======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #9 -- March 29, 1995 Contents of this issue: Finnvarr: Introduction, SCA in Canada (from Sylard), Comments Fiacha, Cariadoc: Comments on #8 Catrin: Introduction Titus: Introduction, Comments on past issues Alban: 4 minor items and voting procedure Alysoun: Council matters Eichling: Introduction, query about structures Arthur: Thoughts on GCF#8 Gareth: Decentralization & Organizations Modius: Introduction, Corporate thoughts This is the Grand Council Chronicle, the proceedings of the Grand Council of the Known World, a body chartered to examine the structure of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc., and make recommendations of changes. The contents represent the opinions of the contributing authors, and do not necessarily represent the official policies of the SCA, Inc. ---------------------------------------- >From the Secretary's Desk A quick reminder: the back issues of the Chronicle are available on the Net in a variety of formats. Look under: FTP: ftp.gc.sca.org Gopher: lists.princeton.edu (has a search feature) WWW: http://www.inmet.com/~justin/gc/ ---------------------------------------- Sender: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Introduction Greetings to the Grand Council from Finnvarr de Taahe, otherwise known as Steve Muhlberger, one of your new colleagues. I have been reading the Grand Council Chronicle for a while now, and I know that some of you are anxious to get started with deliberations. Thus I am sending you this introduction as quickly as is technologically possible. My persona I consider irrelevant to this discussion. After you've been in the SCA for awhile, your "persona" is your past history. Mine is rather extensive. I joined the SCA in 1970, in East Lansing, Michigan, and was one of the founders of North Woods, an early Middle Kingdom group. I was knighted there in 1971. I moved to the East Kingdom for the year 1972-73, during which I won the Crown and commanded the Eastern forces at Pennsic II. In 1973, I moved back to the Middle Kingdom, to Toronto, to go to grad school. By 1975, with the help of others, I had founded the shire of Eoforwic (Toronto); later on I helped organize the barony of Septentria (originally all of Ontario) and the prinicipality of Ealdormere (almost all of Ontario). I won the crown of the Middle Kingdom in 1976 and led the Midrealm into battle at Pennsic VI. In 1978 I was elevated to the Order of the Pelican. I have other awards for arts (calligraphy and history writing), autocratting, and other service. I have been Earl Marshal of the Middle Kingdom, as well as Kingdom historian and Kingdom Information Officer. From 1984-1986 I was a director of the SCA, Inc. Over the last ten years, I have been less active than before, because my other responsibilities have increased. I am an associate professor of history at Nipissing University, in North Bay, Ontario. My chief SCA activities are fighting_when I get the chance_advising my squires (something they don't seem to mind too much, since they usually ask for the advice), and, with my lady, autocratting a yearly war/equestrian event on our own property. I am knight marshal of our local shire, Flaming Sky. It is a rather small group that has at most two full-dress events a year. My interest in being on the Grand Council is simple. I am all in favor of a less cumbersome mundane umbrella for the SCA. On the other hand, I think we need to preserve some of the things that have been built up over the years. I think it is a great achievement that people from Sweden can go to Hawaii and play more or less the same game. I particularly think it important to maintain certain common standards for our fighting; the portability of peerages and royal rank are also good things, I think, because they are one of the things that gives us that sense of international community. (It is probably far too late for portability of at least some lesser awards; that too would have been nice.) We will not have these things without either a single overarching corporation or perhaps a family of national or regional corporations with clearly defined relationships. And although we all like the fact that the SCA is a voluntary organization, we cannot have common standards without a certain number of rules, some sanctions for enforcement, even a certain amount of taxation. The question is, how much and what kind of rules, enforcement, and taxation will we have, and at what level? It is convenient to blame the board and the corporation for all our troubles; however, in my own experience as the SCA, both as a dues-paying member and as a director, I have seen as much, and suffered as much from, useless bureaucracy and arbitrary behavior at the kingdom, principality, and barony level as I ever have from board dictates. I think that most of our organizational troubles come from the fact that most people have a hard time visualizing organizations except on the Prussian General Staff/General Motors model_a pyramidal structure of reporting and authority. I hope that our GC discussions will bring forward a number of other models, and we can find something better. I don't think it will be easy! This has gone on too long, but there is one more thing. When I was on the board, one of its most important functions was bringing strong-minded experienced people from different parts of the SCA face to face with their disagreements about how the SCA should work. It was always clear to us that unless we seven could agree on a policy, there was no chance that we could sell it to the rest of the Known World. Out of this experience, I urge that the GC make no recommendations without consensus or near-consensus. I am not optimistic about unanimity among 40 people, so that can't be a requirement; but just remember that any disagreements in this body will reflect even greater ones among the membership as a whole. Sincerely, Finnvarr de Taahe Steve Muhlberger stevem@einstein.unipissing.ca RR#1 Box 123, Bonfield Ontario, P0H 1E0 CANADA 705 776-1247 ---------------------------------------- Sender: Steve Muhlberger Subject: SCA in Canada Master Sylard of Eagleshaven, OL, an experienced member of the SCA in Ontario (Principality of Ealdormere, Middle Kingdom), has asked me to send this along. >From Sylard: The Society for Creative Anachronism in Canada Problems with an American corporation operating without referring to Canadian law. The SCA has been operating within Canada for just over 20 years. The early founding dates of Castle Rouge in Winnipeg, and Eoforwic in Toronto, makes them some of the oldest groups within the Middle Kingdom. Over the years, I, as well as others, have made attempts to make the Board of Directors address the simple fact the Canada is a foreign and sovereign nation where different laws and processes are in force. The response to these questions and comments has often been patronizing, and almost always totally uninformed. Twenty years ago, the Canadian population of the SCA was small. There may have been some justification for the view that the Corporation and the organization need not overly concern itself with the impact of Canadian Federal and Provincial laws. This is certainly not the case today. There are a large number of active participants in Canada, especially in Western (An Tir) and in Central (Eldermere) Canada. Although I have no clear idea how large the total community out West is, in Ontario there are about 1000 * people making up some 30 groups. Of these, approximately 700 * are paid members of some kind. The SCA community in Ontario is active in educational demos in schools throughout the province, and is involved with a number of local festivals. Our style of dress and activities makes us high profile and a favorite of the media. We are far from invisible today. These people send total annual fees of around $ 19,250 ^ to the Corporate office in California. Of this, about $4,000 ^ is specifically designated towards the cost of newsletters (note that this does not include the portion used for 'Tournaments Illuminated'). Most groups maintain a bank account, with about $500 considered to be sufficient operating capital. There may be about $10,000 * in total held in these accounts, generating about 3% interest, or about $300 per year. Within Ontario, there are about 30 events held per year, each with approximately 100 in attendance, each paying an average of around $7 for feast fees. This gives a rough total of $21,000 * spent each year. (This are admittedly very rough numbers, exact figures could be generated by examining financial reports.) 1)PROVINCE of ONTARIO I made a number of discrete inquires, under the cover of my own business, of the Ontario government (retail sales tax branch.) Inquiries were made concerning a fictional War of 1812 re-creation group, holding several camping events a year for its 100 members only, who charged 'costs only' for dinners to its members. I was told that such a group (similar to the SCA) would be required to register for a vendor permit and be responsible for collecting PST (of 8%) on every meal sold (lunches and feasts). The Ontario Sales Tax guide states the following: 1) You need a vendor permit if you regularly make taxable sales. 2) This includes the sale of prepared food products with a total charge of more than $4.00. 3)Note that "non-profit organizations - unless they regularly sell taxable goods and devices" do not need a vendor permit. Obviously further inquiries need to be made on the Ontario Government. I was concerned about 'fingering' the SCA to the tax department if I got too specific. If the information I was given is in fact correct, the Corporation is responsible to Ontario for over $1600 each year. A)To become a "non-profit organization" in the eyes of the Ontario Government, it is required to register as such. The cost of such a registration appears to be about $150. Does Ontario Ministry of Revenue recognize the current American organization as such? Will separate registration of a "SCA Ontario" be required? B) What is the structure of registration for vendor permits, if required? As individual groups, or registration at a regional level? Who collects, keeps track of, and remits the required taxes? C) How do the existing group bank accounts, and their related interest income, fit into the structure? 2) REVENUE CANADA Many Canadian members are constantly being required to compile information for Corporation to be sent to the American Internal Revenue Service. This includes moneys relating to demos and events, expenditures and inventories. Despite the fact that the Corporation is registered a legal 'non-profit educational institution', constant effort is being expended to prove this fact. About 3 years ago, inquires were made of Revenue Canada as to whether the Corporation was in fact registered with the Canadian Government as 'non-profit'. Not too surprisingly the answer was no. A) How does the Revenue Canada view the Corporation, and its operations within Canada? B) Any organization that sells a product or service in Canada, if the total yearly sales exceed $30,000 (CDN), is required to remit a tax of 7% to Revenue Canada. This 'Goods and Services Tax' - the GST, is payable whether the seller is 'non-profit' or not. (UNICEF, for example.) Note that while 'memberships' may not be taxable, magazine subscriptions certainly are. (For example, despite 'membership' in the National Geographic Society, GST is still paid on the magazine.) 'Tournaments Illuminated' is certainly a magazine subscription. What is the status, according to Revenue Canada, of the kingdom newsletters? About of the fees sent from Ontario alone is for subscriptions. Is the total value of all magazines sent to Canadian members over $30,000? C) One of the way Revenue Canada spots tax evasion is by comparing Canadian bank records of interest payments with the tax reports made each year. How is the (estimated) $300 in interest payments paid to individual groups each year reported (if at all) to Revenue Canada? It is certain that the banks will not absorb the taxes levied on these amounts. D) The Corporation has continued to require that any regalia created be listed and valued on inventories sent to the IRS. This may be reasonable for those items donated to kingdom officers, which then leave this country. What is the true status of those items that are paid for, produced and then donated to Canadian offices (Principality and Baronial)? Since these items are Canadian made and remain in Canada, how does Revenue Canada view these items? These matters are far from trivial. The questions raised can not be answered from American sources, as they directly involve Canadian Government agencies. Four Western communities have in fact registered within their respective provinces as non-profit organizations, separate from the Corporation. One can assume this was done for good cause, and the reasons should be sought out. Wherever possible inquiries should be made by those members who work professionally in the necessary areas to avoid 'fingering'. All levels of government in Canada are experiencing severe financial problems currently. With mounting deficits comes increasing pressures to generate larger tax revenues. The elusive "Underground Economy" is a constant target of tax collectors at all levels. Small businesses, contractors, farmers and craftsmen are all being subjected to often ruthless audits and their associated penalties. The activities of the Corporation certainly appear to fall within this grey area. Unfortunately it will be local officers, not the distant Directors, who will face Canadian Government officials over personal audits, and bear the considerable legal trouble and expenses that will result. Darrell Markewitz (Master Sylard of Eagleshaven) wareham.forge@ambassador.com * This, and most other membership and financial numbers are estimated only. Examination of Kingdom records will give 'hard' figures. Canadian dollars. ^ Very rough estimate. Based on 200 'full' members, 250 'family' members, 250 'international' members. Canadian dollars. ---------------------------------------- Sender: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Comments on Grand Council Chronicle #8 Justin de Coeur said: >>> The GC was set up specifically to be a limited-time affair, a one-shot body intended to provide recommendations for the Society's broad structural problems. It was *deliberately* not constituted to be an ongoing body, >>> I agree. An open-ended GC would turn into either a bigger Board or a smaller Rialto. Justin again: >>> Yes, there may be a need for an ongoing philosophical body. Frankly, it should be the Board -- that's what Boards of Directors are *supposed* to do. >>> Agreed. *Alban St. Albans* ruminated on *adding* services to be run by the corporation. If we have problems running a central mailing list (and its obvious that people on this council are dissatisfied), our present corporation cannot possibly take on any of the worthy projects Alban suggests. Nor need we. The SCA, Inc. need not apologize for a lack of centrally directed research. Insofar as it has been a success as an umbrella group, it has been successful in promoting all the research by the members (however defined). *John of Sternfeld* said: >>> We have allowed our BoD to become the directors of our almost every move - 100% of the authority rests on them. >>> As an ex-Director, I would put it more strongly. In my time, people were always *demanding* that the Board take on new responsibilities. In other words, I agree with John's point that too much is expected of the Board, and proper delegation of responsibility is a must. How to structure delegation and how to put appropriate checks in place, that is the problem. *Terras* brought up the question of goals. I do not think that the GC or any other body in the SCA has a mandate to monkey with the overall goals of the SCA. Let the individual members hash these out among themselves, as they do anyway. Anyone who tries to alter the basic guidelines will raise a storm that will make last year's look like small potatoes. I was most interested in * Alysoun's* question about what kind of organization we are. My answer is unambiguously that the SCA (Inc. or no) is there to serve the members. We do not have a cut-and-dried mission. Our *mission* is more like a challenge to the creativity of the members--take this (rather undefined idea) and run with it. The SCA, Inc. is there to provide a framework for all the wonderful accomplishment of individuals and groups to have a home in. Hope I haven't taken up to much of your mailbox, Finnvarr de Taahe. ---------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 16:58:00 -0800 (PST) From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Comments on Chronicle #8 Greetings from Fiacha, Justin said that he hoped that the Grand Council would not exist beyond Jan 1997. I can agree with his arguments but point out that we can recommend that a Grand Council like body should become a permanant part of the SCA. Further, he said, > Yes, there may be a need for an ongoing philosophical body. Frankly, > it should be the Board -- that's what Boards of Directors are > *supposed* to do. I'm am not sure that I agree with this. I would rather the board implement policies proposed by a larger, open and representative body. > Or other structures. The point is, that isn't what we're here for, > and we shouldn't waste time on it. We should be working out > procedures for what we *have* been chartered for, not worrying > about the ones we haven't... Sorry Justin, but I see this as a restructuring suggestion and so part of our mandate. ========= Alban said, > > corporate services: it's too early to go into this in any > depth, but i'd like to suggest that people start thinking > about not only what parts/services of the corporation may > need to be changed or eliminated, but which services > they'd like the corporation to add, if any. a really good > library available at corporate offices? a known-world- > sponsored living history farm? travelling road shows > going to high schools, dealing with a day in the life of a > french 13th century noble (or at least scripts for such)? When someone says 'corporation', I tend to think of the office in Milpitas and the people who staff it. A corporate library is less valuable to me than the Inter Library Loan facility at my public library. I cannot see the office staff putting on a road show and Milpitas is hardly the place for a living history farm. The membership of the corporation could do all of these things and probable already do so. Perhaps someone could come up with an equitable plan for the board to sanction and encourage such efforts. However, I would rather that we spent our time finding ways for the Corporate ofiice to reduce its expenses and for the Board members to has less work to do. ============ John said, > My objection against the Mineral Federation model is the opening up of > territories, where local groups could overlap, form and reform on top of > each other. I have spent a large part of my time in the Society > repairing schisms, they naturally arise when a group of people really > care about something. If open territories were to be allowed I am > afraid that all would remain is newly forming groups. Every time > someone disagrees with their neighbor here would come another new group > application. Local groups need a mix of old & new, quiet & verbose > people to function well. With a limited control on the growth of groups > in an area people will find ways to work problems out for the betterment > of the group instead of splintering infinitely. No one said that fragmentation should be easy. AnTir makes a big deal out of polling neighbouring groups when a group requests elevation to Baronial status. The process takes time and even more time if one of the neighbours is dubious about the shire making the bid. One could easily treat interpenetrarting branches in the same way. The incipiency period for new groups also works against rapid fragmentation. The assumption that people will work out their problems is also bogus. Nor is that fact that they have failed to do so the kiss of death that everyone seems to assume that it is. Last month I released the report for a moderately successful event I autocratted. The event included a feast for 200 paying customers. The head cook has not spoken to me since last October and then it was under duress. The point about territoriality that has not been discussed is 'How do you determine when a non territorial branch is big enough to go Barony?' Much as I would like to reform this aspect of the Society, I suspect that we would need to propose a criteria to replace the current territorial membership count. ======== Terras said, > I do not want to see multiple groups in one area. I don't have an eloquant > position for this. My reasoning is that I've seen a lot of smaller groups > simply burn out their resources and have no central group to help them > pull together again. I can think of larger groups that have done the same thing. Again, if you make the formation of a new group a relatively difficult thing to do, you will reduce the number of fragments significantly. I would rather risk the problems of fragmentation than force creative and independently minded people to become disenchanted with the society in a territory under the control of a closed household. > Most of the groups I've seen have cyclic routines of who's doing what - > usually a small group does most of the work, building their egos and > reputation, until they move on or burn out. Then another group takes over > some of the core functions and continues. Allowing groups to split out > will blow all the resources in short, very active, times - leaving less > than nothing for the interim times. I disagree. I would expect fragments to operate on differing cycles so that some opportunites are always open. > Re: Goals > > Do we want to eventually become a bunch of groups doing similiar, but > different medieval re-enactments? I believe that this issue is beyond the scope of the Grand Council for all that it is a hot topic on sca-reform. I do not believe that we need to address the mechanics of how the medieval side of things is regulated. I would consider it a fine thing if we recommended that such regulation be controlled by the IAC. As I commented above, it would suit me just fine if the policy proposals were created by larger, more representative bodies and merely passed to the Board for acceptance of rejection. Fiacha ---------------------------------------- >From ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu Thu Mar 23 00:57:11 1995 Subject: Re: Grand Council Chronicle #8 Alysoun writes: >Organizations can be >divided into two types: (1) those in which the members serve the >organization and (2) those in which the organization serves the members. This sounds right, but I am not sure it is. I would say that the SCA Inc. exists to help its members do certain sorts of things. The members are serving the organization insofar as they are doing the things in the organization's list of purposes--but they are doing so because those are their own purposes, not because they want the organization to thrive for its own sake. It might help to think about what determines what gets recreated--medieval or renaissance, woodworking or cooking. That is controlled almost entirely by the desires of the individual members, with perhaps a tiny nudge from decisions by T.I. or C.A. about what to publish--and even those decisions are made by the editor, not the Board. On the other hand, if members want to do things outside the organization's range of purposes, such as 18th or 19th century recreation, the organization is not expected to help them (although I do notice a lot of things labelled "teas" in the SCA). John of Sternfeld and Alban raise the question of whether groups should be territorial, with John arguing for and Alban against. Let me suggest a compromise that might be better than either pure alternative: There are two classes of groups: territorial and non-territorial. A territorial group has a territory. People who write the kingdom or the Corporation asking "who do I get in touch with in city X" get referred to the seneschal of the group in whose territory X is. In exchange for owning territory, a territorial group is required to accept as a member anyone willing to meet the usual minimal requirements--i.e. pay whatever the group's membership fee is. Perhaps it is also required to charge no more than a standard membership fee established by the kingdom (remember, we are considering the possibility of local groups that are legally independent, so we cannot take it for granted that they all have the same membership fee). Non-territorial groups are essentially households that are allowed to put on official events. A non-territorial group can engage in reasonable sorts of discrimination--for example, a Norse group that accepts nobody with a persona later than 1100, or a mercenary company that only accepts fighters. Sufficiently unreasonable discrimination (no gays or blacks permitted, say) results in the kingdom refusing to accept the group as a member. Non-territorial groups may, if the kingdom wishes, have whatever political powers territorial groups have (i.e., if the kingdom has a one group/one vote system for making some decisions, it can include non-territorial groups). This seems to me to provide the advantage of a non-territorial model, which is that if you do not like the way the local group is run you have the option of playing the SCA game outside it. It also has the advantage of recognizing in our formal structure one of the important and desirable elements of the Society as it exists--groups with a restricted membership. It avoids the problem that if groups can restrict their membership, someone who does not fit is out in the cold--he can always play in his local territorial group. And it provides some discouragement to splintering, since people are going to have some preference for being the group that "owns" the territory. John writes: >If >open territories were to be allowed I am afraid that all would remain is newly >forming groups. Every time someone disagrees with their neighbor here would >come another new group application. I think you are too pessimistic on this--even if we went all the way to a non-territorial model. Balancing the centrifugal pressure you describe are centripetal forces, due to the fact that larger groups have real advantages for their members--they can put on bigger and better events, more regular activities, etc. You would have occasional fissions, but you would also have groups getting back together, burying forgotten feuds, etc. Any time it became clear to the members of a small group that it was more fun playing with the local big group, the small group would vanish away, leaving its leader "chief of the frogs." Terras writes: "The SCA, Inc - with it's central authority - has held us close enough that the East kingdom can play with the West and Calontir, all under similar rules. Remove that authority, and the rules will diverge farther." This is something which many people seem to believe, but I find it unconvincing; indeed, I think it is wrong in both directions. To begin with, if "play together" means that the rules of one kingdom are consistent with those of others, we cannot play together now--some kingdoms permit forms of combat archery that others forbid, and similarly (at least until recently, and I think still) with fencing. If "play together" means that someone from one kingdom can move to another and feel comfortable, then I think that would remain true even with considerable variation in detailed rules. Furthermore, I do not think that such consistency as we have comes mainly >from the SCA Inc. and its central authority; we are much more consistent than the Corporation forces us to be. To take one obvious example, the definition of a killing blow is not regulated at the Society-wide level. So far as I know, there is no Corporate ruling that prevents a situation in which one kingdom plays by touch rules, like fencing, and another requires a force level substantially higher than any kingdom now does. To take another example, the definition of the game we are playing at events--to what extent it is "pretend you are in the middle ages" and to what extent it is "this is a costume party of 20th century people interested in the middle ages" is not regulated at the corporate level. So far as the rules are concerned, we could have some kingdoms where "being medieval" consisted of wearing garb while eating pizza and talking about football games and others where there was strong social pressure forcing everyone to be in persona all the time at events. I can see three reasons for such uniformity as we have, all more important than Corporate level rules. One is parallel evolution. If we consider force of blows, for example, making it too high would be unpopular because the necessary armor would get too cumbrous and expensive. Making it too low would make fighting feel a lot sillier and less real. All of the kingdoms face roughly similar constraints (with some differences due to weather an the like), so there is some tendency for the game to be similar across kingdoms. A second reason is that we want to play together. Adjacent kingdoms have some incentive to modify armor standards, fighting rules, and the like to make interkingdom wars easier. A third reason, and probably the most important, is contact among people--people moving from kingdom to kingdom, people meeting others from other kingdoms at Pennsic and the like, people communicating on the Rialto, etc. This tends to smooth out differences. We end up with a single culture covering a large number of kingdoms. The Corporation does not make rules imposing uniformity very often (too often, in my opinion, but not very often). We have lots more uniformity than we would if that were the only source. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu ---------------------------------------- From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se Date: Fri, 24 Mar 95 21:13:33 +0100 >From Catrin to my colleagues on the Council: *** *** Greetings from Catrin Gwynystlum. The story is fairly trivial: I was born around 1100 as a daughter of a Bohemian knight and I ran away from home to escape an arranged marriage. For a time I roamed Europe from Nidaros to Granada in man's clothes, making a living reading and writing for people, bodyguarding merchants' wives on pilgrimage, telling stories in taverns and cutting an occasional purse. Eventually I found a Welsh lover and followed him to his lord's and lady's household in Wales to become the lady's secretary and messenger; that's where my assumed Welsh name comes from. In my lady's service I frequently get to visit Nordmark and various other parts of the Known World. Greetings also from Catarina Santalis, born just after 1400, the daughter of an itinerant Italian actor's wife and a minor nobleman someplace just north of the Alps. The bonus the nobleman paid my mother was sufficient for my stepfather to set himself up as a dancing master in Florence, where he trained me in his trade. Eventually I married a mathematician, the head of a Florentine merchant's counting house, but I revert to my stepfather's trade when visiting the Known World. Janna G. Spanne, Czech by origin, living in Sweden since around 1970, has a MA in theoretical linguistics, but ekes out a living at the administrative office of the Lund Institute of Technology. She joined the SCA in AS XXII, served as Chronicler in her local group for more years than she cares to remember, was for a while local Seneschal and is now local Chirurgeon and apprentice in the Drachenwald Chirurgeons' Guild. Other favorite SCA occupations are autocrating, cooking, dancing, teaching and reconstructing period dance. Unfortunately, the Grand Council appointment catches me at a very awkward time, when my mundane workload is very heavy indeed. But, if I'm rather quiet for the next month or so, be assured that I'm keeping myself posted and will join the fray as soon as I possibly can. *** *** ---------------------------------------- Subject: Grand Council commentary from Sir Titus of Outlands Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 14:26:21 MST March 25, 1995 Initial Statement of Titus: Greetings and introductions: I first need to apologize for my tardiness in joining the discussion. I am not a user of the internet and I am just now realizing how quickly things happen using it (No SCA time here!). I am experimenting with the net now by sending my first comments through a friend who is on-line, but I do not know how often I will be able to do this. I also would like to let Justin know how much I appreciate his efforts at keeping me informed by mail. This was of great concern to me when I joined the GC as Outlands rep, and your work has alleviated any fears I have had. Thanks. This is a catchup letter! I apologize for the length. [Most of the credit should really go to Brother Crimthann, who is doing most of the actual work. I just did the initial philosophizing and organizing; Crimthann is the one putting out the (quite pretty) postal Chronicles for GC folk not on the Net. -- Justin] Having said that I would like everyone know a little about my SCA experience and where I am coming from. Tod Huckaby started in the Society in Ansteorra in 1982. My initial experience in the society was trying to learn how to do the SCA and form a group at the same time. After college, my lady and I moved to the Barony of Namron and played there until the fall of 1987. My lady's graduate work guided us to the Outlands and to the then Shire of Unser Hafen (Fort Collins). It was in Unser Hafen that we really became more actively involved in the Society. We both were officers in the Barony from 1988 onward. I was selected as Seneschal to help coordinate the drive to make the Shire a Barony which we successfully achieved in October of 1990. I was Knighted by TRMs Cyredd and Morgana in October of 1992. I have also served as a Shire Hospitaller and Baronial Archer Marshall. My Lady and I were selected by TRMs Artan IIII and Aziza to be the Baron and Baroness of Unser Hafen in July of 1994. We are still serving in these capacities. In the SCA, I enjoy being a Roman, fighting, dancing, keeping newcomers interested, historical research, wearing gaudy Roman costumes, participation in SCA Universities, and doing demos. I really enjoy the use of personas in the society and have always wanted to explore early period. So I selected a Roman Imperial persona from the height of the Empire around 110 AD. Titus Claudius Severus is a Roman Cavalry officer serving the Emperor Trajan in the XXth Legion in the province of Britania. He found his way to this strange province called the Outlands and has been serving the Outlands' Emperors first as pedes, then working his way through the ranks to become an Eques in 1992 by their Gregorian calender. Tod Huckaby is an attorney turned Political Science Instructor who was motivated to apply for GC membership when his view of the dream became marred by oppressive behavior by the National Corporation. I feel that one of my responsibilities as a GC member is to represent smaller SCA groups (there are out there groups of 10-15 people that participate in the dream, hold events, and need assistance and support from a caring and sensitive national organization) and small kingdoms as well. I. Comments on GC Issues so far: A: Input on the Draft Grand Council Statement: In the purpose section, if the final report is due by the fall of 1996, it is imperative that GC members know who each other are and begin to form an identity as a functioning part of the SCA. 1. The initial focus areas: Corporation and Society Branches relationship- Corporation should provide Branches with any requested information involving National finances and policy decisions. It is because information only trickles down to Branches that the Branches are unhappy with the National Corporation. Services Provided by the Corporation-Cost management is a priority, Branch groups need to be told what services the National Organization provides besides a quarterly publication registration of Arms, and providing Blue Cards. Corporate Governing documents-More accessibility to these governing documents and decisions and more input from the membership in regard to these is very important. Information from the January 1995 Board Meeting is essential to Grand Council members to plan and organize these initial projects. 2. Relation to BOD: I believe it is very important that the BOD does seriously consider GC recommendations. 3. GC Membership: The requirements for the membership seem clear enough as long as the member has the necessary information to participate in the GC discussion and debate. Not only a letter reminding the member of their non-participation, but a letter or introductory packet should be sent out to the members helping to delineate their responsibilities should also be sent out. 4. Structure of the GC: 4.a. Reporting Requirements: Quarterly reports to the BOD are fine as long as the membership is also given complete copies of the final reports submitted. I know this statement may belabor the obvious but it is important that all GC members know what the report says before it is presented to the BOD. Including minority opinions and majority opinions are fine, and necessary. 5. Amendments to Charter: set up looks simple enough. 6. Relationship to IAC: Hopefully the two bodies will have a very close working relationship embellishing and helping each other out. If communication is crucial all GC and IAC members should know who each other are and have membership lists for both groups. It sounds like this is already in process and I think that is great. 7. Resource Requirements: Sounds ok, but use of mail should not be avoided. Membership should not be based solely on E-mail access if the GC wishes to maintain a diverse population in its membership. There are more people interested in National and Society Branch issues than those that are on the Rialto or the net. B: Issues Presented in Chronicles 1-8: 1. Chronicle 1: Agree with Justin on minimum character assassination and some limited editing of "Flamage". Otherwise how could mail based folks like me get away with long intro letters! 1.a. Caroline's Section: Yes I would like complete membership lists of both the GC and IAC (Compliment - looks like you and Justin are already working on this based on later Chronicle entries, this is great!) 2. Chronicle 2: I agree with Cariadoc's analysis of how SCA groups function in the local context. SCA does seem to me to be a bottom up rather than top down group or organization. Running the SCA as clubs is alright to a degree but I think it is important that the amount of groups within the same area be limited (more later on this). 2.a. Tibor's comments on GC members as Kingdom Reps-I was appointed to be the Outlands rep, but there has been no supervision of my activities nor is it expected. I think I was put on the GC because of my willingness to participate and to represent the membership as a whole basically tinged with my Outlands experience of the SCA. This is what the diversity of the GC is all about to me. However, I do see myself as an advocate for smaller Kingdoms. Mandamus petition: As an attorney and GC member I would like to see this. 3. Chronicle 3: Betrick on voting-I agree when he says if the GC votes the BOD and corporate officers may voice opinions but should not vote. 3.a. Cariadoc's Local Option Option-I like the idea of offering Kingdoms a choice on their status as a branch or group member and their ability to choose the level of decentralization. Smaller Kingdoms may not be able to organize the volunteers necessary to run every aspect of the SCA and could have assistance from the national organization they choose to have. 3.b. Dani on decentralizing the registry- proposals are good and this letter should be used as one of the basic documents to study these issues when the GC decides to hit it hard. She is right in saying this will take some serious discussion to work on-so I'll avoid it for now, except to say that decentralizing membership to the kingdoms will be a very complicated problem, especially for the smaller kingdoms, so maybe allowing the kingdoms the option to decentralize as in Cariadoc's model would be effective. 3.c. Gareth -Structure Comments sentence one-Well said, I agree completely, all you e-mailers out there take this to heart!! I also agree that the use of redundancy is sometimes important to show the direction of the discussion. I also agree there are structural flaws in the BOD that should be discussed. Also agree with your paragraph 4-"Because the board is trying to do too much of the wrong things..." 3.d. Tibor-Exemption letter for tax purposes-again allowing groups the choice seems to me to be a good idea and it does so with minimal paperwork! 3.e. Serwyl-on appointees-I agree with you that GC members should not be subject to will of crown, but presenting some of our own kingdom's perspectives is appropriate. 4. Chronicle #4 LOOK OUT LOTS OF COMMENTS HERE- Tibor on Cariadoc's proposal- I agree with the idea that the social culture of the SCA is damaged if geographic groups are allowed to break up based on political differences. The problem here is what happens when people really despise each other, if they spin off and form their own group that either disparages or competes with other groups, it costs both groups and the SCA our life blood, the newcomers. It might be possible for a large city to support more than one group or even two or more Baronies, but smaller groups cannot afford to have schisms or factions because it will scare off newcomers and prevent newer and or smaller groups from being successful. To me it is better to have one large group trying to have fun than a bunch of smaller groups that are insular and just play alone. 4.a. Justin on SCA in general- You are correct in your cutting to the chase on the heart of the problem. No one really knows what the SCA, Inc. is. To me even as a Seneschal, it seemed to me to be nothing other than a corporate entity that provides us insurance and took too long to send us membership cards. To help the SCA and image of the BOD in general one of the things that needs to come from the National Organization is some active assistance to the local groups other than taking away the money of the members. It could be something as simple as providing groups with copies of the Knowne World Handbook or Fighters Handbooks as incentives when certain paid membership levels or a specific # of authorized fighters are reached. The National Corporation needs to provide identifiable services to the membership. Only the Heraldry registry and the TI are visible services. The National Organization should be there to support and assist local groups in a more visible, quantifiable way. I would really love to get a discussion going on this. It would help the National Organization and make more SCA members aware of its existence and be favorable. Corporate mission statement-good start let's add a rider that includes the educational purpose as well. It's okay to me to have a rather detailed mission statement about some of the SCA, Inc. so they have some quantifiable duties to perform. In other words, something they are expected to do and are answerable for. The SCA, Inc. does need to have a law about this not a policy. It would help the National Corporations to have some clear guidelines here. 4.b. Maire-on Decentralization- Fine. But there still needs to be a national organization that serves some kind of support and advisory services to groups. If SCA, Inc. would be based upon assisting local groups to the level of assistance they request and provide needed support services and information, the corporation would be more appreciated. 4.c. Nathan-defining the SCA when it grows up-Good discussion topic. I like your goals to evaluate and promote especially constructive GROWTH and FUN and MINIMIZED BUREACRACUY- let's discuss having the Board be clearly defined to provide quantifiable and measurable support and informational services to new groups that are forming. Let's have a use of membership funds that serves groups and kingdoms. If the SCA, Inc. provides support and assistance as needed by kingdoms to help the dream grow and flourish then were on the right track. 5. Chronicle #5- Justin's Secretary notes -I really like the idea of conducting various polls. The system for doing so is already in existence by your work so far. Any GC member might want to create a poll, and then these polls could be sent out in the regular mailings or added to the e-mail messages. A deadline date could be set for response time and then the responses could be compiled and presented easily. I am interested in doing or coordinating this if the GC wants to try it. 5.a. Solveig- I agree that the purpose of a corporation is to limit legal liability. Providing information to the membership is also an important role of a National Organization and should be as important a role for the SCA, Inc. to play as being a corporate umbrella. 5.b. Gareth-on the federation view-It seems to me that Non branch members of the SCA are still members and a member does not lose any rights by not being a part of a branch. Branch autonomy does not preclude any non-branch member from playing with anyone or anything. I do not think that allowing branches more autonomy will limit any non-branch members' participation. Much of the community that you describe comes from the SCA groups that branch and non-branch members play with. 5.c. Cariadoc- response to Gareth. I agree with the idea that part of the problem is the internal structure of the corporation. The corporation needs to be more of a service to the local groups and kingdoms than a generator of new policy and new procedures. Once the Corpora and Bylaws are organized in this way it will be easier to allow local groups to flourish and grow within the guidelines established for insurance and liability needs of the whole SCA. For the decentralization idea to work, the corporation needs to be able to provide groups and kingdoms with the information needed to enable branches to make the best choices for themselves. On the territorial monopoly issue-for larger SCA groups having a lot of groups within the same area there may be room for people to go off on there own, but in smaller groups this often results in the end of the entire SCA group because the schism divides an already small core of people. To grow groups need to be supportive and cooperative with each other. People that can't play with a group are always free to play somewhere else or as a non-branch member. Allowing people to start their own group when they get angry with one event or who is the Herald, is being too decentralized. The territorial and non-territorial compromise is a good idea in situations where there is a large # of folks and does make it easier for kingdom and society officers to know who to contact. Decentralization in regard to finances-I agree with Cariadoc completely. All groups already deal with their own money and have checks and balances (sorry about the pun) built into the officer corps. 5.d. Elizabeth B.-Decentralizing publications-I think you are correct in this idea, unless the kingdom is unwilling to bear this burden. For those that choose not to handle their own newsletters the SCA, Inc. has already got a set up to handle the situation. 5.e. Barbary-"I think the administration could do a better job of explaining...." I agree completely. The National Corporation has shot itself more times than it needs to by its rather closed mouth behavior. 6. Chronicle 6-Kyle-I like the idea of GC (and any other SCA) members of having some kind of organizational chart for us to examine. As we discuss changes or modifications, we need to be comfortable with the structure of the current SCA, Inc. 6.a. Serwyl-Polls. I like the idea of polling GC members on a regular basis so we can at least get a feel for the direction of the debate and where are concerns are. We can supplement internal GC polls with SCA wide polls if we feel the need to. Everyone of the GC is here because we want to try to help, polling might be another tool to help us. They might also help decide what specific topics we need to deal with. 6.b. Justin comments on Serwyl's and Gareth's comments-First off I want to see what this informal group comes up with in regard to SCA commonalties. It might help us in our mission statement. There are certain things I feel it is alright for the SCA, Inc. to dictate to members, especially if it involves safety issues, insurance matters etc., in other words those things the Corporation exists for. Kingdom cultures and communities are best left to their own development. Decentralization can still occur and is still possible with these limits. Before I go any further though, let me make it clear that the corporate mission is in need of an overhaul, your idea of the Corporation as being a bridge to the mundane world I agree with. Finally, the weekly schedule is fine please be patient with us with only limited access to the net-we really do want to be involved (the length of this missive should show that!) 7. Chronicle #7. Justin's secretary report-happy about "voting" set up. Like digest set up how long with this letter end up? 7.a. Betrick-The polling system does not have to be automated except in terms of inserting a poll on to net messages and into envelopes. Tabulation of internal GC polls can be easily achieved by any member interested in organizing it (See #5 above). RE: PROPOSAL: Putting restructuring on hold- Why? these discussions can continue as we iron out our functions. Bi-monthly schedule if Justin continues keeping us mailees informed the way things are going now, I would prefer to keep a weekly schedule (you could not tell this by my participation up to this point!). "It seems to me the danger...." this could be true to a point if a handful of people with e-mail access are all that is heard, but it seems to me that a variety of diverse opinions are there to be discussed. However, if a GC member has to participate every single week to stay a member, then maybe we should consider a bimonthly schedule. "There is a lot of diversity..." I agree with you. What is uniform about the society does not come from SCA, Inc., it comes from the people out in the groups living their own version of the dream. Chivalry, Honor, and Courtesy are not inspired by Corporate guidelines, but by the period of history we seek to recreate. 7.b. Caroline's LET'S BEGIN...-Like the project lists. COSTS and RISKS-this will require lots of cooperation from the board are we allowed to ask for their information without fear? to be able to compare or investigate we need something to compare to. INSURANCE-I'd like to see copies. BOARD MEMBERS-needs to be more than good old boy network. I agree this needs to be worked on an examination of Corpora and a comparison to other similar groups like Civil War Re-enactors might be a good idea. WORK WITH OMBUDSMAN-like the idea how do we organize the construction of a chart? That leads to another question-can the board provide us with this or do we have to create a thing like this ourselves? We need to know exactly how much we have to discover for ourselves and how much information we have access to. 8. Chronicle#8-Alban-"the only disadvantage i see..." This is a major disadvantage. Territoriality is the easiest way to organize an SCA group. If every town or city has lists and lists of the different households or groups within one area where does the newcomer start? This does lead to a great deal of confusion and does get people involved into sordid politics immediately. Your possible solution might work if the Kingdoms wish to involve themselves in the politics of a local group even more than they do now! The one thing you say that makes sense is to maybe let the kingdoms decide how local divisions are defined, but I still see that as a problem because of favoritisms etc, that come from making Crowns and Kingdom officers from being more overworked. Upper Fenwick and Lower Fenwick work only when there is a large enough number of people to make both groups healthy and able to grow and it is destructive if they fight and compete. My personal experience in the society shows me that when a group is working together and with a common goal the SCA is the most fun. Political Problems always arise in any group, but compromises can be made to keep a group from self destructing. I am really worried when people within the same intermediate areas run around and form their own groups whenever they like. This is will make SCA life very difficult on smaller groups. It is better to try to work together than give up and form your own group. 8.a. Alysoun-I think the SCA, Inc. should be seen as a type 2 organization. Right now I think it is a type 1 organization that has many very unhappy members. 8.b. John-"....level of direct responsibility be lowered..." This works only if have enough volunteers to fill regional or principality offices. On 501(c)3 status. This works only if the National Corporation can be so distanced from local groups as to make the existence of the National Corporation moot. A plaintiff's attorney will sue all involved individuals, his local SCA group, the Kingdom, and the entire SCA and let them point fingers at each other. "Local groups need a mix of old & new, quiet & verbose people to function well. With a limited control on the growth of groups in an area people will find ways to work problems out for the betterment of the group instead of splintering infinitely." YES, YES, YES! I couldn't say it better myself. Like the TI idea is it just that easy? 8.c. Fiachra-on Politics-"I was brought up in a Barony...." That's the way I was raised by the SCA too. Therefore I agree with structure allowing easy joining and shining leadership. I think the SCA, Inc. can be made to help this happen. 8.d. Terras-On Territoriality-If not clear already I agree with this first paragraph. "One of the footholds...." We are primarily internally focused, but we do have a very public face and role to play as an educational organization and as recruiter for more members. We don' have to change that focus, we need to have the SCA, Inc, assist groups in a direct way when they need it. III. Other Issues and Concerns : I do not like the $3.00 surcharge. I realize that not all Kingdoms enforce this, but mine does. None of the groups or Kingdoms that have to pay and collect this surcharge ever see a penny of it. It increases the burden on local SCA groups in their book keeping efforts and adds on a layer of complexity to event coordinators that serves no real purpose but to enrich the National Organization. The BOD has had workable funding before this surcharge with voluntary membership dues. Now onto the increase in membership dues. The increase is too much. Raising membership rate at that level is a bit high but it is preferable to imposing a surcharge on non-members, but to do both and increase membership rates by $10-15 is an overkill. If the amount must be increased, a $5.00 increase annually until the target amount is reached is less painful, a little more tolerable and probably more preferable to most paying SCA members. I also would like to know about how the BOD and the national organization is supervised and or audited or the section of corpora that addresses this. Is it possible for members of the Society to ask for copies of this? Why or why not? That brings forward another idea. All GC members should be provided a copy of the current Corpora and Bylaws of the SCA or at least be given information on how to get copies of these documents. These questions may seem simplistic but it would be nice for them to be addressed by the BOD. Whew! Caught up at last-it is my intention to never write so long a letter again! My address and phone number which is publishable is Tod Huckaby, 2012 Orchard Place, Fort Collins, CO 80521 (303) 490-2936. Email can be sent to me at dlc@fc.hp.com but I am not on the network and rely on Justin's mailings. TITVS CLAVDIUS SEVERVS SPQR ---------------------------------------- >From ALBAN@delphi.com Mon Mar 27 01:30:23 1995 Subject: 4 minor items and voting procedure four non-major things, and then an idea on voting: Registry: i see no real problem with keeping it at the corporate level. i would imagine there are enough people like me who like the idea of sending only one check to cover all 13 kingdom newsletters plus ca plus ti plus (if they ever come back) the board minutes. there have been no problems with the registry that a good program can't solve. (i handled the society armorial and ordinary for a while; when i inherited it, there were 6,000 items, and over 13,000 when i passed it on to my successor. i did that on one desktop computer, using an off-the-shelf program, with no help.) a good mail-list program, or outsourcing, will do good. there's no need to fragment the registry into 13 separate jurisdictions. if one registry isn't working well, imagine the problems 14 will have (13 kingdoms, and one for corporate, er, national, ah, international publications). focus: terras suggests we do things for ourselves, rather than for the general public (aside from the occasional demo). i would like to see somewhat more things done for the general public; we are, after all, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit educational organization da di dah di da, and there's no reason why we can't start public education on a bigger scale. someone has mentioned the idea that perhaps the grand council should become the permanent reform-generating group for the board. i don't think the council should be that group, but i do agree there should be _some_ permanent method for reformation. (and for the removal of a board member for just and stated cause. impeachment exists, but impeachment is not the same as removal.) (i forgot to add this in my bio:) philosophy: i tend to be more jeffersonian than hamiltonian. i favor a weak central government and strong kingdoms, rather than the other way around. i'd prefer to see the board keep its hands off of local control except in a profound emergency. as long as everyone acts according to a core set of beliefs that makes the sca the sca, there shouldn't be a real need for any "help" from on high. a suggestion on voting procedures: summer, 1787, philadelphia. a group of guys meets to modify the articles of confederation of the (somewhat) united states of america. the confederation had worked well enough, sort of, to win the revolution, but people had come to realize the present rules weren't working real well now that there was an actual, live, real country. so a bunch of guys was sent to philly to revise the rules so that things would turn out better. they end up tossing out the confederation, and replace it with the constitution, which has lasted a while longer. i would suggest that we follow their rules for debate, which consisted of only two main points: no vote is final until the final vote; and any proposal can be taken up at any time. all of the following discussion presupposes that we will come up with one clear, concise plan for the board at the end of our two years. i realize that there will be pressure put on us by various people to hurry up and suggest something NOW; but stopgap measures often need to be changed because of later stopgap measures. one clear, consistent, overall plan is better than a bunch of temporary ideas. 1: no vote is final until the final vote: people tend to change their minds, especially if a better idea comes along (or at least i hope so). lord a, firmly wedded to a certain nifty idea, should be free to vote for that idea until such a time as idea 1-a comes along, which is even better. ideology is a nice thing to be consistent about, but we're not talking about ideologies here, we're talking about a set of practical changes to an organization. this requires flexibility. 2. any proposal can be talked about at any time. later measures may have to modify early measures to one degree or another. someone's nifty idea about the running of "x" in early 1997 might apply to a proposal we talked about in mid-1996 about the running of "y". someone might do more research and come across a better solution to a problem we thought we'd solved three months earlier. this would help us come up with one unified plan - or rather, a set of non-contradictory ideas. for reference, i'd suggest a book title "miracle at philadelphia" by catherine drinker bowen. in middle-of-the-night thought sessions, i often think that what the sca is faced with is like what the confederation was faced with: a bunch of kingdoms, er, states that don't all act the same coming up against a board of directors, er, congress, whose way of acting isn't, umm, optimal. if new york and georgia can come up with something, i'm sure the west, calontir, and trimaris can cope, too. (this general idea of no vote is final until the final vote, and anything can be brought up at any time, should also settle the "let's discuss now" vs "let's come up with an agenda" discussion.) alban ---------------------------------------- >From Carole.C.Roos.2@nd.edu Mon Mar 27 09:07:34 1995 Subject: GC: Council matters Greetings from Alysoun [Justin, I have the back issues now. Thank you] Please clarify terms. In common use around here, "Society for Creative Anachronism" or "SCA" stands for the whole thing. The "Inc" is added when appropriate. I don't think we have a term for the central body; we just refer to whichever part or function we mean by name--the Board, the office, etc. Personally I consider "Corporation" a poor choice, perhaps indicative of problems we hope to address. If it is well established, so be it. Does it cover all centralized functions? I am even less sure of "Society" meaning the participants, "subculture," the "people," etc. Is the intent to distinguish the real SCA >from a false SCA (along the lines of France versus the Vichy regime)? It's obvious there are problems--that's why we are here. But let's not fall into the trap of thinking there is uniformity among the participants. In issue #5 Gareth says that he identifies his membership with the SCA [broadly conceived] rather than through a branch. In issue #6 Justin appears to be mystified by this and defines membership as participation in a local group. This is not a matter of debate. A substantial number of people feel as Gareth does; a substantial number of people agree with Justin. Moreover, people change their views--while raising a family, after a move, etc. If we do not recognize and accept these kinds of differences, we will not be able to make effective recommendations. Different voting procedures could be used for different issues: an informal poll for less significant matters, a formal vote on sensitive ones. If there is not general agreement, I would like supermajority with dissenting opinions included for anything to become a recommendation. But remember, we are not passing laws. We can present something as undecided with pro and con. We can also present something for further study and this does not have to mean further hashing over in committee. On the question of territoriality for example, we could recommend that it be tried on a trial basis in a specified region for a five-year period to see how it works with local groups. We aren't planning a one-day event here! For non-members, will information for getting the Chronicle appear in Kingdom newsletters? How do we interface with the Board, Corporate and Kingdom officers? As a group, through Caroline, or as individuals? We can't begin serious discussion on many of these topics until we have more information. We can easily spend the next two years in an armchair discussion on our impressions of whether something would work. This may be fun, but it's not productive. We can't consider the idea of incorporation on the local group level until we know how many local groups there are, their size, the stability of their membership (for starts). If a sizeable proportion of local groups are small with fluctuating involvement or high turnover in membership, local incorporation is not worth discussing. Let's think about what information we need and how to get it. ---------------------------------------- Date: 11 Mar 95 From: Eichling Subject: Grand Council Intro. Synopsis: Intro Eichling von Amrum/ Janet L. Chennault Request for experiential data in organization of fraternities, the Red Cross, & similar organizations. Introduction: Eichling is a 10th century Viking. After hurriedly leaving the small island of Amrum, she indentured herself to the Jewish merchant Uncle Samuel, where she learned literacy and a profession. She has subsequently earned her living as an armed chaperone("Custodio ipsos Custodies "); she is currently opening a small trading venture. Janet L. Chennault joined the SCA in the Kingdom of the West, about 17 years ago. When she got out of the military, she journeyed southward to Caid, where she has remained since, outside of a year spent in the pleasant kingdom of Calontir. By profession a medical technologist, she is currently involved in the startup of a small corporation. Comments: A horse owner for many years, I observe equestrian hobbyists to be fully as absorbed by their avocation as Society members are. (One may, after all, be born into a family of horsemen, 'live in the saddle', and 'die with your boots on'.) But to compare the degree of involvement of the members of the SCA in their avocation, with the involvement of other hobbyists with theirs, while an interesting question in itself, is tangent to the actual issue. Given that other people's hobbies absorb their time and interest to some appreciable degree, can we learn something from the structure of their organizations which is pertinent to the situation at hand? Justin du Coeur makes the point that the Masonic structure exerts a philosophical influence on the individual chapters without recourse to official strictures. This is something we would wish to have, were the Society to be modeled on a more disseminated structure. [Justin: Please expand on this topic. Additionally, what of situations when one Masonic chapter "goes bad".] Other organizations which profess an ethical standard while maintaining individually incorporated subunits include the Red Cross and many fraternities. Does anyone have experience in these or similar organizations which may apply to the SCA? It seems less than the best use of effort to argue whether or not a organization may exist in a disseminated form while maintaining a degree of philosophical unity. Such organizations exist. Such organizations also fail, evidence the term 'Balkanization'. If, from the experience pool we have access to, we can discern factors applicable to the SCA which differentiate between such successes and failures, a less top-heavy organization becomes a viable alternative. Contact data: Eichling von Amrum Janet L. Chennault 15538 Cobalt St. Sylmar, CA 91342 ---------------------------------------- Sender: arthur dent Subject: Arthur's Thoughts on GCF#8 ARTHUR THE DENTED's REPLIES TO Issue #8 -- March 22, 1995 >Justin: GC *should* be time-limited I Strongly Agree. As much as we may *like* to think of ourselves as the Continental Congress, we are an advisory council to and a creation of the board who's sole purposes are as stated in the GC charter. >Alban: Intro;Territoriality Ok, but what's the worst case scenario for each of these (exclusive Vs non-exclusive territoriality) what can be done to minimize these problems, and is there a way to get the best of both? As More importantly, do we HAVE to settle this question to fulfil our mandate? (I think its a fascinating issue I'd love to be involved in settling BUT IF we CAN leave it for others later, we probably should... for instance, if we decide to reccomend a board elected by member balloting we can sidestep this, but if we reccomend a federation of clubs, recoginition of chapters becomes a pivotal issue) to the latter part, it is a question which would be useful to settle: are we he here to DESCRIBE the SCA AS IT IS with a structure that accurately reflects that reality or DEFINE it as it OUGHT to be by creating one? I believe that with diligence we CAN come up with an accurate DESCRIPTION of the SCA as it exists, and have both the friends we play with and the board come to agreement. I also believe that it serves no useful purpose for us to daydream about what "ought to be" any further than we can help, because neither we nor the board has the INFLUENCE to move the society any direction it doesn't already want to go, and attempts to do so were what got us here in the first place... I believe it is possible and desirable that when we have done OUR work well enough, we will have set in place institutions of sufficient standing to examine the collective dream and make it so. > Caroline: List of the Full Council >Alysoun: Introduction,Concerns about purpose I for one believe its case 2, that the corporation exists to further the activities of the members. I'm pretty sure that's how most if not all of the people I know feel. (but I'm going to find out reeeel soon if its not....) (ran out of time for further repsonses) GC PURPOSE AND FOCUS: My general feelings after reading GC #8: Trying to shape a corporate structure is more certain, and more easy than trying to change a society. ANY society. That may be why I tend to look at the part of our mandate we can easily DO something about with some assurance of timeliness, support, and success:corporate structure, strategy, tactics. If we can start from the premise that the PURPOSE of these is to support the society AS IT IS, we may be able to create a structure whole enough and strong enough to decide where it wants to go, and to go there without splintering to pieces. SELECTION OF BOARD MEMBERS: I can think of a lot of options to direct election of board members by the membership which might be OK, and the reason I,ve considered them is my natural distrust of 'popularity contest' elections, and a distaste for electioneering. Also a lot that goes on in elective politics is intentionaly divisive at worst, and time consuming and expensive at best... Would we have these problems? or am I just avoiding the obvious solution? Arthur The Dented ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 95 10:15:09 -0800 From: rgathercoal@foxmail.gfc.edu (Roy Gathercoal) Subject: GC-Response to digest #8 Questions about decentralization: Perhaps one of the perception-problems of the Society has been its dedication to keeping its problems hidden. One of the greatest services of the corporate structure has been dealing with potentially disruptive behavior at the local group level. To help me visualize how a decentralized Society would work, could someone explore how we would deal with the following situations in a decentralized Society, for example? 1. A lucrative (in money and potential new members) demo opportunity comes up in a town. The head of a household (in another town) makes use of personal contacts with people in the other organization to gain control of the demo and uses it to wrest concessions from the local group. Currently, we can deal with this scenario by insisting that households and other unofficial groups not use the name SCA (and the implication of organizational credibility and resources) without the sponsorship of a local branch. How would we deal with this if anyone who wanted to start a group could? 2. Most groups have found that sites suitable for events are growing increasingly rare. Currently someone who is not a representative of an official branch may not secure a site in our (collective) names. This is at least as much due to the protection of our good name as any scant legal protection. But under the decentralized model, how would we prevent some group of irresponsible people from securing a site in our name, then behaving in such a way as to make it less likely that site owners would have us back? This may not be such a problem in big cities, but I have seen sites dry up in smaller communities after a "bad" event. 3. A regional pornographic magazine runs a S&M pictorial about "women in chainmail" featuring interviews from people identifying themselves as from the SCA and describing the orgies that occur at (some) SCA events. This sort of unsavory thing is now handled quietly, usually by stressing to people that they are free to individually say what they like, but are not free to invoke the name of the SCA in doing so. Unwillingness or inability to see this distinction could lead to banishment or revocation of membership. What sanctions, if any, would be available under a decentralized model. 4. Currently, a sizeable hunk of the budget goes to supporting the recordkeeping required for subscriptions and memberships. Having run a newsletter with a subscription list of a couple hundred people, and having designed and serviced databases serving thousands, I understand the jump in complexity that occurs somewhere around 1000 (give or take a few hundred). Would we pay for decentralized member services by increasing fees, relying on volunteers in each kingdom or by some other means? (I know of several kingdoms who have had difficulty in filling current offices with competent people, and it would surely cost much more to pay 13 part time people than a few full time people, yet there seems to be a widespread sentiment that membership already costs too much). On organizations In Digest # 8, Alysoun writes: >Can we agree that the SCA is an organization? (Never mind for now how it is >organized or the relation of the different parts.) Organizations can be >divided into two types: (1) those in which the members serve the >organization and (2) those in which the organization serves the members. While agreeing with the desire to start with some common ground, I would suggest that there is another way to see the situation. 1. No social structure is value-free, and the organizational structure brings with it some embedded values. (If you really want a more detailed enumeration of this point, write to me privately and I will send a draft of one of the chapters of my dissertation--but it is not likely to be fun reading!) 2. Many of these values run counter to the ideals we wish to cultivate; many of us are active in the Society because it offers a short respite from some of the prevalent values of the 20th century. Some of these values (such as an emphasis on money) have been moderated, and others (such as a preoccupation with power) have been re-channelled into more acceptable expressions. 3. We have successfully avoided some of these values in the SCA by developing (whether by intent or by fortuity) a weird organizational structure that intentionally violates participants' expectations and by interjecting some very messy elements (such as the multiple "command" structures explicit in the lines of officers and of the Crowns). 4. By holding the conflicting values of inclusivity (we'll welcome just about anyone) and of chivalry (we expect high standards from all) in creative tension, we have created an ambiguity that has nurtured a society that is clearly different from most other historic structures (a Society that is a creative anachronism). 5. Some force has to keep these things together, and to keep one from dominating the other. Our society would look very different (and much smaller), for example, if unchivalrous behavior (as judged by some authority) was consistently punished by expulsion. It would also become quite different if the "outdated" notions of chivalry were abandoned in favor of inclusivity. 6. This force has been the "corporate" SCA, although it has looked less like a corporation when it was at its best, and most like a corporation when not at its best. 7. Thus, whatever changes continue to occur in the Society, we ought to recognize the integral relationship of values and structures. 8. In short, if we institute a modern corporate structure, we will likely (though not inevitably) grow a modern corporate organization with a modern corporate culture. If we institute a different structure, we will likely grow into something different. The catch, of course, is that there are more undesireable "differents" than there are desirable "differents." 9. So I would suggest that we not begin by thinking of the Society as an organization, but rather think of it as something a bit different. What we all know of organizations will be helpful in our examinations, for there are many elements in common. But what we wish to see resulting from these discussions is not quite like what we might think of when we speak of organizations. ---------------------------------------- From: modius@dobharchu.org (Erik Langhans) Date: 27 Mar 95 21:47:42 -0600 Subject: first contact Greetings unto the Grand Council from Modius Monsdraconis. Subjects: Introduction, Underlying Thought, Quarterly reports to the BoD, and Role of the Corporation Headquarters (Structure and the BoD), Mission Statement. Introduction. The year is 1545. Though originally from Hamburg (born 1515), since the age of 16 I have been fighting battles across Europe as a Landsknecht with the Schwarze Gesellschaft. For the last three years I have held the position of Commander of the Dritte Fahnlein of the Schwarze Gesellschaft. In addition to my involvement with Rapier Combat I am Ansteorra's Deputy Kingdom Hospitaler, Ansteorra's Wakeforest Pursurvant Herald, and a local Rapier Marshal. In the mundane world I come from a heavy Strategic Planning/Consulting background. My specialty is Management and Marketing consulting. For the last three years I have been with a firm which specializes in Market Research and Consulting. Relevant to the task which confronts us, I have held positions on three Boards and been involved with and led teams tasked with corporate restructuring. Underlying Thought. Because we were formed as an advisory committee, we have no power to bring our recommendations into existence. We must rely on the BoD to do so. Thus, I feel we must attempt at all costs to provide ACTIONABLE recommendations. Ones which are implementable and that we have received feedback on. Brainstorming is great as long as we put together recommendations the BoD will use. Quarterly Reports to the BoD. This is set forth as one of our obligations. When will our first be sent and what is its text? We all need to be united (to some degree) on what we present. Can we go to our appointed BoD liaison with our potential recommendations in order to receive feedback on what the BoD will or will not consider. I feel this is critical to ensure that our ideas will receive consideration and enable us to provide usable recommendations which the BoD will want to implement. Role of the Corporate Headquarters (Structure and the BoD). Simply put: to support and manage the Branch offices (the Kingdoms) which in turn support and manage the local groups. The degree of support and management at the various levels is what we were created to discuss. The BoD is and I feel should continue to be the highest level of the Corporation. What specific powers they should wield is open to discussion. A global organization must have only one set of hands on the wheel of the Ship to guide it (ie the BoD). As a side note: I do not feel that there should be an individual person with power over the BoD. The BoD should be the SCA's supreme court. The final court of appeals. The final word. **Ideas: Corporate HQ should maintain some of the Registry functions and provide membership support functions. Whether there is outsourcing or sharing resources with the individual kingdoms, the degree to which this happens can be decided later. The Individual Kingdoms should handle their own waiver matters due to the differing legalities of individual states. The question of who should handle insurance needs to be discussed with lawyers as I have been told a few widely differing opinions. In regards to decentralizing publications and splitting subscriptions to the Kingdom Newsletter from Membership in the SCA, we need to examine the impact and the possibility that members will allow their subscriptions lapse and become less informed (an idea put forth in a previous chronicle). I like the idea of looking into mailing services and getting bids. I like the idea put forth by one of our members regarding using the IAC to free up some of the BoD's time (ie in regards to Banishment, unruly Royalty, minor matters like branch advancements, and combat policy (Chivalric, Rapier and Archery). The IAC would in effect be appointed by the Kingdoms. Mission Statement: To provide the BoD with timely and actionable recommendations in regard to the structure of the SCA. Specifically, the extent of interaction between and the responsibilities and duties of the Corporate offices and the Kingdoms. modius@dobharchu.org ----------------------------------------