======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #5 -- March 1, 1995 Contents of this issue: Solveig [fwd]: Exclusive Territory; Corporate Purpose Gareth: Structure of Society; Mission Statements Cariadoc: Decentralization; Territorial Issues Elizabeth Braidwood [fwd]: Various Subjects Caroline: Fundraising Time Barbary de Folo [fwd]: Bureaucracy; Mission Statement Serwyl: Getting Priorities Straight This is the Grand Council Chronicle, the proceedings of the Grand Council of the Known World, a body chartered to examine the structure of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc., and make recommendations of changes. The contents represent the opinions of the contributing authors, and do not necessarily represent the official policies of the SCA, Inc. ---------------------------------------- >From the Secretary's Desk: A request that has been made by a couple of people: when you are responding to previous messages, please make the context of your message clear. This doesn't necessarily mean quoting large amounts; a small quote, or (often better) a brief paraphrase of the point you are responding to, will usually suffice. Nathan has pointed out that there might be some value in our having an easy system for conducting "polls", to assess peoples' opinions on various subjects. He is willing to work on the creation of good polls and their evaluation (he has some experience in the subject), but he doesn't have the technical capability to conduct easy-to-use automatic polls over the Net. Would any of the roaming hackers out there (either on the GC or not) like to help him with this project? If so, write either to me, or to Nathan directly at: nathan@cis.ksu.edu Also, do the members of the Council see value in such a device? It sounds likely to be useful in my opinion, but I'd like to know what others think. -- Justin Secretary ---------------------------------------- [Approved by Justin.] From: Solveig Throndardottir Subject: Re: Grand Council Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 14:36:37 EST I agree with Lord Tibor's comment about the benefits of territorial exclusivity. I also think that in addition to what he mentions, it better recreates the middle ages. Locally, things were pretty much unitary. The feudal estates themselves could offer a variety of fealty. Thus, I think that it might be nice to allow baronies, etc. to offer seperable fealty to various groups and even persons. Thus, Baron Patri could pledge the Company of Bowman to Duke Carriadoc and the fencers to the EK-Crown. This might have the interesting effect of having the smae person fight on both sides of the Great Pennsic War. This could go some way towards relieving real-life tensions at the war. Most importantly though it would be better recreation. (Thus, I like the idea of divisible fealty.) Yes. I did read what you wrote. A central purpose of any corporation is to limit individual liability. Thus, the obvious purposes of the corporation qua corporation are to: shelter group finances, provide tax immunity, shelter organizers of society events, guarantee service providers against loss due to tort. This pretty much comes down to maintaining corporate existence, maintaining non-profit status and maintaining the insurance policy (which in my estimation may be inadequate as it probably does not cover the actions of all officials at our events. e.g., autocrats, marshals, etc.) In order to secure tax-exempt status, the society as a whole most engage in demonstrably educational activities. (Here, I think that the corporation is probably going overboard.) The corporation can also provide services of various sorts to the society. Historically, these have mostly been in the form of publications. (This is something which I think that the society as a whole can do a lot better. I am going to apply to be the next CA editor to succeed the current interim appointee.) These publications also help to reify the educational mission of the corporation itself. There are a number of inter-kingdom offices which are currently viewed as corporate offices. (The are not necessarily corporate offices.) Of these, the Society Marshal and the Laurel Sovereign of Arms are probably most directly tied to our medieval recreation. Both, the heralds and the Marshalate engage in significant inter-kingdom activity. Both should probably exist even if the corporation were to be abolished. (Essentially, I think that the notion of inter-kingdom officers should be seperated from the notion of the corporation. Publications also have great potential, but could be seperated out in a number of ways and could be vastly improved.) I will hold my tongue on how I would like to actually see the society reorganized until later. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar ---------------------------------------- Date: 22 Feb 1995 11:36:46 -0000 From: rgathercoal@foxmail.gfc.edu (Roy Gathercoal) Subject: GC--Response to Digest #3 It seems to me that the characterizations of the Society as a Federation by Cariadoc and Tibor are insufficient in at least two points. 1. Branches should exist to serve the members of the Society. It is not the case that I am a member of the Society because I am a member of the branch. Thus if I happen to live in an area which is not being served by a branch, I am not a second-class citizen. If my branch folds (or chooses not to continue in the society) it does not mean that I sacrifice any of my rights as a member of the Society. If I do not happen to enjoy attending my local branch meetings, I am free to attend the meetings of any other branch, and have a right to expect that I will be treated fairly and courteously. If we move to a federation model, however, my membership must come through a branch. If I have no local branch (or do not choose to participate in the local branch) then I am compelled to either find another branch that will take me as a member (assuming that I live in a fairly populous area and that there are multiple branches from which to choose) or must give up my membership. It may be that we could find some way of structuring things so that branches are more independent (though I shudder at the potential for abuse if no checks are placed on the authority of local branch officers). but I would caution that each move toward branch autonomy is necessarily a move toward diminishing the rights of members who are not served by local branches. 2. All other things are not equal--the nature of the Society is substantially different from that of most hobby-clubs. We are a community, as well as an organization, bound together by much more than a specific interest. It could be that some of us might form an academic study group focussed on some aspect of the Middle Ages, and such an organization would be well served by a minimal corporate structure (or no corporate structure). Such an organization would not be capable of pulling off a Crown Tournament, however, let alone a Pennsic, Estrella or Lillies. Members wouldl come to see their participation purely in terms of the organization--the community would disappear, for there would be little binding people except for the academic interest (which could be largely fulfilled in a book). In such a system, I might feel a tie to the other people in the reading group (if we met frequently and regularly enough) but I would be unlikely to form much of a connection with people in other groups, unless a particular individual happened to share my specific interest. In these Current Middle Ages however, I feel a connection to people everywhere in the Society, for we are tied together with much more than knowledge or common interest. I am not equating the organization with the society. These are different, but they are complementary. Generally speaking, I do not trust organizations, for I suspect that there are values built into the modern organizational structure that run counter to the values explicitly embraced by our Society. However, the answer can not be to break the connected whole into loosely connected parts--the structural biases will still be there, but will be multiplied a thousandfold as the leadership in each local group finds itself unencumbered by common values. Many would probably not sacrifice the values important to us, but many would. This would not be a service to the many members being served by these groups. ---------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 21:07:37 CST From: ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu Subject: GC Submission I found Gareth's suggestions for restructuring the Society interesting, in part because his approach is so different from mine; he apparently assumes that we have the overall relation among groups mostly right and the problem is the internal command structure of the Corporation. The most obvious difficulty I see with his specific proposal is that it might replace Board overload with Society officer overload. At present the Board is in charge of both running the Corporation and supervising/planning the corporation, and as a result does neither very well. His proposal removes the former responsibility from the Board and dumps it on the officers--who I gather are already fairly busy. ---- Myrddin writes, with reference to my decentralization proposal: "The concept is intriguing. But can those concepts be applied to a structure such as the SCA? I'm not so sure. We are not a club. As I am so often reminded, many people treat our Society as a way of life. We expend more time, money and effort (as a group) than members of any other hobby of which I am aware (with the possible exception of some of the Civil War groups)." My impression is that almost every serious hobby feels this way about itself--and most assume they are unique in doing so. I think the phrase in SF fandom is "not a hobby but a way of life." I once corresponded with a Tuchuk whose description of how his group was different from and better then the SCA reminded me very much of SCA members' explanation of how we are different from and better than the mundane world. I am curious about the connotation of "club or hobby" as Myrddin uses the terms; he seems to be suggesting that they are somehow more frivolous or less consuming interests than ours. My casual impression is that my in-laws put about about as much time and energy into their hobby as active SCA people do into theirs. Like us they have a minivan because of their hobby; their annual big trip (from Cleveland to Tucson) is a lot longer than ours (Chicago to Pennsic). My sister and her husband used to put at least as much time and energy into tournament bridge as I did into the SCA. Horse people pretty clearly put more money into their hobby than most of us do into ours. A large fraction of my in-laws friends seem to be mineral people, of my sister and brother-in-law's friends bridge people, and of our friends SCA people. "As long as we continue to choose our authority figures by means of sticks and shields, we will need a corporate structure that will protect the long term interests of the organization as well as the rights and interests of the individual. Does the current structure do this? Many would argue that it does not. But this proposal certainly does not." (Myrddin) The major protection under the decentralized system is that almost nobody has muc negative power--ability to exclude. If the local barony does not like you, you join the kingdom as an individual member or get together with some friends and start your own local group. We give up most of the ability of the kingdom to control the barony or the Corporation to control the kingdom--and in exchange get rid of most of the ability of people at any level to exclude people from participating at that level. I think the result is better, not worse, protection for the rights and interests of the individual. "While I personally feel that at least a certain amount of decentralization is inevitable (and desirable), I think it unwise to weaken the corporate structure to the level of a club or hobby association. We are much more complex, and face similarly more complex problems." Perhaps you could expand on this point--what is particularly complex about our hobby? Both our overall population and our largest events are substantially smaller than the mineral collectors whose hobby I was describing. They, like us, put on events that involve coordination of multiple groups. They give prizes, hold classes, ... . Obviously every hobby is different, but are you really saying anything more than that our hobby seems complex because you are in it and thus see all the complications? At a distance, most things look simple. --- Tibor raises the question of whether local groups should have a territorial monopoly. My view is that they should not. There are political problems either way, but I think they are worse with a territorial monopoly because it increases the incentive to fight over controlling the group. If I and my friends are the officers, we can make the people we don't like, or the kind of people we don't like, unwelcome--which means that if you are someone we don't like you have an incentive to fight us for control of the group. That problem is much less serious if we eliminate the territorial monopoly. Groups can fracture under a non-territorial system--but they can fracture now. The difference is that now, one faction is "the group" and the other is "the outsiders." One possible compromise would be to have territorial and non-territorial groups. Being a territorial group means that if someone writes the kingdom seneschal "what is the group in town X?", the answer contains the phone number of the seneschal of the group that owns that territory. But an individual can instead (or in addition) be a member of a non-territorial group. Another issue worth discussing, if we are considering the sort of decentralization I describe, is what kinds of control the Corporation or the Kingdom should retain over the local groups. Financial controls are unnecessary, since each local group is spending its own money. On the other hand, a group covered by kingdom or corporate insurance can hurt all of us if it does dangerous things--fighting with lances from horseback, for example. And a group using our name can hurt our reputation. My own inclination would be to let the level providing the insurance set conditions for making it available. For instance, in a kingdom that has a system for warranting marshalls (I do not know if all kingdoms do this), if insurance was provided by the kingdom (or the Corporation) it could require that any heavy weapons tournament covered by the insurance have a warranted marshall as marshall in charge. Local marshalls would be local officers appointed by the group--but if the local marshall was not warranted by the kingdom, the group would have to find someone who was in order to hold a tournament covered by the insurance. I think the problem of groups affecting the SCA's reputation is less serious, for several reasons. For one thing, I suspect that in a decentralized system groups would put more emphasis on the group name and reputation. My impression is that gem and mineral shows are advertised as hosted by "The Cleveland Gem and Mineral Society" or whatever, with a note about its being a member of the Midwestern Federation etc. somewhere in the announcement. People think of different groups as part of the same hobby but not as part of the same organization. A second reason I am not too worried is that I suspect most of the problems are ones that already exist. No doubt there are things a local group could do that would get it into trouble with the kingdom for being "not SCA." But if one looks at the things that groups currently do do without getting into trouble ... . Under my proposal, a kingdom retains the right to refuse to have a local group as a member (although the local group can apply to another kingdom), and the Corporation has the right to refuse to have a kingdom as a member. My guess is that those rights would be exercised only in extreme situations--and I suspect that only in extreme situations of getting the SCA a bad reputation do groups get in trouble with their superiors now. Of course, one might argue that under the present system there is continuous intervention, since the kingdom seneschal has to approve the appointment of local seneschals, gets reports from them, etc., and can therefor nip trouble in the bud. My response is that I do not believe that system works very effectively. The kingdom seneschal simply does not have the time or information to do an adequate job of making sure the local seneschal is behaving reasonably. The local group, on the other hand, does. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu ---------------------------------------- Date: 24 Feb 1995 09:52:38 -0000 From: rgathercoal@foxmail.gfc.edu (Roy Gathercoal) Subject: GC-On a Mission Statement On our mission: One of the fundamental problems with which the board has (probably ineffectively) dealt is the diversity of missions served within the SCA. There are many different schools of thought and practice, and our competing societal values of focus and inclusivity further mix things up. Remember the uproar when the beginning and ending dates for reenactments were discussed? Or anytime a "are we a sports club or a reenactment organization" discussion begins? I personally believe we would be better off with a more clearly defined mission. But I am not sure the resulting pain would be worth the effort. The primary problem I see with Justin's proposed mission statement is that it has little to do with organizational mission: ". . . to serve as a resource for historical groups re-creating aspects of the culture of the Middle Ages and Renaissance." is so broad as to include everything even remotely flavored by the middle ages (and by adding "renaissance" tacks on an even greater time frame). A pizza-and-beer party with fast food "crowns" would count, as would any academic conference (the university is heavily steeped in Middle Ages traditions, and most disciplines can trace some significant elements to the middle ages and renaissance). Many of the greatest hits the board has taken has been because of its attempts to include radically diverse groups--policies that make no sense for one group (such as requirement for garb) are critical to another. At one planning retreat, the board members themselves could not come to agreement on what the society was about. (Camelot, the way the middle ages should have been? or the cold middle ages that is exposed when layers of sentimentality get stripped away? or a social society, with a middle ages theme? or a cool sporting organization with more trappings and drama than even the Olympics--or American Gladiators?) So is the answer to decentralize, to allow each group to do what is right in its own eyes? Only if we wish to see the end of our society. The day one Crown declares "from this day forward in this kingdom, referees will score all fighting tournaments" or "garb at events in this kingdom shall not be required of any attendee" our society will no longer be one. For all my critiques of the board and corporate officers, I would commend them for keeping such a diverse group of people together for so long. This diversity is a great part of our strength. To illustrate, one need only point to one of the many "splinter" groups that organized around a tight mission statement, and failed to grow or to keep the interest of any but a small handfull of people. We should want more from the SCA than this. It is probably possible, and perhaps necessary, but I am not sure how we could do both. ---------------------------------------- [Approved by Caroline] Subject: GC: Comments on Issue #3 Author: donna@Kwantlen.BC.CA (Donna Hrynkiw) at CCGTWINT Date: 2/16/95 1:15 PM Hi Caroline. Below you will find some comments on Issue #3 of the Grand Council Chronicle. (Fascinating reading by the way.) I will try to keep my comments brief. Bertrik: Response to GC-chronicle #1 Re: How to get consensus -- voting and such. Is a consensus absolutely necessary? Why not just talk about a topic until it's clear what the hard-and-fast opinions are and then if a consensus is obviously not going to happen, send ALL the opinions to the Board. Determining when the discussion is either dying or going in circles: appoint a "chair" or "facilitator" for each major topic. They determine when it's time to wrap things up and determine the consensus statement. Allow only the GC members to directly write in the GC Chronicle. Allow the Board and IAC members to send their comments to the GC members just the way anyone else does. Allow anyone to listen, but only GC members to talk. Dani of the Seven Wells: Grand Council: A Pile of Proposals A. Restructuring the Registry 2. Outsourcing > We'd also need to know what levels of extraordinary > service (eg, sending out a new label run in an emergency) are available > and what they'd cost. Keep "regular" extraordinary services in mind too: eg. branch advancement polls and the like. 3. Decentralizing Publications Hear hear! I've always thought letting the kingdoms take care of their own newsletter subscriptions was a much more realistic system. > Con: Subscribing to multiple newsletters would become more cumbersome, as > would changing kingdoms. As Jane Member, I'd like to say that this isn't a big deal. I already subscribe to (in addition to the publications that come with my membership) a regional newsletter, a baronial newsletter, three SCA-wide special interest newsletters, and three not-my-branch branch newsletters. Maintaining multiple subscriptions is not a concern to me. I don't understand the comment about the difficulty of changing kingdoms. I move from Kingdom A to Kingdom B. I continue to get Newsletter A until it lapses or I maintain it to keep in touch with life in Kingdom A. When I get to Kingdom B, I get a subscription to Newsletter B to find out what's going on locally. > Many members might choose to let their newsletter subscriptions lapse, > and become less informed. Their choice, their problem. You just can't force people to be informed. > More subscribers than the Corporation can afford might choose to let their > memberships lapse. BINGO! Many, and I mean MANY -- me included, are members because that is the only way to get the newsletters. We do not see any other benefits >from being a member. Separate the newsletters from the membership and many will drop their membership if you don't explain fully and attractively what it does for them. I think it is far more likely that the memberships will be allowed to lapse than the newsletter subscriptions. (FYI: I live in north An Tir -- Canada, to be more specific.) Bundle the TI with membership. I get the same sort of deal with two other societies I belong to: a membership gets me the the blanket organization's newsletter, and I subscribe separately to the local newsletter. > (One of the Corporate office's functions might be to allocate blocks of > membership numbers as they're needed.) Why do we need membership numbers at all? 1. The Interkingdom Advisory Council I agree with Dani: make the IAC responsible for "the medieval-side` micromanagement"; including banishments, unruly Royalty, minor matters like branch advancements, and maybe even the society-wide offices like Society Seneschale and Earl Marshal. Leave the Board to long-range planning, filing tax returns, and other modern considerations. Elizabeth Braidwood, OP Donna Hrynkiw donna@kwantlen.bc.ca ---------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 21:53:06 cst From: CLSMIT@ccmail.monsanto.com Subject: GC Submission: Need Money Greetings from Caroline! Brother Crimthann, who does the hard copy mailing of this Chronicle, needs reimbursement for his expenses. Currently he is sending about 7 copies by mail at 2 ounces each. This number will increase with our increased number. He also must pay for copying, making his current weekly expenditure just over US$10. If you would like to contribute to the mailing fund, please send me a check or money order in US dollars payable to SCA, Inc. Grand Council, and I will see that he is reimbursed for his expenses. My address is (again): Carol L. Smith, 14713 Mill Spring Drive, Chesterfield, MO 63017-5654. Thanks! Caroline ---------------------------------------- [Authorized by Justin] From: watkins julia k Subject: Re: Grand Council Chronicle #5 submission Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 05:30:11 -0600 (CST) Introduction: My name is Barbary de Folo, I have been active in the Society since December 1972. I am currently Baroness Wurm Wald (Middle Kingdom), a member of the Order of the Laurel, and am part of Folump Enterprises (publishing). I was seneschal for my group for ten years and am currently exchequer. Mundanely, I am Julie Watkins, and I have worked in the University of Illinois Library since 1976, which means I have a lot of experience with bureaucracies. Therefore, it is of bureaucracies that I wish to speak. In my library job I have just finished serving a term as staff member in one of the library's departmental steering committees; my job was to provide staff input. The rest of the committee were faculty, and I learned a lot I didn't know about faculty matters and the experience has made it easier for me to understand their motivations and concerns. In the same way, I don't the average Society member has a real understanding about the SCA bureaucracy. At the same time that we are discussing what we feel is important, and why, I hope we can be discussing with the administration what they feel is important, and why. From a political realities point of view we are going to need the cooperation of the current bureaucracy for any changes to happen. There has been ample evidence (the mandamus petition; numerous signatures on other petitions; discussion on the Rialto; etc.) that a significant fraction of Society members feel the administration isn't communicating well or getting appropriate input from the membership. I think the administration could do a better job of explaining to people in general what they're doing and why it's important. We have an odd situation here: there is the Corporation, but there is also the sub-culture. Since we have a succession of kings it is easy to say: "if the BoD disappeared, the Society would still continue". In this kind of situation it is easier to criticize. It is also easy to ignore what's happening on the corporate level. Who knows what our "silent majority" is, and what it thinks? Justin, in issue #4, laid out a proposal for a mission statement for the Corporation. I think this is a good idea. I think, for the reasons that Cariadoc laid out in issue #1, it would be best to accept the reality that the Society is primarily local & the mission statement should reflect that. Right now the BoD acts as if (at least Ellisif's quotes from the corporate lawyer makes the impression that) as the head of SCA it has the right to direct local groups. --Barbary Julie Watkins / 805 E. Green #1 / Urbana IL 61801 julifolo@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu ---------------------------------------- Greetings unto the members of the Grand Council from Serwyl ap Morgan. STOP!!! I have a sinking feeling that we are already getting out of control. Why are we starting on policy discussions when we have neither a full complement of members nor any agreement on how to reach decisions? It seems to me that without action on either of these issues we cannot and should not start with the real work of the council. Our first priority has to be getting our own house in order. I'm sure everyone is bursting with ideas and anxious to get to debating real issues. However, we need to put things in the proper order. If we go on discussing ideas and plans now, new members will have to spend considerable time playing 'catch up'. Also, I would feel more comfortable knowing we had a solid administrative foundation before proceeding further. SOME PROPOSALS 1. Membership- I believe Kingdom appointed members should be replaced by another Kingdom appointee when that person resigns. I agree with other members' statements that as a mundanely constituted organization, we are not directly answerable to the our respective Crowns. However, having Kingdom input at this level is desirable from a public relations standpoint. We need support for whatever we decide from the populace of each Realm. I can think of no better way to ensure that than to guarantee each Kingdom one member. It also helps us avoid the tendency of a group to limit its' membership to individuals with similar beliefs and backgrounds (a little chaos can be a good thing). 2. Decision Making- Consensus decision-making is my preference and has always been. The question is, will our differing viewpoints on what the SCA is and should be make that difficult? >From the commentary thus far I suspect that we are a very diverse group (with the possible exception of the similarly high education levels evidenced in the bios). We have members who were involved in legal action against the Board, as well as people who supported the Board and Pay for Play. Well, at least one: myself. When I got the phone call announcing that Pay for Play was to be instituted, I cheered (as did many of my friends). I suggest that after a reasonable period of discussion, we call a vote. I recommend either 2/3 or 3/4 rather than a simple majority. This will make us work harder for consensus. Also, when we do decide to send an idea to the Board for consideration, I recommend that a minority opinion be presented (with a full breakdown of the voting tally). 3. The Chronicle- I am having some problems with the current weekly schedule of the Chronicle. I received Chronicle 3 on Thursday, Feb 23 and #4 on Saturday the 25th. With the deadline for #5 on Tuesday, I would have been lucky to get my comments on # 3 through the mail in time for issue 6. Fortunately, my wife can send my submission via E-Mail from her place of employment. But what about those members who do not have E-Mail? The weekly schedule favors people with E-Mail access, giving them increased access to quick commenting. To even the playing field, why don't we go to a bi-monthly schedule? 4. Can we have a mailing list printed? I'm sure we would all find it useful to be able to contact other members directly. 5. Why don't we hold off substantive discussion until after the Council is up to full strength. It would be more fair for late- comers, and give us time to get our administrative house in order. We've waited this long to share our ideas, so we can wait a little longer. 6. Regarding commentary from Board members and officers of the Corporation. I suggest we allow commentary (but not voting) from both groups. A prior suggestion limited input to commentary from Board members alone. But as specialists in their respective fields, the officers provide an excellent source of professional opinions. They deal with problems on a day to day basis and are uniquely qualified to assist the GC. With that said, I feel all such commentary should be separated from member comments to avoid confusion. Is it feasible or desirable to put Board and Officer comments together at the end of the Chronicle? 7. A suggested list of Priorities: A. Bring the GC up to full strength B. Set our administrative guidelines C. Establish a mission statement ----------------------------------------