From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 12:09:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 11:56:19 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frithiof, in a message dated 96-06-17 10:49:37 EDT, you write: >I think we have been confusing the "is this group playing our game" question > with the "what to do with a nasty crown" question. These are entirely >different >questions, and could very well be handled by different bodies. > Well, they do tend to slop into each other. For instance, one of the characteristics of the game we play now is that there are limits on the power of the Crown. So one could argue that a group that fails to enforce certain limits on the powers of the Crown is indeed playing a different game. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jun 17 12:15:55 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 12:05:14 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Fwd: Lancelin - Lesser Charter Restrictions To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Lancelin by Galleron --------------------- Forwarded message: From: ROOTGG@rerw.wpafb.af.mil (Root, Grant G. (ASC/SMOC)) To: WMclean290@aol.com (Galleron) Date: 96-06-17 11:54:20 EDT Galleron, will you forward this to the GC list? Cathal writes: > But by requiring that the LC's are in concord with the GC doesn't >that limit them? If we have a common clause in the CG which mandates >the SCA (or whatever) as a "Medieval" group and the Kingdom of Bugtussel >wants to include English Civil War in it scope, then what recourse is >there? I daresay the entire process would be similar to the internal >adminstration of the Austo-Hungarian Empire in the late 19th. century--- >what is the crisis of the hour and how can we change the GC to >accomodate it. Well, yes, this would limit the Lesser Charters. That's the idea. An organization must fit within certain broadly-defined limits to make it a good fit with the SCA. Not to debate the merits of including or excluding the English Civil War, but it is outside of our currently defined scope. In terms of the proposed SCA World, prospective member organizations must agree to play the game that we have all agreed to. If a single organization finds this too restricting, it is free to operate on its own. If all the organizations are chafing at the restriction, maybe it's time to change the Great Charter. The GC should be changeable, but it needs to be a serious undertaking, like a U.S. Constitutional amendment. It should stand firm against the "crisis of the hour," and only change when it is no longer serving the needs of the membership as a whole. Lancelin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 18 03:46:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:19:58 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11.56 17-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: >>I think we have been confusing the "is this group playing our game" question >> with the "what to do with a nasty crown" question. >Well, they do tend to slop into each other. OK, but deciding if we can play with this or that group and putting pressure on misbehaving crowns is not the same thing. If we try to create a body that does everything the current BoD does, we won't be any better of than we are now. I think every group should handle their internal affairs, and misbehaving rulers are internal affairs IMO, by them selves. >For instance, one of the characteristics of the game we play >now is that there are limits on the power of the Crown. I was under the impression that in certain kingdoms the king has more or less unlimited power? Certainly attempts from Nordmark to have curia or ting ratifying the king's decisions has met with resistance from people pointing out that "the King is the supreme ruler" is a central part of the SCA game. >So one could argue that a group that fails to enforce certain >limits on the powers of the Crown is indeed playing a different game. If we are playing the feudal game, then the king's power should only be limited by the size of army he can raise. Limitations then has to come >from outside the game, from mundane mechanisms. Ergo, the form or strength of those limitations are not essential parts of the game, and should not be handled by the body that checks game rules. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 18 10:13:40 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 09:36:26 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Frithiof, In a message dated 96-06-18 03:35:49 EDT, you write: >OK, but deciding if we can play with this or that group and putting pressure >on misbehaving crowns is not the same thing. Depends. Suppose the Crown misbehaves by giving out peerages in a way contrary to whatever common Society-wide rules we agree on? Or flouting Society rules on succession? Or creating laws contrary to whatever common customs we agree upon, or violating the laws that exist? If the Kingdom can stop him, fine. If it can't, that Kingdom has started playing a different game. Then it's appropriate for a Society Review Board to say "These are violations of our common customs. They must be corrected if we're going to be able to play with Kingdom X" You can either say that sanctions are imposed by the review panel, or that it "relaxes the offender to the secular arm", with the recommendation that penalties be applied by the appropriate governing body. In practice, the effect is much the same. "I was under the impression that in certain kingdoms the king has more or less unlimited power?" Depends on you definition of "more or less" There are actually considerable limitations on royal power in Corpora. (Although I feel there should be more). The Crown may not succeed itself, or banish without just and stated cause, nor make laws contrary to Corpora, nor impose taxes on the realm. Perhaps most important, the Crown must know and uphold the laws of the Realm and the Society. It is my opinion that any Kingdom that gives the Crown *more* unchecked power than it has now is playing a different game, and a bad one. (Which isn't to say that *different* checks and balances might not work better.) Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 18 17:47:09 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 14:29:18 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Grand Council Meeting at 3YC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Fiacha, Due to an oversight on my part, the meeting time was advertised but the location was not. thus the meeting was very small. Edward and Eilis represented the Board and Corwyn, Frederick, Cariadoc and myself represented the council. Edward stated that he views the council as a think tank and thus wants to see the council produce multiple suggestions rather than attempt to achieve consensus on every issue. Edward also views the council as a long term asset and so would like to see proposals for a permanant think tank. Some degree of representation is essential but a willingness to participate is equally essential. It would be very good if we could propose a constitution by the fall board meeting so that there is a chance that our successors can pick up as we leave at the end of the year. We also talked about the international issues and Edward reiterated that he and the rest of the board want to see a variety of proposals with some annotations of the percieved pros and cons. Expansions and corrections from the other attendees are invited. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 18 20:53:37 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, 18 Jun 1996 20:24:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Grand Council Meeting at 3YC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L P{ermanent think-tank: Good idea in general. Probably better if the Board were to present it with a couple of ideas a year to work on, rather than having an anything-goes scenario. One of our problems, i think, is that our mandate is too muckin' broad..... Edward (if I got the message right) wants us to propose a consititution for the new think-tank? Hell, no. We have enough on our plates already. Ummmm, Fall _is_ coming up really fast, especially with Pennsic. Might I suggest that we come to some sort of conclusion, or set of conclusions, on the Review Board thang, and move back to Galleron's/ Finnvar's Grand Proposal? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 19 09:38:08 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:03:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Siobhan, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: "Pat McGregor" Subject: Re: Appeals Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 15:22:10 -0700 In a previous message, Steve Muhlberger writes: >No review system solves all problems, but existing review systems have >prevented some injustices. If we are going to give the rules to some body >other than the Board of a US corporation (the reason we are talking about >reviews!) I want it to be capable of counterbalancing royal or >kingdom-officer authority, at least as well as the current system does. At Thirty Year, in the Open Peer's meeting with the populace as well as in several other conversation, folks not of the peerage brought up the question of how to remove a Bad Peer. (Not one of the three in Aethelmarc, of course ;-) ). Sir Chowderhead, or Mistress BadWill. Many folks I talked to who are longtime members but not members of the peerage felt that Bad Peers could damage a kingdom more permanently than a Bad King, but that there was no way to get anything done unless something like socking a fellow Kingdom officer in public happened. These folk felt that the peerages closed rank against non-peers when there were complaints. I have, I confess, deleted and forgotten some of the specifics of the Review proposal. Does it cover this case as well? siobhan (doing laundry...) ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 19 10:18:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:08:19 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 09.36 18-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: > Suppose the Crown misbehaves.... >If the Kingdom can stop him, fine. If it can't, that Kingdom has started >playing a different game. Then it's appropriate for a Society Review Board to >say "These are violations of our common customs. They must be corrected if >we're going to be able to play with Kingdom X" > >You can either say that sanctions are imposed by the review panel, or that it >"relaxes the offender to the secular arm", with the recommendation that >penalties be applied by the appropriate governing body. In practice, the >effect is much the same. Not quite. This model is putting pressure on a kingdom to control its crowns, it is not controlling the crowns by imposing sanctions on them. I like this model better than one where an above-kingdom-level court shall punish transgressing crowns. >It is my opinion that any Kingdom that gives the Crown *more* unchecked power >than it has now is playing a different game, and a bad one. (Which isn't to >say that *different* checks and balances might not work better.) Agreed. Why not let each kingdom decide what kind of checks and balances work best for them? Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 19 12:14:40 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, 19 Jun 1996 12:22:02 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Grand Council Meeting at 3YC To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... Corwyn, Frederick, Cariadoc and myself (Fiacha) >represented the council. Just for the record, I was there too. (Not that my jetlagged brain has anything to add to Fiacha's account, but since willingness to participate has been mentioned...) /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 19 13:13:09 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 09:55:04 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Appeals (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606191303.JAA14407@abel.math.harvard.edu> Greetings from Fiacha, > From: "Pat McGregor" > > Many folks I talked to who are longtime members but not members of the > peerage felt that Bad Peers could damage a kingdom more permanently > than a Bad King, but that there was no way to get anything done unless > something like socking a fellow Kingdom officer in public happened. > These folk felt that the peerages closed rank against non-peers when there > were complaints. > > Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com While I agree with the sentiment, I do not believe that this falls within the bounds of anything that we can address. I will even agree that an active peer with a reputation for dishonesty, discourtesy or even jest bad manners does more damage than a Duke Aonghais or a Michael of Boarshaven. However, until the peers order is willing to act against the individual, attempts to legislate a response cannot hope to succeed. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 20 16:06:48 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: mhaw@indyunix.iupui.edu X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: marci haw Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:33:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: marci haw Subject: John - Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L About the means to review or disipline unruly Crowns. Unless they are breaking mundane law I would leave it to social pressure. I don't recall who said recently - but we are not going to be able to cover everything by making laws, something about the pro's ain't done it and we're amatuers. A review mechanism like the current board or the proposed board of the corporations signing on to the Great Charter should be sufficient. Social pressure from fellow royal peers and the populus has usually worked here in the Middle with some help from Curia (the bureaucracy). Do to the nature of Crown tourney it is very difficult to prevent someone from entering and winning knowing they will not be a good Soveriegn. But it is simple to tell a popular and well liked Crown from the not-so's. The Middle is a large kingdom so there will always be at least a small crowd for even the worst royalty. But when TRH's are looking for Coronation bids two months before Crown don't expect large turn-outs at Royal Courts for the next six months and get used to the crowd responding to the Herald with " ......or someone who will accept for them." John of Sternfeld From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 21 13:21:11 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Approved-By: Carolyn Richardson Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 12:59:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Carolyn Richardson Subject: Re: Galleron's question re: Board selection Comments: To: Nigel Haslock To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >With all due respect, the various proposals were submitted to the board >for the April meeting. Admittedly they were not in the packet, but a copy >was snail mailed to each sitting board member in what should have been >time for consideration at the April meeting. Could you please check to see >if a report from the GC was presented at that meeting? >Fiacha Mea culpa. I misfiled it in my copy of the board packet. This was remanded (according to the minutes) for later action, possibly in a conference call. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 25 20:52:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:49:43 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Frithiof the friendly herald wrote: >At 10.29 17-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: > >>In my vision of a New World Order, the higher appeal mechanism would be >>primarily concerned with question of whether the different Corporations were >>still playing the common game. If a requirement for due process was part of >>the common rules of the game, then the appeals body might reasonably examine >>if due process had been followed. If it had been, the appeals body would not >>need to examine the case further. > >Absolutely. Trying to specify what should or should not be due process in all >possible jurisdictions is completetly unneccessary. Leave that to the local >and national corporations. > >I think we have been confusing the "is this group playing our game" question > with the "what to do with a nasty crown" question. These are entirely >different >questions, and could very well be handled by different bodies. > > Frithiof the friendly herald > > Frithiof's response leads me to re-read Galleron's response to me (quoted above), and I'm not sure if I read it right the first time. The way I read it now, Galleron seems to be saying on the one hand that the appeals body should be concerned with the fitness of afilliate organisations to be afilliates, and on the other hand that it would be adjudicating appeals by individulas to decisions of the governing body of the afilliate organisation. In my mind, these two functions are entirely different, and (as someone has said) separable. Galleron, am I reading you words the way you intended them? Frithiof seems to be agreeing with the exact opposite of what I think Galleron was saying, which is somewhat confusing. Frithiof, I think Galleron is saying that the appeals body would be making decisions on whether or not an afilliate has followed due process (or natural justice, as the cognate concept is in Australian law), which I think is what you want to leave to the local corporations. Have I got it wrong? Artso (a slightly confused Artos) -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 25 20:54:32 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:49:39 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Galleron wrote, responding to me: >Artos, In a message dated 96-06-16 07:07:14 EDT, you write: > >>I see no reason to have any appeal mechanism above the level of the >>corporation holding the membership. > >In my vision of a New World Order, the higher appeal mechanism would be >primarily concerned with question of whether the different Corporations were >still playing the common game. If a requirement for due process was part of >the common rules of the game, then the appeals body might reasonably examine >if due process had been followed. If it had been, the appeals body would not >need to examine the case further. At some point, you have to limit the appeals procedure, otherwise you have a potentially infinite chain of appeals. I prefer to limit the chain at the source. If these corporations are serious undertakings (and they generally are forced to be once they have members), they should be trusted to handle their own internal affairs. If they can't be trusted to do that, why have them at all? We'd all be better off without them. But we should be postulating responsible organisations affilliating, so they should be able to handle their affairs without undue interference. Also, regardless of the chain of appeals we set up, there is always a mundane avenue of appeal, which we can do nothing about. I believe that this existing appeal structure, in conjunctoin with placing trust in the organisations, is sufficient to provide reasonable protection to the membership. Perhaps in order to facilitate this, the afilliation process should make sure that a prospective afilliate organisation has internal procedures that (at least on the surface) provide for certain minimal protections (like procedural fairness (which we used to call natural justice)). Also, many NFP corporate structures (unlike California, and like Nordmark) require that the highest level of decision-making in the corporation is a general meeting of the corporation. Is this a bad thing? I think not. The corporation I am (and others are) in the process of setting up has this characteristic, and I made no effort, when creating the rules, to side-step the requirement. As I see it, this is the best possible safety net for an organisation small enough geographically to have general meetings. If someone has an appeal to make on a decision by the Committee or a sub-committee, thay have the right, written into the rules, to demand a general meeting, where they can air their grievance and the meeting must make a decision binding on all parties. What can be fairer? How would an outside organisation be better suited to make that judgement? How would it be fairer? > >Remember too, that both in Europe and Canada, you have many Corporations >within a single Kingdom. True, but at the moment they are not afilliated with the SCA in the sense we are discussing (ie, the only members of theirs the SCA recognises are those who are also members (albeit foreign) of the SCA), so this problem does not arise. How does the kingdom deal with these corporations now? Why is it a problem? Why would it be in the future? > >Galleron > Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 25 21:35:45 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 07:49:47 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Galleron wrote: > >For >example, the power of the Crown to exclude undesirable candidates from Crown >tourney could conceivable be used by a clique of musical-throne Dukes to >suppress all outside rivals. > The West has had such a provision for around thirty years now, as I understand it, and no such problem has come to pass, despite there being several occasions of two or three people succeeding each other for a while. The West has four-month reigns, which in itself is something of a limitation to the power of the crown, but I can't see this as the governing factor. I can only conclude that it is not a likely possibility in reality. Your general point, that checks and balances could be used against the system, I think has yet to be established. I'm not suggesting that no checks or balances can be misused, but that there are examples of kingdoms where the checks and balances work more than tolerably well, and have for a long time. Is there a kingdom where the checks and balances have consistently failed? This is not to say that they have not changed in that time. Indeed, I think that one criterion for afilliation with the SCA should be a demonstrable history of the working of such checks and balances. This means that young organisations should be measured by different criteria than old (established) ones. I think this is reasonable because an old organisation can't change as easily as a new one. We can require that a new organisation change quite fundamental characteristics of its structure without causing that organisation more than a reasonable amount of pain. Established organisations might not survive the strain of such changes. The changes I'm thinking of are most likely to be cultural rather than legal. "The king's word is law" is as much (more in the West) a cultural statement as it is a statement of law. Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jun 25 22:51:25 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, 25 Jun 1996 22:34:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Kings, shmings. Won't an appeal board also work in cases of Great Officers of State running rampant? Landed barons/esses, ditto, where internal review boards have been tried, and appealed from? Inter-Kingdom disputes? Disputes involving trans-kingdom groups? You know, sort of like the Supreme court's jurisdiction involving appeals from certain state courts, federal courts, and disputes between the states, or between individuals from different states? Widen your focus. Alban, who thinks that this discussion has _both_ gone on too long, and not nearly long enough. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 03:57:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:28:17 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 07.49 26-06-1996 +1000, you wrote: >Greetings from Artos. > >Frithiof the friendly herald wrote: >>At 10.29 17-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: >> >>> If a requirement for due process was part of >>>the common rules of the game, then the appeals body might reasonably examine >>>if due process had been followed. >> >>Absolutely. Trying to specify what should or should not be due process in all >>possible jurisdictions is completetly unneccessary. Leave that to the local >>and national corporations. > > Frithiof, I think >Galleron is saying that the appeals body would be making decisions on >whether or not an afilliate has followed due process (or natural justice, as >the cognate concept is in Australian law), which I think is what you want to >leave to the local corporations. Have I got it wrong? Maybe we should ask Galleron what he ment to say? :-) I want the local corporations to specify, in their governing documents, what is due process according to laws and customs in their place of residence. The appeals body can then, when a case is appealed to them, read said governing documents and decide if due process had been followed. Mind you, I don't think that such an appeals body is necessary, maybe not even desirable, but since quite a few of the vocal members of the GC seems to think it is we should make provisions for it. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 08:46:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:37:06 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Frithiof the friendly herald wrote: >I want the local corporations to specify, in their governing documents, what >is due process according to laws and customs in their place of residence. >The appeals body can then, when a case is appealed to them, read said >governing documents and decide if due process had been followed. > This would be extremely difficult in Australia. "Due process" has no apparent meaning in Australian law, unlike the law in the USA. The closest concept I know of is "natural justice", or to use the more modern phrase, "procedural fairness". Unfortunately neither of these phrases is defined by any legislation, despite the fact the many acts refer to one or other, and require compliance with their principles. For instance, the act under which the SCA is incorporated in Australia requires that decisions by the governing body regarding individual members be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. But no-one actually knows exactly what natural justice is, even the High Court justices whose task it is to decide if the principles have been followed. For this reason it would be impossible for us to write into our governing documents the meaning of "natural justice", and impossible for any body outside the Australian legal tradition to determine whether or not natural justice had been followed in any particular case. >Mind you, I don't think that such an appeals body is necessary, maybe >not even desirable, but since quite a few of the vocal members of the >GC seems to think it is we should make provisions for it. > I agree with the first but not the second. Maybe if we try harder we can bring those vocal members around to thinking (with us) that an appeals body is not necessary. Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 08:47:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 22:37:09 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Alban St. Albans wrote: > >You know, sort of like the Supreme court's jurisdiction involving >appeals from certain state courts, federal courts, and disputes >between the states, or between individuals from different states? > Who do you appeal to if the Supreme Court makes a decision you don't like? At some point you have to stop the process of appeal, and accept the decision. Only then can life go on. The higher you make the tree of appeals, the longer (and more expensive) you make the case. Who (apart from lawyers) benefits from a high appeal tree? I don't know. >Widen your focus. > Yes, please. There are more ways of skinning a cat than to ask it for a fur coat. If we are serious about the judicial structures we are talking about setting up, we should look at the bottom of that structure first rather than the top. Someone earlier listed (and I here paraphrase) three segments of government: a law-making segment, an independent judicial segment, and a public service responsible to the people. Having the law-making segment responsible to the people is optional, though probably very desirable to most of the Council. If we look at the current structure (say, in the West), we have a law-making body (the Crown in (presumably) consultation with the Kingdom Seneschal), a public service (all the officers and some others) which is not responsible in any direct way to the people, and no official judiciary at all. Judicial power, such as it is, rests with the Crown and seneschallate, and partly with the public service. In some other kingdoms (I'm thinking of the Eastern Rite kingdoms, but I know little of how they work) some or all judicial power may be held by the Curia (or equivalent). But these structures are not very effective (judicially) at the bottom of the structure. Someone with a grievance is expected to follow the Kingdom Grievance Procedure, but by the end of that procedure the problem has escalated to at least kingdom and possibly BOD. In most cases, these problems are probably best solved locally before they become so large and emotive they can't be solved satisfactorily even by the BOD. It would be possible if there was someone at that low level who had enough judicial power to solve the problem. The amount of judicial power need not be large at this level, perhaps the ability to enforce mediation between the parties, and some power to enforce the resulting decision (if any). I envision a number of possible mechanisms that could achieve this goal. My favorite is to have trained "professional" independent judges whose job it is to wield this judicial power. They would need training unless they are mundanely legal professionals, because even SCA law is sufficiently complex that it is not enough that someone be assumed to know the law. They should be required to attend courses and be examined on their knowledge. The courses will take some work to set up, but we should have enough expertise in the relevant fields in each major legal jurisdiction to make it feasible. The independence of these judges would be manifested by prohibiting them from holding any other office or receiving gratuities. They would have tenure for a fixed period, and be impeachable only by some very difficult process (say, unanimous decision of all the other judges in the kingdom). They could be elected, or appointed by a "chief justice" if that suited the culture better, or appointed by the curia if that is more appropriate. But I would recommend against the Crown being directly involved in judicial appointments. If we set up such a system, we could arrange for the Crown to be impeached during its reign by appeal to all the judges sitting together. There are many fine details to be worked out, but I like the idea of this mechanism. Having a corps of professional, independent judges allows a lot of flexibility. For instance, intra-kingdom problems could be solved by a tribunal formed (a la a suggestion made by someone earlier) by one judge appointed by one kingdom, one by another and a third by the first two. This method can be used to adjudicate questions relating to more than two kingdoms, provided that there is always an odd number of judges if a majority decision is required. This removes the requirement for a review panel as a court of appeal. The review panel can then do its proper job: vetting potential afilliate organisations. Another possible mechanism is to give judicial power to the landed Barons and Baronesses, as they had in period, within their domains. Indeed, it could be argued that they already have this power, since they have the responsibility to see to the good order of their lands, but this question is beyond our scope at the moment. I don't like this mechanism as much as the previous one, partly because Barons and Baronesses are not independent. Of course, we could give the power to court barons and court baronesses, which has the added advantage of allowing the power to be wielded by people within smaller groups than baronies. This has the disadvantage of tying the power to a title: once a person becomes a court baron(ess) they have the power foever, which I think is not desirable, though it is tolerable. My other qualm about this is that those who are already baron(esse)s don't necessarily have the qualifications to be good judges, though, of course, we could train them just like in the structure above. Perhaps we should require that a pre-requisite for being considered for judicial training is the possession of a court barony, and the judge practices by virtue of a licence. I have no idea who would issue such a licence. Another possibility is to set up a body that has the same relationship to the SCA as Amnesty International has to the governments of the world. This body would exist to look into each kingdom and reveal to all how it is behaving judicially. The threat of the light of day may keep the kingdoms on the straight and narrow. It wouldn't matter what judicial mechanisms a kingdom set up, "Amnesty Inter-Kingdom" would simply make known what abuses of power were happenning. The kingdoms would then have the amunition to solve the problem(s) amongst themselves. >Alban, who thinks that this discussion has _both_ gone on too >long, and not nearly long enough. > Artos, who is sad that life got in the road just as the discussion was getting interesting, and who is now in a position to partake again. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 09:06:47 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 14:42:05 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Conflict resolving and natural justice To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 22.37 26-06-1996 +1000, you wrote: >Greetings from Artos. > "Due process" has no >apparent meaning in Australian law, unlike the law in the USA. > For instance, the act under which >the SCA is incorporated in Australia requires that decisions by the >governing body regarding individual members be conducted in accordance with >the principles of natural justice. But no-one actually knows exactly what >natural justice is, even the High Court justices whose task it is to decide >if the principles have been followed. For this reason it would be >impossible for us to write into our governing documents the meaning of >"natural justice", and impossible for any body outside the Australian legal >tradition to determine whether or not natural justice had been followed in >any particular case. In Sweden there is no laws at all on how to run an NFP, just very strong traditions, so "due process" would be whatever is written in the governing documents of an NFP. However, if the govdocs are widely divergent from the standard, that could cause problems for local groups trying to interact with local authorities. > Maybe if we try harder we can >bring those vocal members around to thinking (with us) that an appeals body >is not necessary. It's worth a try: Since it seems more or less impossible to find a process for resolving conflict that is acceptable in all the jurisdictions and cultures covered by the SCA, I propose that the formulation of said process be left to the local and national corporations, and not decreed by any international or pan-SCA body. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 09:32:10 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 54 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 09:21:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Artos wonders if he and Frithiof can convince some of the rest of us that an appeals mechanism is not necessary. You can't convince me. I have been both a Board member ruling on appeals and a private member involved in appeals to the Board. The appeal mechanism was necessary in both types of cases because our current rules give a lot of power to exclude members from participation, one way or another, to certain people (the Crown and the Crown's officers) without any appeal mechanism save the Board. When acting in this capacity, Kings, Queens and their officers have the entire clout of the corporation behind them, unless the Board disagrees. If in fact there was an appeal to the membership assembled in a general meeting, or to people appointed by such a general meeting, as in normal Swedish corporation, that might meet the need. As it is, even in Sweden, this is not really the case. Nordmark is still part of the Kingdom of Drachenwald, which is not responsible to the Swedish corporation! Plenty of things that might adversely affect the enjoyment of Swedish members are not responsive to the powers of the Swedish corporation. We have a long history of royal or royal and official power in the SCA, and whatever the GC says or the Board tries to do, that tradition will continue to have a big effect on how the SCA is run just about everywhere. Thus the need for somebody or some body to do the job that the Board of Directors does now will continue to exist, as long as we want the SCA to be a unified body. By unified body, I do not mean "a single corporation" or "a single bureaucracy." I mean a single international community in which a few key customs are universally observed. I am no more ambitious than that. Introducing some kind of mediation/arbitration process within the various kingdoms is a great idea. Can it be done? I have my severe doubts. Currently no processes of any sort within kingdom are independent of the royal power, or the power of seneschals (which is much the same thing). What we have now is an appeal process that takes place entirely outside of the structure of the kingdoms. It works, more or less. The idea of Amnesty Inter-Kingdom is interesting, but note this: The real AI is entirely unofficial. If there is a need for it, you or I could start it tomorrow. However, we would have to endure the decades of vilification that the founders of the real AI have had to put up with before the organization reached its current stature. And being an active AI person on the battlefront is still not great for your social life. People willing to devote a huge portion of their lives to such crusading should probably join the real AI, where real torture and real executions and real imprisonment are at stake. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 09:41:11 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 15:16:32 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 22.37 26-06-1996 +1000, you wrote: >Greetings from Artos. > >Alban St. Albans wrote: >> >>You know, sort of like the Supreme court's jurisdiction involving >>appeals from certain state courts, federal courts, and disputes >>between the states, or between individuals from different states? >> >Who do you appeal to if the Supreme Court makes a decision you don't like? I would like to point out that even the Supreme Court only make decisions according to US law. As far as I know, the difference between East Kingdom and West Kingdom law is large enough that whats right and proper in the one is out of the question in the other. >My favorite is to have trained "professional" independent judges whose job it >is to wield this judicial power. They would need training unless they are >mundanely legal professionals, because even SCA law is sufficiently complex >that it is not enough that someone be assumed to know the law. They should >be required to attend courses and be examined on their knowledge. The >courses will take some work to set up, but we should have enough expertise >in the relevant fields in each major legal jurisdiction to make it feasible. The implications of setting up such an organization boggles at least my mind. And is it really worth the trouble since we don't have any enforcment agency, no police corps? >Another possibility is to set up a body that has the same relationship to >the SCA as Amnesty International has to the governments of the world. Amnesty was set up by volunteers and is run by volunteers; a good idea if ever I saw one. Anyone who wants to do it? > It wouldn't matter what judicial mechanisms a >kingdom set up, "Amnesty Inter-Kingdom" would simply make known what abuses >of power were happening. The kingdoms would then have the ammunition to >solve the problem(s) amongst themselves. What if kingdom law gives the king absolute power? How could any note from "Amnesty Inter-Kingdom" help the populace ignoring the king's word? Frithiof the tired herald, who wonders what happened to the discussion on how to recognize foreign corporations. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 10:30:22 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 16:04:30 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 09.21 26-06-1996 PDT, you wrote: >Artos wonders if he and Frithiof can convince some of the rest of us that an >appeals mechanism is not necessary. > >You can't convince me. >If in fact there was an appeal to the membership assembled in a general >meeting, or to people appointed by such a general meeting, as in normal >Swedish corporation, that might meet the need. Could we make it a requirement to have something along those lines written into kingdom laws? Without making the "King's word is Law"-people jump up and down? (Personally, I think that if you give someone lots of power, don't complain when s/he uses it. Then again, everybody gets what the majority deserves.) > >Finnvarr Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 10:45:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:36:04 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Artos, in a message dated 96-06-25 20:40:46 EDT, you write: >Frithiof's response leads me to re-read Galleron's response to me (quoted >above), and I'm not sure if I read it right the first time. The way I read >it now, Galleron seems to be saying on the one hand that the appeals body >should be concerned with the fitness of afilliate organisations to be >afilliates, and on the other hand that it would be adjudicating appeals by >individulas to decisions of the governing body of the afilliate >organisation. In my mind, these two functions are entirely different, and >(as someone has said) separable. Galleron, am I reading you words the way >you intended them? Essentially. Yes, the two functions *might* be separable, although there are situations that can fall under both headings. Let's take a hypothetical case. Suppose one of the common rules the Society agrees on is that *if* the King has discretion to impose second level banishment, he may only do it for serious offenses. Currently, this is one of the Society-wide rules written into Corpora. Suppose further there is a requirement that any Kingdom level review must be reasonably fair and independent. Let us suppose that Duke Testy calls King Flapjack a Butthead, and The King banishes the Duke. King Flapjack hastily creates a review panel, staffed by his drinking buddies. They unanimously rule that it serves Duke Testy right. Duke Testy would then appeal, on the basis that: The Kingdom did not follow the common rules, since calling the King a Butthead was not a truly serious offense. The Kingdom did not follow the rules, since the review panel was clearly neither fair nor independent. Now suppose instead that Duke Testy had slapped the Queen in front of several witnesses, and the King banishes him, turning review over to a truly independent review panel, formed long before to deal with such cases, which upholds the banishment.. In such a case it would be difficult for Duke Testy to demonstrate a valid basis for an appeal. He could submit one, but the higher panel would be unlikely to hear his case. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 10:48:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 00:38:09 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Conflict resolving and natural justice To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Frithiof the friendly herald wrote: >> Maybe if we try harder we can >>bring those vocal members around to thinking (with us) that an appeals body >>is not necessary. > >It's worth a try: Since it seems more or less impossible to find a process >for resolving conflict that is acceptable in all the jurisdictions and cultures >covered by the SCA, I propose that the formulation of said process be >left to the local and national corporations, and not decreed by any >international or pan-SCA body. > I agree completely. Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 11:08:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 10:59:04 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr wrote: >>If in fact there was an appeal to the membership assembled in a general >>meeting, or to people appointed by such a general meeting, as in normal >>Swedish corporation, that might meet the need. Frithiof wrote: >Could we make it a requirement to have something along those lines >written into kingdom laws? >Without making the "King's word is Law"-people jump up and down? >(Personally, I think that if you give someone lots of power, don't complain >when s/he uses it. Then again, everybody gets what the majority deserves.) a)You probably couldn't make it a requirement without having the Western Rite unhappy, but let them speak for themselves. b)Making it permissable (which it is not currently under Corpora) would be a good thing. c)Kingdom Law is the wrong place for it as the rules are currently written, since the King can essentially strike out any portion of Kingdom law at will. This is why I suggested Kingdom Charters earlier, that would be harder to change than Kingdom law. e)*I* never gave my King any of the powers that he's got. Don't blame me. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 11:11:28 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 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:03:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960626103603_143304920@emout17.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Jun 26, 96 10:36:04 am Now suppose instead that Duke Testy had slapped the Queen in front of several witnesses, and the King banishes him, turning review over to a truly independent review panel, formed long before to deal with such cases, which upholds the banishment.. In such a case it would be difficult for Duke Testy to demonstrate a valid basis for an appeal. He could submit one, but the higher panel would be unlikely to hear his case. Which is an important point. Part of what works in the US legal system, is that higher courts do not hear new evidence or retry cases. They only stand to judge the quality and accuracy of the lower courts behavior and rulings. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 11:54:36 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:42:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >)Kingdom Law is the wrong place for it as the rules are currently written, >since the King can essentially strike out any portion of Kingdom law at will. An essential point. All the current effective brakes on a determined monarch are in the Corporate rules. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 12:10:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:00:30 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Artos, in a message dated 96-06-26 08:39:04 EDT, you write: > In some other kingdoms (I'm thinking of the >Eastern Rite kingdoms, but I know little of how they work) some or all >judicial power may be held by the Curia (or equivalent). > Alas, no. In the East the Curia has some influence on legislation, in that the King is supposed to consult with Curia before passing any new laws (and unlike some other Kingdoms, every group may send a representative to Curia- it's not just the great officers). Like elsewhere, bodies may be formed to review facts, without the power to take action themselves. But formal Judicial power is vested in the Crown. Galleron Eastern Rite subject From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 13:07:05 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:51:50 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Solveig, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:37:29 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Appeals Greetings again. I'm not sure who is moderating this at the moment. But, it does occur to me that the distinction talked about earlier between societal issues and mundane issues is an important one. Some controversies are quite independent of local legal considerations. It is likely that some of these should be appealable to central authority. This is especially the case when they impinge upon global "game" considerations or ivolve the sovereignty of the monarch. Issues involving civil law in say Finland should stay in Finland where there is some chance that people will understand the issues. These are the sorts of issues which should stop at the local corporation. Good examples of stuff that should stay at the local or regional corporation are: waivers, insurance, etc. 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 Wed Jun 26 13:10:04 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:50:52 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Solveig, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 11:20:36 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree Noble Cousins! Lord Frithiof the tired herald reminds us of the legal differences between Eastern Rite and Western Rite kingdoms. Yes, the "king's word is law" is a major tenet of Western Rite kingdoms. This actually makes a mundane review mechanism more important in Western Rite kingdoms than it is in Eastern Rite kingdoms which rely more upon recreation side review mechanisms. I think that the genesis for this comes in large part from the relative remoteness of the East Kingdom early on and also with certain problems that the East Kingdom experienced during this period. The West was much closer to the BoD (which at that time was a very closed affair). Regardless, members of the BoD have consistently reported that they spend a large amount of their time dealing with kingdom disputes and checking excesses of individual monarchs. I do not see the need for this going away anytime soon. However, a single 7 man BoD will not be able to cope with it much longer. Consequently, there is a need for review mechanisms which carry the impimateur of the society. I do not think that the Amnesty International model is at all approriate for this mechanism. Yes, I know that I have repeated myself a bit here, but I do think that this is one of the major justifications used for the BoD's existence. As such, this role for the BoD and how to fulfill this need in the future is of the upmost importance. Finally, I do think that mundane-side review mechanisms should be there. These mechanisms should work with the conflict resolution mechanism traditionally employed by EACH kingdom. I do not see any hope for sucess for any attempt at trying to impose a truly uniform system on the various kingdoms. Inter-kingdom differences can be amusing. At the 30YC movie night (hosted by a Western dinosaur) someone asked when persona became part of the society. The dinosaur replied "what's persona?" "Persona" has probably been a part of the Eastern Rite kingdoms since at least AS V or so, but why should the Western dinosaur have any interest in it? The same is true for this business about the "king's word is law". That is an important part of the Western Rite, but is not going to be part of the Eastern Rite. Society wide mechanisms must be able to accomodate both and more. 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 Wed Jun 26 20:18:19 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, 26 Jun 1996 20:08:39 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Who do you appeal to if the Supreme Court makes a decision you don't like? Well, no-one. I wasn't suggesting that there be an infinite number of appeals courts; I was thinking along the lines of something like the supreme court (U.S. version) that would have specific reasons for receiving appeals - disputes between kingdom, disputes between citizens of different kingdoms, certain types of appeals from within one kingdom. *And* the spine to turn down lots of appeals..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jun 26 23:12:54 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 Content-Length: 1058 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 20:00:53 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I6DKUNW02O8YDBPQ@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jun 26, 96 08:08:39 pm > > >Who do you appeal to if the Supreme Court makes a decision you don't like? > Well, no-one. I wasn't suggesting that there be an infinite number > of appeals courts; I was thinking along the lines of something like > the supreme court (U.S. version) that would have specific reasons > for receiving appeals - disputes between kingdom, disputes between > citizens of different kingdoms, certain types of appeals from > within one kingdom. > *And* the spine to turn down lots of appeals..... > > Alban > Somewhere in the dim recesses of my High School Civics class I seem to recall that Congress can override the Supreme Court. (I could be wrong but that's my memory.) At any rate such a level of jurisdiction could always be answerable to the Corporate Entity through the by-laws and governing documents. HOWEVER such a route of consideration would have to merit very unusual circumstances and would, more or less, amount to a "Constitutional Convention" in its effect since the mechanism of the organization would have to be scutinized. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 03:25:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:00:36 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 11.42 26-06-1996 PDT, you wrote: >An essential point. All the current effective brakes on a determined monarch >are in the Corporate rules. > >Finnvarr OK, so then we should ask new corporations to have some sort of appeals mechanism written into their governing documents, outside of game functions. That mechanism COULD be referring all complaints to a rewiev panel outside the corporation, or it could be a general meeting of all members, or something else they think is a good idea. I don't think we can or should try to come up with a "one size fits all" solution. We should encourage people to solve their problems themselves. Isn't there even an American Arbitration Association (sp?) to help with such things? Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 03:42:40 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:18:24 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 20.00 26-06-1996 -0700, you wrote: >I seem to recall that Congress can override the Supreme Court. (I >could be wrong but that's my memory.) At any rate such a level of >jurisdiction could always be answerable to the Corporate Entity through >the by-laws and governing documents. > >Cathal. Ah, but we were discussing how to spread the mundane burden of running the SCA over multiple corporations, so there will be more than one Corporate Entity to answer to. Given the rate of complaints and appeals implied by earlier postings, this is a necessity. I say turn the power to make final decisions on grievances over to the local/national corporations! If some case involves people from different corporations, those corps. will have to work out a solution themselves. Maybe a "court" made up by people from both corps. would work, or maybe somthing else. How are *we* to know what will or will not work? Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 03:47:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:23:56 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 10.59 26-06-1996 -0400, Galleron wrote: >>Could we make it a requirement to have something along those lines >>written into kingdom laws? >b)Making it permissable (which it is not currently under Corpora) would be a >good thing. That's good enough for me. >e)*I* never gave my King any of the powers that he's got. Don't blame me. Which is why I put in the line about "everybody getting what the majority deserves". Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 03:59:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 09:33:58 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 12.50 26-06-1996 -0400, you wrote: >For Solveig, by Tibor. (Edited because of space considerations. My apologies if I have distorted what you were saying. F.) > Regardless, members of the BoD have > consistently reported that they spend a large amount of their time dealing > with kingdom disputes and checking excesses of individual monarchs. > Consequently, there is a > need for review mechanisms which carry the impimateur of the society. > ...this role for the BoD and how to fulfill this need in the future is of > the upmost importance. Finally, I do think that mundane-side review mechanisms > should be there. These mechanisms should work with the conflict resolution > mechanism traditionally employed by EACH kingdom. I do not see any hope for > sucess for any attempt at trying to impose a truly uniform system on the various > kingdoms. If there is a corporation for each kingdom, then there will be a BoD in each kingdom. If review and final decisions were handed over to them, the workload would be on average a 13th of what it is now. AND the system could be tailor-made to fit each kingdom! Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 10:03:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:54:09 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Frithiof wrote: >I would like to point out that even the Supreme Court only make decisions >according to US law. As far as I know, the difference between East Kingdom >and West Kingdom law is large enough that whats right and proper in the one >is out of the question in the other. Quite so. Does anyone know anything about how the World Court works? It seems to me that that body is the closest mundane equivalent to the appeal mechanism we are discussing, but I know almost nothing about it. Can anyone shed some light? > > > >The implications of setting up such an organization boggles at least my mind. >And is it really worth the trouble since we don't have any enforcment agency, >no police corps? You are quite right in that we have no enforcement agency. The best we can do is send someone to Coventry. The various forms of banishment are merely variants of Coventry, as is excommunication and the Klingon back-turning ceremony. All these things share the same weakness: they rely on everyone actively excluding the person from society. When it works, which is usually in small tightly integrated communities, it works well, but when it fails it tends to sharply polarise the community. Sometimes this leads to healing, but more often it doesn't. Nevertheless, I believe that an organisation of professional judges can work extremely well, since they will be working at the right level to solve problems before they become so large they threaten the stability of the structure. We don't have to call them judges; they can be ombudsmen and have powers only of being an advocate for members of thepopulace within the beaurocracy. There are probably lots of variants on this theme differing slightly in emphasis. The main thrust of the idea is to solve the problems at their source and in a relatively short time. If anyone can come up with other ways of doing this, I'm all ears. Another thing against the review panel: its mere existence encourages problems to grow to the point where they have to be solved by such a body. If the body didn't exist, other (and I think probably better) solutions would be found. > >> It wouldn't matter what judicial mechanisms a >>kingdom set up, "Amnesty Inter-Kingdom" would simply make known what abuses >>of power were happening. The kingdoms would then have the ammunition to >>solve the problem(s) amongst themselves. > >What if kingdom law gives the king absolute power? How could any note from >"Amnesty Inter-Kingdom" help the populace ignoring the king's word? In the West, the kingdom law effectively does that, and yet the authority of the Crown derives from the willingness of the people to be led. The populace need only knowledge of what is happenning in the kingdom to decide for themselves whether or not to play the Crown's game. The Crown's power does not extend to forcing the populace to attend their courts. In no kingdom that I know of does the crown have that power. Also, the word of a poor Crown can be reversed by the next Crown if it has become clear that the populace won't accept it. I've seen it happen. > > Frithiof the tired herald, >who wonders what happened to the discussion on how to recognize foreign >corporations. > > Artos -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 11:17:48 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:04:10 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Finnvarr wrote: >>)Kingdom Law is the wrong place for it as the rules are currently written, >>since the King can essentially strike out any portion of Kingdom law at will. > >An essential point. All the current effective brakes on a determined monarch >are in the Corporate rules. > >Finnvarr > > And it seems to be the case that they are effective only because they can't be changed by the whim of the crown. There are other ways of achieving this end: kingdom charters or constitutions spring to mind, as do self-protecting laws (if a law says it can only be changed by written agreement from the King, Queen, officers of state, landed barons and baronesses and a petition of at least half the peers of each order, it would not be an easy task to change it). Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 11:21:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:04:12 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Galleron wrote: >Artos, in a message dated 96-06-26 08:39:04 EDT, you write: > >> In some other kingdoms (I'm thinking of the >>Eastern Rite kingdoms, but I know little of how they work) some or all >>judicial power may be held by the Curia (or equivalent). >> > >Alas, no. In the East the Curia has some influence on legislation, in that >the King is supposed to consult with Curia before passing any new laws (and >unlike some other Kingdoms, every group may send a representative to Curia- >it's not just the great officers). > >Like elsewhere, bodies may be formed to review facts, without the power to >take action themselves. But formal Judicial power is vested in the Crown. > >Galleron >Eastern Rite subject > > Thank you for relieving me of this small portion of my ignorance. Somehow I got the impression over the years that the curia in the East had a lot more power than it clearly does. Interesting how distance is a strange lens, isn't it? Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 11:25:03 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: barefoot@203.18.150.65 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Richard Lesze Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 01:04:05 +1000 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Richard Lesze Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Artos. Galleron wrote: >Artos, in a message dated 96-06-25 20:40:46 EDT, you write: > >> >> Galleron, am I reading you words the way you intended them? > >Essentially. Yes, the two functions *might* be separable, although there are >situations that can fall under both headings. > >Let's take a hypothetical case. Suppose one of the common rules the Society >agrees on is that *if* the King has discretion to impose second level >banishment, he may only do it for serious offenses. Currently, this is one of >the Society-wide rules written into Corpora. > >Suppose further there is a requirement that any Kingdom level review must be >reasonably fair and independent. > >Let us suppose that Duke Testy calls King Flapjack a Butthead, and The King >banishes the Duke. > >King Flapjack hastily creates a review panel, staffed by his drinking >buddies. They unanimously rule that it serves Duke Testy right. > >Duke Testy would then appeal, on the basis that: > >The Kingdom did not follow the common rules, since calling the King a >Butthead was not a truly serious offense. > >The Kingdom did not follow the rules, since the review panel was clearly >neither fair nor independent. > In this scenario you assume that the composition of the kingdom review is at the sole discretion of the King. What of the Queen and the Kingdom Seneschal and (if there is one) the Curia? Not all of these parties are ignorable, and if the scenario unfolded as you describe at least one of them would have something unrepeatable to say to the King. Having said that, let me describe how I see some alternative mechanisms solving the problem: The Independent Judiciary solution: The King would banish Duke Testy, as he has a right to do (at least at level 1). The judiciary would automatically form a review panel from within their ranks. The number and composition of the panel would be determined largely by the seriousness of the case and the impact it may have on the kingdom. In the most extreme case, all the judges would sit. In this case, probably at most three would be sufficient. The judges are all trained and trustworthy (you have to put your trust somewhere, right?), and any judge with a conflict of interest (eg, strong friendship or other bond with either party) excuses him- or her-self with an explanation. The panel would adjudicate the case, and either commute the banishment to level 1 (king's immediate vicinity and only for the reign), or quash it completely. The Panel of Barons solution: Similar to the above, but where the landed barons and baronesses collectively decide on a review panel. The result would likely be the same as the independent judiciary solution. The Great Officer solution: The great officers of state (or all the officers, if you (like me) see no essential difference between the great and lesser offices) select (from among their number or elsewhere) a review panel, which operates like the previous two solutions. An Independent Judiciary Variant solution: The King and Duke Testy both choose one judge from amongst the judges, and those between them choose a third. This tribunal becomes the review panel, and proceeds as above. Doubtless there are many other ways, even without a judiciary, of creating a system where there is a reasonable chance that an internal kingdom review is not unfair to either party, while at the same tim doing woithout the necessity for external appeal. >Now suppose instead that Duke Testy had slapped the Queen in front of several >witnesses, and the King banishes him, turning review over to a truly >independent review panel, formed long before to deal with such cases, which >upholds the banishment.. In such a case it would be difficult for Duke Testy >to demonstrate a valid basis for an appeal. He could submit one, but the >higher panel would be unlikely to hear his case. > Any of the I have outlined above would have as little difficulty handling this case. (Of course, Duke Testy might have a mundane suit against him which would likely succeed, but that is another matter.) In neither this scenario of yours nor mine is a review panel above kingdom required. In the previous scenario, none of my solutions would require a review panel above kingdom. >Galleron > > Artos. -------------------- Richard Lesze barefoot@macquarie.matra.com.au From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 13:23:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 13:11:20 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Appeals To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 96-06-27 12:15:44 EDT, you write: >In this scenario you assume that the composition of the kingdom review is at >the sole discretion of the King. In that hypothetical, yes. It was only intended to demonstrate some situations that might generate grounds for appeals, and others that would not. You list a number of very reasonable ways to resolve disputes at a Kingdom level. First, I am not confidant that every kingdom will either willingly create such systems for themselves, or accept them if imposed from above. There are thirty years of history against it. Second, even with reasonable systems for settling judicial questions at a Kingdom level, there are still some situations where the issues will impinge on the common rules of the Society. For instance, there was a case recently where one King did not wish to recognize the County rank of his outgoing predecessor. If the Kingdom judiciary supported the King in this case, the plaintiff might reasonably say "But that's not what Corpora (or the Great Charter) says! The Kingdom is not following the common rules! I want to appeal!" To see that this is an issue that affects all the Kingdoms, assume that the plaintiff immediatly moves to Kingdom B, and often travels to tourneys in Kingdom C. If Kingdom B holds that you become a count if you succesfully complete a reign, and C has not yet addressed the issue, where is he a Count? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 17:47:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 14:27:30 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606270700.AA17929@akka.kemi.uu.se> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Sven Noren wrote: > At 11.42 26-06-1996 PDT, you wrote: > > >An essential point. All the current effective brakes on a determined monarch > >are in the Corporate rules. > > > >Finnvarr > > OK, so then we should ask new corporations to have some sort of appeals > mechanism written into their governing documents, outside of game functions. Absolutely not. Corpora can and should specify a top level appeals mechanism for game issues. Corporations should be encouraged to assert their independence from leaders selected by the rules and criteria in Corpora. A King must not be able to give orders to a corporation that exists to serve some or even all of his subjects Contrarywise, members of such a corporation must not be able to appeal corporate rulings to the King. If we need a game side judiciary, (which I am not convinced of), then it must be restriced to game side issues. I am not convinced that we need a judiciary because we lack effective punishments for individuals, especials Kings and Queens, and because we lack the will to apply punsihments to whole kingdoms. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 21:02:39 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:50:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Solveig, by Tibor. [I somewhat disagree with her conclusions.] Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 20:45:53 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns Noble Cousins! I believe that Lord Galleron understated the power of the Eastern Curia. The Eastern Curia has immense informal power and as much titular power as Corpora allows it to hold. One of the very important things in the Eastrealm is that the royal peers and chivalry strongly back curia and general adherence to Eastern tradition. The result is that the Western Rite Corpora may say that the Eastern King's word is law, but the effect is rather different. The result though is that the Eastrealm pays a good deal of attention to law which does get enacted. In the East, Kings are generally encouraged to exercise their royal perogative through "royal whims" and other edicts and not through law. 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 | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jun 27 22:12:58 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 34 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 21:59:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Punishing royalty To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Fiacha says we don't need a judiciary because we won't punish royalty individually and won't punish whole kingdoms for the faults of their monarchs. I disagree. What a judiciary (currently the Board) can do, and has done, is give relief to those unfairly punished by their monarchs -- people improperly banished, Counts denied their titles, etc. The Board has done this with great success, in fact, without doing much of anything to either individual monarchs or whole kingdoms, simply by stating and applying the law. This is the essential check on monarchs and their officers that we need to keep our monarchs from acting too much like the real thing. And this is something we do need -- monarchy to be subject to law -- because if we don't have it our normal politics will become hyper politics and impinge too drastically on the people who just want to weave or dance or hit each other with sticks while wearing armor. A lot of people seem to be saying that what we already have can't work. Or that a multitude of corporations, in a Society where corporations and kingdoms are unlikely to perfectly correspond, will be sufficient to counterbalance the prestige of crowned monarchs sitting surrounded by their lieges in impressive court settings. I disagree. I don't think our monarchs need checking all that often. They go off the rails rather infrequently, actually. But if there is no structure independent of monarchy to supply the check when needed, we'll have trouble. And if there is no single way of preserving both the essential rules of the SCA and basic fairness in their application, then we will lose the unity of the SCA. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 28 09:31:35 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:22:14 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Punishing royalty To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Finnvarr writes: >I don't think our monarchs need checking all that often. They go off the >rails rather infrequently, actually. I agree. On the other hand, there are so many Kingdoms that even rare misbehaviors can make a lot of work for the top game judicial body. Remember that if there are fourteen Kingdoms, and each one only has a problem with their royalty every three years, that still means more than four cases a year across the Society. And the number of Kingdoms is going to grow. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 28 09:38:33 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 09:30:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Punishing royalty (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Solveig, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:53:47 -0500 From: bnostran@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Barbara Nostrand) Subject: Re: Punishing royalty Noble Cousins! Duke Finvarr wrote: >What a judiciary (currently the Board) can do, and has done, is give relief >to those unfairly punished by their monarchs -- people improperly banished, >Counts denied their titles, etc. The Board has done this with great success, >in fact, without doing much of anything to either individual monarchs or >whole kingdoms, simply by stating and applying the law. I do however think that the county decision by the BoD was ill advised. Generally, we have been going in the wrong direction with our thinking about the county. There was a ruling a while back that a queen who died in office could not be posthumously made a countess. What baloney. Using the same reasoning that the be-all and end-all of the county is completion of a reign, we have the equally misguided ruling that a retiring monarch must ALWAYS be given the county. Perhaps the specific case did not warrant witholding the county, but I can well imagine cases where the county should be witheld. Being of the Eastern persuasion, I can easily imagine the county being voted by the royal peers of the kingdom. It would almost always be given, but not always. Essentially, the BoD removed one of the possible "cheques" on the monarchs. >This is the essential check on monarchs and their officers that we need to >keep our monarchs from acting too much like the real thing. And this is >something we do need -- monarchy to be subject to law -- because if we don't >have it our normal politics will become hyper politics and impinge too >drastically on the people who just want to weave or dance or hit each other >with sticks while wearing armor. Errr. Being obligated to the law is one of the things incumbent upon the "real-thing". Go read the corronation oath sword by all British monarchs if you don't believe me. Duke Finvarr in part concludes with: >I don't think our monarchs need checking all that often. They go off the >rails rather infrequently, actually. But if there is no structure >independent of monarchy to supply the check when needed, we'll have trouble. I can not agree more. There should be a way to remove monarchs. (The British were not at all afraid to remove their monarchs on several occasions. Let's see, they were beheaded on several occasions, and on at least one occasion crushed with rocks.) Further, we must not be afraid to withold honour from one stepping down from a dishonourable reign. Finally, we should bring back courts of chivalry. The East kingdom stripped the Scotts Duke of his Eastern knighthood many many years ago. The Eastern kingdom also at one time debased the arms of Scotts Duke. We must have courts of justice and our royal courts must be just. 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 Fri Jun 28 11:10:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:19:17 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 14.27 27-06-1996 -0700, you wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >On Thu, 27 Jun 1996, Sven Noren wrote: > >> OK, so then we should ask new corporations to have some sort of appeals >> mechanism written into their governing documents, outside of game functions. > >Absolutely not. > >Corpora can and should specify a top level appeals mechanism for game >issues. Corporations should be encouraged to assert their independence >from leaders selected by the rules and criteria in Corpora. I must not have made my self clear: The first sentence above is just what I was trying to say. I used the expression "governing documents", referring to corpora and bylaws. Is this where I goofed? The second sentence I do not understand: A corporation independent of it's own corpora? The leaders of a corporation are selected according to the corporation's governing documents, independent of any medieval game. The rulers of a kingdom are selected according to kingdom law, independent of corporate considerations. >A King must not be able to give orders to a corporation that exists to >serve some or even all of his subjects Contrarywise, members of such a >corporation must not be able to appeal corporate rulings to the King. What I intended to write was just the opposite: Members of the populace should be able to appeal rulings of the king to the BoD of their corporation. Putting the mechanism for this in the gov.doc's and out side of game functions makes it impossible for any king to mess with them; such changes are made by the corporation's board or members. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jun 28 11:44:25 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 11:34:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Justin's email address seems to have been changed for him: I shall forward all his mail until he gets it corrected. Tibor Forwarded message: Date: Fri, 28 Jun 96 11:14:54 EDT From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Appeals/Nasty Crowns (fwd) Solveig writes: > I believe that Lord Galleron understated the power of the Eastern Curia. > The Eastern Curia has immense informal power and as much titular power > as Corpora allows it to hold. Um -- no. I've attended a *lot* of Curiae (since my lady wife is usually a Kingdom Officer of one sort or another at any given time, and heaven knows I'm rarely lacking in opinions), and my experience doesn't match this. In the *usual* case, ideas get put before the Curia and discussed. Unless the Curia *clearly* disagrees with the Monarch's opinion, the Monarch's opinion wins. (What Curia *is* good at is tinkering around the edges, making proposals a little more solid before they get written into law.) A good Monarch listens to the Curia's opinions, since they tend to reflect the general sentiments of the Kingdom to some degree, but that's very much a political subtlety, mostly impacting the Monarch's popularity. Sometimes, even clear disagreement of the Curia has little influence; I remember one Curia meeting where the Monarch rammed a new law through over the clear and vocal objections of almost everyone present. And, frankly, those "immense informal powers" didn't accomplish a damned thing -- the law was not only made and used, but stuck around long enough to become entrenched... Moreover, speaking of "the Curia" has a built-in flaw -- unlike some Kingdoms, the Curia of the East does *not* have much group identity, because it's much too large. It has little or no existence outside the actual Curia meetings... Eastern Curia is a reality-check on the Monarchs, and nothing more. That's useful, but it ain't especially powerful... -- 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 Fri Jun 28 20:07:20 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 Content-Length: 655 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 16:48:13 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Punishing royalty (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199606281330.JAA21542@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jun 28, 96 09:30:53 am Cathal to All, Greetings: Solveig made a point about needing to have a mechanism through which to effect the removal of sitting Royalty. Such a mechanism is already existant in the fact that the BoD has previously empowered one Commission to sit in Inquiry against an erring Crown and gave the three Commissioners the authority to pass a capital sentence against the reign. That point of precedent can be transferred along with such authority to any agency which the BoD sees fit. Such an agency would need, however, to be outside the direct influence of any Kingdom government and its actions subject to only the most minimal of appeals. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 08:44:28 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 Content-Length: 73 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 05:25:29 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Cathal to All, Greetings: Van Winkle here, is anyone else up? Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 11:38:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 17:22:51 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Cathal to All, Greetings: > Van Winkle here, is anyone else up? Mmm... maybe. If I'm here at all. Obviously (vid. Fiacha's summary), I wasn't at the 3YC meeting - although I could've sworn to the contrary... Anything to add to the latest internationalization proposal, anybody? Or something to say about what's to be done when our mandate runs out? /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 11:56:36 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 18 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 11:39:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: What's going on? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L A few months back, some specific proposals on internationalization, from me, Galleron, Solveig, Fiacha, and maybe somebody else were put forward. Some people liked these well enough to vote on them. Others thought that voting was premature, or disliked all of them. Though there has been some discussion of details (appeals boards), no new proposals have come forward -- not as such. That appears to be "what's going on." What happens next, I guess, is up to the chair. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 13:36:52 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 Jul 1996 10:15:37 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199607021225.FAA02133@netcom10.netcom.com> Fiacha is here. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 13:39:08 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 Jul 1996 10:19:49 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Catrin, I humbly apologize for failing to credit you with having been present at the 3YC meeting. You were there. I have a distinct memory of you sitting off to my left. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 14:50:14 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 13:50:14 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Tue, 2 Jul 1996 10:15:37 -0700) I'm here, also, but deliberately quiet at the moment -- I'm in the final stages of writing a large-scale LARP that goes up soon. After the 14th of July, I will hopefully regain a bit of Life, and will probably reappear then... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Archery in combat "That's the nature of modern warfare. We didn't ask to be born in the fourteenth century, but we have to accept it: It's not as if you can go off and pretend to be living in an earlier and simpler time!" -- Dani of the Seven Wells From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 15:57:52 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 Content-Length: 1335 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:43:49 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Janna G. Spanne" at Jul 2, 96 05:22:51 pm > > >Cathal to All, Greetings: > > Van Winkle here, is anyone else up? > > Mmm... maybe. If I'm here at all. Obviously (vid. Fiacha's summary), I > wasn't at the 3YC meeting - although I could've sworn to the contrary... > > Anything to add to the latest internationalization proposal, anybody? > Or something to say about what's to be done when our mandate runs out? > > /Catrin > Well, has anyone queried the BoD as to whether or not they are willing to extend the mandate? Personally, I would prefer to see the GC made a permanent fixture and given a fixed set of issues to review by the BoD with an option to submit any collateral ideas which might develop from the deliberations. The addition of a limited agenda and a time imperative can only serve to assist in the focus of the GC. It also would prove a barometer to show whether or not the idea of reform is being accepted by the BoD since the allocation of "sop" issues to us would rapidly become apparant. The broad topic of "what needs to be reformed" without some of idea of the degree of willingness on the part of the Powers That BE to accept that reform is worse than useless. It can only, in the long run, serve to engender an impasse which in turn could precipitate incidents such as have clouded our relationship with the BoD/Corporation. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 2 22:46:01 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 22:32:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L So....are Galleron's and Finnvarr's proposals still on the table, and is there any more commentary? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 3 11:32:00 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 Jul 1996 10:14:10 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Magnus is here. Was gone at classes for two weeks and have spent 3 weeks lurking and catching up. Most of the discussions have hit all the points I wanted heard anyway. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 3 16:59:10 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:08:03 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Alban wrote: << So....are Galleron's and Finnvarr's proposals still on the table, and is there any more commentary? >> I'm revising some of the details of my proposal to reflect discussion since the vote was aborted, but I don't expect the fundamentals to change very much. Stay tuned Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Jul 6 23:57:56 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 23:44:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Hello. . . To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Corwyn here. Out of town on buisiness from the 20th or so until today. Guess I forgot to check out.... Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jul 8 13:00:12 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:47:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Appeals mechanism To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L At 02:27 PM 6/27/96 -0700, Fiach wrote: >If we need a game side judiciary, (which I am not convinced of), then it >must be restriced to game side issues. I am not convinced that we need a >judiciary because we lack effective punishments for individuals, especials >Kings and Queens, and because we lack the will to apply punsihments to >whole kingdoms. Entirely independent of the question of whether Crowns and Kingdoms need to be punished is the issue of overturning bad, illegal and counter to corpora decisions. Level III banishments, non recognition of Counts, decisions not to subscribe to TI, Changing the armor standards to allow Cellophane as rigid armor, whatever. The next regent can always banish a horrible terrible former ruler, but maintaining cellophane armor or withholding Titles are problems that need to be acted on. If The BoD is not to be the actor, the some other body is required. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jul 8 13:00:14 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, 8 Jul 1996 11:46:40 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > Somewhere in the dim recesses of my High School Civics class >I seem to recall that Congress can override the Supreme Court. (I >could be wrong but that's my memory.) NO, The Congress can pass a proposed ammendment to the U.S. Constitution, which, if approved by the States, can overide the Supreme Court. (This is the case in which a Law is found Unconstitutional by the Supremes.) In a case in which the Supreme Court Interprets a Law rather than the Constitution, then and only then can Congress end run the Supreme Court by passing a new law. (This is when the Congress is saying "That isn't the Law we meant to pass, what it should really say is..." Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Jul 8 13:01:57 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: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:46:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Quite so. Does anyone know anything about how the World Court works? It doesn't! Or rather it only works if the individual nations sued decide to agree with the Opinion of the World Court. Althought the US supports the World Court in theory, in practice it does not support the Courts decisions...especially when they go Against the US. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 9 11:39:39 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:27:45 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Alexander the Eastern Traveller, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: david.razler@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (David M. Razler) Subject: Re: Don't sit under the appeal tree Date: Tue, 09 Jul 1996 04:07:44 GMT On Mon, 8 Jul 96 16:46:58 +0000, you wrote: >>Quite so. Does anyone know anything about how the World Court works? > >It doesn't! Or rather it only works if the individual nations sued decide >to agree with the Opinion of the World Court. Althought the US supports the >World Court in theory, in practice it does not support the Courts >decisions...especially when they go Against the US. > >Magnus The International Court of Justice works on most minor things, except.. And the exception is the reserve clause. Any nation accepting ICJ juris diction is allowed to sign on with a clause saying they can disregard a decision. If either party to a case is a signator in this fashion (a list including the US) either party may disregard the decision. Actually, in *most* cases brought before the ICJ, trade cases and the like, things work surprisingly well. Note: the *only* "persons" with status to bring cases before the ICJ are the governments which established it. "You" do not have standing, though the Solicitor General of the US can bring action on your behalf. For a good collection of primary source material in one place, grab West Publishing's American Casebook Series International Law, Cases and Materials, the standard International Law 101 backgrounder book. David M. Razler david.razler@worldnet.att.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 11 10:02:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 09:42:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Hourglass To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Can you tell me a little more about the hourglass your squire made? How it was constructed and so on? G From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 11 11:26:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 11:10:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Hourglass To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Oops. Sorry, ignore the hourglass posting. A careless keystroke sent it to this list by mistake. Multiple apologies. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 11 12:23:26 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 73 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 12:09:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Beyond hourglasses to international corp To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L The principality of Ealdormere, Middle Kingdom, is moving slowly towards Kingdom status. There are quite a few details of the proposed laws to be straightened out, and no doubt there will be issues beyond that, too, so the event is not imminent. However, it's not that far away. Ealdormere will be the first kingdom to be entirely within a country not the USA. The question arises, what benefit will there be for Ealdormere to run itself as part of SCA, Inc. Being part of SCA, Inc. has several aspects. One, SCA, Inc. enforces the SCA rules for the game. Two, Ealdormerian contributions to SCA, Inc. help support a corp that gives our game a single clearinghouse for dealing with the outside world. Part of the benefits are recruiting and educational materials available centrally. Three, insurance has been run through the central office. Four, newsletters have been run through the central office. Five, fulfilling of legal requirements for taxation purposes. Reasons three,four and five probably strikes the average SCA person as the main reason for having a corporation at all. Functions under #2 can be fulfilled otherwise -- whether this would be done as efficiently or more efficiently under a decentralized regime is one of those perennial debates. Functions under #1 could also be done differently. As of the time that Ealdormere becomes a kingdom -- next year, the year after that, the last three reasons for being part of SCA, Inc., the most pressing ones, will disappear. #5 -- SCA, Inc. is entirely concerned with US law; rules are made to keep US authorities happy, especially the IRS. This has nothing to do with Ontario, Canada. #4 -- Kingdom newsletters. Sending our present newsletter from the US to Canada is a pain for the chronicler and a pain for those people who sometimes don't get their newsletter, thanks to the uncertain interface between two very inefficient organizations. Since, however, E. is now part of the MK, this has had to be put up with. After E. is a separate kingdom, however, what advantage will it be for the members to send their money to the US (at some cost and inconvenience) to fund a newsletter produced here? #3 -- Insurance. E's committee on the pros and cons of incorporation has finally, thanks to someone on the Board putting a bug in the Corporate Office's ear, got a copy of the SCA insurance policy. It only covers foreign countries to $500,000 US; less than $1,000,000 CDN ($720,000 US) is considered inadequate by all the insurance professionals active in the principality; twice that would be better. So the services provided by SCA, Inc. to its Ontario members are inadequate now. So the question of international organization will in the near future be brought into high relief. Drachenwald, of course, has much more complex problems, but their very complexity, and the fact that a significant portion of the membership does have US addresses (APO and FPO), mixes things up. The case of Ontario is a lot clearer. With kingdom status, the one major practical reason for membership in the SCA, Inc., the running of a kingdom newsletter over an international boundary when most members of the kingdom live in the US, will evaporate. Then, no one in Ealdormere will have a US address. No group in Ealdormere will be subject to US tax law. No one in Ealdormere will get significant benefit from the SCA insurance policy. The time to do something about international restructuring is growing shorter. Wouldn't it makes sense to outline some principles now, before the Board has to deal with an actual case? Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 12 10:43:21 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 Content-Length: 4428 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 07:18:29 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international corp To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31E5522B@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Jul 11, 96 12:09:00 pm > > The principality of Ealdormere, Middle Kingdom, is moving slowly towards > Kingdom status. There are quite a few details of the proposed laws to be > straightened out, and no doubt there will be issues beyond that, too, so the > event is not imminent. However, it's not that far away. > > Ealdormere will be the first kingdom to be entirely within a country not the > USA. The question arises, what benefit will there be for Ealdormere to run > itself as part of SCA, Inc. Pardon, but what part of Drachenwald is on US territory (aside from whatever extraterritorial privileges are extended to US military bases)? Being part of SCA, Inc. has several aspects. > > One, SCA, Inc. enforces the SCA rules for the game. > > Two, Ealdormerian contributions to SCA, Inc. help support a corp that gives > our game a single clearinghouse for dealing with the outside world. Part of > the benefits are recruiting and educational materials available centrally. > > Three, insurance has been run through the central office. > > Four, newsletters have been run through the central office. > > Five, fulfilling of legal requirements for taxation purposes. > > > Reasons three,four and five probably strikes the average SCA person as the > main reason for having a corporation at all. Functions under #2 can be > fulfilled otherwise -- whether this would be done as efficiently or more > efficiently under a decentralized regime is one of those perennial debates. > Functions under #1 could also be done differently. > > As of the time that Ealdormere becomes a kingdom -- next year, the year after > that, the last three reasons for being part of SCA, Inc., the most pressing > ones, will disappear. > > #5 -- SCA, Inc. is entirely concerned with US law; rules are made to keep US > authorities happy, especially the IRS. This has nothing to do with Ontario, > Canada. > > #4 -- Kingdom newsletters. Sending our present newsletter from the US to > Canada is a pain for the chronicler and a pain for those people who sometimes > don't get their newsletter, thanks to the uncertain interface between two > very inefficient organizations. Since, however, E. is now part of the MK, > this has had to be put up with. After E. is a separate kingdom, however, > what advantage will it be for the members to send their money to the US (at > some cost and inconvenience) to fund a newsletter produced here? > > #3 -- Insurance. E's committee on the pros and cons of incorporation has > finally, thanks to someone on the Board putting a bug in the Corporate > Office's ear, got a copy of the SCA insurance policy. It only covers foreign > countries to $500,000 US; less than $1,000,000 CDN ($720,000 US) is > considered inadequate by all the insurance professionals active in the > principality; twice that would be better. So the services provided by SCA, > Inc. to its Ontario members are inadequate now. > > So the question of international organization will in the near future be > brought into high relief. Drachenwald, of course, has much more complex > problems, but their very complexity, and the fact that a significant portion > of the membership does have US addresses (APO and FPO), mixes things up. > > The case of Ontario is a lot clearer. With kingdom status, the one major > practical reason for membership in the SCA, Inc., the running of a kingdom > newsletter over an international boundary when most members of the kingdom > live in the US, will evaporate. Then, no one in Ealdormere will have a US > address. No group in Ealdormere will be subject to US tax law. No one in > Ealdormere will get significant benefit from the SCA insurance policy. > > The time to do something about international restructuring is growing > shorter. Wouldn't it makes sense to outline some principles now, before the > Board has to deal with an actual case? > > Finnvarr > Actually, in the broadest sense of the matter the time ran out several months ago. The Nordmark debacle proved that. I agree that we need to address the issue and Finvarr's breakdown puts it into a perspective which divorces the unfortunate emotional baggage of past debates. Let's face it folks, the delimma of 1776 has come back to haunt us. _What_ can we offer our international affiliates under the present SCA/USA rules that cannot be handled easier on a local level? _That_ should be our point of departure. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 12 14:34:14 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 30 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 14:19:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Answer to Cathal: > Pardon, but what part of Drachenwald is on US territory (aside >from whatever extraterritorial privileges are extended to US military >bases)? None. But Drachenwald is not located in a single country, or a single legal jurisdiction, as Ealdormere will be. Thus the E. situation is much simpler and straightforward than anything taking place in Drachenwald. Had Nordmark been a recognized kingdom in the SCA universe, then the Nordmark situation of last year would have resembled more closely the upcoming Ealdormere situation. The fact that many Nordmark members chose to stay with an international kingdom, despite the various disadvantages of the situation, is interesting. My view is that many Swedes value the unity of the SCA quite highly, and have been willing to put up with said disadvantages in the hopes that the corp. will take a more flexible approach to international organization in the future. On the other hand, multinational kingdoms are here for a long time to come: Ealdormere apart, the MK will continue to cross the US-Canada border. An Tir, ditto. This is why my proposal for maintaining a unity of basic rules did not mention corporations. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 12 16:21:40 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:08:36 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Solveig, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: Barbara Nostrand Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 16:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Please forward this for me: Noble Cousins! Duke Finvarr wrote: > Answer to Cathal: > > > Pardon, but what part of Drachenwald is on US territory (aside > >from whatever extraterritorial privileges are extended to US military > >bases)? > > None. But Drachenwald is not located in a single country, or a single legal > jurisdiction, as Ealdormere will be. Thus the E. situation is much simpler > and straightforward than anything taking place in Drachenwald. Actually, the situation with Eldomere is even more simple as it is located within a single province. Remember that Quebec is still part of Canada (today at least) and has somewhat different laws. Silly Ontario people that thing that Canada begins at Etobico and ends at Scarborough. > On the other hand, multinational kingdoms are here for a long time to come: > Ealdormere apart, the MK will continue to cross the US-Canada border. An > Tir, ditto. And there you go again Duke Finvarr forgetting about places East of Toronto. There are CANADIAN parts of the East Kingdom as well. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 16 13:26:36 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 19:07:44 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... >My view is that many Swedes value the unity of the SCA quite highly, and have >been willing to put up with said disadvantages in the hopes that the corp. >will take a more flexible approach to international organization in the >future. > ... >Finnvarr Exactly. Historical re-creation is not at all uncommon in Europe. For myself, if I wanted to do "local" history, considerably more authentic and with a higher academic ambition than the SCA average, I'd have a hard time choosing among a few Viking societies, a jousting club, a crossbow guild, an early dance group, several early music groups, and a number of general medievalist groups focused around authentic local excavations, all within a radius of maybe 60 miles. Most of these groups have international contacts, at least within Scandinavia - and, in the case of the crossbow guild, with regular international events all over Western Europe. People over here certainly don't have to put up with the antics of a US Corp in order to play at the Middle Ages. If we do, it's probably because we specifically want to play SCA, with its mixture of history, fantasy, research, partying, reality, theatre, politics, games... and we want to play it with people from all over the world. Cathal asks *the* basic question: > _What_ can >we offer our international affiliates under the present SCA/USA rules that >cannot be handled easier on a local level? As we've said so many times before, what needs to be coordinated centrally is some fundamental way of keeping the game together, and a means of communication with "players" in other places. Mundane interfaces are best handled locally. As for international matters of insurance and waivers (e.g. for Swedes or Germans wanting to participate in Pennsic), I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from various international sports federations. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 16 16:13:51 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 15:56:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Will there be a Pennsic GC get-together? We should begin planning now. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Jul 16 20:57:56 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, 16 Jul 1996 20:46:58 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I don't know yet, I guess. But if people wander around looking for someplace to pass gossip, my usual haunts would be as good a place as any, one supposes. Look for me, Potboiler Press, space 107, right next to where the children's swings (I hear) _used_ to be; next space but one to the Cooper's white house, near the barn, along the main road in. If I'm not there, someone working for me should be. I'm willing to be main news-gatherer, since I'll be there most of the time, most days. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 03:24:25 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 08:59:15 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I for one is going to Pennsic, and would like to meet some other Grand Councillors (sp?) there. In fact, I'm leaving this coming saturday (on a circuitious route), so I wont be able to read mail for one month. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 10:36:16 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 7 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:24:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: At Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I will be at Pennsic, camping in the Drachenwald camp. I still don't know when I am going, but I may be there for two weeks. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 12:22:35 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 Jul 1996 11:05:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: At Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'll be at Pennsic with the Northshield encampment. For about 10 days unless my schedule collapses. Magnus Anyone who'll be there on the 4th that could pick me up at the Pittsburgh airport? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 12:59:51 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 12:46:58 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: At Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <31ED2226@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> (message from Steve Muhlberger on Wed, 17 Jul 1996 10:24:00 PDT) I'll be there, camping in East Kingdom Royal... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "You know you've been in hack mode too long when you complain in the supermarket about your change and find out you computed it in hex." -- Kristian Koehntopp From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 13:21:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 13:06:15 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Alexander the Eastern Traveller, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: david.razler@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (David M. Razler) Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:27:33 GMT On Tue, 16 Jul 96 17:07:44 +0000, you wrote: >As we've said so many times before, what needs to be coordinated centrally >is some fundamental way of keeping the game together, and a means of >communication with "players" in other places. >Mundane interfaces are best handled locally. As for international matters >of insurance and waivers (e.g. for Swedes or Germans wanting to participate >in Pennsic), I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from various >international sports federations. > >/Catrin I should hope not! [Presenting the Middle Kingdom Coca Cola Archers, the Ansteoran Fencing Squad ; The East Kingdom Buick Heavy Fighters; the Calontir Shield Deodorant Body Cleanser Wall..... dmr David M. Razler david.razler@worldnet.att.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 19:32:53 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, 17 Jul 1996 19:17:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >As we've said so many times before, what needs to be coordinated centrally >is some fundamental way of keeping the game together, and a means of >communication with "players" in other places. >Mundane interfaces are best handled locally. As for international matters >of insurance and waivers (e.g. for Swedes or Germans wanting to participate >in Pennsic), I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from various >international sports federations. > >/Catrin Why? I don't see any real effort at central coordination of The Game (tm) right now. As for communication, seems to me that there's a lot of it going on right now: visitors from out of a kingdom visiting events see what's going on and report back; visitors going to a foreign kingdom come back with new stuff; multi- kingdom events like Pennsic and Estrella do a lot for keeping everyone current; email, the Rialto, and the sheer mass of gossip between friends, squires/proteges/apprentices.......well, you get the idea. I'm not too worried about the SCA suddenly falling apart if there's No Central Official Game Rules Office. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 21:39:02 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 Content-Length: 1412 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:28:03 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199607171706.NAA29383@abel.math.harvard.edu> from "Mark Schuldenfrei" at Jul 17, 96 01:06:15 pm > > For Alexander the Eastern Traveller, by Tibor. > > Forwarded message: > From: david.razler@postoffice.worldnet.att.net (David M. Razler) > Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international > Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:27:33 GMT > > On Tue, 16 Jul 96 17:07:44 +0000, you wrote: > >As we've said so many times before, what needs to be coordinated centrally > >is some fundamental way of keeping the game together, and a means of > >communication with "players" in other places. > >Mundane interfaces are best handled locally. As for international matters > >of insurance and waivers (e.g. for Swedes or Germans wanting to participate > >in Pennsic), I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from various > >international sports federations. > > > >/Catrin > > I should hope not! [Presenting the Middle Kingdom Coca Cola Archers, the > Ansteoran Fencing Squad ; The East > Kingdom Buick Heavy Fighters; the Calontir Shield Deodorant Body Cleanser > Wall..... > > dmr > > > David M. Razler > david.razler@worldnet.att.net > Nay, good sir, speak not so irreverently abouth South Downs Ale! Those Archers must be from Meridies, the TRUE home of Coca-Cola! :-} Cathal. (Seneschal of the Barony of the South Downs, Meridies Shermaized for your protection once. . .now filled with flaming Olympians) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 21:42:21 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 Content-Length: 110 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 18:30:01 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: At Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199607171605.LAA27286@CP.Duluth.MN.US> from "James D. McManus" at Jul 17, 96 11:05:46 am Cathal to All, Greetings: Sorry, but I have to miss this War due to mundane business committments. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 22:58:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:51:35 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: At Pennsic (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Bertrik, by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: "Bart H. Orbons" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 01:14:27 +0000 Subject: Re: At Pennsic On Jul 17, 10:24am, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > Subject: At Pennsic > I will be at Pennsic, camping in the Drachenwald camp. I still don't know > when I am going, but I may be there for two weeks. > > Finnvarr What a coincidence: I will be at the same drachenwald encampment. And Frithiof, i guess... So that means that drachenwald will be relatively well represented... It is sad though that i am not able to sahow up untill the 11th... Bertrik -- ========================================================================= | Bart H. Orbons, warande 193, 3705 ZP Zeist,the Netherlands | | Planet Internet Holding. | | bart@holding.pi.net | ========================================================================= There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy ... -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Jul 17 23:04:50 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 22:54:13 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L For Bertrick by Tibor. Forwarded message: From: "Bart H. Orbons" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 02:01:00 +0000 Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international On Jul 16, 7:07pm, Janna G. Spanne wrote: > Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international > >... > >My view is that many Swedes value the unity of the SCA quite highly, and have > >been willing to put up with said disadvantages in the hopes that the corp. > >will take a more flexible approach to international organization in the > >future. > > ... > >Finnvarr > > Exactly. Historical re-creation is not at all uncommon in Europe. For Yes, I agree with you here (and Caitrin). > myself, if I wanted to do "local" history, considerably more authentic and > with a higher academic ambition than the SCA average, I'd have a hard time > choosing among a few Viking societies, a jousting club, a crossbow guild, > an early dance group, several early music groups, and a number of general > medievalist groups focused around authentic local excavations, all within a > radius of maybe 60 miles. Most of these groups have international contacts, > at least within Scandinavia - and, in the case of the crossbow guild, with > regular international events all over Western Europe. > > People over here certainly don't have to put up with the antics of a US > Corp in order to play at the Middle Ages. If we do, it's probably because > we specifically want to play SCA, with its mixture of history, fantasy, > research, partying, reality, theatre, politics, games... and we want to > play it with people from all over the world. > > Cathal asks *the* basic question: > > > _What_ can > >we offer our international affiliates under the present SCA/USA rules that > >cannot be handled easier on a local level? > > As we've said so many times before, what needs to be coordinated centrally > is some fundamental way of keeping the game together, and a means of > communication with "players" in other places. > Mundane interfaces are best handled locally. As for international matters > of insurance and waivers (e.g. for Swedes or Germans wanting to participate > in Pennsic), I'm sure we could learn a thing or two from various > international sports federations. > > /Catrin > > >-- End of excerpt from Janna G. Spanne Yes, I think we have something to consider here.. The SCA, however we look at it, does have an additional value over lot's of other recreational society. Basically we can capture that under subjects as 'a Broader view of the middle ages (There Is (to my knowledge) no other rec organisation that allowes 5th cent. celts run together with elisabethan gentles (did i mention japanese etc?), its varied subjects of interestest (generally the rec. societies tend to specialise on specific subject like Calligraphy/Dance/ Armoring) etc. I also think that the fundamental fact that the SCA is Foreign (for us European :-) ) somehow adds a factor to things... It is different, and for the curious ones, worth having a look at :-)... Keeping the SCA-worldwide game coherrent is the problem at top level is the problem. I think we broach the landmark/milestones discussion again... Maybe throwing in a different angle on how to approach this problem: If we look at the special points of the SCA as indicated above -diversity- we can classify the SCA as very diverse on the global picture... but if we look at the smaler picture (take shires and lower levels), the diversity is much less... the interests within the average low level branch is not so very diverse. There are groups where dancing is very much it, while heavy weapons are rarely seen, other groups mainly fence, etc... So.. would it be an option to look at things from an angle like this? Would it be possible to tranlate the problem in the broad picture's diversity in relation to the small local pictures specialism? As I said, I am not certain that this prespective does help very much in solving the big picture problem.. but it mightadd some new food for thought... Bertrik -- ========================================================================= | Bart H. Orbons, warande 193, 3705 ZP Zeist,the Netherlands | | Planet Internet Holding. | | bart@holding.pi.net | ========================================================================= From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 18 04:24:20 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:59:26 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: At Pennsic (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> I will be at Pennsic, camping in the Drachenwald camp. I still don't know >> when I am going, but I may be there for two weeks. >> >> Finnvarr > > What a coincidence: I will be at the same drachenwald encampment. And > Frithiof, i guess... So that means that drachenwald will be relatively > well represented... > It is sad though that i am not able to sahow up untill the 11th... > > Bertrik I surely will, though I am not sure of when I'll show up. Me and my lady are making a tour of it once we are over there. We will be flying home from Pittsburgh on the 18th anyway. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 18 05:34:00 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:24:58 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: At Pennsic (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >> ... I will be at the same drachenwald encampment. And >> Frithiof, i guess... So that means that drachenwald will be relatively >> well represented... >> Bertrik My bank account hasn't quite recovered from 3YC (that'll take a while) so I'll have to leave Pennsic to the rest of you. Have fun! /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 18 06:03:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:55:52 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L > ... [Presenting the Middle Kingdom Coca Cola Archers, the > Ansteoran Fencing Squad ; The East > Kingdom Buick Heavy Fighters; the Calontir Shield Deodorant Body Cleanser > Wall..... > > dmr So... what's sponsoring got to do with sundry legal stuff (insurance and such)? What I'm trying to say is that we have a very specific and real legal problem (foreign fighters participating in US events) and that there's no point in reinventing the wheel if we can learn from how sports federations routinely handle foreign long-distance runners, judokas, archers etc etc participating in competitions in the USA. The problem of international waivers and insurance may seem marginal and ridiculous to someone firmly rooted in the US legal system, but Finnish fighters being forced to sign a US legal document so that they can fight in Sweden, or even in Finland, is a serious pain in the butt when you're sitting in Scandinavia. Why don't all Finnish judokas have to sign US waivers, although some of them occasionally do compete in the USA? And how does their medical insurance work? Trying to find out how those guys do it looks like a distinctly good idea to me, and I fail to see the relevance of the more ridiculous consequences of sports sponsoring in this context. Okay, so it was a joke and I'm being overly touchy. But occasionally I get seriously fed up with trying to explain why people over here have to sign incomprehensible and potentially dangerous documents in a foreign language in order to participate in the SCA's most important activities, with suddenly losing all the waterbearers at a local war when a marshal gets anally-retentive about his rule book, and with the not-invented-here syndrome prevailing in the SCA: "sure, other people have routines for this stuff, but we're so special we can't learn from anyone else". /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 18 06:44:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 12:35:22 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Beyond hourglasses to international (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... As for communication, seems to me that >there's a lot of it going on right now: visitors from out of a kingdom >visiting events see what's going on and report back; ... A return trip between my kingdom and any other costs about $1000. That certainly limits the amount of visiting that's possible; our out-of-kingdom people are almost exclusively US military, with everything that implies in terms of interests and mentality. > multi-kingdom events like Pennsic and Estrella do a lot for keeping >everyone current; ... Oh... nice concept of "everyone". In some of our local groups, a person who's been to Pennsic is still treated pretty much as a mythical beast, and when you say Estrella, people think of potato chips (Estrella is the major Swedish snack brand). And without somewhere to go for information in the first place, how is a fairly isolated group to find out about all those out-of-kingdom (-principality) and multi-kingdom events, even if some people can afford to go, and how are they to acquire all those nice informal contacts? >... the sheer mass of gossip >between friends, squires/proteges/apprentices.......well, you >get the idea. My nearest Laurel, who may and may not have or be willing to take apprentices, is seven hours' train ride away from where I live. And I don't live "out in the sticks" - it's just that my principality is so ridiculously big and spread out, and apprentices and other people with "outside" experience are a rare commodity. >I'm not too worried about the SCA suddenly falling apart if there's >No Central Official Game Rules Office. No, not really. It would just become limited to people who had access to the informal communication channels, with the occasional isolated bunch playing "musqueteers and vampires" and calling themselves SCA. Of course, the well-connected kernel wouldn't have to bother with those. I'm really *really* not suggesting that there should be a Central Official Game Rules Office, cracking a big whip over everybody to keep people in line. What I do think we need is a place that's easily accessible so that a bunch of people in, say, Osaka or Salamanca, can find out what the rough general consensus is about the basics of the game, and where there is a group, if any, that they can start playing with. You might say that the Rialto can do that. In most cases it probably can. Except that the Nordmark mess started with individuals claiming to "know" what the "real" Nordmark was, and usurping the right to make "official" declarations about it. Leaving the job of providing information about the nature of the game to eager-beavers who happen to have the time and ambition *will* lead to similar occurrences again. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 18 07:04:19 1996 Return-Path: References: Approved-By: David Schroeder Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 06:53:12 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: David Schroeder Subject: Re: At Pennsic (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: Hi folks -- I will be at Pennsic for the both of the main weekends of War Week, plus probably being around for the Thursday and Friday before the final weekend. I may also be able to commute up for some of the evenings earlier that week. I'll be camping with the Barony Marche of the Debatable Lands somewhere out on the Serengetti. Thanks -- Bertram of Bearington (who is buying a new house and moving next week...) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Jul 18 11:24:16 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14 Encoding: 6 TEXT Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 07:59:00 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Pennsic To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I'll be at Pennsic as well. I usually spend most of the day on the fighting field, but I would be available to meet if something was organized. Sir Myrdin Michael Potter From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 01:55:00 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 01:41:25 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Er, hello ? Its been eight days without email from the GC list (last post 7/18). Am I still subscribed ? Or have the aliens kidnapped you all, leaving me in charge ? Let me know before I issue some proclamations... Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 02:35:33 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 02:16:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Corwyn said: >Am I still subscribed ? Or have the aliens kidnapped you all, leaving me in >charge ? No. Yes. No. I personally feel that it's a syndicalist plot promulgated by the pro-Board faction and dedicated to making the Grand Council take such a long vacation that nothing gets done, the Board wins its point, and the SCA continues on as before. You see, it was all foreseen 287.34 years ago....... Alban, who's *really* taken a vacation from thinking. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 07:16:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 07:03:19 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Corwyn asked: >> Am I still subscribed ? Or have the aliens kidnapped >> you all, leaving me in charge ? Not kidnapped by aliens, just unbelieveably busy (really wish I were teaching again, and had some time off!) and have been only lurking the last couple of months. But the list *has* been very quiet. >> Alban, who's *really* taken a vacation from thinking. Every since the tall, good-looking blonde offered to bring him food at Pennsic. ---= Morgan (short and dark) |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Is life multiple-choice or true/false? From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 11:53:29 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 208 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:41:15 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01I7IG4UHJPU95NEPM@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Jul 26, 96 02:16:48 am Cathal to All, Greetings: Nonsense! There is no such entity as a "Pro-Board" faction! And what is more. . .uh . . excuse me for a moment: (Psst, hey Eddie we need the rest of the script!) Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 12:36:55 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: "E. F. MORRILL" Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 12:22:10 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "E. F. MORRILL" Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199607261541.IAA13849@netcom2.netcom.com> from "James Pratt" at Jul 26, 96 08:41:15 am > > Cathal to All, Greetings: > > Nonsense! There is no such entity as a "Pro-Board" faction! > And what is more. . .uh . . excuse me for a moment: > > (Psst, hey Eddie we need the rest of the script!) > > Cathal. > , the greatness that is yours shall be guaranteed by the Department of Redundency Department....So stay fit and for god's sake, don't take off your shoes... -- 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 Fri Jul 26 13:50:36 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 27 TEXT, 49 UUENCODE X-Ms-Attachment: WINMAIL.DAT 0 00-00-1980 00:00 Approved-By: Guy Cox Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 10:26:31 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Guy Cox Subject: Re: Hello ? Comments: cc: Guy Cox To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Corwyn asked: > > >> Am I still subscribed ? Or have the aliens kidnapped > >> you all, leaving me in charge ? > >Not kidnapped by aliens, just unbelievably busy (really wish I were teaching >again, and had some time off!) and have been only lurking the last couple of >months. But the list *has* been very quiet. > > >> Alban, who's *really* taken a vacation from thinking.> > >Every since the tall, good-looking blonde offered to bring him food at Pennsic. > > > ---= Morgan (short and dark) Well, sounds like there is still a few of us around. Although. I'm just catching up on my mail after four weeks of traveling on business... although I shouldn't complain too much -- Edinburgh, Grenoble, Barcelona, Stuttgart, and Vancouver, B.C. Let's just say it wasn't all business. -- Brian O'Seabac (Guy Cox) cox@ce.hp.com begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(B<1`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$-@ 0` M`@````(``@`!!) &`%P"```"````# ````,``# $````"P`/#@$````"`?\/ M`0```%\`````````M3O"P"QW$!JAO @`*RI6PA4```!6UO\Y]7#/$:]\" `) MG)MV9( ```````"!*Q^DOJ,0&9UN`-T!#U0"`````$=U>2!#;W@`4TU44 !C M;WA 8V4N:' N8V]M```>``(P`0````4```!33510`````!X``S !````#@`` M`&-O>$!C92YH<"YC;VT````#`!4,`@````,`_@\&````'@`!, $````*```` M)T=U>2!#;W@G`````@$+, $````3````4TU44#I#3UA 0T4N2% N0T]-```# M```Y``````L`0#H``````@'V#P$````$````````! P````#```P!0````L` M#PX``````@'_#P$```!8`````````($K'Z2^HQ 9G6X`W0$/5 (`````4T-! M($=R86YD($-O=6YC:6P@1&ES8W5S``$P`0```"0````G4T-!($=R86YD($-O=6YC:6P@1&ES8W5SQ>6(EWA]A7FP1'/KWP(``F M``@0`0```&4```!#3U)764Y!4TM%1#I!34E35$E,3%-50E-#4DE"140_3U)( M059%5$A%04Q)14Y32TE$3D%04$5$64]504Q,+$Q%059)3D=-14E.0TA!4D=% M/TY/5$M)1$Y!4%!%1$)904Q)14Y3``````(!"1 !````0.@J&%S:PF .@J%/AN6"B JB +@" 18-4?D78!H&PED&(F0"607B@6$"'Q)9 # M\6@=87<_!) ?(2)0$7 B@1N686>_"W$B( !P'H 1@!Z 9% M,3,`D&YC'R0!D*DB`F=O!' M%:!O+3,_`F "( VP*V(HH1Z =&__)7 %$"*1 M*2 =4 (0!' ;(.T%0% )\ "!8S'?,FX^W_4_S"U T#T%T 6P*? #H"XH*$ 5 ML2I#9 K :RGO"H\:%Q5P`$ @0I5"FQ^0S#,V#?!#;R!7)K B$?LJT": 9 0@ M'Y ;4!\R*+'_! `=A350.K 'X"MP)G $(#\*P$>R+X SD!] "&!G:/DO@$DG M'5 F,S61*1,F<+YP+*$BL"60`, #$6$!@,\$D#O1"' H@65K!"!)L?QT$ X@"[X:' N M45%&'1-0)+ %D!<%0$*5%3$`7T ``P`0$ $````#`!$0`````$ `!S!@HX!] F%GN[`4 `"#!@HX!]%GN[`1X`/0`!````!0```%)%.B `````A5$` ` end From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 13:55:06 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 18 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 13:38:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >, the greatness that is yours shall be guaranteed by the Department of >Redundency Department....So stay fit and for god's sake, don't take off >your shoes... Next time someone tells me you are old, Fast Eddie, I will believe them. :-) Seriously, I think the GC has been stalled ever since the last vote was aborted. If we want to proceed, instead of just chewing the fat every once in a while, we either need to restart that vote or have some new proposals on the table, preferably from the people who did not like the internationalization proposals offered some months back. My motivation to offer anything new on any subject is pretty low. Finnvarr Too late, my shoes are off... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 14:44:59 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 11:23:02 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <960726014123_370315535@emout14.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Corwyn da Costa wrote: > Er, hello ? Hi. > Its been eight days without email from the GC list (last post 7/18). > Am I still subscribed ? Or have the aliens kidnapped you all, leaving me in > charge ? Work loads have rocketted so I don't have time for much at the moment. > Let me know before I issue some proclamations... Issue proclamations anyway. > Corwyn Regards Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 16:42:43 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <01I7IG4UHJPU95NEPM@delphi.com> with last message <199607261541.IAA13849@netcom2.netcom.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, 26 Jul 1996 15:23:06 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199607261541.IAA13849@netcom2.netcom.com> Pro Board? Who me? I am. Proposal 1: Complete power is turned over to the Grand Council. Proposal 2: Complete power is turned over to me. Proposal 3: The BoD appoints a Society wide rapier marshal. Proposal 4: The BoD appoints a Society wide Hospitaler Modius modius@cityscope.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 18:37:15 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 18:20:25 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Legal Memorandum To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This was posted to other lists in two parts, I have put them together: --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- To the Members of the Society for Creative Anachronism: Last winter, a document was circulated to the Board and Members of the Society which questioned our tax-exempt status. This document was written by Lisa Steele, a tax attorney who is also a SCA participant, at the request of Mark Schuldenfrei, also a participant. This document spurred the Board to contact a well- respected California law firm (Silk, Adler & Colvin) which specializes in non-profit law. Rosemary Fei, who is their specialist in non-profit tax law, prepared the following response. Please note that the preparation of this document was not donated to the Society, and it was not cheap. (The standard rate for attorney time is approximately $200/hour.) If you have any questions about the contents of this document, please do not contact the attorneys. Write to the Board at the Milpitas office or at directors@sca.org and we will try our best to either answer your questions or obtain answers from the appropriate parties. Please note further that the footnotes were typed into the body of the document ((within double parentheses)) by myself. I assume all blame for any errors in transcription -- but I did double-proof them. This document is the property of The Society for Creative Anachronism, Incorporated. and of its authors. Members of the Society for Creative Anachronism may copy and distribute this document to other members of the Society so long as proper credit is given and no changes are made in the text. The governing version of this document is the original, which is held at the SCA Corporate Office in Milpitas. If you wish a copy of the original document, please write to the office. --- Lee Forgue, Director, for the SCA Inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Board of Directors Society for Creative Anachronism, Incorporated FROM: Rosemary E. Fei DATE: May 8, 1996 RE: Allegations of Violations of Tax-Exempt Status Requirements Some members of Society for Creative Anachronism, Incorporated (the "Society"), have expressed concerns over the Society's operations, alleging that the Society is in danger of losing its tax-exempt status. We are a law firm exclusively engaged in representing tax-exempt and nonprofit organizations, and advise extensively on tax-exemption compliance issues. In January and February, 1996, we conducted a brief preliminary investigation ((The brevity of our review was dictated by the Board's desire to determine the seriousness of the allegations before expending potentially very substantial legal fees for an in-depth review of the numerous, complex, and widespread activities of the Society. Based on this initial review, while we recommend some areas for remediation, we do not believe a full-scale tax compliance audit is warranted at this time.)), including review of the documents listed in Exhibit A, in light of these allegations, and this memorandum presents our results and conclusions. Summary While our investigation revealed some areas of corporate and tax law compliance which may require further review and to which the Board should attend in the future, these were not serious enough to be grounds for revocation of the Society's exempt status, and we found no reason to believe the Society is materially out of compliance with its tax exemption. A more in- depth investigation could, of course, reveal a different picture, but the Board will have to balance the costs of undertaking such a process against its likely value to the Society and the charitable and educational uses to which the Society's assets might otherwise be put. The members' concerns appear to be unwarranted, arising from an overly strict reading of applicable tax statutes, regulations, and cases. Background The Society was incorporated in 1968. In 1971, the IRS determined the organization to be exempt from taxation under IRC 501(c)(3). Because regulations under Code Section 509 were at that time in the process of promulgation, the organization did not receive its public charity status under Code Section 509(a)(2) until 1972. The IRS issued a "no change" letter to the organization in 1978, and in 1989 issued a letter confirming the Society's public charity status. In 1990, the IRS conducted an audit and concluded that no change in the Society's exempt status was in order. In 1989, the Society amended its Articles of Incorporation. Its specific purposes are, according to the amended articles (Article II): a) Research and education in the field of pre-17th Century Western Culture. b) Generally, to engage in research; publish material of relevance and interest to the field of pre-17th Century Western Culture; to present activities and events which re-create the environment of said era, such as, but not limited to, tournaments, jousts, fairs, dances, classes, et cetera; to acquire authentic or reproduced replicas of chattels representative of said era; and to collect a library. According to the Bylaws (Article III), "[t]he Society shall be dedicated primarily to the promotion of research and re- creation in the field of pre-17th century Western culture . . . ." The Society operates on a multinational scale with members in the United States, Canada, Australia, several countries in Europe, and U.S. armed forces bases around the world. A Board of Directors takes responsibility for the entire organization which is divided into regions (Kingdoms), which are further divided into local units. The Society sponsors a wide variety of "events" including tournaments, feasts, and other similar gatherings where members display the results of their researches into period culture and technology in an environment which evokes the atmosphere of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, as well as conducting more traditional educational activities such as classes, seminars, workshops, and meetings. Analysis of Allegations The allegations made by concerned members can be categorized into four areas: (1) errors by the Society in filing reports and maintaining corporate records; (2) the Society's receipt of unrelated business income which is subject to tax and for which reports have not been filed nor taxes paid; (3) private inurement of Society assets to benefit insiders; and (4) the existence of a substantial nonexempt purpose in the form of social activity at Society events. Each of these allegations is addressed in turn below. Reports and record keeping. The Society is required to file Form 990, as well as employment tax filings, with the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") annually. In addition to filings with the IRS, the Society must make similar filings with the California equivalent of the IRS, the Franchise Tax Board, or FTB, on Form 199. To maintain its corporate status in good standing, the Society must file annually a one-page statement with the Secretary of State listing its current officers. Finally, the Society must file Form CT-2 with the Registry of Charitable Trusts in the Attorney General's office, concerning its assets, which are held in charitable trust. With the exception of the Society's 1993 Form 990 and Form 990-T, we have not reviewed the Society's tax or corporate filings. We have been informed by corporate officers that each of the filings listed above has been made as required. We have not, of course, audited the content of each filing, but we presume the Society's auditors have done such due diligence in preparing these filings as they deemed required by their profession. The members allege possible filing irregularities with the IRS such as incomplete forms or unsigned forms, not reporting bylaw amendments to the IRS, and "a history of incomplete CT-2 reports with the State of California." We cannot verify or deny these allegations based on our review. More seriously, the members imply that the Society fraudulently underreported its total income as $40,000 on its 1993 Form 990. Our review showed that the Society actually reported total income of $2,503,105. Failure to adhere to filing requirements could result in penalties being imposed on the Society; in some cases, these penalties can be substantial. However, in our experience, such penalties are typically waived by regulators if the organization can demonstrate that its failure was due to reasonable causes and not the result of willful neglect. Inadvertent failures to file reports or mistakes in filings are not grounds for revocation of exempt status. The Society would have to ignore numerous notices from regulators and refuse to make required filings before revocation of tax-exempt status would become an issue. The Board is responsible for seeing that appropriate personnel, outside consultants, and procedures are in place so as to ensure that required filings are made accurately and on time. Other than the corporation's Amended Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and 1995 Organizational Handbook, we have not reviewed the Society's internal governance, membership, financial, contractual, or other records. If the Board deems it appropriate, we would be happy to undertake such a review; with respect to certain types of records, such an undertaking is more efficiently performed by independent CPA auditors than attorneys, should the Board feel it is needed. Unrelated business income taxes. The members allege the Society may be underreporting its unrelated business income, and therefore also failing to pay taxes due on such income. Specifically, the concern relates to advertising income received by the Society for advertisements placed in Society publications. The Code does not prohibit a charity such as the Society from engaging in, and earning income from, activities outside its exempt purposes; however, the law does impose a tax on any net income from such unrelated activities. ((Code Sections 501(b) and 511.)) To be subject to tax, the activity must (1) constitute a trade or business (meaning any activity usually carried on for profit), (2) be regularly carried on, and (3) not directly further the organization's charitable mission. Unless an activity satisfies all three of these requirements, it will not be subject to tax. Even if it does meet these requirements, the unrelated business income tax provisions include numerous exceptions, so that a great deal of unrelated business activity escapes taxation. Aside from the payment of taxes, if an exempt organization has too much unrelated activity, it may be deemed to have a substantial nonexempt purpose, and will not qualify for tax exemption at all. ((Indiana Retail Hardware Association v. United States, 366 F.2d 998 (Ct.Cl. 1966).)) The exact level of income from unrelated activities that will endanger an organization's exempt status is a matter of some debate among tax practitioners. ((Thomas A. Troyer, "Quality of Unrelated Business Consistent with Charitable Exemption -- Some Clarification, " The Exempt Organization Tax Review, Vol.6., No. 2 at 409 (August 1992).)) While advertising income is a common source of unrelated business taxable income for exempt organizations, not all advertising income is automatically subject to tax as unrelated. The U.S. Supreme Court ((U.S. v. American College of Physicians, 475 U.S. 834 (1986).)) has held that the sale of advertising should be evaluated under the general rules for distinguishing related and unrelated trades or businesses, discussed above. The sale of advertising in an exempt journal will be an unrelated trade or business unless it contributes importantly to the accomplishment of the organization's exempt purposes. This determination requires intensive analysis of the facts and circumstances of the advertising activity in question. The members allege that "advertising in TI is almost certainly unrelated business income." Based on our review of Tournaments Illuminated (Summer 1995, Issue 115) and the SCA Marketplace brochure, we disagree. To the contrary, we believe convincing arguments can be made that most of the advertising in Society publications is substantially related to the Society's educational purposes, and therefore the associated net income would be exempt from tax. For example, we found advertising for educational books and materials, musical instruments, Elizabethan costuming, pavilions, rattan fighting swords, aquitaines, feastware, and Middle Ages-style cloaks. Each of these products is directly related to the Society's exempt activities; in many cases, participants in the Society's educational activities would be unable to acquire information, tools, and materials for historically accurate props and costumes, or other items that contribute to historical re-creation, without access to the products advertised by vendors in the magazine. We did note one advertisement for greeting cards in Tournaments Illustrated that is not related to the Society's exempt purposes, in our opinion, the net income from which should be treated as taxable. A separate but related issue is raised by products sold by the Society. The Society's educational experience -- "living history" -- relies to a great extent upon individual participation in the historical reconstruction of pre-17th century Europe. Everyone who attends Society events is expected to conform to the style of dress, speech and behavior appropriate to that period. Because the costumes, objects and technologies suitable to a historically accurate reconstruction are rarely found in today's world, the "SCA Marketplace" offers a wide variety of instructional articles, patterns and how-to books. In our opinion, sales of these products directly further the Society's exempt purposes by providing Society participants with reference works as well as reproduced historical objects which are utilized in the research and re-creation of medieval history. Under these circumstances, the sales should not generate taxable income to the Society. Based on the foregoing and our review of the Society's Form 990-T (on which an exempt organization reports its taxable unrelated business income), we conclude that it is possible that the Society is in fact overreporting, rather than underreporting, its unrelated business taxable income. Unfortunately, the Society's history of treating its advertising income as taxable would probably be treated by the IRS as evidence that the activity is unrelated. Therefore, the Society would have to meet a heavier than usual burden of proof were it to change its reporting position at this point. The Board might wish to obtain an in-depth, closely-researched legal opinion before proceeding, which could be expensive, off-setting the benefits of eliminating much of the Society's taxable income, assuming that result were approved. The Society's accountant should be able to determine how much tax savings might result from a favorable legal opinion, to assist the Board in deciding how to proceed. The Board should also ensure that Society staff who accept advertising in Society publications or who develop products to be offered for sale by the Society understand the unrelated business income rules so that they can screen out inappropriate advertisements or products, or ensure that any associated net income is treated correctly as unrelated business income subject to tax. Private inurement. Section 501(c)(3) of the Code states that only organizations "no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual". Private inurement refers to an abuse by those who control the organization: one prominent treatise states that "inurement is a private benefit provided to insiders who have the institutional opportunity to direct the organization's resources to themselves, to entities in which they have an interest, or to family members." ((Frances R. Hill and Barbara L. Kirschten, FEDERAL AND STATE TAXATION OF EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS, 2-84 (1984).)) Private inurement is absolutely prohibited for a Section 501(c)(3) organization like the Society and, if present, would be grounds for revocation of the Society's tax exemption. ((Treas. Regs. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(2).)) Private inurement must be distinguished from private benefit. As noted above, private inurement results from an insider misdirecting an organization's assets away from its proper exempt purposes. Private benefit, on the other hand, does not require any insider control; it is often evident just from the non-exempt purposes of the organization, but can occur even where the organization has proper exempt purposes, but operates in a way that appears to be directed at benefitting private, rather than public, interests. To illustrate the difference, private inurement occurs where a director causes the Board to approve excessive compensation to him- or herself; private benefit occurs where the Board approves a relationship with an unrelated consultant that pays excessive compensation to the outsider. IRS regulations permit an "insubstantial" amount of private benefit. ((See Code Section 501(c)(3) and Tres. Regs. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1).)) Whether or not a private benefit is "insubstantial" is to be determined in light of all the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Generally, private benefit that is incidental to and a necessary side effect of achieving an exempt purpose is considered insubstantial. The members allege specific instances amounting to a pattern of private inurement. The allegations include the advertisement of a private, for-profit event in a regional newsletter as if it were a Society-sponsored event (an incident that happened ten years ago and which the members acknowledge was an oversight by responsible Society officers and fraudulent on the part of the private individuals involved), the theft of money from the Society, and the questionable use of Society funds for personal travel. An isolated incident of theft or a mistake in advertising does not amount to private inurement. While the Board has a fiduciary duty to take reasonable steps to protect the Society's assets, no organization can realistically guarantee the honesty or competence of every individual who volunteers for it, nor does the tax law require it. We presume that the Society has responded or will respond to the alleged incidents appropriately, both with respect to pursuing recovery of assets and preventing similar incidents from occurring in the future. So long as the organization has appropriate procedures to minimize the opportunities for misappropriation or misuse of its assets, and attempts reasonably and in good faith to enforce them, isolated failures of the system do not amount to private inurement and will not endanger the Society's exempt status. The members, in their allegations, also seem to have confused private inurement with private benefit. Specifically, the members allege that the Society "frequently operate[s] in a fashion which allows merchants to benefit privately. This MAY be private inurement." However, the presence of "merchants" at an exempt organization's events raises a question of private benefit, not private inurement, and whether or not the level of private benefit is so substantial as to bring into question the organization's exempt status is to be determined based on a full exposition of the facts and circumstances surrounding that particular event or transaction. ((St. Louis Science Fiction Limited v. Commissioner, 49 T.C.M. (CCH) 1126 (1985).)) While we have not attended a Society event as part of this investigation, it appears that the purpose of the Society's events is not to benefit vendors, but to provide educational experiences through historical re-creation, and the presence of the vendors, subject to a variety of requirements ensuring historical accuracy in their presentations, makes a more realistic re-enactment of historical settings possible and attracts more members of the public to attend and be educated, thus directly furthering the Society's educational purposes. Of course, the Board should always monitor merchant participation at its events to ensure that it is not only compatible with, but in fact enhances, the events' educational value. Substantial non-exempt purpose. Finally, the members allege that the Society is not operated, in the language of Section 501(c)(3), "exclusively" for its exempt purpose -- promotion of research and re-creation in the field of pre-17th century Western culture for the public's benefit -- but rather is also operated for social or recreational purposes. This allegation is the most serious of those made by the members, both because it appears at first glance to be factually true, and because the consequences to the Society would be severe. Section 501(c)(3) of the Code exempts from Federal income tax organizations "organized and operated exclusively for" exempt (i.e., charitable, educational, etc.) purposes. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1) of the Treasury Regulations implementing the Code elaborates that an organization will be regarded as "operated exclusively" for exempt purposes only if it engages primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of the exempt purposes specified in Code Section 501(c)(3). An organization will not be exempt if more than an "insubstantial" part of its activities is in furtherance of a non-exempt purpose. Education, for purposes of tax exemption, is defined by Treas. Regs. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1(d) as either "(a) [t]he instruction or training of the individual for the purpose of improving or developing his capabilities; or (b) [t]he instruction of the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the community." While this definition encompasses traditional educational institutions like schools, universities, and the like that have a set curriculum, an identifiable faculty, and a student body, it is far broader. Museums of every type, zoos, orchestras, theaters, organizations which disseminate information (ranging from facts on environmental degradation to the reasons for international cooperation), organizations which re-create Civil War battles, garden clubs, and gem and mineral clubs, have all qualified as educational organizations. Determining whether an organization is organized and operated primarily for educational purposes requires an investigation of the specific facts and circumstances of the organization and its activities. Tension between the educational and the recreational or social is not uncommon, and has been addressed by the IRS repeatedly. For example, a gem and mineral club can be organized and operated either as an educational organization, or as a social club. ((Rev. Rul. 67-139, 1967-1 C.B. 129.)) A club formed "to advance the earth sciences by stimulating interest and encouraging study" that holds monthly lectures, sponsors field trips, issues a bulletin, assists local museums, maintains a library, and annually conducts a show for the general public at which members and nonmembers exchange lapidary techniques, display collections of gems and minerals, and compete with one another for prizes and awards, with the public invited to attend its functions and programs, will qualify for exemption under Section 501(c)(3). The IRS explicitly acknowledged the social aspects of club operation. Nevertheless, the IRS found that the club's educational methods (i.e. lectures, discussions, shows, field trips) are "educational" within the meaning of the Code and Regulations, and that "[t]hese activities are educational within the meaning of the regulations even though they serve recreational interests." In contrast, another gem and mineral club, which was "formed to disseminate knowledge of mineralogical and lapidary subjects, to promote their application so that greater pleasure may be derived from these activities, and to promote good fellowship among its members," was determined to be a social club. This club held monthly social meetings where minerals and gems were informally discussed, issued a bulletin containing news of members' social activities and their rock and mineral collections, and held an annual show. The IRS found that the club was operated primarily "to accommodate its members in their recreational pursuits. The gem and mineral show serves to stimulate the members' hobby interests and is, thus, consistent with the [club]'s recreational purposes." Where recreational, social, and educational purposes are intertwined in a single activity, the IRS looks to the content of the activity to make a judgment as to whether the non- educational purpose of the activity is substantial. This is a fact-intensive inquiry. St. Louis Science Fiction Limited v. Commissioner ((Supra, note 7.)) ((which said "St. Louis Science Fiction Limited v. Commissioner, 49 T.C.M. (CCH) 1126 (1985).")) presents a good example. The science fiction society's principal activity was its annual convention. Its purposes were "to promote and stimulate interest in speculative fiction (in print, movie and video form) and art and related activities." At the convention, science fiction authors and personalities gave readings and panel discussions. Other activities included masquerade parties, a pool party, a sing-a-long program, a 24- hour video room, a 24-hour game room, movies, an art show and auction, and a "huckster's room." The IRS found that many of these component activities (such as the pool party, the "dead dog" party, etc.) served strictly recreational or social purposes. Even the more educational activities, like the panel discussions, "contained a predominantly recreational tone." Among the films shown, the IRS acknowledged the educational value of such science fiction classics as 2001: A Space Odyssey but questioned the showing of Hardware Wars (a spoof on Star Wars) and Star Trek Bloopers. Under these circumstances, the IRS concluded that the organization had substantial non-exempt purposes, and was therefore not entitled to exemption. This case demonstrates how substantial a level of recreational and social activity must be present to bring exempt status into question. In another close case involving exempt and nonexempt purposes intertwined, the IRS's ruling against the organization was reversed by the courts. Cleveland Creative Arts Guild ((Cleveland Creative Arts Guild v. Commissioner, 50 T.C.M. (CCH) 272 (1985).)) involved an organization formed to promote the arts. Among other activities, it sponsored art festivals and craft shows featuring competitions and sales by artists and craftspeople. The IRS, focusing on the sales, ruled that the organization had a substantial commercial purpose, precluding exemption. The Tax Court reversed the IRS decision, on the grounds that the sales must be viewed in the overall context of the group's activities. The Court stated that, in determining whether an activity was engaged in for a substantial non-exempt purpose, the relevant factors included (1) the manner in which the activities are conducted, (2) the "commercial hue" of the activities, and (3) the existence and amount of profit from the activities. The Court criticized the IRS's focus on sales activities and portions of festival advertising, finding that, in context, "the sales activities in question are incidental to the exempt purpose of promoting the arts . . .". These examples show that the question of whether or not the Society is operated primarily for educational purposes as the law requires, is a complex one not given to glib or easy answers. Our review of the Society's publications and the "Rialto" on the Internet revealed an ongoing and consistent effort to accomplish the organization's stated educational purposes. Tournaments Illuminated (Summer 1995) contains six articles, all dealing with one aspect or another of pre-17th Century Western culture. The two issues we reviewed of the newsletter of the Kingdom of the West (June and November 1995) present a listing of upcoming events, classes, and tournaments. There are no purely social announcements and no events noticed other than Society events, all cast in the style of pre-17th Century Europe. If these publications and fora are representative of Society publications and events, and of the Society as a whole, the Board may rest assured that the Society is entitled to its educational tax- exempt status. The members specifically criticize some of the Society's events, such as the Pensic, as overly recreational and social. We suspect this criticism arises from a misunderstanding. Education and recreation are not mutually exclusive: in fact, they may be completely complementary. Being educational does not mean that participants are forbidden to have a good time; to the contrary, enjoyment enhances the educational value of participation, so that making educational events enjoyable furthers educational purposes. The question is whether the purpose of the activity is primarily educational. Although we do not have first-hand experience with the Society's events, unsolicited comments from the "Rialto" suggest that the Pensic in particular is highly educational. One writer discussing a Pensic said, "I met people making rope beds who never tried using a chisel before, saw people making bone needles to sew their leather lamalas together with, gentles making shoes, finishing garments of fine cloth THAT THEY WOVE [emphasis in the original]. I witnessed the shooting of a war point, folks fighting in stout steel and sturdy leather, people gathering dye stuffs and soaking samples . . . heard tales of Beowulf and Njal. I enjoyed a performance of comedia, got to play a portative organ . . ." This experience was evidently educational not only for the commentator, but also for the performers. That both observers and participants in all likelihood enjoyed themselves and each other's company while learning does not detract in the least from the educational purposes served by the activities, and will not be held against the Society by the IRS. It is understandable that some members may be uncomfortable with having to rely on an assessment of intangible factors like the "recreational tone" the IRS found troubling in the St. Louis Science Fiction case, or the "commercial hue" referred to by the Tax Court in Cleveland Creative Arts Guild. But in both instances, the overall context in which specific problematic activities occurred is key to explaining the result. The manifestly educational purposes of the Society pervade all the activities which we have been able to consider, and each activity clearly advances those purposes, in our opinion. The "Welcome to the Current Middle Ages" flyer is a prime example, as it locates the Society's activities within an educational framework and sets the "tone", or "hue", by which we can understand the Society's operations. The members also question the historical accuracy of the Society's re-creations. The very existence of the controversy is further evidence of the Society's educational purposes. Disagreements over details of culture and technology of 17th century Europe -- the appropriate language, the exact replication of clothing and weaponry -- are bound to prompt study and the mustering of evidence on either side, and the atmosphere of controversy and criticism is hardly indicative of a social club. To the contrary, such debate is inherent in any vibrant educational endeavor, particularly one concerned with reproducing an era which existed over 400 years ago. Conclusion Reports and record keeping. In a widespread and active membership organization such as the Society, with several levels of hierarchy in governance, keeping accurate and complete corporate and financial records and making complete, accurate, and timely reports to regulators is an extremely difficult, as well as critical, task. Although we did not review extensive Society records, based on our experience in performing legal audits of other large organizations run primarily by volunteers, there are always areas where improvements in procedures and compliance can be made. This is especially true of older organizations like the Society. The Board bears the responsibility for overseeing legal compliance efforts and monitoring the results, and we would be happy to assist. The Board and the organization will not, however, be held to a standard of total accuracy, exhaustiveness, and timeliness in order to retain the Society's tax-exempt status. Unrelated business income taxes. The Board should review with the Society's auditors the rules for determining what portion of its income, if any, is taxable as unrelated business income. The Board should also ensure that staff are provided with such information on unrelated business activity as they may need to operate the Society within the dictates of the law while minimizing taxes due. Should the Board wish to consider reversing its position on advertising income, a written legal opinion should be sought. Private inurement. We found no evidence of private inurement or inappropriate private benefit in the materials we reviewed. The Board may wish to systematically consider Society operations not covered by our investigation to ensure that this can be said of the Society as a whole and without exception. We would be happy to review any specific situations that raise Board or member concerns. Substantial non-exempt purpose. We believe, based on our review and assuming the limited documents we reviewed are truly representative of the Society's overall operations, that the Society is clearly entitled to its tax-exempt status as an educational organization, and that the social and recreational value of Society events enhances, rather than decreases, their educational impact. Nonetheless, the members' allegations should serve as a reminder to the Society's Board and membership of the need to test each activity of the Society against an educational yard-stick. But having passed that test, recreational and social value should not be a bar to the Society's decision to engage (or continue engaging) in a particular activity. EXHIBIT A Documents Reviewed 1. Report to the Board by Mark Schuldenfrei (Tibor) dated October 5, 1995 attaching a report entitled "Is SCA, Inc. Entitled to Tax-Exempt Status Under the Internal Revenue Code of the United States" by Lisa J. Steele, Esq. 2. Amended Articles of Incorporation dated September 15, 1989 3. Corporate Bylaws 4. 1993 Form 990 and Form 990-T 5. Organizational Handbook 1995 6. Membership Application (1/95) 7. Flyer entitled "Welcome to the Current Middle Ages" 8. Tournaments Illuminated (Issue 115, September 1995) 9. The Page (Newsletter of the Kingdom of the West) (June 1995 and November 1995) 10. SCA Marketplace Price List (9/95) 11. Random discussions between members over the Internet ("the Rialto") From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Jul 26 21:02:27 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 Content-Length: 1338 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 17:47:36 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Hello ? To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: from "Erik Langhans" at Jul 26, 96 03:23:06 pm > > Pro Board? Who me? I am. > > Proposal 1: Complete power is turned over to the Grand Council. No, however I would recommend that the BoD empower the GC to deal with specific aspects of the SCA and back up that mandate with a written warrant. I still maintain that unless and until we _know_ what the BoD will and will not consider changing our deliberations, while excellent as a "what-if" forum, will not engender lasting results. > Proposal 2: Complete power is turned over to me. Having served as Steward, I must point out that "power" in the SCA is usually a misidentification for responsibility. The lure of the former is rarely bourne out by the work required by the latter. Committment of different types is required for each. ;-) > Proposal 3: The BoD appoints a Society wide rapier marshal. Given the problems and quandries which have arisen in the instigation and evolution of Fence in Meridies (we have had it less than a year) I would agree to the reasonability of this proposal. Second the matter. > Proposal 4: The BoD appoints a Society wide Hospitaler Please describe the duties attendant thereto. The foregoing "Proposals" may have been submitted in jest; however at least they are on the floor. Citizen Robespierre, what say you? Salvete, Cathal. > Modius > > modius@cityscope.net > From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 11:57:07 1996 Return-Path: Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:41:37 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Comments: To: sca-rapier@eden.com To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM My Friends I will be unavailable from Fri Aug 23 until Tues Sept 3 as I will be in Germany on Holiday. Keep safe and well my friends. Modius modius@cityscope.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 12:09:27 1996 Return-Path: Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; X-MAPIextension=".TXT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Erik Langhans Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:54:06 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Greeting Fellow GCers, A conversation has been going on amongst rapier combatants on the rapier net. The Basic thread discusses 1600 vs 1650 cutoff. Don Savien said, "As for the persona, many folks have found the official 1600 cut off date to be arbitrary and pointless. Thus they ignore it, opting for a more sensible date. You will notice that very few people actually have persona based after 1650. That is because to a lot of folks 1650 (ok, 1648) looks like a sensible cut off date and 1600 does not." I stated, From what I understand a survey was conducted amongst SCA members years and years ago. In fact I think Duchess Sigliede actually did some of the final counts. The result was the current time cut off. And recievd a response, + -- RapierNet - From "Chuck Graves" Hmmm...let's do an arbitrary math exercise. If I assume 'years and years' to be 15, that survey is about 5 SCA generations old. In comparison, let's look at current human generations, five generations is roughly the American Revolutionary War (starting with me and moving back)...gads, you don't think opinions could have changed as dramatically as the technology?!? Perhaps, we should look at another survey. Seems about time to revisit the discussion. So I put it to you my fellow GCers I propose that we request the BoD to conduct another survey of the members of the SCA to determine a 1600 or 1650 cutoff. Note the survey should also have other time periods as well. The BoD could also use this opportunity to feel out members of the populace on other issues. I see it as an extra page in the TI or as an insert into the Kingdom newsletters. Additional forms can be circulated down the chain to the local groups so non-paying scaers also have a say. Perhaps even a web site with form?? Thoughts? What are your Votes. Modius modius@cityscope.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 13:40:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:27:21 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: (message from Erik Langhans on Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:54:06 CDT) Modius proposes: >I propose that we request the BoD to conduct another survey of the >members of the SCA to determine a 1600 or 1650 cutoff. I don't find it useful, and suspect it could be *quite* harmful. The simple fact of the matter is that we don't have agreement on this issue across the Society, and we aren't going to get it. The purists tend to dislike a 1650 cutoff, because it's *so* far towards the Baroque, not Renaissance by any reasonable definition (indeed, some find 1600 painfully late); but many people like the later cutoff because they like some of what it lets them do. (Bear in mind, for instance, that the *vast* majority of SCA dance is post-1600.) Opening this can of worms can't serve any useful purpose. It's *quite* clear that the Board won't find any consensus. And it'll ignite an enormous round of people bitching, yelling, and moaning at each other, hurling accusations about not being "real" SCAdians, and otherwise causing hassles. And, in the end, nothing's likely to change; the status quo isn't broken enough to cause the Board to change things with such a divided opinion. I'd say that the current situation -- an official end-of-period of 1600, but a strong wink-and-nod element allowing later periods -- tends to *work* adequately, even if it's inelegant. And mind you, this affects me personally: my persona is (x-400 years), which means I cross the 1600 line in four years... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: ">Are [comics] effective stress relievers? Yes. A large box of comics (20+ pounds) applied to the head with a swift downward motion relieves stresses of all sorts for a period of time." -- The Roach From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 15:05:05 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: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 14:48:01 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: from "Erik Langhans" at Aug 21, 96 10:54:06 am Modius wrote: I propose that we request the BoD to conduct another survey of the members of the SCA to determine a 1600 or 1650 cutoff. Note the survey should also have other time periods as well. The BoD could also use this opportunity to feel out members of the populace on other issues. I see it as an extra page in the TI or as an insert into the Kingdom newsletters. Additional forms can be circulated down the chain to the local groups so non-paying scaers also have a say. Perhaps even a web site with form?? Greetings from Tibor. I believe that changing the cut off date would require refiling the articles of Incoporation, and much knashing of teeth amongst the populace. Leaving large segments of the population disappointed and angry. Since we fail to have an effective means of enforcing the cutoff anyway, it would be mostly moot. Not to mention, a binary choice between those two dates would offend those that want an earlier cut-off. (Check the West list for a dispute on what is appropriate even as we speak.) Any date simple is going to be arbitrary, and any other choice would be nebulous. There is no reason to upset the apple cart over a choice whose resolution would merely inflame old wounds. I would vote no. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 17:07:32 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, 21 Aug 1996 15:46:19 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >Any date simple is going to be arbitrary, and any other choice would be >nebulous. There is no reason to upset the apple cart over a choice whose >resolution would merely inflame old wounds. > >I would vote no. > > Tibor > As would I. It is the Middle Ages that we are theoretically reliving, not the Rennaissance. This should bea somewhat clear guideline, but one that is spilled over regularly. We'd need one date for Italian personnas and another for say English personnas. Then there are we Irish. We started the Rennaisance in the Mid 800's but remained in the Ancient World as well till perhaps the 1700's (or some would claim even till today). Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 19:30:20 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, 21 Aug 1996 19:14:34 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Board minutes To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >From what seems to be the Board minutes, dated 20 April 1996: VI. Reports. J. Standing Committees. 1. Grand Council ...L. Jane Richard moved that the action item on selection of Board members of the Grand Council report be remanded to a later converence call. Motions carried. [The other motions confirmed Richard Lesze, and turned down John the BEarkiller's confirmation, as he's the new Society Seneschal.] Remanded for later discussion? That's what happens, remanded for later discussion? Harrumph. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 19:31:16 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, 21 Aug 1996 19:17:37 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Quoted from Modiu's email: Don Savien said, "As for the persona, many folks have found the official 1600 cut off date to be arbitrary and pointless. " _Any_ date could be seen as arbitrary and pointless; there's been ongoing discussions about this for years, on the Rialto, at events, at Pennsic, at meetings. I personally feel that this falls under the "it ain't broke, so don't fix it" rule. 1600 works, more or less, so we might as well keep it. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 20:43:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:29:09 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Greetings from Serwyl I think reopening the cut off date issue is a bit pointless. The current situation is at least workable, and reopening the issue would only cause hard feelings all around. Another factor to consider is the effect that the altering the cutoff would have on heraldry. Specifically name documentation. Currently the cut off date for name documentation is 1650. The reasoning being that any name found in documents as late as 1650 were likely used in period. Would this mean the new cutoff for names would be 1700? The heralds will LOVE that..... Best to leave well enough alone..... Serwyl From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 21 22:50:06 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 22:30:48 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Modius drops a topic bomb and departs the country for several weeks? I agree with Justin, Tibor, Alban, Magnus, and Serwyl. There is no reason to change the cutoffs. We recently (just before Pennsic, I think) had this discussion on the Calontir list, in conjunction with a question about the beginning of SCA-Period. (I don't know that the incorporation papers had dates on them, so Tibor may be wrong about that effect of a change.) I don't think that there would be any real benefit to changing the date, because people are going to push the envelope, and if a date of 1600AD has people winking into 1650AD, how far will they push if the date is further continued? I would also like to point out the extravagance of the survey method that Modius proposed, "as an extra page in the TI or as an insert into the Kingdom newsletters." While this might be appropriate if there were other issues addressed also, for what is essentially a yea-or-nay vote, a few lines in each newletter plus the request for email, FAX, or papermail responses (in the USA, it would be a 20-cent preprinted postcard), and if someone doesn't care enough to take that step, why do we care what they would have voted? ---= Morgan (a firm believer that those who fail to vote have no right to complain) |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Only 348 days until next Pennsic...... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 03:41:17 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:33:57 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Serwyl says: >I think reopening the cut off date issue is a bit pointless. The current >situation is at least workable, and reopening the issue would only cause >>hard feelings all around. Quite a few people have said more or less the same thing. I agree. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 06:16:52 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <960822023047_72672.2312_FHP30-1@CompuServe.COM> with last message <960822023047_72672.2312_FHP30-1@CompuServe.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: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 05:29:40 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960822023047_72672.2312_FHP30-1@CompuServe.COM> Margo stated, "Modius drops a topic bomb and departs the country for several weeks?" Well, shucks, looks like were talking again (g). I only wanted some mail to read when I got back (g). Seriously, I just wanted to get a feel for the thoughts on this subject. I perhaps shouldn't have posted it as a proposal. Thanks for your thoughts. It has been educational. BTW I agree also with Margo, Justin, Tibor, Alban, Magnus, and Serwyl. There is no reason to change the cutoffs. -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 07:55:33 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 07:38:09 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >> Well, shucks, looks like were talking again (g). I only wanted some >> mail to read when I got back (g). AH! When I started in the SCA, I was told that the time period was "roughly the Fall of Rome through the Renaissance, or 600AD to 1600AD." The numbers don't jibe with the events, but it seemed to be a nice, round, 1,000-year figure. I was just very glad to realize that yes, there were time-and-place choices for those of us with indifferent sewing skills and no interest in fancy clothing. (Realized upon re-reading before I sent this that I needed the adjective!) ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Happily living in the Calontir Protectorate. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 08:32:26 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 Content-Length: 223 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 05:22:02 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: from "Janna G. Spanne" at Aug 22, 96 09:33:57 am Cathal to All, Greetings: Given the myriad of questions which could be addressed, the matter of a realignment of the Society's "cut-off" dates seems rhetorical at best. I see no reason to change the status quo. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 13:12:37 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:51:14 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Board minutes To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <01I8JR92TQRS8X07WM@delphi.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Alban St. Albans wrote: > Remanded for later discussion? That's what happens, remanded > for later discussion? Harrumph. > > Alban I doubt that they had time before the meeting to study and understand the proposal. However, I would like to know if they ever got around to the postponed discussion and if so just what they concluded. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 17:20:21 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Guy Cox Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 14:01:33 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Guy Cox Subject: Re: A Proposal Time Period Cutoff Comments: cc: Guy Cox To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Hi, Add my name to the list of those who feel like revisiting the cutoff = date would not be very beneficial. I think the 1600 cutoff works = reasonably well. (But then I prefer 9th-10th Century Ireland myself = ). Often I find that discussions of "in period" and "out of period" = focus on what is appropriate to the world view/beliefs/values of the = middle ages vs. renaissance, classical, etc. as much as on a particular = year. As someone mentioned (Tibor I believe) this kind of discussion can = be found currently on the SCA-West list. On a side note, I find that I can learn from these discussions and find = them valuable. I learn more about period practices, when things were = done, what their genesis is, exploring the differences between the world = view of the middle ages and other world views, coming to better = understanding of the middle ages (hopefully), differences between = literary ideals and various time/geographic realities, and more about = how people understand the Society and what it means to them. [WARNING: = SARCASM AHEAD] Hmmm... a learning community, a non-profit educational = organization... Nope, must have that wrong. All we do is party! Thanks! Brian O'Seabac cox@ce.hp.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 17:21:21 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 17:06:51 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Pleasant to see a rare display of consensus from the GC. But isn't the Council supposed to be coming to some kind of closure on the international issues? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 22 21:42:43 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 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 10:33:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff (fwd) To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM For Dorothea of Cair Myrddin, by Tibor. Forwarded message: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 16:02:03 -0700 From: Dorothy J Heydt Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff Magnus points out that the Renaissance started at different times in different countries (which it did), and that it started in Ireland in 800 (which I'm not at all sure about), and it puts me in mind of a tale told about C. S. Lewis. A friend of his met him walking across the quad, looking very pleased with himself, and when asked "Well, Jack, what's the news?" he replied, "I have just ascertained that in England, the Renaissance never happened. "Alternatively," he said, before his friend could get a word in edgewise, "Alternatively, that if it did it didn't make any difference." dcm From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 23 01:40:02 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:59:13 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 08:29 PM 8/21/96 -0400, Chuck Hack wrote: >Greetings from Serwyl > >I think reopening the cut off date issue is a bit pointless. The current >situation is at least workable, and reopening the issue would only cause hard >feelings all around. [..trimm..] I agree, but only because I would have to seriously argue for cutting it back to 1485 or earlier to rid the SCA of the pernicious Renaissance influence which is eroding true medieval values.... [[ Ow! Someone get a bandaid! I punctured my cheek with my tongue!]] > * * * 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 Aug 26 05:44:31 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 11:17:59 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Has the GC list died, or is it just my mailer that is on the fritz? Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 08:33:02 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 Content-Length: 192 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 05:21:29 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <199608260917.AA02391@akka.kemi.uu.se> from "Sven Noren" at Aug 26, 96 11:17:59 am > > Has the GC list died, or is it just my mailer that is on the fritz? > > Frithiof the friendly herald > "That is not dead which can eternal lie". . .oops wrong list. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 08:39:28 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 08:24:50 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I think, Frithiof, that people are just still recovering after Pennsic. Also, my other lists are very busy (with discussions on everything from the best type of bed for Pennsic and how to level it, to a cheesecake-baking competition, to ASCAP's crackdown on singing of songs at campgrounds) so my attenion is there. Someone needs to offer a topic for discussion. Why not a ummary of what, if anything, happened at Pennsic for the GC? ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com Happily living in the Calontir Protectorate. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 08:45:57 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 14:15:05 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 08.24 26-08-1996 EDT, you wrote: >I think, Frithiof, that people are just still recovering after Pennsic. > >Someone needs to offer a topic for discussion. Why not a ummary of what, if >anything, happened at Pennsic for the GC? Umm, not much that I am aware of. Somebody else? Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 17:29:13 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:08:02 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sven writes: >Has the GC list died, or is it just my mailer that is on the >fritz? My vote is for #1. The list has been dead MUCH longer than just pennsic, which suggests to me that the GC itself is what has died. I asked the same question some time back, got a few answers, mostly humorous, then nada. Folks, I think its time to run down the curtain. Comments ? Corwyn From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 18:45:33 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 Content-Length: 950 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 15:31:16 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960826164547_269143986@emout19.mail.aol.com> from "Corwyn da Costa" at Aug 26, 96 05:08:02 pm > > Sven writes: > >Has the GC list died, or is it just my mailer that is on the >fritz? > > My vote is for #1. The list has been dead MUCH longer than just pennsic, > which suggests to me that the GC itself is what has died. > I asked the same question some time back, got a few answers, mostly humorous, > then nada. > Folks, I think its time to run down the curtain. > > Comments ? > > > Corwyn > Since my first post to the list I have stated that the GC desperately needs a policy document from the BoD which will delineate those issues which are _not_ negotiable under the current operating theories. Given those parameters we can address those areas which can generate the most immediate effects. Such a program will also act as a barometer through which we can determine whether or not the GC is destined to be nothing more than a Rump Parliament posturing toward great ideas with no focus on the application of reality. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 19:00:47 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:44:43 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960826164547_269143986@emout19.mail.aol.com> (message from Corwyn da Costa on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:08:02 -0400) Corwyn suggests: >Folks, I think its time to run down the curtain. > >Comments ? While I'm not sure about "ring down the curtain", I think that it's quite clear that the GC *has* collectively burned out pretty badly, and needs at *least* some restructuring. There may well be some value in continuing the concept with some modifications (and with a new influx of interested personnel, if such exist); I'm not sure. But yes, things have hit a pretty serious lull for now, and I think most of the members of the Council have individually gotten pretty toasty... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "We could line the coastal strands with Giant Dipping Bird power plants half a mile high at quarter mile spacing; this would make beach property less desirable, allow the coastal wetlands to recover, and, when the aliens finally arrive in their megakilometer long space cruisers, totally mislead them as to the dominant lifeform on the planet. "Of course, all the male striding birds might suicide from feelings of inadequacy." -- Kent From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 20:43:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:19:51 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960826164547_269143986@emout19.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, I want to make three recommendations to the Board before we fade into the sunset. 1. The Board needs to create a body, representative of the Kingdoms and the pan kingdom administrative organizations, to be responsible for amending the rules that govern Society such as are currently embodied in Corpora and the accumunlated G&PD's. 2. The Board needs to find a way to permit members of foreign corporations, chartered to be bound by the rules maintained by the body formed in 1), to count towards required population counts for branches, to hold office in those branches and to be eligible to serve as a member of the body formed in 1). 3. The Board needs to remember to reply to suggestions offered by this and any other 'think tank'. Few things are more discouraging to the flow of ideas than the feeling that the ideas offered are simply being ignored. Faicha p.s. Think of this as the start of a wrap up report. I'll add anyone's final suggestions to the list, along with relevant comments. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 21:55:29 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 13 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 21:34:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Alive? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM It's my opinion that the GC lost what steam it had left when the vote on internationalization proposals was derailed. No further proposals were forthcoming, which spoke volumes about the lack of motivation of the remaining council members. It was ironic that this was quickly followed by the proposal from the Board that the GC be made some kind of permanent body. If the Board wants a sounding board in the future, it will have to decide exactly what it wants. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Aug 26 23:26:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 23:00:30 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I'm not so worried abut anyone being here, but more about those delightful proposals we were kicking around a couple of months ago. Have they disappeared, so we have to go through the entire thing again, or are they merely on temporary (and hopefully short-lived) vacation? Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 10:17:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:05:44 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: (message from Nigel Haslock on Mon, 26 Aug 1996 17:19:51 -0700) Fiacha writes: >I want to make three recommendations to the Board before we fade into the >sunset. Yes, let's tie some things up before we (at best) mutate heavily. >1. The Board needs to create a body, representative of the Kingdoms and >the pan kingdom administrative organizations, to be responsible for >amending the rules that govern Society such as are currently embodied in >Corpora and the accumunlated G&PD's. Agreed. There are still a *lot* of details to be worked out and agreed, but I think it's pretty clear that *something* of this sort needs to happen. I think we need a formal vote on this one, though; it's a *big* issue. >2. The Board needs to find a way to permit members of foreign >corporations, chartered to be bound by the rules maintained by the body >formed in 1), to count towards required population counts for branches, to >hold office in those branches and to be eligible to serve as a member of >the body formed in 1). Also check. >3. The Board needs to remember to reply to suggestions offered by this and >any other 'think tank'. Few things are more discouraging to the flow of >ideas than the feeling that the ideas offered are simply being ignored. This one can be an informal recommendation, I think, but yes, it's a good point... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: The Turing Test, and its Social Implications "The most obvious problem with Turing's challenge is that there is no practical reason to create machine intelligences indistinguishable from human ones. People are in plentiful supply. Should a shortage arise, there are proven and popular methods for making more of them; these require no public subsidy and little or no technology." -- from The Economist From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 11:13:19 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: maghnuis@cp.duluth.mn.us X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "James D. McManus" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 10:00:20 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Alive? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 09:34 PM 8/26/96 PDT, Finnvarr wrote: >If the Board wants a sounding board in the future, it will have to decide >exactly what it wants. Very much so. Scambling over far reaching and philosphical issues is tiring if no end result can be shot for. Given a specific intermediate range goal, I think we can yet be of value to the BoD. Magnus From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 11:21:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:05:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Where are the proposals the Council was debating before, asks Alban. Here's mine, revised to reflect issues raised since the vote was aborted. Anybody else? Since there's clearly been plenty of time for discussion/new proposals/amendments since the vote was derailed, can we start coming to closure on this issue? PROPOSAL FOR A NEW INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE SOCIETY Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy Revised 8/27 I. THE PROBLEM In several cases, because of the requirements of local law and custom, members of the Society have found it desirable to set up corporations distinct from the SCA, Inc. corporation based in Milpitas. The Board has agreed that in many cases these corporations are desirable to meet the needs of the Society, and have recognized several on an ad hoc basis. However, there are a number of unresolved issues: 1. Currently, Corpora requires officers of the Society to be members of SCA,Inc. Participants must be members of SCA,Inc. to count towards the membership requirements for branch size. Where local corporations essentially support all local operations, many participants must hold memberships in both corporations. This is often seen as unnecessary and burdensome. 2. Corpora specifies that the appointment and removal of officers is controlled jointly by the Crown and by officers of SCA,Inc. This is cumbersome, and frequently creates anomalies in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the Exchequer of Nordmark might be considered either an officer of SCA,Inc. (In which case he controls no money, since SCA, Inc. does not operate or legally exist in Sweden.) or an officer of the Swedish Corp. (In which case he is appointed contrary to Corpora) 3. Currently, while there are several SCA corps., the rules of the game are controlled by only one. This seems unfair. 4. Currently, the Board of SCA,Inc. not only oversees operations within its jurisdiction, but also controls and interprets the rules of the Society worldwide, has sole responsibility for sanctions against improper Royal actions, and determines which foreign corporations to recognize and what their relation to the Society will be. The Board is seriously overworked. The Board could developed a formal procedure for recognizing affiliated corporations, and rewrite Corpora to allow members of those corporations to be considered members of the Society for purposes of holding Society office and satisfying branch membership totals. Corpora could also allow local corporations to make reasonable regulations to control the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. This would be a useful partial measure, and should be done. It would not, however, address problems 3 and 4. The following proposal attempts to outline a solution. This proposal does not address all details of implementation, but does attempt to give a reasonably complete discussion of the core issues.. I ask the Board to either approve it in principal (conditional on the development of a complete implementation proposal, and , at least as important, obtaining the assent of the Society) or explain which parts of the plan are unacceptable to the Board. II. 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 and the convenience of the Society 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. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. would make their publications available on the same terms. SCA-Milpitas might also handle registry functions for other society corps., at a mutually agreeable price Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. III. WHAT HAPPENS TO CORPORA? Currently, there are three sorts of rules in Corpora. 1) Rules defining the medieval practices of the whole Society. The definition and requirements for the peerages is a good example. 2) Medieval practices of the Society that are too important to be subject to royal whim, as Kingdom law is, but that could reasonably vary from Kingdom to Kingdom. The selection of Territorial Barons is one example. The East manages quite well with de-facto local election without doing violence to the unity of the Society. 3) Matters of essentially mundane administration. The appointment of Treasurers and Chroniclers are good examples. Now 1) and 3) can be straight forward. Society wide medieval practices belong in a society wide document like the Great Charter. Mundane administration belongs in the governing documents of the appropriate corporation, even if those officers have medieval titles.. 2) is slightly tricky because we have given any King virtually unlimited power to change Kingdom law at will (so long as he does not violate Corpora or Mundane Law). We need to either change that (which I regard as nifty but unlikely, considering our traditions) or find a safe place for that kind of rule. The current solution is to put that kind of thing into a governing document of the mundane corporation, Corpora. This is workable, although it does cut against the idea of keeping corporations out of the medieval side as much as possible. And it's awkward when the Corporation spans several Kingdoms. Another approach would be to say in Corpora or the Great Charter that each Kingdom and Principality could have its own Lesser Charter. The Kingdom Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not Conflict with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. *However*, the Great Charter would say that Lesser Charters could only be changed by the manifest agreement of the members of the Kingdom or Principality. For example, this could by either by Kingdom wide polling, or by a favorable vote by representatives from a majority of all the groups in the Kingdom. Some such reshuffling of the contents of Corpora is probably desirable, regardless of whether this proposal is accepted or not. IV. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the 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. Allowing Principalities to choose reps for the Council will give much more satisfactory representation for non-US branches than if membership was limited to Kingdoms. It would also give more proportionate representation for the inhabitants of larger kingdoms. I believe that these advantages outweigh the arguments against representation for Principalities. The Council 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 in the current sense, but would define the common customs that a group must follow 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. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. V. JURISDICTION A) JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. B) JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS SCA Mundane Governing Bodies may be Corporations, Incorporated Federations, Associations, etc. For brevity I will refer to the governing bodies simply as Corporations, while recognizing that other structures may be possible or desirable. An SCA Corporation, or its representatives, would have standing in: Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the Corporation. Violations of the Corporation's Governing Documents Matters affecting the ability of officers to fulfill the mundane obligations of the Corporation Requests for the Corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not need to be submitted to the Corporation before being brought before the World Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to the Corp. or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. C) LOCAL REVIEW Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have powers as provided in the appropriate Lesser Charter, provided that they did not conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider would include: Violations of Local Corpora Violations of Kingdom Law Determinations of Questions of Fact Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. Appeals would need to be based on a claim that the local review body had acted contrary to Corporate or Society governing documents. In the absence of failure of due process, it would not be the business of the higher body to re-examine questions of fact determined by a properly constituted local review panel. In order to get first crack at issues appealable to higher bodies, local review panels would have to meet reasonable standards of independence and timeliness. A review panel that royalty accused of misbehavior could pack with their cronies, or a process that could be deliberately delayed until after offenders had collected county rank, would be worse than no local review at all. Procedures for local review would need to be in place before a crisis erupted, rather than thrown together ad-hoc. Note that if a local panel was acceptable to a Corporation as representatives of the Corporation, this could simplify the process of appeals. However, if someone insisted on appealing a matter affecting the integrity of a Corporation to its Board, I believe the fiduciary duties of the Board would require it to consider the appeal. In all cases, individuals or groups asking for redress must demonstrate actionable complaints stipulating specific statutory infractions or attendant misuse or refusal of due process. I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. This is another matter for later discussion VI. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization, consisting of the Council, a few officers to assist it, and whatever legal structure it needed to operate.. 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. It is likely that the Council would require capable advice whenever game issues where likely to impact mundane administration or legal issues If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to find what the experience elsewhere was... 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. VII. SHOULD SCA-WORLD BE A CORPORATION? It may be desirable or necessary for SCA-World to be a Corporation. This proposal does not yet make a recommendation for or against incorporation, and regards it as a matter to be settled in later discussion. Pro: a) A corporation could create some level of protection for the people that served SCA-World, and for the individual SCA corps., from lawsuits or claims brought against the world body. b) IF it was thought desirable for the world body to have any sort of legal coercive power, that would probably be in the form of rights to the Society for Creative Anachronism name, which would probably be most conveniently owned by a corporation. See below. Con: a) Corporate status would involve a certain amount of trouble and expense. b) Many members of the Society have a visceral negative reaction to corporations. If we do decide to make it a corp., I think we should call it Known World, Inc. VIII. SHOULD THE WORLD BODY HAVE LEGAL COERCIVE POWER? Pro: At some time in the future, some splinter group might mutate into something sufficiently unpleasant to damage the reputation of other society groups. If that group insisted on continuing to call themselves "the Society for Creative Anachronism", and we wished to have some legal power to prevent it , the most practical method would be for the world body to retain rights to that name, licensing those rights to legitimate Society groups, conditional on their following the common rules. while it would be expensive to bring a lawsuit, in many cases the mere threat to do so would be effective. Con: Several councilors argued strongly that a rogue group could not conceivably do us enough real damage to justify the expense of legal action, and that the very availability of coercive power would tempt the world body or other governing bodies to use it in cases where it was contrary to the interests of the Society. A vigorously pursued lawsuit against a determined opponent could consume a dangerous amount of the resources of the Society and the attention of its governing bodies. IX. 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. In recognizing such bodies, the World Council would examine their governing documents, but only to insure that there was nothing in them that would conflict with 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 could have its own governing document, consistent with the Great 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, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons 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. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. X. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for 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. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the Charter, they would also use this definition. The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups with different requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. 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. XI. WHAT WOULD THIS COST? I talked with one former Director (Liz Johnson) who thought that a review panel with a jurisdiction such as I have described would probably need to meet face to face quarterly. (It's a big Society, we have a lot of frisky royalty, and such problems often need to be dealt with quickly) Finnvarr has told me that sounds about right, although he thought that perhaps not every single meeting would need to be face to face. Currently, the Board budgets the equivalent of about $725 per person per meeting, mostly for travel and lodging. That figure also includes some money for conference calls between regular meetings. Assuming, conservatively, that each quarterly meeting was face to face: Three member sub-panels of a nine member Review Panel, meeting quarterly (that is, three members meet each quarter), would cost $8,700 per year. If the whole nine member panel met for one of those meetings, it would cost $13,000 total. A five member review panel meeting quarterly would cost $14,500 Travel costs for reps from outside North America would be more expensive. Suppose you've got a nine member panel, and one of them is from overseas. Sub panels of three meet four times a year. The overseas member is on one of the sub-panels one or two times a year. Say the average cost of his ticket is US $1250, or $750 more than the average travel cost for American members. So that adds $750-$1,500 to the total cost, for a total of $9,450-10,200. Or about thirty to fifty cents per year per member of the Society. That doesn't sound so bad. (The cost assumptions are conservative, since probably not every meeting would involve travel for every member of the panel.) There would also be some savings associated with this proposal. Overseas members of SCA, Inc. would no longer have the expense of maintaining duplicate memberships, and the Society as a whole would be able to avoid some of the expenses of maintaining overlapping registries. Further, I would argue that the current structure, with its heavy workload for the Board of SCA, Inc., is a false economy. It burns the directors out and it hampers their effectiveness. XII. 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 governing documents might be a clone of those 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 governing documents. Besides the mundane governing documents of the Canadian corp., Ealdormere might also have a Lesser Charter, specifying matters affecting the medieval structure of the principality that were not covered by the Great Charter, but that the principality did not want to be changeable at the whim of the next incoming pair of rulers. XIII. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... Phase One Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable foreign SCA corps.. Their members count as members of the Society for purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for redistribution to their members. They make some reasonable contribution to SCA,Inc to cover costs of game oversight that will later be taken over by SCA world, similar to the contribution made by the Australian corp. now, although not necessarily at that level. Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of review and to impose sanctions to those panels, while retaining standing for appeals. Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World Council reps, and choose them. Phase Two Council appoints World Review Panel. Review Panel begins to review game issues that make it past lower review panels, making recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow Council to have powers discussed in proposal. Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. Phase Three World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or remove recognition of, SCA groups. Foreign corps. cease to make contributions to SCA, Inc.(Milpitas), except for services and publications provided. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 11:23:41 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:13:51 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Anybody there? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fiacha: >>1. The Board needs to create a body, representative of the Kingdoms and >>the pan kingdom administrative organizations, to be responsible for >>amending the rules that govern Society such as are currently embodied in >>Corpora and the accumunlated G&PD's. Justin: >Agreed. ... it's pretty clear that *something* of this sort needs to >happen. ... YES. Fiacha: >>2. The Board needs to find a way to permit members of foreign >>corporations, ... Justin: >Also check. YES. I like Galleron's proposal. Let's have a real vote on it, or maybe, considering our current degree of (in)activity, let's re-post it and, unless someone presents a serious counter-proposal within a given period of time, let's present it as our proposal to the Board. Fiacha: >>3. The Board needs to remember to reply to suggestions offered by this and >>any other 'think tank'. ... Justin: >This one can be an informal recommendation, ... This, in fact, goes for all serious & constructive suggestions offered to the Board, by think tanks, committees, groups and individuals. Unless I'm completely mistaken, a number of months ago we had an embryo of a proposal for improved communication between the Board and the membership. Some of the ideas have been implemented (official information on WWW), but in general the discussion just ended up in the same general Limbo as most of other stuff we've talked about. Anyone in favor of resuscitating it? /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 12:25:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 09:08:05 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Re: Fiacha's Proposal for Last Report To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Flieg here -- There are two-deep quotes here -- watch your step. At 10:05 AM 8/27/96 EDT, Mark Waks wrote: >Fiacha writes: >>I want to make three recommendations to the Board before we fade into the >>sunset. > >Yes, let's tie some things up before we (at best) mutate heavily. > >>1. The Board needs to create a body, representative of the Kingdoms and >>the pan kingdom administrative organizations, to be responsible for >>amending the rules that govern Society such as are currently embodied in >>Corpora and the accumunlated G&PD's. > >Agreed. There are still a *lot* of details to be worked out and agreed, >but I think it's pretty clear that *something* of this sort needs to >happen. I think we need a formal vote on this one, though; it's a *big* >issue. I disagree about *lots* of details. I think that we should discuss basic principles and recommend to the Board with that. Note that we have several files in the stack which contained proposals for selecting just such a body (generated as part of the Board Selection Discussion) if the Board decides that it wants to look into details. One of the things that I think needs to be recommended for this proposed Body is that it both initiate and vet proposed changes to the By-Laws and Corpora, but that it not be the _only_ way that changes can be made. (I.e. that it be restrictive but not constrictive.) We are much more likely to get a concensus/positive vote on this one if we keep it general. Even though I maintain, as I have in the past, that implementation is critical, I think that the proposal should be one of concept in this case, not of implementation at all. > >>2. The Board needs to find a way to permit members of foreign >>corporations, chartered to be bound by the rules maintained by the body >>formed in 1), to count towards required population counts for branches, to >>hold office in those branches and to be eligible to serve as a member of >>the body formed in 1). > >Also check. I think this is a no-brainer. > >>3. The Board needs to remember to reply to suggestions offered by this and >>any other 'think tank'. Few things are more discouraging to the flow of >>ideas than the feeling that the ideas offered are simply being ignored. > >This one can be an informal recommendation, I think, but yes, it's a >good point... > I think, given the total amount of official feed-back we've gotten, I would insist that this be made an A-1, primo, recommendation, with bells and fireworks! -- Frederick (crispy critter) of Holland * * * 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 Aug 27 12:58:29 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 12:42:34 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Fiacha's Proposal for Last Report To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19960827160805.00b0fb68@garnet.Berkeley.EDU> (flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU) Frederick responds to me: >>Agreed. There are still a *lot* of details to be worked out and agreed, >>but I think it's pretty clear that *something* of this sort needs to >>happen. I think we need a formal vote on this one, though; it's a *big* >>issue. > > I disagree about *lots* of details. I think that we should discuss basic >principles and recommend to the Board with that. Sorry, I guess I was unclear. *Someone* has to work out those "lots of details"; I didn't mean that it necessarily has to be us. In other words, we could (and should) recommend the basic principle, but we could leave it to a successor group (hopefully a smaller and more coherent one) to work out the fine points. Although I still basically like Galleron's proposal... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Why does it take only four hours to get photos from Neptune, but 2 days from the Fotomat?" -- Mike Harvey From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 13:59:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 13:17:09 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960827110538_466365454@emout08.mail.aol.com> (message from Will McLean on Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:05:38 -0400) General reaction to Galleron's latest revision: quite nice. I think this proposal has evolved well, to meet most of the detailed objections that have been levelled at it. It *does* still present a definite vision of the overall structure, and some people are bound to disagree with that vision, but I think that it's a solid, *moderate* vision of how the Society should be structured. It's at just about the right level, presenting a framework without trying to dictate every detail. It needs a good solid proofing before it goes to the Board (there are numerous typos -- if she's got time, I might recommend sending it to my lady wife, who is a skilled proofreader), but I would like to see it get there eventually. It's not clear to me whether the Council is currently prepared to vote on something detailed; we got badly bogged down last time. If not, then I would probably want to vote on a broader statement of principle (as suggested by Fiacha), and independently send Galleron's proposal to the Board without the imprint of the GC on it. It wouldn't have the authority that a voted-and-approved proposal of the GC would have, but I'd sign *my* name to it as a suggestion of where to go next... -- Justin Who wants to see *some* resolution on this issue before the GC self-destructs... 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 Aug 27 15:55:34 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:31:45 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Communication with the Board To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Forwarded for Dani... -- Justin >>3. The Board needs to remember to reply to suggestions offered by this and >>any other 'think tank'. Few things are more discouraging to the flow of >>ideas than the feeling that the ideas offered are simply being ignored. >This one can be an informal recommendation, I think, but yes... Make it formal, but flesh it out. This is one of the instances where the devil really is in the details. It also touches on one of the main reasons the Grand Council's efforts have been so frustrating. People have been complaining for years that making non-trivial suggestions to the Board is like shouting into a deep well, but when the Grand Council was set into motion, few people gave thought to why this should be, or what would have to be done to accomodate the problem. The problem is that it's almost impossible for the Board to act upon a general proposal. It meets four times a year, and barely has time to authorize bank accounts, sign off on group dissolutions, receive reports, discuss banishments, etc. The perennial complain is that there's never time to discuss larger issues. It's unrealistic to hope that there'll be much time to try to flesh out someone's possibly-excellent suggestion. (There's also email and phone communication between meetings, but your own experience should tell you how productive that's likely to be for such a task.) In general, unless some director wants to personally champion a proposal (and do much of the work, in his or her copious spare time), it'll be ignored. For a proposal to have a chance, either much of the work has to have been done, or it needs to include a specific plan for getting the work done. If that plan places one or more directors on the critical path, it will probably fail. (The SCA is particularly vulnerable to this, because the directors have a near-monopoly on Corporate information: If you need access to corporate records of any sort, the odds are that you will have to go through a director. If you don't have a personal commitment from a director willing to help, the odds are that it's not going to happen.) A case in point is the one semi-concrete proposal the Grand Council has sent to the Board -- that it investigate the outsourcing of clerical/administrative functions. It became a time-sink for a director -- who was trying to oversee the task remotely -- and for Renee -- for whom day-to-day operations are an overriding priority -- and somehow never seemed to get done. I've recently been engaged in a not-yet-successful effort to find a director who knows whether a request-for-proposal was actually ever completed, whether it was ever sent out if it was completed, and where the work-in-progress is if it wasn't completed. In conclusion, two points: 1. As things currently stand, proposals that can't be evaluated and acted upon -- or delegated -- with relative ease are usually going to be ignored. This is because there is usually no way the Board *can* do anything useful with them. So, as things currently stand, if you want a proposal to fly, it needs enough detail and groundwork that the Board can look at it, say 'yes' or 'no' or 'sort of', and hand it to someone else to implement. 2. The way things currently stand stinks. It makes real change of any sort exceedingly difficult to accomplish, and I don't know of anyone -- on the Board or off it -- who's happy with the situation. (The problem has no easy fix. What's wanted is a solution that will spread out the Board's current workload without introducing either an expensive layer of paid help or a communications-and-oversight nightmare.) The Grand Council's best contribution might be to think of ways to combat the problem, so that whatever body succeeds it doesn't face such a frustrating situation. ----- Dani of the Seven Wells dani@telerama.lm.com "[Take] one ounce of aconite, two ounces of good arsenic, a quarter of a pound of pork fat, a pound of wheat flour, and four eggs. Make bread of this..." -- Le menagier de Paris From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 16:05:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:43:12 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Forwarded for my lady Caitlin. (The aforementioned compulsive proofreader...) -- Justin >Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 15:18:14 -0400 >From: waks@world.std.com (Jane Waks) >Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 >PROPOSAL FOR A NEW INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE SOCIETY >Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy >Revised 8/27 > >I. THE PROBLEM >In several cases, because of the requirements of local law and custom, >members of the Society have found it desirable to set up corporations >distinct from the SCA, Inc. corporation based in Milpitas. The Board has >agreed that in many cases these corporations are desirable to meet the needs >of the Society, and have recognized several on an ad hoc basis. > >However, there are a number of unresolved issues: > >1. Currently, Corpora requires officers of the Society to be members of >SCA,Inc. Participants must be members of SCA,Inc. to count towards the >membership requirements for branch size. Where local corporations essentially >support all local operations, many participants must hold memberships in both >corporations. This is often seen as unnecessary and burdensome. > >2. Corpora specifies that the appointment and removal of officers is >controlled jointly by the Crown and by officers of SCA,Inc. This is >cumbersome, and frequently creates anomalies in foreign jurisdictions. For >example, the Exchequer of Nordmark might be considered either an officer of >SCA,Inc. (In which case he controls no money, since SCA, Inc. does not >operate or legally exist in Sweden.) or an officer of the Swedish Corp. (In >which case he is appointed contrary to Corpora) > >3. Currently, while there are several SCA corps., the rules of the game are ^^^^^^ corporations >controlled by only one. This seems unfair. > >4. Currently, the Board of SCA,Inc. not only oversees operations within its >jurisdiction, but also controls and interprets the rules of the Society >worldwide, has sole responsibility for sanctions against improper Royal >actions, and determines which foreign corporations to recognize and what >their relation to the Society will be. The Board is seriously overworked. > >The Board could developed a formal procedure for recognizing affiliated ^^^^^^^^^ develop >corporations, and rewrite Corpora to allow members of those corporations to >be considered members of the Society for purposes of holding Society office >and satisfying branch membership totals. Corpora could also allow local >corporations to make reasonable regulations to control the appointment and >removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. This would be a useful ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ jurisdictions >partial measure, and should be done. It would not, however, address problems ^^^^^ implemented >3 and 4. The following proposal attempts to outline a solution. > >This proposal does not address all details of implementation, but does >attempt to give a reasonably complete discussion of the core issues.. I ask >the Board to either approve it in principal (conditional on the development ^^^^^^^^^ principle >of a complete implementation proposal, and , at least as important, obtaining ^ (no space) >the assent of the Society) or explain which parts of the plan are >unacceptable to the Board. This whole last sentence is unnecessarily complex. Also, the writer should not use the personal pronoun (I) to make this suggestion, if it is proposed by the whole GC. > >II. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL >World Council is set up, with reps chosen from each Kingdom and Principality, ^^^^ representatives This is a sentence fragment. Try "The World Council is" or "A World Council" >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. ^ (omit the "a") > >It recognizes as many Mundane Governing Bodies as are needed to meet legal Do not capitalize Mundane Governing Bodies [sic]. >requirements and the convenience of the Society 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. Lose the word "game" > >There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications >spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. >In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make >them available to other SCA corps., at a cost intended to cover both direct ^^^^^^ corporations [also below] >costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corps. >would make their publications available on the same terms. SCA-Milpitas >might also handle registry functions for other society corps., at a mutually >agreeable price Finish the paragraph with a period. > >Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this >proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. > >III. WHAT HAPPENS TO CORPORA? >Currently, there are three sorts of rules in Corpora. > >1) Rules defining the medieval practices of the whole Society. The definition Insert "of" so the sentence begins "The definition of, and requirements for," >and requirements for the peerages is a good example. > >2) Medieval practices of the Society that are too important to be subject to >royal whim, as Kingdom law is, but that could reasonably vary from Kingdom to >Kingdom. The selection of Territorial Barons is one example. The East manages >quite well with de-facto local election without doing violence to the unity >of the Society. > >3) Matters of essentially mundane administration. The appointment of >Treasurers and Chroniclers are good examples. > >Now 1) and 3) can be straight forward. Society wide medieval practices belong >in a society wide document like the Great Charter. Mundane administration >belongs in the governing documents of the appropriate corporation, even if >those officers have medieval titles.. Remove extraneous period. > >2) is slightly tricky because we have given any King virtually unlimited >power to change Kingdom law at will (so long as he does not violate Corpora >or Mundane Law). We need to either change that (which I regard as nifty but >unlikely, considering our traditions) or find a safe place for that kind of >rule. > >The current solution is to put that kind of thing into a governing document >of the mundane corporation, Corpora. This is workable, although it does cut >against the idea of keeping corporations out of the medieval side as much as >possible. And it's awkward when the Corporation spans several Kingdoms. > >Another approach would be to say in Corpora or the Great Charter that each >Kingdom and Principality could have its own Lesser Charter. The Kingdom >Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of >the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not Conflict >with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not >restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. > >*However*, the Great Charter would say that Lesser Charters could only be >changed by the manifest agreement of the members of the Kingdom or >Principality. For example, this could by either by Kingdom wide polling, or >by a favorable vote by representatives from a majority of all the groups in >the Kingdom. > >Some such reshuffling of the contents of Corpora is probably desirable, >regardless of whether this proposal is accepted or not. The latter part of this section above goes from _being the proposal_ to _discussing the proposal_. Recommend it be tightened up, perhaps creating two separate documents, one that is simply the proposal and another discussing possible ramifications and tweaks. > >IV. WORLD COUNCIL >Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose >one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable >to the members of the 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. Financing in toto? That's a license to junket! Perhaps "subsidizing"? > >Allowing Principalities to choose reps for the Council will give much more >satisfactory representation for non-US branches than if membership was >limited to Kingdoms. It would also give more proportionate representation for >the inhabitants of larger kingdoms. I believe that these advantages outweigh >the arguments against representation for Principalities. See note regarding _discussion_, above. > >The Council 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 in the current sense, but would define >the common customs that a group must follow 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 Remove extraneous period after "disrepute," >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. > >It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In >cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole >Council for consideration and approval. > >V. JURISDICTION > >A) JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL >I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the >World Council, or a review committee it appoints: > >Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and >violations of the Charter. >Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the >Charter?) >Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) >Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. >Matters affecting the whole of the Society. > >B) JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS >SCA Mundane Governing Bodies may be Corporations, Incorporated Federations, >Associations, etc. For brevity I will refer to the governing bodies simply as >Corporations, while recognizing that other structures may be possible or >desirable. An SCA Corporation, or its representatives, would have standing >in: > >Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the Corporation. >Violations of the Corporation's Governing Documents >Matters affecting the ability of officers to fulfill the mundane obligations >of the Corporation >Requests for the Corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. > >Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not >need to be submitted to the Corporation before being brought before the World >Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to >the Corp. or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, >in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. > >C) LOCAL REVIEW >Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom >or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the >medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method >manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members >of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have >powers as provided in the appropriate Lesser Charter, provided that they did >not >conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider >would include: > >Violations of Local Corpora >Violations of Kingdom Law >Determinations of Questions of Fact > >Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation >when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. Appeals would >need to be based on a claim that the local review body had acted contrary to >Corporate or Society governing documents. In the absence of failure of due >process, it would not be the business of the higher body to re-examine >questions of fact determined by a properly constituted local review panel. > >In order to get first crack at issues appealable to higher bodies, local >review panels would have to meet reasonable standards of independence and >timeliness. A review panel that royalty accused of misbehavior could pack "...royalty, accused of misbehavior, could..." >with their cronies, or a process that could be deliberately delayed until >after offenders had collected county rank, would be worse than no local >review at all. Procedures for local review would need to be in place before a >crisis erupted, rather than thrown together ad-hoc. > >Note that if a local panel was acceptable to a Corporation as representatives >of the Corporation, this could simplify the process of appeals. However, if >someone insisted on appealing a matter affecting the integrity of a >Corporation to its Board, I believe the fiduciary duties of the Board would >require it to consider the appeal. > >In all cases, individuals or groups asking for redress must demonstrate >actionable complaints stipulating specific statutory infractions or attendant > misuse or refusal of due process. > >I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great >Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable >penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. >This is another matter for later discussion > >VI. SCA-WORLD.... >...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim >organization, consisting of the Council, a few officers to assist it, and >whatever legal structure it needed to operate.. 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. It is likely that the >Council >would require capable advice whenever game issues where likely to impact >mundane administration or legal issues > >If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have >it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely >essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, >say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to find >what the experience elsewhere was... > >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. > >VII. SHOULD SCA-WORLD BE A CORPORATION? >It may be desirable or necessary for SCA-World to be a Corporation. This >proposal does not yet make a recommendation for or against incorporation, and >regards it as a matter to be settled in later discussion. > >Pro: >a) A corporation could create some level of protection for the people that >served SCA-World, and for the individual SCA corps., from lawsuits or claims >brought against the world body. > >b) IF it was thought desirable for the world body to have any sort of legal >coercive power, that would probably be in the form of rights to the Society >for Creative Anachronism name, which would probably be most conveniently >owned by a corporation. See below. > >Con: >a) Corporate status would involve a certain amount of trouble and expense. > >b) Many members of the Society have a visceral negative reaction to >corporations. > >If we do decide to make it a corp., I think we should call it Known World, >Inc. > >VIII. SHOULD THE WORLD BODY HAVE LEGAL COERCIVE POWER? >Pro: At some time in the future, some splinter group might mutate into >something sufficiently unpleasant to damage the reputation of other society >groups. If that group insisted on continuing to call themselves "the Society >for Creative Anachronism", and we wished to have some legal power to prevent >it , the most practical method would be for the world body to retain rights >to that name, licensing those rights to legitimate Society groups, >conditional on their following the common rules. while it would be expensive >to bring a lawsuit, in many cases the mere threat to do so would be >effective. > >Con: Several councilors argued strongly that a rogue group could not >conceivably do us enough real damage to justify the expense of legal action, >and that the very availability of coercive power would tempt the world body >or other governing bodies to use it in cases where it was contrary to the >interests of the Society. A vigorously pursued lawsuit against a determined >opponent could consume a dangerous amount of the resources of the Society and >the attention of its governing bodies. > > >IX. 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. In recognizing such bodies, the World Council would examine their >governing documents, but only to insure that there was nothing in them that >would conflict with 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 could have its own >governing >document, consistent with the Great 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, Seneschals, >Marshals, and Chirurgeons 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. This would >be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all >appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. > >X. MEMBERSHIP >For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for >Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as >natural persons maintaining an address within the branch that subscribes to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ who subscribe >the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of >Baronies was specified by the Charter, they would also use this definition. > >The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups with different >requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might >have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people >that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. > >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. > >XI. WHAT WOULD THIS COST? >I talked with one former Director (Liz Johnson) who thought that a review >panel with a jurisdiction such as I have described would probably need to >meet face to face quarterly. (It's a big Society, we have a lot of frisky >royalty, and such problems often need to be dealt with quickly) Finnvarr has >told me that sounds about right, although he thought that perhaps not every >single meeting would need to be face to face. > >Currently, the Board budgets the equivalent of about $725 per person per >meeting, mostly for travel and lodging. That figure also includes some money >for conference calls between regular meetings. Assuming, conservatively, that >each quarterly meeting was face to face: > >Three member sub-panels of a nine member Review Panel, meeting quarterly >(that is, three members meet each quarter), would cost $8,700 per year. > >If the whole nine member panel met for one of those meetings, it would cost >$13,000 total. > >A five member review panel meeting quarterly would cost $14,500 > >Travel costs for reps from outside North America would be more expensive. >Suppose you've got a nine member panel, and one of them is from overseas. Sub >panels of three meet four times a year. The overseas member is on one of the >sub-panels one or two times a year. Say the average cost of his ticket is US >$1250, or $750 more than the average travel cost for American members. So >that adds $750-$1,500 to the total cost, for a total of $9,450-10,200. > >Or about thirty to fifty cents per year per member of the Society. That >doesn't sound so bad. (The cost assumptions are conservative, since probably >not every meeting would involve travel for every member of the panel.) > >There would also be some savings associated with this proposal. Overseas >members of SCA, Inc. would no longer have the expense of maintaining >duplicate memberships, and the Society as a whole would be able to avoid >some of the expenses of maintaining overlapping registries. Further, I would >argue that the current structure, with its heavy workload for the Board of >SCA, Inc., is a false economy. It burns the directors out and it hampers >their effectiveness. > >XII. 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 governing documents might be a clone of those 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 governing >documents. > >Besides the mundane governing documents of the Canadian corp., Ealdormere >might also have a Lesser Charter, specifying matters affecting the medieval >structure of the principality that were not covered by the Great Charter, but >that the principality did not want to be changeable at the whim of the next >incoming pair of rulers. > >XIII. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE > >Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... > >Phase One > >Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable >foreign SCA corps.. Their members count as members of the Society for >purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership >requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable >regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their >jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for >redistribution to their members. They make some reasonable contribution to >SCA,Inc to cover costs of game oversight that will later be taken over by SCA >world, similar to the contribution made by the Australian corp. now, although >not necessarily at that level. > >Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review >panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of "its powers of review and sanction" >review and to impose sanctions to those panels, while retaining standing for >appeals. > >Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World >Council reps, and choose them. (other than by Royal Appointment) > >Phase Two > >Council appoints World Review Panel. Review Panel begins to review >game issues that make it past lower review panels, making >recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. > >Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow >Council to have powers discussed in proposal. > >Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great >Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. > >Phase Three >World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of >common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or >remove recognition of, SCA groups. Foreign corps. cease to make contributions >to SCA, Inc.(Milpitas), except for services and publications provided. > Okay, a couple of general comments. I repeat that you all may want to make two documents, or a document with an explanatory appendix, out of this proposal. It switches tone and viewpoint several times, trying to both _be_ and _explain_ the proposal. Second, please watch the spacing and punctuation throughout of "SCA, Inc." There is a space after the comma, and a period at the end of the abbreviation Inc. Third, again throughout, do not abbreviate "representatives" or "corporations." Particularly in the body of the proposal itself. If you want to call them Reps and Corps in the discussion, okay, but it's still jargon. Also, watch out for the use of the word "game." We use it a lot, when we talk about what's in the game, vs. what's medieval, and how we recognize kindred organizations. Is there another term that can be substituted, especially in the more formal sections? I remain, In service to pedantry, Caitlin Davies ------- End of forwarded message ------- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Aug 27 17:56:44 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:41:14 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I personally think it is absurd for a medieval recreation group to try to do the Renaissance, Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and English Civil War, which is what a change to 1650 would include. In fact, a cut-off of around 1300 would make the most sense to me on historical grounds. But I know such a thing is impossible, because we prefer to be all things to all people, even if it means doing 99.99% of them shoddily, rather than enforcing firm limits. Let's not even begin to open the can of worms surrounding the current 1600 date. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 02:16:58 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, 28 Aug 1996 01:05:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM As a proposal to be voted on I see major problems of two sorts: First, the structural proposal needs to be stripped out of the commentary and suppositions. Second, it combines so many things that I strongly applaud parts of it, find some of it abhorrant and am enthusiastically neutral on other portions. A huge and noble effort but not a useful one for us to directly discus and vote to recommend or not. It did not seem so convoluted when earlier presented. Or is my memory performing tricks on me. "Back in the old days, when the GC used to discuss proposals, I remember..." MagnusJames D. McManus Attorney at Law Magnus Maguire Bard/Warrior/Scholar Larson Huseby Brodin & McManus Ltd GKMIT/Grand Council/Retired Seneschal/ Pursuivant Duluth, Minnesota Shire of the Inner Sea/Northshield/Midrealm Seamus Donald Stephan McManus Minnesota Renaissance Festival till the end of September From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 03:03:43 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: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 01:11:27 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Fiacha's Proposal for Last Report To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 09:08 AM 8/27/96 -0700, you wrote: >Flieg here -- There are two-deep quotes here -- watch your step. > >At 10:05 AM 8/27/96 EDT, Mark Waks wrote: >>Fiacha writes: > >>>1. The Board needs to create a body, representative of the Kingdoms and >>>the pan kingdom administrative organizations, to be responsible for >>>amending the rules that govern Society such as are currently embodied in >>>Corpora and the accumunlated G&PD's. YUP... >>>2. The Board needs to find a way to permit members of foreign >>>corporations, chartered to be bound by the rules maintained by the body >>>formed in 1), to count towards required population counts for branches, to >>>hold office in those branches and to be eligible to serve as a member of >>>the body formed in 1). >> yUP... >> >>>3. The Board needs to remember to reply to suggestions offered by this and >>>any other 'think tank'. Few things are more discouraging to the flow of >>>ideas than the feeling that the ideas offered are simply being ignored. >> > YUP... All worthy and acceptable to this member Magnus James D. McManus Attorney at Law Magnus Maguire Bard/Warrior/Scholar Larson Huseby Brodin & McManus Ltd GKMIT/Grand Council/Retired Seneschal/ Pursuivant Duluth, Minnesota Shire of the Inner Sea/Northshield/Midrealm Seamus Donald Stephan McManus Minnesota Renaissance Festival till the end of September From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 09:53:12 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:41:46 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Magnus writes: << As a proposal to be voted on I see major problems of two sorts: First, the structural proposal needs to be stripped out of the commentary and suppositions.>> Agreed. Working on it <> Right. So your job as Councilor is to say "I find section V.A.2 abhorrant. This is my proposed amendment for what I think should be done instead." A proposal that will be implemented must address specifics. Submitting a general proposal can at best only postpone that issue. This is your big chance to influence those specifics, and to demonstrate, by getting the Council to agree to your amendments, that you are not just a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 11:16:14 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: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:03:21 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "James D. McManus" Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 09:41 AM 8/28/96 -0400, Galleron wrote: >Right. So your job as Councilor is to say "I find section V.A.2 abhorrant. >This is my proposed amendment for what I think should be done instead." > > As soon as it is stripped down a bit, this is my intent... MagnusJames D. McManus Attorney at Law Magnus Maguire Bard/Warrior/Scholar Larson Huseby Brodin & McManus Ltd GKMIT/Grand Council/Retired Seneschal/ Pursuivant Duluth, Minnesota Shire of the Inner Sea/Northshield/Midrealm Seamus Donald Stephan McManus Minnesota Renaissance Festival till the end of September From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 12:15:15 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: flieg@garnet.Berkeley.EDU X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 08:57:54 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Fred (Flieg) Hollander" Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Flieg here -- At 01:05 AM 8/28/96 -0500, James D. McManus wrote: >As a proposal to be voted on I see major problems of two sorts: > >First, the structural proposal needs to be stripped out of the commentary and suppositions. > >Second, it combines so many things that I strongly applaud parts of it, find some of it abhorrant and am enthusiastically neutral on other portions. > [...rest trimmed...] What he said. * * * 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 Aug 28 12:17:02 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Approved-By: Carolyn Richardson Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:57:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Carolyn Richardson Subject: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah here - I've been following the discussion on Fiacha's 3 proposals for the last couple of days and just have a quick comment/question: On item #1 regarding a committee to recommend changes to the Corpora and By laws, isn't that what the Interkingdom Advisory Council is already set up to do (and has been doing?). I've been waiting for someone to bring this up but no one has. The IAC, in fact, submitted proposed changes to the banishment rules which have been put out for comment. I'm not entirely sure we've got any other than a counterproposal by Bill Colbert that was submitted when he stepped off the board in April. Back to your regularly scheduled list.... Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 13:33:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 13:08:38 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Comments: To: Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <9608281603.AA5823@notes.cch.com> (message from Carolyn Richardson on Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:57:38 -0400) Tetchubah writes: >On item #1 regarding a committee to recommend changes to the Corpora and By >laws, isn't that what the Interkingdom Advisory Council is already set up to do >(and has been doing?). Yes and no. The IAC may well be a step towards that, but it's still just an advisory body, with no actual power -- the Board still has both the right and responsibility to vet everything the IAC recommends. What I think most of us are leaning towards is a greater separation between the game and mundane authorities, in some fashion. (Conceptually, making something like the IAC *parallel* to the Board, with full authority over Corpora, instead of *subordinate* to the Board, making recommendations.) For a better view of one possible way this could be implemented, see Galleron's World Council proposal; other schemes are certainly possible, although I find this one pretty sensible... > I've been waiting for someone to bring this up but no >one has. The IAC, in fact, submitted proposed changes to the banishment rules >which have been put out for comment. I'm not entirely sure we've got any other >than a counterproposal by Bill Colbert that was submitted when he stepped off >the board in April. Being cynical for a moment -- this is likely because the IAC is generally *perceived* as relatively inconsequential. Again, it's just a review board, and while you and I may know that it has a lot of influence, the lack of actual power means that people just don't pay attention to it; they pay attention to the Board. I don't think many people have *noticed* the IAC's actions; it's even lower-profile than the GC, since its proceedings aren't as open as ours are... That said -- where has this proposal been put out? I haven't seen it (although there are numerous places it may have been posted; I'm not following the newsletters all that closely) and have recently been evolving some opinions on the subject, due to some recent incidents... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "People only accept the truth of nonfiction if it corresponds to the truth they have been trained to accept in fiction. Even if that truth is false." -- from Journey From Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com Wed Aug 28 13:42:00 1996 Return-Path: To: Mark Waks Cc: SCAGC-L From: Carolyn Richardson Date: 28 Aug 96 10:43:40 Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain >For a better view of one possible way this could be implemented, see >Galleron's World Council proposal; other schemes are certainly possible, >although I find this one pretty sensible... The last time I looked at it I thought it was impractical - I'll look again and comment later. >Being cynical for a moment -- this is likely because the IAC is generally >*perceived* as relatively inconsequential. Again, it's just a review >board, and while you and I may know that it has a lot of influence, the On the contrary, Justin, I think the problem isn't so much the lack of power by the IAC to influence the Board, but the lack of interest on the part of most of the membership to get involved with commenting or participating in this level. The IAC is having similar problems with burn out that the GC is. Yes, they're lower profile, but the proposal was sent to (as far as I know) all the Kingdom Seneschals who were told to pass it around. I think it may have been posted on the Rialto since I've seen some comment back from there via Ghita. But considering how many people have been screaming about the banishment procedures, you'd think we'd hear *something*, not the deafening silence we have been met with. Regardless of whether you keep the current system in place, or replace it with some other body designated to change Corpora, don't you think the membership would object just as loudly to something they don't like and felt they had no input on regardless of WHO put it there? At least with the Board making the final call on changes to Corpora there's only 1 body to yell at - why complicate it with 2? Everything would probably be appealed to the Board anyway. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:05:40 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:46:30 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960828094146_395904037@emout08.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Chairman Fiacha, On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Will McLean wrote: > Right. So your job as Councilor is to say "I find section V.A.2 abhorrant. > This is my proposed amendment for what I think should be done instead." Yes and no. At this point, I have given up the concept of voting for specifics. We can vote on generalities and I believe that, in the past, doing so has restored some focus. Voting on specifics destroys focus because we are too diverse in our opinions on such matters. Any proposals that get some positive comment will be bundled with the final report (which I will throw together at the end of next month). Any commentary will be linked to the proposal (God only knows how at this point). Thus the board will get a proposal or three with embedded connents to mull over. This should get Edward what he said that he wanted. The other thing that he said the he wanted, A charter for a permanant think tank, is not something that I believe any of us are interested in working on. So I'll say that in the final report too. Note. This coming report is the final one as far as I am concerned. I cannot see us achieving anything in the final quarter of the year. The issues are sufficiently tangled that we need a clue as to how the board will proceed before we can make headway with any of them. More than anything else, I am discouraged by what has gone before. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:20:31 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 10:56:38 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Comments: To: Carolyn Richardson To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <9608281603.AA5823@notes.cch.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 28 Aug 1996, Carolyn Richardson wrote: > Tetchubah here - > > On item #1 regarding a committee to recommend changes to the Corpora and By > laws, isn't that what the Interkingdom Advisory Council is already set up to do Sorry, but no. Anyone can propose changes to Corpora but the Board is the only group with authority to make changes. The Board must delegate this authority to a representative body and get out of the business of discussing the changes at all. I have no problem with the board dealing with complaints of Crowns or Kingdoms breaking Corpora (although others do) but divesting authority to create and change rules is a necessary step towards satisfying complaints from members of foreign corporations. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:21:49 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:09:43 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah wrote: << On item #1 regarding a committee to recommend changes to the Corpora and By laws, isn't that what the Interkingdom Advisory Council is already set up to do (and has been doing?). >> Not quite. The proposals we've been discussing generally assume that the body will examine only those rules affecting the Society's medieval recreation, but that it would have the final say in such matters, rather than simply making recomendations. The other critical detail is that each member of the body would be chosen by a method manifestly agreeable to the region that choses them, rather than by Royal appointment, as the members of the IAC are now. For a basic proposal on those lines, see Finnvarr's proposal on the GC website. For a more detailed one, see my revised proposal of 8/28 Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:30:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:11:41 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Comments: To: Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <9608281744.AA7704@notes.cch.com> (message from Carolyn Richardson on 28 Aug 96 10:43:40) Tetchubah writes: >> [Galleron's proposal] >The last time I looked at it I thought it was impractical Possibly; if so, it would be useful to understand in what ways you think it wouldn't work, though. It involves *major* changes at the top, but I do believe it would work significantly better than the current structure... >On the contrary, Justin, I think the problem isn't so much the lack of >power by the IAC to influence the Board, but the lack of interest on >the part of most of the membership to get involved with commenting or >participating in this level. Well, while I stand by my first statement, you're also certainly correct here; the populace *is* broadly apathetic, except when a Great Crisis arises. This is damned unfortunate, in that it means that the Board rarely knows that a problem is going to arise until it has already done so. I don't have any brilliant suggestions on how to fix that, although I suspect that more populace involvement with the upper-level management (eg, some sort of Board election process) might help it somewhat. You have to bear in mind that most of the populace tends to feel pretty much powerless to affect what goes on at the top, producing a self-fulfilling prophecy (since they then don't try), and the few who *are* involved (eg, us) tend to be too busy with our own particular bailiwicks... >The IAC is having similar problems with burn out that the GC is. Yes, >they're lower profile, but the proposal was sent to (as far as I know) >all the Kingdom Seneschals who were told to pass it around. I think >it may have been posted on the Rialto since I've seen some comment >back from there via Ghita. Could be; I've only been lightly skimming the Rialto lately, since the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten really poor. Putting it up for comments under www.sca.org would be a Very Good Idea... >Regardless of whether you keep the current system in place, or replace >it with some other body designated to change Corpora, don't you think >the membership would object just as loudly to something they don't >like and felt they had no input on regardless of WHO put it there? At >least with the Board making the final call on changes to Corpora >there's only 1 body to yell at - why complicate it with 2? Everything >would probably be appealed to the Board anyway. Which is the whole point -- that stuff shouldn't *be* appealable to the Board. One of the broadest general problems the SCA now has is that every single buck lands on the Board's desk; it acts simultaneously as the legislature, judiciary, and all-too-often executive in every aspect of the Society. And we are structured so that that *must* happen, because *everything* can be appealed to the Board. That's crazy; I don't know any other organization of nearly our size that is anywhere near that centralized. We need to find the natural breakpoints, and separate these strands into separate bodies, that are going to be less prone to overwork, and to produce some natural check-and-balance in the system so that one person's agenda can't hijack the Society so easily. That isn't going to make things perfect for the populace; no perfect political system has ever been invented, and we're not going to be the ones who invent it. But it *can* produce a system somewhat less prone to breakdown and crisis, and perhaps a bit fairer than the current way. One start on that is to recognize that it is faintly loony for a US corporation, which is highly driven by the way the US does things, to be running things for many other countries. We should instead give those countries their heads to run things administratively as makes sense in their country (which may well be *very* different from the way we do it here), and instead concentrate on keeping the *game* broadly compatible internationally. That's the subtext here. If we have a trans-Kingdom body regulating the game, then we have a lot more freedom to experiment with how the corporate structures inter-relate. And the Corporate Boards can concentrate a bit more on the mundane aspects, which are complex enough themselves... (And yes, those threads can never be separated perfectly; I know that. But we could accomplish a helluva lot by *trying*, and being flexible with the borderline cases...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: On Bad Book Reviews: "Imagine a 250 word book report on how rotten a person Isaac Asimov is [note, not about the book]. Where 30 of those 250 words were mispelled. Two sentences." -- chuq From Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com Wed Aug 28 14:37:11 1996 Return-Path: To: Mark Waks Cc: SCAGC-L From: Carolyn Richardson Date: 28 Aug 96 11:39:06 Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain I don't have any brilliant solutions to the problem of apathy either - I wish I did. But I also think to some extent this group of people (not the GC, just its members) at times tilts at windmills. Not all the time - just part of it. One of the great problems, IMO, that the GC has (is) facing is that everyone has their particular ax to grind and they want to grind it *their* way and no other way. That's because so many people here are such strong personalities, and are used to having themselves heard. While compromises have been reached, it seems like you spend a lot of time just arguing with each other over who's going to dot the i's and cross the t's, and lose sight of the original goal (case in point - the note yesterday about making sure there's a space between "SCA," and "Inc."). I don't mean this as negative criticism - but I'm sure most of you would agree that running the GC is like trying to herd cats much of the time. For that matter, nearly all of the advisory bodies I've known of or participated in within the SCA tend to have this problem, including the Board. >. Putting it up for >comments under www.sca.org would be a Very Good Idea... I think it may be there but I haven't checked - I seem to recall something about putting it on the Web page coming up in July when we had no comments at all. >Which is the whole point -- that stuff shouldn't *be* appealable to >the Board. One of the broadest general problems the SCA now has is >that every single buck lands on the Board's desk; it acts >simultaneously as the legislature, judiciary, and all-too-often >executive in every aspect of the Society. And we are structured so >that that *must* happen, because *everything* can be appealed to the >Board. That's crazy; I don't know any other organization of nearly our >size that is anywhere near that centralized. I agree completely - not everything should be appealable to the Bod. But face reality -we've been doing it that way for so long don't you think that there might be more than a few complaints if you change it with the World Council from which there is no appeal? I know a lot of the members are apathetic, but I think a change like that is asking for trouble. >One start on that is to recognize that it is faintly loony for a >US corporation, which is highly driven by the way the US does things, >to be running things for many other countries. Again, I agree completely. But even the Ozibod, which *is* a completely separate corporation, leaves a lot of stuff (like membership revocation) up to us. Is that really the way we want it? I think it should be a case of "they're your member - you deal with it". How independent do you want these corps to be? yeah, they should be dealing with their own administrative problems but I'm not entirely sure a lot of them would want to. Maybe the World Council idea would solve that problem, maybe it wouldn't (like I said, I need to go look at it again in it's most recent iteration). Were any of you present at the Board Social at 30YC? Our discussion with the member from Drachenwald was quite enlightening - she seemed to think we should be in the business of te lling everyone what they should be doing rather than leaving it up to the kingdom members to replace their own lousy officers. And Drachenwald would be my first choice for another separate incorporation. But are multiple dysfunctional corporations better than 1? Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:43:22 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 14:31:48 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Communication issues. Was :Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah writes: << Yes, they're lower profile, but the proposal was sent to (as far as I know) all the Kingdom Seneschals who were told to pass it around. I think it may have been posted on the Rialto since I've seen some comment back from there via Ghita. But considering how many people have been screaming about the banishment procedures, you'd think we'd hear *something*, not the deafening silence we have been met with. >> Yes, sent to the Kingdom Seneschals, but God knows what they did with it, because I never saw a sign of it by that route. I did see the IAC proposal when the IAC posted it on the Rialto, but this week is the first I've heard of Bill Colbert's proposal, and I'd like to know more about it. Could I suggest that both proposals be posted on the nifty new Board web page? You've got a useful communication tool there, might as well make as much use of it as possible. Asking the Seneschals to pass stuff around doesn't seem to be a very effective method of spreading the news. For the record, I did send in comments on the IAC proposal, but if the Board didn't get them I can do it again. Galleron. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:48:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:51:49 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Discussion of Revised Proposal 8/28 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM V. DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Representation for Principalities. Allowing Principalities to choose representatives for the Council will give much more satisfactory representation for non-US branches than if membership was limited to Kingdoms. It would also give more proportionate representation for the inhabitants of larger kingdoms. I believe that these advantages outweigh the arguments against representation for Principalities B. Requirement for Independence and Timeliness of Local Review A review panel that royalty, accused of misbehavior, could pack with their cronies, or a process that could be deliberately delayed until after offenders had collected county rank, would be worse than no local review at all. Procedures for local review would need to be in place before a crisis erupted, rather than thrown together ad-hoc. C. Lesser Charters Many medieval practices of the Society could reasonably vary from place to place, and need not be specified in a Society wide document. However, leaving them purely as a matter of Kingdom law is slightly tricky because we have given any King virtually unlimited power to change Kingdom law at will (so long as he does not violate Corpora or Mundane Law). We need to either change that (which I regard as nifty but unlikely, considering our traditions) or find a safe place for that kind of rule. Thus the proposed Lesser Charters. Reshuffling of the contents of Corpora as proposed in this plan is probably desirable, regardless of whether the entire proposal is accepted or not. D. 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, more likely, 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 governing documents might be a clone of those 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 governing documents. Besides the mundane governing documents of the Canadian corp., Ealdormere might also have a Lesser Charter, specifying matters affecting the medieval structure of the principality that were not covered by the Great Charter, but that the principality did not want to be changeable at the whim of the next incoming pair of rulers. E. Scope of the Proposal This proposal advises many changes to the structure of Society governance. Because of the interrelation of many issues, it was difficult to avoid doing so and still address some of the challenges facing our changing Society. Sorry. However, from the implementation outline, you will see that it is possible to institute the suggested changes in a gradual and systematic way, gaining experience with the new mechanisms before a complete transition is made. VII. SOME ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED A. SHOULD SCA-WORLD BE A CORPORATION? It may be desirable or necessary for SCA-World to be a Corporation. This proposal does not yet make a recommendation for or against incorporation, and regards it as a matter to be settled in later discussion. Pro: 1) A corporation could create some level of protection for the people that served SCA-World, and for the individual SCA corps., from lawsuits or claims brought against the world body. 2) IF it was thought desirable for the world body to have any sort of legal coercive power, that would probably be in the form of rights to the Society for Creative Anachronism name, which would probably be most conveniently owned by a corporation. See below. Con: 1) Corporate status would involve a certain amount of trouble and expense. 2) Many members of the Society have a visceral negative reaction to corporations. If we do decide to make it a corporation, I think we should call it Known World, Inc. B. SHOULD THE WORLD BODY HAVE LEGAL COERCIVE POWER? Pro: At some time in the future, some splinter group might mutate into something sufficiently unpleasant to damage the reputation of other society groups. If that group insisted on continuing to call themselves "the Society for Creative Anachronism", and we wished to have some legal power to prevent it , the most practical method would be for the world body to retain rights to that name, licensing those rights to legitimate Society groups, conditional on their following the common rules. while it would be expensive to bring a lawsuit, in many cases the mere threat to do so would be effective. Con: Several councilors argued strongly that a rogue group could not conceivably do us enough real damage to justify the expense of legal action, and that the very availability of coercive power would tempt the world body or other governing bodies to use it in cases where it was contrary to the interests of the Society. A vigorously pursued lawsuit against a determined opponent could consume a dangerous amount of the resources of the Society and the attention of its governing bodies. C. OTHER ISSUES The alert reader will have noticed that this proposal has not specified the terms of office, internal structure, or operating procedures for the World Council. The experience of the Grand Council has shown that it will be important to resolve those issues. VIII. WHAT WOULD THIS COST? If the World Council as a whole communicated primarily by e-mail and other non face-to-face methods, with occasional meetings at major Society gatherings like Pennsic and Estrella. the most significant costs would be for travel by the review panel. I talked with one former Director (Liz Johnson) who thought that a review panel with a jurisdiction such as I have described would probably need to meet face to face quarterly. (It's a big Society, we have a lot of Kingdoms, and such problems often need to be dealt with quickly) Finnvarr has told me that sounds about right, although he thought that perhaps not every single meeting would need to be face to face. Currently, the Board budgets the equivalent of about $725 per person per meeting, mostly for travel and lodging. That figure also includes some money for conference calls between regular meetings. Assuming, conservatively, that each quarterly meeting was face to face: Three member sub-panels of a nine member Review Panel, meeting quarterly (that is, three members meet each quarter), would cost $8,700 per year. If the whole nine member panel met for one of those meetings, it would cost $13,000 total. A five member review panel meeting quarterly would cost $14,500 Travel costs for representativess from outside North America would be more expensive. Suppose you've got a nine member panel, and one of them is from overseas. Sub panels of three meet four times a year. The overseas member is on one of the sub-panels one or two times a year. Say the average cost of his ticket is US $1250, or $750 more than the average travel cost for American members. So that adds $750-$1,500 to the total cost, for a total of $9,450-10,200. Or about thirty to fifty cents per year per member of the Society. That doesn't sound so bad. (The cost assumptions are conservative, since probably not every meeting would involve travel for every member of the panel. Also, local review panels may reduce the number of grievances that must be settled at the highest level.) There would also be some savings associated with this proposal. Overseas members of SCA, Inc. would no longer have the expense of maintaining duplicate memberships, and the Society as a whole would be able to avoid some of the expenses of maintaining overlapping registries. Further, I would argue that the current structure, with its heavy workload for the Board of SCA, Inc., is a false economy. It burns the directors out and it hampers their effectiveness. by overloading them with so much work that they have little time to consider larger issues. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 14:54:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:52:04 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/28 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM There. I've done some proofreading, including many corrections suggested by Justin's kind wife, and split off most of the argument and subsidiary issues into a separate document. There are also some small changes scattered throughout the documents. Puff. Puff. PROPOSAL FOR A NEW INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE SOCIETY Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy Revised 8/28 I. THE PROBLEM In several cases, because of the requirements of local law and custom, members of the Society have found it desirable to set up corporations distinct from the SCA, Inc. corporation based in Milpitas. The Board has agreed that in many cases these corporations are desirable to meet the needs of the Society, and have recognized several on an ad hoc basis. However, there are a number of unresolved issues: 1. Currently, Corpora requires officers of the Society to be members of SCA, Inc.. Participants must be members of SCA, Inc. to count towards the membership requirements for branch size. Where local corporations essentially support all local operations, many participants must hold memberships in both corporations. This is often seen as unnecessary and burdensome. 2. Corpora specifies that the appointment and removal of officers is controlled jointly by the Crown and by officers of SCA, Inc.. This is cumbersome, and frequently creates anomalies in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the Exchequer of Nordmark might be considered either an officer of SCA, Inc. (In which case he controls no money, since SCA, Inc. does not operate or legally exist in Sweden.) or an officer of the Swedish Corp. (In which case he is appointed contrary to Corpora) 3. Currently, while there are several SCA corporations., the rules of the game are controlled by only one. This seems unfair. 4. Currently, the Board of SCA, Inc. not only oversees operations within its jurisdiction, but also controls and interprets the rules of the Society worldwide, has sole responsibility for sanctions against improper Royal actions, and determines which foreign corporations to recognize and what their relation to the Society will be. The Board is seriously overworked. The Board could develop a formal procedure for recognizing affiliated corporations, and rewrite Corpora to allow members of those corporations to be considered members of the Society for purposes of holding Society office and satisfying branch membership totals. Corpora could also allow local corporations to make reasonable regulations to control the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdictions. This would be a useful partial measure, and should be implemented. It would not, however, address problems 3 and 4. The following proposal attempts to outline a solution. This proposal does not address all details of implementation, but does attempt to give a reasonably complete discussion of the core issues. The Council asks the Board to approve it in principal (conditional on the development of a complete implementation proposal, and, at least as important, obtaining the assent of the Society). Failing that , the Board is asked to explain which parts of the plan are unacceptable, and why. II. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL A World Council is set up, with representatives 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 advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many mundane governing bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements and the convenience of the Society wherever the SCA operates. SCA, Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corporations, at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corporations would make their publications available on the same terms. SCA-Milpitas might also handle registry functions for other Society corporations, at a mutually agreeable price. Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. III. THE PROPOSAL A. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the 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 reasonable and approved expenses of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. The Council 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 in the current sense, but would define the common customs that a group must follow 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. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. B. JURISDICTION 1) JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. 2) JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS SCA mundane governing bodies may be corporations, incorporated federations, associations, etc. For brevity I will refer to the governing bodies simply as corporations, while recognizing that other structures may be possible or desirable. An SCA corporation, or its representatives, would have standing in: Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the corporation. Violations of the corporation's governing documents Matters affecting the ability of officers to fulfill the mundane obligations of the corporation Requests for the corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not need to be submitted to the corporation before being brought before the World Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to the corporation or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. 3) LOCAL REVIEW Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have powers as provided in the appropriate Lesser Charter, provided that they did not conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider would include: Violations of Local Corpora Violations of Kingdom Law Determinations of Questions of Fact Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. Appeals would need to be based on a claim that the local review body had acted contrary to Corporate or Society governing documents. In the absence of failure of due process, it would not be the business of the higher body to re-examine questions of fact determined by a properly constituted local review panel. In order to get first crack at issues appealable to higher bodies, local review panels would have to meet reasonable standards of independence and timeliness. Note that if a local panel was acceptable to a Corporation as representatives of the Corporation, this could simplify the process of appeals. However, if someone insisted on appealing a matter affecting the integrity of a Corporation to its Board, I believe the fiduciary duties of the Board would require it to consider the appeal. In all cases, individuals or groups asking for redress must demonstrate actionable complaints stipulating specific statutory infractions or attendant misuse or refusal of due process. I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. This is another matter for later discussion. C. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization, consisting of the Council, a few officers to assist it, and whatever legal structure it needed to operate.. 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 find 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. It is likely that the Council would require capable advice whenever game issues where likely to impact mundane administration or legal issues If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to find what the experience elsewhere was... 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. D. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated, directly or indirectly, 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. In recognizing such bodies, the World Council would examine their governing documents, but only to insure that there was nothing in them that would conflict with the Great Charter Kingdoms and Principalities might 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 corporations. Mundane governing bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each could have its own governing document, consistent with the Great Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. I propose that local SCA corporation should at the very least have the right to control the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, Seneschals, Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. This should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. E. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch who subscribe to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the Charter, they would also use this definition. The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups that might have different requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. 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. F. CHANGES TO CORPORA Under this proposal, the contents of Corpora are unbundled into a number of separate documents: 1) Rules defining the common medieval practices of the whole Society. The definition of, and requirements for, the peerages is a good example. These are to be contained within the Great Charter. 2) Medieval practices of the Society that are too important to be subject to royal whim, as Kingdom law is, but that could reasonably vary from Kingdom to Kingdom. The selection of Territorial Barons is one example. The East manages quite well with de-facto local election without doing violence to the unity of the Society. These would be contained within the Lesser Charters of individual Kingdoms and Principalities. The Kingdom Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not Conflict with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. *However*, the Great Charter would say that Lesser Charters could only be changed by the manifest agreement of the members of the Kingdom or Principality. For example, this could by either by Kingdom wide polling, or by a favorable vote by representatives from a majority of all the groups in the Kingdom. 3) Matters of essentially mundane administration. The appointment of Treasurers and Chroniclers are good examples. These would be specified in the governing documents of each corporation, and could vary according to the needs and wishes of each group and the legal requirements of their jurisdiction. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... Phase One Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable non-US SCA corporations. Their members count as members of the Society for purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for redistribution to their members. They make some reasonable contribution to SCA, Inc. to cover costs of game oversight that will later be taken over by SCA-World, similar to the contribution made by the Australian corp. now, although not necessarily at that level. Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of review and sanction to those panels, while retaining standing for appeals. Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World Council representatives, and choose them. The representatives may not be chosen by royal appointment unless that method is explicitly chosen by polling of the membership of that region. Phase Two Council appoints World Review Panel. Review Panel begins to review game issues that make it past lower review panels, making recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow Council to have powers discussed in proposal. Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. Phase Three World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or remove recognition of, SCA groups. Foreign corps. cease to make contributions to SCA, Inc.(Milpitas), except for services and publications provided. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 15:29:48 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:16:18 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah writes, of suggestions to put banishment proposals on SCA website: << I think it may be there but I haven't checked - I seem to recall something about putting it on the Web page coming up in July when we had no comments at all. >> Neither proposal was there yesterday. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 16:07:36 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 15:49:29 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fiacha wrote: << Yes and no. At this point, I have given up the concept of voting for specifics. We can vote on generalities and I believe that, in the past, doing so has restored some focus. Voting on specifics destroys focus because we are too diverse in our opinions on such matters. >> I disagree. When voting was last halted it was because Flieg, Tibor, Hossein, and Corwyn felt that the existing proposals, respectively, were "unfinished", needed "more discussion", were 'incomplete', and needed to be "more complete". For the others, the votes were: Voters - Modius, Hossein, Alban, Artos, Justin, Serwyl, Finnvarr, Fiacha, Magnus, David/Cariadoc, Catrin, Frithiof, John Votes (+ = 10points) 1. We need to resolve the meaning of paid membership before we resolve relations with foreign corporations. 5001100+50030 =19% 2. Fiacha's Ugly Compromise - Board keeps control of game, corps buy memberships from SCA Inc and get mundane independence. 1100030+84302 =25% 3. Alysoun's Board recognition of other corps. 375555+664370 =50% 4. We need to define the game before we can separate game control from the Board of the SCA Inc. 1000000150230 =09% 5. Alysoun's Fall Back (Something like IKAC grows into World Council) +325320654570 =40% 6. Finnvarr's Proposal (Game control spun off to Body chosen by Kingdoms and Principalities) 2888+79774577 =68% 7. Galleron Proposal (Similar concept, spelled out in greater detail) 9388988788896 =76% 8. Solveig's Proposal (Similar concept, specifies Nine member World Court, describes possible world service corp.) 4168542577666 =52% In what way did this show an inability to focus on specific proposals? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Aug 28 16:36:58 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 16:17:14 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Comments: To: Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <9608281839.AA8860@notes.cch.com> (message from Carolyn Richardson on 28 Aug 96 11:39:06) Tetchubah writes: >One of the great problems, IMO, that the GC has (is) facing is that everyone >has their particular ax to grind and they want to grind it *their* way and no >other way. Certainly true, although a lot of us are struggling to find compromises and broader principles here. My instincts are a *lot* more radical than most of the proposals I seriously advocate here... > While compromises have been reached, >it seems like you spend a lot of time just arguing with each other over who's >going to dot the i's and cross the t's, and lose sight of the original goal >(case in point - the note yesterday about making sure there's a space between >"SCA," and "Inc."). It should be noted that that wasn't anyone's axe being ground -- that was my lady wife (who isn't on this Council), who kindly volunteered to help clean up Galleron's proposal so people *wouldn't* take it apart due to simple typos... >I don't mean this as negative criticism - but I'm sure most of you >would agree that running the GC is like trying to herd cats much of >the time. The inevitable downside of a committee as large as this one. Our greatest strength is breadth of vision. Our greatest weakness is *also* breadth of vision... >I think it may be there but I haven't checked - I seem to recall something >about putting it on the Web page coming up in July when we had no comments at >all. Not there, as far as I can tell. (I checked before I mentioned the idea.) >I agree completely - not everything should be appealable to the Bod. >But face reality -we've been doing it that way for so long don't you >think that there might be more than a few complaints if you change it >with the World Council from which there is no appeal? I know a lot of >the members are apathetic, but I think a change like that is asking >for trouble. Oh, definitely -- but *anything* the Board does is going to generate complaints from some people. An unfortunate fact is that the one thing that *does* get people to complain is change, of any sort. But that's no reason to leave the structures gradually creaking worse and worse; it simply means that you have to present changes well, giving *lots* of valid underlying motivation and time to get used to them. The biggest problem is that changes *tend* to be sprung on the populace, with little real warning or reason to believe that these changes are actually necessary. (Much less a chance to give their opinions.) I credit the current Board as being reasonably sensitive to these issues, but that *is* a change from the norm... >Again, I agree completely. But even the Ozibod, which *is* a >completely separate corporation, leaves a lot of stuff (like >membership revocation) up to us. Is that really the way we want it? I >think it should be a case of "they're your member - you deal with it". >How independent do you want these corps to be? yeah, they should be >dealing with their own administrative problems but I'm not entirely >sure a lot of them would want to. Probably true -- but *somebody's* got to make the hard decisions, and the Ozibod isn't any more likely to be arbitrary or foolish than the US Board is; it's certainly more likely to well-informed about What's Going On There. *Provided* it's reasonably well-structured -- there's an important caveat throughout all of this that, if handled badly, decentralization of decision-making *can* make things far worse. But done well, it could make them a good deal better, by spreading out the workload and pushing decisions closer to the people affected by them... >Were any of you present at the Board Social at 30YC? Our discussion >with the member from Drachenwald was quite enlightening I was there for the first hour or so (during the big Equestrian Rules discussion), then got called off to do something else. I don't remember this discussion, so it probably happened later on... > - she seemed >to think we should be in the business of telling everyone what they >should be doing rather than leaving it up to the kingdom members to >replace their own lousy officers. Well, it's worth noting that *anywhere*, there are going to be people who dislike their local officers, and wish someone would overrule them, as well as people who just naturally like homogeneity and centralization. That's the case now, and it's always going to be the case -- it's human nature. That doesn't make the opinion universal, nor is it a driving argument for micromanagement, which usually makes things worse. (And I think our structure has powerful natural forces towards micromanagement; the only thing resisting those forces is the sheer impossibility of doing so too much.) > And Drachenwald would be my first >choice for another separate incorporation. But are multiple >dysfunctional corporations better than 1? Honestly -- yes. A more *local* dysfunctional corporation is at least closer to the people affected, which gives them a bit more of a feeling that they have some influence to fix it. As I've said before, one of the big problems we have is that the Board (and the Corporation in general) are so *distant* to the average member that they feel no connection to it at all, neither a motivation to help out nor a feeling that they can. But the more local the government, the more people are likely to get involved; that's a truism in Mundania, and just as much so here. I'm not going to seriously suggest micro-devolution of power, down to the shire level (although, in my heart of hearts, I suspect it would work best), but pulling things closer to people, and giving a feeling of influence, is likely to make them want to get more involved in fixing them... (And yes, I'll acknowledge the downside here: it means that the politics can get more local as well. Again, checks and balances are needed, with the global level generally making sure that the local corporations and Kingdoms don't get tyrranical, but *also* with the vast majority of the work happening at those local levels, not at an over-burdened and expensive center...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "The 'Raven of Regret'(tm) appear courtesy of the Novgorod Arctic Petting Zoo, where you can meet such other cuddly characters as: 'The Lemmings of Self-Loathing' 'The Wolverine of Career Indescision' 'The Mole of Vague Disquiet' 'The Hedge Hog of Abject Resignation' 'The Muskox of Grim Determination' 'The Snow Geese of Poiniant Longing' and lets not forget 'The Ice Weasels of Unrequited Love'" -- Balderik From Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com Wed Aug 28 16:49:36 1996 Return-Path: To: Mark Waks Cc: SCAGC-L From: Carolyn Richardson Date: 28 Aug 96 13:50:53 Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain Well, I'm not going to quote the entire note since I agree with you on most of it, at least partially if not totally. Just a couple things: >(And I think our structure has powerful natural forces >towards micromanagement; the only thing resisting those forces is the >sheer impossibility of doing so too much.) I personally would like to steer away from that - I get too much of it here at work :-P (we call our boss "Captain Micro"). And it doesn't get anything done anyway - it just bogs you down. >Honestly -- yes. A more *local* dysfunctional corporation is at least >closer to the people affected, which gives them a bit more of a >feeling that they have some influence to fix it. , but pulling things >closer to people, and giving a feeling of influence, is likely to make >them want to get more involved in fixing them... Maybe, Justin, but what if we were talking about separate incorporations for the Domestic Kingdoms rather than the international corporations? I don't know what it's like in your kingdom, but I was a kingdom officer here in Caid for over 3 years, and around here it was a case of "Let the Kingdom Officers handle it - I don't want to get involved". I can't see that getting any better when there's both the officer corps AND a corporate Board to deal with things. Smaller groups tend to feel kind of isolated from the Kingdom, not just the Board. If everyone is so much more willing to get involved on a local level why do we have such a hard time getting people into the local officer positions? I've known a lot of shires/cantons that died because they couldn't get enough people to fill out the minimal officer roster, even tho they had enough members to maintain the shire. I've also known a lot of officers who had to stay in the job longer than they wanted to or should have simply because they couldn't find anyone willing to take their job. And this was all on the local level. So while you can assume it would be better on a smaller scale, I don't think reality holds true all the time. I think a good portion of people who join the SCA do so to have fun, and have fun only. They don't want to get involved any deeper than that - and I don't have a problem with that. Just keep in mind that the more committees or Boards you create, the more people you need to fill them. And we have trouble filling the one Board we have now, not to mention keeping the committees afloat. Tetchubah From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 29 05:16:34 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:05:01 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >... Were any of you present at the >Board Social at 30YC? Our discussion with the member from Drachenwald was >quite enlightening - she seemed to think we should be in the business of te >lling everyone what they should be doing rather than leaving it up to the >kingdom members to replace their own lousy officers. ... Huh??? Is this a case of the Devil reading the Scriptures, or is my English really that bad? (I'm the aforementioned member from Drachenwald.) Like it or not, dear Board member, from our perspective you already *are* in the business of telling everyone what they should be doing, however incorrect or undesirable this may be. What I was trying to point out at 3YC was the *fact* that far too many of our officers have been socialized into an attitude of obedience in a top-down structure, and that they *will not* ask for or consider input from the populace, or question directives from their superiors, unless someone higher-up in the hierarchy tells them to do so. The recent Nordmark upheaval has led to a renewed tendency in some officers to "bend over backwards" to prove that we are good little Scadians after all, an attitude that certainly doesn't stimulate a critical turn of mind. This is simply my observation, not a trend I endorse or in any way find appealing. Incidentally, kingdom or principality members have no legal means to replace "their own lousy officers". Officers are *appointed*, as we may read in article VI.C.1.c.1 and 4 of SCA Corpora: (1) Appointment and Warranting: Great Officers of State are nominated by the Crown after due consultation with the outgoing officer, the Seneschal, and any other appropriate Great Officer. The appointments take effect when and if ratified by the corresponding Corporate Officer by countersignature of the warrant. If there is no Corporate Officer, the Crown shall act unilaterally. (2) Resignation: ... (3) Expiration of Term of Service: ... (4) Removal for Cause: Great Officers of State may be removed for cause by joint action of the Crown and the corresponding Corporate Officer. An officer so removed may appeal to the Board. If a Great Officer has no corporate superior, the Crown may act unilaterally according to the laws and customs of the kingdom; appeals may be directed to the Board via the Society Seneschal. Also, in VI.C.1.a.1 we see that: (1) Great Officers are responsible directly to the Crown for the execution of their duties. A Great Officer having a counterpart at the corporate level is also responsible to that Corporate Officer. The responsibility includes the duty to report regularly on the kingdom's development and activities, and those of its component branches. Note that nothing is said about officers being responsible to the kingdom's populace. There is absolutely no defined procedure for the membership to influence the Crown's and the Society Officers' appointment and removal of kingdom officers. Under these circumstances, how kingdom members should go about replacing "their own lousy officers" escapes me. In Service /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 29 09:55:43 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:46:03 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah writes: << Just keep in mind that the more committees or Boards you create, the more people you need to fill them. And we have trouble filling the one Board we have now, not to mention keeping the committees afloat. >> True, but a significant factor is that many sensible people consider a term on the current Board the equivalent of several years of purgatory. And not without good cause. With better distribution of workload, it needn't be quite as daunting. So more positions, but with less onerous duties, might actually be easier to fill. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 29 10:36:27 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:21:51 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Comments: To: Carolyn_Richardson@notes.cch.com To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <9608282051.AA1618@notes.cch.com> (message from Carolyn Richardson on 28 Aug 96 13:50:53) Tetchubah writes: >Maybe, Justin, but what if we were talking about separate incorporations for >the Domestic Kingdoms rather than the international corporations? (Which I would love to see, but I regard that as a matter for another day; the international problems are a little more pressing, and the proposed structures would allow us to gradually devolve power domestically...) >I don't know what it's like in your kingdom, but I was a kingdom >officer here in Caid for over 3 years, and around here it was a case >of "Let the Kingdom Officers handle it - I don't want to get >involved". True, but in my experience far *less* true than at the Corporate level. I know a helluva lot more people who are willing to contemplate working at the Kingdom level than the Corporate, and a helluva lot more who actually *do*... (Also, in my experience, this varies a lot from Kingdom to Kingdom, job to job, and time to time. Certain jobs tend to be hard to get people involved with, because they are perceived as especially daunting, but that usually means that the *job* is broken; I've seen such cases fixed, and things have gotten a lot better afterwards. And in general, I've found that the number of people who get actively involved at the Kingdom level here is pretty high; that may have something subtle to do with Kingdom culture...) >If everyone is so much more willing to get involved on a local level >why do we have such a hard time getting people into the local officer >positions? I've known a lot of shires/cantons that died because they couldn't >get enough people to fill out the minimal officer roster, even tho they had >enough members to maintain the shire. True, but those are the exceptions, far more than the rule. And look at the per-capita numbers. The number of people who volunteer to help out at the Corporate level is what, maybe one in a thousand per capita? Something in that ballpark, anyway. In my experience, the people willing to help with offices at the local level tends to be at least one in ten, and in a healthy group usually more like one in five. (Between all of its guilds, boroughs, and cantons, Carolingia must have something like seventy or eighty officers at one level or another.) The Kingdom level is somewhere between those extremes. I think we could find enough people willing to fill a "Kingdom Board", *provided* the job wasn't as overworked as the Corporate Board now is... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Oh, sure -- side with the dead people again, just because there are more of them." -- from Secrets of the Necronomicon From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Aug 29 11:57:29 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Priority: normal X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.33) Approved-By: Susan Earley Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:45:30 +0000 Reply-To: ghita@IX.NETCOM.COM Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Comments: Authenticated sender is From: Susan Earley Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I gotta tell ya, being on the Board is 1/5th the work of a Kingdom Officer. (surprised me too!) Justin wrote: > True, but in my experience far *less* true than at the Corporate level. > I know a helluva lot more people who are willing to contemplate working > at the Kingdom level than the Corporate, and a helluva lot more who > actually *do*... > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Maestra Margherita Alessia, called Ghita Member # 32315 Susan Earley Shire of Rokkehealdan [SW Chicago Suburbs] ghita@netcom.com Brookfield, IL "Not a Duchess, but I play one on TV" Treasurer, 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 Thu Aug 29 13:42:42 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:29:40 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... Comments: To: ghita@IX.NETCOM.COM To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <199608291546.IAA14944@dfw-ix1.ix.netcom.com> (message from Susan Earley on Thu, 29 Aug 1996 10:45:30 +0000) Ghita writes: >I gotta tell ya, being on the Board is 1/5th the work of a Kingdom >Officer. (surprised me too!) Interesting; that indicates (hopefully) that things are improving. Certainly that isn't what most of the members of the Board were saying a couple of years ago. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the fact that y'all are much more conscious of these level-of-work issues, and are being more disciplined about *not* micromanaging. (Of course, not being in the middle of a Massive Crisis probably helps, too.) It also, though, indicates that those Kingdom offices need some work. That happens. A few years ago, the then-incumbent Brigantia Herald (chief Herald of the East) discovered that, due to the well-known excessive workload of the job, *no one* was willing to take it over from him. He wound up spending an extra term, mostly rebuilding the office so that it is now *far* better delegated. Now, according to his successor, the job takes only a few hours a month, instead of tens of hours a week. The point being that these things *can* be fixed, but it requires someone who realizes that there's a problem, and has the creativity to change the Way Things Work... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "For a real hoot, read the pretentious intros to the _Complete_Crumb_ volumes. In one he goes on about how he's tapped into the same dark collective unconscious whatchamacallit as the post-depression-era funny-animal comics, and then there's this book full of animals being beaten on. In the next book he talks about introducing "sex" to his comix, and then there's this book full of women being beaten on. The next book the "sex" is now "hot 'n' heavy," which seems to mean that naked women are being beaten on." -- Jym Dyer From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 11:05:24 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:39:43 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I'm trying to catch up on the GC mail, so if I'm behind the curve, sorry! Tetchubah asked: >> On item #1 regarding a committee to recommend changes to the >> Corpora and Bylaws, isn't that what the Interkingdom Advisory >> Council is already set up to do (and has been doing?). My understanding is that the IAC is supposed to advise as to changes to The Game, and the GC is supposed to advise as to changes to the Business. Banishment is Game. Interaction between corporate entities is Business. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 11:16:04 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 10:59:01 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Where to go from here To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah said: >> I think the problem isn't so much the lack of power by >> the IAC to influence the Board, but the lack of interest >> on the part of most of the membership to get involved >> with commenting or participating in this level. Justin replied, in part: >> .... you're also certainly correct here; the populace *is* >> broadly apathetic, except when a Great Crisis arises. This >> is damned unfortunate, in that it means that the Board >> rarely knows that a problem is going to arise until it >> has already done so. Yes, yes, and yes. I think that most people just want to Play The Game, and only care about edicts from the Board if they interfere, or are perceived as being too onerous. Jutin later said that: >> One start on that is to recognize that it is faintly loony >> for a US corporation, which is highly driven by the way the >> US does things, to be running things for many other countries. More than that: Doing so without regard to the other countries' laws and how they affect its business in that country. I think I've made it clear that I think the way the SCA, Inc., has handled being in other countries is more than "faintly loony," but that's speaking from my background as a corporate lawyer. >> We should instead give those countries their heads to run >> things administratively as makes sense in their country >> (which may well be *very* different from the way we do it >> here), and instead concentrate on keeping the *game* broadly >> compatible internationally. YES!!!!! There should be one group for the corporations, to iron out issues raised by them having to work together, transfer funds, etc., and another group to oversee the mutual compatibility of The Game. Galleron pointed out that, regarding problems with filling Board positions: >> ....a significant factor is that many sensible people consider >> a term on the current Board the equivalent of several years of >> purgatory. And not without good cause. >> With better distribution of workload, it needn't be quite as >> daunting. So more positions, but with less onerous duties, >> might actually be easier to fill. The amount of work, and the demand of meetings, can still anyone's enthusiasm. (And I speak as someone who sits on Boards and governing bodies, one of which chronically strains to achieve quorum.) Alternatives to in-person service should be considered. And I think a better means of finding members than self-appointment must be found. Time to go, I'll comment more later. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 12:35:38 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 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 11:30:23 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960830143942_72672.2312_FHP80-1@CompuServe.COM> from "Margo Lynn Hablutzel" at Aug 30, 96 10:39:43 am My understanding is that the IAC is supposed to advise as to changes to The Game, and the GC is supposed to advise as to changes to the Business. Banishment is Game. Interaction between corporate entities is Business. I'm uncertain whether banishment is purely a game phenomenon. It is used (both in the current practice, and under the proposed regulations) as both a "within game" censure, and as a response to modern problems. Consider the distinctions between the current level 1, and level 3 banishments. And the confusion between a banishment instituted purely by the Board, versus one instituted by a Crown. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 15:30:20 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 15:09:59 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tetchubah wrote: << I agree completely - not everything should be appealable to the Bod. But face reality -we've been doing it that way for so long don't you think that there might be more than a few complaints if you change it with the World Council from which there is no appeal? I know a lot of the members are apathetic, but I think a change like that is asking for trouble. >> If there was broad satisfaction with the status quo, this would be more of a risk. But the truth is that there are a significant number ot of folks who don't like the current arrangement. Some feel a white-hot loathing, others only a mild dissatisfaction. But you can be sure that you'll get more than a few complaints if you keep the current system, too. The GC is a pretty diverse group. The fact that most of the councilors that expressed an opinion liked the World Council concept better than something closer to the status quo suggests that the rest of the Society might feel the same way. In any case, I am suggesting that we poll the general membership before we go ahead with the idea. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 19:34:01 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: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 19:20:25 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Pardon me for interrupting... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Galleron said >In any case, I am suggesting that we poll the general membership before we go >ahead with the idea. Oh, great; another populace poll..... Umm, Galleron? Who's "we" - we the council, we the SCA, we the Board? And "go ahead" when? Now; before we finalize our vote; after we vote on it, before we present it to the Board; after the Board discusses it, before they vote on it...... In other words, what exactly are you asking for, here. Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 21:21:54 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 20:59:42 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Proposed Corpora Change To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM By-the-bye, did the rest of you see this? --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- The Board of Directors proposes to amend Corpora VI.A.2.a.5 and requests comment from the membership. The section currently reads: "The Crown may acknowledge attainment of Ducal, County or Viscounty rank by those who have met the requirements. The privilege of acknowledging Viscounty rank is designed for use when the Coronet is unavailable, as at the conclusion of a principality." The proposed change is to delete the word "may" in the first sentence and to replace it with the word "shall." Any with comments on the proposed change should send them in writing to the Member Services office (address elsewhere in this newsletter) before 7 October 1996. Carol B. O'Leary / Melisande de Belvoir From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Aug 30 22:01:20 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: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 21:45:12 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Galleron's proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Presuming that the commentary is separated from the proposal when the whole schmear is submitted to the Board, I have no major complaints about it. There are minor quibbles, mind you, but it's something I could live with for now, at least until the next Major Revision..... One thing I'd like to see is some sort of carryover for some of the game rules. When the World Thingummy gets set up enough to start discussing the Charter, I'd prefer to see them import wholesale the appropriate sections of Corpora (e.g., the section, as mentioned, on the baronage). This would keep certain things going, and provide at least some continuity..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 02:17:10 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: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 00:34:57 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Proposed Corpora Change To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Hmmmm...... "The privilege of acknowledging Viscounty rank is designed for use when the Coronet is unavailable, as at the conclusion of a principality." The way this is written, I take it to mean that when a principality dissolves and becomes a kingdom, the Coronet sort of dissolves into nothingness, and becomes "unavailable". In other words, if the Prince and Princess have had a successful reign, watched their Principality become a kingdom, they become nonpersons, right, and therefore they have no right to Viscountydom? Jeez, this could be worded a lot better: principalities conclude, and coronets automatically discover themselves unavailable........ Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 09:52:25 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:35:00 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Appeals To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >From a message by Techubah: >> >Which is the whole point -- that stuff shouldn't *be* appealable to >> >the Board. One of the broadest general problems the SCA now has is >> >that every single buck lands on the Board's desk; it acts >> >simultaneously as the legislature, judiciary, and all-too-often >> >executive in every aspect of the Society. And we are structured so >> >that that *must* happen, because *everything* can be appealed to the >> >Board. That's crazy; I don't know any other organization of nearly our >> >size that is anywhere near that centralized. > I agree completely - not everything should be appealable to the Bod. But face > reality -we've been doing it that way for so long don't you think that there > might be more than a few complaints if you change it with the World Council > from which there is no appeal? I know a lot of the members are apathetic, but > I think a change like that is asking for trouble. You can't appeal from the US Supreme Court to the Congress. At some point, you stop appeals, and everybody has to live with the result. There should be some InterKingdom body in the SCA to which things are appealed other than the Board. I still like my suggestion of a pool of members from each Kingdom who are randomly selected to make the panels (5 or 7 on a panel is workable) for any issue which is appealed to that body. Members from the affected Kingdom(s) are disqualified from the pool. If necessary for a review, I suppose it can be done "en banc" which is legalese Latin for "by the entire panel." Members of the pool are appointed for 2 or 3 year terms, but of course have no work to do unless and until there is an appeal and they are chosen for the panel. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 09:52:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:35:07 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Officers, Responsibility, and their Replacement To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Catrin pointed out, with citations, that: >> Note that nothing is said about officers being responsible >> to the kingdom's populace. There is absolutely no defined >> procedure for the membership to influence the Crown's and >> the Society Officers' appointment and removal of kingdom >> officers. Under these circumstances, how kingdom members >> should go about replacing "their own lousy officers" escapes me. This is one of the things that needs fixing. Of course, YMMV depending upon Kingdom and he personality; having lived, more-or-less, in three and visited many others, I have gotten some very interesting perspectives. I note, though, that it works the other way also. I have sat at Officer meetings where people have questioned why they need to report up, since they get no feedback from their superiors, not even acknowledgement of receipt. (I usually fix that by including a SASP, at least with Domesdays.) I know that Kingdom adn Regional officers can be overworked, but without workign with the layers below them, they will find themselves ignored. I have heard people say things along the lines that they have done things in their own way for X past Kingdom officers, and aren't going to let this new chit tell them what to do, since Curia positions last only a couple years and the person will be gone soon. I've also read Techubah and Justin's exchanges, and again I say, YMMV. I have visited Caid once, and it wasn't the Mainland. In other Kingdoms (three, anyway), I find a lot less of "let Kingdom handle it," maybe because people feel more closely connected to their constituency and more responsible to them for things that are or aren't done. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 09:53:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:35:23 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Proposed Corpora Change To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Alban mused: >> "The privilege of acknowledging Viscounty rank is >> designed for use when the Coronet is unavailable, >> as at the conclusion of a principality." >> The way this is written, I take it to mean that when a principality >> dissolves and becomes a kingdom, the Coronet sort of dissolves into >> nothingness, and becomes "unavailable". In other words, if the Prince >> and Princess have had a successful reign, watched their Principality >> become a kingdom, they become nonpersons, right, and therefore they >> have no right to Viscountydom? I don't think so. If you have no Coronet available to confer the title of Viscounty upon those who have just reigned, because the Principality is now a Kingdom, you need *somebody* who can acknowledge the work done by those who have taken the final steps off the Coronet thrones. Viscounty, County, and Ducal are not titles where you have to think if the person is in any way qualified, they just HAPPEN. The SCA equivalent of Gold Watches (as GoA's are for Midrealm Great Officers, and other examples). All you need is someone to confer it, or maybe more properly acknowledge it. In another message, about Galleron's Proposal, Alban said: >> One thing I'd like to see is some sort of carryover for some of >> the game rules. When the World Thingummy gets set up enough >> to start discussing the Charter, I'd prefer to see them import >> wholesale the appropriate sections of Corpora (e.g., the >> section, as mentioned, on the baronage). This would keep >> certain things going, and provide at least some continuity..... I think this would have to happen. We wouldn't be breaking what doesn't need fixing, and we would need to ensure continuity of titles and other things that seem to be working. But maybe a more clear way to have those sections working.....? This leads to a point of mine: much of the game-stuff, like titles, doesn't need fixing. That can just continue to happen. The things that need fixing are the structural nderpinnings that most people don't see. Take the analogy of a house: we like the decorating, but the wood is full of termites. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 09:53:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:35:35 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Voting Totals To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > Fiacha wrote: > << Yes and no. At this point, I have given up the concept of voting for > specifics. We can vote on generalities and I believe that, in the past, > doing so has restored some focus. Voting on specifics destroys focus > because we are too diverse in our opinions on such matters. >> Galleron responded: > I disagree. When voting was last halted it was because Flieg, Tibor, Hossein, > and Corwyn felt that the existing proposals, respectively, were "unfinished", > needed "more discussion", were 'incomplete', and needed to be "more > complete". For the others, the votes were: > In what way did this show an inability to focus on specific proposals? I agree with Galleron. My suggestion would be to take the proposals which gained the highest percentage of approval (Alysoun's, Finnvarr's, Galleron's and Solveig's, all of which had 50% or more approval rating) and work with them to reach a solid proposal. For the items which are common, you tell the Board, "we have four proposals which gained at least 50% approval, and these are in all of them." For the rest, you tell the Board "this was in threeof the four" or "this is an element on which there is no agreement, and we have the following four proposals:" Does anyone have all four proposals handy, with a database or spreadsheet, to set this up? It would be a bit of work, but not oppressive. (Actually, I might have time to do it next week, since a trial was cancelled due to some last-minute marathon negotiations, if nobody else will.) This is how we've crunched some legislative and other proposals, in The Real World. ---= Morgan (taking the weekend OFF) |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 11:27:06 1996 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 662 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 08:10:01 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Proposed Corpora Change To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <01I8WN1NNASI8YBHW7@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Aug 31, 96 00:34:57 am Cathal to All, Greetings:: This portion of "Corpora" could benefit from the proposed rewriting. However, in actual practice, would the advancement to Kingdom simply be covered by the action of the prior proprietary Crown in the bestowal? When Meridies advanced to Kingdom the last Prince "completed" his reign and was bestowed "Viscount" by the Crown of Arenveldt. The Tanist then came forward and was created first King of Meridies and. Remember that the Territorial Prince exercises no sovereign right of bestowal. Any award is ultimately given in the name of and under the authority of the Crown. However clarification never hurts. Salvete, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 14:12:50 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: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 13:52:52 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Officers, Responsibility, and their Replacement To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM As long as we're talking officers and resonsibility and even pet peeves....... (Short rant follows, not really applicable to This List, but what the hell ) I note that there are a couple of kingdoms (An Tir comes to mind) which publish notes of what happened in the local equivalent of Curia meetings. You note, Board minutes for each Kingdom. I have never seen any note of what happened in a Calontir Witan meeting. I wonder: would publishing such notes regularly for _every_ kingdom help in making officers more responsive (not responsible, mind you, but responsive) to the needs of the populace? The officers get regular reports from group officers; how often does the reverse happen? In short, information flows up in a neverending stream. What can be done to help information flow _down_? (rant off) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 14:22:48 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: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 13:57:46 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Proposed Corpora Change To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM A minor argument continues Morgan said I don't think so. If you have no Coronet available to confer the title of Viscounty upon those who have just reigned, because the Principality is now a Kingdom, you need *somebody* who can acknowledge the work done by those who hav e taken the final steps off the Coronet thrones. Hmmmm. ARe viscomital titles granted by the new Coronets as a function of their office, or as a function of the Crown letting them grant the titles? In other words, from whom does the final authority flow from - the new coronet, the Crown, or the Board? (Analogy: AoA's come from the Crown, but there are some Crowns who delegate that authority to some Coronets and /or very occasionally Territorial Baronage. So is the viscomital "award"/ "rank"/"gold watch" native to Coronets, or assigned to them?) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 20:33:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 20:15:29 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Officers, Responsibility, and their Replacement To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I think that as to the question of who can bestow the title of Viscounty, I shall defer to Cathal. (Not being into title mesel' I"ve never paid much attention.) So that ends that "minor argument" that Alban was continuing. With regard to his other message, the one on this thread, in which Alban observed: >> I note that there are a couple of kingdoms (An Tir comes >> to mind) which publish notes of what happened in the local >> equivalent of Curia meetings. You note, Board minutes for >> each Kingdom. >> I wonder: would publishing such notes regularly for _every_ >> kingdom help in making officers more responsive (not respon- >> sible, mind you, but responsive) to the needs of the populace? An interesting concept. Does it help? Only if they also take feedback on what is contained in their minutes. I suppose if people have a question, they can go to the appropriate Officer and say "I saw this in the Curia/Witan minutes, what's the man-on-the-street translation?" Of course, how often do we get to do that to the Board? It still takes weeks for the minutes to get out, and that's only to subscribers. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 20:46:07 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 20:27:14 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Contacting the Board; New topic for consideration To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Looks like this was sent to every list but this one, so in case you missed it on your home list....and I took the liberty of correcting her typo. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- Message-Id: <199608312150.OAA15701@hal.lloyd.com> From: "Pat McGregor" To: "northshield@stolaf.edu sca-west" , outlands , sca-aethelmearc@andrew.cmu.edu, ansteorra@eden.com, antir@mail.orst.edu, atenveldt@atenveldt.org, eurbanik@leo.vsla.edu, calontir@unl.edu, jaymin@maths.tcd.ie, lochac@leopard.cs.latrobe.cs.edu.au, meridies@web.ce.utk.edu, northshield@stolaf.edu, sca-east@world.std.com, sca-crosston@netcom.com cc: webfolk@sca.org, directors@sca.org Subject: Contacting the Board; New topic for consideration Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:49:55 -0700 Sender: pat@hal.lcp.livingston.com Precedence: bulk Greetings from siobhan medhbh o'roarke, one of the maintainers of the SCA online presence. [SCA List digesters and Maintainers, please forward to your lists if they are not listed above. Thanks!] I am very happy to tell you that we have made it possible for you to write to the Board electronically without needing to know all their electronic mail addresses, or needing to know exactly who is sitting on the Board at any given moment. You can write to the Board at: directors@sca.org Other folks you can contact include: Treasurer: treasurer@sca.org Society Seneschal: seneschal@sca.org Chronicler: chronicler@sca.org General Questions about the SCA are answered at: questions@sca.org More of these addresses are in the works. Keep up to date on who is available by reading: http://www.sca.org/contact.html New Projects and Topics: **The IAC has made a new proposal concerning banishment. Read about it (and send commentary to the Board) via: http://www.sca.org/BOD/banish.html **Uncertain what group a given City or state is in? Check out http://www.sca.org/findsca.html **Coming soon: change your address with the Registry via an online form. Watch for details on the SCA web page. For suggestions on the Web site or Online presence, send to: webfolk@sca.org I remain, in Service, siobhan ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Aug 31 22:12:22 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: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 21:57:48 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Officers, Responsibility, and their Replacement To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Morgan wonders if getting out the kingdoms' great officers' meetings would help. I answer: I don't know one way or the other; but then, back before I subscribed to the Board minutes, i would have said "I dunno" as well. Most kingdoms, I imagine, are run reasonably well, with very little going on that the Populace aboslutely, positively needs to know about. But, nevertheless, I remain curious as to what goes on Up There: how money is spent, what sorts of injuries occur on the listfields and in wars (not specifics, just what categories of injuries and broad numbers...), what problems the seneschal's heard about dealing with site owners..... There's a lot of information out there that I'm just mildly curious about, about the running of things, and I'd like to see that information spread around more. .....And there's always the case that there may be The One Great Discussion Behind Closed Doors that I'm paranoid about. It's a philosophy: open meetings, with published minutes available to everyone, tend to reach fewer really atrocious decisions than closed meetings with The Officers Only Dribbling Out Information that Us Ignorant Many Won't Have Background to Understand. (I grew up, in Washington D.C., in the 60's. Does it show?) Alban. PS - Yes, I know I worded that strongly, but the principle still holds: open meetings are a good thing, and closed meetings/no minutes, tend to drive us paranoid people crazy. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Sep 1 00:11:11 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 Content-Length: 1211 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 20:53:07 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Proposed Corpora Change To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <01I8XF2KTO9K8X5VRQ@delphi.com> from "Alban St. Albans" at Aug 31, 96 01:57:46 pm > > A minor argument continues > Morgan said > I don't think so. If you have no Coronet available to confer the title of > Viscounty upon those who have just reigned, because the Principality is now a > Kingdom, you need *somebody* who can acknowledge the work done by those who hav > e > taken the final steps off the Coronet thrones. > > Hmmmm. ARe viscomital titles granted by the new Coronets as a function > of their office, or as a function of the Crown letting them grant the titles? > In other words, from whom does the final authority flow from - the new > coronet, the Crown, or the Board? (Analogy: AoA's come from the Crown, but > there are some Crowns who delegate that authority to some Coronets and > /or very occasionally Territorial Baronage. So is the viscomital "award"/ > "rank"/"gold watch" native to Coronets, or assigned to them?) > > Alban > Only the Crown has the right to bestow awards which in their turn bestow precedence. The subrogation of the actual act of bestowal to another hand is permitted by, as I recall, the written authorization of the Crown. The Coronets are only agents and have no bestowal authority not specifically authorized by the Crown. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Sep 1 21:37:59 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 1996 21:21:16 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: SCA Crossroads To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- Unto the gentles of the Known World doth Angus mac Taggart, virtual scribe for the SCA Crossroads, bid greetings. The Crossroads to the Society for Creative Anachronism is a WebSite that hosts links to every kingdom in the SCA, as well as, the baronies, shires, cantons, colleges, etc. that compose these kingdoms. It has links to items of interest, including heraldry, cooking, brewing, historical sites, and so forth. I would like to add commercial sites that deal with items of interest to the populace of the Known World. In general, I would like the SCA Crossroads to be a crossroads in much more than name only. One should find at least one link to anything that she or he is looking for. I have been working on these Crossroads for over 6 months. I have much more to do, but I would appreciate comments, criticisms, and suggestions for improvements and additions to these Crossroads. The address to the Crossroads is http://www.eden.com/~aquinas/sca/sca.html In service to the Barony of Bryn Gwlad, the Kingdom of Ansteorra, and The Dream. Angus mac Taggart ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Angus mac Taggart aquinas@eden.com http://www.eden.com/~aquinas/sca/sca.html 400 W. Anderson Ln. # 5209, Austin TX 78752 512.837.6688 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Sep 2 15:51:26 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Mon, 2 Sep 1996 15:34:17 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Banishment Proposals -- Alternate Received To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM --------------- Forwarded Message --------------- Greetings from siobhan, one of the keepers of the SCA, Inc., website. The Board has received an alternate Banishment proposal from William Colbert. It is posted (along with the one from the IAC) at http://www.sca.org/BOD List distributors, please forward to your lists. Also, I cannot post to the Outlands, Middlebridge, or Lochac lists, so if some kind soul will cross-post this there, I'd appreciate. Please read and send your comments on both these proposals to the Board. Thank you! siobhan m. ====================================================== Siobhan Medhbh O'Roarke / Pat McGregor/ siobhan@lloyd.com House Northmark, Mountain's Gate, Cynagua, The West http://www.lloyd.com/~patmcg/sca.index.html From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Sep 3 13:01:42 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 3 Sep 1996 09:36:16 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Galleron's proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <01I8WH4CG9RS8YBUWT@delphi.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Fri, 30 Aug 1996, Alban St. Albans wrote: > One thing I'd like to see is some sort of carryover for some of > the game rules. > ... This would keep > certain things going, and provide at least some continuity..... > > Alban Given that the board is engaged in a major revision of Corpora, I would recommend that hand over the results of the revision, or that the World Council adopt the revision as their basis. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 4 11:20:52 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:05:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: What I'm Asking For... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Alban writes: << Oh, great; another populace poll..... Umm, Galleron? Who's "we" - we the council, we the SCA, we the Board? And "go ahead" when? Now; before we finalize our vote; after we vote on it, before we present it to the Board; after the Board discusses it, before they vote on it...... In other words, what exactly are you asking for, here. Alban >> OK. I'm asking that the Council approve my proposal in principal, and support the following recomendation: I'm asking the Board to approve it in principal, conditional on the development of a complete implementation plan and the assent of the Society. Before the Board actually puts the thing in place, I'd like the Society polled, or at the very least sufficient comment received so that it is clear that the Society is solidly behind the notion. Before the Board either asks for comments or polls the membership, I'd like to hear the comments of the Board, because they may have some useful suggestions that might inspire some changes in the final draft. Or they may reveal places where I've been either insufficiently persuasive in my argument or unclear. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 4 12:11:53 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 11:56:21 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Galleron: What I'm Asking For... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I don't have a vote, Galleron, but I think that's the right way to go. Without feedback from the Board, we're just flailing in the dark at this point. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com If you think SCA or gaming people dress funny, try going to a political convention! From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 4 19:33:22 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: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 19:23:38 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Galleron: What I'm Asking For... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM As I think I said earlier, I can live with Galleron's proposal.... So, I guess I also support taking the next step, which is to get feedback from the Board - either by submitting the thing as a formal proposal, or sending it to them with a very strongly worded "suggestion" for further information? (I prefer the formal proposal, since we're running out of time.) Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 4 19:33:50 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <960827110538_466365454@emout08.mail.aol.com> with last message <960827110538_466365454@emout08.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: Wed, 4 Sep 1996 18:43:36 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/27 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960827110538_466365454@emout08.mail.aol.com> No I would not support this proposal. -Modius e-mail: modius@cityscope.net web page: www.cityscope.net/~modius From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 5 03:37:49 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 09:30:00 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Galleron: What I'm Asking For... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Alban says: >As I think I said earlier, I can live with Galleron's proposal.... >So, I guess I also support taking the next step, which is to >get feedback from the Board - either by submitting the thing >as a formal proposal, or sending it to them with a very >strongly worded "suggestion" for further information? > >(I prefer the formal proposal, since we're running out of time.) I agree completely. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 6 02:28:17 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 Content-Length: 486 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:53:55 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Galleron: What I'm Asking For... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: from "Janna G. Spanne" at Sep 5, 96 09:30:00 am > > Alban says: > >As I think I said earlier, I can live with Galleron's proposal.... > >So, I guess I also support taking the next step, which is to > >get feedback from the Board - either by submitting the thing > >as a formal proposal, or sending it to them with a very > >strongly worded "suggestion" for further information? > > > >(I prefer the formal proposal, since we're running out of time.) > > I agree completely. > /Catrin Make that a third affirmative vote. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Sep 8 19:42:27 1996 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: INTERNET"scagc-l@listserv.aol.com" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Sun, 8 Sep 1996 19:31:32 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Where are we? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Having gone over what files I've kept on our discussions since we started lo these many, many months ago, I was wondering what the status is of the following areas/topics of discussion? (Status as regards our internal processes, whether we've submitted formal proposals to the Board, and what actions, if any, the Board has taken.) Territoriality Outsourcing Membership Board election, impeachment, and removal Moving corporate offices to a lower rent district I seem to remember some of these getting a hell of a lot of discussion (board election, for example), but can't for the life of me remember the Board doing anything about them. Anyone have any better information? Alban, who wonders if anything we do will even get talked about Up There From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Sep 9 03:19:03 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:09:33 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: A Proposal: Time Period Cutoff To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM > I agree, but only because I would have to seriously argue for cutting it >back to 1485 or earlier to rid the SCA of the pernicious Renaissance >influence which is eroding true medieval values.... More precisely, to the liberation of Constantinople. David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Sep 9 03:19:48 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 00:09:37 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/28 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I am about halfway through getting caught up, defined as reading everything from May of this year on, and I thought it was worth posting three comments, two of which are on Galleron's proposal: 1. Generally speaking, I like it. 2. But one quibble >I propose that local SCA corporation should at the very least have the right >to control the appointment, removal, and replacement of Treasurers, >Seneschals, >Marshals, and Chirurgeons within their jurisdiction, since these officers can >impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. This is a little tricky if some of the corporations adopt the federation model (aka mineral collector's model) that I have discussed in the past. Suppose my local corporation is a federation whose members are incorporated or unincorporated baronies. The treasurer of a barony does not impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibility, any more than how I handle my income impacts the SCA Inc.'s fiduciary and legal responsibility at present--the barony is a member of the local corporation, not a part of it, just as I am a member of the SCA Inc. Somehow "within their jurisdiction" should be changed to "responsible for corporate funds" (for treasurers) or some analogous term (I can't think of one) for the general case. Or do you think that "within their jurisdiction" already implies that? 3. There has been a lot of discussion of appeals procedures, controlling rogue crowns, and the like. There seems (at least in what I have read so far) to have been no discussion of whether associated corporations have assigned territories--i.e. whether someone who wants to be part of "the SCA" has to do it through the associated corporation with the "franchise" for where he lives, or can do it through any corporation that will have him. These issues are related. If we don't have assigned territories, then there is an "ultimate resort" for dealing with a really bad corporation that is still "playing the SCA game" (i.e. Atlantia as viewed by Greg--I don't know enough to have an independent opinion). People who don't like it affiliate with another associated corporation--or start one. This is at least an approximation to the period solution of rebellion. In the case of the mineral collectors, incidentally, the regionals have assigned territories, they are not supposed to recruit outside of their territories, but they can accept clubs from outside of their territories if such clubs ask to join them. Obviously there are potential problems with not having assigned territories. My own view is that the advantages are much greater than the problems, but others may differ. Am I right in thinking that, at this point, the question is not being decided either way in our deliberations? Given how little time we have left, it may be best to let this one lie--but I think people should at least think about it, whether or not we include it in whatever we send the board. David/Cariadoc From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Sep 10 03:37:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 9 Sep 1996 15:58:16 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Where are we? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <01I98X67AZOI8X87ST@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban asks about our status in several areas. These are just my recollections, without having checked the archives: >Territoriality Talked about it, but I don't think we got anywhere. This is a semi-religious issue; some folks (eg, Cariadoc and me) really like the notion of loosening the rules, since it would free groups and people from the occasional idiots up top; others regard the notion as anathema. I expect inertia to win, at least for now, so I haven't been pushing it. >Outsourcing Board was supposedly looking into it; I don't recall hearing anything further. >Membership Working Group met and talked for a number of months; extensive archives are available on the Home Page. (Although I should check -- they may still be incomplete.) We never reached a full consensus, although we were hitting some middle-ground conclusions and principles not too awfully different from some of the ideas that have come up during the International Structure discussion. Still could probably use some good writeups and summaries, but at least three members of the WG have gone away, which makes it difficult... >Board election, impeachment, and removal This needs to be examined; I don't remember what state we left this in... >Moving corporate offices to a lower rent district I don't remember talking about this much. Personally, I think it's far too low-level for this group; while it may be a good idea, I don't think it's our bailiwick particularly, and I don't think we would accomplish much on it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: * It can be up or down. It's more fun when it's up, but it makes it hard to get any real work done. -- From "Why the Internet is Like a Penis" (by Degan Dale?) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Sep 10 12:07:31 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 10:02:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Where are we? To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Justin wrote: << >Board election, impeachment, and removal This needs to be examined; I don't remember what state we left this in... >> My memory is that Fiacha sent only the Flieg and Hossein plans up to the Board. Last I heard they had set the issue aside 'to be discussed later" I did send the Board a copy of my universal suffrage proposal as a private individual. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 11 12:38:08 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 12:23:58 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/28 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM David/Cariadoc wrote: "Suppose my local corporation is a federation whose members are incorporated or unincorporated baronies. The treasurer of a barony does not impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibility, any more than how I handle my income impacts the SCA Inc.'s fiduciary and legal responsibility at present--the barony is a member of the local corporation, not a part of it, just as I am a member of the SCA Inc" How about: I propose that local SCA corporations should at the very least have the right to control the appointment, removal, and replacement of officers that impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. Such officers might include Treasurers that control funds of that corporation, Seneschals that administer branches of the corporation, and Marshals and Chirurgeons where those officers might create liabilities for the corporation by their actions or omissions. This should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 11 17:44:22 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:48:01 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Galleron: What I'm Asking For... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM >> >> Alban says: >> >As I think I said earlier, I can live with Galleron's proposal.... >> >So, I guess I also support taking the next step, which is to >> >get feedback from the Board - either by submitting the thing >> >as a formal proposal, or sending it to them with a very >> >strongly worded "suggestion" for further information? >> > >> >(I prefer the formal proposal, since we're running out of time.) >> >> I agree completely. >> /Catrin > > Make that a third affirmative vote. > > Cathal. And a fourth. David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 11 17:46:00 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:48:02 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I have another proposal for something to send to the Board, apropos of some of what we have talked about. This is a draft for comments: ---- We believe that the structure of the society should provide some protection for individual participants against unreasonable acts by their crown or local associated corporation that goes outside the local corporation itself. We suggest choosing one or both of the following two alternatives. 1. Some system by which sufficiently serious decisions, such as banishment, can be appealed outside the local corporation, perhaps to some sort of society-wide court; willingness to follow the judgements of such a court would then be a condition for accepting associated corporations. 2. A structure in which associated corporations do not have unique territories, so that groups or individuals who believe they have been unjustly treated by their local corporation have the option of trying to work under a different associated corporation, or of trying to start their own. ---- We might want to fill this out more; I don't know. But I think it encapsulates what most of us agree on--that this is a potential problem, and that these are the two general approaches to solving it. Comments? David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 11 18:53:53 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 9 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 18:49:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Formal proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I am having trouble getting through to AOL addresses. I agree that Galleron's formal proposal should go to the Board. I think the idea of non-exclusive territories for SCA corporations is too radical to be adopted, even if it were the best scheme. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Sep 11 19:40:14 1996 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: david friedman Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:47:58 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: david friedman Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/28 Comments: cc: Will McLean To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Galleron writes: >How about: > >I propose that local SCA corporations should at the very least have the right >to control the appointment, removal, and replacement of officers that impact >the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. Such officers might >include Treasurers that control funds of that corporation, Seneschals >that administer branches of the corporation, and Marshals and Chirurgeons >where those officers might create liabilities for the corporation by their >actions or omissions. This should become de-facto Board policy as soon >as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory >the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne >and from Milpitas. Sounds fine to me. David/Cariadoc David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 02:51:52 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: "Janna G. Spanne" Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 08:52:56 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Janna G. Spanne" Subject: Re: Galleron: Revised Proposal 8/28 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Galleron writes: > >How about: >... local SCA corporations should at the very least have the right >to control the appointment, removal, and replacement of officers that impact >the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. ... This should >become de-facto >Board policy as soon as possible. ... I like it a lot. /Catrin From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 04:30:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:13:36 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Galleron's proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I'm joining the chorus: Submit it to the Board. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 10:37:00 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 10:36:38 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: (message from david friedman on Wed, 11 Sep 1996 13:48:02 -0800) Cariadoc suggests an addendum, that either "court" decisions should be appealable, or people should have the ability to switch their affiliations, to provide a check on rogue Crowns (and probably more seriously, rogue Corporations). I think the first goes hand-in-glove with Galleron's suggestion (not fully fleshed out) that there be some sort of "Magna Carta", spelling out the rights of citizens. You can't have unlimited appeals to the center, or you get the same morass that we have now. With a document that details some rights, though, we might have some guidance for allowing limited appeals to the center... I concur that non-territoriality is a viable alternative... >We might want to fill this out more; I don't know. Probably not at this point; it's currently at about the same level of detail as most of Galleron's proposal. I think that filling this suggestion in requires a much greater depth of detail everywhere else, to help set the context... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Just how many men are you involved with, Kyriani?" "That depends -- do you mean men as in *males*, or only *humans*?" -- from AD&D From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 12:14:32 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:14:25 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Galleron: Revised Proposal 9/12 To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM I've cleaned up some line problems, put in the change at the end of Section III.D that David/Cariadoc suggested, and added the following to the discussion of the Charter: "While the Charter would not be Corpora in the current sense, wherever appropriate the relevant section of current Corpora, such as the definition of Barons mentioned above, would simply be transferred to the Charter without change to maintain continuity" Those are the only changes since 8/28 PROPOSAL FOR A NEW INTERNATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE SOCIETY Will McLean/Galleron de Cressy Revised 9/12 I. THE PROBLEM In several cases, because of the requirements of local law and custom, members of the Society have found it desirable to set up corporations distinct from the SCA, Inc. corporation based in Milpitas. The Board has agreed that in many cases these corporations are desirable to meet the needs of the Society, and have recognized several on an ad hoc basis. However, there are a number of unresolved issues: 1. Currently, Corpora requires officers of the Society to be members of SCA, Inc.. Participants must be members of SCA, Inc. to count towards the membership requirements for branch size. Where local corporations essentially support all local operations, many participants must hold memberships in both corporations. This is often seen as unnecessary and burdensome. 2. Corpora specifies that the appointment and removal of officers is controlled jointly by the Crown and by officers of SCA, Inc.. This is cumbersome, and frequently creates anomalies in foreign jurisdictions. For example, the Exchequer of Nordmark might be considered either an officer of SCA, Inc. (In which case he controls no money, since SCA, Inc. does not operate or legally exist in Sweden.) or an officer of the Swedish Corp. (In which case he is appointed contrary to Corpora) 3. Currently, while there are several SCA corporations, the rules of the game are controlled by only one. This seems unfair. 4. Currently, the Board of SCA, Inc. not only oversees operations within its jurisdiction, but also controls and interprets the rules of the Society worldwide, has sole responsibility for sanctions against improper Royal actions, and determines which foreign corporations to recognize and what their relation to the Society will be. The Board is seriously overworked. The Board could develop a formal procedure for recognizing affiliated corporations, and rewrite Corpora to allow members of those corporations to be considered members of the Society for purposes of holding Society office and satisfying branch membership totals. Corpora could also allow local corporations to make reasonable regulations to control the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdictions. This would be a useful partial measure, and should be implemented. It would not, however, address problems 3 and 4. The following proposal attempts to outline a solution. This proposal does not address all details of implementation, but does attempt to give a reasonably complete discussion of the core issues. The Council asks the Board to approve it in principal (conditional on the development of a complete implementation proposal, and, at least as important, obtaining the assent of the Society). Failing that, the Board is asked to explain which parts of the plan are unacceptable, and why. II. OUTLINE OF PROPOSAL A World Council is set up, with representatives 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 advice and co-ordination. It recognizes as many mundane governing bodies as are needed to meet legal requirements and the convenience of the Society wherever the SCA operates. SCA, Inc.(US) becomes one of these, and ceases to control the others. The Council recognizes groups that follow the charter. There would be certain advantages to having worldwide publications spun off into a separate organization. This need not be done immediately. In the interim, SCA-Milpitas could continue to produce TI and CA, and make them available to other SCA corporations, at a cost intended to cover both direct costs and a proportionate share of publication overhead. Other SCA corporations would make their publications available on the same terms. SCA-Milpitas might also handle registry functions for other Society corporations, at a mutually agreeable price. Spinning off worldwide publications is not an essential part of this proposal, and this issue may be decided at a later time. III. THE PROPOSAL A. WORLD COUNCIL Every Kingdom and Principality (excluding Crown Principalities) may choose one representative to the World Council, by any method demonstrably agreeable to the members of the 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 reasonable and approved expenses of their representative, and for a share of common expenses. The Council 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 in the current sense, but would define the common customs that a group must follow 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".) While the Charter would not be Corpora in the current sense, wherever appropriate the relevant section of current Corpora, such as the definition of Barons mentioned above, would simply be transferred to the Charter without change to maintain continuity. 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. It would appoint a review panel to consider matters that come before it. In cases of major policy, the panel would submit its recommendation to the whole Council for consideration and approval. B. JURISDICTION 1) JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL I consider the following to legitimately fall into the Jurisdiction of the World Council, or a review committee it appoints: Interpretation of the Great Charter. Questions of conflict with and violations of the Charter. Recognition of SCA Corps. (Are their governing documents consistent with the Charter?) Recognition of Kingdoms and Principalities (Ditto) Matters affecting more than one SCA corp. Matters affecting the whole of the Society. 2) JURISDICTION OF CORPORATIONS SCA mundane governing bodies may be corporations, incorporated federations, associations, etc. For brevity I will refer to the governing bodies simply as corporations, while recognizing that other structures may be possible or desirable. An SCA corporation, or its representatives, would have standing in: Matters effecting the financial and legal integrity of the corporation. Violations of the corporation's governing documents Matters affecting the ability of officers to fulfill the mundane obligations of the corporation Requests for the corporation to employ its mundane coercive powers. Game issues that clearly did not fall into the above categories would not need to be submitted to the corporation before being brought before the World Review Panel. Issues that did, or possibly did, would first be submitted to the corporation or its representatives. They would hand on up questions that were, in their judgment, better decided by the World Review Panel. 3) LOCAL REVIEW Groups would be permitted and encouraged to form review panels at the Kingdom or Principality level. Such panels could operate either within or outside the medieval game structure of the Society. They could be chosen by any method manifestly agreeable to the members of the group, provided that the members of the panel were not subject to royal selection or removal. They would have powers as provided in the appropriate Lesser Charter, provided that they did not conflict with the Charter. Appropriate matters for such bodies to consider would include: Violations of Local Corpora Violations of Kingdom Law Determinations of Questions of Fact Decisions made by such bodies could be appealed to Council or Corporation when the decision fell into the jurisdiction of either body. Appeals would need to be based on a claim that the local review body had acted contrary to Corporate or Society governing documents. In the absence of failure of due process, it would not be the business of the higher body to re-examine questions of fact determined by a properly constituted local review panel. In order to get first crack at issues appealable to higher bodies, local review panels would have to meet reasonable standards of independence and timeliness. Note that if a local panel was acceptable to a Corporation as representatives of the Corporation, this could simplify the process of appeals. However, if someone insisted on appealing a matter affecting the integrity of a Corporation to its Board, I believe the fiduciary duties of the Board would require it to consider the appeal. In all cases, individuals or groups asking for redress must demonstrate actionable complaints stipulating specific statutory infractions or attendant misuse or refusal of due process. I would also like to see a bill of rights for subjects written into the Great Charter, with guaranties of due process and protections from unreasonable penalties. There are some bits in the Magna Carta that seem quite useful. This is another matter for later discussion. C. SCA-WORLD.... ...would be controlled by the Council. It would be a pretty slim organization, consisting of the Council, a few officers to assist it, and whatever legal structure it needed to operate.. 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 find 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. It is likely that the Council would require capable advice whenever game issues where likely to impact mundane administration or legal issues If we continue to have a Society College of Arms, it would seem best to have it answerable to the World Council. The other advisors are not absolutely essential, but I think they would be useful. If my Kingdom was considering, say, face thrusts, it would be convenient to have one person to go to find what the experience elsewhere was... 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. D. MUNDANE GOVERNING BODIES Every SCA branch would be affiliated, directly or indirectly, 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. In recognizing such bodies, the World Council would examine their governing documents, but only to insure that there was nothing in them that would conflict with the Great Charter Kingdoms and Principalities might 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 corporations. Mundane governing bodies associated with Kingdoms and Principalities would be alike in their relation to the World body. Each could have its own governing document, consistent with the Great Charter but otherwise varying according to the requirements of each jurisdiction and the preferences of each group. I propose that local SCA corporations should at the very least have the right to control the appointment, removal, and replacement of officers that impact the corporation's fiduciary and legal responsibilities. Such officers might include Treasurers that control funds of that corporation, Seneschals that administer branches of the corporation, and Marshals and Chirurgeons where those officers might create liabilities for the corporation by their actions or omissions. This should become de-facto Board policy as soon as possible. This would be in contrast to current Corpora, where in theory the authority for all appointments or removals flows jointly from the throne and from Milpitas. E. MEMBERSHIP For purposes of satisfying the number of subscribing members required for Principality, and Kingdom status, "Subscribing Members" are defined as natural persons maintaining an address within the branch who subscribe to the appropriate Kingdom or Principality newsletter. If the minimum size of Baronies was specified by the Charter, they would also use this definition. The intent here is to create a common yardstick between groups that might have different requirements for mandatory membership. Groups with differing policies might have different proportions of associate membership, but the numbers of people that cared enough to order the newsletter would be more similar. 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. F. CHANGES TO CORPORA Under this proposal, the contents of Corpora are unbundled into a number of separate documents: 1) Rules defining the common medieval practices of the whole Society. The definition of, and requirements for, the peerages is a good example. These are to be contained within the Great Charter. 2) Medieval practices of the Society that are too important to be subject to royal whim, as Kingdom law is, but that could reasonably vary from Kingdom to Kingdom. The selection of Territorial Barons is one example. The East manages quite well with de-facto local election without doing violence to the unity of the Society. These would be contained within the Lesser Charters of individual Kingdoms and Principalities. The Kingdom Charter could not conflict with the Great Charter, the Governing Documents of the Relevant Corporation, or Mundane Law, and Kingdom Law could not Conflict with the Kingdom Charter. Other than that, the Great Charter would not restrict the contents of Lesser Charters. *However*, the Great Charter would say that Lesser Charters could only be changed by the manifest agreement of the members of the Kingdom or Principality. For example, this could by either by Kingdom wide polling, or by a favorable vote by representatives from a majority of all the groups in the Kingdom. 3) Matters of essentially mundane administration. The appointment of Treasurers and Chroniclers are good examples. These would be specified in the governing documents of each corporation, and could vary according to the needs and wishes of each group and the legal requirements of their jurisdiction. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OUTLINE Assuming both Board and Society assent to the proposal.... Phase One Board institutes regular procedure to offer affiliated status to suitable non-US SCA corporations. Their members count as members of the Society for purposes of satisfying branch population requirements, and membership requirements for Society officers. They are allowed to make reasonable regulations for the appointment and removal of Society officers within their jurisdiction. They are given the option of purchasing TI in bulk for redistribution to their members. They make some reasonable contribution to SCA, Inc. to cover costs of game oversight that will later be taken over by SCA-World, similar to the contribution made by the Australian corp. now, although not necessarily at that level. Board permits and encourages the creation of Kingdom and Principality review panels as described in proposal. Where appropriate, it delegates its power of review and sanction to those panels, while retaining standing for appeals. Kingdoms and Principalities determine how they will choose their World Council representatives, and choose them. The representatives may not be chosen by royal appointment unless that method is explicitly chosen by polling of the membership of that region. Phase Two Council appoints World Review Panel. Review Panel begins to review game issues that make it past lower review panels, making recommendations to the Board. At this stage it has only advisory powers. Council revises and approves Great Charter. Legal structure drawn up to allow Council to have powers discussed in proposal. Board reviews Charter and suggests any changes to World Council. Great Charter published. Assent of Society to the Charter secured. Phase Three World Council given full legal standing. Board hands over to it control of common game rules, power of review of game issues, and power to recognize, or remove recognition of, SCA groups. Foreign corporations cease to make contributions to SCA, Inc.(Milpitas), except for services and publications provided. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 14:57:21 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:15:21 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, david friedman wrote: > We believe that the structure of the society should provide some > protection for individual participants against unreasonable acts by their > crown or local associated corporation that goes outside the local > corporation itself. We suggest choosing one or both of the following two > alternatives. I have problems with these alternatives. > 1. Some system by which sufficiently serious decisions, such as banishment, > can be appealed outside the local corporation, perhaps to some sort of > society-wide court; willingness to follow the judgements of such a court > would then be a condition for accepting associated corporations. This implies that the local corporation is deeply entangled in game side issues and that the local corporation has exclusive control of the membership within its sphere of influence. Both of these implications are both abhorrent and radically different from the Status Quo. Current local corporations are isolated from Game side issues simple because the Board claims and defends its right to rule on such issues. Equally, local corporations are denied exclusive control of the membership simply because they have the option of taking membership from the SCA Inc. > 2. A structure in which associated corporations do not have unique > territories, so that groups or individuals who believe they have been > unjustly treated by their local corporation have the option of trying to > work under a different associated corporation, or of trying to start their > own. This appears to be an opposite extreme where corporate sanction against an individual is impossible since the individual can form his own corporation and thus escape sanction. > We might want to fill this out more; I don't know. But I think it > encapsulates what most of us agree on--that this is a potential problem, > and that these are the two general approaches to solving it. Comments? We must fill this out and find a middle ground or abandon all hope of imposing sanctions in a just manner. > David/Cariadoc I agree that we needs a system of appeals if we have a system of sanctions. We also need guarantees of reciprocal actions by recognized corporations. Trial by peers is built into the popular expectation of 'Justice' and so should be built into any scheme that we propose. However, the identification of peers will depend heavily upon circumstances. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 15:01:44 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 11:24:31 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Formal proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <32376D6A@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> Greetings from Fiacha, On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Steve Muhlberger wrote: > I think the idea of non-exclusive territories for SCA corporations is too > radical to be adopted, even if it were the best scheme. We already have non-exclusive territories because local corporations cannot exclude the SCA and vice versa. Thus the idea is hardly radical. > Finnvarr Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 17:27:09 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:27:06 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM David/Cariadoc writes: << 2. A structure in which associated corporations do not have unique territories, so that groups or individuals who believe they have been unjustly treated by their local corporation have the option of trying to work under a different associated corporation, or of trying to start their own. >> I don't understand how the interaction between the medieval ruling structure and the modern corporations would work with non-unique territories. That probably needs to be explained, if not in the proposal, at least in a separate report. For instance, suppose you have two corporations with members in California, Fencing Is Dandy, Inc.(FIDI) and Kings Word Is Law Dammit, Inc. (KWILDI). Would they have different kings? If not, which corp. would review royal actions affecting the corporation? Or would both? Could you venue shop for peerages? For review of banishments? If we didn't care about the interaction with the ceremonial structure the question would be moot, anyone could set up a not-part-of-the-West non-SCA FIDI tommorow. But people do care, so how does it work? Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 19:17:19 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, 12 Sep 1996 19:17:08 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM To restate something I'm sure I said many many months ago when this topic surfaced, I don't see what all the fuss is. There may be occaisonal rogue crowns, but they're few, far between, temporary, and seemingly relegated to the East Coast. "here in Pennsylvania, the King is not a tyrant." (another quote from "1776")..... Alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Sep 12 19:37:18 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: fiacha@premier1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 16:29:55 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <01I9EHSCLY728ZMOJN@delphi.com> Greetings from Fiacha, On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Alban St. Albans wrote: > To restate something I'm sure I said many many months ago when > this topic surfaced, I don't see what all the fuss is. There may > be occaisonal rogue crowns, but they're few, far between, temporary, > and seemingly relegated to the East Coast. > > "here in Pennsylvania, the King is not a tyrant." (another quote > from "1776")..... > > Alban The populace has reason to fear rogue tyrants. They need not be Kings. All they need be is someone who has assumed an office of responsibility and is using that office to promote their vision of the future without apparent heed for those who hold a radically different view. The fear comes from the lack of accountability of the tyrant and a tendency for a tyrant to assert that they do not need to explain themselves. It only takes one run in with such a person to become suspicious of all self proclaimed authority figures that one encounters. By mandating an appeal process and by ensuring as much justice as we can, we reassure the fearful and so make the Society a happier place in which to play. Compare this to the various grievance procedures that have been created. Theydo not prevent grievances from occurring but they do give people a way to resolve issues without causing an ungodly emotional uproar. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 03:31:13 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: klth-jsp@pop.lu.se Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Janna G Spanne Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:32:12 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna G Spanne Subject: Re: Formal proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fiacha says: >We already have non-exclusive territories because local >corporations cannot exclude the SCA and vice versa. ... That's non-exclusiveness in the very trivial sense that the SCA doesn't hold a monopoly on medieval recreation. Let's translate it into a sports context: It's perfectly legal to start a martial arts club without joining the National Budo Federation. People may get perfectly good instruction and have lots of fun at the independent club, but solely on the strength of belonging to it they won't be admitted to competitions held by the National Federation: they simply aren't considered as playing the same game. The way I understand our territorial issue, those in favor of non-exclusiveness propose that it should be possible to have more than one group in a certain territory within the SCA structure, to give people the chance to "vote with their feet" against a given local group, barony, principality, whatever, without having to move in real life and without having to give up playing SCA. Which looks like a pretty sound idea to me. /Catrin PS: Incidentally, local corps, far from just being an *alternative*, are a *necessary condition* for the SCA to maintain a presence in some countries, as has been said several times before. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 04:34:32 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:17:24 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 11.15 12-09-1996 -0700, Fiacha wrote: >On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, david friedman wrote: > >> 1. Some system by which sufficiently serious decisions, such as banishment, >> can be appealed outside the local corporation, perhaps to some sort of >> society-wide court; willingness to follow the judgements of such a court >> would then be a condition for accepting associated corporations. > >This implies that the local corporation is deeply entangled in game side >issues and that the local corporation has exclusive control of the >membership within its sphere of influence. Both of these implications are >both abhorrent and radically different from the Status Quo. Weelllll.... Banishment means preventing an individual from participating in Society activities. That is infringing upon the individuals rights as a member of the Society. That should absolutely be business for the board of the relevant corporation, and probably for a General Meeting as well, since membership rights are mundane business. The ability for kings to banish people from attending events is abhorrent to me and to many others. (Excluding a member who has done damage to the corporation is another thing entirely, and should be done by the corporation.) >Current local corporations are isolated from Game side issues simple >because the Board claims and defends its right to rule on such issues. > >Equally, local corporations are denied exclusive control of the membership >simply because they have the option of taking membership from the SCA Inc. ^^^^^ They equals the members, not the corporations, right? Taking membership from the SCA,Inc. is not an option today, it is a *requirement*. Actually, *double* memberships are more or less required outside the US today, because the existence of a group is defined by the number of members in SCA,Inc. and there have to be local corporations in order to DO anything. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 05:05:54 1996 Return-Path: X-Sender: frithiof@akka X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 10:48:54 +0200 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Preventing Rogue Kings or Corps--a draft proposal To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM At 11.15 12-09-1996 -0700, Fiacha wrote: >Greetings from Fiacha, > >On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, david friedman wrote: > >> We believe that the structure of the society should provide some >> protection for individual participants against unreasonable acts by their >> crown or local associated corporation that goes outside the local >> corporation itself. We suggest choosing one or both of the following two >> alternatives. > >I have problems with these alternatives. > >> 2. A structure in which associated corporations do not have unique >> territories, so that groups or individuals who believe they have been >> unjustly treated by their local corporation have the option of trying to >> work under a different associated corporation, or of trying to start their >> own. > >This appears to be an opposite extreme where corporate sanction against an >individual is impossible since the individual can form his own corporation >and thus escape sanction. That depends of what form the sanction takes. If it is, for example, being barred from participating in the first corporations events, forming a second corporation won't help. >I agree that we needs a system of appeals if we have a system of >sanctions. We also need guarantees of reciprocal actions by recognized >corporations. Agreed. >Trial by peers is built into the popular expectation of 'Justice' and so >should be built into any scheme that we propose. However, the >identification of peers will depend heavily upon circumstances. Also agreed. Frithiof the friendly herald From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 11:20:18 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:20:11 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Permanent Think Tank? No, but... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Edward Z expressed interest in the concept of turning the GC into a permanent think tank. The notion was not met with much enthusiasm from the GC. Especially if it meant something like a mini-Rialto. However: The Society will often need committees for specific purposes in the future. They will often find it most practical to do most of their business by e-mail. Whenever it is desirable to represent the full diversity of experience and concerns within the Society, they will be large. Many organizations have steering committes. The big difference from the GC is that they are formed every five years or so, instead of every thirty, so the problems to be dealt with don't get quite so unwieldy. The World Council I have proposed will also share share many characteristics with the GC. It will be diverse, large, and probably rarely if ever meet face to face. The GC learned important lessons about how to operate a large virtual committee, as well as a lot about how not to. I would hate to see that knowledge fade away when (as seems likely) the GC ceases to be. Does anyone want to volunteer to write a report on: "Suggestions for Future Virtual Committees"? To get the ball rolling, some suggested subject headings: Open Deliberations Were a Good Thing. Settle Procedural Issues First or Spend A Year Spinning Your Wheels The Procedural Rules the GC Finally Settled On Voting on Multiple Alternatives: What Worked LISTSERVE- Pro and Con Simultaneous Discussion of Many Topics: Threat or Menace? Expect Serious Attrition in Even a Two Year Committee Clearing Out the Deadwood: Ghost Members of the GC How to Handle Replacements? How Some Folks Got Discouraged by Seeing the GC Send Proposals Up to the Board Without Hearing Anything Back Why It Takes A Large Virtual Committee Two Weeks to Decide What Toppings It Wants On Pizza Galleron From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 11:30:15 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 20 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:30:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Permanent Think Tank? No, but... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM This probably won't get through since AOL boycotts me personally... A report is a good idea. Maybe I can take a hand at it. Two extremely good points out of the merely good ones: >Clearing Out the Deadwood: Ghost Members of the GC >How Some Folks Got Discouraged by Seeing the GC Send Proposals Up to the >Board Without Hearing Anything Back And: >Why It Takes A Large Virtual Committee Two Weeks to Decide What Toppings It >Wants On Pizza I never got any pizza! Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 11:46:54 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 Content-Length: 267 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 08:46:42 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? No, but... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <3239A877@smtpgate.unipissing.ca> from "Steve Muhlberger" at Sep 13, 96 11:30:00 am >^ > I never got any pizza! > > Finnvarr > The anchovie question was remanded to the Ways and Means committee for further study. As soon as Corporate MoS provides the necessary environmental impact statements they will consider a motion to consider. Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 12:09:20 1996 Return-Path: References: Conversation <960913112010_284089654@emout01.mail.aol.com> with last message <960913112010_284089654@emout01.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, 13 Sep 1996 11:00:36 CDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Erik Langhans Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? Yes To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960913112010_284089654@emout01.mail.aol.com> I love the idea. I would reccomend that the size be limited to 10 max. BTW I change my vote on Galleron proposal. The changes and arguments made over the past week or so has changed my mind. Modius modius@cityscope.net From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 12:13:01 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 Content-Length: 1079 Approved-By: James Pratt Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 09:01:05 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: James Pratt Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? No, but... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960913112010_284089654@emout01.mail.aol.com> from "Will McLean" at Sep 13, 96 11:20:11 am Cathal to Galleron, Greetings: Add one more topic to the report: Know your Limits: Get a working paper from the BoD to specify which topics are up for discussion and which are non-negotiable. I _still_ believe that this Council would have been more productive and better maintained itself if it had accepted small positive results on individual issues rather than attempting to turn the world upside down on the major ones. We were offered the chance to provide positive input to the deliberations of the BoD. IMO that would have been best utilized by showing the BoD that were were willing to provide suggestions which could incrementally improve both the relationship with them and show the Society at large that change _was_ possible. Once the track record of the GC proved the positive nature of its efforts, I truly believe that the influence of the Council, both in the reaction of the BoD to its suggestions and the perception of the membership to its existance, would have been able to effect the changes necessary. One small step. . . Salvete, Cathal. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 12:22:16 1996 Return-Path: Encoding: 6 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:23:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Think tank To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM What would be essential for the think tank would be a commitment from the Board to share at least some of their thoughts on issues before it on a reasonably regular basis. Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 12:51:47 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 12:51:29 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? No, but... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM In-Reply-To: <960913112010_284089654@emout01.mail.aol.com> (message from Will McLean on Fri, 13 Sep 1996 11:20:11 -0400) A few comments on specific suggestions for this "Future Committees" report that Galleron suggests. (BTW: good idea, and a very perceptive list of suggested topics.) >Open Deliberations Were a Good Thing. Yes, for several reasons. The GC never turned into as much of a political football as it might have, because anyone interested could observe exactly what we were doing; there was none of the usual paranoia about star chambers. And allowing the public to comment proved, in general, extremely useful -- several people not on the GC (most notably Galleron) wound up being far more useful than some of the folks who technically were. Overall, I'd say that the policy of broad moderation (where the public has to go through GC members, but GC members are encouraged to post anything sensible) was probably the single policy I'm most happy with; it helped avoid turning the group into just another Rialto, while not actually having to do much real squelching of messages. (I think that I probably rejected fewer than two dozen messages in the time I was effectively lead moderator -- most of the GC's lifespan.) >Settle Procedural Issues First or Spend A Year Spinning Your Wheels Biggest single problem we had, unquestionably. We spent almost as much time (maybe more) debating our own organization as we did on the SCA's. I suspect that almost *any* system would work better than the rough-and-ready confusion we had. >The Procedural Rules the GC Finally Settled On Insofar as we really ever settled them; they're still mighty loose... >LISTSERVE- Pro and Con Broadly speaking, I'd say it helped more than it hurt, but there are definitely pros and cons. The reflection-list model increased volume enormously, and *did* get things moving a bit faster. The cost was periodic loss of focus, since it made it easier for one discussion to swamp others, and periodic bursts of unreasonable volume. I don't think either model worked as well as I'd have liked; I do rather wonder whether there might be a middle ground, with some sort of custom-designed mailing list, which might allow a moderator a slightly firmer hand on the throttle and topics, while still being relatively interactive... >Simultaneous Discussion of Many Topics: Threat or Menace? I don't think it's *always* bad. But yes, it often becomes a real problem. I definitely think a group like this can't support more than two, maybe three topics at once. In general, it would be useful to have *some* way to direct the discussion a bit more... >Expect Serious Attrition in Even a Two Year Committee > >Clearing Out the Deadwood: Ghost Members of the GC True, although one should bear in mind that only about half of the GC really participated substantially to begin with. (And several people really never did anything at all.) So we were down a bit from the very start. But yes, I think we've lost about a third of the Council or so over the course of things. Effectively speaking, they were partially replaced, a couple by official replacement (like Cathal) and a couple by unofficial ones (like Galleron and Morgan). A successor group should probably be set up to deal with issues like this more consistently, both soliciting new members from outside and recognizing the people who have become de facto members. >Why It Takes A Large Virtual Committee Two Weeks to Decide What Toppings It >Wants On Pizza Well, I don't think you really need the word "virtual" in there. While we've had many problems, I don't think the online aspect exacerbated them all that much -- you see most of the same problems in *any* large and diverse committee, particularly one structured so anarchically. I think the real lesson here is that any committee of more than about a half-dozen people needs a fair bit of structure, if it's going to get anywhere. That's not a particularly new observation. Finally, a question for people to chew on: Kingdom Appointees. Did the fact of having some members nominated by an outside source help or hinder, or make any difference at all? On the one hand, it doesn't appear to have made a dramatic difference from what would have happened if it was all nominated from one source; on the other hand, I wonder if it may have helped avoid groupthink, by injecting a little more randomness in the selections. I dunno; I'd be interested in peoples' opinions... (Meanwhile, on another topic, just in case it isn't obvious: I'm also in favor of passing Galleron's structural proposals up to the Board, as I have been for some time now...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: "The Middles Ages as They Should Have Been" "Given the broad spectrum of cultures encompassed by the SCA, "Europe in a blender" may be a more descriptive phrase." -- Gunwaldt From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Sep 13 13:58:11 1996 Return-Path: Approved-By: WMclean290@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 13:58:01 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Will McLean Subject: Re: Permanent Think Tank? No, but... To: SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Justin writes: << one should bear in mind that only about half of the GC really participated substantially to begin with. (And several people really never did anything at all.) So we were down a bit from the very start. >> The harm done wasn't the loss of numbers, since the official roster was bigger than optimal anyway. It was the votes when we were