly, didn't expect it of you. Did you happen to open > a left-over bottle of whatever it was Tony Provine was serving to > your predecessors? > > Hossein/Greg > Nope... (1).-I asked if there was a report, yes in public. (2).-Fiacha said there was and emailed it (past the needed date) (3).-I pointed out that it needed to go to the Milpitas office. (4).-Fiacha then started the mea-culpa's, I'm not worthy, I offer to resign shit. (5).-I pointed out that that was enough grandstanding. That kind of attitude gets no-one anywhere. Also, if he had responded with a plain, ooops!!!, I would have responded with, Hey no problem... If you feel that I've berated him,. then your threshold for beratement is awfully low...:-). So how's Mississippi? EDWARD -- E. F. Morrill Icon God of the Theatre World Husband of Elizabeth McMahon, High Fashion Designer aka Landgraf Edward Zifran von Gendy, KSCA, OL, OP, ETC Husband of Mistress Elizabeth Talbot, OL From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 11:37:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 11:17:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Next step To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L If SCA inc has not done so, the next step is to make a study of non-US groups to assess their proximate strength. (This should be done in co-operation with the group and probably ought to include a look at Hawaii, Alaska, and any other area that may need special consideration.) Of particular interest: the number of members and est. number of participants; income and expenditures; existing legal entities and their nature; growth rate and projected growth potential. If such a study has already been made, the Council needs a copy. What we are concerned with at this point is ensuring that everybody is in a viable position. This is a different tack than focusing on the bridge entity first. I want to make sure of the parts that are to be connected. This will also give us a handle on what units are the most relevant when we get to the connecting part. We've got three categories to consider: geo-political, game branch level, and legal entity. I'm using 'geo-political' to recognize that geography may be more pertinent than political divisions as in the case of east and west Canada, and that 'political' does not necessarily align with 'nation' as in the case of Quebec. Obviously the more congruent these categories are, the easier it will be to connect them. If West Canada can function as one geo-political unit, one legal entity, and one or more kingdoms we would have all sorts of options. If we bridged through corps (not a favorite, I realize), the kingdoms would be represented as well as the western canadian society; if we go with kingdoms, there would be a smooth relation to the corporate entity and to the society; if we go with the society (an option not yet mentioned), the kingdoms and corps would also be included. Without this congruence things are difficult. Say, there are groups in Canada which are closer to US kingdoms than to any other Canadian group, that the population is so sparse it is unlikely they will grow into kingdom status, but that they need some legal entity to open bank accounts. How to connect such groups is problematic. The question is: with current growth rates, how many non-US groups are likely to reach this kind of congruence within the next five years? How many in ten years? The idea is to establish a realistic time-frame. (Note that 100% is not attainable, esp. we keep gaining new groups.) Setting up a new system on a kingdom basis if the majority of non-US groups cannot expect to reach kingdom status within 10 years is crazy. Some other relevant unit would make more sense. If the majority can, then a kingdom base is not ruled out and attention can be given to how best treat proto-kingdom groups. Are you all following this or do I need to explain more? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 12:45:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4174 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:26:21 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: SCA-World Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:08:30 -0400 Subject: Galleron: SCA-World Issues Please forward to GC Justin writes: " if we got so far as agreeing that some sort of Landmarks were necessary, I'd consider that real progress." I agree that some sort of landmarks are necessary. Any dissent? Can we agree on that as a start? I see them as defining the outer boundaries of what is the SCA. As I see it, they would NOT be Corpora for SCA-World, although they would contain some of the things that are in Corpora now. "Just to be contrary for a moment: there is, of course, an even lighter-weight solution, that also doesn't strictly require Landmarks -- mutual recognition of Kingdoms." Could work. The greatest weakness of that sort of aproach is that you could get situations where Kindom A is recognized by Kingdoms B, C, and D, but not by Kingdoms F,G,H,I, and J. Could be messy. And unpleasant. Suppose Peer from Kingdom A moves to Kingdom B, then to Kingdom H. Does he lose his Peerage at the Border? Yuk. " The "Court" is made up of five members of the Society, not members of the "legislature", chosen by the "legislature" with a specific eye towards being reasonably diverse, and being good (read: impartial) judges. They would probably need to meet a little more often, but would hopefully be able to also conduct much business by email." Alternatively, you might have a larger appeals committee, with specific cases being heard by smaller panels composed of, say, three members of the committee ... I might argue that SCA-World might have to fulfill three functions: Legislative: When necessary, making changes to what the written landmarks are (like amending the constitution, not done very often) Interpreting the landmarks: Suppose (for sake of argument) the landmarks say that royalty must be chosen by tournament. Can kingdom X allow candidates to be represented by Champions? Do Kings made that way become Counts? Determining questions of fact: Suppose the landmarks say that subjects may only be banished for just and stated cause. Did King Y have such cause to banish subject Y? Suppose they say that no Kingdom shall bring the whole Society into great disrepute. Do the Vampire Monarchs of Kingdom Z qualify? Solveig writes... "The existence of the seneschalate IS to split the mundane and medieval side of things. Originally there were only kingdoms and then baronies. The king and baron held authority over the medieval recreation. The seneschal held authority over mundane affairs. The seneschal has always been a MUNDANE office. " Yes, that's the way it should be. NOT the way it is now. As Corpora is written now, Seneschal is appointed by the King of the "medieval recreation", responsible to him, and can be suspended by him. Seneschal is reponsible for the "smooth operation of the kingdom" and the elevation of branches to baronial status (surely a function that relates only to the game). The seneschal also has duties that relate to the "game" process of banishment. Like it or not, right now our Kingdom Seneschals have fingers deep in the medieval pie. And our Kings have fingers deep in the "mundane" pie. Me: >And someone, somewhere, has to act as a final check on royal abuses. Solveig: "Here, my favorite approach is to require each of the kingdoms, etc. to institute some sort of consular government." This could work, if done right. (It could also be a travesty, if packed with royal cronies. How such government is set up DOES matter. A lot). But what if the King doesn't want to do that? What if the Kingdom doesn't want to do that? (two different things, although some folks forget the distinction from time to time.) What then? Or suppose some reasonable form of kingdom review is set up, and a later set of Royalty guts it by changing kingdom law? Who do I appeal to? Reasonable Kingdom review will reduce the need for higher review, but not eliminate it. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 13:41:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 13:18:29 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: SCA-World Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604081626.MAA21201@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:26:21 -0400) Responding to Galleron's response to me: > "Just to be contrary for a moment: there is, of course, an even > lighter-weight solution, that also doesn't strictly require Landmarks > -- mutual recognition of Kingdoms." > > Could work. The greatest weakness of that sort of aproach is that you could > get situations where Kindom A is recognized by Kingdoms B, C, and D, but not > by Kingdoms F,G,H,I, and J. Could be messy. And unpleasant. In theory, yes. In practice, it's rarely happened in Masonry. The desire to hold together as a global organization *is* very strong, I suspect almost as much so in the SCA as in Masonry. This tends to produce a strong incentive to work problems out. Glitches do appear, but they tend to go away with time... > I might argue that SCA-World might have to fulfill three functions: > > Legislative: When necessary, making changes to what the written landmarks are > (like amending the constitution, not done very often) Hmm. I dunno. "Landmarks", by the Masonic definition, are unchangeable -- they are the *definition* of the club, what makes it different from other clubs. Conceptually, at least, if you change a Landmark, you aren't playing the same game any more. (The one case I know of where a Masonic jurisdiction *did* deliberately change a Landmark -- The Grand Orient of France -- resulted in the one permanent schism I know of.) This is both the strength and weakness of the Landmark approach -- it provides a clearer sense of "identity", but at the cost of a small inflexibility. This is why, if the SCA *did* develop Landmarks, they would need to be created with broad consensus. (And I am *not* entirely certain that this is possible.) I suspect SCA-World would control a "constitution"; ideally, I see this as a stripped-down Corpora. This would be the *rules* of the game, as opposed to the *definition* of the game. Closely related, but not identical. Landmarks, if we had them, would mainly be used for guiding the rest of it, by providing some very broad bounds to work within... Other than that, I like your approach to the definition of SCA-World... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "A translation is like a mistress -- it is either ugly and faithful, or beautiful and unfaithful." -- old Russian proverb From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 14:15:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 10:53:40 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Alysoun: Next step To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960408111705_186866323@emout04.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Carole C. Roos wrote: > If SCA inc has not done so, the next step is to make a study of non-US groups > to assess their proximate strength. The biggest non-US corp is either Lochac or Nordmark. Western Canada took an alternate route and incorporated at the branch level. NSCA is probably the largest and I would hesitate to guess which was the smallest. The position of Lochac may have been exaggerated due to its being a principality that has a full hierarchy focused into its national corporation. Everywhere else, the corporation has been an adjunct to maintaining the game locally and so the various corporations have remained virtually invisible with game control running through the kingdom hierarchy. It is this experience of invisible corporations that leads me to propose that they become the accepted mode of operations. Also, it is my awareness of the problems of the Canadians that leads me to insist on reciprocal membership for as long as membership in a corporation is a significant issue. I would like to know what Alysoun hopes to learn from looking at Hawaii or Alaska since that are not a part of the international picture. > Obviously the more congruent these categories are, the easier it will be to > connect them. If West Canada can function as one geo-political unit, one > legal entity, and one or more kingdoms we would have all sorts of options. If > we bridged through corps (not a favorite, I realize), the kingdoms would be > represented as well as the western canadian society; if we go with kingdoms, > there would be a smooth relation to the corporate entity and to the society; > if we go with the society (an option not yet mentioned), the kingdoms and > corps would also be included. This is not obvious to me at all. > > Without this congruence things are difficult. Say, there are groups in Canada > which are closer to US kingdoms than to any other Canadian group, that the > population is so sparse it is unlikely they will grow into kingdom status, > but that they need some legal entity to open bank accounts. How to connect > such groups is problematic. Again, I disagree. The Milpitas office has assume the task of connecting enquirers with branches. If this service is to continue, the responsible person must track the territory claimed by allied corporations as well as or instead of branches. Enquirers can then be directed to the corporate officer in lieu of a branch officer > The question is: with current growth rates, how many non-US groups are likely > to reach this kind of congruence within the next five years? How many in ten > years? The idea is to establish a realistic time-frame. (Note that 100% is > not attainable, esp. we keep gaining new groups.) Setting up a new system on > a kingdom basis if the majority of non-US groups cannot expect to reach > kingdom status within 10 years is crazy. Some other relevant unit would make > more sense. If the majority can, then a kingdom base is not ruled out and > attention can be given to how best treat proto-kingdom groups. > > Are you all following this or do I need to explain more? > Given that we must deal with shire sized corporations that current exist, I do not see the point of this. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 15:31:48 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:15:00 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: SCA-World Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 14:02:09 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Galleron: SCA-World Issues (fwd) Noble Cousins! Lord Gallron writes about the mundane aspect of the Seneschalate: > Yes, that's the way it should be. NOT the way it is now. As Corpora is > written now, Seneschal is appointed by the King of the "medieval recreation", > responsible to him, and can be suspended by him. Seneschal is reponsible for > the "smooth operation of the kingdom" and the elevation of branches to > baronial status (surely a function that relates only to the game). The > seneschal also has duties that relate to the "game" process of banishment. > Like it or not, right now our Kingdom Seneschals have fingers deep in the > medieval pie. And our Kings have fingers deep in the "mundane" pie. I do not see the process of appointment as making the Seneschalate into a medieval or "game" office. Rather, I see it as being a matter of the "game" exercising control and oversight over the mundane aspect of things. Recently, the BoD appears to have gone too far the other direction and actually gave considerable explicit control over the "game" to Tony Provone. I think that the mundane side of things should be largely separate from the game, but should serve the game and be ultimately answerable to it. > This could work, if done right. (It could also be a travesty, if packed with > royal cronies. How such government is set up DOES matter. A lot). This can and should be dealt with by mechanisms to prevent stacking the court. However, the exact method for doing so should bary from kingdom to kingdom. > But what if the King doesn't want to do that? What if the Kingdom doesn't > want to do that? (two different things, although some folks forget the > distinction from time to time.) What then? Not doing it at all does not have a great track record in the middle ages. Remember King John of England. Since we can not resort to actual warfare to impose consular government on our sovereigns, I do think that there should be some institutional requirement. > Or suppose some reasonable form of kingdom review is set up, and a later set > of Royalty guts it by changing kingdom law? Who do I appeal to? First of all, consular government places a bit of a break on the lawgiving authority of the king. Yes, the king's word can remain law, but only up to a point. Further, I do think that some sort of imperial court is a good idea. I would like to encourage both local counsular government (however constituted) and an imperial court of some kind. Basically, any kingdom which really tried to put in a total autocracy would not survive for long in the current SCA, because eventually disputes would make their way to the BoD which would eventually be forced to intervene. Complete autocracies place an unfair burden on the BoD or any imperial court. All kingdoms should be required to have some internal conscent, review and appeal mechanism. Personally, I would like to see thiese follow some medieval model appropriate for the customs and traditions of each individual kingdom. 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 Apr 8 16:19:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3261 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 16:01:13 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Galleron, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: WMclean290@aol.com Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 15:28:34 -0400 Subject: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various Please forward to GC In a message dated 96-04-08 11:23:20 EDT, Alysoun writes: >Obviously the more congruent these categories are, the easier it will be to >connect them. Drachenwald is currently one Kingdom and LOTS of Geopolitical/legal entities. Even if it grows sixfold in the next few years and splits into as many kingdoms, you'll still be talking about several geopolitical and legal entities per kingdom. Canada has found it most convenient to organize as several local corporations. I don't expect that to change. Again, you will be talking about several legal entities per Kingdom, even if East, Midrealm, and An Tir all spin off their Canadian branches. So for the forseeable future you will have a significant number of legal entities that do not have a kingdom all to themselves. Or, to put it another way, several kingdoms containing more than one legal entity. As Corpora is now written, the king can do a lot of things that impact the fiduciary duties of the people running the legal entity. He appoints the Kingdom treasurer, who appoints local treasurers. The monarch can banish any member, and only the monarch may do so. He makes kingdom law, which can have all sorts of mundane implications, from public safety to tax-exempt status. As I've said, one way to deal with this issue in multi-jurisdiction kingdoms is to have entities in each jurisdiction for operations, which jointly control a kingdom-wide mundane entity that handles only kingdom-wide issues. Solveig writes: "I do not see the process of appointment as making the Seneschalate into a medieval or "game" office." Appointment by the Monarch certainly encourages the confusion. As does the Seneschal's responsibility for the "smooth running of the kingdom" Really, when the King wants to banish someone, who does he turn to to see that his will is enforced? Is determining if a group gets a Baron anything but a "game" function? She says: "Rather, I see it as being a matter of the "game" exercising control and oversight over the mundane aspect of things" But the actual effect is to give control of the mundane side of the kingdom, not to "the game", but to one particular player. On Landmarks, Justin writes: "Hmm. I dunno. "Landmarks", by the Masonic definition, are unchangeable -- they are the *definition* of the club, what makes it different from other clubs." OK. Let's try this: Landmarks. What the Society is and will always be. Anything we can all agree on is going to be very, very broad in its definitions. Anything we can stand by forever will need to leave a lot out. Society Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. Corpora. A document governing the relations between a specific mundane entity and the Society groups within its jurisdiction. Controlled by the mundane entity. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 16:24:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 12:53:47 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Universality To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604031721.LAA07789@CP.Duluth.MN.US> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > all encompassing. What they do cover should be difficult to change. Some of > my suggestions include rules for 1. Membership standards and cross acceptance This is new and we need to sort it out. > 2. Titles Covered in Corpora and virtually impossible to change anyway. > 3. Minimum weapon and armor standards Society Marshal's domain. Adequately handled today. No need to change. > 4. College of Heralds standards Laurel King of Arm's domain. No need to change. > 5. Time period covered Argued and arguable. Legislation will not help. Ignore? > 6. Minimum rules for financial accounability I oppose this. I would rather see all corporations responsible for their own financial rules. > > Some additional guidelines without precise rules should remain in place as > well: > 1. Chivalrous and Courtly behavior > 2. Attempt at pre 17th Century garb at events. I see this as an attempt to legislate landmarks and thus a bad idea. > There are some other "Rules" that may or may not belong: > 1. How a Sovereign is chosen > 2. How Kingdom laws may be promulgated > 3. Rules for exiles These too. > Magnus I want to get back to establishing a place for foreign corporations without trying to reconstruct the whole of the SCA. I realize that a lot of us have dreams of how to reconstruct the SCA but I do not believe that we can do it in one fell swoop. As long as we leave the game unchanged, we have a good chance of our recommendations being accepted. A valid issue is membership and a 'per member' tax sent to support comon central services. Canadian groups and European groups have long had problems paying the standard membership fees to Milpitas. By handling this via local corporations, we will certainly increase our count of legitimate members (unless the tax is set too high). Another thing to remember is that this will not be that answer to all problems. Kingdoms that span borders have problems moving assets from country to country and insuring them regardless of location, to mention just one. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 16:45:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 16:29:56 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604082001.QAA04151@abel.math.harvard.edu> (message from Mark Schuldenfrei on Mon, 8 Apr 1996 16:01:13 -0400) Galleron suggests: > Landmarks. What the Society is and will always be. Anything we can all agree > on is going to be very, very broad in its definitions. Anything we can stand > by forever will need to leave a lot out. > > Society Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole > Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and > conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. > > Corpora. A document governing the relations between a specific mundane entity > and the Society groups within its jurisdiction. Controlled by the mundane > entity. Interesting. I have always thought of Corpora as the "Constitution", and the By-Laws as the mundane-interface section of the rules. (That's always been imprecise, but that's always been my feeling on the rough breakdown.) So I'm a shade surprised by your use of terminology here. Aside from that terminological quibble, though -- yes, this is roughly what I've had in mind as the likely shape of overall legislation. (With Landmarks considered useful, but optional if they prove infeasible.) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: A Politically Correct Bestiary "A werewolf is a `person of alternative, lunar personality.' A ghost is a `bodily challenged person.'" -- from alt.vampyres From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 8 21:32:52 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 51 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 18:07:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I do not see the need to have multiple corporations for other than certain legal responsibilities (such as renting sites, controlling bank accounts, etc.). To play the "game", one body (currently SCA, Inc. by default) is all that is needed. The groups within the SCA shires up to Kingdoms do not have to have corporations associated with them. I think that the discussion of such instances as Nordmark are a distraction. Any corporation can decide how to rule itself (assuming that it isn't controlled by another corporation). What they do with their money and how they choose their directors is their business, governed by their local jurisdiction. SCA issues (such as choosing the method to create royalty, what Peerages exist, etc.) should be decided by the SCA as a whole. The only change in policy that I see would be needed (and it appears to already be done on the financial side) is to recognize that other corporations exist and that the SCA, Inc. may not have control over their bank accounts. The risk would be in what happens to the money that the SCA doesn't really control but may have been through SCA events. My viewpoint would say that the Swedish group could decide however they want SKA, Inc. to be run (votes, arm-wrestling, whatever). However, the SCA recognizes Nordmark which is a sub-unit of Drachenwald and how officers are chosen is subject to current Kingdom law and can be appealed to the board. Another example would be Montreal, Quebec (where I'm from, originally). The early founders saw a need to set a corporation because site owners were loath to sign rental agreements with an American corporation which would have made it difficult to rent sites and to allow alcohol into events. The SCA ended up being the driving force, ASCAC, Inc. existed only to make life easier. Whether Canada needs more than one corporation is another matter that could be debated. As I've stated before, other than for certain conveniences, there may not be a need for multiple corporations because many countries recognize each other's corporations. My above approach is a little simplistic and it doesn't address the question of membership and representation within the SCA (for example, _if_ SCA, Inc. could not have foreigners as directors or voting members, would the non-US participants be slighted?). For the above reason, I do not think that an association of corporations is the best model for the SCA (too many claims of what is legal and customary for every corporation) would arise. I like the current model of one group (now SCA, Inc., but I'm not stuck on that). regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 02:08:33 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:53:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L After a week of being able to read mail but not answer it (the phone line I was using in D.C. seemed to enjoy cutting off email sessions in mid- letter), I'm back.... One thing I have to say: Folks? Let's keep it simple? No plan of attack has ever survived contact with the enemy; we should not, _can not_, plan out every detail. Presuming we do suggest that things be divided into SCA (mundane) and SCA (game), a lot of decisions can only be made **after the split has been made**, and not before. So let's just work on the basic structure, and the details will sweat themselves later. I'm sorry if there are few names attached, but the flow was strong, several people came back to several ideas repeatedly, and, well, I'm lazy.... So, to put things into one grand mess: 1) Am I correct in assuming that there's sort of a broad consensus that splitting the SCA in twain is more or less not a bad idea? (At least the comments I've seen so far have indicated so. Anyone really, really disagree?) 2) If yes, then am I also correct in assuming that one part of the new set- up will consist of the SCA (US), Inc., and various foreign equivalents; and that the other part will consist of the SCA (Game), which is a worldwide entity? There seems to be a desire for an SCA (Game), to co-ordinate the game/dream, to keep the universality of it, to be sure people can travel >from kingdom to kingdom and from country to country without being totally lost. Among the SCA (Game)'s responsibilities should probably be a Court of Appeals, the publication of TI and the Complete Anachronist series, the deciding of when principalities may go kingdom. The SCA(Game) might (not would, might) also have under its purview areas that it has oversight responsibility for, but not direct control over, such as armor standards. Such standards would be set by various, well, standard-making groups, much as I hear the American National Standards Institute operates. Said standards would operate from the bottom up, by consensus, rather than by imposition from the top down. The U.S. corporation would not have total control over the SCA (Game); nor would any other single mundane corporation. There has been mention of a Court of Appeals. This was not in my original trial balloon. One basic question needs asking: is this court a mundane-side affair, or a game-side affair, or both? Who staffs it and what issues it decides grow out of that question. (I'd off-handedly suggest that the Court of Appeals be set up with a certain number of members, and let the new SCA (Game) officials decide who those members are. _We_ need not worry about everything, since some decisions can be made only after things start flowing.) Publications: the kingdom newsletters would be put out by the kingdoms. In the U.S., several newsletters could use the SCA (US)'s non-profit mailing label; in non-U.S. kingdoms, they'd use whatever was easier, and/or cheaper. There would be no need for kingdom chroniclers to report to the world-wide chronicler; in fact, there would be no world-wide chronicler. One editor for TI, another for CA (or one editor for both), and that's it. It would be a good idea for the various kingdom newsletter editors in the U.S. to co-ordinate information on certain legal issues such as libel and copyright, but it probably is not necessary for there to be an official hierarchical level above kingdom. Memberships: People become paid-up members of whatever country's corporations they're in, if they wish to receive publications and whatever other services that country's corporation(s) offers. Whether or not a person can play along without paying for the privilege should be left up to the SCA (Game), as one of the Rules of the Game. (e.g. "Pay- for-play shall be left up to the Corporation within each Country." or "Pay-for-play shall be required in each corporation and/or kingdom signing onto the SCA(Game)'s Charter.") [Note: I like this, I do. Each country's corporations can decide for itself what services it offers - insurance, special-affinity credit cards, discount cruises to historical sites, discount publications, scholarships for members' children.....All the stuff I occasionally wish were already being offered.] How does the SCA (Game) fund itself? Under my original trial balloon, I'd assumed that it wouldn't, really, need all that much funding. The heads of the various groups would have their own funding mechanisms (heraldic submission fees, fighter authorization card paperwork fees for the marshalls, seneschalate small-percentage-of-site- fee tithes, arts and sciences bake sales and garb auctions), and the Grand Grouping that occurs every two or three years, well, I had no thoughts on how to fund this. Galleron suggests, if I read his April 4th message right, that the SCA (Game) is a corporation formed from the various SCA (country) corporations, and that they pay for it. My trial balloon had the SCA (Game) "board of directors" formed from the various colleges (marshals, heralds, seneschals) and the various kingdoms. Galleron's is a super-corporation formed from lower corporations, and therefore his SCA (Game) comes from SCA, Inc.'s - a large mundane thing from smaller mundane things. My version had smaller mundane things, and one large game thing formed from smaller game-oriented things. Either one would work, but I would prefer, naturally, that the organization with responsibility for maintaining the game/dream be organized with the game in mind, not with corporations in mind. Finnvar asked "What would be contained in the rules (Landmarks) enforced by SCA, Inc." I answer: that's a question the SCA (Game) should decide, and so is the question as to whether there even is a set of official landmarks. Justin suggested that the "legislature" consist of one person from each kingdom. I suggested that there be one person from each kingdom in addition to the head of each of the colleges. No-one has commented on my idea, and I'd really like to hear some.... Alban, playing catch-up From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 03:35:09 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 02:10:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 05:38 PM 4/4/96 PST, Finvarr wrote: >I don't see a need for the Game governing body to be a board of a legal >corporation. > Not Necessarily a board, but probably responsible to a board. Some legal entity has to be in charge. The SCA, Inc would be fine. They would be required to delegate certain duties and responsibilities to some (Game) group. This group could be inter kingdom, international or some other combination. The key to keeping the Sterile Corporate Presence(TM) from screwing up the game would be to make it very difficult to remove oe change the authority it has handed down. We already have a "Super Corporation" and don't require a new one. Other corporate structures could be created IF needed, but they would only be licensed as the SCA if they followed the required rules of say, financial responsibility and adherance to the (Game) structures. How much autonomy to give these other Corp structures and other Kingdoms and the Game Authority is somethig that we need to pound out fairly finely. I say this because I believe, that once established it be rather difficult to change. If not, then any random grouping of BoD members could muck it up as easily as in the past. Once established, certain mechanisms would need to be set in if not stone at least hard plastic. The remaining pieces which require flexiblity could be formed od some much more pliable stuff. Which is which? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 08:46:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:28:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: invisible corps? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hawaii, Alaska, and other places (is there SCA-Puerto Rico?) are not international in the sense of non-USA but they would share some of the same communication and geographical problems and may need some special consideration. I'm not saying they do, just that they might. On the rest of Fiacha's comments: I am trying to approach this in a logical step-by-step manner looking at the situation from all possible view points (individual, kingdom, corp. etc.) The congruent situation is easiest to work with because individuals in that situation will be represented on all dimensions. Look, if I am a player in Narnia I am part of a vague but real thing "The Narnian SCA" which is that part of the broader society that lives in that place, speaks that language, has that currency, and most likely some common customs in real life as well as in the game. The Narnian SCA wants to be recognized as a part of the BIG SCA and I assume that that desire is for more than a plaque on the wall. If there is also Narnia inc and the Kingdom of Narnia, I will be well protected in the mundane world as well as within the game world. I will know who to contact about what, and I know they will pay attention to me. If I have wait for SCAinc-USA to answer my questions or for the Kingdom of Thalia to get around to passing out our AOAs, I will not feel a part of the BIG SCA. Because there was SCAinc to rely on there was no need for people to make corporations in a form which would be viable without SCAinc. Let's take something simple like membership cards. Narnia inc was formed so we could open a bank account, membership cards came from SCAinc. Ok, now we get recognized as being in SCA without joining SCAinc--where do we get our membership cards? If the answer is SCA-World, located in Tijuana am I that much better off? How long before I start bemoaning the money orders, the overseas postage, the lag time, etc. Wouldn't it be better if I could get my membership card from Narnia inc and have that count as being part of SCA-World? We might have more members here if our flyers were in Narnian. SCA-inc didn't provide that service, will SCA-World? Wouldn't it make more sense for Narnia inc to do it? A lot of us do read English and enjoy TI, can't we subscribe to the US version and maybe publish our own? All this doesn't have to do with the game directly but it aids us in our participation in the game. Congruence may not be possible in all cases, even in the long run, but it would be good to know what the potential is. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 08:47:58 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 54 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 07:26:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Magnus and Alban To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I got Magnus and Alban's notes at about the same time, so let me respond to both at the same time. I personally have no problem with SCA, Inc., (otherwise known as SCA-USA) continuing to have a very important role in the running of things. Let's face the fact that over 90% of the activity and population is in the USA, and considering the size of said country, this state of affairs is likely to continue into the indefinite future. It is possible for me to visualize a situation where SCA, Inc. is the "highest" mundane organizational authority for the Society, as it is now, but some changes would have to be made. Today, the SCA, Inc. recognizes only membership in the SCA, Inc. as a claim to status in the Society. Special arrangements have been made for some countries where they are obviously called for, but these have been ad hoc, while people in other countries have been expected to put up with inconvenience or worse (yes, I'm talking about Canada here). It looks like the current Board is willing to rethink this. About time. Perhaps because I was born and raised in the USA, I have no objection to Magnus's statement that we have one supercorporation and don't need another. However, if it is going to work, there are some minimum requirements. 1. People in other countries, including Canada, should have the option of belonging to a national, regional, or local corporation, and have their membership recognized as equivalent to membership in SCA, Inc. 2. Access to publication requirements in all kingdoms and principalities should be redefined so that people outside the USA are not locked into paying US funds for US produced publications mailed from the USA. (If they want to continue to use them, great.) 3. The game-regulating body needs to be defined in such a way as to give non-US members and branches some reasonable amount of clout. The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of a super-corporation with its own Board. The expense of membership, waste of money at the Corporate level are perenniel focuses for discontent, almost irrespective of reality. Why give discontent a target? Especially since an SCA-World Corp. would cost more money, especially if it had the responsibility of producing TI and CA. Sorry, Alban, I don't see this making any business sense whatsoever. Right now we've got a way of funding TI and CA, of organizing the work that goes into them, of supervising their policies. Trying to move them to a new super-corp that doesn't exist, doesn't have a funding base or an office staff or an address strikes me as a recipe for disaster. I haven't got to Alban's idea of organizing the SCA-world legislature yet, but I have some work to do and will have to get back later. I will address this and #3 in my next post. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 11:58:03 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, 9 Apr 1996 08:40:14 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: representation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L just a small note. Fiacha wrote: ". . .a Grand Council representing all physical locations of the Society and all manners of participation in the Society, " I suspect he intended to use "representing" in an informal and broad sense, but I think it important to regularly remind ourselves that we are not truly representative of anyone. We were not chosen to be representative, except in the casual sense alluded to, and we have not felt compelled to replace like with like, which would be the case if we were truly representative. Again, not a criticism of Fiacha, but rather a reminder to us all. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 12:23:36 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, 9 Apr 1996 09:00:45 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: goodbye To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am in the last stages of my dissertation and have recently become involved in the administration of two other groups (Habitat for Humanity and a new Peace Center in North Portland). I am also quite involved in our local group, which is being proclaimed full status next month. My frustration-to-feeling-of-accomplishment ratio has gone way beyond my tolerance, given my schedule and history. It has been this way for several months, now, and does not seem to be lessening with time. Thus I believe it is not a short term artifact. I believe it is in the best interests of all if I resign this council. My suggestions are in the archives of the membership forum, and I hope that any would feel free to converse privately if he or she felt that I had an opinion worth the effort. Thank you all for caring, Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 12:29:52 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 75 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:36:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Regulating the Game To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I think it was Justin who suggested that we could have an SCA-World legislature and a smaller Court of Appeal appointed by it, or perhaps an approved pool of possible arbitrators, to take care of appeals against kingdom rulings. I rather like this. The key problem will be coming up with a method of generating a legislature and a Court of Appeal that will neither hand all the power over to the royalty or their officers, nor exclude members outside the USA from a voice, nor be too complicated to sustain. Alban (yes, Alban, I read your posts!) has suggested that the various hierarchies of officials could appoint representatives to this legislature. (Solveig has suggested this quite a while back.) I don't favor this for a number of reasons. First, these hierarchies are themselves contested: they are commonly seen as remote, overbureaucratized, unresponsive, and in some cases unnecessary. I am speaking from a Middle Kingdom perspective here, instead of a Calontir one. In Calontir, the local marshal is likely to see the Earl Marshal on a regular basis, unless the local marshal never travels -- and even then. In the Middle Kingdom, it is quite likely that a local marshal will not see the Earl Marshal in the course of a year, and if the local marshal does, he will probably not have a chance to have a meaningful conversation with the EM. Second, the hierarchies are creatures of the SCA, Inc. They are appointed by methods defined by Corpora and Corporate Officers. Trying to untangle the web of responsibility and accountability is more than I am willing to do. A recipe for failure. I don't have a brilliant idea of my own. However, I do have a brilliant idea of what should be represented in said legislature. Both Kingdoms AND Principalities. Why? 1) Someone long ago said that if a certain kind of unit was allowed to appoint Board members, everyone would want to have that status. If there was one Board member a kingdom, the number of kingdoms would tend to rise dramatically. Well, I think that game regulation is better served by a body drawn from game units than from corporations. Given that, better to have a rush for Principality status than set up a system that pushes Principalities to go for Kingdom status prematurely. (I have nothing against increasing the number of kingdoms, but I don't want the process artificially accelerated.) 2) FAR MORE IMPORTANTLY, the representation of Principalities would give outlying regions and international groups much more voice than representation of Kingdoms only. If each Kingdom appoints a member, then there is one Kingdom sure to provide an international voice, and that is the one kingdom where US citizens are a big presence: Drachenwald. If each kingdom and principality appoints a member, then you have these groups giving an international voice (at least in the near future): Drachenwald, Nordmark (Sweden), Ealdormere (Ontario), Avacal (Canadian prairies), Lochac (Australia). Northshield straddles the international boundary (it includes the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, plus Manitoba and NW Ontario), and its voice would likely reflect Canadian prairie interests to some extent. The Kingdom rep for An Tir would be unlikely to completely ignore what people in British Columbia think. Similarly, Alaska, American but unique, would have a voice. This still leaves some people with less input (Hawaii, NZ, eastern Canada, others) but it's better than pretending that Drachenwald and, soon, Ealdormere, speak for all non-US groups. 3) This would acknowledge the diversity of the really big kingdoms: East, Middle, and West. Sorry for going on so long. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 12:39:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:21:50 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Landmarks, Charter, Corpora To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 17:17:00 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Landmarks, Charter, Corpora Justin, In a message dated 96-04-08 16:31:41 EDT, you write: >Interesting. I have always thought of Corpora as the "Constitution", and >the By-Laws as the mundane-interface section of the rules. Here's how I see it. The by-Laws are the interface between SCA, Inc. and the State of California. Corpora is now two things. It is the interface between SCA, Inc(US). and the Society (Who reports to who, what controls the Corporation Hierarchy has over the Kingdom ones) and it is also, as you say, a sort of Constitution of how the Medieval Society is to be organized. In a world with multiple SCA corporations, you need multiple documents defining their relation to the Society. I've called them corporas, since "The Charter" seems to be a better term for the common "These are the rules of the Society" document. but I'll listen to other suggestions. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 13:18:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:01:34 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3169BC20@tmpgw951.allied.com> (PotterM@tormp001.allied.com) Myrdin writes: >I do not see the need to have multiple corporations for other than certain >legal responsibilities (such as renting sites, controlling bank accounts, >etc.). heading up to: >My above approach is a little simplistic and it doesn't address the question >of membership and representation within the SCA I'm sorry, but I have to say I find this a bit glib. The issues of membership and representation in the SCA are *big issues* -- they're the crux of what the 1994 crisis was all about, and they're still the biggest single weaknesses in the structure today. You seem to be saying that they're minor issues we can simply patch over. They're not -- they're the bulk of what we're discussing here. They really amount to the question of what, from an *organizational* standpoint, the SCA is. That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, clear. To put it a little more nicely: yes, you're right -- the mundane corporations should only be needed for the mundane details, and we just need to figure out the global structure issues. But that's all we *have* been dealing with, really. The "SCA-World" that we've been talking about is the body that would replace the current SCA, Inc as the central gathering-point, so that SCA, Inc can concentrate on the US mundane issues. And while we're at it, we can try to clarify the relationships a little better, so that people understand who is responsible for what. (Which, at the moment, seems to default to, "The Board is responsible for everything.") > To play the "game", one body (currently SCA, Inc. by default) is all >that is needed. The groups within the SCA shires up to Kingdoms do not have >to have corporations associated with them. In the US. The whole point of this discussion is that we're now an international organization, and we have to start *thinking* like an international organization. Outside the US, other corps are clearly needed. And they aren't just a distraction -- they're a structural factor that we have to deal with. We have tended to ignore them, which is precisely how messes like Nordmark arose in the first place... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "This is the sort of thing I _would_ object to in a strictly Society context, if Dur didn't have his tongue so far in his cheek that it's sticking out his ear." -- Sam'l Bassett From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 14:00:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 13:42:37 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Mon, 8 Apr 1996 23:08:43 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Many corporations >Cc: PotterM@tormp001.allied.com Noble Cousins! Sir Myrdin the Just restated something which is widely believed, but often quite false. >As I've stated before, other than for certain conveniences, there may not be >a need for multiple corporations because many countries recognize each >other's corporations. The basic problem with the above statement is that it fails to distinguish between trade and operations. It also fails to distinguish between foreign ownership of a domestic corporation and the question of local existence. First of all, Sir Myrdin's statement is not even gauranteed to work for "national" corporations. Corporations are not "natural persons" they are "fictitious" entitites. They exist if and only if the local political jurisdiction says that they do. Corporations are able to engage in interstate trade and commerce within the United States by virtue of the trade provisions of the United States Constitution, statutory law, the rules of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and the I.C.C. None of this automatically assures even a U.S. corporation incorporated in one state corporate existence in another state. That must be secured in each and every state if a corporation wishes to actually operate in the state in a legal manner and engage in trade, etc. within the state. For this and other reasons, major U.S. corporations frequently are actually holding companies which own locally incorporated and registered operating companies. While a company might be incorporated in Delaware, if it operates in Massachuessetts, then the secretary of state of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts expects and requires the corporation to register in Massachusetts. (This is a process similar to incorporation, but preserves unitary corporate identity.) Operations of "foreign corporations" (meaning corporation not actually incorporated in the state in which it does business like our Delware Corporation with its offices in Massachusetts) may be restricted in a variety of ways by the state provided it does not act in restraint of interstate trade. One well known example of this was until very recently banqueing law which pretty much excluded non-local banques. Once you move across international borders the situation becomes even more confusing. Sometimes the problems with cross-border trade are aleviated by international treaty. (There are Canadian corporations which actually complain that inter-provincial trade is more difficult than inter-national trade with the United States.) Regardless, the last time I heard that it was actually looked into, NO the SCA, Inc. does not legally exist in Ontario. This means that the the SCA can not do things in Ontario that other NPC's can do. It also means that SCA, Inc. ownership of stuff in Ontario may be a bit questionable. Just because the SCA has not been bitten bad does not mean that the SCA has its corporate entity ducks in order. Now then, I suggest asking Mar Yaakov ha Mizrachi or corporate council for an opinion on the matter of corporate existence and operations. Several months ago, Mar Yaakov posted a note saying that he had recently checked the New England states and the SCA, Inc. had still not registered. (This is my possibly faulty recollection.) If registration and incorporation are indeed legal necessities, then I submit that argueing against doing so does our society no good. Rather, the Grand Council should simply proceed to deal with the matter at hand. As things stand though, there are already non-U.S. S.C.A. corporations because the people on the spot have determined that it was prudent and expedient to create them. There are even U.S. non S.C.A., Inc. (California) corporations. Any S.C.A. world structure should acknowldge that, in this day and age, U.S. extraterritoriality is strictly limitted and that the necessity for creating non-U.S. corporations and whether, they will be national or local, is a matter for local determination and can not be simply dictated from California. Regardless, I think that at this point it is most expedient to simply assume that a mosaic of corporations has to exist and to get about the business of figuring out how to deal with them. 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 Tue Apr 9 14:12:20 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 12:41:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Legal Issues for Non-Profits Programme To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan by Finnvarr. >>> I've had a case of life, have not finished reading all the messages. I do thinkSir Myrddin is on the right track as far as separating the corporate (mundane, legal, whatever) structure from The Game. You need the corporations to do certain legal things that the Kingdoms as such cannot. But this legal need should not rule the day-to-day operations and enjoyment of the Kingdoms, smaller entities, or the players. More later. I just got, in the mail, notice of this year's version of a very useful programme called LEGAL ISSUES FOR NONPROFITS: A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE FOR VOLUNTEERS AND MANAGERS OF NONPROFIT RGANIZATIONS AND THEIR ADVISORS. It is sponsored by the American Bar Association and shown by satellite in over 70 locations nationwide. It begins at 11:30am Eastern time, going to 4:00pm Eastern; you can adjust for your time zone. Other sites are running the programme on a different date, on videotape. The date is Thursday, May 30, 1996. Cost is $160 for attorneys or $95 for laypersons involved in a nonprofit (manager, director, volunteer). You can also order audiotapes or videotapes, but they cost more than the programme. For more information, contact the ABA at (312) 988-5522. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Been there, done that, in some Kingdom or other. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 02:08:33 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:53:50 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L After a week of being able to read mail but not answer it (the phone line I was using in D.C. seemed to enjoy cutting off email sessions in mid- letter), I'm back.... One thing I have to say: Folks? Let's keep it simple? No plan of attack has ever survived contact with the enemy; we should not, _can not_, plan out every detail. Presuming we do suggest that things be divided into SCA (mundane) and SCA (game), a lot of decisions can only be made **after the split has been made**, and not before. So let's just work on the basic structure, and the details will sweat themselves later. I'm sorry if there are few names attached, but the flow was strong, several people came back to several ideas repeatedly, and, well, I'm lazy.... So, to put things into one grand mess: 1) Am I correct in assuming that there's sort of a broad consensus that splitting the SCA in twain is more or less not a bad idea? (At least the comments I've seen so far have indicated so. Anyone really, really disagree?) 2) If yes, then am I also correct in assuming that one part of the new set- up will consist of the SCA (US), Inc., and various foreign equivalents; and that the other part will consist of the SCA (Game), which is a worldwide entity? There seems to be a desire for an SCA (Game), to co-ordinate the game/dream, to keep the universality of it, to be sure people can travel >from kingdom to kingdom and from country to country without being totally lost. Among the SCA (Game)'s responsibilities should probably be a Court of Appeals, the publication of TI and the Complete Anachronist series, the deciding of when principalities may go kingdom. The SCA(Game) might (not would, might) also have under its purview areas that it has oversight responsibility for, but not direct control over, such as armor standards. Such standards would be set by various, well, standard-making groups, much as I hear the American National Standards Institute operates. Said standards would operate from the bottom up, by consensus, rather than by imposition from the top down. The U.S. corporation would not have total control over the SCA (Game); nor would any other single mundane corporation. There has been mention of a Court of Appeals. This was not in my original trial balloon. One basic question needs asking: is this court a mundane-side affair, or a game-side affair, or both? Who staffs it and what issues it decides grow out of that question. (I'd off-handedly suggest that the Court of Appeals be set up with a certain number of members, and let the new SCA (Game) officials decide who those members are. _We_ need not worry about everything, since some decisions can be made only after things start flowing.) Publications: the kingdom newsletters would be put out by the kingdoms. In the U.S., several newsletters could use the SCA (US)'s non-profit mailing label; in non-U.S. kingdoms, they'd use whatever was easier, and/or cheaper. There would be no need for kingdom chroniclers to report to the world-wide chronicler; in fact, there would be no world-wide chronicler. One editor for TI, another for CA (or one editor for both), and that's it. It would be a good idea for the various kingdom newsletter editors in the U.S. to co-ordinate information on certain legal issues such as libel and copyright, but it probably is not necessary for there to be an official hierarchical level above kingdom. Memberships: People become paid-up members of whatever country's corporations they're in, if they wish to receive publications and whatever other services that country's corporation(s) offers. Whether or not a person can play along without paying for the privilege should be left up to the SCA (Game), as one of the Rules of the Game. (e.g. "Pay- for-play shall be left up to the Corporation within each Country." or "Pay-for-play shall be required in each corporation and/or kingdom signing onto the SCA(Game)'s Charter.") [Note: I like this, I do. Each country's corporations can decide for itself what services it offers - insurance, special-affinity credit cards, discount cruises to historical sites, discount publications, scholarships for members' children.....All the stuff I occasionally wish were already being offered.] How does the SCA (Game) fund itself? Under my original trial balloon, I'd assumed that it wouldn't, really, need all that much funding. The heads of the various groups would have their own funding mechanisms (heraldic submission fees, fighter authorization card paperwork fees for the marshalls, seneschalate small-percentage-of-site- fee tithes, arts and sciences bake sales and garb auctions), and the Grand Grouping that occurs every two or three years, well, I had no thoughts on how to fund this. Galleron suggests, if I read his April 4th message right, that the SCA (Game) is a corporation formed from the various SCA (country) corporations, and that they pay for it. My trial balloon had the SCA (Game) "board of directors" formed from the various colleges (marshals, heralds, seneschals) and the various kingdoms. Galleron's is a super-corporation formed from lower corporations, and therefore his SCA (Game) comes from SCA, Inc.'s - a large mundane thing from smaller mundane things. My version had smaller mundane things, and one large game thing formed from smaller game-oriented things. Either one would work, but I would prefer, naturally, that the organization with responsibility for maintaining the game/dream be organized with the game in mind, not with corporations in mind. Finnvar asked "What would be contained in the rules (Landmarks) enforced by SCA, Inc." I answer: that's a question the SCA (Game) should decide, and so is the question as to whether there even is a set of official landmarks. Justin suggested that the "legislature" consist of one person from each kingdom. I suggested that there be one person from each kingdom in addition to the head of each of the colleges. No-one has commented on my idea, and I'd really like to hear some.... Alban, playing catch-up From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 14:48:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:24:11 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:07:16 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Many corporations Master Justin! Please drop the presupposition that there should be a global U.S. corporation. Perhaps S.C.A., Inc. (California) should be the basis for S.C.A.-World and should simply institute a new class of group membership. Then Barony of the Bridge, Inc. would simply join as could say the various Canadian corporations, S.K.A.-Nordmark, etc. The extent to which S.C.A., Inc. (California) is adequate for the U.S.A. purposes varies between mundane political jurisdictions, and by what the local and regional groups want to do. Currently, Pennsic probably should incorporate as Pennsic, Inc. and join S.C.A.-World. The same probably holds for Estrella. I don't think that there is an explicit need for a separate S.C.A.-U.S.A. ... Regions which don't wish to separately incorporate could simply go on conducting their business as they are now. 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 Tue Apr 9 15:07:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:53:38 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604090710.CAA22749@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus writes: >Not Necessarily a board, but probably responsible to a board. > >Some legal entity has to be in charge. Why? I mean this quite seriously. While I'm not certain that you're wrong, I am by no means convinced that you're right. What are the actual advantages of having the top level be a concrete, legal entity? (And what are the disadvantages? I'm sure there are some of each.) I am pretty certain that we *could* run with the top level simply being an informal agglomeration of representatives of the smaller entities. Ultimately, the top level is going to derive a large measure of its legitimacy from those sub-groups, and it isn't wholly obvious that it needs legal status in order to do so, although I'd bet that there are *some* conveniences to it... *Everything* is tradeoffs. Everything. We need to be willing to examine the advantages and disadvantages of all of those tradeoffs, if we're going to make a sensible decision... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Franz is 5'4" tall, with dark hair and beard, shifty-eyed and tense because of his obsessive belief that the kingdom officers are playing secondary personae that are all Burgundian spies disguised as their primary personae. He will discourse for hours on his favorite Easter Island theory: that the statues are part of a giant whack-a-mole game used to make auguries for ancient astronauts. His greatest ambition is to document that nudism is period so he can earn a Laurel in costuming without needing to make any garb." -- Franz Joder von Joderhuebel From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 15:36:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 15:14:56 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I3BJWJQZS299E28Q@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban writes: >we should not, _can not_, >plan out every detail. Presuming we do suggest that things be divided >into SCA (mundane) and SCA (game), a lot of decisions can only be >made **after the split has been made**, and not before. True enough. However, this split (assuming it happens) will be dramatic at best, and traumatic at worst, to live through. That being the case, it behooves us to subject our ideas and plans to reasonably thorough reality-checking in advance. Yes, we can leave lots of detail decisions until later; indeed, I think that we *have* to leave some of them until later. But the devil is usually in the details, so we should try to find those devils now, as much as we reasonably can... > Among the SCA (Game)'s responsibilities should probably >be a Court of Appeals, the publication of TI and the Complete >Anachronist series, the deciding of when principalities may go >kingdom. Yes on the Court of Appeals. Maybe on Principalities going Kingdom. (While I prefer to leave this up to the relevant Kingdoms as much as possible, there are circumstances where having a higher level here *does* help.) I'm not at all convinced about the publications; as Finnvarr has pointed out, there are *big* advantages to keeping the SCA-World very small and cheap. In my ideal world, I suspect that I'd make the publications arm parallel to, or perhaps a subsidiary of, SCA-World, but wholly self-financed through subscriptions. Leaving it to the individual Corps also has some advantages, and should be considered. >The SCA(Game) might (not would, might) also have under its purview >areas that it has oversight responsibility for, but not direct control over, >such as armor standards. Such standards would be set by various, well, >standard-making groups, much as I hear the American National >Standards Institute operates. Said standards would operate from the >bottom up, by consensus, rather than by imposition from the top down. Just so. I think the key here is the SCA-World should be acting as a facilitator for communication, working to co-ordinate the Kingdoms in matters like this. >There has been mention of a Court of Appeals. This was not in my >original trial balloon. One basic question needs asking: is this court a >mundane-side affair, or a game-side affair, or both? Primarily game-side, I believe. Issues that are wholly mundane should be handled within the relevant corporation. There *will* be cases where the lines are unclear, of course. (Eg: a former King absconds with some of the Royal Paraphernalia. Whose jurisdiction? Probably both.) The key here, I suspect, is setting up some procedures for deciding on jurisdiction, and sticking to them. >There would be no need for kingdom >chroniclers to report to the world-wide chronicler; in fact, there would >be no world-wide chronicler. I broadly agree with this. Can anyone counter-argue? Can anyone provide *any* compelling argument for the Chroniclers' hierarchy? >Memberships: People become paid-up members of whatever country's >corporations they're in, if they wish to receive publications and >whatever other services that country's corporation(s) offers. Whether or >not a person can play along without paying for the privilege should be >left up to the SCA (Game), as one of the Rules of the Game. (e.g. "Pay- >for-play shall be left up to the Corporation within each Country." or >"Pay-for-play shall be required in each corporation and/or kingdom >signing onto the SCA(Game)'s Charter.") Possible, but I suspect that this particular decision impacts the overall structure enough that we have to work it out in advance. All the questions of how everything is financed hinges here. >How does the SCA (Game) fund itself? Under my original trial balloon, >I'd assumed that it wouldn't, really, need all that much funding. I concur, but I suspect it'll need *some*. >Finnvar asked "What would be contained in the rules (Landmarks) >enforced by SCA, Inc." I answer: that's a question the SCA (Game) >should decide, and so is the question as to whether there even is a set of >official landmarks. Definitely on the former, maybe on the latter... >Justin suggested that the "legislature" consist of one person from each >kingdom. I suggested that there be one person from each kingdom in >addition to the head of each of the colleges. No-one has commented on >my idea, and I'd really like to hear some.... Frankly, I hadn't noticed it. I don't object to it the way that Finnvarr does, but I don't think it's entirely necessary... Finally, a question for people to chew on and think about: The Society Seneschal (aka Steward). Currently, we have a full-time, paid position that deals with fielding the panics that come up from the Kingdoms, and is authorized to make binding (if impermanent) interpretations of Corpora on the spot when speed is necessary. Do we need this position in the new structure? Is it possible to delegate it to the point where we no longer need a salaried official? If so, how? If not, how does this position get funded, and to whom does it report? (Indeed, can anyone speak informedly on exactly what the SocSen's job *is*, and how the various responsibilities break down?) We've done a lot of thinking and talking about the Board, and how to fix *its* problems, but we need to think about the Corporate Officers as well, and how their responsibilities fit into these proposed structures... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "In many respects the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the American Dream are, in their hour of triumph, as strong as ever. But in one way they are weaker: the collapse of communism has robbed them of an evil against which they have been explicitly contrasted for more than half a century. For Manichaeans, which means for many Americans, the world has been black and white; with the blackness gone, the whiteness now shines less brightly." -- from The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 15:57:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 14:37:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Magnus and Alban To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 07:26 AM 4/9/96 PDT, Finvar said: >Today, the SCA, Inc. recognizes only membership in the SCA, Inc. as a claim >to status in the Society. Special arrangements have been made for some >countries where they are obviously called for, but these have been ad hoc, >while people in other countries have been expected to put up with >inconvenience or worse (yes, I'm talking about Canada here). > >It looks like the current Board is willing to rethink this. About time. > Isn't this relatively new developement itself. When I joined, the SCA had 75,000 members. Now, after a period of growth we have about 25,000 members, cuz only paid members are counted. 1. People in other countries, including Canada, should have the option of >belonging to a national, regional, or local corporation, and have their >membership recognized as equivalent to membership in SCA, Inc. > Not necessarily....If there is a reason for some kind of required membership in the SCA, Inc, then this would not be served by people koining some local incorp group. If on the other hand, no Paid membership is required, this becomes moot. >2. Access to publication requirements in all kingdoms and principalities >should be redefined so that people outside the USA are not locked into paying >US funds for US produced publications mailed from the USA. (If they want to >continue to use them, great.) Yup,,, > >3. The game-regulating body needs to be defined in such a way as to give >non-US members and branches some reasonable amount of clout. > Definitly >The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of a super-corporation >with its own Board. The expense of membership, waste of money at the These are legitimate targets . >Corporate level are perenniel focuses for discontent, almost irrespective of >reality. Why give discontent a target? Why buckle to malcontents if there is no legitimate gripe? Especially since an SCA-World Corp. >would cost more money, especially if it had the responsibility of producing >TI and CA. Sorry, Alban, I don't see this making any business sense >whatsoever. Right now we've got a way of funding TI and CA, of organizing >the work that goes into them, of supervising their policies. Trying to move >them to a new super-corp that doesn't exist, doesn't have a funding base or >an office staff or an address strikes me as a recipe for disaster. Agreed... Responses from Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 17:28:58 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:11:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin, under the SCA-World concept, how would the various heirarchies fit in? Would the heralds, marshallate etc report to SCA-World or to their local corp only? If they report to SCA-World, then we have to assume that body exerts some authority over them, but most of the discussion thus far seems to point to a desire for this body to handle the meta-issues rather than the day to day affairs. Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 17:40:43 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <199604090710.CAA22749@CP.Duluth.MN.US> with last message <9604091853.AA23361@dsd.camb.inmet.com> 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, 9 Apr 1996 16:09:34 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604091853.AA23361@dsd.camb.inmet.com> Do we need an SCA-world? Do we currently have the resources, ie staffing, money, etc. to support this new animal? I don't think we should. If other non-US organizations wanted to come into existance we could lend them materials, consult with them on how to structure their new group etc. Let's keep to the US focus until we have the $$$ and people to support the global venture. -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 18:35:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:12:45 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Erik Langhans on Tue, 9 Apr 1996 16:09:34 CDT) >Do we need an SCA-world? Do we currently have the resources, ie >staffing, money, etc. to support this new animal? Do we *need* heavy staffing, money, etc? That isn't clear. Indeed, the suggestions being bandied about are for something *far* more lightweight than the way we've tended to do things in the past. That's deliberate. It *could* even save us money, if we can manage to delegate things effectively, finally. > I don't think we >should. If other non-US organizations wanted to come into existance >we could lend them materials, consult with them on how to structure >their new group etc. Let's keep to the US focus until we have the >$$$ and people to support the global venture. Not an option. I'm sorry, but we have problems *now*. We have international groups chafing at the way things run. We have a Board that is fantasmagorically overloaded. (Remember, this structure is being designed to fix some of the problems in the existing one, not just create a new international body.) This isn't a "venture". This is splitting the responsibilities sensibly, instead of leaving them all in the hands of far too few people. And it's at the *specific* request of Board members, who have consistently been saying that what they most need is to get some sensible structures that they can farm out those responsibilities to. I understand the desire to play it safe and conservative. But we can't pretend that there aren't big problems here... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "It's true. Stupidity is associative." -- Richard Sexton From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 18:48:40 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:26:26 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960409171113_509549605@emout04.mail.aol.com> (message from Chuck Hack on Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:11:15 -0400) >Justin, under the SCA-World concept, how would the various heirarchies fit >in? Would the heralds, marshallate etc report to SCA-World or to their local >corp only? *Probably* SCA-World, although I'm flexible on that notion. > If they report to SCA-World, then we have to assume that body >exerts some authority over them Why? I have a problem with this assumption. You're assuming a "reporting" model. Why do we *need* these bodies to report to anybody? The tight reporting structure is bound up in the model of power flowing down from the top, where all marching orders come from the authority figures in the center. But that's *exactly* what most needs to be changed. A fair part of the Board's overload is due to the fact that every buck lands on their desk. And very few of those bucks *need* to land there. Redefine the top-level officers, subtly, from being the people "in charge" to being the top-level co-ordinators. This matches much of the job description anyway, and clarifies the question of whether these people really need to "report" anything much regularly. I mean, the fact is that the Heralds are nearly independent as it is. The only thing the Board does is select the new Laurel when one is needed, and back him up when he does something controversial. Where does "reporting" really come into that? In this case, it isn't clear how much authority is really needed. SCA-World has a certain amount of power to "hire and fire" the top level officers, which the Kingdoms have delegated up to it. The real authority comes implicitly from the Kingdoms, through that delegation. >, but most of the discussion thus far seems to >point to a desire for this body to handle the meta-issues rather than the day >to day affairs. True; as I recently pointed out, we need to think about the relationship of the officers to SCA-World. But as I say above, I think that much of that relationship can be obviated if we consider the Kingdom officers to have a bit more independent authority (countered partly by the local Corporations), and have them co-ordinated through the top level, rather than the kind of rigid reporting hierarchy we have now. -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Phreblitt, n. a word used to describe someone in immediate danger of losing his/her life in a violent, painful manner that will immensely satisfy those who witness the deed. e.g. Timothy Miller is a phreblitt." -- meesh. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 18:56:08 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 11 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:27:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Modius said: >Let's keep to the US focus until we have the $$$ and people to support the >global venture. Really, Modius, you are 26 years too late. The first SCA group outside of the USA was founded in 1970. The Australian group has been around for 16 years. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 18:56:16 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 37 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:34:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Fwd from Tasmania To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Hrolf (one of the founders of the SCA in Australia) has sent me this sketch history of the SCA there. Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi, We originally had our own version, The Society for the Current Middle Ages, which ran for a couple of years following SCA rules and combat standards. The decision to join the SCA caused a massive, and very public, schism that cost us quite a few members, but in the long run made us a lot stronger. Being a part of the SCA has meant that we are not just one of the many little, more or less authentic medieval groups running around for a few years, flourishing for a while and then, when the members move away etc, the group dies. (speaking professionally, and post-facto for a moment, the life-cycle of volunteer activity groups is fairly well understood. The smaller the group, and the less interaction it has, the more likely it is to die {refs available if anyone wants the study}). We have gained a wide world of interaction which has added to the richness of what we do. We may be flattering ourselves, but we like to think that some of the things we do here have reached others as well. We now have our own incorporated body (about to fission into an over-riding body + 1 for each state) and will, in a few years, be an independant KIngdom. We will have reached this point by a process of natural growth and not as a matter of necessity. We will still interact with our friends overseas both physically and virtually. I do not think we would have been in this situation if, sixteen odd years ago, we had decided to "go it alone". Hope this is of interest. Hrolf From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 19:02:44 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 35 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 17:37:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: SCA World: One Tasmanian view To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Hrolf by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hi, Many of the things being said here are starting to make sense. Specifically that the world body has the functions of : * setting benchmarks * international appeals * essential admin work (co-ordinating TI, College of Heralds). There may be one body or two (legislative / judiciary split) It should be run on a minimum basis with, regardless of how many corporations exist, one vote per country (or legal grouping). This probably gives Drachenwald a lot of votes, they have a lot of countries, unless they set up a co-ordinating body to act as Speaker to World-BOD. Controversially, it will only give one vote to the whole USA and one to Canada (despite many local-level corporations). Remember we are setting up a world system here, one that will grow and spread and has to be free of any hint of the old cultural imperialism bogey (yes we still have to deal with that one folks). How the voter is appointed is up to the traditions of the groups concerned (the USA BOD will appoint a person, Sweden will elect by mass suffrage and Australia will probably end up with a Crown appointment). I envisage the whole thing to be essentially like the Olympic movement or the Scouts, with most work being done (and visible) at a local level and SCA-World (probably incorporated in the Bahamas or Luxembourg or the Cook Islands) interfering as little as is possible. Hrolf From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 19:33:56 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 118 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 09:20:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: FW: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'm forwarding this from Solveig. I wish I were back in Canada where I would have access to my old Business Law books because my recolection differs from the post before. Sir Myrdin Michael Potter ---------- From: nostrand To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Cc: PotterM Subject: Re: Many corporations Date: Monday, April 08, 1996 11:08PM Please consider posting this to the Grand Council. Solveig ---------- Noble Cousins! Sir Myrdin the Just restated something which is widely believed, but often quite false. >As I've stated before, other than for certain conveniences, there may not be >a need for multiple corporations because many countries recognize each >other's corporations. The basic problem with the above statement is that it fails to distinguish between trade and operations. It also fails to distinguish between foreign ownership of a domestic corporation and the question of local existence. First of all, Sir Myrdin's statement is not even gauranteed to work for "national" corporations. Corporations are not "natural persons" they are "fictitious" entitites. They exist if and only if the local political jurisdiction says that they do. Corporations are able to engage in interstate trade and commerce within the United States by virtue of the trade provisions of the United States Constitution, statutory law, the rules of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and the I.C.C. None of this automatically assures even a U.S. corporation incorporated in one state corporate existence in another state. That must be secured in each and every state if a corporation wishes to actually operate in the state in a legal manner and engage in trade, etc. within the state. For this and other reasons, major U.S. corporations frequently are actually holding companies which own locally incorporated and registered operating companies. While a company might be incorporated in Delaware, if it operates in Massachuessetts, then the secretary of state of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts expects and requires the corporation to register in Massachusetts. (This is a process similar to incorporation, but preserves unitary corporate identity.) Operations of "foreign corporations" (meaning corporation not actually incorporated in the state in which it does business like our Delware Corporation with its offices in Massachusetts) may be restricted in a variety of ways by the state provided it does not act in restraint of interstate trade. One well known example of this was until very recently banqueing law which pretty much excluded non-local banques. Once you move across international borders the situation becomes even more confusing. Sometimes the problems with cross-border trade are aleviated by international treaty. (There are Canadian corporations which actually complain that inter-provincial trade is more difficult than inter-national trade with the United States.) Regardless, the last time I heard that it was actually looked into, NO the SCA, Inc. does not legally exist in Ontario. This means that the the SCA can not do things in Ontario that other NPC's can do. It also means that SCA, Inc. ownership of stuff in Ontario may be a bit questionable. Just because the SCA has not been bitten bad does not mean that the SCA has its corporate entity ducks in order. Now then, I suggest asking Mar Yaakov ha Mizrachi or corporate council for an opinion on the matter of corporate existence and operations. Several months ago, Mar Yaakov posted a note saying that he had recently checked the New England states and the SCA, Inc. had still not registered. (This is my possibly faulty recollection.) If registration and incorporation are indeed legal necessities, then I submit that argueing against doing so does our society no good. Rather, the Grand Council should simply proceed to deal with the matter at hand. As things stand though, there are already non-U.S. S.C.A. corporations because the people on the spot have determined that it was prudent and expedient to create them. There are even U.S. non S.C.A., Inc. (California) corporations. Any S.C.A. world structure should acknowldge that, in this day and age, U.S. extraterritoriality is strictly limitted and that the necessity for creating non-U.S. corporations and whether, they will be national or local, is a matter for local determination and can not be simply dictated from California. Regardless, I think that at this point it is most expedient to simply assume that a mosaic of corporations has to exist and to get about the business of figuring out how to deal with them. 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 Tue Apr 9 19:34:20 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 41 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 18:08:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Grand Council To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L More from Hrolf forwarded by Finnvarr (I asked for this, since I really know little about the Australian setup). >>>> Hi, I sent my last two messages before reading this one. I think that GC is finally getting to the important crux. The way an local corporation (SCA-USA, SCA-Canada, OziBOD) is run and organised is up to the country involved. What is important is the interaction from country to country so that the game can continue to grow and flourish. We have the OziBOD which is the governing body for Australia. It is incorporated in South Australia and the (internally elected from the few volunteers available) Board meetings on a group phone hookup quarterly. It alone has the power of third level banishment due to mundane legal reasons. It is able to do things like handle insurance and our own indemnity system. Recently we revised the ages for combat to accord with local law. It is the sole speaker to the SCA Inc (and this will continue to be the case). Currently formed, forming or mooted are other corporations which will exist on a state basis. They will exist for mundane legal convenience and have very little to do. It may end up that these State bodies will end up with a small judicial function which would end up being appealable to the OziBOD. This is in accord with the way mundane Courts like sporting bodies to run themselves. Lochac is a normal (using that word advisedly) Principality which covers all areas mundanely administered by Australia. This includes (despite recent rulings) about two-thirds of Antarctica. It has very little interaction with the OziBOD. What it has had has varied from the pleasant to the acrimonious. There has been a general lack of understanding on the part of many P&Ps and Seneschals of what the OziBOD is, what its task is and its relationship to the BOD. Is this what you wanted? Sorry again about three messages. Hrolf From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 20:37:14 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 20:17:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: very briefly: TI, CA To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Small thought just entered my head: if the SCA (WOrld) can't/ won't/shouldn't handle what are presently corporate publications, these publications could continue to be published by the U.S. corporation, as it is now. I'm not welded at the hip to the idea that the World Government published World magazines; TI and CA can continue on as before, with foreign subscriptions if need be. Does this help any? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 20:42:36 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, 9 Apr 1996 20:28:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L People have asked if the new structures being proposed can be supported by present economic resources. I _think_ so. Remember, we're not creating a new organization out of whole cloth, and putting it up in addition to the present structure. What we _are_ doing is splitting the present structure into two pieces; this means that administration is split - AND so is the economics. Some of the money presently being spent by/for/on the Board of Directors will be spent on the new world body; and the new Board of Directors, having fewer responsibilites, won't miss that money (theoretically, at least). Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 9 20:42:36 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, 9 Apr 1996 20:24:59 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Serwyl said: "under the SCA-World concept, how would the various heirarchies fit in? Would the heralds, marshallate etc report to SCA-World or to their local corp only? If they report to SCA-World, then we have to assume that body exerts some authority over them, but most of the discussion thus far seems to point to a desire for this body to handle the meta-issues rather than the day to day affairs." Lessee if I can keep this brief. The College of Arms sends the Laurel Sovereign to the World Body as its representative. the College of Seneschals sends the Steward as _its_ representative. Ditto for the marshallate, chirurgeonate, and whatever other bodies survive the shakeout. The kingdoms each pick one rep. Finnvar suggests the same for principalities. The various colleges would operate under a set of guidelines promulgated by the World Body, and to which their representatives have agreed, because those reps helped work out the guidelines. Other than following the guidelines, the various "hierarchies" (aka colleges aka working groups) would follow their own, internal set of rules. (e.g., the College of Heralds would follow the Rules for Submission, the marshallate would follow Armouring And Fighting Standards.) The World Body would concentrate on meta-issues; the sub-groups would work on their own day-to-day rules. It's sort of like the present Board saying, All kingdoms must have a tournament to pick the next Crown; but each kingdom gets to choose how the list is picked. Clearer? Or am I again confusing things? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 09:45:45 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <01I3CMK2Y0G89BVWPE@delphi.com> with last message <01I3CMK2Y0G89BVWPE@delphi.com> 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, 10 Apr 1996 08:06:28 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I3CMK2Y0G89BVWPE@delphi.com> Loved your division sheet!! Clear, concise!! Does anyone know if the BoD's current feelings in regard to a World-SCA? -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 11:10:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 10:44:16 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Gorillas To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Right on, Finnvarr! The Principalities will give voice to more peoples. This moves things down a notch, but there will still be peoples who must be considered as a proto-principality--distinctive populations who are not adequately embraced by a current or in the near-future entity. And thank goodness for Australia! The US is the 400 lb gorilla in this world and it's very difficult to dance with a gorilla and not get your toes stepped on. The more groups we have with what I'm calling congruence--the ability to stand in every spotlight (geo-political, game, and mundane legal) as a recognizable entity--the better we can remind that gorilla where to put its feet. (And I say this as a US citizen who is not a little sensitive to US-bashing.) SCAinc factors are so entangled with the way we play the game it is difficult to see world relations clearly. Take for example the difference between reporting and sharing announcements. In the current situation Narnia has to report all sorts of things to SCAinc so that SCAinc knows itself (How many groups are in SCAinc?--hang on we have to count in the Narnian groups) In the new situation, SCAinc doesn't have to know how many groups are in Narnia. It would be nice to know this--Narnia can announce it to SCAinc and TI can have a world page for sharing this kind of information (Narnia has grown to x number of groups and is planning a super event with castle tours for 1999) What does SCA-world need: reports or announcements? It depends on whether we are thinking of something that "runs" a worldwide SCA (people who have to play together) or something that "co-ordinates" a worldwide SCA (people who want to play together). Personally I prefer the latter. It will lead to more diversity--and people who want every "i" dotted the same way will have trouble with that. But the basic game seems flexible enough to support a good deal of diversity and still be "universal." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 13:04:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 12:41:26 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 02:24:30 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Division Street Master Justin! Under an SCA-World with federated regional corps, The College of Arms would operate pretty much as it does now except for the financial reports. While part of the money is spent by the the central heraldic office, a lot of the money gets spent regionally. The regional financials should probably be handled by the regional corps. The real question is whether the local heraldic officers are conducting corporate operations in the respective mundane legal jurisdiction or not. If they are doing so, then they should probably report financially to the local corp. There may be a way of avoiding this for the heralds as they are agents for a central heraldic service organization. Isn't anyone on the Grande Council a lawyer? Is there any way to get a lawyer with some background in NPC's or at least corporate law on the Grande Council? Could the council somehow pay Mar Yaakov ha Mizrachi or some other SCAdian lawyer a retainer and get him on the council? Could it be don pro-bono? 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 Wed Apr 10 13:34:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:53:21 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, It seems to me that we now have three competing proposals. 1. Group Membership. SCA Inc. creates a category of membership for groups. Presumably the cost is rated per member and gets the apporpriate number of membership cards with the name of the group and a number. Presumably the group can subscribe to as many of the publications as it wants to but must get at least one TI and one kingdom newsletter. Foreign corporations are ignored. Branches remain bound by US centric policies. 2. Foreign corporations as licensed subsidiaries. SCA Inc remains as it is today, granting reciprocal membership rights to members of foreign corporations that agree to follow SCA Inc.'s rules and policy decisions with respect to the game and to pay an annual per capita fee. Requires some sifting to isolate US mundane requirements from the game rules in Corpora and G&PD's. Adds to seneschalate burden when checking membership counts. Does not provide communication path from SCA Inc to members of subsidiaries. 3. Split game control from SCA Inc. and transfer it to SCA-World (Inc?). All corporations equivalent in providing support services to their memberships. In addition to all of the comments on 2. this raises questions of the size and funding of SCA World operations. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the position of the Society Seneschal has been questioned. I do not believe that we can survive without such an officer. Perhaps the title is wrong, but there needs to be someone to do the work, in my opinion. Notice, in the above, that the biggest problem that we have not addressed is that of communication. We need timely means of distributing the content of the kingdom newsletters. It seems to me that we must recommend that newsletter subscriptions be separated from memberships. Drop shipping via groups or via foreign corporations may work but inevitably delay delivery to individuals. Requiring foreign nationals to individually subscribe reinstates one of the major problems for foreigners, that of paying the comission to make a payment in US dollars. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 14:41:39 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 59 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 13:11:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Response Fiacha's post. >1. Group Membership. SCA Inc. As stated, I can't see any advantages to this situation. No voice for foreign groups, and no adjustment of policies to account for their needs. What's the point? >2. Foreign corporations as licensed subsidiaries. SCA Inc remains as it > is today, granting reciprocal membership rights to members of foreign > corporations that agree to follow SCA Inc.'s rules and policy > decisions with respect to the game and to pay an annual per > capita fee. What about foreign input re the rules of the game? What about appeals >from kingdom decisions? > Requires some sifting to isolate US mundane requirements from the > game rules in Corpora and G&PD's. Necessary anyway. > Adds to seneschalate burden when checking membership counts. Any proposal will have to rethink membership anyway. We have to think about what we are trying to accomplish with membership counts, etc. > Does not provide communication path from SCA Inc to members of > subsidiaries. See end. >3. Split game control from SCA Inc. and transfer it to SCA-World (Inc?). > All corporations equivalent in providing support services to their > memberships. >In addition, the position of the Society Seneschal has been questioned. I >do not believe that we can survive without such an officer. Perhaps the >title is wrong, but there needs to be someone to do the work, in my opinion. I agree. >Notice, in the above, that the biggest problem that we have not addressed >is that of communication. If Principality newsletters were treated as appropriate vehicles for transmitting official info, then everyone in Australia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, most of Ontario, and Nordmark could get the vital info without sending money over international boundaries. This of course leaves a fair number of international members out (parts of Canada, NZ, most of Europe). The question of what information needs to get to the individual and how it should be transmitted is a key one. If an "internationalization" takes place without reform of the communication policies, it will be meaningless. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 16:15:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:41:48 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:53:21 -0700) Fiacha lists, along with other possibilities: >3. Split game control from SCA Inc. and transfer it to SCA-World (Inc?). > All corporations equivalent in providing support services to their > memberships. > > In addition to all of the comments on 2... implying: > Adds to seneschalate burden when checking membership counts. For what? What "membership counts" are we checking? The number of people active in the groups? Even assuming we need that, I see no reason why it would be any harder than it is today -- it just goes through different chains. > Does not provide communication path from SCA Inc to members of > subsidiaries. Not automatically, no -- but neither does *any* proposal, including the status quo. (We historically are extremely poor at communication, even when we try.) There are numerous options available, including: -- SCA-World provides a for-cost small global newsletter, akin to our current "Board minutes"; -- It provides this information to TI, assuming that keeps running in some form (which I think most people *are* assuming) -- this is essentially the usual current mechanism; -- It provides that information to the Kingdom newsletters, and lets them use it as they see fit. Again, there is nothing intrinsically *harder* about doing this under this model; it just requires some tweaks... >In addition, the position of the Society Seneschal has been questioned. I >do not believe that we can survive without such an officer. Perhaps the >title is wrong, but there needs to be someone to do the work, in my opinion. So what's the work? I mean this seriously -- if we are going to account sensibly for the SocSen, we *need* to know what the SocSen does. I don't pretend to know in any detail; I know *some* of the things she does, at least some of which could be delegated to other people or bodies. (For example, one person could be specifically authorized to be the one who makes spot interpretations of Corpora, subject to being overruled on review.) I concur that the *duties* of the SocSen must be dealt with in any serious proposal. But it isn't clear to me that this specific position, or a close analogue, is actually required. It isn't clear to me that we *don't* need it, either -- I can easily believe that we do at least need some sort of day-to-day executive. But I'm not at all sure that it can't be pared back down to a volunteer position. The SocSen's job has suffered many of the same problems as the Board -- since all bucks stop there, everyone piles *every* buck there. That doesn't mean it has to intrinsically work that way... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "(gerund) minds want to know..." -- SKITCH From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 17:05:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 15:32:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 09:53 AM 4/10/96 -0700, Fiacha wrote: >Notice, in the above, that the biggest problem that we have not addressed >is that of communication. We need timely means of distributing the >content of the kingdom newsletters. It seems to me that we must recommend >that newsletter subscriptions be separated from memberships. Drop >shipping via groups or via foreign corporations may work but inevitably >delay delivery to individuals. Requiring foreign nationals to >individually subscribe reinstates one of the major problems for >foreigners, that of paying the comission to make a payment in US dollars. > > TI and any other Society wide mailing has to be centralized. offsetting to Kingdoms/Countries/whatever will be an even bigger botch than currently. It is annoying to change money, but hardly an issue which will break our international members. How much complaining have we heard to date? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 17:48:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:27:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 01:01 PM 4/9/96 EDT, Justin wrote: > Outside the US, other corps are clearly >needed. And they aren't just a distraction -- they're a structural >factor that we have to deal with. We have tended to ignore them, >which is precisely how messes like Nordmark arose in the first place... > I still don't see that they are "Clearly Needed". I also don't see any objection to them if they continue to be part of the "SCA". I don't see anything that shows incorporation to have been the problem in Nordmark. I believe they could have made an organisation entirely consistant with the demands placed upon them be the SCA, Inc. The communication between the bodies, on the other hand, was a fiasco. Ignoring the people there, not some corporation, was to my view(after the fact and having read most of the complaints and replies) the problem. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 17:54:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:27:29 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Corporations are not "natural persons" they are "fictitious" entitites. They >exist if and only if the local political jurisdiction says that they do. >Corporations are able to engage in interstate trade and commerce within the >United States by virtue of the trade provisions of the United States >Constitution, statutory law, the rules of the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and >the I.C.C. None of this automatically assures even a U.S. corporation >incorporated in one state corporate existence in another state. This is not entirely true. All US corporations incorporated in any state ARE recognized in all US states and territories. This is required as the states must give full faith and credit to the acts of the other states. In some states however, these corporate persons are required to register in order TO DO BUSINESS in that state. Much the same way as individual (Natural) persons are required to register to do business. This is to at least a lesser extent true in all or most other countries of the world. Mostly by treaty and also by the nature of the US Court system. The SCA, Inc, a California Corporation could be sued by a native of Swedan for an activity the SCA performed in Germany. They could sue in the US for certain. Could they sue in Swedan or the German Republic? Beats me. Can the SCA, Inc. enter into a binding contract in Narnia? Yes, binding in the US at least. Binding in Narnia? I don't know. Is money collected by the Shire of Inniskillen in the Kingdom of Drakonwoald taxable in it's native country of Eiriu? Not my Bailiwick. If sent to the corporate office in Milpitas for membership, is it taxable in California? I know that one... There are other issues at least as complicated, and they must be addressed, but the idea that a US corporation, incorporated in the State of California, does not exist or can do nothing outside of California or the US is an inaccurate overstatement. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 17:55:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 16:27:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 02:53 PM 4/9/96 EDT, you wrote: >Magnus writes: >>Not Necessarily a board, but probably responsible to a board. >> >>Some legal entity has to be in charge. > >Why? I mean this quite seriously. While I'm not certain that you're >wrong, I am by no means convinced that you're right. What are the >actual advantages of having the top level be a concrete, legal >entity? (And what are the disadvantages? I'm sure there are some of >each.) In order to handle any money we need a corporate entity. Elsewise, it will be the individuals who will be responsible for all funds. It will be the individuals who will be sued for any contract disputes or injuries, and no one to back them up. Also to enforce ANY rules of SCAism, we need a corporate body with authority to BE the SCA and control the SCA. Elsewise we have only the flow of general society wide sentiment and identity of social mores. Does such a thing exist? Perhaps. Would this be efficient without an entity behind it? I don't think so. So yes, I'd say Some overybody is abslutely required. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 18:46:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:27:23 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:41:37 -0500 From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Many corporations Noble Cousins! Lord Magnus points out that for a variety of reasons corporations have some limitted existence outside of the jurisdiction in which they are incorporated. This is quite true. But, it is equally true that they do not enjoy full corporate existence. The society has been attempting to act as if it does enjoy full corporate existence outside of California. Such is simply not the case. 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 Wed Apr 10 18:50:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:31:24 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604102127.QAA00531@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus writes: >In order to handle any money we need a corporate entity. Probably true; this is an issue to keep in mind. >Also to enforce ANY rules of SCAism, we need a corporate body with authority >to BE the SCA and control the SCA. I don't buy it. We *have* such a body now, and have had for most of the history of the Society. It's tried to enforce and/or change the game rules numerous times. It has had precious little luck. The Kingdoms have listened to the Corp. when they felt like it, and ignored it when they didn't. I don't think there's any real way to change that. That being the case, I'd say that it makes most sense to recognize reality, and accept that the top level is a place for the Kingdoms to work out their differences, and come to agreements on consensus reality, rather than trying to "enforce" anything... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: On Elections: "It only takes one more month to produce a Baron than to produce a baby." -- Old Marian From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 19:35:51 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 21 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:09:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Second try, response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin said: >I don't buy it. We *have* such a body now, and have had for most of >the history of the Society. It's tried to enforce and/or change the >game rules numerous times. It has had precious little luck. The >Kingdoms have listened to the Corp. when they felt like it, and >ignored it when they didn't. I think this is a grave oversimplification. Many times Kingdoms have accepted Board rulings that were inconvenient and unpopular. The conclusion I draw from this is that even the people who run Kingdoms put a high value on the unity of the Society, and for its sake have been willing to accept both a uniform set of rules in certain important matters, and the role of a central body in interpreting and enforcing them. Either that, or they think everyone else in their kingdom put that high value on the unity of the Society, etc. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 20:25:59 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: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:05:28 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Two questions/comments: 1) Steward-type thing. This could be cobbered up out of the exectutive council of the world game thing: have a rotating president with a year-long stint. I don't particularly like the idea, since it would rotate, but it has the major advantage of being easy to set up. 2) Ghita? Tetchubah? One of you Board financial types listening? I'm not sure I can phrase this question right, but here goes. Right now, who is responsible, legally, for European groups funds and assets? Does, oh, the bank account for the local SCA group in, oh, Edinburgh belong legally to the SCA, Inc., over here in the States; does it legally belong to the person whose name is on the signature card but carried on the books as if it did belong to the SCA, Inc.; does it belong to SCA (Edinburgh)? I'm wondering - if the SCA (US) and the World Game splits into twain, what exactly happens to European assets..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 20:31:24 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:15:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus feels that, to handle money, there needs be a corporate entity. (Well, actually, he has other reasons, too, but this is one of them.) The World Game doesn't need to have any money, really; the sub-groups who send representatives to it could handle all the finances in their own accounting, according to some fixed pro rata schedule. You know, sort of like a SCA TriLateral Commission: it has all the power, and no actual existence. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 10 20:35:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 20:19:05 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L "narnia"? "internationization"? "world group"? "working group for the liberation of proto-historic senescha;s?" Minor question: Can we all agree on what the hell the name is of the thing we're talking about. I"m getting seriously confused. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 03:42:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:16:35 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >TI and any other Society wide mailing has to be centralized. offsetting to >Kingdoms/Countries/whatever will be an even bigger botch than currently. > >It is annoying to change money, but hardly an issue which will break our >international members. How much complaining have we heard to date? > >Magnus > No end of complaints! YOU may not have heard them, but I certainly have. The cost of getting an international money order from my bank here in Sweden is roughly equal to the cost of a membership. That's why we set up a "Euro-registry": people could send their money to that and a couple of volunteers would send the membership forms to Milpitas in a batch, together with _one_ money order. The possibility of paying through a VISA account has made it MUCH easier to pay for memberships. Most of the memberships in my canton are paid through my VISA account nowadays. Only adds 2 USD to the cost. Frithiof Sigvardsson Skaegge Aros, Nordmark, Drachenwald. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 04:04:21 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 09:35:10 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> Outside the US, other corps are clearly >>needed. And they aren't just a distraction -- they're a structural >>factor that we have to deal with. We have tended to ignore them, >>which is precisely how messes like Nordmark arose in the first place... > >I still don't see that they are "Clearly Needed". OK, see here: Since SCA,Inc. is not registered in Sweden, and cannot register as an non-profit corporation due to differences in the legal systems, they cannot for example open an account in a swedish bank. No account => no way to handle money. The SKA-Nordmark was formed for that explicit purpose: To support the activities of SCA in Sweden, by for instance handling finances according to swedish law and custom. >I also don't see any objection to them if they continue to be part of the "SCA" SKA-Nordmark is not "part of the SCA". Some people are members of both organizations, and fulfill similar positions, but that's it. > Ignoring the people there, not some >corporation, was to my view (after the fact and having read most of the >complaints and replies) the problem. True, the Nordmark crisis was not precipitated by disagreement between the corporations. It was caused by disagreement as to what could be in the laws for the new principality, between the law comittee in Nordmark on one hand and the seneschal of Drachenwald and the society sen. on the other. Frithiof; Aros, Nordmark, Drachenwald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 09:59:25 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 48 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:30:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Supreme court concept To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gunwaldt by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unto the Gentles of the Grand Council (and council watchers) does Gunwaldt send greeting. I offer the following concept for your consideration regarding governance of the 'game' of the SCA and reducing the workload of the Board of Directors. The Court of the SCA implemented as a court of final appeal for the medieval side of our recreation. The Court is Staffed by one representative from each kingdom and principality plus one (non-voting or tie-breaking) member of the BoD. Selection is decided internal to each region. Funded independently. Each represented group may finance their member as they wish. Any tasks, meetings, or expenses must be paid for independent of the BoD budget Electronicly connected for ease of communication. The balance scale aganst extremes developing in different kingdoms. It's decisions become the firmament of our culture, defining the limits beyond which they game should not stray. The court does not make rules or laws, it applies them. A direct offloading of the BoD concerning 'game' related business. It is a tool for final judgement on affairs internal to the functioning of the game, appeals against Royal mis-conduct, review of Bannishments of all levels, etc. Each kingdom currently has an internal judicial review system. This inter-kingdom court concept does not supplant it. Rather it is to provide the avenue for a final decision if necessary, balancing kingdom decisions against the 'rules of the game' and precedents of other kingdoms. Please consider this concept separate from issues concerning mundane interactions, relationships between different SCA corporations, branch or fiscal entity creations, and lawsuits. Thank-you for your considerations Gunwaldt From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 11:05:05 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:50:47 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Second try, response to Justin To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316C6C4D@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:09:00 PDT) Finnvarr responds to my assertion: >>The >>Kingdoms have listened to the Corp. when they felt like it, and >>ignored it when they didn't. > >I think this is a grave oversimplification. Many times Kingdoms have >accepted Board rulings that were inconvenient and unpopular. Certainly true; I'm probably overstating here. Still, the point largely stands -- Kingdoms *have* tended to pick and choose when they listen to the Corp, and have tended to ignore it when they felt it was mistaken. In those cases, the Corp has had little success using any sort of enforcement power; indeed, attempts to do so often backfire. You're probably correct that: >The conclusion I draw from this is that even the people who run Kingdoms >put a high value on the unity of the Society, and for its sake have been >willing to accept both a uniform set of rules in certain important matters, >and the role of a central body in interpreting and enforcing them. Which, I think, simply underlines my point -- the central body needs *credibility* far more than it needs *power*. No amount of "power" is really going to enable it to enforce its will on the Kingdoms. But if the Kingdoms think it's a good mechanism, which is making its decisions through sensible processes, then they are more likely to listen to it in the name of unity... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "The garden party is a scrum of 1,000 people wishing they were indoors and not standing in the pouring rain (Britain) or sweltering in 90 degrees F (America). ... Houston is always sweltering. It is therefore ideal for garden parties." -- From "A Guide for the Bewildered", in The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 11:11:30 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:57:46 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I3E07C2JPK985LRH@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban suggests: >1) Steward-type thing. This could be cobbered up out of the exectutive >council of the world game thing: have a rotating president with a year-long >stint. I don't particularly like the idea, since it would rotate, but it >has the major advantage of being easy to set up. I don't think it makes a major difference to the real issue -- what I care about here isn't *who* this Chief Executive of SCA-World would be, so much as *whether* we need one (which I suspect we probably do), and whether the job is *necessarily* large enough to require a salaried official (which I'm less sure about). There are a number of overlapping issues here, including how many bucks can stop at the Corporate levels, and how many tasks can and/or should be delegated to multiple people... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "How do I know you're the murderer, sir? Simple. You've got more lines in the screenplay than anyone else." -- from KlingKlangKlatch From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 11:37:22 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: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 10:07:58 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Fiacha. Thanks for your great summarization I support topic 2. Foreign corporations as licensed subsidiaries. SCA Inc remains as it is today, granting reciprocal membership rights to members of foreign corporations that agree to follow SCA Inc.'s rules and policy decisions with respect to the game and to pay an annual per capita fee. ...... It seems to me that we must recommend that newsletter subscriptions be separated from memberships. YES YES YES -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 13:04:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:47:32 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Supreme court concept To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316D3622@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Thu, 11 Apr 1996 08:30:00 PDT) Gunwaldt proposes a separable idea of a "Supreme Court", to be considered even if the general organizational structure were to remain unchanged. In general, I concur with the concept -- *particularly* if we were to retain the current structure, we desperately need to offload the Board's work. I think he's right that this is probably the most separable part of that workload. I have only one quibble, or at least question: > Staffed by one representative from each kingdom and > principality plus one (non-voting or tie-breaking) > member of the BoD. Selection is decided internal to > each region. Although I tend to argue this model for a legislature, I worry about it for a "court", on the grounds of size and composition. I'm not confident that a 20-odd person court can work effectively, particular in the personal cases. The problem, I suppose, is that there are two, somewhat different duties that this court would fulfill. One is the "constitutional interpretation" job. I can believe that such a body could manage this job, although I think it's arguable still a bit unweildy. The other is the flat "determination of right" job. The unfortunate fact is that the comparison with the US Supreme Court breaks down in one important respect -- the US Court does *not* generally worry about the guts of court business, it leaves those to the competency of lower courts. Its main purpose is to direct those lower courts, when serious issues of interpretation come into play. We, unfortunately, generally don't *have* competent lower courts. That means that this "Supreme Court" would have to worry itself with the more prosaic issues of determination of truth, sentencing, and so on. And I think it's *much* too unweildy for that -- that's why, in my version for SCA-World, I had proposed a smaller body. Also, the method of selection is more apt to politicize this body (I suspect), selecting for sheer popularity and political views, which I why I figured that the court should be selected *by* a representative body, but its own selection criteria would be for judicial skill and impartiality. There *are* reasons why the US Supreme Court is selected the way it is. I'd say that *either* we'd need to rethink the size and composition of the body (if it really is the one *real* court in the Society), or we'd need to get significantly more serious about making Kingdom-level court processes work, so that most such matters could be handled at that level. I'm skeptical about the latter, although willing to believe that it's possible. I do agree with Gunwaldt's concept, though; it's just this one issue that bothers me... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "42. Blew nose on Operation Barbarossa maps, forcing extemporaneous invasion of Soviet Union 45. Frequently mistaken for Charlie Chaplin due to mustache; undermined credibility (as when he threatened to invade Poland, everyone waited for the punchline)" -- From "Top 59 Mistakes Made by Adolf Hitler" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 13:14:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:52:50 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: LONG REPOST: DDFr's Mineral Club Description To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Over on the reform list, Gareth of Stonemarche happened to dig out and repost Cariadoc's old message about how another large club deals with some of these issues. It strikes me as relevant now (rather moreso than it was when he posted it), so I re-present it for your consideration. (Hopefully Cariadoc doesn't mind; it's been a while since we've heard from him here...) -- Justin How Another Hobby is Organized Every August, Elizabeth and I load our minivan and head for Pennsic. Every February, Elizabeth's parents load their minivan and head for Tucson. Our hobby is the SCA; theirs is mineral collecting. The Tucson Gem and Mineral show is several times the size of Pennsic. My wife's parents are as active in their hobby as we are in ours--more active these days, since their children are grown and ours are not. My mother-in-law is currently the first vice president of the Midwestern Federation of Mineral Societies. We had formed the impression, from past conversations, that the formal structure of their hobby was considerably less centralized than ours, so on a recent visit we asked some detailed questions. I thought the results might be of interest to others, hence this posting. How Gem and Mineral Collecting is Organized The national organization of gem and mineral collectors, their nearest equivalent to the SCA Inc., is the American Federation of Mineral Societies (AFMS). It has seven members--the seven regional federations. The members of the regional federations are local gem and mineral clubs, plus some unaffiliated individuals (typically from areas without a local club). The individual clubs are unincorporated, or in some cases incorporated, associations. The only control that the national federation exercises over the regionals, or the regional federations over the individual clubs, is the decision to accept them as members. A club that wishes to be a member of one of the regional federations must submit its bylaws for approval, but my mother-in-law had never heard of an application being turned down. A club must also agree to a statement of principles covering things such as collectors leaving sites at least as clean as they find them and reporting important finds to the appropriate scientific authorities. Subject to approval of bylaws, the internal structure of the club is entirely its own business. There are no mandatory reports up a bureaucratic hierarchy, no requirement that the regional approve the officers of the local club or the national approve the officers of the regional. Individual clubs have no territorial monopoly; I am free to form a club in the same city in which one already exists. Regional Federations do have a defined territory. They cannot solicit clubs outside their territory, but can accept clubs from outside their territory that ask to join. A club can, and a few do, belong to more than one regional federation. How Directors and Officers are Chosen The Board of directors of the national federation consists of the president and first vice president of each regional federation plus one national officer elected from each region. Which region elects which officer rotates, at least for the top two officers. The officers apparently have a vote on the Board, so the Board consists of 14 members ex-officio (presidents and vice presidents of the seven regionals) plus 7 national officers. The national officers are elected by the previous year's Board. The rules of the regionals can and do vary; my information is on the Midwest Regional Federation. Midwest has an annual convention at which each club gets one delegate (unaffiliated members have no vote). Regional officers are nominated by a nominating commitee of 7, consisting of two committee members elected each of the past three years (for a three year term), plus the current president. They nominate 4 candidates for their committee, of whom 2 will be elected to replace the 2 whose terms are expiring. They nominate one candidate for each of the 5 offices. Candidates can also be nominated from the floor, by a petition signed by at least 100 adult members (which is currently less than 1% of the membership), coming from at least 10% of the clubs. This has happened, but rarely--in my mother-in-law's view, it happens when the committee nominates the wrong person. The five officers are the president, the first vice president, the second vice president, the secretary and the treasurer. Currently, the secretary of the Midwest Federation has been in "forever," the treasurer has been in for four to six years. The other three offices are held for only one year. At the end of the year, this year's first vice president is normally nominated as president and this year's second vice president is normally nominated as first vp. So being elected second vice president usually means a three year term--one year as second vice president, one year as first vice president, one year as president. One reason I have gone into so much detail is that the structure of both the National and the Midwest federations shows one way of balancing stability and democracy. As long as everything goes smoothly, the system is self-perpetuating. But if the people running either level seriously upset the membership, the membership has the power to replace all of the regional officers within a year (assuming the other regionals have systems similar to the Midwestern) and, if it happens in at least six of the regions, all of the national directors within two years. HowWell Does it Work? Gem and Mineral Collecting is a somewhat bigger hobby than ours; my in-laws estimated about 50,000 members nationally and about 13,000 in the Midwest, which is the second largest of the regional federations. One similarity between the two hobbies is that in both there has been a recent, drastic increase in dues at the national level. In our case it was a jump from $25/year to $35/year for a subscribing membership, along with changes in the other classes. In their case it was a jump from twenty-five cents to fifty cents per club member in the fee that the National Federation charges the regional federations. The fees charged by regional federations vary; the Midwestern Regional charges its clubs a fee of $1 per member per year, out of which it pays (or will pay when the new rates are implemented) fifty cents to the National Federation. One reason their cost is so low is that the National has only two employees, both part time. One reason for that, presumably, is that with only seven members the National Federation does not need to do a lot of complicated record keeping. Similarly, since the Regional has mainly clubs as members, it also does not have to do a lot of record keeping. Money earned or spent by a club is the concern of that club, not the regional or national federation. A second reason is that they provide substantially less in the way of publications to their members. Both the national and regional newsletters go to clubs--two or three copies to each club (three if the club has its own newsletter, in which case the third goes to the person in charge of it). Individuals can also subscribe; I do not know the cost. The national newsletter provides about as many square inches of publication per year as we get, although the physical quality is considerably worse--more like a newspaper and less like a magazine. The Midwest Federation newsletter provides somewhat fewer square inches per year than the Pale. A third reason their cost is low is that insurance is not included in the basic membership. It is available to clubs that want it for an additional charge (in the Midwest) of $1.60/member/year. Coverage is $1,000,000 per incident/$2,000,000 per occasion. It covers all members at a club event against liability. It does not directly cover the site. Apparently, many sites consider such coverage adequate, on the theory that if something happens the victim will sue the insured club members rather than the site. Some sites require an additional insurance certificate naming the site as coinsured; my in-laws thought that had cost either $60 or $100 for a gem and mineral show they were involved with, which had about 2000 attendees, about 70 club members working the show, and about 50 dealers. History of the Hobby One argument raised in discussions of decentralizing the SCA is the possibility of internal conflict, splits, etc. I asked my in-laws about whether the Gem and Mineral hobby had had such problems. Their answer was that, so far as they knew, there had been one serious split in the history of the National Association. The facts, as they remembered them, are as follows: The National Federation is somewhat over forty years old; some of the regional federations are older. The Eastern Federation used to cover the entire East Coast, from Mississippi to Maine. Quite a long time ago, some of the sourthern members decided that they wanted to split off. Under the national rules, a new regional federation federation is recognized by the AFMS only if it is has the consent of the regional federation it had been a part of. Instead, the Southerners seceded. For a while, the resulting Southeastern Federation was not a member of the National. Some clubs in the region were members of the Southeastern Federation, some of the Eastern, and there were bad feelings between the two groups. After about ten years, the Eastern Federation agreed to accept the split and the Southeastern Federation became part of the AFMS. Comparison The two striking differences between what I have described and our organization are that they are much more decentralized and much less expensive. Including the cost of insurance, membership in the Midwest Federation comes to $2.60/year. The comparable figures for the SCA are $20/year without any publications or $35 with publications. Our publications are somewhat better than theirs, and they go to all subscribing members--but they only absorb about a third of our budget. Their system for handling publications provides a way of guaranteeing that the club has information about regional and national activities, without requiring officers to subscribe individually. Their insurance limits are, I believe, the same as ours. The coverage is better in some ways (all club members are covered against liability) but worse in others (covering the site requires an additional payment--although I gather this is the case, via insurance certificates, in some cases for us too). Their hobby is probably at least as risky as ours--mineral collectors sometimes do their collecting in dangerous places such as abandoned quarries and old mine shafts, their shows have a lot of outsiders going through them, and their merchants have much more expensive goods available to be stolen or damaged. Decentralization does not prevent cooperation. Gem and Mineral shows are sometimes run by groups of clubs and are generally open to competitors from lots of other clubs and exhibitors both from other clubs and from ouside the federation. My general impression is that the level of consistency across the member clubs of the AFMS is not radically different from that across the groups of the SCA. Nor does decentralization seem to lead to more internal conflict than centralization. Over a history significantly longer than ours, they have had one internal conflict on the scale of a kingdom breaking up with the breakaway region effectively seceding, and it was eventually resolved. We have had at least two smaller conflicts of that sort (leading to the Far Isles group in England and MSR), both so far unresolved, and our present difficulties might easily lead to one or more kingdoms seceding. David/Cariadoc Author: "Gregory D. Dearborn" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 14:06:32 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 64 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:39:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I will probably be forced by later critiques to amend this proposal, but my thinking has jelled to the point that I wish to make a formal proposal. I steal liberally from Justin and Gunwaldt, but don't blame them if you don't like it. :-) First, I propose that the Grand Council consider the issue of game regulation separately from corporate reorganization, and consider the former first. Rationale: If there is to be unity to the SCA, there have to be some basic rules which are the same for everybody (there may be a very few of them, but there must be some). There must also be some clearly defined body in charge of interpreting those rules, and perhaps, changing them (on rare occasions). In other words, we need some UNIFORM, UNIVERSAL institutions. However, the problems of legal frameworks, corporate financing, publication and communication policy DO NOT lend themselves to one uniform, universal set of institutions. There could be a unified society with several corporations (we have this now!), or no TI (I wouldn't recommend it), or any of a number of other variants. Sorting out the corporte side of things will be complicated and may take a very long time. Especially since we don't want the practical stuff to grind to a halt in confusion while corporate affairs are sorted out. However, I believe that regulating the game is in principle a simpler problem. If we can agree on institutions to safeguard, interpret, and rule upon our basic game regulations, then the SCA's unity, even if major corporate reorganization becomes necessary, is better assured. I think it is worth a try. Second, I propose that a Council of the Current Middle Ages be formed, with the power of interpreting the basic rules which assure the unity of the Society across the Known World. Every Kingdom and every Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) shall have the right to name one representative, by a method to be established in the laws of that Kingdom or Principality. Kingdoms may not dictate the selection method to be used by their Principalities. Kingdoms and Principalities will be responsible for financing the participation of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. Lots left out here: What are these rules? What other rules may be necessary on choosing the rep (no reigning monarchs?)? Do they meet in person, or only electronically? Remember my disinclination to let this body be dominated by Dukes, Duchesses and ex-Kingdom Seneschals? After a year on this body, I'm thinking that it might be a good place to send those who, for the good of their souls, are due for some exquisite torture. Third, the Council of the Current Middle Ages shall have the right and duty to name judges (or arbitrators) to hear appeals of banishment, abuse of royal authority, or other matters referred by the Kingdoms. Bare-bones outline. If we can agree on this much, there might be some hope of accomplishing something. If we can't, or can't find something better or more elegant to do the same job, well... Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 14:13:03 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 14 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:45:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Informal comment To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I came up with the proposal in the last post simply because I was being kept awake last night by the complexities of corporate responsibilities, publication policy, etc. I couldn't keep it all straight. Which made me think the odds of a group of people coming to a common understanding were pretty poor. When it comes to the unity of the Society, and the need for a single set of rules for the CMA, and a body to oversee them, I CAN keep it straight. So why not work on that first? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 16:01:43 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 38 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:36:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron re: Finnvarr: Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Third, the Council of the Current Middle Ages shall have the right and duty >to name judges (or arbitrators) to hear appeals of banishment, abuse of royal >authority, or other matters referred by the Kingdoms. I think that there are two sorts of appeals that the council would have to deal with, either directly or by appointing arbitrators. One is questions of conflict with the basic common rules (I'll call them the Great Charter). Does this specific Kingdom or Corporate Law conflict with the Charter? Has it been applied in a way contrary to the charter? The CCMA would always have ultimate standing to resolve these issues. In the case of banishments, royal abuses, etc, on the other hand, the arbitrators would hear only those cases sent up to it from the various SCA corporations. Some Corporations might prefer to pass the buck upwards in all cases. In others, however, the Corporation might be required by mundane law to reserve the matter to itself. If I understand Hrolf's posting correctly, for example, the Australian corp. is required by Australian law to resolve third level banishments itself. Of course, if the Corporation resolved the matter in a way contrary to the Charter this would be a basis for an appeal to the CCMA. (Hmm, have to come up with a shorter name or everyone will use the acronym...) This might mean that SCA.Inc.(US) and other corps might want to *also* set up a corporate level arbitration or grievance panel, separate from both the board and the CCMA. Forward if you like Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 16:12:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 11 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:40:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Response to Galleron Comments: To: WMclean290@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I carefully did not mention corporations in my proposal. It is meant to work whatever corporate structures are in place. There may be reasons why that won't work. Ruling on the laws adopted by kingdoms was an aspect of the Council of the Current Middle Ages that I hadn't considered, but if we are serious about having a basic set of rules for everyone, that probably has to be part of the package. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 16:19:05 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <316D7078@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <316D7078@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> 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: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:50:24 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316D7078@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> I support the notion of your proposal. I can't see how it is very different in spirit from the proposal I put forward months and months ago regarding his same issue...In my proposal I said the ikac should oversee the generally same matters you laid out. Irregardless....I support your proposal. -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 17:30:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:15:38 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316D7078@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:39:00 PDT) >First, I propose that the Grand Council consider the issue of game >regulation separately from corporate reorganization, and consider the former >first. Agreed, with the caveat that I think the two are to some degree inextricably intertwined, and we're not going to be able to *completely* separate them. For example, your proposal here *does* have some organizational implications (ie, that the Board is no longer the primary arbiter of the game). We need to bear those implications in mind, but we probably can deal with the issues semi-separately... That said, I agree with the rest of your suggestion here... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Aibohphobia (n.); The fear of palindromes." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 17:45:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:31:50 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Erik Langhans on Thu, 11 Apr 1996 14:50:24 CDT) Modius writes: >I support the notion of your proposal. I can't see how it is very >different in spirit from the proposal I put forward months and months >ago regarding his same issue...In my proposal I said the ikac should >oversee the generally same matters you laid out. It *is* definitely similar in spirit. It's a little different in that it's more general in its implications, and leaves us a shade more flexibility (saying IKAC carries some connotations that we may want to set aside). But yes, they're close; I think we might be approaching something *vaguely* resembling consensus on this issue, even... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Gefilte fish has a distinctive bouquet that real experts refer to as "nauseating." I think most people eat it as a reminder of the adversity Jews have faced throughout history." -- Mark R. Leeper From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 19:01:07 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 16 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:38:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Response to Galleron To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Response to Galleron In a message dated 96-04-11 15:52:34 EDT, you write: >I carefully did not mention corporations in my proposal. It is meant to work >whatever corporate structures are in place Sure. I was just pointing out that there might be some appeals that the council might legally have to leave to the relevant corporation. You might simply say that they appointed the final panel of appeal/arbitration, except where mundane law provided otherwise. G. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 19:04:55 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:40:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Council of Current Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr >>>> A little more flesh on the bones of your proposal. I agree that reigning royalty shouldn't be reps on the CCMA. The method by which the reps are chosen must be agreeable to the members of their Kingdom/Principality. (I hope this seems obvious, but ordinary Kingdom law isn't required to be) To avoid GC syndrome, each matter coming before the CCMA should be examined by a small panel (1-3), which makes a report and recommendation and puts it before the whole Council for debate and decision. I like the proposal a lot. Galleron Forward if you like. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 19:08:30 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 17 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:45:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: World body To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Hrolf by Finnvarr >>>> Hi, In answer to Galleron: whilst it may have to resolve such banishments ab initio (although this may end up devolved to a State level with the OziBOD itself as a first Appeal Court), there is nothing that would prevent an appeal to an international body - if this were written into the rules. Remember that, until recently, Australian High Court decisions were (along with all of the other decisions by the rest of the Common Law and Commonwealth nations) appealable to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords (the Privy Council). Everyone seemed quite happy with this. Hrolf From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 19:14:03 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 10 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 17:43:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Modius To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I tried sending this to Modius direct but it bounced: >>> Modius, I admit it, I'm just catching up with you. But I had to think it through for myself. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 23:10:39 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, 11 Apr 1996 21:49:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >SKA-Nordmark is not "part of the SCA". >Some people are members of both organizations, and fulfill similar >positions, but that's it. > If SKA-Nordmark wants to be part of the SCA, they should be allowed to be. If not, then they really aren't part of our concern. We, The SCA, do need to make provisions for those in Sweden, or any other country who are part of the SCA, who wish to play the game. I don't buy the theory that the SCA can't operate in Sweden, just that it hasn't been doing so properly. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 23:13:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 22:51:51 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin and I agree! Yes, I too think there needs to be one person at the top, empowered to make decisions. This would be separate from whoever runs the SCA (US), Inc, both to avoid having all power concentrated in one person, and to avoid one peson from severe burn-out. We can't talk about salary/non-salary until we decide what powers that executive should have; so this can be avoided until later in our discussion. (Why? If he has few powers, that means it's a small task, which means he won't spend much time.....If it's time consuming, it's more likely to _need_ a salary to attract someone willing to take the responsibility.) As for which bucks stop at which corporate levels, and which tasks should be delegated to shich people, well, that's what we're talking about here. I'm getting wordy again. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 23:14:07 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, 11 Apr 1996 22:54:15 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L One thing about the possibility of licensed foreign subsidiaries: won't these need some sort of legal licensing agreement? And won't such agreements need to be tailor-written for each country's individual legal systems? I see a vast legal bill looming on the horizon. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 23:16:40 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, 11 Apr 1996 21:55:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 06:27 PM 4/10/96 EDT, Solveig wrote: >Forwarded for Solveig... The society has been attempting to act as if it does >enjoy full corporate existence outside of California. And this must be taken care of. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 11 23:44:43 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, 11 Apr 1996 22:29:43 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10:54 PM 4/11/96 -0500, you wrote: >One thing about the possibility of licensed foreign subsidiaries: won't >these need some sort of legal licensing agreement? And won't such >agreements need to be tailor-written for each country's individual >legal systems? I see a vast legal bill looming on the horizon. > >Alban > As an attorney, I can confirm that those who do not pay for inexpensive legal services end up paying for expensive legal services. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 10:14:28 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <316DB74F@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> with last message <316DB74F@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> 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: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 08:40:24 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Council of Current Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316DB74F@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> A review subcommitee for the CCMAis nice but change the number >from 1-3 to 3 or 5 (no split decisions). Also rotate membership of this commitee every 6 months. -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 11:41:09 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 67 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 10:07:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Supreme court concept To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gunwaldt by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unto the Gentles of the Grand Council (and council watchers) does Gunwaldt send greeting. If I may respond to Justin's concerns. Justin comments: We, unfortunately, generally don't *have* competent lower courts. That means that this "Supreme Court" would have to worry itself with the more prosaic issues of determination of truth, sentencing, and so on. Perhaps the comment should be 'we don't have *competent* lower courts' :) Justin, I think we do. As I said: "Each kingdom currently has an internal judicial review system." That is, each kingdom must have a set of review boards or 'Courts of Inquiry.' Initially set up (I believe) for Bannishment considerations, they do have the ability to investigate other matters. The Court's procedures could be set up to require an internal review prior to their consideration. Additionally, we have the personal and group level judgements which bind any community together. Though not a formal procedure, they are effective none the less. This is the same force of will which I feel Justin argues _for_ concerning whether Kingdoms follow BoD rulings or simply agree to go along for more complicated reasons. (Discussion between Justin and Finnvarr under the heading Re: Second try, response to Justin.) The size of the body I propose provides representation for all regions large enough and well populated enough to be self identifying according to critera already established. I think this ensures that the Court would have seated (at least) one person knowledgeable of the background and counter viewpoints of a particular case. The BoD member would have access to kingdom Ombudsman information perhaps not otherwise available. Justin points out: Also, the method of selection is more apt to politicize this body (I suspect), selecting for sheer popularity and political views, which I why I figured that the court should be selected *by* a representative body, but its own selection criteria would be for judicial skill and impartiality. There *are* reasons why the US Supreme Court is selected the way it is. I agree with your statements but think they are slightly misguided. I am not trying to re-create the judicial system of America. What I propose is a body to preserve the consistancy and cohesion of the SCA. I would expect it to be staffed with jaundiced olde phartes who came to this club starry-eyed and ipresionable, realized just what it was that made their own region special (enough for them to stick aroundand _become_ popular) and developed the wisdom to keep themselves from being ostrisized by the people who came after them. Selection by region, internally controlled and manipulated. Yes, some region might decide to change reps every coronation. Did it happen with the IAC or GC reps? No. But giving that power to the regions does just that: gives them power. A feeling of involvement. A voice in higher authority and decisions affecting the club. And isn't that one of the _big_ problems this council is trying to address? This concept is not a truely impartial court. It _is_ an empowerment of the club members and a reduction of the BoD workload in an area of direct concern to those same club members. Thank you for your time. Gunwaldt From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 16:34:57 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:15:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Many corporations Comments: To: Christer.Romson@abc.se To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 07:30 PM 4/12/96 +0100, you wrote: >Someone: >> SKA-Nordmark is not "part of the SCA". Some people are members >> of both organizations, and fulfill similar positions, but that's it. > >Magnus: >> I don't buy the theory that the SCA can't operate in Sweden, just >> that it hasn't been doing so properly. We do need to make >> provisions for those in Sweden. > >That's right on the mark, Magnus! SKA - Nordmark was set up because >the the provisions hadn't been made. (And we were only a small shire >of 20 or so, and all information about how the SCA worked come from >the Known World Handbook. It didn't seem neccearry to worry the board >about it). > >Fell free to post all or parts of this as it is or edited to the GC. > > Lindorm > > > Thanx, Lindorm, The Board should have been on the lookout for problems like that. They are now. Now we and/or they have to figure out how to handle it... Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 19:47:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:07:00 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I3FKCFGOM099EW0R@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban writes: >We can't talk about salary/non-salary until we decide what powers >that executive should have; so this can be avoided until later in >our discussion. Yes and no. It has one fairly crucial effect -- it might well strongly impact the *budget* of the proposed SCA-World, which in turn impacts its funding method. That's really the main reason I find this issue so interesting: a single salary could well run to more money than the total of the other functions we've talked about heretofore, since we're talking about keeping SCA-World as cheap and lightweight as reasonably possible. No, we don't have to decide it now; however, I think we *do* need to keep an open mind about costs until this matter is dealt with... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "A translation is like a mistress -- it is either ugly and faithful, or beautiful and unfaithful." -- old Russian proverb From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 19:52:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 19:36:13 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: in re Finnvar, mostly To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L On Gem Federations: The one advantage that Cariadoc's, er, David's wife's hobby's organization has, that allows it to be so decentralized, is that everyone knows what gems are and what's involved with gem collecting. You know what you're doing when you join your local gem group; the group, and its members, like gems. They like collecting gems. They like doing things with gems. Gems is gems. If you walk in off the street into the local gem club meeting, you can expect talk about gems. You don't need that much centralization for groups which *everyone*, even non-members, understands the purpose for. The SCA? Well, someone walks in off the street to the local SCA, and what do they find? Well, sometimes it's a talk on calligraphy and illumination, unless it's the local fighter practice, but only if it's not the pre-cook, or the event, or a business meeting, or a baronial moot, or garb-those-newcomers night, or heraldic search and destory missions, or a workshop on gems.....David's wife's hobby has a clear, concise, easy to explain Mission. It's Gems. Ours isn't that simple; and for that reason alone I think we need a somewhat stronger central organization to keep the small groups from going too far beyond the fringe. About Finnvar's Council of the Middle Ages: I _still_ don't like his basis for choosing members of the Council (by kingdom and principality representatives.) I finally figured out why. Basic management theory (out of date, and probably misremembered - but it seems to fit.): Any organization can be split along several lines: functional, product, and geographic being the most obvious. Think Ford. Ford is split along geographic boundaries: there's Ford Great Britain, Ford U.S., Ford Germany, Ford Japan, each with its officers and responsibilities. Ford is also split along product lines: there's Ford Vans, Ford Trucks, Ford Cars, each with its set of engineers, marketeers, advertisers. Ford is also split along functional lines: finances, advertising, manufacturing, engineering, planning. Each of these lines have their own paper flow, their own responsibilities, their own sets of problems. Ford/Japan/Trucks have one set of advertising people, as opposed to Ford/Britain/Car engineering. Now, the SCA has two lines: geographic (the kingdoms on down), and functional (officers). A canton herald functionally reports to, and is responsible to, the baronial herald, who's responsible to the principality herald, on up to the kingdom herald, and to Laurel Sovereign. A canton herald is also geographically responsible to his canton seneschal, who reports to the baronial seneschal (who reports to the baron), who reports to the principality seneschal (who copies to the coronet), who reports to the kingdom seneschal (who copies to the crown). You see? Officers report both on functional grounds and on geographic grounds. Now, picking the Council of the Middle Ages (COMA) on geographic grounds, but not on functional grounds, divides things along one line that the SCA uses, but not along the other main line that the SCA uses. Discussion from the point of view of major areas of concern to the current middle ages may be lost. There's a very good chance that, oh, heraldry, or fighting, or the arts, or some such won't have a sufficiently powerful voice on the Council. Mind you, it's not likely - but it is possible. And with the members having their primary constituency be geographic, and not at all functional, it will reinforce this notion. This is why I prefer the geographic _and_ functional representation, so that what we do has as powerful a presence as where we are. Alban, crying in the wilderness From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 19:53:22 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 13:02:10 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Council of Current Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 12:17:33 -0500 >From: nostrand@mathstat.yorku.ca (Barbara Nostrand) >Subject: Re: Council of Current Middle Ages Noble Cousins! The discussion of these new committees, boards, etc. is starting to get more than a bit confusing. Please do not overuse ocronyms. If you must use acronyms for a proposed committe, board, council, etc. then please give the full reading of the acronym and possibly even a one-line summary of what it is for the first time that you use the acronym in your posting. That said, it seems to me that any judiciary should be a stabilizing instead of a politicising force. Thus, I think that judiciary appointments should be multi-year affairs. A large society judicial pannel can the appoint from among its own members sitting committees on a rotating basis to consider new business. The full judicial pannel would have right of review. Further, the sitting committee would be expected to refer decisions involving major policy issues to the full pannel. Basically, laws and edicts can be made by any ruling monarch. One of the historical functions of the BoD has been to curb abuse of this power. This calls for appointments of significantly longer term than that of any single monarch. 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 Fri Apr 12 21:00:13 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:08:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 06:31 PM 4/10/96 EDT, you wrote: >>Also to enforce ANY rules of SCAism, we need a corporate body with authority >>to BE the SCA and control the SCA. > >I don't buy it. We *have* such a body now, and have had for most of >the history of the Society. It's tried to enforce and/or change the >game rules numerous times. It has had precious little luck. The >Kingdoms have listened to the Corp. when they felt like it, and >ignored it when they didn't. I don't think there's any real way >to change that. That being the case, I'd say that it makes most >sense to recognize reality, and accept that the top level is a >place for the Kingdoms to work out their differences, and come to >agreements on consensus reality, rather than trying to "enforce" >anything... > > -- Justin > As usual, I both strongly agree with you and strongly disagree. The BoD has often made decisions that have been accepted by the kingdoms. Everything in the Corpora is a start. Even unpopular decisions have gotten enforced. The Corpora and the "Benchmarks" will be things that I believe need to be enforced from the top down. This should be relatively easy and kept easy. Easy now, because we should change aslittle of the practical and philosophical underpinnings as we can. Kept easy, because I propose that any changes to these Corpora and/or Benchmarks, NOT TAKE EFFECT, without acceptance by the kingdoms. All the kingdoms? Maybe? A Majority of the kingdoms? At Least. With this theory, changes can be made by the current BoD structure, but not take effect until the kingdoms ratify. These would be the important foundational aspects of the Society. In Kingdom stuff is handled in Kingdom. Heraldic procedures handled in their College. Insurance Policy bought by the BoD or Society Steward. Once the big picture and the important details are set, in one cohesive structure, with appropriate branches and arms, big Society wide changes can and should be tough to make. Daily operation should be easy. That's the ideal I am looking for. Major representative, democratic legislation become relatively unimportant if there are not big issues and arguements to be handled on a regular basis. Pipe dream? Up to us and the BoD To decide. In any decision or recommendation I think we have to ask: "Will this make it simpler to live the Dream?" Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 21:37:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:08:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 08:15 PM 4/10/96 -0500, Alban wrote: > You know, >sort of like a SCA TriLateral Commission: it has all the power, and >no actual existence. > >Alban > But Alban, I thought we were examining Changes to the Staus quo? ;{0> Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 21:38:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:08:17 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 09:16 AM 4/11/96 +0200, you wrote: That's why we set >up a "Euro-registry": people could send their money to that and a couple >of volunteers would send the membership forms to Milpitas in a batch, >together with _one_ money order. > >The possibility of paying through a VISA account has made it MUCH easier >to pay for memberships. Most of the memberships in my canton are paid >through my VISA account nowadays. Only adds 2 USD to the cost. > >Frithiof Sigvardsson Skaegge >Aros, Nordmark, Drachenwald. > Excellent ideas, both! Not a reason to set up 12-75 new corporations, but the kind of attention to our world wide members that needs to be addressed. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 12 21:38:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 17:08:22 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Alysoun: international, plus Comments: To: Barbara Nostrand To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Reposted for Solveig: At 02:54 PM 4/3/96 -0500, you wrote: >Lord Magnus! > >I wish to take a stab at this one. > >What kind of membership is required to fight? > Annual authorisation fee paid to the Marshalate (however constituted). > Annual sports insurance fee paid to local provider. >What kind of membership is required to be an officer? > If fiduciary (e.g., exchequer or seneschal) then membership in the local > territorial corporation. >What kind of membership is required to go to an event? > No special membership payments should be required. All attendees should be > considered members just like in AS XI. However, I suspect that this will > best be handled as a matter for the local corporation to decide. The only > important thing being handling receprocity rights. That is if you buy a > membership in territory A it should be acknowledged in territory B. >What kind of membership is reqiuired to buy a magazine? > Membership should not be required. We are not a secret society. However, > there should be differential rates for libraries and other institutions > and for non-participants. >What kind of membership is required to vote? > This sort of question should be defered. At the local level, I think taht > this issue should be an matter of local autonomy. The only restriction > being that there should be a fairly straightforward way for any partipant > to achieve sufferage. Beyond the local level, I do not think that it is > wise to presuppose sufferage. I still think that the election discussion > was held prematurely. I think that the structure and roles of the BoD and > other councils should be decided before fixing on a method for selecting > their members. Personally, I still favour a large constituent assembly > which appoints small executive committees such as an excutive committee > and a judicial court. > > Your Humble Servant > Solveig Throndardottir > Amateur Scholar > >Please consider posting this for me. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >| 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 | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy pretty darn much agreed with by Magnus too From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 13 09:37:39 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 09:23:44 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Formal Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Ok Finnvarr, I like it. That said I have several comments about the nature and constitution of your proposed group. Alban makes a valid point about functional vs geographic representation. Therefore in addition to the regional representatives, I feel we must include both a representtive of the Board (or SCA-World depending on how the final legal structure works out), as well as several of the functional areas (Herald, Marshal, Treasurer and Chirurgeon being the most important in my mind- although a strong case could be made for several of the others). My main concern here is that the body have expert advice available on any given issue. Some issues, no matter how game related, have mundane law implications and so should have a Board level involvement. Modius suggests that the review subcommittee be made up of more than three members. I believe 5 was his suggestion. I concur with this and add that subcommittees should be formed on an ad hoc basis. For instance, a subcommittee reviewing a final banishment for a person who has repeatedly failed to take a medication which keeps them from having violent siezures (thereby endangering others at SCA events) might automatically include both the Board rep and the Chirurgeonate rep. (I add that the particular banishment situation described is not fictional). Solvieg point out that Terms for members of the Council must be longer than one Crown reign in order to keep some consistancy. Again agreed, but with the caveat that the exact nature of the appointment still needs to be left up to each Kingdom or Principality. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 13 13:41:36 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 20 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 15:06:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Council of Current Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Modius writes: >A review subcommitee for the CCMA is nice but change the number >from 1-3 to 3 or 5 (no split decisions). Also rotate membership of this >commitee every 6 months. I was unclear. Actually, what I had in mind was *several* such panels, to keep the workload per panel down. Could have panels to hear cases by region, for example, but only one member of the panel could actually be from the region in question. That way you have someone to explain local attitudes, but a purely parochial viewpoint wouldn't dominate the panel. Odd numbers of members on the panels is good. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 13 16:02:12 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 54 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:37:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: in re Finnvar, mostly (Finnvarr) :-) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban said: >Ours isn't that simple; and for that reason alone I think we need a somewhat >stronger central organization to keep the small groups from going too far >beyond the fringe. I agree. On the other hand, I disagree with the rest of what Alban said. When I was on the Board I fought as hard as I could against the idea of hierachical reporting. Even a hint of an idea that we should make a Council of the Current Middle Ages into a supreme report collecting body revolts me, or an overseeing body of the details of our various activities, is enough to drive me batty. > Officers report both on functional grounds and on geographic grounds. And most of this reporting is absolutely unnecessary. >There's a very good chance that, oh, heraldry, or fighting, or the >arts, or some such won't have a sufficiently powerful voice on the Council. Why on earth are these things going to need a voice on the Council? Will the council abolish fighting, the arts, or heraldry? Will they enforce new forms of fighting, arts or heraldry? Does the Board do any of these things? As a matter of fact, it does not. Long past, the Board did give the College of Arms a certain amount of coercive authority (you can't get permanent group status without approved arms or approved name). Once it did rule that the SCA was sovereign heraldically (and the CoA ignored that for a decade until reality forced them to change). The arts? Decades ago, the Board (for some reason) decided that the Arts (and later the Sciences) needed central administration. It's done little since but replace outgoing Arts & Science officers with new Arts and Science officers. (I got them to abolish separate Arts and Science offices in 1984 or 5 and am very proud of that fact.) Fighting? Well, there has been a little legislation on this subject, but it is extremely rare. The number of Big Changes that have come before the Board has been very, very small. Look at Corpora. Interpreting Corpora is what this body will do. It will be a smaller Corpora, too: the Council will not concern itself with minimum sizes for shires. Changes will be even rarer under this Council than they have been under the Board. Final point: Make this council big and complicated, and it won't happen at all. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Apr 13 23:52:56 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 23:34:47 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Response to Finnvarr To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Quotes from Finnvarr, responding to why I think the Council of the Middle Ages (CoMA) should have functional as well as geographic representation. Warning: this rambles _just_ a wee tad; unfortunately, I coudln't come up with a shorter, pithier answer. >I disagree with the rest of what Alban said. When I was on the Board I >fought as hard as I could against the idea of hierachical reporting. >Even a hint of an idea that we should make a Council of the Current >Middle Ages into a supreme report collecting body revolts me, or an >overseeing body of the details of our various activities, is enough to >drive me batty. I must have worded my message even worse than usual. What I thought I was doing was describing what was going on right now, using official-information flow because that's how I keep track in my own mind of how various duties are divvied up; in our case, along both geographic lines (reports going up the line by group size), and along functional lines (reporting along job descriptions.) I DO NOT at all suggest that the same reports should go to the CoMA. I hate, loathe, and despise the thousand and one reports needed now as much as Finnvarr does, and in fact that's why I'm on Calontir heraldic staff, rather than a group herald; I hate those bleeding paper shuffles. I wrote the reports thang, not to say that's How Things Should Be, but merely to show where we are. >Why on earth are these things going to need a voice on the Council? Because, Finnvarr, they're what we do, and for the life of me I can't see what we do as being any less important than where we happen to live. For some people, particularly those who shift kingdoms often, what they do is _more_ important than where they live. >Will the council abolish fighting, the arts, or heraldry? Will they >enforce new forms of fighting, arts or heraldry? Abolish? Enforce? I'm confused. I thought you and I agreed that splitting the mundane from the game was what we're trying to do. If the SCA (US) Inc. handles purely mundane aspects, and the CoMA _doesn't_ handle the heraldry, arts, sciences, fighting, and other items, who will? If the CoMA has reps solely from the kingdoms and principalities, then the various kingdom marshallates, and colleges of heralds, and so on, will either break away from each other and balkanize; or they'll form their own multi-kingdom jurisdictions. If such multi-kingdom jurisdictions do form, they'll have to co-ordinate. I'm suggesting that, since there's already such a co-ordination Council being formed, there's no reason not to let reps from these groups on. Now, I know that various kingdoms have gotten together for treaties; the prime examples are the Estrella and Pennsic war-points treaties, specifying who fights who, and what weapons systems are used, and so forth. Your vision for the CoMA, I imagine, is as sort of a large-scale multi-kingdom permanent treaty organization, with which I have no complaints. BUT. But. But. Every crown I've ever met who hasn't had their heads buried in the sands listen to the experts for a number of details on said treaties; for example, not having the marshallate some say in the part of the treaty dealing with fighting would lead to a revolution. Similarly, not having the College of Arms, or the Earl Marshall's Working Group, some say on the CoMA is basically throwing out 30 years worth of technical experience that might not otherwise have a voice. Yes, the kingdoms need to share resources, and information, and co- ordinate with each other. But so do the heralds, and the fighters, and so forth and so on. You mention that interpreting Corpora is what the CoMA will do. My copy of Corpora (1995) lists, among other things, duties and responsibilities of the Laurel Sovereign, the Marshallate, the Arts and Sciences, and the other officers. If the CoMA is going to be interpreting those sections, shouldn't someone be on the Council as agent/counselor/technical support? >Final point: Make this council big and complicated, and it won't >happen at all. I'm making it somewhat larger, yes. My original trial balloon had one representative from each kingdom, plus one rep each from the Colleges of Arms, Marshalls, Seneschals, and Arts and Sciences. That's, what, 17? You suggested kingdoms and principalities. That's 13, plus, ummm, Lochac, Oertha, Mists, Sun, Artemisia, Summits, Aethelmaerc, Ealdormere, Cynagua, Mists, and I may be missing a couple but that's at least 10 more, for a total of 23. Getting large? 4 more won't hurt that much, especially since there are going to be a lot of sub-committees who do the actual work, and the CoMA may not need to meet in Grand Conclave more often than once every two or three years. More complicated? How? The kingdoms and principalities pick their reps by their own methods, we both agree. But having the functional CoMA reps be there by function of being the Laurel Sovereign, Earl Marshall, Society Steward (hey! I just solved that problem! The kingdom seneschals choose the head honcho!), and A&S Guru adds no complications. Finnvarr, I feel like I've accidentally hit one of your hot buttons. If I did so, I did it accidentally; and I apologize. I did _not_ intend that the present reporting system be carried over into the new system. I mentioned it because it helped me describe how the SCA system is now organized. The CoMA can use whatever system of reports it wants, even if that system is "No reports are needed." I don't care to tell it how it receives information. BUT I do care, very much, that it serves the SCA properly, by having representation fairly, er, represent who we are, *and what we do*. The CoMA needs information to function well. Why not have technical representatives on it as well as geographic reps? One final question to you personally: Presume one representative from each kingdom as we both agree, plus one from each principality as you suggest. How will allowing the Laurel Sovereign, the Society Earl Marshall, the Steward, and the Minister of Arts and Sciences onto the CoMA specifically make things worse? Alban, winding around the point, and, hopefully, not losing too much coherency in the process From barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au Sun Apr 14 09:55:21 1996 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:55:04 +1000 (EST) From: Richard Lesze To: Justin du Coeur Subject: Changed Circumstances Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Greetings from Artos. Justin, I write to you because I can no longer use my previous email address. I have been retrenched and am in the process of finding new employment. Please send my apologies to the Council, and let them know that I will be back as soon as possible, which may be as soon as early this coming week, but might be later. The email address I am currently using (barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au) will probably become my permanent address provided I stay in Canberra (which I hope to be able to do), so it should replace my old address (lesze_richard@tandem.com) on SCAGC-L. The timing of this change is particularly bad since it comes at the end of two weeks of leave, during which I have not been able to access email. I hope to catch up soon. Thanks, Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 14 14:16:49 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 17 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 12:53:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: re Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My apologies to Alban for being a bit too vehement in his direction. I still have concerns about his idea of bringing "official members" into the Council. I grant that the Council needs all sorts of expertise; with 20 some members from Kingdoms and Principalities, I don't think it will lack that. I also agree that geography isn't everything: I've led both the East and the Midrealm into Pennsic Wars. I just want to keep it simple and as small as possible. Right now, I am going to shut up for a while and see what others have to say. The big question: shall we consider some kind of game regulating body before trying to tackle even more complicated questions of corporate reorganization? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Apr 14 14:40:57 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: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 14:27:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvar asks >The big question: shall we consider some kind of game regulating body before >trying to tackle even more complicated questions of corporate reorganization? No. The bodies are interrelated, of course, but we need to start somewhere.Therefore, we would probably do best if we were to decide precisely what functions would best go with which group, and reorganize the corporation around what we've come up with. So, what _should_ the corporation be doing? Finances, of course. I've seen commentary that handling TI, CA, and other corporate publications would probably be a good thing, with the possibility that CA _might_ be outsourced in some fashion. Insurance. There's an argument to be made for a STock Clerk, although there's an equally strong argument that the Stock Clerk can, by and large, be handled by someone unattached to the corporate office who pays some sort of licensing fee or something to the corporation. And I can't think of anything else, right now. Hmmm, this reorganization might be easier than I thought. Alban, whose online editor keeps burping. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 09:10:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 08:58:27 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: here's the rub To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L We are talking past each other. Finnvarr has offered a toehole with his suggestion that we focus on the game first. Unfortunately, the "game" is a bit slippery as a concept. If we can agree to set the corporate issues aside for the moment, can we also agree to spend a few rounds on the grassroots level of the game and sort out some of the elements we need to consider? What degree of centralization, co-ordination, or arbitration is needed for what? What has to be centralized? Heraldry for one, if we want to continue registering our arms on one master list. Is there anything else? At the other extreme, A&S is not centralized, or even co-ordinated between kingdoms except on an ad hoc basis--like in interkingdom competition at Pennsic. What about the Great Orders--do they co-ordinate at all? Things that are set in corpora aren't very negotiable--titles, shire size, etc. We don't want these fossilized, but we do not expect frequent overhauling. Other things need to be negotiated frequently--esp. combat. This need arises because of the interface between universality (so everyone can play together) and sovereignty--kingdoms get to make up some of their own rules. The fact that kings have a particular interest in combat is probably relevant. Setting the corporation aside for the moment, you can see that we have a knot here that has nothing to do with mundane laws and everything to do with the game. How can you allow kingdoms sovereignty and keep universality? (Beware of pollyanna-ism--the real world hasn't worked this out either.) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 11:09:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:33:40 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> That's why we set >>up a "Euro-registry": people could send their money to that and a couple >>of volunteers would send the membership forms to Milpitas in a batch, >>together with _one_ money order. >Not a reason to set up 12-75 new corporations, but the kind of attention to >our world wide members that needs to be addressed. > >Magnus I think you may have missed my point: If the swedish "corporation" was recognized by SCA corporations in other countries as equivalent, then we would not have to send *any* money to Milpitas. We would not need double memberships, with associated extra costs for non-US members. *That's* the attention I'm looking for. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 11:21:46 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:53:49 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: International incorporation To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L From: Christer.Romson@abc.se (Christer Romson) To: Sven Noren Subject: Re: International incorporations Frithiof will you forward this to the GC for me? You answerd the question are national corporations outside the U.S. Clearly Needed: > Since SCA, inc. is not registered in Sweden, and cannot register > as an non-profit corporation they cannot open an account in a > swedish bank. The SCA, inc could posibly incorporate as a corporation in Sweden, but not as a non-profit (more strictly not as a tax exempt) one. The Swedish groups would have to pay higher taxes and would get less support from local cities, but I do think it could work, but not very well. The point is that it isn't enough to consider if such a system can be set up, but if it assists the people who play effectively. Lindorm From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 11:22:53 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <9604121702.AA04817@dsd.camb.inmet.com> with last message <9604121702.AA04817@dsd.camb.inmet.com> 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: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 09:55:56 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Council of Current Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604121702.AA04817@dsd.camb.inmet.com> A minor point but the current "middle ages" portion is a misnomer.. almost all rapier (light fighing) takes place in a renaissance setting. Our society's cut off is around 1600. I was attracted to the society but the rapier activity. Ask your selves what percentage of our society has renaissance clothing also in thier closets. Bottom line we need to include this period of time.. Agree with Alban that we should allow the the Laurel Sovereign, the Society Earl Marshall, the Steward, and the Minister of Arts and Sciences onto the CoMA But not allowing one from each principality .Principalities are part of kingdoms ad thus have have representation, also the topic of raising groups is in the CCMA's hands. -Modius modius@cityscope.net www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 12:26:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:07:06 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Council of Current Middle Ages To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >I was unclear. Actually, what I had in mind was *several* such panels, to >keep the workload per panel down. How big a monster do we want to create? I'm concerned that we don't make things too much more complicated. We should use existing structures when we can. Only when this is impossible should we build new mechanisms. Can this be done/ Could have panels to hear cases by region, >for example, but only one member of the panel could actually be from the >region in question. That way you have someone to explain local attitudes, I know I could barely explain local attitudes from my Shire, much less the neighboring Baronies or Northshield, the Midrealm. I understand the fear of letting regional politics intrude, but keeping most issues within Kingdom borders is to be preferred. How simple can we keep a mechanism to review kingdom level decisions? Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 12:29:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:07:11 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Universality To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 12:53 PM 4/8/96 -0700, Fiacha wrote: > >> 6. Minimum rules for financial accounability > >I oppose this. I would rather see all corporations responsible for their >own financial rules. > I fwe "license" other corps to play the SCA game, do we care whether they meet any reasonable standards for financial accoutability? I think so. If any Part of the SCA is accting irresponsibly it will have repercussions on all of the SCA. We don't need to set up a US based word for word structure for banking and tax reporting, but some standards should be required of any group that will be an SCA corp. > >I want to get back to establishing a place for foreign corporations >without trying to reconstruct the whole of the SCA. I don't think that this is possible. It is too fundamental a change. As long as we leave the game unchanged, >we have a good chance of our recommendations being accepted. I agree stongly with this. As there are fundamental and all encompassing structural changes being considered, I think they can only be accomplished in one fell swoop. The more we keep the game angle unchanged and the day to day playing of it unaffected, the more likely it will all work. Keeping it simple is a virtue that needs strong consideration at all times. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 12:31:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:07:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > > OK. Let's try this: > Landmarks. What the Society is and will always be. Anything we can all agree > on is going to be very, very broad in its definitions. Anything we can stand > by forever will need to leave a lot out. > > Society Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole > Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and > conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. > Or I would contend, controlled by treaty between the Kingdoms. > Corpora. A document governing the relations between a specific mundane entity > and the Society groups within its jurisdiction. Controlled by the mundane > entity. > > Galleron > Sounds good... Whether these are the terms used or not, these are the strong categories that our laws or rules need to be in. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 12:35:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:07:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Response to Finnvarr To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L If the SCA (US) Inc. handles purely mundane aspects, and the CoMA >_doesn't_ handle the heraldry, arts, sciences, fighting, and other items, >who will? How about the Marshallate, College of Heralds etc rather like they do now? Rather than building a whole new level of Bureaucracy, that is. Any changes could be approved by the Kingdoms. In addition, no separate treaty organisation is required. Agreements between the Kingdoms on treaties, or changes to Corpora/Great Charter can be handled by the Kingdoms rather than a CoMA. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 12:42:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:27:14 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: in re Finnvar, mostly (Finnvarr) :-) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31702F95@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Sat, 13 Apr 1996 14:37:00 PDT) On the topic of "functional representatives" at the SCA-World level, which Alban is advocating (as opposed to just "geographical representatives", as Finnvarr proposed): Upon rather long reflection, I think I'm coming to agree with Finnvarr here, that it's probably a bad idea. The reason is, plain and simply, mindset. Having all of these hierarchy representatives at the top level cements the concept that the *hierarchies* are themselves extremely important. By giving perceived "power" to the top-level people in the hierarchies, it's likely to encourage functions to fight like dogs to maintain those hierarchies, and develop new ones, whether the *function* actually needs it or not. It's also likely to further politicize the selection process of those top-level reps, and encourage people who are good politicians, rather than able administrators, to try to get the job. I understand Alban's motivation, even agree with it. But I think that, looking at this coolly, the proposal is likely to backfire badly -- I suspect the probable costs are higher than the benefits. (And I concur with Finnvarr that the likely benefit isn't that high; while this "SCA-World council" could use advice from a variety of quarters, I don't think that that *necessitates* this sort of representation at the top; rather, it argues for a fluid use of experts as necessary, and an open ear.) So I come out against this suggestion, although with much sympathy... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 12:48:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 11:30:04 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:33 PM 4/15/96 +0200, you wrote: >>> That's why we set >>>up a "Euro-registry": people could send their money to that and a couple >>>of volunteers would send the membership forms to Milpitas in a batch, >>>together with _one_ money order. > >>Not a reason to set up 12-75 new corporations, but the kind of attention to >>our world wide members that needs to be addressed. >> >>Magnus > >I think you may have missed my point: If the swedish "corporation" >was recognized by SCA corporations in other countries as equivalent, >then we would not have to send *any* money to Milpitas. We would not >need double memberships, with associated extra costs for non-US >members. *That's* the attention I'm looking for. > > > Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) > At least according to some sources, the swedish "corporation" is not the SCA. Paying for a membership in it does notsupport the world wide Game. It "apparently" has no fealty to a Kingdom or a larger Society or Corporation. There are no mechanisms in place to assure that the SKA-Nordmark Inc. will meet any SCA standards. On the other hand, the people in Sweden who are members of the SCA and who swear allegiance to the Kingdom of Draconwald are members in a world wide organisation and have agreed to play the SCA game. We need as few corporations, with as few "different" rules as possible. How can we do thatin Sweden? Magnus >You answerd the question are national corporations outside the >U.S. Clearly Needed: > >> Since SCA, inc. is not registered in Sweden, and cannot register >> as an non-profit corporation they cannot open an account in a >> swedish bank. > >The SCA, inc could posibly incorporate as a corporation in Sweden, >but not as a non-profit (more strictly not as a tax exempt) one. The >Swedish groups would have to pay higher taxes and would get less >support from local cities, but I do think it could work, but not >very well. > >The point is that it isn't enough to consider if such a system can be >set up, but if it assists the people who play effectively. > > Lindorm Assisting the people that play effectively. This is the Point. Also, doing it efficiently and cheaply. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 13:02:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:49:10 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Response to Finnvarr To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I3IEJ11ARM986A0G@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban writes: >If the CoMA has reps solely from the kingdoms and principalities, then >the various kingdom marshallates, and colleges of heralds, and so on, >will either break away from each other and balkanize; or they'll form >their own multi-kingdom jurisdictions. If such multi-kingdom >jurisdictions do form, they'll have to co-ordinate. I'm suggesting that, >since there's already such a co-ordination Council being formed, there's >no reason not to let reps from these groups on. I think this is a point where I critically disagree with you. These functional groups *should* form co-ordination councils, and they *should* be largely separate from the overall Corpora-maintenance body. The SCA-World legislature shouldn't have its fingers in the day-to-day dealings of these bodies; that's one of the critical problems now, that the BoD has always had a tendency to micromanage every decision. Rather, the Kingdoms should have the authority to figure this stuff out themselves, probably co-ordinated by someone at the top (who is analogous, but not quite identical, to the current responsibilities of, eg, the Society Marshall and Laurel KoA), and the SCA-World should *only* get involved when an issue really does affect things at a Corpora level. (Which should be pretty rarely.) I understand the desire to have these functions represented at the top. But I have to agree with Finnvarr -- it just isn't necessary. The top-level body *must* be working with groups affected by changes, or no amount of representation is going to prevent tyrrany. And this suggestion *does* complicate things, by putting too much weight on specific hierarchies. On par, I think it's a bad idea... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "In many respects the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the American Dream are, in their hour of triumph, as strong as ever. But in one way they are weaker: the collapse of communism has robbed them of an evil against which they have been explicitly contrasted for more than half a century. For Manichaeans, which means for many Americans, the world has been black and white; with the blackness gone, the whiteness now shines less brightly." -- from The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 13:07:50 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 12:55:41 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Changed Circumstances To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Artos... -- Justin Return-Path: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 1996 23:55:04 +1000 (EST) From: Richard Lesze To: Justin du Coeur Subject: Changed Circumstances Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Greetings from Artos. Justin, I write to you because I can no longer use my previous email address. I have been retrenched and am in the process of finding new employment. Please send my apologies to the Council, and let them know that I will be back as soon as possible, which may be as soon as early this coming week, but might be later. The email address I am currently using (barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au) will probably become my permanent address provided I stay in Canberra (which I hope to be able to do), so it should replace my old address (lesze_richard@tandem.com) on SCAGC-L. The timing of this change is particularly bad since it comes at the end of two weeks of leave, during which I have not been able to access email. I hope to catch up soon. Thanks, Artos. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 13:45:02 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:30:49 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604151607.LAA11687@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus responds to Galleron: >> Society Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole >> Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and >> conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. >> >Or I would contend, controlled by treaty between the Kingdoms. Which *may* be effectively the same thing, if you view (as I do) SCA-World as essentially the treaty mechanism between the Kingdoms. (That is, its authority derives from the Kingdoms (and maybe Principalities) that appoint it...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "7. Chose swastika as party symbol rather than the daisy 10. Lost the Ark to Indiana Jones 11. Chose unfashionable blacks and browns rather than trendy plaids and stripes as uniform colors for SS & SA" -- From "Top 59 Mistakes Made by Adolf Hitler" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 13:54:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:34:09 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: here's the rub To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 10:39:15 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Alysoun: here's the rub Cc: Rooscc@AOL.COM Noble Cousins! Lady Alysoun wrote: >We are talking past each other. > >Finnvarr has offered a toehole with his suggestion that we focus on the game >first. Unfortunately, the "game" is a bit slippery as a concept. If we can >agree to set the corporate issues aside for the moment, can we also agree to >spend a few rounds on the grassroots level of the game and sort out some of >the elements we need to consider? What degree of centralization, >co-ordination, or arbitration is needed for what? > ... > >At the other extreme, A&S is not centralized, or even co-ordinated between >kingdoms except on an ad hoc basis--like in interkingdom competition at >Pennsic. What about the Great Orders--do they co-ordinate at all? > >Things that are set in corpora aren't very negotiable--titles, shire size, >etc. We don't want these fossilized, but we do not expect frequent >overhauling. Noble Cousins! Taking this up now would head discussions in the direction of the "landmarks" discussion which last I heard was still on the agenda of forthcoming topics. As much as I am interested in the "landmarks" discussion and hope that it will be taken up next. I do think that dealing with a macroscopic international "regulation", "standards", "mutual recognition" or whatever you want to call it and separating out the corporation a bit CAN be done before the "landmarks" discussion. Issues about the Quidity of the "da game" is what the "landmarks" project was about. Admittadly, the "landmarks" may be interelated with corporate issues, but I think that their role in things might be a little more clear in people's minds if the corporate thing is talked about a bit more first. Look, a lot of the topics on th Grand Council's plate are inter-related. You can not just jump from one to another and expect to get things done. Maybe you can issue a preliminary report on corporate structure, then do the quidity issues in a "landmarks" discussion and then go back to corporate structure again. Ask Eddie first if you must. I doubt that he will come down on the council as long as it looks like it is actually producing something. Warning. The "landmarks" discussion will be messy. I have been through two of them on the "landmarks" discussion groups. The whole idea was then strongly attacked when it was aired on sca-reform. Whether it is called something other than (the now somewhat discredited) "landmarks", is moot. The substance is essentially the same. 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 | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 13:58:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:45:46 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: here's the rub To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960415085825_272169560@emout07.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) >Finnvarr has offered a toehole with his suggestion that we focus on the game >first. Unfortunately, the "game" is a bit slippery as a concept. If we can >agree to set the corporate issues aside for the moment, can we also agree to >spend a few rounds on the grassroots level of the game and sort out some of >the elements we need to consider? What degree of centralization, >co-ordination, or arbitration is needed for what? To at least some degree I concur with Solveig on this one -- this is a morass that *is* going to take a while to thrash out thoroughly, and is moderately separable, so we shouldn't get ourselves too mired in it. I *think* we're going to conclude that different areas need different levels of centralization; if that is so, then I suspect we can take that as read, and design the structure to have flexibility in this respect... That said, a few brief opinions: >What has to be centralized? Heraldry for one, if we want to continue >registering our arms on one master list. Big if, but many people *do* seem to take this as an article of faith (even though it's rather unperiod). I suspect it's not changeable at this point, so it *will* remain moderately centralized. >At the other extreme, A&S is not centralized, or even co-ordinated between >kingdoms except on an ad hoc basis--like in interkingdom competition at >Pennsic. What about the Great Orders--do they co-ordinate at all? Not on a global basis, no. >Things that are set in corpora aren't very negotiable--titles, shire size, >etc. We don't want these fossilized, but we do not expect frequent >overhauling. Probably correct. Personally, I'd say that titles realistically belong there. (I *detest* the way the titlature of the SCA is set up, but I think that attempts to remove the top-level consistency of titles will be tilting at windmills, so I'm not going to bother.) Ideally, shire size doesn't belong there -- it *could* easily enough be left to the individual Kingdoms, I suspect. But that may also be difficult to take out. >Setting the corporation aside for the moment, you can see that we have a knot >here that has nothing to do with mundane laws and everything to do with the >game. How can you allow kingdoms sovereignty and keep universality? (Beware >of pollyanna-ism--the real world hasn't worked this out either.) Absolutely correct -- anyone watching Europe will understand this issue acutely. The answer, I believe, is the same compromise that has been made there. Nations/Kingdoms have a certain amount of sovereign right, but cede specific aspects of that sovereignty to a higher-level negotiating body, in the name of working together harmoniously. That never works perfectly -- there is always a necessary tension between the centralizing and decentralizing forces at work there -- but it can be a very practical compromise... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Drugs are the new american relgion-- and faked massive cocaine busts are the sacrement. How many times is the DEA going to confiscate the same cocaine?" -- Jay Prince From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:10:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:53:26 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 01:30 PM 4/15/96 EDT, you wrote: >Magnus responds to Galleron: >>> Society Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole >>> Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and >>> conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. >>> >>Or I would contend, controlled by treaty between the Kingdoms. > >Which *may* be effectively the same thing, if you view (as I do) >SCA-World as essentially the treaty mechanism between the Kingdoms. >(That is, its authority derives from the Kingdoms (and maybe >Principalities) that appoint it...) > > -- Justin > Pretty close at least, but do we build a new monolith or just make it easier for existig mechanisms to do their jobs. My contention is that a treaty organisation, or SCA-World need exist only on an ad hoc basis, rather than become the new "Corp". Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:15:26 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4182 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:57:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Galleron: SCA-World Issues (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604081626.MAA21201@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Apr 8, 96 12:26:21 pm Greetings from Tibor. I apologize: but I put aside reading the bulk of correspondence from the GC for the last week or so. I am somewhat late to the table, therefore. You will (over the course of this afternoon, and perhaps tomorrow) see comments on items trickling in from me. Galleron wrote: I agree that some sort of landmarks are necessary. Any dissent? Can we agree on that as a start? I see them as defining the outer boundaries of what is the SCA. As I see it, they would NOT be Corpora for SCA-World, although they would contain some of the things that are in Corpora now. Dissent. Not that I welcomed the opinion I now hold. The wide-ranging courses of discussion on Landmarks during our debate, led me to an unfortunate conclusion: there are no real "outer boundaries" to our game. Because of the uncontrolled growth of our game over the years, it would be difficult (if not outright impossible) to place boundaries upon our game without alienating people. Even (and especially) alienating some of our longest term members. For a few fast examples: Laurelin, Valgaard, Solveig. Duke Laurelin represents the fantasy element. Valgaard actively wants to create a new culture within the Society that combines the romantization of Victorian ideals and history. Solveig, despite the name, is interested in Japaneses. We have New World conquistadors, Aztecs, Han, Africans. Despite the clarity of our time cut-off, we have no real control over that: An Tir seems to have a hobby of 1650, as do other important folks. Most brewers I know clutch to Digby (1669) as if it were the only period source we have. Few would argue that medievalism was more than a cherished historical notion even in 1600. (The further south you travel in Europe, the truer that generalization rings.) These points can be debated in the details, but the grosser generalizations ring true. We cannot easily draw an outer boundary without exclusing people, who have been playing and contributing. --- I tried to move the Landmarks discussion toward a different sort of solution. I believe that (to strain the metaphor) we can demark the "center of our lands" and agree to those basic ideals. We can probably easily agree upon what is included: even if we cannot agree easily on whom we should exclude. Once we have a center, we can begin to determine metrics of what is "too far away." I've tried that before, with limited success. But even some relative measures would be possible. Every time I see Landmarks, I read the subtext "exclusion". I'd rather see us work toward a politics of inclusion. --- You may see something of a subtext here, that I've been thinking toward for several years now. Don't worry: you'll continue to see more of it soon. "Just to be contrary for a moment: there is, of course, an even lighter-weight solution, that also doesn't strictly require Landmarks -- mutual recognition of Kingdoms." I believe that this will be the solutions we must head toward. An agreement of synthesis: that each Kingdom will continue to recognize all other Kingdoms that a majority of the Society recognizes. And that failure to recognize one would mean withdrawal from all the others. --- I believe that whatever pan-Societal solution we reach for, will have to recognize the following goals: 1. The right to play as each kingdom sees fit, means treasuring diversity. 2. The rare requirement that a powerful individual can ruin the game within a kingdom will require the careful and occassional exercise of external authority. 3. That you can't make people play well together: you can merely encourage them to, and that THIS is what a pan-Societal organization must do. 4. That local tools used to make the game convenient, cheap or legal must be treated as local aberations, and not enshrined within the game. 5. "We must hang together, or surely we will all hang separately." Truly, I find the current structure we have to be bizarre in the extreme. The Corporation and it's organization seems to be a means of justification of checking accounts... Tibor (wandering dangerously off-course) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:19:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:04:31 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gareth of Stonemarche... -- Justin From: "Gregory D. Dearborn" Subject: Re: Galleron: Alysoun's Next Step, Various (fwd) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 14:30:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <9604151730.AA03717@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Apr 15, 96 01:30:49 pm Greetings from Gareth of Stonemarche. > Magnus responds to Galleron: > >> Society Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole > >> Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and > >> conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. > >> > >Or I would contend, controlled by treaty between the Kingdoms. > And you replied: > Which *may* be effectively the same thing, if you view (as I do) > SCA-World as essentially the treaty mechanism between the Kingdoms. > (That is, its authority derives from the Kingdoms (and maybe > Principalities) that appoint it...) Right. Exactly. But how permanent is "SCA-World"? Some people seem to think it must be a standing body, incorporated, possibly with a full time staff. I disagree. I think "SCA-World" would better serve the Society if it didn't exist until it was needed, and then dissolved when its current job is over. Once Corpora is re-written, I don't see the need for the entirety of SCA-World to meet all that often. Instead of have a standing body, there should be a mechanism to invoke a convocation of the Kingdoms (or, perhaps, the Kingdoms + the Principalities). They could deal with all the issues that have accumulated so far, debate about changes to be made to the Great Charter/Corpora etc. The funding for SCA-World should come out of the kingdom coffers, including airfare and accomodations if delegates must be sent. Many of the problems that the Board has ultimate jurisdiction over now I think should be the handled by the Kingdoms. Notably, I think interpretation of Corpora/Great Charter should be done at the kingdom level. There is no need for Society level officers at all. However, I think the kingdom level officers should be in fairly close touch with one another; mailing lists, phone conferences and meetings. Again, I think it up to each kingdom to decide and implement the funding for this level of contact. Please feel free to comment and/or forward to the GC as you see fit. Your servant, Gareth From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:37:18 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: 87 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:21:10 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604090710.CAA22749@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Apr 9, 96 02:10:23 am Greetings from Tibor. Maghnuis Some legal entity has to be in charge. Why? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:38:38 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: 2064 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:18:09 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Many corporations To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <3169BC20@tmpgw951.allied.com> from "Potter, Michael" at Apr 8, 96 06:07:00 pm Greetings from Tibor. Sir Myrdin the Just I do not see the need to have multiple corporations for other than certain legal responsibilities (such as renting sites, controlling bank accounts, etc.). To play the "game", one body (currently SCA, Inc. by default) is all that is needed. The groups within the SCA shires up to Kingdoms do not have to have corporations associated with them. It has been empirically shown, that all you need to play our game is a backyard, and some friends worth inviting over. (:-) It's a given (which had traditionally been ignored) that there will be overlapping and multiple Corporations within the Society. They are a useful adjunct to the game. Any realistic plan for growth and maintenance of the organization really OUGHT to consider how to integrate those issues. Consider the "multiple corporations in one nation" that is Canada. Or the "corporation within a corporation" that is Ansteorra, or Bridge. Or the "multiple nations within one corporation" model that could take place in Europe, in the near future. In order to manage the Society, we need to permit amalgamations of individuals who wish to claim Kingdom status to cooperate and work together to play the same game we are playing now. And relegate corporations to a subordinate layer of support. For the above reason, I do not think that an association of corporations is the best model for the SCA (too many claims of what is legal and customary for every corporation) would arise. I like the current model of one group (now SCA, Inc., but I'm not stuck on that). The text I deleted showed that there was a requirement in Canada for at least one corporation that was outside of SCA Inc (US). I have to conclude, therefore, that either you argued for associations of social groups, or that you were arguing against yourself. I do believe that we must find ways to cooperatively venture together. Corporations are not the units we ought be most concerned with, except to recognize that there will be a multiplicity of them. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:41:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1069 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:26:51 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Magnus and Alban To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316A8413@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Apr 9, 96 07:26:00 am Greetings from Tibor. Finnvarr wrote: 1. People in other countries, including Canada, should have the option of belonging to a national, regional, or local corporation, and have their membership recognized as equivalent to membership in SCA, Inc. Huzzah. 2. Access to publication requirements in all kingdoms and principalities should be redefined so that people outside the USA are not locked into paying US funds for US produced publications mailed from the USA. (If they want to continue to use them, great.) I believe the model of the American Automobile Association (AAA) magazine might work here. It provides content to those local groups that choose to use it (and pay for it). They add additional content, and do their own mailing. Like so many of the features of the AAA, it is an optional service >from their central corporation. (AAA also cooperates with the CAA in Canada.) 3. The game-regulating body needs to be defined in such a way as to give non-US members and branches some reasonable amount of clout. Huzzah. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 15:58:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1487 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:40:39 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Regulating the Game To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <316A949E@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Apr 9, 96 08:36:00 am Greetings from Tibor. Finnvarr had written: I don't have a brilliant idea of my own. However, I do have a brilliant idea of what should be represented in said legislature. Both Kingdoms AND Principalities. Close, but not quite what I had in mind... Because qualifying for those arbitrary names is usually held in check by powers outside of that group. I must admit my ideas on this are fuzzy and unclear at this time, but it seems to me that any group worthy of a name and identity, should be able to petition whatever "uber-game" group coordinates the overall game. It's quite analagous to peerages. What makes a peer? No one thing, or list of things. But when your other peers are ready to recognize you, you are a peer. The only difference in my model would be that you could "ask" for a peerage, and if you failed to get it, there would be no lasting stigma. As a concrete example, Finnvarr. The Canadian Maritime groups of the East are moderately isolated geographically. They do not qualify as a Principality as we measure the term today. Yet they are capable, qualified, self-sufficient, stable, and of quality. In a heterogeneous hegemony, wouldn't they deserve to be recognized? And, ought they to hold ANOTHER abortive principality movement before such admission to the hegemony was extended? Spend a momment considering the requirements for a Principality... In other words: I like your good idea, but would love to see it extended farther. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 16:16:26 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 880 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 15:59:37 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Erik Langhans" at Apr 9, 96 04:09:34 pm Greetings from Tibor. Modius wrote: Do we need an SCA-world? Do we currently have the resources, ie staffing, money, etc. to support this new animal? I don't think we should. If other non-US organizations wanted to come into existance we could lend them materials, consult with them on how to structure their new group etc. Let's keep to the US focus until we have the $$$ and people to support the global venture. You're planning on voting for Buchanon, aren't you? (:-) We have active groups in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Europe and many Pacific Islands. Ignoring them, and their needs, is unkind. Not to mention counterproductive. Part and parcel of the problems Nordmark encountered (or Drachenwald repeatedly encounters) is a failure of adequate vision on the US Corporation's part. We HAVE an SCA-World. Let's get busy being good to it. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 16:21:03 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 795 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:04:40 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Division Street To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604092226.AA24606@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Apr 9, 96 06:26:26 pm Greetings from Tibor. Serwyl said to Justin: > If they report to SCA-World, then we have to assume that body >exerts some authority over them Justin answered: Why? I have a problem with this assumption. I can even give an illustrative example. I am pursuivant to my Barony. Do I *make* people commit heraldry? I do not. I cannot! I exist to assist, cajol, support, encourage and help. [1] Why should we consider someone we "report to" as thereby having an authority? Maybe we are "reporting" because we want to ask for help, or offer experiences? Don't think Boss. Think Conduit. Tibor [1] If you check Corpora and East Kingdom law, I exist merely to have a paid membership in the SCA Incorporated, and have no other duties. This has always seemed insane to me. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Apr 15 16:36:42 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: 1290 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 16:23:02 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9604111457.AA20272@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Apr 11, 96 10:57:46 am Greetings from Tibor. Alban wrote: 1) Steward-type thing. This could be cobbered up out of the exectutive council of the world game thing: have a rotating president with a year-long stint. I don't particularly like the idea, since it would rotate, but it has the major advantage of being easy to set up. Justin responded: I don't think it makes a major difference to the real issue -- what I care about here isn't *who* this Chief Executive of SCA-World would be, so much as *whether* we need one (which I suspect we probably do), and whether the job is *necessarily* large enough to require a salaried official (which I'm less sure about). Do a flock of sheep need a Chief Executive? Or do they need a sheep herder? Most of the work is done by the herding dogs... what is there title? The language used above implies a mental model of authority that I am not sure we want to pre-suppose. Perhaps we will arrive at that point, but I hope only after examination of it. Fiacha is our "Chief Executive Officer". He can't even stop debates... there are lots of ways a Chairman works. The sad truth is, the more I think about the how I envision the Society, the more I am reminded about the David Brin "Uplift" novels... Tibor (Diana is the Progenitor? Bleah...) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 16 01:26:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 01:14:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: REsponse: Galleron, Gareth, etc. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I _think_ it was Galleron who said > Landmarks. What the Society is and will always be. Anything we can >all agree on is going to be very, very broad in its definitions. Anything >we can stand by forever will need to leave a lot out. Society >Constitution, or The Great Charter. A set of rules that the whole >Society agrees to follow. Can be amended to meet changing needs and >conditions, but it's not a trivial matter. Controlled by SCA-World. I watched the Landmarks discussion last year, and even threw in a couple of comments. It was interesting; it was also, umm, bitter at times; both what should be in the Landmarks, and whether there should even be Landmarks. I would suspect, therefore, that we might best decide a) whether there should be Landmarks, and b) if yes, then suggest that as the first order of business of the Council of the Middle Ages, _it_ decides what goes into the Landmarks. We are reorganizing the workload of the Board of Directors, not deciding on the Rules of the Game. ( At least, that's the argument we can use when we fob off the responsibility. Seriously, it's not in our mandate to decide what goes onto the Landmarks list; but I think it can, barely, come within the mandate to say that future bodies should think about it.) As for Magnus's (Magnus'? Magni's? - Magnus, what _is_ the possessive form of your name?), Justin's, and Finnvarr's ganging up on me, and jumping up and down on my perfect and wonderful functional representation idea, well, hell. I hate to admit it, but y'all have come within a hair of converting me. Close enough, in fact, that I'm throwing in the towel on the idea. For now. Let's keep those areas loose, officially unaffiliated, and out of The Official Loop. I reserve the right to suggest to the Council of the Known World itself my wonder idea. Gareth said >But how permanent is "SCA-World"? Some people seem to think it >must be a standing body, incorporated, possibly with a full time staff. I >disagree. >I think "SCA-World" would better serve the Society if it didn't exist >until it was needed, and then dissolved when its current job is over. >Once Corpora is re-written, I don't see the need for the entirety of SCA- >World to meet all that often. Instead of have a standing body, there >should be a mechanism to invoke a convocation of the Kingdoms (or, >perhaps, the Kingdoms + the Principalities). They could deal with all >the issues that have accumulated so far, debate about changes to be >made to the Great Charter/Corpora etc. >The funding for SCA-World should come out of the kingdom coffers, >including airfare and accommodations if delegates must be sent. I think it should be a standing committee, but not necessarily (hell, not even probably) incorporated - but there should be at least one person somewhere handling the paperwork. (See below) - Because having an organization of some sort at least set up officially on paper will make things easier when the kingdoms come together, so the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented for every conclave, so that the organization can maintain records and decisions from previous meetings, so that there's at least one place where the Great Charter and future agendas are maintained, and so forth, and so on - you know, the usual administrivia. A sort of collective memory? There should be, must be, at least one person who handles the paperwork, keeps the landmarks, handles requests, forwards mail....Hmmmm, I'm beginning to think that what we need isn't so much a SCA-World Council so much as a SCA-World Council Permanent Secretary. (That's a joke.) (But, you know, now that I think about it......) As for funding, it's a good idea. Hmmm, this might be one of the lesser requirements for promotion to kingdom status: if the principality can't afford to send a representative, it's not yet financially secure enough? Great. I can see it now: various mundane corporations in various countries to handle tax forms, publications, and so forth; various kingdoms with plenty of existence, but not necessarily incorporated; several functional groups (like the College of Arms) floating out there in the Great Void; and one person keeping us all together. I like it. How the hell are we going to persuade the Board of Directors, and the populace at large, this is a good idea? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 16 10:26:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 10:11:39 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: common sense To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In my last posting (here's the rub) I did not want to start a major analysis, just some quick sorting and I need input from those of you who are more experienced or whose kingdoms may differ significantly from mine. Rather than dream up some magificent world structure and then cram the bits and pieces into it, it makes more sense to take a good look at the parts and see what sort of world structure they require. I have not served on the board or held a high office, so I do not know what sort of problems arise or with what frequency. Much of the flapdoodle I hear about relates to corporate matters--failure to report, for example. None of these things have to do with the game in a way that would be relevant on the world level. Fairly recently we were told that the Interkingdom Council was suffering from a lack of interkingdom conflicts to resolve. If much of the day-to-day co-ordination can be handled by kingdom and corporate officers, the World Council would be a very different animal than if that kind of co-ordination required a nanny. If, for example, all the kingdom marshals start with the same rule book of basics, what do they need to continue to play together? 1) A periodic meeting (electronic?) to agree on adjustments and 2) support when questions come up. Currently, I assume that a kingdom marshal goes to the Society marshal when there's a big question. Kingdoms in SCAinc can continue to do that. If your kingdom is not in SCAinc, to whom do you go? We can have a World Society marshal who sits above SCAinc and other Corporate marshals (figuring Australia etc is good for several kingdoms in the long run), or we can move the Society Marshal to the world level (bypassing the corporate structure), or we can tell the kingdom marshal to poll at least three other kingdom marshals and go with that answer until the next big meeting. Which of these things would be best should not rest solely on one's personal political paradigms (i.e., how much you love /hate structure) but on how many and what sort of questions come up. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 16 11:34:37 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 17:01:16 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >At least according to some sources, the swedish "corporation" is not the SCA. >Paying for a membership in it does notsupport the world wide Game. True, but having that swedish corp. makes it *much* easier to play the game in Sweden, what with renting sites and tax-exempt status &c. And if you count Sweden as being part of the world you could well say it does. >It "apparently" has no fealty to a Kingdom or a larger Society or >Corporation. There are no mechanisms in place to assure that the >SKA-Nordmark Inc. will meet any SCA standards. I am looking for those mechanisms! How can we make SKA-Nordmark a partner on equal footing with the SCA,Inc., and the corporations in Australia, Canada, Holland, Austria, &c? >On the other hand, the people in Sweden who are members of the SCA and who >swear allegiance to the Kingdom of Draconwald are members in a world wide >organisation and have agreed to play the SCA game. I do not see why paying a fee to an US based corporation, or swearing fealty to a game-kingdom are necessary to play the game. Following the rules of the game is the important part! For the moment paying money to the Milpitas office is one of the rules. Is that rule necessary? >We need as few corporations, with as few "different" rules as possible. How >can we do that in Sweden? By acknowledging that a membership in SKA-Nordmark is a membership in the world wide SCA. The rules on how to set up a non-profit organization should not affect the rules on how to play our game. Do not confuse these aspects. >Assisting the people that play effectively. This is the Point. Also, doing >it efficiently and cheaply. Absolutely. >Magnus Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Apr 16 12:46:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 11:35:54 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960416101138_273113621@mail02.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >If much of the day-to-day co-ordination can be handled by kingdom and >corporate officers, the World Council would be a very different animal than >if that kind of co-ordination required a nanny. Excellent point, and I suspect you're right here... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You're nobody until parodied..." -- Dur the Nasty, slightly edited From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 04:09:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:24:05 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense Comments: To: Rooscc@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Currently, I assume that a kingdom marshal goes to the Society marshal when >there's a big question. Kingdoms in SCAinc can continue to do that. If your >kingdom is not in SCAinc, to whom do you go? I think you may be confusing 'Society' with 'Corporation' here. Marshals should handle game stuff (specifically fighting) and corporations should handle mundane stuff (i.e: renting sites). There is no need to tie the marshallate to the corporations. > We can have a World Society >marshal who sits above SCAinc and other Corporate marshals (figuring >Australia etc is good for several kingdoms in the long run), or we can move >the Society Marshal to the world level (bypassing the corporate structure), >or we can tell the kingdom marshal to poll at least three other kingdom >marshals and go with that answer until the next big meeting. If you substitute "bypassing" with "disconnected from", then I would support the second option above. Currently, the Society Marshal is on the world level, sitting above the kingdom marshals. We could keep that structure for a 'College of Marshals'. Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 10:33:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:10:32 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: "disconnecting" To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L As Frithiof amends my text, read "by-passing" as "dis-connecting". My approach here is not as much fun as discussing ideal structures, but it will be more fruitful in the long run. The first step is "officially" amending the view of SCAinc. The second is assessing the strengths of non-US groups. The third is assessing elements of our game to see what sort of structures are needed to keep us playing together. (If we as a Council cannot do the actual assessing due to lack of information, our proposal can take the form of an outline of the steps needed.) I hope the people out there will continue to post us descriptions of how non-US groups work and what sort of responsibilities they are willing and able to assume (both in the short and long term). More discussion of our "play areas" is needed at this point. Can a College of Marshals handle the work? Are heraldry and combat the only areas where this kind of co-ordination is needed? Sitting on the back burner are the structure to handle major changes in the game--something like Finnvarr's World Council--and the legal/technical details (like financing). The more we know about what world players can or can't handle and what co-ordination is or is not necessary, the better we can work with these things. Footnote: On the universality/sovereignty question: getting royalty to think in terms of royal peers (world view) would seem to aid in smoothing this tension. My impression is when royalty is overly enamored with being at the top of the local heap they are more inclined to assert their prerogative and there is a tendency among some US royalty to view their fellows as "the competition." Strengthening interkingdom relations at the royalty level seems necessary to me, especially once the failsafe of a single corporation is removed. Related to this is the relation of kingdom to principalities and to significant peoples (national or geographic groups) within the kingdom. I'm not bringing this up for discussion so much as suggesting that we keep it in mind. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 12:16:40 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 10:38:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 09:24 AM 4/17/96 +0200, you wrote: >>Currently, I assume that a kingdom marshal goes to the Society marshal when >>there's a big question. Kingdoms in SCAinc can continue to do that. If your >>kingdom is not in SCAinc, to whom do you go? > >I think you may be confusing 'Society' with 'Corporation' here. >Marshals should handle game stuff (specifically fighting) and >corporations should handle mundane stuff (i.e: renting sites). >There is no need to tie the marshallate to the corporations. > >There is one HUGE reason for the corporation to be involved in fighting: LIABILITY and it's sub-section INSURANCE, and its probably ineffective subsection: WAIVERS. Limiting Liability is the number one reason for Corporations, not just for SCA, but in general. Without a Corporation backing them, it would be ludicrous to ask anyone to act as Marshall. They would be risking their homes everytime. (As it is, I believe our current insurance does not go NEARly far enough to protect anyone but the BoD.) Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 13:42:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:10:24 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Response to Alysoun To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10:52 AM 4/6/96 PST, you wrote: >Go In the Middle Kingdom, Canadian groups are required to >fill out all the financial reporting forms needed for the IRS, even though >the IRS does not want that information. If they are a part of the SCA Inc, then yes, the IRS does want this info. > SCA bank accounts in Ontario are set >up on a US model, even though the legality of doing this is doubtful. What specific Illegalities are we talking about. I've heard this allegation several times, but I've no clue what the problem is. Thanx Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 14:57:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:33:35 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604171538.KAA13567@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus points out: >There is one HUGE reason for the corporation to be involved in fighting: > >LIABILITY Which is another excellent point about why the SCA needs to start thinking globally. What you say here is probably correct in the US. It is almost certainly *in*correct in many other countries, where the legal and medical scenario leaves the marshall far less liable than here. Personally, I think it's pretty clear that the Marshallate *really* has two related-but-separate chains of responsibility: the game side (which should be co-ordinated up through whatever the global game- co-ordination level is), and the mundane side (which may well need to report in some fashion to the *national* corporation for their area, if relevant). Having, eg, Canadian Marshalls being regulated by the exceedingly liability-conscious US is every bit as silly as having American ones running by Canadian-derived rules would be... And yes, I expect some other offices, including the Seneschalate and possibly even the Exchequer, may have similarly split responsibilities... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "I'm the guy with the healing factor. Some guy's book is in the toilet, they bring me in to heal it." -- Wolvie From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 16:09:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 12:43:25 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604171538.KAA13567@CP.Duluth.MN.US> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > >There is one HUGE reason for the corporation to be involved in fighting: > > LIABILITY > and it's sub-section > INSURANCE, > and its probably ineffective subsection: > > WAIVERS. Garbage, garbage and smelly unrecyclable garbage! The corporation may be liable for combat related injuries but that has not been contested in court and so the liability is merely potential. The insurance does not and never attempted to protect officers from liability claims in respect of combat related injuries. The waivers (in their current form) do not mention combat and I have grave doubts that combat is the most probable source of damage that the waivers attempt to protect society officers from. It is my feeling that marshalls are more liable in the case of injury to spectators through failure to enforce the . In which case, their failure may absolve the corporation of any obligation to assume responsibility. There are other ways to reduce the risk of anyone being held responsible for damages. However, marshalls are not currently protected and none of the proposals under discussion will change that. Please save this discussion for later when we look at the individual hierarchies and the changes we want to recommend for them. Fiacha > act as Marshall. They would be risking their homes everytime. (As it is, I > believe our current insurance does not go NEARly far enough to protect > anyone but the BoD.) > > Magnus > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 16:20:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:39:56 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Finnvarr: re Internationization Summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Do a flock of sheep need a Chief Executive? Or do they need a sheep herder? >Most of the work is done by the herding dogs... what is there title? > > Yes, but what grouping of sheep is significant enough to vote for which breed of dog herds them and in what direction...? Magnus :{0> From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 16:21:07 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:39:55 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 03:21 PM 4/15/96 -0400, you wrote: >Greetings from Tibor. > >Maghnuis > Some legal entity has to be in charge. > >Why? > > Tibor > So the outside people will know who to sue, and so the inside people will know what the rules are. (as opposed to the rumored rules with which we are so abundantly blessed) Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 16:23:51 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 09:39:53 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Universality Comments: To: James Prescott To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:53 PM 4/15/96 -0600, Thorvald wrote: > >Not via the GC-list. You may post this to the list if you wish. > >On Mon, 15 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > >> At 12:53 PM 4/8/96 -0700, Fiacha wrote: >> > >> >> 6. Minimum rules for financial accounability >> > >> >I oppose this. I would rather see all corporations responsible for their >> >own financial rules. >> > >> I fwe "license" other corps to play the SCA game, do we care whether they >> meet any reasonable standards for financial accoutability? I think so. If >> any Part of the SCA is accting irresponsibly it will have repercussions on >> all of the SCA. We don't need to set up a US based word for word structure >> for banking and tax reporting, but some standards should be required of any >> group that will be an SCA corp. > >No. > >The non-profit societies in Canada, at least, are regulated by >the provincial governments and/or the federal government. These | Adequate to protect >regulations are entirely adequate. The financial regulations |the Canada group >proposed in the past by SCA Inc. have not only been unnecessary |from Canada anyway. >in Canada, they have occasionally been illegal, attempting to >require that the Canadian groups do things which it is illegal >or impossible for them to do in Canada. > >If there are separate societies, there is zero, repeat zero, |Not necessarily so. >financial relationship between the societies, and zero financial |The US(or World) >exposure in either direction. There is no need for additional |group could easily >regulation. Where it makes sense, it is superfluous. Where it |be sued in the US if >makes no sense, it will be ignored in the future as it has been |ANY rules or | decisions came from >repeatedly ignored in the past. | here. Successfully? > >If you sense in that attitude a rather tired disgust with the | Magnus >uninformed pronouncements that have often in the past been a >characteristic of the SCA Inc., you would be right. > >If a Canadian SCA non-profit were to do irresponsible things >with its money, it would have no effect on the SCA as a whole. >Some of the individuals involved might be fined or go to jail >under Canadian law, but nothing else would happen. > >Keep it simple. Don't make work where none is required. > I agree with this one above all( or almost all).-Magnus >All my best, >Thorvald Grimsson/James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) (PGP user) > The groups will interact and COULD cause problems for each other. Local Regulations must be met. But this will not usually preclude meeting additional standards also. The trick is figuring out what minimums will protect all the groups. e.g. A requirement that any National organization obey the local, Provicial and National Laws which apply to it, meeting all requirements for reporting income and taxes. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 18:03:35 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1070 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 16:39:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604171439.JAA12566@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Apr 17, 96 09:39:55 am Greetings from Tibor. Magnus had asserted that "Some legal entity has to be in charge", and I had queried why. So the outside people will know who to sue, and so the inside people will know what the rules are. (as opposed to the rumored rules with which we are so abundantly blessed) Does not follow. For example, Kingdoms and Principalities (while in general not legal entities) are capable of promulgating rules. Lest someone pretend that this is always done on the SCA's behalf, please remember that many activities (such as equestrian and fencing) arose from the Kingdoms and were adopted/adapted/coopted by the SCA Incorporated. A generally recognized agreement is sufficient. As for the litigation, I presume that you meant that in jest? If not, can you expound? Please expand your answer to cover the issue of international cooperation, and not just one country. Again, we can even postulate that local legislatures may require various incorporations in states, provinces, countries or unions. We where discussing the top level, only. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 19:03:27 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 139 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:35:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Proposal from Galleron To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Proposal For a New International Structure for the Society OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, to interpret the common rules of the game we play, embodied in a document called the Great Charter. The Council controls a spartan SCA-World, which deals with worldwide issues, mostly by a advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements wherever the SCA operates. SCA,Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes game groups that follow the charter. Worldwide SCA publications are produced by a separate, self-funding, organization. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method agreeable to the members of the Kingdom or Principality. This body interprets the Great Charter, a document that defines the common rules of the game we play. By 2/3 vote, they may amend it, but wouldn't do so very often. The Charter would not be Corpora, but would define those elements that a Corpora must contain for the group that follows it to be part of the Society. For example, it would define Barons, but not say how they must be appointed. To quote Finnvarr, it need not concern itself with the minimum size of Shires. It would specify that SCA groups were not permitted to bring the whole Society into gross disrepute,. or cause injury to other SCA groups. (I only see this coming into play if Kingdom A gets so weird that Kingdom B has a hard time getting sites because of what people in their area have been hearing about "The SCA". The Council would have the power to decide that a group was violating the Charter, and could no longer be recognized as part of the Society until it rectified the problem. This, and the threat to invoke it, would be the only binding control the Council would have over Society groups. In general, however, it would operate mostly by consent and moral force. In addition to the Charter, it would also produce guidelines, like model Corporas. "This is the suggested baseline, but you're not required to follow it" It would appoint arbitrators to constitute a final appeal panel. Both Kingdoms and Corporations would either be urged or required to have methods of review at lower levels. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization. I see it including: Laurel Sovereign of Arms, doing pretty much what he does now. Marshalate Advisor. Does NOT control a hierarchy. Does collect some data worldwide on how many fighters are getting injured and by what, as a guide to both the Council, the Kingdoms, and the Boards. As the name implies, his function is advisory. A&S Advisor. Primary function is to glom onto research, resources, and the like that are being produced anyplace in the Society and find them a wider audience. Also advises Council on Arts issues when required. You might also want Medical and Seneschal advisors, to co-ordinate sharing of knowledge in their fields, and to advise the Council. TI, CA, and Stock Clerk are functions of Society Publications, a separate, self-funding corporation. Its directors are appointed by the Council, but it is otherwise independent. More about that later. Other administration? Not much. Someone would have to keep track of contacts and addresses at the various SCA corps. I can't think of much else that would have to happen at the SCA-World level. SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS TI defined as voice of SCA-World rather than SCA,Inc.(US). SCA-US can publish stuff in TI if it wants, but pays on space-used basis. Alternatively, SCA-US can use appropriate Kingdom Newsletters, Web Site, and/or Law and Policy Newsletter for US-Specific matters. Society Publications provides publications like TI, CA, handbooks, etc., to SCA corps and members at cost. Also sells to non-members, but should charge more. Society Publications would be essentially self-funding, although it might be desirable for SCA-World to pay a subsidy based on the number of pages consumed by its communications. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated with a Mundane Governing Body, recognized by SCA-World and appropriate to its jurisdiction, to deal with mundane legal requirements. Such a body must agree not to violate the great charter. Kingdoms and Principalities may be affiliated with SCA, Inc.(US), as they are now. Or they might be affiliated with another national corp. (like Australia's). Or, for a Kingdom spanning several jurisdictions, a federation of corporations, or an umbrella corp. for several national/local corps. Mundane Governing Bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each would have its own corpora, consistent with the Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. In my opinion, local SCA corporation should at the very least have control over the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers and Seneschals within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. I also believe that this should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Baronial, Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to take part in their activities or hold office. AN EXAMPLE To see how this would work, imagine how the Canadian Principality of Ealdormere would operate under this arrangement. Its inhabitants might continue to be members of SCA, Inc., (US) as they are now. Or they might be members of a Canadian Principality level corp. that pays to produce and deliver a Principality newsletter, and buys TI from SCA Publications. Or you might have some of each. Now, Ealdormere's Corpora might be a clone of that of SCA-US. Or it might be as different as the Charter allows. Or Ealdormere might choose to remain affiliated with the US Corp. and follow its Corpora. Comments? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 22:49:08 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:38:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: World Body, Standing or Ad Hoc To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If I understand them correctly, Magnus and Gareth believe that the World Council that interprets the Game should only be formed as needed. This would make sense if problems only come up every few years. If they come up every few months a standing Council would be easier. Now, in the past six months or so we've had reports of one King that felt that Corpora permitted him to withold County rank from the outgoing King, and another that felt that he could yank the authorization of fighters that didn't fight for him. Interpretation of the game rules? Yes? Conflict of interest if the Individual King decides? Yes. Plus we've had Nordmark secessionists asking to have champions in Crown Tourney, right? Would any of the former or current Board members care to hazard a guess as to how often this kind of question of interpretation would come up? Amending the game rules would be fairly rare, but I imagine they would require interpretation fairly often. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Apr 17 23:35:44 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 13:20:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: SCA, Inc. in Ontario, Canada To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus quoting me and responding: >>In the Middle Kingdom, Canadian groups are required to >>fill out all the financial reporting forms needed for the IRS, even though >>the IRS does not want that information. >If they are a part of the SCA Inc, then yes, the IRS does want this info. The SCA, Inc. is not incorporated in Canada or in Ontario. The groups are, >from the point of view of the law of the land, unincorporated associations. Therefore, the Ontario groups are not part of the SCA, Inc., though all concerned have been pretending they are for 20 years. (Exception: The Windsor, Ont. group incorporated separately ten years or more ago.) >> SCA bank accounts in Ontario are set >>up on a US model, even though the legality of doing this is doubtful. > What specific Illegalities are we talking about. I've heard this >allegation several times, but I've no clue what the problem is. Well, there are no definite illegalities, or our Principality Exchequer, a chartered accountant by profession, would have done something by now. However, the method mandated by the kingdom and by SCA, Inc. for setting up bank accounts is not the method favored by Ontarian or Canadian procedures. Various government offices have been asked for rulings on this and related questions (especially, should we be incorporated?) but they have yet to say anything definitive. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 08:49:11 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 58 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 08:36:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Galleron: World Body, Standing or Ad To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig by Finnvarr ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Duke Finvar! To answere Lord Galleron's question. ---- >Would any of the former or current Board members care to hazard a guess as to >how often this kind of question of interpretation would come up? Amending the >game rules would be fairly rare, but I imagine they would require >interpretation fairly often. Curbing the excesses of monarchs and similar problems are one of the chief justifications for the existence of the BoD. The fact is that these problems come up rather freuently. Many current and former BoD members have already attested to this. The question is not their frequency, but whether or not they can be handled by local corporations or must go up to the highest level of the society. As many kingdoms will certainly contain or be parts of several corporations for purely mundane reasons for the foreseable future, it seems to me that it is inevetable that SCA-World will have to deal with this sort of problem on a fairly routine basis. Thus, it behooves the Grand Council to consider how this work-load can be spread more equitably. To date, the BoD has institued a system of Ombudsmen which must be from different kingdoms. This system should probably be retained. Further, there should probably be a system for creating courts of enquirey. One approach for this would be use the Society Council (I forget what Gallron's term was) as the pool from which to draw this. Under this system, I suggest that the ombudsman, the regional representative and a third member mutually agreeable to them form such a court of enquirey. The alternative is to have a smaller society supreme court selected by the society council. This court would hear cases in a manner similar to the U.S. supreme court. A petitioner would send a brief to the court. An individual court member could decide that it meritted review and depending upon the gravity of the complaint either a committe of the court or the entire court would consider the case. Much of this work could be taken care of by correspondence and electronic communication much as the current BoD operates. 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 | bnostran@lynx.neu.edu | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | Carolingia -- Statis Mentis Est | Regnum Orientalis | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 10:56:34 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 32 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:44:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: proposal! To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr. I believe this is a reply to something I posted to the GC list for Solveig. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ FORWARDED FROM: Steve Muhlberger Return-Path: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 09:14:21 -0400 From: WMclean290@aol.com Message-Id: <960418091420_516663212@emout09.mail.aol.com> To: STEVEM@einstein.unipissing.ca Subject: Re: proposal! In a message dated 96-04-18 08:28:14 EDT, you write: > I do wish that we could call waht you call >SCA-USA something else though. I think that it should be called SCA-West. >I think that would be a nice name for it and a little less presumptuous as >I suspect that the U.S. would probably feel a bit better if it were >subdivided >into a couple of corporations. Some parts feel strongly pro pay-to-play >while others are strongly against, etc. I see this division of things as >possibly easing a bunch of tensions that currently exist. Thanks for your kind words. SCA-US is a working title only. The structure I propose would, of course, allow multiple corps within the US. However, let's have one cataclysmic reorganization at a time, eh? Plenty of time to split into EasternRite,Inc. and KingsWordIsLaw, Inc. once the new structure is in place. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 11:04:10 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 50 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:44:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Galleron: Review and Appeal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded by Finnvarr for Galleron. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ REPLY FROM: Steve Muhlberger Return-Path: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:36:47 -0400 From: WMclean290@aol.com Message-Id: <960418103645_516702991@emout13.mail.aol.com> To: STEVEM@einstein.unipissing.ca Subject: Galleron: Review and Appeal Please forward to GC Solveig writes: "Curbing the excesses of monarchs and similar problems are one of the chief justifications for the existence of the BoD. The fact is that these problems come up rather freuently. Many current and former BoD members have already attested to this. The question is not their frequency, but whether or not they can be handled by local corporations or must go up to the highest level of the society. As many kingdoms will certainly contain or be parts of several corporations for purely mundane reasons for the foreseable future, it seems to me that it is inevetable that SCA-World will have to deal with this sort of problem on a fairly routine basis. Thus, it behooves the Grand Council to consider how this work-load can be spread more equitably." Here's how I see it: Review at game level, with right of appeal to: Mundane Governing Body, with right of appeal to: SCA-World review panel, which must submit major rule interpretations to: World Council The important thing is that not everybody would choose to push their case all the way up to the top, although they have the right to do so, and by the time it gets there questions of fact have been mostly sorted out, and SCA-World can concentrate on questions of Law. So an Australian case would go Lothac/OziBoD/SCA-World. A Carolingian one would go East/Milpitas/SCA-World. This would mean that, in addition to the World review panel, it would be desirable for the Milpitas Corp. to set up a Grievance Panel, separate from the Board for workload reasons. If the East had its own Kingdom or regional Mundane Governing Body, it would go there insted of Milpitas. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 12:38:38 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:20:36 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Review and Appeal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31767FFD@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Thu, 18 Apr 1996 10:44:00 PDT) Galleron writes, with respect to how "cases" get settled: >Here's how I see it: >Review at game level, with right of appeal to: >Mundane Governing Body, with right of appeal to: >SCA-World review panel, which must submit major rule interpretations to: >World Council I partly disagree here, because I think you're crossing jurisdictions, which weakens the case to make these changes in the first place. One of the major incentives of the whole SCA-World idea is that it allows us to clarify *responsibility* somewhat. If every decision by SCA-US, Inc. can be appealed up to SCA-World, then we've just added a new layer of bureaucracy, with little benefit here. Rather, we should attempt to divide things by jurisdiction. There is no reason for the Mundane Corps. to get involved with purely game decisions; similarly, SCA-World shouldn't get involved with purely mundane ones. Yes, there will be many places where cases cross lines, but there will be many where they do not, and we should encourage cases to stay within the appropriate jurisdiction, rather than sending everything up the line. Thus, I'd amend the above a bit. The Mundane Bodies should be encouraged to *evaluate* cases, and decide whether they think the case most appropriately belongs to the mundane side, the game side, or both. This evaluation *can* be appealed up to a similar evaluation at the SCA-World level, which will make binding decisions about jurisdiction. Or, more concisely: these levels are encouraged to ascertain whether it is *appropriate* for them to rule on a case, rather than hearing it automatically. Once again, learn from the way the mundane court system does it... I do think the proposal needs to address these questions, at least to say that it is not specifying the "court" system yet. I found that the one major flaw in Galleron's proposal -- my *impression* of how a "court" would fit into it doesn't quite mesh with his description above. (I do think we could treat these as separate amendments to the more general proposal, which might be worthwhile...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "LeStat should be played by John Cleese. ("Of course I'm French! Why do you think I have this ***OUTRAGEOUS*** French accent, you silly person?")" -- Moriarty From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 12:47:30 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:27:08 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Proposal from Galleron To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31754AE0@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Wed, 17 Apr 1996 11:35:00 PDT) In general, I think Galleron's proposal is pretty good; it's beginning to firm up towards something we could actually vote on. I've addressed the issue of the appeals process elsewhere. There's one other area to address: >For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for >Baronial, Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined >as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes >to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. I'd leave the word "Baronial" out here; I don't think the SCA-World needs to involve itself at that level. The constituents of SCA-World are Principalities and Kingdoms, therefore it is appropriate to define those bodies. But it should probably leave other group definitions strictly to local Corporas. >Individual Mundane Governing Bodies may, within the limits of the Charter, >have other categories of membership, and may set membership requirements to >take part in their activities or hold office. *Sigh*. Which probably means I still get to fight that fight at the SCA-US, Inc. level. But yes, it is probably appropriate to not decide this issue either way at the World level... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Paranoia will get you through times of no enemies better than enemies will get you through times of no paranoia." -- Pete Granger From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 13:40:50 1996 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 12:16:00 CT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Mike.Andrews" Subject: Resignation, with deep regret Comments: cc: Mike.Andrews@listserv.aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings to the Grand Council from Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, of the Barony of Namron, in Ansteorra. Good My Lords and Ladies, It is with deep regret that I must tender my resignation from the Grand Council. The real world has come to demand so much from me that I find I am unable to give the GC the time it deserves. I will go into detail by private Email to any GC member who requests more information, but am not comfortable with posting those details to the list. I will send an "unsubscribe" request to the list owner. Please do not take this as indicating in any way that I am not interested in the GC, that I disapprove of it, or that I do not want to be associated with it. None of those possible theories is true; I simply lack the resources to meet my other, prior, and stronger commitments and to participate in the GC as a member -- despite my earnest and sincere desire to do so. I view the GC as an important source of planning that must go into the restructuring of the SCA, and have the highest regard the members and their work. I will be happy to hear of the GC and from its members, and will undertake to render the best advice and most carefully considered suggestions to them, if and when I am asked to do so. Yours very truly, Mike.Andrews@dsibm.okladot.state.ok.us Michael Fenwick of Fotheringhay, O.L. (Mike Andrews) Namron, Ansteorra Remember the ones you've lost; love the ones you have. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 14:12:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:54:49 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Review and Appeal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 18 Apr 1996 13:36:09 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Re: Galleron: Review and Appeal Justin, you in a message dated 96-04-18 12:25:36 EDT, you write: >Yes, there will be many places where cases cross lines, but there >will be many where they do not, and we should encourage cases to >stay within the appropriate jurisdiction, rather than sending >everything up the line. > Good point. I agree. So SCA-World would accept an Appeal on the basis that, say, Milpitas had ruled on a purely game matter, or incorrectly construed the effect of the Charter on a mundane matter, but not on a finding of fact, or on actions with no relation to the game or Charter. "I do think the proposal needs to address these questions, at least to say that it is not specifying the "court" system yet." OK. I'm not specifying the "court' system yet. Does the Council like the proposal otherwise? Galleron Forward if you like. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Apr 18 20:08:55 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, 18 Apr 1996 19:50:33 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: Review and Appeal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Galleron askes >OK. I'm not specifying the "court' system yet. Does the Council like the >proposal otherwise? FOr once, I think we're moving a bit _too fast_. Could everyone hold on for a a couple or four days for things to sink in, and for thinking to take place, in those of us who like to mull things over? Please? (Well, hold on about voting; I love the discussions going on, but would like to let things simmer on the back burner before I say "probably a good idea" vs "it sounds fisshy.") Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 00:40:07 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, 18 Apr 1996 23:20:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 04:39 PM 4/17/96 -0400, you wrote: >Greetings from Tibor. > >Magnus had asserted that "Some legal entity has to be in charge", and I had >queried why. > > So the outside people will know who to sue, > and so the inside people will know what the rules are. > (as opposed to the rumored rules with which we are so abundantly blessed) > >Does not follow. For example, Kingdoms and Principalities (while in general >not legal entities) are capable of promulgating rules. Yes, but they are required to promulgate these rules within the Rules of the SCA, Inc. The Kingdoms are all under the same SCA, Inc rules and can presently KNOW what those rules are. As can anyone who questions whether their Crown or Kingdom is following the Corpora etc. >As for the litigation, I presume that you meant that in jest? I only wish that I did... We are lucky that the SCA, Inc has never been sued for some matter of serious negligence. We have hundreds of very loosely regulated agents throughout the world that have enough authority to cause the SCA, Inc to be reponible for their actions. At the very least, all warranted officers fall in this category, at least while acting within their scope of office. One of the reasons that States require corporations to register as doing business in an individual state is so that anyone agrieved by our actions knows who to serve with the papers. If we don't file in an individual State this does not mean that we aren't recognized there it only means that we have broken the law by not registering. >Please expand your answer to cover the issue of international >cooperation, and not just one country. Likewise, in any country in which we havewarranted officers, we have a corporate presence. This means that the laws of that country can make our corporation liable there and that a foreign, country, corp, or individual could sue us in California, or US District Court or possibly in any state in the US, depending on their cause of action. We must meet other countries standards to avoid trouble, we must also meet US standards in any country in which we have waranted officers or any other real presence. This is to avoid liability under US law. Is this grotequely difficult and impossible to do 100.00%. Maybe! But it is at least our responsibility to try. (And I think, get an umbrella insure policy that might cover when/if we both fail and are called to account for it.) We are not even going to qualify for an insurance policy if we don't make best attempts tho. Magnus Again, we can even postulate that >local legislatures may require various incorporations in states, provinces, >countries or unions. We where discussing the top level, only. > > Tibor > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 00:40:27 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, 18 Apr 1996 23:20:42 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense/Avoiding Liability To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 12:33 PM 4/17/96 EDT, Justin wrote: >Magnus points out: >>There is one HUGE reason for the corporation to be involved in fighting: >> >>LIABILITY > >Which is another excellent point about why the SCA needs to start >thinking globally. Definitely! . Having, eg, Canadian Marshalls being regulated >by the exceedingly liability-conscious US is every bit as silly as >having American ones running by Canadian-derived rules would be... Not so... you have a US corporation doing business (Fighting) in Canada. There are possibilities for liability in BOTH the US and Canadian courts. Therefore, BOTH US and Canadian rules for avoiding liability need to be followed. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 00:42:51 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, 18 Apr 1996 23:20:41 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: How Many Corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 01:20 PM 4/17/96 PDT, Finnvarr wrote, Magnus responded and Magnus continued: >Magnus quoting me and responding: > >>>In the Middle Kingdom, Canadian groups are required to >>>fill out all the financial reporting forms needed for the IRS, even though >>>the IRS does not want that information. > >>If they are a part of the SCA Inc, then yes, the IRS does want this info. > >The SCA, Inc. is not incorporated in Canada or in Ontario. The groups are, >from the point of view of the law of the land, unincorporated associations. >Therefore, the Ontario groups are not part of the SCA, Inc., though all >concerned have been pretending they are for 20 years. If they have been acting like part of the SCA, Inc., then for all US purposes they probably are! It isn't pretending. Their Seneschals and Exchequers ARE agents of the SCA, Inc. > >(Exception: The Windsor, Ont. group incorporated separately ten years or >more ago.) And whatrelation ship do they have to the SCA, Inc.? > >>> SCA bank accounts in Ontario are set >>>up on a US model, even though the legality of doing this is doubtful. > >> What specific Illegalities are we talking about. I've heard this >>allegation several times, but I've no clue what the problem is. > >Well, there are no definite illegalities, or our Principality Exchequer, a >chartered accountant by profession, would have done something by now. >However, the method mandated by the kingdom and by SCA, Inc. for setting up >bank accounts is not the method favored by Ontarian or Canadian procedures. Again, what sort of "favored methods" need considering. >Various government offices have been asked for rulings on this and related >questions (especially, should we be incorporated?) but they have yet to say >anything definitive. > >Finnvarr > At this point I am seeing no need for a separate corp in Canada (There might be a need, but I've not yet seen any evidence of it.) I have seen even less need for 50+ (or even 12+) corps in the US. I have to say that at this point it is blatantly irresponsible for us to be calling for the creation of a bunch of new corporations. One model proposed would waste something like $75,000.00 dollars to create a bunch of unnecessary corporations around the US, Europe etc. (50 states, SCA-world, one for each Kingdom, one for each Country in Europe) The annual maintainace cost of these corps cannot even be estimated at this point accept that it would be thousands of dollars a year. Why? So that each power block can feel they have some control? What problems need to be solved internationally? Can these problems be solved within the current Corporate structure? If not, what is the cheapest way to fix the problems that require fixing? My proposal is we figure this out first... Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 00:45:07 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, 18 Apr 1996 23:20:44 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 12:43 PM 4/17/96 -0700, Fiacha wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >On Wed, 17 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > >> >There is one HUGE reason for the corporation to be involved in fighting: >> >> LIABILITY >> and it's sub-section >> INSURANCE, >> and its probably ineffective subsection: >> >> WAIVERS. > >Garbage, garbage and smelly unrecyclable garbage! > >The corporation may be liable for combat related injuries but that has >not been contested in court and so the liability is merely potential. A huge potential... If it had already happened, we'd be selling crowns to meet the judgement. > >The insurance does not and never attempted to protect officers from >liability claims in respect of combat related injuries. My opinion is that the insurance is garbage and this is just one of the reasons. > >The waivers (in their current form) do not mention combat and I have >grave doubts that combat is the most probable source of damage that the >waivers attempt to protect society officers from. The waivers may protect the corp and the officers from nothing whatsoever. They are still one good idea. > >It is my feeling that marshalls are more liable in the case of injury to >spectators through failure to enforce the . Very true >In which case, their failure >may absolve the corporation of any obligation to assume responsibility. I'm sorry, but you are completely wrong on this one. Or at least your "may" is a very small one, and one we cannot depend on. Someone decides to sue and the SCA, Inc WILL be a named defendent and will almost certainly share liability with the Marshall. As long as the Marshall is acting in any way within the scope of his office, the SCA, Inc will have liability. With the current waivers, the SCA, Inc. could then sue the Marshall individually to pay the Society's share of damages. > >There are other ways to reduce the risk of anyone being held responsible >for damages. > Yes, and they should all be pursued. However, marshalls are not currently protected and none of the proposals >under discussion will change that. Please save this discussion for later >when we look at the individual hierarchies and the changes we want to >recommend for them. No, I disagree strenuously. One of the primary reasons for ANY corporate structure is to limit liability. If we do not look at that we are acting irresponsibly. Other fine tuning will be required as well, but the nature of a corporate structure demands we look at protecting whoever we can from liability, contractual, negligence or whatever. The Marshallate is an obvious focus for these dscussions, but our chances of being sued cover a lot more than fighting. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 08:21:40 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 94 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:10:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: How Many Corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Thorvald by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > >>> SCA bank accounts in Ontario are set > >>>up on a US model, even though the legality of doing this is doubtful. > > > >> What specific Illegalities are we talking about. I've heard this > >>allegation several times, but I've no clue what the problem is. I have enquired of our former seneschal, Mistress Sapphira of Sherwood, if she knew of any such situations in respect of such US-style incorporation in Alberta. She said: Some of the problems with setting up Canadian bank accounts using the US corporation are: a) the SCA, Inc. isn't registered in Canada so it doesn't actually legally exist; b) there are a number of benefits which non-profits can take advantage of with banks, but only if they can prove they are non-profit (ie: produce a certificate of incorporation). Some bank will limit these perks to just Canadian non-profits (especially if the foriegn entity isn't registered in Canada); c) the bank is perfectly within their rights to request a certified copy of a resolution of the board of directors authorizing specific signing authorities on each account. Which, of course, means the potential for annoying paperwork is astonishing. Some of the things which make me personally wary of is that by opening an account in the name of the SCA, Inc. you are legally representing yourself as something you are not. You cannot sign contracts on behalf of the SCA, Inc. in Canada, because it doesn't exist. If someone really wanted to make your life hell, they could come up with a case for fraud. Its unlikely anyone would, but that doesn't make it sound policy. AND ALSO ... < we had been discussing requiring non-US corporations to follow US-written financial rules, in addition to mundane law in their own country > On Thu, 18 Apr 1996, James D. McManus wrote: > Yes, this is one of the few areas that our upward reporting structure > does make sense. > The theory is: Our Exchequers report to their superiors. > The superior sees their report does not follow rquired > rules. > The superior "nudges" the reporter to fix it so the > mundane authorities don't have to. (Fines, jail etc) I beg to disagree. This is a "theory" that is entirely unnecessary, and also at odds with the very recent (if belated) change that the BoD has made with respect to independent corporations (such as US college groups whose funds are college-tied; all non-US corporations; and perhaps others). I quote from our former seneschal, Mistress Sapphira of Sherwood, whom I have just consulted, and whom I have quoted earlier in this note. The BoD recently changed the financial policy such that: If you are governed by a seperate incorporation - you don't need to deal with SCA, Inc. financial policy. You just fill out this little form that says "sorry, we aren't SCA, Inc., we don't pay taxes and we report elsewhere". Then tah dah - magically - all that annoying stuff about pretending to be an imaginary corporation vanishes. Since incorporating as a non-profit is less paperwork than filling out the "made in USA" exchequer report forms even once - I've always thought incorporation was the way to go! > Also, if the SCA, Inc has subsidiaries, and does not require them > to follow the rules, then the top level of SCA, Inc may have some > responsibility (and liability) for this failure. It will also > help maintain the Standards of excellence we strive for. (Read > this as: Help avoid Bad PR.) I'm sorry, we are *not* subsidiaries, nor do we ever wish to be subsidiaries. All my best, Thorvald Grimsson/James Prescott (james@nucleus.com) (PGP 2.6.2 user) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 09:26:28 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 592 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:11:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: SCA-world To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604190420.XAA16712@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Apr 18, 96 11:20:48 pm Greetings from Tibor. Magnus, you seem to be missing my point. I'll ask the question one more time, and then shut up. If I seem short, terse, rude or upset: I apologize. I just want to distill my question to the very essence. You said that the top level of the Society MUST be a corporation. Why is that true? You've cited rules-making authority. That is not true. You've cited litigation. That implies that there must be at least a local corporation: not that the top level must be a corporation. Again: why MUST the top level of an international Society be a corporation? Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 09:37:04 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 68 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:08:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: How Many Corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L My last brilliant screed on this subject I sent to "Owner..." where it will languish forever unread. Magnus said that SCA officers in Ontario (my example) are no doubt agents of the SCA, Inc. despite the lack of local registration or incorporation. I can see where this might be true. However, the SCA groups in Ontario (Windsor apart) do not, in their own jurisdiction, have any of the advantages or rights of a corporation. Other groups in this situation -- the Australian group, the Swedish group, the Vancouver group, the Windsor group -- have incorporated separately. In some of these cases they had to do so to get any corporate existence, because a US corporation could not do what needed to be done. This is my understanding of the Swedish situation. Magnus goes on to say: >I have to say that at this point it is blatantly irresponsible for us to be >calling for the creation of a bunch of new corporations. And I respond that something like a dozen corporations *already exist.* They were formed by people in the area of their activity for what looked like good and sufficient reason. The local people paid for their formation and continue to pay for their administration. What do you want to do with them, Magnus? Leave them in existence, supposing that the local people have some idea of local legal requirements? Then the relationship between them and the SCA, Inc. must be worked out. Abolish them? And then what? Register the SCA, Inc. in each national, state or provincial jurisdiction outside the USA where the SCA exists? This would cost money. This would require more work by the Board of the SCA, Inc. and its chief corporate officers. And it would not even be legally possible in some jurisdictions. This talk about "the current corporate structure" seems to me to ignore a key fact. There is not ONE SCA corporation. There are MANY. Some are close to 20 years old. Whatever the Grand Council or the Board says, some of these will continue to exist, simply because experience and prudence and in some cases the legal authorities have suggested to many SCA members of the need for them. The reason I came up with my non-corporate model of regulating the basic rules of the game was to deal with this reality. Your alternative, Magnus? Finnvarr One model proposed would waste something like $75,000.00 dollars to create a bunch of unnecessary corporations around the US, Europe etc. (50 states, SCA-world, one for each Kingdom, one for each Country in Europe) The annual maintainace cost of these corps cannot even be estimated at this point accept that it would be thousands of dollars a year. Why? So that each power block can feel they have some control? What problems need to be solved internationally? Can these problems be solved within the current Corporate structure? If not, what is the cheapest way to fix the problems that require fixing? My proposal is we figure this out first... Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 10:53:16 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:35:00 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Fwd: re here's the rub To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: I'm inclined to agree with the main thrust of the argument. However, when there are real costs involved--the heraldry fee for example-- there has to be some sort of corporate arrangement. Figuring out how to handle that in the most convenient manner will be easier when we have examined all the parts. ------- Carole C. Roos asked "How can you allow kingdoms sovereignty and keep universality?". The answer is of course that we can only keep universality if we agree to it. Whether the sovereign bodys are kingdoms, national corporations, or some kind of mixture of them, they'll have to come to some agreement of what shall be more or less universal across the sca. No, there won't ever be any guarantees that noone steps over the agreed boundary of what to have common. But there isn't really any such guarantee today either. MSR(?) and The Far Isles and parts of Nordmark have split off the sca. It shouldn't be impossible for the GC to come up with a system where the "top level" is some kind of agreement between sovereign entities, if you find that to be the best for this game. From my Swedish standpoint that's the natural way of organizing something like this. It would be silly to have a shire-sized SCA - France branch together with a ten-kingdom-sized SCA - US. Maybe European national groups should be represented as Drachenwald, together with SCA - US, SCA - Canada and SCA - Australia/Lochac, or something. > What degree of centralization, co-ordination, or arbitration is > needed for what? Heraldry for one Couldn't the kingdoms and their colleges of heralds work that out? That's exactly the kind of thing that could be decentralized away >from the GC and BoD as a minor implementation detail. > Things that are set in corpora aren't very negotiable ... shire size, Why should shire sizes be set in stone? Or the in-kingdom duties of officers? How would you be affected if SCA - France didn't have a shire size requirement? Would you even notice if some other kingdom even didn't have the notion of kingdom officers? Lindorm Eriksson From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 10:53:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:35:04 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: comments Galleron, etc. To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L On the broad outline: I like the look of the World Council; I am not at all sure of the necessity for SCA-World, and even less for the independent publication wing. For SCA-World to work you are going to have to have world reports for one thing, or else the Marshal isn't going to know how many fighters and injuries, etc. there are. Moving publications from SCAinc to another body doesn't solve a thing--there are real publishing and mailing costs involved no matter where in the world the thing is situated. Moreover, this pretty much guts SCAinc in the US. I don't see why publications can't stay with SCAinc and be "bought" in the same way you propose. (Moreover I would encourage other world groups to bring forth their own publications as soon as they are sufficient strength to do so--but then I like reading.) There are several people who seem hung up on a World Judiciary Court--and interestingly this does not seem to be people outside North America. On the surface, the discussion looks like it is operating on two levels: on one level some of us are talking about a body which works on broad outlines of the game and on another level, some people are concerned about judging very specific cases. (And as Justin points out there are game and corporate cases which in many situations can be separated) I feel that some kingdoms want the best of two worlds: they want royalty to have real power and they want some nanny to protect them from that power. This is crazy. I don't see that we need a world entity to tell some king to make the ex-king a count. If there is a substantive issue--what about kings who don't fulfill the duties of the throne--this can come up to the World Council as an abstract problem, not as a specific case. If a substantial part of the game is making it "real," kingdom cultures have to deal with the realities of their choice. If a kingdom wants the king to have the power of the purse, it will have to be prepared to deal with the financial vagaries that is likely to produce. Don't come whining to the rest of us that King So-and-so spent all the money. Figure out how the kingdom's medieval structure and culture can handle that problem. If a kingdom fails repeatedly to play in an orderly fashion, then the whole thing might be "un-recognized" by the World Council. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 11:56:00 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:22:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Grand Council response To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Gunwaldt by Finnvarr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Unto the Grand Council does Gunwaldt send greeting. Galleron writes: Here's how I see it: Review at game level, with right of appeal to: Mundane Governing Body, with right of appeal to: SCA-World review panel, which must submit major rule interpretations to: World Council If the "excesses of monarchs and similar problems" are game related then no mundane intervention is required. At any level. If the problem is financial or legal (laws above the rules of the game), it should be handled by the involved mundane legal bodies. If the problem is 'grey' I recommend trying to solve it in the 'game' path first then crossing over to mundane authorities. I think you will need a legal body at the end of the chain for these types of problems and so having the "World Council" at the end will not work. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 13:02:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:44:40 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: common sense/Avoiding Liability To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199604190420.XAA16705@CP.Duluth.MN.US> (maghnuis@CP.DULUTH.MN.US) Magnus writes: >Not so... you have a US corporation doing business (Fighting) in Canada. >There are possibilities for liability in BOTH the US and Canadian courts. Which is precisely why the US Corp should *not* be trying to do business in Canada! Our attempts to use a single Corporation, grounded in the most litigious country in the world, is exactly why the SCA finds foreign countries to be a pain in the butt. And is why the Corps should be *national* entities, co-ordinated but *not* controlled at the global level... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "It's back to Hell for you, Yakin. And you will be punished for your arrogance -- you will oversee the lawyers..." "*No*! No! no..." -- from Deadman From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 14:37:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 14:11:04 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Galleron: Baronies To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Galleron; I have some comments at the bottom... -- Justin >Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:36:47 -0400 >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Subject: Galleron: Baronies Justin, in a message dated 96-04-19 08:45:57 EDT, you write: >I'd leave the word "Baronial" out here; I don't think the SCA-World >needs to involve itself at that level. The constituents of SCA-World >are Principalities and Kingdoms, therefore it is appropriate to >define those bodies. But it should probably leave other group >definitions strictly to local Corporas. My logic for including Baronial qualifications is: Baronies have Barons Barons have Titles. Titles are a game Issue. I agree that provinces and other groups without titled ceremonial heads should be left to local Corporas. Galleron please forward if appropriate... ---------------------------------------------------- Justin here again. I understand the point; however, SCA-World does *not* have to decide *every* game issue. My point isn't that this is a question for the mundane authorities; rather, it is an issue for the *Kingdoms*. I don't think there's any reason for Baronies to be regulated at the global level, therefore I suspect that it should be done at the Kingdom level. (Even today, there are *lots* of titles that are mostly regulated at the Kingdom level; the ones that are *really* regulated globally are a minority, mostly the Really Big Titles.) We don't need to decide this now (indeed, we shouldn't). I just want to make sure we don't build in an assumption about the exact division of labor -- I think the Kingdoms and SCA-World will need to figure that out... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Don't think of those people as mundanes; think of them as medievally challenged." -- Melisande de Belvoir From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Apr 19 14:53:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 13:26:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: How Many Corporations? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Return-Path: WMclean290@aol.com >From: WMclean290@aol.com >Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:05:02 -0400 >To: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us >Subject: Re: How Many Corporations? > >Magnus, in a message dated 96-04-19 00:34:13 EDT, you write: > >>I have to say that at this point it is blatantly irresponsible for us to be >>calling for the creation of a bunch of new corporations. > >Mostly what I am calling for is a structure that will accomodate the >corporations that already exist. And they exist because the people on the >spot have found them to be either *more* convenient than the alternative, or >absolutely essential. Finding a way to accomodate them should not involve >additional corporate expense, since those corporations are being paid for >now. > >Any new corporations should be formed only if necessary or convenient. I am >agnostic on the question of whether the US would work best with one corp. or >several. > >Galleron >Forward if you like > > > [The Archive is missing several days' messages at the end, due to a screwup on my part -- I accidentally deleted it in the course of moving it to the Web site, and had to recover from a backup. My apologies -- Justin]