======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #32 -- September 13, 1995 Contents of this issue: Arthur: My two bits... Alban: Various Alysoun: seneschals; taxes and education Serwyl: Various Caroline: Progress on Changing the Chronicle to a Mailing List Voting 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 I'm back from England, and partly caught up. I'm reading my current email, but note that if you sent me something while I was away, and haven't heard from me, it's because I still have the better part of a thousand email messages left to wade through. It'll probably be another week yet before I've read all of it... Related to this, forgive me if I screw up any messages here. I'm basing what goes in mainly on date and how messages were sent, since I'm not caught up on the intervening Chronicles myself yet. I'm including here anything sent in the past week, and anything sent directly to me that I've gotten to yet... -- Justin ---------------------------------------- Sender: arthur dent Subject: My two bits.... my own two bits run something like this. Perhaps... 1) we should set particlular periods for each PHASE of our discussion, I figure one quarter 2) I'd suggest the first area be procedure... some fairly liniear processs which gets us past an issue so we can get to the next one... 3) after procedure we've really got three major issues, the first of which is 'what do we want'(results) and 'whats the way to get it'(Structure/mechinism) and 'how do we get from here to there'(Implementation)... recap four sections, one quarter each, one report each, one year to results. This feels like ground we've gone over before, but I figured its been too long since I've put my two bits in. By the way there seems to be a bunch of workgroups of which i've little or no clue... er could we hve a list and a definition of each? I'm nicing a tendancy to fragment here. small groups moving quickly in various directions, but if there is a coordinating or reporting system for these groups I cant quite make it out... We are in possibly the most demanding position a consultative body is going to get, for one reason. ther is now force, authrotiy or natural constituancy to stnad behind anything we reccomend based solely on our position are ideas will have to stand ENTIRELY on self evident merit. ouch. The only way any of what we recommend is going to happen is if A) the board of directors likes it SO MUCH that they just up and do it or B) An influental ( by combination of position and numbers) enogh segment of the SCA likes it SO MUCH taht they convince they lobby the baord hard enough to convince them. We're going to have to make some REALLY OUTSTANDING "everybody likes that, nobody sees a reason to object" sort of recomendations, and how often have you seen that in the world?. a year seems maybe a touch optimistic. ---------------------------------------- Sender: ALBAN@delphi.com Subject: again, long response gareth responded to my seven proposals: >>1. At the start of the next fiscal year, the SCA, Inc. should use >>Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or similar formal >>accounting procedures, at the national level. As soon >>thereafter as is feasible, the Corporate Treasurer should create >>procedures for local and regional reporting according to the >>same principles that the national organization uses. >>2. Beginning with the next fiscal year, the SCA, Inc., should >>have at least one annual audit of the books of account by an >>independent auditor. >1-2 OK probably, but I would want to know the costs before we >recommend any action. I believe that we should work towards >use of GAAP, but we should not try to adopt them wholesale in >one year if it will cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. >There are also some elements of GAAP that are quite obscure >and probably not particularly useful for us. So if we do end up >voting, and the wording is qualified "look into, start the >process, probably" then I would vote yes. If it is "move now" I >would vote no. what costs would be associated with implementing gaap or other system? there are costs involved with using a system that doesn't work: lack of good knowledge about the sca's finances can cost more than switching the system over to something that gives everyone a month-to-month (or quarter-to-quarter, or week-to-week, or whatever) view (e.g., are membership checks being deposited promptly in an interest-bearing account? are longer-term funds earning as much as they could? are this quarter's utilities bills more or less than same-quarter-last year's?) i asked someone involved with the mandamus suit about the status of the independent audit they'd tried to get, and the response was that the auditor had given up because the books were in such lousy shape. as members, we have a right to know where our money is going, and implementing standard, usual, typical, used-by-any-normal-business accounting procedures would be an enormous help. i'm NOT suggesting gaap alone; i'm suggesting gaap or other sensible procedure, which is apparently not being used now. note: i have received back-channel suggestions that there may be an attempt to implement at least double-entry bookkeeping, which is an improvement. i'm willing to accept "look into" or equivalent wording, as long as "with all due speed" is added. (if this last isn't added, i get the feeling the "looking into" might take decades). >>3. The Board of Directors should implement methods for >>not only the impeachment but also the removal of >>directors by the membership at large. >3. I don't see that expanding the populace's right to impeach >directors to directly remove a director will get us much. To my >knowledge there has never been a director impeached, and >cannot imagine that such an impeached director would get >much support from the rest of the board. Further, if people >signed a petition to impeach a director and it were blocked by >the board, they should be more willing to sign a second >petition. Each successful petition in essence stops the board in >its tracks and makes for a lot of extra work. By the time we >degrade into that state, our society will be pretty much >unsalvageable as anything other than a "fight over the bank >account" organization. As I said previously, real accountability >comes in face-to-face contact, not in appointment and removal >powers. giving the membership the right to remove a director directly gives us a right that we should have had from the beginning. i want to be able to vote on removing a director that has been doing a lousy job, in precisely the same fashion that i can vote for/against a senator, the president, or a director of a company i own stock in. signing impeachment petitions won't do a whole lot, especially with a bad board. it'd take all of 3 minutes to read the petition, accept it into the minutes, and vote against it. this hardly makes for "stopping the board in its tracks and makes for a lot of extra work." as for face to face accountability, there are 7 directors, and 25,000 members. there's damned little face to face. i see a director once a year, at pennsic. most members wouldn't know a director by sight if one came up and bit them. try telling your senator/representative, both federal and state, that he's accountable to you because he sees you occasionally, not because you can replace him. this is why the phrase "thank you for your input. i'll get my staff to look into it for you" was invented; my accosting a board member ain't gonna do a whole lot if the decision's already been made behind the scenes. again, why *shouldn't* we have this right? >>4. The Board of Directors should loosen the rules on >>territoriality, such that groups can decide how best to govern >>themselves; Provided, that any such governance must >>conform to documented forms of local governance from the >>SCA's period of study. [if a shire wants to have an elected >>mayor in charge, let it do so. unfortunately, this would mean >>that double-elimination crown tournaments would be >>eliminated since they're not documentably period as a >>method for choosing royalty. . . hmmmm, there's going to be >>controversy about this.] >4. No. This is not the forum to take this one up, and >territoriality should not be mixed up with royalty and fighting- >as-focus questions. I'm not so sure that we would all agree that >historical documentability ought to be an important (let alone >determinant) factor in choosing governance models. *apologies* *apologies* ooops. i just realized that i shouldn't have used the word "territoriality", which refers to where groups are, and what regions they cover, rather than how they're governed. please replace "territoriality" with "governance". governance is tied up with royalty in that kingdoms, principalities, and baronies are governed in part by royalty. i am *not* suggesting fighting be banned as a method for choosing royalty; i am *not* even suggesting that a crown be chosen by any method other than fighting. i *am* suggesting that a kingdom, principality, barony, or shire choose its own way of governance, without great interference from the board (ref: the nordmark mess). as for historical documentability, well, hell, we're supposed to be studying pre-17th century europe, and theoretically we should have our groups follow pre-17th century european forms in the same way our arts, our sciences, our fighting, our service do. practically, however, there's a lot of reasons not to. calontir uses a double-elimination tourney with a double-blind method of setting up the tree. some customs are so strong that nothing will change 'em. "fighting focus question"? i agree: most, if not all, kingdoms, focus on fighting as THE method for choosing the Crown. i'm not suggesting they have to change to any other method. nor am i suggesting any other group _has to_ change to any other method. i am suggesting that groups, particularly shires and baronies, be given a choice. hawaii and (i think) japan are both palatine baronies by special exemption from the Board. i would suggest removing the special exemption section, and allow both those baronies, and any other that chooses to, to select whatever method they see fit, with the usual provisions that the Board should impose about not splitting groups apart, or such methods must meet with the approval of 2/3 of the group, and such similar ideas. it's sort of like the federal government allowing the states, and the states allowing towns, cities, and counties, to set up their own governments as long as no-one is discriminated against, and a sufficient majority agrees to the method used? >>5. Non-American groups must be freed from legal, financial, >>incorporation, non-profit, tax, and other specifically American >>legal and financial rules. The only mandatory reporting >>should be on membership levels. [membership levels are >>regulated by corpora....anything else that needs to be reported >>to corporate? >5. On removing paperwork requirements for non-American >groups. If by "non-American groups" you mean branches of the >SCA which are located partially or wholly outside the limits of >the modern United States, then I don't think we get much >here, and potentially lose a lot. It is already clearly the case that >modern law supercedes all organizational documents etc. So no >group is forced to do something that is prohibited by even a city >council or town meeting, let alone a federal government. If, on >the other hand, you are suggesting that any branch that >happens to be located outside of the limits of the US can act >however it pleases, and report to no one (because most of the >rules in our corporation are set up to expedite reporting among >the majority of our members and branches) then we could lose >alot. We are not a federation of independent branches, and we >should not work to become so. my blood started to boil at this point. i've calmed down; i was half-way through this particular response when i suddenly realized why you're saying what you are. i was boiling over because i thought your interpretation relied on the first sentence, whereas i realized that it relied on the second sentence - so, i hereby withdraw the second sentence. i also realize, as i'm writing this, that foreign groups' exception >from american rules and regulations is not the same as reporting about same. therefore, i would suggest: 5.A. Non-American groups must be freed from legal, financial, incorporation, non-profit, tax, and other specifically American legal and financial rules. [as opposed to what's gone on in the recent past, with regard to, oh, american waivers being imposed on drachenwald....] 5.B. All groups, American and non-American, must report to their appropriate upper levels as to activity levels, membership levels, problems, and [fill in the usual boilerplate]. >We are not a federation of independent branches, and we >should not work to become so. here we differ. i think this is a fundamental difference, not one that can be bridged. while i agree that below-kingdom branches should not be, and never should be, totally independent, i also see no reason why the 13 kingdoms (and late, 14, 15, 24, or whatever) can't become a federation that supports a small central office. we've both argued our respective sides. 'nuff said. >>6. The requirement that written copies of Peerage resignations >>be sent to the Board of Directors should be eliminated. >6. Remove requirement that peerage resignations be written. >Absolutely not! Resignation of a peerage is a serious thing. This >is nothing that should be based on "I think I heard so-and-so >say that he was quitting." er, ah, gareth? i wasn't suggesting written resignations be eliminated, i suggested that written resignations *to the Board* be eliminated. a peer would still need to write his/her resignation to the kingdom newsletter, the crown, and/or whoever the kingdom laws require. the board has mandated requirements, yes. but the board doesn't make a peer, and shouldn't get involved when a peer resigns. (well, except when a peer undergoes degradation - but that's not the same as resignation.) >>7. The Board of Directors should investigate moving >>Corporate offices from Milpitas to a lower-rent district, either >>in California or another state. >7. Investigate moving corporate offices. Sure. But let's be sure >that we look at all relevant factors, including the availability of >qualified support staff (including professional accounting >services skilled in non-profits) and not simply find someplace >that is cheap--I hear there is some really cheap real estate in >South-Central LA, and some in the South side of Chicago, and >some . . . but I'm not sure we would be doing ourselves any >favors by moving there. Move ahead, but be careful, I would >suggest. well, yeah, sure, staff, safety, and such should be discussed. that's why i said "investigate moving", rather than "move" - but then, why am i arguing, when we both agree? >we seem to be going quickly to the "vote" process--I thought it >started as a "last resort" and now has moved to a "first step" wellllll, there've been comments about how slowly we were going, so i thought i'd try speeding up a couple of (seemingly) minor points. so now i get a complaint about moving too fast. oy. (i also pointed out, i think, that i made these suggestions over a month ago; the only person who responded back in any detail was, um, Gareth, although Finnvar made a couple of minor points. i pushed for a vote hoping that more commentary would be generated. i'm still hoping.) >Quick changes are easy in the short term, but are not likely to >do anything other than exchange one set of problems for >another set of problems. not always. there are _some_ quick changes that shouldn't cause problems down the road, such as items 1, 2, 5, and 6 above, and 7 merely requests a sub-committee be set up, not a full- blown change. 3 and 4? well, that's what discussion is for. by the way, what's the current vote status on modius' proposal, and on hossein's? alban, who's obviously had an attack of verbosity ---------------------------------------- Sender: Rooscc@aol.com Subject: GC: seneschals; taxes and education Greetings from Alysoun Please note my new e-mail address. I thank Gareth for the thoughtful analysis of the situation of senschals in Chron #30. Clearly some sort of independent budget should be established for these positions. We want the best people possible in office and we shouldn't penalize them financially for their service. Secondly, we must consider if these offices (at least seneschal and exchequer) need to be protected from the Crown and if so, how much protection is needed. If there is problem in only a few kingdoms, this should be addressed informally by the Society Seneschal and/or Board, if I understand correctly that they already have the option to override wayward monarchs on this. If there is a widespread problem of the Crown appointing less-qualified friends to these positions or dismissing good people at their pleasure, then procedures should be changed. Getting input from subordinates would be helpful either way. This does not have to be an out-and-out election system. It could be in the form of recommendations and/or votes of confidence for example. I would think the easiest approach is to include an evaluation section in the Doomsday since everyone has to fill it out anyway. All officers, including the local branches, should want an evaluation from the people they serve--what are they doing right or wrong, how could they improve. (There is a terrible tendency to seek approval only from superiors--this is not how good leadership works.) The evaluations should be passed on along with the officer's comments on them. This gives the officer the opportunity to assess his or her own performance and either offer some plan to improve or to give reasonable excuses or a defense if needed. Higher officers should be alert to continuing problems and prepared to work with their subordinates first, but to replace them if necessary. It also provides a pool for future officers--a way of knowing who did a good job as a local seneschal when there is a higher post to fill. Communication among offices and within a type of office will be improved when it is supported (financially and otherwise) and when the officers have a better sense of what their jobs are. My impression is that a lot of officers see their jobs in terms of getting reports in and passing on announcements--activities which don't require a lot of quality communication. Key word: training. It is silly in a society where we think nothing of making people squires and apprentices that we avoid some minimal training for officers. To do that training we have to agree on what the job is that they are being trained for. On other topics: I have contacted the IRS to resolve some of the concerns Lord Dani reported about our tax status. At this point I see nothing to be concerned about and I will make a full report on this in a week or two. Be thinking how we can best get this information out. Why the heck were people worrying about this in the first place? I thank Lady Solveig for the spirited defense of our educational mission. We have an in-house public relations problem in this area--what can we do about it? These concerns are related and affect the Council in two ways: (1) what can we suggest to the Board about how the organization can better address these issues and (2) how we can avoid looking like we missed the boat if the people out there are thinking these are the issues and we are talking about something else. There have always been rumors and people who get an ego trip from spreading them. One would think that with the increased use of the net we could have better communication and less rumor and misinformation. It does not seem to be happening. Some of you are very active in the newsgroups: What can we do? Fiacha and anyone else: contact me if you would be seriously interested in assessing Rialto's value as a polling tool. This is one of the areas of expertise I can tap but I am not going to take up expert's time if no one is willing to explore the subject seriously. ---------------------------------------- Greetings unto the Council from Serwyl, I must apologize for my absence from these pages recently. Between following the volumous membership committee correspondance, helping with our Kingdom's 10th Year anniversary event and just plain mundane life I haven't had the wherewithal to publish in the Chronicle. Anyway, lots of comments: To Fiacha: You may see a number of comments in this posting that mirror your comments in Chronicle #31. I wrote all this after reading #30, and then saw your stuff. Sigh. Re the Default vote = Yes. I do not favor this route. While silence may be a tacit acceptance in some circles, we cannot afford it here. An abstension should count for what it is. Re Finnvarr and Fiacha on Branch Creation. The current policy of the Board is for the Kingdoms to handle Branch boundaries, so there is really very little for us to improve here. Creation of Principalities and their promotion to Kingdom is still at the Board level, and should probably remain so, unless we have the IAC or a similar body handle that aspect. Re the IAC. In my perfect world, the IAC is a Kingdom appointed body that meets on an as needed basis to deal with interkingdom disputes, banishments below the permanent revocation of membership level, Barony approvals etc. While these matters do not take up an innordinate amount of Board time now, they certainly add to it. Re Accountability: This is a major factor in all our discussions, be it in committee or in the Chronicle, and it is the spark the touched off this most recent reform movement of which we are a part. Some members are proposing elections od various officers. Elections, in and of themselves do not guarantee accountability. In fact, I don't doubt that some of our political problems might be worsened by it. We have a hard enough time trying to find one qualified and willing person for most positions without having to worry that someone with a big household and no qualifications will come in as a ringer. The problem also arrises of exactly who votes. In all other organizations I have belonged to only members vote. Membership is also very well defined, involving a financial commitment to the organization. Some of the proposals in the GC involve defining members as those who participate (ie come to events or meetings). If I attend meetings in two adjoining groups, can I vote in both? How often would I have to attend to vote? Who keeps track? If there are no requirements except coming to the meeting the voting actually occurs, can I ship in some frinds from the next group over to vote for me? I know I'm carrying this to the point of silliness, but the point remains. To vote, we would need a clear idea who is allowed to vote, and ezen then we have no guarentee that the result would be any better than the system we already have. A comment someone in the membership made sparked a thought about a simple way to promote communication up the ladder and back to the Board. Currently, the Board really only hears events through its officers and from the VERY select number of people who take the time to write them directly. What we need is some sort of institutionalized system of feedback that allows the Board's intentions and processes to be communicated to the populace, and allow the populace to provide input. My solution would be to require Kingdom or Principality seneschals to hold a town hall style meeting at the soonest large Kingdom event directly after a Board meeting. At that meeting they summarize Board activity, elicit responses, comments and suggestions, and report all this back to the Board. Advantages: 1. Anyone, member or not, can participate and have a chance to provide input. 2. Many who would otherwise never comment to the Board might be encouraged to do so. 3. The Board can use the forums to sound out the populace on proposals before they are put into effect. 4. the people attending will be those who care about the organization and actually want a say in running it. Disadvantages: 1. The potential for the seneschal to distort the comments made (ie gloss over opinions they might not agree with). 2. It does not reach the entire populace. I'm sure there are other pros and cons, I just can't think of them now. One big pro is that the system could be instituted almost immediately and with no cost beyond the additional work to the Seneschal (or someone appointed by the seneschal for that task). Moving the Corporate Offices: This may turn out to be a neccessary cost saving move for the SCA Inc. However, I've never seen any cost proposals or other reasons why this is actually needed. Just to say 'Lets move to where it's cheaper' belies the more important questionsof exactly why we have to move, what are the costs of moving and where we should go. If at some point it is decided that a move would be the wise choice, we owe it to the current employees to not only offer them jobs at the new locale, but financial aid to move there. For me that's just an issue of fairness. Besides, I'm not sure I could imagine the SCA without Renee (and there are times I know it couldn't function without her). To Alban re going to GAAP reporting: Not being an accounting whiz, I decided to call the Society Chancellor of the Exchequer (Kathy Palmer), and discuss your proposal with her. She certainly gave me an earfull. First off, she was glad someone from the GC finally decided to ask her a question, instead of making assumptions about how the accounting is run. (By the way, Kathy stated that she is perfectly willing to entertain both phone or written questions regarding her end of the Society accounting procedures. She handles Kingdom and newsletter reporting, as well as accounts for the College of Heralds, Pennsic and Free Trumpet Press). Our current reporting system is based on the IRS 990 tax return the government requires we submit. The blocks on a local group's report correspond exactly to that the our corporate tax return, and to change it would severely complicate our preparation of the final report. A new financial policy booklet, with numerous examples, has been created and will be presented to the Board at it's next meeting. It is hoped that as these booklets are disseminated that problems with reporting and why we rerport the way we do will decrease. Again, we are looking at a proposal to force the corporation to do something without full knowledge. I would want to see an explaination of WHY we need to change our reporting (in terms a non accountant like me can understand). I suspect you would need an awfully compelling reason to convince the Board (or me for that matter) to change from a system that actually eases our reporting to the IRS. Re Removal of Directors: If even at the height of the anti Board sentiment, the dissent could not muster the votes to impeach one single Board member. Even if the impeachment had teeth, I doubt due to the general apathy level of the Society we could ever actually remove someone. In hindsight, it turns out that the non structured social pressures caused Board members to quit, and were the most effective censure. (By the way, several of the Board members that retired still believe that pay to play was the correct decision, but that they didn't need the pressure- after all, this is only a game...). ---------------------------------------- Sender: "CAROL L SMITH" Subject: Progress on Changing the Chronicle to a Mailing List Greetings from Caroline! I'd like to update you on the proposal to change the Chronicle to a mailing list. It seems that many of you favor this change, although some of you have some concerns about quantity of responses increasing the quality of information. This is a valid concern, and we would need to be careful to manage it. I'm in favor of this change, primarily from the conversations with many of you at events and online. Some of you who don't talk much in the Chronicle have said that it's because it is hard to say "me too" to a comment someone has made, or that by the time you want to say something, it has already been said. The Grand Council needs its members to say they agree with what others are saying (or that they disagree). This practice is different from standard Internet etiquette, I realize. But without Tibor hearing that someone agrees with his proposal, for example, he'll just drop it and move on. Here's how the process will work. If you're on the GC now and get the Chronicle on the Internet, you would change to getting messages as they occur, rather than weekly. You would have the option to change your messaging method to a digest, which is similar to the Chronicle now, if you choose. These would come out as the volume of the conversation requires. If you get the Chronicle via paper mail now, nothing would change for you. You would probably be farther behind in the discussions than you are now, however, because the conversations may move faster. We are still working out how to determine write privileges, since many of the GC Chronicle recipients are not members. But that's a detail the technical people can handle. That's the news so far! Please let me or Justin know if you have any questions or comments on this change to the way we communicate. Ever in Service, Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com ---------------------------------------- Sender: "CAROL L SMITH" Subject: Voting Greetings from Caroline! Since there has been so much clamor against having a lack of a vote count as a yes, we won't do it next time we have a vote. Thanks for your rapid and vocal feedback. Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com ----------------------------------------