From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 16:42:28 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:48:37 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership-3 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >From: Solveig Throndardottir >Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership-3 >Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 15:42:22 EDT >In-Reply-To: <9510191726.AA06171@dsd.camb.inmet.com>; from "Mark Waks" at Oct 19, 95 1:26 pm Master Justin! I hope that this thing stell refers messages to you as I wish to specifically reply to something that you mentioned. > True; we might do well to "bleed off" some of the edges into better-suited > games. (I actually know at least one person who has serious considered > founding a historical-fantasy club, just to drain off some of the most > extreme fantasy types from the SCA...) Actually, Amptgaard appears to be an already existing organization which does exactly that. They have complicated combat rules which allow the use of magick in their field battles. They allow characters based on history (with a 1650 cut off date), but also a whole range of fantasy characters. They do have arts and sciences collegea, etc. Incidentally, according to their litterature, they are a 501(c)(3) incorporated in Colorado (if I recall the state correctly.) I encountered this group in Texas. There are also a few other broad-based groups already extant which do live-action fantasy role playing games. And, there is SIL. I am not sure how the proposed organization would matterially differ from one of these. I think that one or the other of them would probably be quite suitable for your friends. One of the advantages of the SCA is that it is so many places. The same should be encouraged for a more explicitly fantasy organization. (Incidentally, Amptgaard allows elves, trolls, etc.) Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 19 22:46:55 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 22:03:46 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Standing committee (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L From Duchess Heather: I heartily concur with the concept of the "standing committee". The concerns that the populace currently has regarding the whole SCA process versus the BOD do need to be addressed in a more practical manner. Standing committees working on particular problems or proposals would be more efficient in getting something done and in opening a communication line from the average member to the BOD or whatever level of SCA management. Of course, their work would be of no use unless they are taken seriously and are accepted into our way of doing things. (I somewhat suspect that maybe the BOD 's motivation in setting up the Grand Council was to put a buffer between them and those complainers out there. ) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 09:57:40 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1603 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:21:38 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded message: >From lsteele@mhc.mtholyoke.edu Thu Oct 19 18:19 EDT 1995 Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 18:18:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Lisa Steele To: Tibor Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers (fwd) Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Length: 1192 Please forward to GC list. The problem I can see with this panel is that there are a lot of attorneys within the SCA who have no competency in the areas named by either me or Esclarmonde, and who are willing to donate time but may do more harm than good. First, ask for resumes or c.v.s and keep those handy. That gives you a fair idea of areas of practice. in at least one of these areas; not be an agency attorney (i.e., employed by government) or other non-practicing lawyer; and preferably have at least some Being in gov't brings a fair number of ethics/conflicts problems which the attorney should know about. On the other hand, I know a couple of folks at IRS who I might quietly run an argument past to see if it works. There are also folks like Yaakov who have some interesting experiese in areas not related to their duties who could kibitz informally. f'instance, that just because the corporation has an employment issue does not mean the corporate attorney can handle it. Not that they _can't_ handle it, but that they aren't the best person to handle it. I'm licensed for general practice in Mass., but that doesn't mean I should try a murder case. --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 10:08:40 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:35:41 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: colleges (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L This is from Lady Karen, who would remind us that far away groups aren't the only ones who need special consideration and that my shire is not alone in wanting more help rather than less: My wish list? I wish the high muckety-mucks in the Great Chain of Being we call the Society would pay attention to problems at the College level. I wish there was a student membership that students could afford. I wish there was something in the Corpora helping College chapters founded in the post-Reagan era to set up dual bank account systems. I wish there was some kind of a guide to help College seneschals. (I'm writing such a guide for my technical writing class and will offer it to other College seneschals for free if they want it.) I wish there was someone on the GC who would represent my concerns not as an Atlantian but as a College chapter type person. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 10:16:08 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:35:46 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: membership 3.5 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun This is complicated stuff and it is confusing. This message is to clarify a few points before I try to go on. Justin uses the word "authenticity" in his response, but I want to make it clear that this is not a word I was using. We lump authenticity and education together but they are not the same thing. It may be helpful to look at an example from the outside: The Junior Classical League and a toga party both require people to wear bed sheets and can be fun. The JCL is educational but not very authentic; the toga party is authentic, but not very educational. Alban is with me when he writes: "there are members, who are paying members, and then there are members, who are non-paying participants?" That's the main thing. But there are also paying members who aren't really *members* if they think we are an Ann Rice fan club. Ditto for non-paying participants with the same delusion. Tibor writes: "I can't see where you are going, or what problem you are trying to solve." We are considering major changes in the structure of the organization. The rationale for these changes has not been limited to correcting administrative weaknesses. Instead they are predicated on understandings on what it is that we do as Society for Creative Anachronism. Before we can determine which direction to go, we have to know where we are. The views expressed seem to be in conflict. There is a reality problem, and I intend to sort it out to the best of my ability and hope for good aid from both the members of this Council and all the people out there who are listening. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 10:42:37 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:09:17 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se Subject: Re: Cariadoc Proposal: Long Term or Immediate Priority? (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... relevant to one currrent and >pressing issue, the question of the European groups. ... many are in effec= t=20 >actually operating in ways very similar to what is proposed by Cariadoc, a= nd=20 >are often required to do so by national law >or custom. Correct. For example Sweden, Germany, Finland, Holland, France. In the Unit= ed=20 Kingdom it seems that a foreign non-profit can legally function (open bank= =20 accounts, enter contracts, buy insurance etc.) directly.=20 >We have generally managed to continue to function in our relations with th= ese >groups by ad-hoc exemptions and by ignoring the issue. We can't do this mu= ch >longer.=20 Note the British comment in my report, which says that we'd appreciate some= one=20 thinking about the differences in advance, instead of just introducing a ru= le=20 and then saying "Oh, that's right, you can't do that in Europe; I guess we= =20 better exempt you." >The Council can both address these issues and provide a test for the >Cariadoc system by suggesting a model framework for the relations between >SCA, Inc and a legally separate regional corporation. > >For example, SCA, Inc would recognize a regional or national corporation as >an associated organization if: > >It was legally incorporated in its jurisdiction... > (cut) >...lower membership fee for membership in SCA Inc. This looks a lot like what I discussed with the Drachenwald ombudsman when= =20 she visited here. Although she couldn't formally speak in the name of the=20 Board, it seems that something along these lines isn't all that terribly an= d=20 outrageously subversive. >If the associated organization covered a smaller area than an SCA realm, it >would be ruled by the realm's monarch in all "in the game" matters; awards >and so on. The monarch would have only as much of a role in the group's 2= 0th >century administration as they chose to give him. While we may get mileage, >as Cariadoc suggests, from pretending to be monarchies, I do not think the >standing of the monarch in "the game" is necessarily enhanced by involment= in >20th century administrivia. The English would not love their Queen so well= if >she had to do the stuff the prime minister does. Yes, yes, yes! Applauds! >By the way, I can confirm Cariadoc's observation that we work our officers >much harder than other organizations. The people I know on the board of >substantial tax-exempt organizations put in a fraction of the hours our bo= ard >does. I personally think our approach is counter-productive; we tend to bu= rn >our officers out, making them crispy and unftted for further work, whereas >organizations inflicting a lower workload get years of useful labor out of >theirs. Absolutely right. The SCAInc way of doing things, where the Board has the=20 ambition to micro-manage everything, and the members expect the Board to fi= x=20 everything, may work fine for a group of maybe 20-50 people. In a thing the= =20 size of the SCA, it's absurd. (I mention the Board because the general atti= tude=20 as to how things should be run originates there.) It has the doubly destruc= tive=20 effect of the officers burning out and the general membership feeling total= ly=20 powerless under an inadequate rule.=20 /Catrin=20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 10:55:23 1995 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: scagc-l@listserv.aol.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:18:35 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se Subject: Re: Finnvarr: Galleron's proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >so, set one up. a landmarks agreement body? a dream supporting group? >(actually, the names may be frivolous, but an independent group, >keeping the landmarks alive, changing them occasionally if need be, >and being sure all the groups meet said landmarks, as a body >separate from the board of directors, would be a Good Thing.) > >alban Certainly. How about the InterKingdom Council?=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 11:07:07 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:29:06 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 1 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >It has been said before that we cannot separate the mundane and the mediev= al. Why not? All sorts of sports do the equivalent, in separating administratio= n=20 >from the rules of the game. (i.e. you can play soccer no matter where and h= ow=20 your team has its legal existence, as long as you stick to soccer rules) >We cannot separate the game from human organization. This is stating the >obvious: no local groups =3D no game.=20 No. But we can separate the game from the legal/bureaucratic organization.= =20 I do want to have a say in who has access to my group's bank account, and w= ho=20 makes out the budget and is responsible for keeping it, and I certainly wan= t=20 this person to be accountable to the general membership. As for who hands o= ut=20 awards, charters guilds, sits at the high table and holds courts, I have no= =20 quarrel with this person simply being the winner of a sports contest, in=20 particular as (s)he only "rules" for six months. Also, having an arbitraril= y=20 appointed ceremonial head won't hurt us in the eyes of the general public (= =3D=20 mundanes), in the way that not democratically electing officers of the mode= rn=20 corp will, at least where I sit. /Catrin =20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 11:10:08 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 15:34:44 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se Subject: Re: Alysoun: David/Galleron proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... Catrin should be back from vacation soon. Just for the record, I was on a job in Stockholm, and yes, I'm back, barely= .=20 (Got home on the night train and got 145 unread messages when I hit the off= ice.) I think you've seen my comment by now. Please feel free to ask about detail= s.=20 =20 >What about others? We have not heard from Bertrik in a long while.=20 No, we haven't, and it bothers me a lot. I *don't*, I repeat, *don't* want = to=20 come across as some kind of "Voice of Europe" - I don't have the knowledge,= the=20 time or the discipline, or, for that matter, the ambition.=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 11:23:33 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 5 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:32:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Finnvarr: Setting NOMail To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am setting the list to "nomail" until I return. I'll expect that you'll have everything under control by the time I get back. :-) Finnvarr From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 17:09:26 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: ccjoe@SHOWME.MISSOURI.EDU Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:29:43 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Margo Lynn Hablutzel <72672.2312@COMPUSERVE.COM> Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers (fwd) Comments: To: SCA Grand Council Discussion List To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Esclarmonde commented upon my suggestions for the possible panel of attorney-advisors: M> The problem I can see with this panel is that there are a lot M> of attorneys within the SCA who have no competency in the areas M> named by either me or Esclarmonde, and who are willing to donate M> time but may do more harm than good. E> First, ask for resumes or c.v.s and keep those handy. That gives E> you a fair idea of areas of practice. Exactly. If the firm is listed in Martindale's or Sullivan's or a similar place, you can check to see what they claim to do there, but not all firms want to pay the money to get a large listing. E> Being in gov't brings a fair number of ethics/conflicts problems E> which the attorney should know about. On the other hand, I know a E> couple of folks at IRS who I might quietly run an argument past E> to see if it works. Informal things like this are always useful, but this was not what I was talking about for the advisory panel. I know a lot of attorneys (judges too) that I can run things past on a "have you ever?" basis. E> There are also folks like Yaakov who have some interesting experiese E> in areas not related to their duties who could kibitz informally. Except that Yaakov has in the past offered things styled legal opinions, so I think he needs to be a bit more careful. I have seen attorneys fired if their employer gets wind that they are doing outside work. M> f'instance, that just because the corporation has an employment issue M> does not mean the corporate attorney can handle it. E> Not that they _can't_ handle it, but that they aren't the best person E> to handle it. I'm licensed for general practice in Mass., but that E> doesn't mean I should try a murder case. A more elegant way of saying what I meant, and I sure would not take on a murder case either. In fact, one reason I am resisting joining the Federal Trial Bar is that they require you to take one or two criminal cases each year on federal issues, usually drug or battery/assault and murder charges. Having to represent kids who peel cars through one of the conflict panels I'm on is quite close enough, thank you very much. Corporations often face, in addition to the "basic corporate" questions, issues of leasing, buying businesses, buying/selling goods and services, construction, employment, intellectual property, taxes, securities, and those are just off the top of my head. It is why many big corporations either have a large in-house legal staff, or farm out detail work to law firms with the appropriate knowledge and experience. ---= Morgan |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 19:46:37 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 19:12:27 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: membership 4 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun We have several sets of categories that we are using in our attempts to describe the SCA phenomenon. The simplest is to divide it up into Corporation and Society. Gareth gives us movement, community, and organization. In addition we have a debate over educational vs social, with educational hobby lying somewhere in between. We also speak of the game and will soon get a summary of Landmarks to see if this can help clarify matters. I have been waiting in vain to hear from a vampire supporter. So far we are running 100% against. I don't want to pick on this group but to use it as a case study to get a better idea of what is going on, who is responsible for what, and how people think it ought to work. There were enough vampires at Pennsic to be noticeable. This raises questions in three areas. The first area is demographic: Who were they? Where did they come from? Are they always vampires or is this a Pennsic persona? I'm told that some were young teens: did we have whole families of vampires or is this a reaction of the younger generation against SCA parents? If we don't know the answers to these questions we don't know what this is all about. Who should ask these questions and assess the answers? Interkingdom Council? The second area is pragmatic: If vampires are out, how come they are there? Who is in charge of this sort of thing? I doubt any of us would say the Board. The community/Society doesn't seem to handling it on an informal basis. Should each reign start with a list of outlawed persona types? Should autocrats set quotas at the door? How should it work? The third area is more philosophic: What is it that we are objecting to and how do we base those objections? Simply saying that vampires are out of period strikes me as a cop-out. I think our gut reaction would be the same if we had that many werewolves running around and werewolves can be documented back into classical times. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 20:06:48 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:01:44 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 3.5 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951020093546_49505530@emout05.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >Justin uses the word "authenticity" in his response, but I want to make it >clear that this is not a word I was using. Oh, I understand. I just wanted to make the point that there is a very fuzzy line between, say, people who are deliberately playing a fantasy game, and people who are playing medieval but not doing it very well. The effects can be *very* similar, yet the former seems outside the game, but the latter within it. We therefore need to be sensitive to the fact that these are not generally sharp lines we're talking about, but very rough ones... (It's easy to talk about the vampires. But what about the Princess Brides? The genbarbs? The 'chux? I don't think there's nearly as much consensus there about what belongs in and what out...) -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Comics in Our Youth "Well, when *I* was young, we didn't have newspapers. Hell, we didn't even have paper. All we had were cave paintings! Have you ever tried to store a reasonable size collection of cave paintings? Just moving the caves around to sort them into hieroglyphic order was a hassle like you wouldn't believe." -- tyg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 20:09:10 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 14:31:07 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Affiliation/Franchise (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 18:30:51 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Affiliation/Franchise (fwd) >In-Reply-To: <199510191929.OAA129084@black.missouri.edu> On Thu, 19 Oct 1995, Joseph Heck wrote: > > > > I am not sure that requiring the people to have this credential is necessary, IF > > the person is in a position which requires the use of such skills even without > > the formal training. Actually, training is not much (going there, doing that, And I know mediators who consider most of the credentially courses a great deal of horse ****. However, having the papers will give the mediator or arbitrator some credibility when dealing with the participants and with their superiors. It also may help the decision makers understand their role better--I learned a heck of a lot about judging when I worked for two these past three years. I would like to see some formality, just to be more certain the process was fair, esp. if it is an arbitration. As to the previous question about appealablity--as an off the cuff thought--one appeal to a three arbitrator panel, at least two of the three from outside either participant's group and at least one from another kingdom? --Lisa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 20:09:22 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:54:33 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: colleges (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951020093541_49505510@mail06.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun quotes Lady Karen: >My wish list? I wish the high muckety-mucks in the Great Chain of Being we >call the Society would pay attention to problems at the College level. I >wish there was a student membership that students could afford. I wish there >was something in the Corpora helping College chapters founded in the >post-Reagan era to set up dual bank account systems. I wish there was some >kind of a guide to help College seneschals. To some degree, it already exists. Up on the web, there is a booklet called, "The Provost's Handbook". I wrote this several years ago; it collects all kinds of information about running college branches. Note that not all of the information is applicable to all colleges. The Handbook is specifically geared to the Boroughs of Carolingia, which are technically unofficial branches of the SCA. (They are recognized by Carolingia, but not by the Corporation, which cuts out a lot of paperwork and rules.) Some information is peculiar to that setup, and some to the way Carolingia runs. But most of it should be applicable to any college-based situation. (In particular, it includes around ten pages or so on the various forms of recruiting demos, and how to run them; it's the most detailed such guide I know of.) It does not have much about interfacing with the Corporation, but it does have a lot of general advice about how to deal with Colleges. The book is around twenty pages when printed. It's available at: http://www.inmet.com/~justin/provhand.html The book is constantly evolving; if you have suggestions for it, please tell me... -- Justin Who spent a couple of years running a Borough, and figured the experience should be recorded... Random Quote du Jour: "That which doesn't kill us, needs more tequila." -- Capt. Bill Fryman From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Fri Oct 20 22:00:13 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 21:25:34 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Gareth's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, Ok, it's pretty obvious from my last post that I have some real reservations about Cariadoc's proposals. I'm a lot more comfortable with Gareth's minimalist suggestions. Reforming the current system is always easier than rewriting it, and I suspect a radical rewrite along the lines Cariadoc wants would precipitate the same kind of firestorm pay for play did. >Thus I would propose these structural changes: >1. Charge the board with setting the direction for the society. They would >be involved with very few administrative matters, and thus would conduct most >of their meetings in public. Their primary task would be to provide a forum >(opportunity and structure) for a continuing dialog among the members of the >society and to translate these into viable direction statements, to be turned >over to the officers for administration. Their task would be similar to what >we are doing here, but with greatly expanded input and on an ongoing basis. No argument here. Under your model the Board acts more like a traditional corporate Board. >2. Place most administrative matters in the hands of the existing >society-level officers (Seneschal, Marshal, A&S, etc.) and have them meet >frequently (probably quarterly in person, and monthly via conference call or >continually via computer bbs). They would be directly answerable to the >board >(as is now the case). They would be responsible for taking the directives >from the board and translating them into general policy. I feel that Justin is absolutely right in limiting this group to only essential officers. Neither Art/Sci nor the Laurel Soveriegn is required for the day to day running of the corporation, although I feel they should be kept involved in the decision process. >As to membership: >7. There would be a lower annual membership fee. I would also encourage a >low-cost "transient" category for the unemployed, students, etc. and a >steeplydiscounted family rate. People would be able to attend meetings and events >while they are deciding whether they want to join (six-month or one-year >trials) at no charge (eliminate the surcharge). But the expectation would be >that if you wanted to continue, you would sign on the line. I disagree here. You want to encourage membership, but at what point does encourage become 'enforce'? The combination of a low membership fee with a VERY low, say $1, surcharge on events works in a more consistant manner by allowing individuals to make rational financial choices about the level of their membership. This is a token fee to help cover insurance and administrative expenses. I know how much you dislike the concept of a surcharge, but I think it's a necessary compromise that allows people who attend few events the option to pay as they go without feeling forced to join. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sat Oct 21 00:10:21 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 89 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 10:31:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Some issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I am in Germany right now near the crunch time on my current audit assignment so I don't have time to be very specific here, but I do want to state my opinion. I do not think that our current method of discussion is effective. As has been noted before by others, I truly feel that we need a leader and we need a formal agenda and debate format. The current free-form discussions do not seem to reach any conclusions nor is there a consensus when the current hot topic dies down. Rather, everyone seems to state their opinions and then the next hot topic arises. I do not agree with the "many Kingdoms as members" approach, especially with each one being incorporated. I would want to keep the current structure as much as possible. Perhaps what should be done is to change the current framework and officially allow other incorporations to exist, but to limit them to the bare minimum necessary (usually one per country). The biggest acknowledgment in this would be allowing assets to be owned by the incorporations, they would not be owned by SCA USA, Inc. These corporations will exist only to be legal vehicles to open bank accounts, rent sites, etc. with the current Kingdom system being the true framework for participating in SCA activities. I find that many of the discussions about democracy to be too abstract. I find that democracy at the local levels (electing the local officers) to be the most important level, not at the upper levels. This is where most of the "contact" that members have, with the people that live around them. If you want to extend that to the Kingdom officers, make a rule that they must be appointed (by the Crown as is almost always the case), from local officers (right up to the Baronial level). At least that way there will be some representation involved. I find that many of the GC members are quick to seize the moral high ground (an example is Hossein's position against tyranny when he was discussing the rights of minorities). Of course, the rights of minorities should have some protection (and tyranny is bad), but complete freedom within the SCA does not make that much sense. We basically are rooted in the historical Middle Ages for most of our activities and almost have exclude many activities. Otherwise, what the SCA could become diluted due to being too inclusive. If you want to be a fantasy barbarian, then you have every right to be so and I'd welcome you to my fighter practices and events, BUT you must respect my rules and the rights of the others as well. There is nothing forcing anyone to join the SCA. In the end, decisions and rules do have to be made and that is the reality that any recommendation we make to the Board will have to keep in mind. Another example of seizing the high ground is the discussions about Nordmark. The separatists fight under the banner of Democracy. I see nothing preventing them from electing the officers of SKA, Inc., the non-profit where Swedish law seems to require democracy. That doesn't have a close relation to how the Barony of Nordmark (the SCA) groups are run. Electing the Prince and Princess is not part of the current SCA, and unilaterally deciding that it should be done is anti-democratic. After all, what do the rest of us SCA members feel about that? By arguing about democracy and cultural differences, the debate waxes and wanes without concrete solutions. I read Gareth's comment about the fighter sub-culture being almost "anti-literate" with some amusement (but it also supports my suggestions at the end of this post), especially his linkage to the reporting requirements in Kingdoms that require marshals to be fighters. I'm guessing that he is saying that it is haphazard and less than regular. The East (where I'm from), requires that marshals be fighters. However, most of the issues that fighters face are immediate in nature and can be handled on the spot. Marshals authorize fighters (all the paperwork that requires is to fill out the authorization cards - The information cards that are sent in are statistically interesting but not that important) and watch fighting in lists and practices. Most of the issues that arise from the fighting also can be solved immediately. About the only reporting that is required is if a fighter feels that a marshall is poor (write a letter and complain) or where a marshall feels that a fighter is unsafe and needs to have their authorization pulled (write a letter to suggest this). In addition, the Chivalry provides a ready source of Peers with direct involvement in fighting. I find that the fighting sub-culture to be a good model for the running of the SCA - keep the paperwork to what is needed, resolve matters locally, and provide a means to appeal decisions. In summary: 1. Decide upon a leader and a method of resolving discussions 2. Allow other corporations to officially exist, but use them as legal holders of assets where they are needed instead of members. 3. Consider small changes to the current structure (including democracy at the lowest levels) instead of sweeping changes. Sir Myrdin the Just Michael G. Potter From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Oct 22 06:52:25 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 11:21:24 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Gareth's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >... The combination of a low membership fee with a >VERY low, say $1, surcharge on events works in a more consistant manner by >allowing individuals to make rational financial choices about the level of >their membership. This is a token fee to help cover insurance and >administrative expenses. I know how much you dislike the concept of a >surcharge, but I think it's a necessary compromise that allows people who >attend few events the option to pay as they go without feeling forced to >join. Just an aside, and note that I'm *not* answering for Gareth, I don't know i= f=20 he's opposed to non-member surcharges in general, or just to the current $3= =20 Board Tax. It's the latter, specifically, that I and most of Nordmark's SCA= =20 (non-secessionists) have a problem with.=20 A non-member surcharge is very much a matter of how and why. Locally, we=20 have often in the past had non-member surcharge on the site fee at bigger=20 events, precisely to encourage people to become members - but the money was= =20 a part of the event budget and it stayed with the group in charge of the=20 event. As most local groups here are separately inorporated, we've seen all= =20 sorts of ways of running things. Some groups even have local pay-to-play,=20 i.e. after your first event you have to join the local group to participate= .=20 Others waive your first site fee after you become member.=20 The major problem with the current $3 tax is that the motivation we got for= =20 it was "the Board needs more money fast, so we've got to collect this and=20 send it to the States, and, by the way, don't call it a tax, the Board=20 doesn't like it". Nothing about why the Board needed more money, what the=20 hurry was or why this was considered the best method of getting the money.= =20 When we, or specifically I, tried to get more information from our Kingdom= =20 seneschal, she simply quit answering e-mail.=20 What I'm getting at is, even a fairly rabid pro-reformer may be willing to= =20 consider a non-member surcharge on events if it's for a good reason and the= =20 money doesn't just go down a black hole. =20 /Catrin=20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Oct 22 10:22:06 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 5698 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 08:47:07 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Vampyres] (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan-- Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > Alysoun raised some interesting questions about the vampires. > > I note that the word 'vampire' is dated only to 1734 in my OED Historical. From > the Magyar. Does anyone remember when Vlad Tsepes ruled? I think it was > post-period. > > >> I have been waiting in vain to hear from a vampire supporter. > > Have you tried the AOL chat spaces? I have not seen any on CompuServe, but here > the Living History is a separate Forum from F/SF. They may have split on AOL > also, but they were together when I last looked. > > >> There were enough vampires at Pennsic to be noticeable. > > This has been true for at least two years. They are getting annoying, > especially because sunlight does not seem to kill them. > > >> The first area is demographic: Who were they? Where did > >> they come from? Are they always vampires or is this a > >> Pennsic persona? > > I have also seen a surge in vampires at F/SF and gaming cons, and I think the > phenomena are connected. Anne Rice is very popular, and there are worlds within > F/SF and gaming, such as White Wolf, that are vampire. it is a societal thing, > and has spilled over into our game, probably because they feel they can get away > with the personas more easily, and the garb. > > >> I'm told that some were young teens: did we have whole > >> families of vampires or is this a reaction of the younger > >> generation against SCA parents? > > I don't think so; there is a younger generation coming in without SCA parents. > My impression is that a lot of these are younger kids who have joined, through > school groups or otherwise, and come in clumps. I have seem similar, but > non-vampire, groups in other places, and I think it is the same for Pennsic. > Just happens that these have a vampire persona. > > >> Who should ask these questions and assess the > >> answers? Interkingdom Council? > > I think a good first start would be to pin down a couple of these people and ask > them. While I like to nibble (certain) necks, and look very good in black, the > vampire thing is NOT my style. > > >> The second area is pragmatic: If vampires are out, how come > >> they are there? Who is in charge of this sort of thing? I > >> doubt any of us would say the Board. The community/Society > >> doesn't seem to handling it on an informal basis. Should > >> each reign start with a list of outlawed persona types? > >> Should autocrats set quotas at the door? How should it work? > > I'm not sure I understand the first part of this, so I will take it in reverse > order. Autocrats have the power to ban persons from an Event. Generally, we > don't do that. But they can say to someone "we are trying to re-create a > certain era, and a Reegency-era vampire just doesn't meet our guidelines. > Document a pre-1600 vampire and we'll talk later." > > I don't think we want a reign-by-reign thing, that can get tedious. Although I > have seen the continuing banishment, and I remember that 'way back in the > misty-memory days, we had a Queen who claimed to be part elf. > > >> The third area is more philosophic: What is it that we are > >> objecting to and how do we base those objections? Simply > >> saying that vampires are out of period strikes me as a > >> cop-out. I think our gut reaction would be the same if we > >> had that many werewolves running around and werewolves > >> can be documented back into classical times. > > I am objecting to people using our game as an excuse to be whatever they choose. > If someone wants to be a vampire, they can go to a F/SF con. There are vampire > cons, f'pity's sake! I object to people who use the wide range in time and > space to feel they can get away with anything, from tights printed with > neon-coloured galaxies to 20th-C.see-through cabaret bellydancers to bunnyfur > bikinis to prom dresses. If people want to play our game, they should be > required to stick ot our rules. > > One problem is that people are softhearted and have let them get away with A LOT > over the years, without policing or enforcing. There are going to be a lot of > harsh feelings when we tell people that they have to start playing by the rules. > I am sure some will get snippy and stomp away in a huff -- and my attitude is, > good riddance, Pennsic is crowded enough already. > > [At the very least, the vampires could stay inside between sunup and sundown, if > they want to argue that they are actually in persona.] > > Justin had asked: > > >> (It's easy to talk about the vampires. But what about the Princess > >> Brides? The genbarbs? The 'chux? I don't think there's nearly as > >> much consensus there about what belongs in and what out...) > > Same as for vampires; the outfit the Princess Bride wore is a lot closer to > Empire, although it could be a bad attempt at Italian Ren. Now, Inigo Montoya > is someone I would not mind seeing swishing around a bit! > > I think some of the problem comes from popular culture, since people cannot > separate what is truly historical ("Lady Jane") from what is fantasy ("Princess > Bride.") > > > ---= Morgan (old and crochety) > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Oct 22 13:20:31 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 12:50:35 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: Membership 5 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun, who thanks all the people out there for writing me--please continue to do so! Morgan's post is similar to others I'm getting (and I have learned a lot about current SF games!)--the question is what is a "member"? Justin targets one of my concerns by pointing out the grey area between a poor persona and a poorly done persona. If instead of plastic teeth, vampires dressed like Hungarian nobility, only appeared after dark, attended feasts but didn't eat, etc., would we be so hasty to rule them out? (Assuming they did not bite people.) Is the difference only style? There is a pragmatic argument that the plastic teeth vampires are a liability vis-a-vis the mundane world: a church site could have legitimate objections, our demos/public image hardly comes across as historical and educational, people with a more serious interest in history or families with small children would be discouraged from joining, etc. But right now, I'm concentrating on the game. What is it that the plastic teeth vampires are doing that Hungarian noble vampires aren't? Back in college, we called it "altercasting"--forcing a role on someone else. How can Alysoun play with a plastic teeth vampire? Her only role is fear. She can, of course, ignore them, or Carole in a costume can talk to the person wearing the vampire costume. Neither of these last options promote the game. The Hungarian noble vampire allows Alysoun to determine her own role--we can play together. And it seems to me that the opportunity to play with other people is the point of the whole thing. If there are too many people participating in our activities who aren't playing (who aren't "members" in some real sense), the game gets lost. This is not just vampires or fantasy persona: it includes altercasting historical persona. It includes people who have picked a name and put on a costume and don't know what to do next because they haven't seen enough people playing together to know how it works. I have been told that this problem is not universal--some kingdoms don't have this concern. It may be no accident that this problem is occurring in areas with rapid population growth. If so, the afflicted kingdoms should have the primary responsibility for finding solutions, but the rest of the world should offer assistance. Kingdoms that don't have the problem may have insight into how to avoid or mitigate it. And we have to look to the future--if it is something from the outside, it may be that other kingdoms will have this problem eventually. If the currently afflicted kingdoms fail to deal with it, what will that mean? As the Council considers organizational structure, we must give thought to how we can work with this type of problem. It is far more relevant than getting timely mailings. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Sun Oct 22 18:23:45 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Serwyl@AOL.COM Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 17:51:28 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Chuck Hack Subject: Alysoun: Vampyres To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Serwyl, To Alysoun: Vampires don't seem to be much of a problem here. In fact I can't recall seeing one at an event (I'll admit I wasn't looking though). I have seen people at local meetings wearing the trappings but they belong to one of the vampire groups. The problem is the wars. At Kingdom events I expect social pressure is enough to keep them in the background but at interkingdom gatherings those barriers are down (or at least weakened). I doubt the problem (at least here) will get too out of hand. We generally agree enough on our social landmarks to self police, and I suspect the same is true in other Kingdoms. Morgan I think made a comment about Vlad the Impaler being possibly post-period. Vlad Tepes lived in the 15th c. and so was a period character but he really has nothing to do with vampire legends until Bram Stoker used him as a basis for the Dracula story. The concept of vampirism is quite old though and runs through a number of folk traditions. If someone wanted to attempt a more historical portrayal of vampirism as it was known in period, the effect would be more one of a ghoulish figure, more monsterous than human and certainly not something that the average townsperson would allow into town (or in our case an event). So while you could do a period vampire persona, you would have to expect every person at the event to shy away from you, and your very presence would disrupt any setting you walked into, especially a court or a feast. King: Guards, burn that monster! Populace: Yayyy! Might be fun actually, but just once. :) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 01:27:14 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 00:28:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: Some issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! Sir Myrdin has misunderstood almost as completely as I find imaginable the thrust of my remarks: >I find that many of the GC members are quick to seize the moral high ground >(an example is Hossein's position against tyranny when he was discussing the >rights of minorities). Of course, the rights of minorities should have some >protection (and tyranny is bad), but complete freedom within the SCA does >not make that much sense. We basically are rooted in the historical Middle >Ages for most of our activities and almost have exclude many activities. > Otherwise, what the SCA could become diluted due to being too inclusive. > If you want to be a fantasy barbarian, then you have every right to be so >and I'd welcome you to my fighter practices and events, BUT you must respect >my rules and the rights of the others as well. There is nothing forcing >anyone to join the SCA. In the end, decisions and rules do have to be made >and that is the reality that any recommendation we make to the Board will >have to keep in mind. It is absurd and trivializing to suggest that what I was talking about was the "right" of fantasy barbarians to participate in the SCA. I was talking about the monopolization of power in the SCA by a narrowly-based elite: top-notch fighters and bureaucrats. I was talking about the vast majority of our participants having no say whatsoever on how we do things in this organization. Indeed, the very people whose money the corporation and kingdoms spend have no say whatsoever on how that money is spent. Policies are decided on high with minimal input from those not at the top. The principal tyranny in the SCA is the tyranny of the elite minority over the mass of the membership. That's the first issue which has to be addressed. Since it is possible for a majority to violate the rights of a minority, any solution to the problem of democraticizing the governance of the SCA must have reciprocal safeguards built into it. It's the principle of checks and balances. Anyone who thinks that the principal problem of tyranny in the SCA is a matter of vampires and bunny-fur barbarians either ignores the history of our organization or trivializes the problem to support the current institutions of elite rule. There have been repeated instances of the Board taking arbitrary action which impacted negatively on the membership. The actions of October 1993 and January 1994 were merely the latest instances and they produced a crisis which damaged our Society intrinsically. This was tyranny in action. I am certain that every member of this Council could recount incidents in which abritrary and capricious action by Crowns have injured the rights of participants in our game. That is tyranny. I am equally certain that members of the Council are aware of capricious and damaging actions by Society Stewards, Seneschals, and other corporate and kingdom officers. Opportunities for redress are few. This is tyranny. We have become so fixed on pseudo-medieval ideas of royal or bureaucratic absolutism that it contaminates what should be a question of how twentieth- century people organize voluntarily to provide the material basis for playing at medieval recreation. A little tinkering around the edges won't change the fact that the corporation and its bureaucracy have had an organization style with more in common with the Stalinist _apparat_ than the collective efforts of people trying to voluntarily organize a game. It requires fundamentally rethinking how we do business. We need an elected Board. We need elected officers to handle the mundane business of the corporation. We need referenda on fundamental policies. We need to give the average participant a voice in the governance of our Society. And no amount of lip-service to self-selecting bureaucracy or martially- selected monarchs will address these fundamental problems. How the game is organized and governed is not the same thing as the game. We can enjoy a medieval fiction only if we are prepared to grant that the material preconditions of that fiction can be gained only by democratic institutions which are appropriate to the modern world. Hossein/Greg From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 10:10:47 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 2270 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 09:29:34 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Gareth's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951022.112124.2906@macpost.lu.se> from "Janna Spanne" at Oct 22, 95 11:21:24 am >... The combination of a low membership fee with a >VERY low, say $1, surcharge on events works in a more consistant manner by >allowing individuals to make rational financial choices about the level of >their membership. This is a token fee to help cover insurance and >administrative expenses. I know how much you dislike the concept of a >surcharge, but I think it's a necessary compromise that allows people who >attend few events the option to pay as they go without feeling forced to >join. Just an aside, and note that I'm *not* answering for Gareth, I don't know i= f=20 he's opposed to non-member surcharges in general, or just to the current $3= =20 Board Tax. It's the latter, specifically, that I and most of Nordmark's SCA= =20 (non-secessionists) have a problem with.=20 A non-member surcharge is very much a matter of how and why. Locally, we=20 have often in the past had non-member surcharge on the site fee at bigger=20 events, precisely to encourage people to become members - but the money was= =20 a part of the event budget and it stayed with the group in charge of the=20 event. As most local groups here are separately inorporated, we've seen all= =20 sorts of ways of running things. Some groups even have local pay-to-play,=20 i.e. after your first event you have to join the local group to participate= .=20 Others waive your first site fee after you become member.=20 The major problem with the current $3 tax is that the motivation we got for= =20 it was "the Board needs more money fast, so we've got to collect this and=20 send it to the States, and, by the way, don't call it a tax, the Board=20 doesn't like it". Nothing about why the Board needed more money, what the=20 hurry was or why this was considered the best method of getting the money.= =20 When we, or specifically I, tried to get more information from our Kingdom= =20 seneschal, she simply quit answering e-mail.=20 What I'm getting at is, even a fairly rabid pro-reformer may be willing to= =20 consider a non-member surcharge on events if it's for a good reason and the= =20 money doesn't just go down a black hole. =20 /Catrin=20 Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 11:39:17 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:57:19 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: membership 6 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun [I'm pushing ahead with this (I'm pokey, Hossein, but I'm trying to get there). I do want feedback on no. 5, so people keep writing me.] If we were children we could get together with no more than some scraps of cloth and cardboard and play "Middle Ages" all day long. We are adults. We can do more and we expect more. We expect people to play with informed imagination. Many adults find it difficult or awkward to "pretend." Some are threatened by the prospect. There is good reason for this. Adults have real responsibilities they cannot lose sight of and adults can be dangerous. We do not want to share the highway with people pretending to be race car drivers. Whether we see the SCA as history in the service of the imagination or the imagination in the service of history, the result should be the same. We look to the historical period to inform our play and we filter history through mature 20th-century sensibilities to exclude the unjust and the dangerous. This is what I call the educational dimension and I see it as both inherent and necessary. This is not an argument for tight-laced authenticity. How informed a person must be to play varies with the person, the topic, the resources, and the situation. We don't want either an entry-level requirement or a ceiling at the top. If I am right on this, that the game is about playing together with informed imagination, then a "member" is a person who is trying to play *this* game. Having a membership card is not relevant. Showing up at an event is not relevant. Hanging around in the Society for years is not relevant, although I suspect that few in this category would fail to qualify. What I am after is a substantive definition that can be used to guide the shaping of policy. A substantive definition does not tell us exactly what to do, but it can show us what not to do. We have problems in the area of membership that predate and I think underlie the actions of the Board--not just in the recent upheaval, but for years. If we do not address these underlying problems, the same dynamics will work on the attitude of an elected board, on the governing body of kingdoms, separate corporations, whatever. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 15:08:18 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:30:21 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 (vampires and Pennsic) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951020191226_128976222@mail04.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun writes: >There were enough vampires at Pennsic to be noticeable. A caution here -- generalizing from Pennsic is really dangerous. Pennsic is the exception to every rule. I've heard it opined, in all dead seriousness, that Pennsic isn't really an SCA event any more, but something larger. One can argue endlessly about that, but the fact is, you see a lot more of *everything* at Pennsic. I will say flatly: I've never seen vampires anywhere *but* Pennsic, and I've been to events all over the East. Likewise, I've run into far, far less of *any* of the "fringes" anywhere other than Pennsic. I can't think of any examples offhand of anyone I've ever met at any other event to whom I'd say that they were simply in the wrong club. Practical effects: we should be wary of drawing too many conclusions, and taking over-strong actions, based on an outlier case. That isn't intended to stop the discussion, but merely to put it in perspective: I really think we're talking about the exceptions here, and shouldn't get too carried away. The genbarbs really are a much more relevant issue than the vampires, and a harder one... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "enhance, v. -- To tamper with an image, usually to its detriment." From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 15:10:53 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 14:19:13 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Gareth's Proposal To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Kwellend... -- Justin >From: "David W. James" >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 10:54:15 -0400 >In-Reply-To: Chuck Hack > "Gareth's Proposal" (Oct 20, 9:25pm) >References: <951020212533_76073008@mail04.mail.aol.com> >Subject: Re: Gareth's Proposal On Oct 20, 9:25pm, Chuck Hack wrote: > I disagree here. You want to encourage membership, but at what point does > encourage become 'enforce'? The combination of a low membership fee with a > VERY low, say $1, surcharge on events works in a more consistant manner by > allowing individuals to make rational financial choices about the level of > their membership. This is a token fee to help cover insurance and > administrative expenses. I know how much you dislike the concept of a > surcharge, but I think it's a necessary compromise that allows people who > attend few events the option to pay as they go without feeling forced to > join. As long as it is a 'temporary membership', and not a simple price gouge, I'm all for it, and I'm one of the most rabid anti-pay-to-play people around. In fact, that is exactly what I proposed to the Board in Feb of '94. Kwellend-Njal From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 16:53:48 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 666 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 16:11:45 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 (vampires and Pennsic) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <9510231830.AA21916@dsd.camb.inmet.com> from "Mark Waks" at Oct 23, 95 02:30:21 pm Justin wrote: I will say flatly: I've never seen vampires anywhere *but* Pennsic, and I've been to events all over the East. Likewise, I've run into far, far less of *any* of the "fringes" anywhere other than Pennsic. I can't think of any examples offhand of anyone I've ever met at any other event to whom I'd say that they were simply in the wrong club. Justin, you didn't look. The proprietor of "Strange Blades and More", at the revel I ran in February of 1994. Such things can happen even here. (Justin and I both live in the same group.) I'm not sure they are that big a threat... Strange Blades did a lousy business that day... Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Mon Oct 23 20:31:49 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 19:45:57 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Re: Vampires (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded from Ian O'Donnell (who I hope will share more with us on other topics) Speaking as someone who was not at Pennsic, but that listened to one of his friends talking about what she did at Pennsic when she got back,I know that several of the Vampires at Pennsic were just Teens that have normal SCA personna at other events and happened to stumble across a "Fang Merchant" at Pennsic. This is what gave them the idea, and they just did it because of the fun involved, They did not mean to be a pain, I asked her if she knew that there was a controversy over it (she is not on the net) and she said "No, why should there be?" I think they treated it similar to a theme event. Sometimes an event has one theme, sometimes another... this was her first Pennsic and she was having fun much like what is done with masked balls etc... it was just part of the flirting and playing part. She realizes that it is not "standard" SCA and she doesn't wear the fangs at any other event. Maybe a good question to ask is whether the people came to Pennsic as Vampires, or if they "Transformed" after arrival. I have not seen Vampires at any other event in the southern half of Atlantia since I moved here. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 09:21:47 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 22 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 05:52:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Although there appears to be a deadline coming up (the 25th) by which we're supposed to choose a leader, I find that there really isn't enough information to base a choice on. None of the candidates have posted anything about what they plan to do as a leader and how they plan on doing it. As I do not know any of the three candidates, I'm going to forced to abstain. I realize that the candidates may feel that they have set forth their positions in their postings here, but I find little to base an opinion on within the debates that have gone on in this forum as the question of what they plan on doing if elected leader has not been discussed. I feel that this is an important issue, especially since many of us have called for more order to the deliberations and direction that the Grand Council is going in. If enough of the Grand Council members feel as I do, maybe we should postpone the vote a week to allow the candidates to explain their positions. regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 12:20:43 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: CORWYN@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:36:44 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Corwyn da Costa Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Michael G. Potter (Sir Myrdin the Just) writes: >Although there appears to be a deadline coming up (the 25th) by which we're >supposed to choose a leader, I find that there really isn't enough >information to base a choice on. None of the candidates have posted >anything about what they plan to do as a leader and how they plan on doing >it. As I do not know any of the three candidates, I'm going to forced to >abstain.I realize that the candidates may feel that they have set forth their >positions in their postings here, but I find little to base an opinion on >within the debates that have gone on in this forum as the question of what >they plan on doing if elected leader has not been discussed. I feel that >this is an important issue, especially since many of us have called for more >order to the deliberations and direction that the Grand Council is going in. >If enough of the Grand Council members feel as I do, maybe we should >postpone the vote a week to allow the candidates to explain their positions. Yes, I have to agree, even given that I'm one of the candidtates. Quite frankly, I don't feel that I have a good sense of the other candidates, in terms of what they see as the direction for the GC and where they see the "leader" as fitting into such a veiw. My entry into this election was based on my volunteering to help Caroline out with organizing and facilitating the GC in it's old format. Now it seems like we're having an election for club president. Clearly, given the new format of the GC, the nature of the "leader" position may also be have to be rethought, and at least better defined before I'm even willing to vote for myself. Thus, I wish to formally move that the election be postponed until November 8th, and that each candidate who wishes to be considered post a statement to that effect by november 1; and also request that Caroline post a brief description of the powers and obligations of the position that she is resigning by nov 1st, also. Any seconds ? Baron Corwyn Da Costa From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 12:36:36 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 11:46:20 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: re voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I thought we were waiting to hear whatever it was that Sir Edward was going to bring up at the Board meeting? Tibor, have you heard anything on that? Terras, have we had any other nominations? Tibor was nominated by Terras and seconded by Catrin. I don't know about myself or Corwyn. Back, following Pennsic, when Caroline said she lacked time for it, I volunteered to her to serve as an organizing secretary and have written the GC members we have never heard from. I plan to follow this up and contact those who have not commented since the spring as well, once I have a better idea of what I am supposed to tell them. (That is, if there is some definite change coming.) While there is wide agreement that we are not getting anywhere, I do not think there is agreement on how to proceed--including what it is that we are supposed to come up with. I also have doubts that any one of us can lead until we come to some agreement on what we are trying to do. Although I do not want to have to spend a long time discussing procedure and hope that we can settle this quicker than the two months suggested by Arthur, it seems paramount that we decide what we can reasonably accomplish and what type of leadership is necessary. In a discussion with Sir Edward over the organization chart etc., it was clear that he did not expect the Council to come up with major restructuring. He seemed to think that we should be going through the organizational handbook and discussing changes tied directly to the documents. I don't know if this is the expectation of the whole Board and hoped this would be clarified at the past Board meeting. Is the vote for leader a vote for a specific view of what the Council should do? I can give you all a summary of what I think we should be doing, but the leader should solicit views and keep us on course, not dictate the course. For responsible leadership, I would like to ask Catrin to consider being nominated, since she is the only one of us to date who has proceeded in an orderly fashion. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 12:49:04 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:07:03 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Alysoun: re voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >While there is wide agreement that we are not getting anywhere, I do not >think there is agreement on how to proceed--including what it is that we a= re >supposed to come up with. I also have doubts that any one of us can lead >until we come to some agreement on what we are trying to do. ... Looks to me like the ubiquitous chicken&egg question. My personal opinion i= s=20 that we need at least an interim chairperson to keep a modicum of order in = a=20 discussion about where we are going and how to get there. There's a bunch o= f=20 related practical matters, such as what to do with chronic non-voters (thos= e=20 who simply *don't react* to proposals and requests to vote). =20 >... >For responsible leadership, I would like to ask Catrin to consider being >nominated, since she is the only one of us to date who has proceeded in an >orderly fashion. Thank you, but... no, thank you. This thing needs doing right, which means= =20 actually having time to spend on it. I want to do as good a job as I'm able= =20 on the Landmarks proposal; the Drachenwald survey needs some more work; als= o,=20 I'm up to my neck in the Nordmark mess, and have just been appointed head=20 autocrat of one of Drachenwald's major fighting events, the Double Wars,=20 10 days in May. (In addition to a full-time job, a non-SCA family etc. etc.= )=20 So I'll just stick to counting votes. Fair enough?=20 /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 13:17:11 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 12:34:44 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Tyrany in the society To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >From: Solveig Throndardottir >Subject: Tyrany in the society >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 18:58:44 EDT Master Justin. Please post the following for me: Noble Cousins! First, I wish to agree with the matter of BoD tyranny. However, I wish to mention a number of caveats. 1) Historically, in ancient, medieval and modern times a number of different mechanisms have been used to avoid tyranical rule. While elective officials are one of these mechanisms, it is not true that it is the only mechanism even in modern government nor is it true that general elections are always effective in avoiding tyranny. Quite apart from any citations concerining the German plebiscite in the early 30's, many modern organizations which hold general elections are actually controlled by a system of nominating committees and other essentially oligarchic entities. * SIGH* I have only slept maybe 10 or 15 hours in the last three or four days or maybe less and I am even les coherent than usual. Regardless, Dr. Rose's polemic aside, elections really are not a panacea for the ills of the society. There has to be a whole network of accountability. Further, this network of accountability does not have to exclusively "non-medieval". Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 13:27:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 12:51:29 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eichling... -- Justin >From: Schuylab@aol.com >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 01:25:11 -0400 >Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... One may make a plausible case for vampires in period time: The word Upir or Vpir (originally, I believe, or Turkish origin) was used in Russian folklore to refer to "the dead bodies of enchanters which had been possessed by unclean spirits...While Upirs did drink the blood of unwary travellers, their chief role was simply to terrorize those abroad by night." --Compleat Anachronist #34 (brought to you by your local non-profit educational organization). Other than to (1) bring up the latest manifestation of the SCA fringes (bunnyfurs and Ninjas being two prior incarnations) and (2) raise the question as to whether the current SCA 'tool' needs specific modification in this regard...Why are we discussing 'vampires'? We need to focus on the mechanism of coherancy in our discussions per se, and on the production of a system that will allow better/ more responsible decision making. It is up to that system (or the current one, by default) to decide specific issues. Yes... including vampires. Eichling From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 13:30:51 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:37:03 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Lord Corwyn says: >... My entry into this election was based >on my volunteering to help Caroline out with organizing and facilitating t= he >GC in it's old format. Now it seems like we're having an election for club >president. Clearly, given the new format of the GC, the nature of the >"leader" position may also be have to be rethought, and at least better >defined before I'm even willing to vote for myself. Coming from one of the candidates, this certainly merits careful thought. As I just said in another posting, there's a danger here of getting stuck i= n=20 a chicken&egg issue. We need to discuss what our job is, how we function an= d=20 how we *should* function (and thus what a chairperson should be doing).=20 We also need someone to keep *that* discussion focused.=20 The potential Catch 22 is, we need to define what a chairperson should do,= =20 so we can elect one, but we need a chairperson to see that we actually reac= h=20 a conclusion on that definition. =20 >Thus, I wish to formally move that the election be postponed until November >8th, and that each candidate who wishes to be considered post a statement = to >that effect by november 1; and also request that Caroline post a brief >description of the powers and obligations of the position that she is >resigning by nov 1st, also. This may be a way out of the loop. A fairly short deadline and a chance for= =20 everybody involved (Caroline & the candidates) to speak their piece about t= he=20 contents of the job. We elect a chairperson by November 8 and start an orde= rly=20 discussion about the working and goals of the GC. >Any seconds ? In view of the above, I guess, yes.=20 /Catrin P.S. I'll be out of town again on November 12-19 (visiting with a sick rela= tive=20 in Prague). Before I leave, I can give you results of a vote with a deadlin= e on=20 November 8, but not much later than that. /C Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 14:33:11 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:53:12 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Tyrany in the society To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for John... -- Justin >From: LLUTHERFULTO@msuvx2.memphis.edu >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 12:17:25 -0500 (CDT) >Subject: Re: Tyrany in the society Greetings to the Grand Council, Please excuse me if this goes Council-wide. I haven't asked anyone to forward comments I have to you. Is there someone who wouldn't mind doing it for me in the future? I have been reading the GC material since it's beginning. As a new civilian, and ex-BOD Evil One, I have but one real suggestion at this time. Please look into some sort of system to remove Board members by the membership. Rebuilding the Society will probably take a great deal of time, but, some method of reigning in the Board is needed now. The present impeachment procedures really are useless. In this, Greg Rose and I see eye to eye. Thank You For Your Consideration, John Fulton John the Bearkiller From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 14:50:39 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 10:39:08 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Alysoun: re voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951024114619_52947884@mail04.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, I decided to abstain since it was not clear what anyone sttod for. However, I did have this idea last week and after days of fermenting at the back of my mind I think it is good enough to offer for serious consideration. We are talking about too many things and we are allowing ourselves to get distracted before reaching closure on any of them. Thus I propose that we, possibly reinforced by our chair, restrict ourselves to three or four topics per week (one of which is always 'New Topics for Consideration'). At the end of the week we spend a day posting proposals about those topics and votes to either vote formally or to continue discussion for another week or to table the discussion until some other issue is resolved. We would need to discipline ourselves to keep our discussions on track and to not start discussions of topics in New Topics until after they made their way onto the list of topics for open discussion. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 15:08:10 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Approved-By: Janna.Spanne@KANSLI.LTH.SE Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 19:18:10 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Janna Spanne Subject: Re: Alysoun: re voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >We are talking about too many things and we are allowing ourselves to get >distracted before reaching closure on any of them. Thus I propose that >we, possibly reinforced by our chair, restrict ourselves to three or four >topics per week ... (cut) Good idea, Fiacha. How about you for the chair? /Catrin Janna.Spanne@Kansli.LTH.se From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 16:15:04 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:22:26 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Tyrany in the society To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Solveig... -- Justin >From: Solveig Throndardottir >Subject: Re: Tyrany in the society >Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 15:16:06 EDT >In-Reply-To: <9510241753.AA10634@dsd.camb.inmet.com>; from "Mark Waks" at Oct 24, 95 1:53 pm Master Justin! Could you post this for me. Noble Cousins! John the Bearkiller mentioned the urgency of instituting some sort of effective way to remove BoD members. One approach to this whole problem would be to give the IKAC the ability to remove a BoD member. Maybe the BoD would not go along to allowing the IKAC to remove BoD members by simple majority, but maybe they would go along with letting the IKAC remove them by say a 60% majority (like impeaching the president or overturning a presidential veto). As a practical matter, pettitioning for impeachment is almost impossible and the BoD can simply ignore it. Members of IKAC would be responsible to their individual kingdoms and would be small enough in number that action would be possible. Yes, I know that this may bother someone strongly wedded to the concept of "equal representation", but let's not get all wound up ov the idea that the BoD is supposed to govern the society. The BoD is only really supposed to be taking care of the fiduciary, legal and mundane "administrivia" aspects of our society leaving the rest of the society free to recreate the middle ages. What is needed is accountability, not an exercise in mega-government. I think that getting all worked up over general plebicites and impeachments makes the BoD much too important and plays into the whole idea held by proponents of a "strong BoD" that what the BoD decided and does is really important in our society. That we are somehow servants of the corporation. Incidentally, this dual approach to things is not unusual. The American Mathematical Society has both a Board of Trustees and a Council. The Board of Trustees looks out after the fiscal and corporate health of the society and the Council looks after running the society and doing mathematics. Your Humble Servant Solveig Throndardottir Amateur Scholar From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 16:30:25 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:41:00 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: re vote 2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Corwyn's suggestion on postponement makes sense. However, Caroline is on honeymoon and won't be back to post her job description. Fiacha's plan should be useful in sorting this out and works with Arthur's, which was scheduled to begin Nov.1 (or at least nobody objected.) Will Fiacha consider the nomination? I have one more post on membership to make (please note it is on membership not vampires--reread the series if necessary). If Justin or anyone else has a membership proposal, perhaps they should hold it until after we do leadership/procedure? Then we can take up Finnvarr's, Gareth's, and mine along with them. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 17:43:20 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:54:33 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Alysoun: membership 7 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Alysoun If this view of the game and of "member" is true, we have three separate issues. The first two are closely related and very important. The third is where attention has been most tightly focused. The first issue is how the society has fragmented, especially in the wake of the recent upheaval, along membership-defining lines. This is not simply paid vs not-paid, but pro-SCAinc vs con-SCAinc, authenticity vs not, old timers vs new people, and elite vs apathetic. Which one of these divisions is uppermost varies by location, with some blessed isles apparently immune. These tensions cannot be wholly eradicated, but healing is needed in many areas. The second issue is how membership concerns feed into an attitude of elitism. Elitism stems from the idea that other people, the majority, are rusticani et illiterati--they don't have a clue--and the elite must do everything or it won't get done. Again how this has played out depends on location--the elite in one area may be the paying members, or the old guard, or the authenticity buffs and in another their opposing counterparts. Education on subsidiarity and inclusiveness is needed to combat this. The third issue is organizational: how to determine to whom the organization is accountable, how to develop a body of qualified officers (including royalty, board members et al.), how to provide sufficient financial resources--all in a way that does not run counter to our interests in the first two issues. I propose that standing committees be put in place at the Board and the kingdom level and that additional committees be encouraged for local branches, regional or national divisions, and other specific interest groups such as the orders. These committees would be charged with raising awareness of these issues, assessing the strengths and weaknesses in their domain, and determining with the people of their domain how best to proceed. Orientation and training material for the members of these committees on all levels should be provided to aid them in this task. It is to be expected that the process itself should contribute to the objectives of issues 1 and 2 (healing and education on subsidiarity and inclusiveness). It is my belief that the people themselves can best determine what in their domain is in need of fixing and what isn't. The higher level committees should respect the decisions on the lower level and make their own determination proper to their level on the basis of this input. Conflicting interests should be negotiated where they arise and these should be real negotiations with a flexible outcome. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 17:44:20 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1050 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 15:36:09 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Alysoun: re voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951024114619_52947884@mail04.mail.aol.com> from "Carole C. Roos" at Oct 24, 95 11:46:20 am Carole C. Roos said: > I thought we were waiting to hear whatever it was that Sir Edward was going > to bring up at the Board meeting? Tibor, have you heard anything on that? > > Terras, have we had any other nominations? There are three nominations: Corwyn, Tibor, and Alyson, nobody else has volunteered or been nominated, although Tibor suggested Nathan. Sir Edward didn't bring anything up at the Board Meeting (that wasn't in close session anyway) about the GC. I believe the comment was "they're discussing many things". I didn't speak with him personally, although I did attend the meeting. Catrin has offered to count any votes that she doesn't start - her address is (janna.spanne@kansli.lth.se). I'm forwarding any votes that come to (vote@showme.missouri.edu) to her. Terras -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 17:48:23 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:06:22 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-10-24 08:50:25 EDT, you write: >Although there appears to be a deadline coming up (the 25th) by which we're >supposed to choose a leader, I find that there really isn't enough >information to base a choice on. None of the candidates have posted >anything about what they plan to do as a leader and how they plan on doing >it. As I do not know any of the three candidates, I'm going to forced to >abstain. > >If enough of the Grand Council members feel as I do, maybe we should >postpone the vote a week to allow the candidates to explain their positions. > > I agree and do move that this postponement occur. As a point of order we should vote on this. In the alternative, those counting votes can informally postpone. Our Parliamentary required Procedures are a bit inaxact at present. Magnus PS Having just read Baron Corwyn's motion, feel fre to count this as a second. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 17:49:39 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Maghnuis@AOL.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:06:21 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Magnus MagUire Subject: Re: Vampires (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In a message dated 95-10-23 19:57:32 EDT, you write: >Maybe a good question to ask is whether the people came to Pennsic as >Vampires, or if they "Transformed" after arrival. I have not seen Vampires >at any other event in the southern half of Atlantia since I moved here. > > There were at war a number of dedicated Vampires who act out in their mundane lives (OK, their not so mundane unlives) at least as much as they do at Pennsic. Their visit to Pennsic was more like their Vampire personnas taking on Medieval personnas than the other way around. I spent a lot of time with some of these folk and yes, they are stranger than we are. (For the curious, my blood supply remained intact.) I can't remember having seen any of these sunlight resistant undead outside of Pennsic. FYI Maghnuis From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 18:03:54 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 17:22:50 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: re vote 2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951024154056_53129146@emout06.mail.aol.com> (Rooscc@AOL.COM) Alysoun suggests: >If Justin or anyone else has a >membership proposal, perhaps they should hold it until after we do >leadership/procedure? Then we can take up Finnvarr's, Gareth's, and mine >along with them. Okay with me. I do have a first draft of a proposal (two alternate proposals actually), but I'm deeply unhappy with it. (I've had a nasty cold for the past couple of weeks, and I'm simply not as coherent as I'd like to be.) Letting this go until we've sorted out the meta-issues may hopefully give me time to clean it up a little... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: "Tradition is wonderful if it has a sound basis and still makes sense in current context. Traditionally, genocide has been a pretty common real-world response to having neighbors you don't like. Currently, though, it is pretty widely frowned upon." -- Grimmund Blackwing From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 22:26:18 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:35:24 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L leader? we don't need a leader in the sense of someone setting the issues; we need an administrator. someone who'll throw out the chaff, soothe flamewars, collect votes, word the issues well, and in other ways collect and disseminate information. i prefer to think of what we need more as an executive secretary than a "leader". alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 22:34:29 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 619 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:46:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951024113642_52941077@mail06.mail.aol.com> from "Corwyn da Costa" at Oct 24, 95 11:36:44 am Thus, I wish to formally move that the election be postponed until November 8th, and that each candidate who wishes to be considered post a statement to that effect by november 1; and also request that Caroline post a brief description of the powers and obligations of the position that she is resigning by nov 1st, also. Seconded. More specifically, I'd like to get some kind of feedback from Ed Morrill, on what decisions he made. At this time, I feel more like the mice than the cat. Not to mention, our Barony is having local elections on Monday... I'd love to wait until THAT is over with... Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Tue Oct 24 22:44:49 1995 Return-Path: X-Vms-To: IN%"SCAGC-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Approved-By: ALBAN@DELPHI.COM Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 21:58:16 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Alban St. Albans" Subject: Re: Alysoun: re vote 2 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L i'd like to suggest that, along with voting in a new leader, we also vote in a new vice-leader, for when the leader quits/goes on vacation/gets sick/dies/has a computer quit. this way we'd have someone else in place without going through this fooforow all over again. alban From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 11:13:12 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Sven Noren Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 08:14:41 +0100 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Sven Noren Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L >Thus, I wish to formally move that the election be postponed until November >8th, and that each candidate who wishes to be considered post a statement to >that effect by november 1; and also request that Caroline post a brief >description of the powers and obligations of the position that she is >resigning by nov 1st, also. > >Any seconds ? > >Baron Corwyn Da Costa Motion seconded! Frithiof the friendly herald (Sven.Noren@kemi.UU.SE) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 11:14:14 1995 Return-Path: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Approved-By: Nigel Haslock Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:25:11 -0700 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Alysoun: re voting To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <951024114619_52947884@mail04.mail.aol.com> Greetings from Fiacha, While I am not certain that I will have the time to do the job as well as it needs to be done, I am willing to take on the role of Chairman for a while. If you elect me, I will implement the proposal I made earlier. Fiacha From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 11:33:42 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:40:05 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Oct. Board meeting-not official To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L [The following was sent to me by Lord Ian O'Donnell, (thank-you) and is the same posted on MiddleBridge. The need for better coordination with the Board seems obvious so we do not spend time discussing matters which are already in the works.--Alysoun] To: From: "Michael A. Chance" Date: Tuesday, October 24, 1995 at 3:09:17 pm EDT Attached: None Here follows a report of the Board of Directors meeting held on October 21, 1995. There are my personal observations, based on notes taken during the meeting and my recollection of statements and actions. This should not be considered a complete or authoritative account of the proceedings. Any errors or omissions are mine. Correction or amplification from anyone else who was present will be gratefully received. An executive session was held first, that began at about 8:30 am. The public portion of the meeting began at approximately 9:20 am, with the usual opening remarks, the approval of the minutes of the last meeting (as amended), and approval of the agenda (as amended). It was then announced that, due to work-related scheduling conflicts, Ed Kreyling (Master Erik of Telemark) was resigning from the Board effective as of this meeting. His job currently requires him to work on most of the meeting dates for the Board. REPORTS: Society Seneschal: The Society Seneschal was asked, first by Ansteorra and then subsequently by a few other kingdoms, whether associate and family membership could be used to count toward the totals necessary for branch status (shire, barony, principality, etc.). Action was remanded to a future meeting, as the Board is soon to be investigating the possibility of changes in the required numbers of memberships for the various branch levels. One suggestion made was for the totals to include X number of subscribing memberships AND Y number of associate/ family memberships in the target numbers (exact numbers to be determined). Executive Asssistant: There is a new insurance policy for equestrian activities. The cost of this policy has increased dramatically, from approximately $3500 last year to over $9000 for the coming year. As a result, the Exeuctive Assistant asked for the authority to continue charging event organizers for additional riders to the new policy, although the new insurance company isn't charging the Corporation for this service, as a means of covering the increased cost if the total policy. This was approved. There is now a summary available from the Corporate offices explaining the insurance coverage provisions of the US-based policy for non-US activities. There are currently 2 movies being made which will depict SCA fighting activities. The Executive Assistant asked for approval of a request by one of the filmmakers to use the SCA logo and name as a part of the film. The request was remanded until the filmmaker can provide his credentials to the Board. Permission to include standing committee chairpersons in the list of those receiving no-charge copies of the Board Minutes and Society Senschals Reports was granted. Thirty Year Celebration: As of the end of September, there were nearly 500 advanced reservations. Discount airfares are now available from Delta Airlines. The site fee for those paying at the gate has been increased from $30 to $35, to cover increased expenses related to the site. Exchequer: The 1994 income tax returns have been complete and sent to the accountants for review. The new Exchequers Manual has been completed and should be available from the Stock Clerk shortly. The Exchequer had to briefly hold up the newsletter stipend from two Chroniclers until reports were received. Corporate Office: The initial outsourcing Request For Bid documents have been completed, and sent to the appropriate people for review. A modification of the Registry's COBOL software to allow International members to choose between receiving Tournaments Illuminated or their kingdom newsletter will cost approximately $1000, and should be able to be completed by the end of the year. The Board approved going ahead with the modification. Membership as of October 1st was 25,428. The percentage of members who are associate or family members is increasing. Laurel: The workload split between the Laurel (armory) and Pelican (names) Kings of Arms seems to be working well. Laurel is working with Drachenwald to resolve several issues concerning lost/missing/delayed submissions. Laurel is also currently looking for a successor, as his term of office ends in January. Laurel reported receiving rumors of at least one kingdom returning submissions at the kingdom level for conflict with non-SCA armory which has not been protected by the "Modest Proposal" implementation, and requested guidance from the Board with regards to his options for disciplining the heraldic officers involved. The Board decline any reccommendations or further action until more detailed and verifiable information has been received. Marshall: Requested that the Marshallate Deputies for Archery, Equestrian Activities, and Fence receive all kingdom newsletters on a gratis basis. The Board approved the request. Chronicler: No report TI Editor: The Fall issue will be mailed in November, with the WInter issue scheduled for delivery in January. Arts and Sciences: The Third Knowne World Arts and Sciences Symposium will be held in the Barony of the Steppes (Dallas, TX) on April 12-14, 1996. The Arts and Sciences Minister is having problems with advertising in some kingdom newsletters for Society-wide/SCA, Inc. sponsored events. Several require payment for such ads at full commercial ad rates. The Board will direct the Society Chronicler to investigate. Chirugeon: No major items to report. Grand Council: No action items for this quarter. Inter-Kingdom Advisory Council: No report. Finance: A draft budget for 1996 has been completed and presented to the Board, which the Board approved with some changes. A very marked-up version of the budget was available later in the day (which I did not get an opportunity to view); a more presentable version should be available to the general public soon. A Corporate Financial Policy was approved. Unfortunately, A.J. Riviezzo read the new policy very quickly and I was not able to record all of the policy. However, included were requirements to adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for corporate financial record keeping, having the financial records of the corporation audited by an independant CPA firm on a regular basis, and establishing a 6 month operating reserve. Also approved was the establishment of a Budget/Finance Compliance Committee, which would not include either Directors or Corporate Officers. Computer Committee: No report. Board Recruiting: There are currently 25 nominees for the Board. More are requested. Currently, a few kingdoms have no nominees. Marketing: A survey has been drafted to determine what products and services people would like to see the Stock Clerk provide. It is currently awaiting approval of Ms. Signorotti. Education Committee: No report. The committee is currently looking for a new chairman. Insurance Committee: No report. Waiver Committee: The new waiver text has been distributed to the kingdom seneschals for review. Comments, especially from lawyers, regarding any potential problems with the wording in specific areas of the US are highly encouraged. The new waiver text can be used immediately. A new policy regarding the use and rentention of waivers has been drafted and sent to the members of the committee. The second and third drafts will be sent to the kingdom seneschals as well. Major issues still outstanding include the very long retention periods required by law (7 years for adults, up to 20 years for minor waivers), where the completed waivers will be stored, and who will pay for such storage. RECURRING BUSINESS: New Groups: Four groups achieved full status (one each in California, Nevada, Idaho, and aboard the U.S.S Nimitz). Changes in status: Wellsmere, An Tir (Spokane, WA) elevated to barony. Dissolutions: The Canton of Abertwitter (sp?) and the Shire of Ars Draconis, both in Perth, Australia. (I believe that Perth is still covered by a barony.) Next Board Meeting: Tenatively set for January 18-21, 1996, in Milpitas, CA, as no bids for this meeting were received. Date and location will be confirmed during a conference call meeting with the new Board members. Bank Authorizations: Approved 25 new accounts. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: The Board acknowledged the need to incorporate seperately in several countries. Currently, several such corporation exist (there are several in Canada alone, including two in one city); however, none are formally recognized by the SCA, Inc. in the U.S., except for the Austrialian SCA, and are not organized as foreign subsidiaries. The Board further acknowledged that it only has legal standing in the U.S. The Board directed the Executive Assistant to investigate the necessary steps to properly incorporate the SCA in all countries were it is required, and to begin planning for national registries (similar to the Australian Registry), if they are either necessary or beneficial. Nordmark: The Board received two "non-negotiable demands" from the head of the "Kingdom of Nordmark" in Sweden as conditions for rejoining the SCA: (1) the right to a sovereign Ting (a ruling body composed of all paid members in Sweden) with veto authority over all rules and regulation of the SCA, and (2) the right to choose rulers by any means they deem acceptable. The Board responded that the first was impossible under the current Articles of Incorporation, which do not permit the Board to cede governing authority to any other body. The second could be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, and variences granted depending on the form presented. However, any other option would require significant changes to the SCA's governing documents. The remaining groups in Sweden that have chosen to remain a part of the SCA appear to still have enough members to proceed with plans to create an SCA Principality. Sweden will be declared the Crown Principality of Nordmark sometime in the next 2-4 months. As a result, the current barony and its constituent cantons will change to baronies and shires in a mass change of status at the January Board meeting. Australia: The planned revisions to the Australian SCA's governing documents are not yet ready to be presented. This item was remanded to the January meeting. OLD BUSINESS: Proposed Governing and Policy Decision #18: This would require that changes in policy and procedures which have any effect upon the administration of the Kingdoms or lower level branches take effect no sooner than 60 days after the decision to implement the change. This can be reduced to 30 days in cases of emergencies, but the nature of the emergency must be clearly stated and published to the membership. This policy was proposed as a direct result of the attempt by Tony Provine to introduce a new waiver policy on 1 June 1994, after announcing it on 28 May 1994. It was approved by roll call vote: Carol O'Leary: Aye E.F. Morrill : Aye Lee Forgue : Aye A.J. Riviezzo: Nay L. Jane Richards: Aye (simple majority needed for enactment) Since this policy does not affect the administration of the Kingdoms et al, it becomes effective immediately. Changes to the Governing Documents re: the Society Seneschal, the Executive Director, and the Executive Assistant: Remanded to the January meeting to allow for more comment. The Board noted that they had received almost no correspondence on the proposed change. Proposed Revision to Governing and Policy Decision #16: The proposed change would require that local groups with assets must have seperate persons holding the positions of seneschal and exchequer. Remanded to the January meeting; it will be sent out for Society-wide comment. Exchequer Handbook: Accepted in its final form (with the proviso that any typographical errors be corrected before printing). Non-Member Surchage: E.F. Morrill presented a proposal to end the NMS effective on 1 November 1995 as a "compulsory revenue enhancement item". It was pointed out that under the just enacted G&PD 18, the date would have to be at least 60 days from the Board Meeting, whereupon Mr. Morrill amended his proposal to have the NMS end on 1 January 1996. It was further pointed out that the NMS was anticipated to bring in approximately $40,000 in 1996. Much discussion followed concerning the loss of this revenue, especially in light of the previously enacted fiscal policy which calls for the creation of a 6 month operating reserve (which, at present levels, would be approximately $500,000). Under the proposed budget, the Corporation would end 1996 with a surplus of about $65,000 with the NMS, and $25,000 without (barring replacement of the revenue). Finally, a substitute proposal was drafted which calls for the NMS to end on 30 June 1996, provided a suitable method for consistently raising an equal or greater amount of revenue is presented to the Board and adopted. If an alternative method cannot be found, the NMS will continue to be collected. This proposal was adopted by roll call vote: Carol O'Leary: Aye E.F. Morrill : Aye Lee Forgue : Aye A.J. Riviezzo: Nay L. Jane Richards: Aye (simple majority needed for enactment) Northshield: The proposal for advancement of the Crown Principality of Northshield to full Principality status was presented. It was noted that the Barony of Castel Rouge had finally agreed to be included within the boundaries of the proposed principality. The proposal was approved. Further, the request of the Shire of Mare Amethystinum (Thunder Bay, ONT) to be transferred from the Principality of Ealdormere to the Principality of Northshield was also approved. The date for Northshield's first Coronet Tourney has not been set, as bid proposals are still being received. Estrella NMS Filing Extension: This would have extended the filing deadline for transferring the NMS revenue to the corporate offices to 1 April (instead of the normal 10 days after the event). Pennsic has had a similar extension for the past two years; however, due to the fact that only SCA officers handle Estrella funds (as opposed to Pennsic, where the campground owners handle all site fees), the request was denied. Trimaris Crown Sanctions: The current Crowns of Trimaris are attempting to withhold the titles of Count and Countess from their predecessors (the former Queen was offered the title, along with companionship in the Order of the Rose, but refused as the title of Count was being withheld from the former King). The Board ruled that the current Crowns do not have that option. County rank is automatic upon successful completion of the reign, and only the Board has the authority to determine if a reign was not successfully completed, if the question is in doubt. The current Crowns do not have to publicly invest their predecessor in the title, and the fact that the outgoing Crowns have the titles of Count/Countess can be announced in any Court (including a proxy court held by a landed Baron/ Baroness). The Board will so inform Their Majesties of Trimaris. The Board firmly stated that current ruling nobility cannot be "blackmailed" into certain actions, nor prevented from acting, due to threats from their heirs of withholding royal peerages. Membership and Lawsuits: A.J. Riviezzo proposed a Governing and Policy Decision that would state that the membership of persons bringing lawsuits of their own volition (as opposed to being required to do so by another person or company in order to receive, for example, insurance benefits) against the Corporation or any of its officers will be revoked for the duration of the suit. Membership would be restored when the case was ended, regardless of the outcome of the case. A comment was made that there may be legal restrictions on such an action. This item was remanded for legal research and comments. Librarian/Archivist Direction: The current Librarian (a deputy of the Arts and Sciences Officer) would rather function as an Archivist (which is essentially what she has been doing). She is currently holding over 35,000 pieces of articles, newsletters, etc., which she is trying to catalog, and would like suitable computer hardware and software to do the job properly. However, the A&S Officer doesn't want an archivist, she wants a librarian; if the office is converted to an archivist, it should become a deputy of either the Executive Director/Assistant or the Society Seneschal. If that should happen, the A&S Officer still wants a librarian. Remanded for more information and Society-wide comment. Budget: The budget, which had been presented and discussed in executive session, was approved. Memberships rates will not change for 1996. Projected revenues are approximately $950,000 with projected expenses totalling approximately $875,000, for a net surplus of approzimately $65,000 (I recognize that these numbers do not match - these were the numbers announced by A.J. Riviezzo). The budget is based on an anticipated 3% growth in membership, instead of the traditional 10% figure used in recent years. The newsletter stipend will be increased to the kingdom chroniclers, to cover expected increases in production and postage costs. Board/Corporate Officer Travel Policy: The Board stated publicly a policy that has been intermittantly in effect for some time. If a group offers to fund half of the cost for a Director or Corporate Officer to travel to a given event, Board approval is not needed to fund the remaining have from the travel budget for that Director or Officer. Travel expenses which exceed the allocated amount for that Director or Officer must still receive Board approval. Translations: It has been brought to the Board's attention that the SCA is required by Canadian law to have its governing documents translated into French for Canadian groups. Similar requirements may also exist in other countries, most notably Sweden and Germany. The Board also recognized the problem of documents originally written in languages other than English needing to be translated into English, and which version should be the controlling document in the case of differences of meaning. The Board directed the Executive Assistant to begin looking into obtaining the services of certified translators to produce translations of the SCA governing docuements in the all necessary languages, and to draft a proposed Governing and Policy Decision stating that documents produced by certified translation are fully equivalent to the English version and that differences in interpretation will be resolved in favor of the language that the document was originally written in. Executive Session: In addition to the session in the morning, an additional session was held that coincided with the lunch break, and lasted from about 11:30 until about 2:30. Among the decisions taken in executive session were the following: Banishments from Atenveldt and Calontir were upheld. A banishment from Atlantia was overturn for the reasons presented, but upheld based on subsequent actions by the individual (I may not have this correctly presented - the matter was read very quickly). One Midrealm banishment was declared invalid, as the individual was not a resident of the Midrealm at the time of the incident, and a second banishment was overturned. The new Directors chosen at this meeting are Susan Earley (Maestra Margherita Alessia), Carolyn Richardson (Mistress Tetchubah of Greenlake), and William Colbert (Baron William de Montegilt). Initially, Michael Jackson (Duke Valens of Flatrock) was selected in place of Mr. Colbert; however, Mr. Jackson had already decided to enter the upcoming Calontir Crown Tourney, and declined to accept at this time. The meeting then ended at approximately 5:25 pm. My comments on this meeting will be made in seperate postings. In Service, Mikjal Annarbjorn -- Michael A. Chance St. Louis, Missouri, USA "At play in the fields Work: mc307a@sw1stc.sbc.com of St. Vidicon" From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 15:25:49 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 7246 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 09:10:14 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Various Monday Stuff (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan Margo Lynn Hablutzel said: > Alysoun suggested: > > >> I propose that standing committees be put in place at the Board > >> and the kingdom level and that additional committees be > >> encouraged for local branches, regional or national divisions, > >> and other specific interest groups such as the orders. These > >> committees would be charged with raising awareness of these > >> issues, assessing the strengths and weaknesses in their domain, > >> and determining with the people of their domain how best to > >> proceed. Orientation and training material for the members of > >> these committees on all levels should be provided to aid them > >> in this task. > > AUGH!!!! Do you have any idea how much additional bureaucracy, documentation, > and so on would be required? I truly hope you are not serious with this > suggestion. Just implemneting it is going to bog things down beyond useability > for far too long. > > and yes, I have gotten standing committees going, have written the "marching > orders," and all that, so *I* know how long these things take. We need to be > fast and mobile, not stodgy. There was some talk about intra-kingdom meetings > to talk about Things; that would seem to gain a lot more and better useable > information than these committees. At some point, the committee people could > know the answers to questions so well they may not bother to ask. (Many of the > people in the target groups will not change.) > > > > Alysoun had also asked: > > >> What is it that the plastic teeth vampires are doing that > >> Hungarian noble vampires aren't? Back in college, we called > >> it "altercasting"--forcing a role on someone else. > > Very good point. In a way, we do that whenever we run into one another -- I > certainly would not run into Cariadoc in normal times. However, the more > in-period-persona vampyres at least can be dealt with as period personas, and > the vampyre part can be ignored. With the Regency-era and plastic-fang vampyre > folk, they are forcing you to cope with someone totally alien to your character > AND to the SCA POI. > > > Lady Karen asked for help with College chapters. Given the discussion that > Tibor and I had, I think it would be good if there were some Society-wide > publication on this, even an article in TI. > > > Duke John the Bearkiller (always one of the more citizen-friendly BoD members) > asked: > > >> Please look into some sort of system to remove Board members by > >> the membership. Rebuilding the Society will probably take a > >> great deal of time, but, some method of reigning in the Board > >> is needed now. The present impeachment procedures really are > >> useless. > > Mostly because they are too time-consuming and clumsy. But we need to strike a > balance; using Tibor's example of a group with 300 members, if we make the > number of signatures too low, one annoyed shire could really be The Mouse That > Roared. There has to be something that prevents it, maybe a requirement that > the signatures represent at least a certain number (or percentage) of Kingdoms? > And who was it suggested the IKC be the ones with the power to impeach (Alysoun, > or more likely Solveig, but I've been catching up on a LOT of messages that all > dumped into my mailbox suddenly). > > > Solveig said in semi-response to Duke John: > > >> I think that getting all worked up over general plebicites and > >> impeachments makes the BoD much too important and plays into > >> the whole idea held by proponents of a "strong BoD" that what > >> the BoD decided and does is really important in our society. > >> That we are somehow servants of the corporation. > > Not really; in a for-profit corporation, the directors are elected by the > shareholders, and can be bounced by the same. The problem with an NFP is it > lacks that safeguard. {NOT a plug for non-NFP status, just an observation.} > > > Highlights of the October Board Meeting Report: > > >> A Corporate Financial Policy was approved. Unfortunately, > >> A.J. Riviezzo read the new policy very quickly and I was not > >> able to record all of the policy. However, included were > >> requirements to adopt Generally Accepted Accounting Principles > >> (GAAP) for corporate financial record keeping, having the > >> financial records of the corporation audited by an independant > >> CPA firm on a regular basis, and establishing a 6 month > >> operating reserve. Also approved was the establishment of a > >> Budget/Finance Compliance Committee, which would not include > >> either Directors or Corporate Officers. > > Sounds reasonable. > > >> Waiver Committee: The new waiver text has been distributed > >> to the kingdom seneschals for review. Comments, especially > >> from lawyers, regarding any potential problems with the wording > >> in specific areas of the US are highly encouraged. The new > >> waiver text can be used immediately. > > I am concerned about it being implemented without having been vetted by local > attorneys, as I remember the last version had some SERIOUS defects. > > >> A new policy regarding the use and rentention of waivers has > >> been drafted and sent to the members of the committee. * * * > >> Major issues still outstanding include the very long retention > >> periods required by law (7 years for adults, up to 20 years for > >> minor waivers), where the completed waivers will be stored, and > >> who will pay for such storage. > > Hopefully, not under a freeway in LA. These are unfortunate but statutory > timelines, so the question is whether some non-original format (microfiche or > CD-ROM) would be acceptable? > > >> The Board further acknowledged that it only has legal standing > >> in the U.S. The Board directed the Executive Assistant to > >> investigate the necessary steps to properly incorporate the SCA > >> in all countries were it is required, and to begin planning for > >> national registries (similar to the Australian Registry), if > >> they are either necessary or beneficial. > > Good. Interesting follow-up to Nordmark and Australia. > > >> Proposed Revision to Governing and Policy Decision #16: > >> The proposed change would require that local groups with > >> assets must have seperate persons holding the positions of > >> seneschal and exchequer. Remanded to the January meeting; > >> it will be sent out for Society-wide comment. > > Sound sense. Should also be not of the same residence; I was going to say > "Household," but you cna get groups which are dominated by one or two > households. Hhhhmmm.... Maybe "household" IS the proper term after all.... > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 15:29:35 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:49:49 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Eichling, who is still learning the ins and outs of email. (Reformatted for readability.) -- Justin >Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 00:19:49 -0400 >From: Schuylab@aol.com >Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... >From: Mistress Tetchubah of Greenlake (Carolyn Richardson) >To: Eichling von Amrum September 27, 1995 Dear Eichling, I've been thinking about the conversation we had at Crown Tourney on September 15, regarding the possible benefits and drawbacks of changing the SCA's status from educational to a mutual benefit sports organization. You mentioned that this has been discussed in Grand Council with some serious consideration towards moving in this direction. I have to reiterate that I really don't think that this would be a beneficial move, and I don't think that the Grand Council really has a good grip on what they are discussing here. For starters, both educational organizations and mutual benefit sports organizations are chartered as tax exempts under the same Internal Revenue Code section, Section 501(c)(3). I got the impression that the Council thinks that a move to a sports organization would simplify our life regarding filing our income tax returns, but this wouldn't change our filing requirements at all. We would still need to file a form 990, and the information asked for is identical regardless of the type of organization you happen to be. I'm sure you've discussed the perpetual lateness of our IRS filings (per conversation with Tetchubah, this refers to lateness within legitimate extension periods in all instances save one. -- Eichling), but this is not really a function of the forms required, but is more a function of long delays at much lower levels than the corporation. After being Kingdom Exchequer for 3 years and completing the Kingdom of Caid's financial statements for 4 years, I can tell you that the longest delays happen at the Canton/Shire/Barony level, not at the kingdom and corporate levels. Our IRS return would be completed much quicker if we had competent exchequers at levels below the Kingdom, and by competent I mean someone who reconciles the books monthly at a minimum,...who files their quarterly reports correctly and timely, and who can complete the financial statements fully and correctly without having the Kingdom Exchequer having to practically rewrite them from scratch when they get them.... I realize there is a lot of resentment out there regarding our having to file financial statements at all (after all, this is supposed to be "fun"), but too many of our members are unaware that we have financial requirements we must meet, not only from the IRS but also the State of California, in which we are incorporated. This attitude makes all of the exchequers jobs' difficult, especially when autocrats or officials fail to file event reports or provide receipts, and still expect us to reimburse them anyway. (Tetchubah elaborated that the IRS regards office expenses, travel expenses and similar costs as an intrinsic part of running the Joe-average corporation. They are not particularly interested in such expenses. Also, incidentally, that a gift of $25/ year per individual is legit. - Eichling) Changing the SCA over to a different type of organization would not change this situation at all. Another thing you mentioned was the "stuff we have to do to prove we are an educational organization and how difficult this was. What stuff did you have in mind? The only thing you have to do to prove you are an educational organization, paraphrased from regulations for Section 501(c)(3), is instruction or training of the individual for the purpose of improving or developing their capabilities, or instruction of the public on subjects useful to the individual and beneficial to the community. I've heard rumors from people that we are required to do demos and the like in order to maintain our status, but this is complete hogwash. Our own activities such as workshops, tourneys, collegia, etc. qualify us for our educational status. The IRS doesn't require us to educate the public--there is an "or" there between those two requirements. Simply educating our own members is sufficient to maintain our educational status. About a year or so ago there were all sorts of panicked rumors about the IRS auditing us and pulling our status because of the financial problems we were having, but this was alarmist drivel propagated by people who are completely clueless about how the IRS really works, and how we really operate. I didn't find a single part of this stuff to be credible, much less anywhere near accurate. Despite our growth over the years, the SCA is small potatoes to the IRS. We have gross income less than $2,000,000 last time I looked (and that includes all the Kingdoms and their groups). Our activities are squeaky clean compared to some other tax exempt organizations that are making far bigger bucks than we are. Here's a short list of some of those other organizations (and remember that these are all tax exempt under the same Section 501, although some are under different subsections): Any private university you care to mention, including Harvard, Yale, Duke, Cornell, and Stanford (501(c)(3)); Underwriter's Laboratories (501(c)(3)); Major League Baseball Player's Assn (501(c)(9)); the National Football League (501(c)(6)); AARP (501(c)(3)); National Rifle Association (501(c)(3)); National Geographic Society (501(c)(3)); Children's Television Workshop (501(c)(3)); the PGA Tour (501(c)(3) I think); NASDAQ (the stock exchange - I'm guessing but I think that they are a 501(c)(6) - I know they are exempt); the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the Motion Picture Assn of America, both (501(c)(3); the J.Paul Getty Trust (501(c)(3)). As you can see, I don't think that we have anything to worry about regarding the IRS pulling our status anytime soon. Please pass this information on to the Council as you see fit. I think they are getting fed some inaccurate information by some of their members or people associated with them. Lastly, I think separately incorporating the Kingdoms is a really bad idea, mostly because of the problems we have in dealing with money that I've already outlined. While the corporation has had problems handling money, I don't see this situation improving by incorporating the Kingdoms. What's worse, I see a grand opportunity for embezzlement (some of which has occurred in the not so distant past) at the Kingdom level and below. Every kingdom would need to file their own return which would make the Kingdom Exchequers unhappy, and frankly I'm not sure that all of them are up to the job anyway. What would you do if the Kingdom Exchequer were incapable of filling out the return correctly? You'd have to spend some money to hire an accountant to do it. This would probably cost around $1000. What would happen to the other kingdoms if one of them got audited and the IRS was unhappy with their records or whatever and decided to pull their exempt status? The IRS is notorious for pursuing "related" corporations which we would be, and they would audit all of us--I used to do this myself when I was a Revenue Agent. We'd all go down the tubes because someone got sloppy. The current corporation setup protects us from this to some extent--they would have much more trouble justifying a revocation of status because of the behavior of 1/13th of the total group. Also, corporations are required to follow certain procedures such as holding quarterly meetings of the board of directors, and maintaining minutes of such meetings. This would have to be done by 13 groups instead of 1, and considering the size of some o the kingdoms the travel cost would probably increase overall, not decrease... From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 15:33:11 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 10:13:47 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: Caroline's list; charter summary To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In the GC Chronicle #29, Caroline listed the following: "We need someone (or a group of someones) who: [1] Are willing to make the GC a high priority in their SCA activities [2] Are organized enough to follow up on the committees and efforts in place [3] Can write a coherent and concise report to the Board quarterly [4] Have e-mail to communicate with the GC and the Board [5] Can work with the GC's ombudsman to ensure our proposals and concerns receive the appropriate attention [6] Can create structure when needed and remove impediments which do not add value [7] Have time in their lives to do these tasks well." At this point it doesn't hurt to look back at the Grand Council Charter, posted in GC Chronicle #1 and summarized here: ***** Purpose The Grand Council will examine the Society of Creative Anachronism, Inc's corporate and organizational structure, incorporating discussions from throughout the Society and make recommendations for changes necessary to carry out the Society's mission as a global organization . . . . Broadly, the GC scope is to examine all facets of the SCA,Inc., from the Bylaws to waivers to the level of centralization. Narrowing this focus will enable the GC to provide the best possible recommendations to the Board. The GC will initially focus on the areas below: Focus areas Mutual relationships between branches and the Corporation Mutual relationships between participants and the Corporation Goals of the Corporation (strategy) Methods of the Corporation (tactics) . . . . Additional projects may be added to these focus areas by the GC or may be requested by the Board, but each project must be managed so that the GC can appropriately discuss and make recommendations on all it has been asked to consider. . . . Structure of the Grand Council The GC is charged with developing an organizational structure which will enable it to accomplish its objective. . . . One member will be appointed the Communications Manager. This role is to be the conduit between the Internet list and the paper mail, posting paper mail messages and mailing the Internet postings weekly. This person would also prepare the cohesive project update to the Board for each meeting . . . . [This is Justin] A project manager will be appointed for each project. These people would be responsible for running each project, including creating the schedule, managing the discussion and proposals, communicating with the other project managers on joint issues, and creating the presentations to the Board. One member will be the overall Grand Council Coordinator. {Caroline's job] The exact role of this coordinator will be determined by the GC, but might include ensuring that all projects remain on track and acting as the main liaison with the Board. . . . Reporting Requirements The GC will report to the Board at each of the Board's quarterly meetings. Reports, proposals, and recommendations may be presented at any of these meetings. Interim reports will be presented to the appointed liaison and the GC Ombudsman at appropriate intervals. Proposals and recommendations will contain both majority and minority opiniuons of the GC, if applicable, and recommendations for implementation. Summaries of proposals and recommendations made to the Board will be placed in the next available issue of Tournaments Illuminated. . . . Relationship to IAC The GC will not handle issues better suited to the IAC. Communication with IAC members is crucial to ensure that projects do not overlap. ***** Hope this is helpful, Alysoun From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 15:52:32 1995 Return-Path: Encoding: 99 TEXT X-Mailer: Microsoft Mail V3.0 Approved-By: "Potter, Michael" Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 12:00:00 PDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: My post and your reply To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greg/Hossein, It's obvious that I touched a sore spot with you (obvious by the strong words you used in your post). I disagree with many of the statements you made in your reply post and feel that you again have seized the high ground inappropriately (by the use of "tyranny" and "Stalinist", pretty strong words). Yes, we can all cite occasions where the Board or some King or some Officer has inappropriately used their power or authority. I can also cite many occasions where this has been done in a local area where someone used their popularity to suppress someone, I can cite occasions on this very mailing list where strong language and opinions have been stated which has had the effect of suppressing someone's opinion. So what, seems like the baser part of human nature to me, and I do not think that you can build a very strong case that the SCA officers in general use their power incorrectly. I disagree with many of the statements you make that are actually opinion. I disagree that small changes are not enough. One of your most important points is that the members have little say in where the money is spent and what decisions are made. Actually, at the local level, the average member does have a fair amount of say about where the money is spent and what the group does and election of local officers is pretty common. Most participants in the SCA participate at the local level and this is the level that effects them. Making the election of local officers mandatory would be a small change, but would put local resources in the hands of the local groups. Having an effective audit and financial reporting of SCA, Inc. would be a small change, but would provide much better information to the members about where their money is being spent. >The principal tyranny in the SCA is the tyranny of the elite minority over the >mass of the membership. That's the first issue which has to be addressed. I also disagree that there is an "elite minority" that rules the SCA. Elite in which way? If you look at the work experience and background of the typical officer/board member/royalty, I doubt that a case could be built that they are "elite". Sure there is a sub-set of elite fighters who win crowns. However, their influence when not on the throne is based more personal presence than anything else. Yes, we do have some elitism within the SCA (that is, at least partially, what being a Peer is), but the ideals of the SCA are high as well. Do you have a problem with hiring experts (such as tax lawyers)? Experts is a form of elitism. Even if we elect leaders, short of constant votes on issues, decisions will be made by our elected leaders which members will disagree with. That's the lot of being a leader. >We need referenda on fundamental policies. - define what is fundamental and explain why referenda is the best form to decide. You do not appear to be fond of bureaucracies. However, even with elected leaders, there will be a need for a bureaucracy to gather information, to keep members informed, and to carry out decisions that are made. In addition, it is often very difficult to get people to become officers. I think that the average member wants to go to events and have fun (usually by pursuing and studying their favorite activity), and do not want to be involved in the details and work that go along with running the SCA and SCA, Inc.. You claim that the SCA has been damaged by the actions of the Board and other officers. In my opinion, much of the damage that was done is a shared responsibility between the Board and the people (including the CSOS) who strongly and vocally opposed and attacked each other, much of it publicly. The damage that was done was the intrusion of modern concerns into the "game", especially the negative and counter-productive struggles that occurred. >We need concrete structures to guarantee that people can play the game in the way they >please without intrusions from above, but we also need concrete, enforceable >and effective sanctions against injustice; and sanctions which do not >depend on mobilizing large numbers of people to see that justice is done. If people can play the game the way they feel, what about the vampires, the bunny-fur barbarians, and the other less mainstream groups? There already is a system of checks and balances in place in many kingdoms (such as Courts of Chivalry or Courtesy, the various Peerage and Order meeting, banishments, etc.). These do not require mobilizing large numbers of people. Injustice is a hazy word, easy to get impassioned about but hard to define. Almost any hard choice will involve disappointed people, some who may feel that they were a victim of an injustice. Remember that there is much support for the "pay to play" policy that started the current debate. Believe it or not, I do agree that the current process to remove a Board member is far too cumbersome and should be one of the first issues that we tackle. My real concern here is that if it is only one member, the Board itself would be likely to act. How would you remove the entire Board? What circumstances In summary, my post was about overheated arguments and presentation styles. I used your post as an example because of the use of "tyranny". I think that it is too strong an argumentative style and it makes it too easy to say that any opponent of the opinions contained in the message is pro-"tyranny". regards, Michael G. Potter Sir Myrdin the Just From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 18:28:38 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:42:14 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Voting for a leader To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <01HWU07G3B9G9GWV8C@delphi.com> (ALBAN@DELPHI.COM) Alban writes: >leader? we don't need a leader in the sense of someone setting the issues; >we need an administrator. I partly disagree. While this putative leader shouldn't be calling all the shots, the *most* important job is to keep us to an agenda. One thing is clear -- this discussion is quite capable of wandering all over the map, and without a little coherence, we're not going to get anywhere. The leader might well not *set* the agenda -- but they should enforce it... -- Justin Random Quote du Jour: Re: Baronial Election "Odds are good that none of the slates would respond with: I am Brain of Carolingia and I want to become Baron as part of my plan for global domination. When Baron, I will snub all newcomers, try to abolish all guilds, and centralize all power in myself. (Though it could certainly make for an interesting reign, "Ah yes..., I remember the Dark Ages of Carolingia under Evil Baron Brain. Those were harsh times.")" -- Gideon From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 19:01:35 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 4775 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 17:10:49 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan > Replying to Mistress Tetchubah of Greenlake (Carolyn Richardson): > > >> For starters, both educational organizations and mutual benefit > >> sports organizations are chartered as tax exempts under the same > >> Internal Revenue Code section, Section 501(c)(3). > > To get picky -- because we know the IRS will -- the type of sports associations > allowed the 501(c)(3) exemption are those "Fostering national or international > amateur sports competition." However, it is clear from the details (I am > quoting from pages 14 and 23-24 of IRS Publication 557) that these organizations > must be chartered "EXCLUSIVELY to foster national or international amateur > sports competition" (emphasis mine) and "to conduct national or international > competition in sports or to suppoer and develop amateur athletes for such > competitions" [EXAMPLE: The USOC]. The organization also can qualify if it > "fosters national or international sports competition but only if none of its > activities involve providing athletic facilities or equipment." > > Because everybody must admit the SCA is not solely designed for the sports, it > would be hard to become qualified as an amateur sports organization under > 501(c)(3). > > >> I'm sure you've discussed the perpetual lateness of our IRS filings > >> * * * but this is not really a function of the forms required, but is > >> more a function of long delays at much lower levels than the > >> corporation. * * * I can tell you that the longest delays happen at > >> the Canton/Shire/Barony level, not at the kingdom and corporate levels. > > PRECISELY. > > >> Our IRS return would be completed much quicker if we had competent > >> exchequers at levels below the Kingdom, and by competent I mean > >> someone who reconciles the books monthly at a minimum,...who files > >> their quarterly reports correctly and timely, and who can complete the > >> financial statements fully and correctly without having the Kingdom > >> Exchequer having to practically rewrite them from scratch when they > >> get them.... > > As one of those lower-level Exchequers, I would put in a vote for forms that do > not change every year or so; forms which come with COMPETENT and COHERENT > explanations of what goes where; forms that come on diskette so we don't have to > do hand-fill and hand-calculate. I run a business, and I can handle those forms > much more quickly and easily than the SCA ones. > > >> Our own activities such as workshops, tourneys, collegia, etc. qualify > >> us for our educational status. The IRS doesn't require us to educate > >> the public--there is an "or" there between those two requirements. > >> Simply educating our own members is sufficient to maintain our > >> educational status. > > Page 19 of IRS Publication 557: QUALIFYING ORGANIZATIONS. The following types > of organizations may qualify as educational: > > 1) {schools} > > 2) An organization whose activities consist of conducting > public discussion groups, forums, panels, lectures, > or other similar programs; > > 3) {not applicable - TV-based schools} > > 4) A museum, zoo, {etc.} > > 5) A nonprofit day-care center. > > Further, it states: "An athletic organization must submit evidence that it is > engaged in activities such as directing and controlling interscholastic athletic > competitions, conducting tournaments, and prescribing eligibility rules for > contestants." Further commentary indicates that scholarship hustles, scouting, > and similar activities do not support a finding of exemption. > > > Having just read in a couple places about the problems other exempt > organizations are finding themselves (earlier this month, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD > REPORT had a fascinating cover article set on the topic), I would agree that the > SCA is probably not going to be in a lot of trouble anytime soon. I would be > more worried about envangelicals. > > > As for the issue of quarterly meetings, I don't think this is as much of a > problem, because the Royalty and others are required to travel anyway, and there > are regular peerage meetings, and so on, so having quarterly Board meetings > within a given Kingdom should not be too much of a hassle. > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 19:43:03 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1153 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:04:29 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Various Monday Stuff (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199510251410.JAA114416@gold.missouri.edu> from "Joseph Heck" at Oct 25, 95 09:10:14 am Greetings from Tibor. I don't have the time right now, to give Morgan's note the full attention it deserves, but one thought lept out at me: Mostly because they are too time-consuming and clumsy. But we need to strike a balance; using Tibor's example of a group with 300 members, if we make the number of signatures too low, one annoyed shire could really be The Mouse That Roared. There has to be something that prevents it, maybe a requirement that the signatures represent at least a certain number (or percentage) of Kingdoms? Having given that more thought, I would worry more about setting the hurdle too high, than too low. The barrier can always be raised. Or, at least, set the barrier at a low level for a motion to impeach, and a good bit higher for a binding impeachment. I also wonder about the advisability of having the Board be it's own offender, prosecutor, defender, judge and jury. But that's too many things to think about for one day. On a general note, I will be reading more slowly than usual: work has hit a particularly nasty phase, and there will be less time for mail at work, and mucho overtime. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 19:56:59 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1318 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 19:17:21 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In response to the message originally from Carolyn Richardson recently sent to the GC list: Two comments: First, the list of 501(c)X's was inaccurate: Here's a short list of some of those other organizations (and remember that these are all tax exempt under the same Section 501, although some are under different subsections): .... National Rifle Association (501(c)(3)); ... I don't believe this is the case. The NRA is actually a family of related organizations. there's the NRA proper, which is *not* a 501(c)3 (NRA dues are not tax deductable) there's the "NRA Foundation" which is a 501(c)(3), and the "NRA-ILA" which is the lobbying arm (definitely *NOT* a 501(c)3). Second, with respect to lame kingdom exchequers endangering their corporation by not doing their paperwork: In essence, this is already the case. In the monolithic corporation (the current model), failure of an exchequer to get the paperwork done prevents the *entire* SCA from filing timely and/or accurate tax returns with the IRS, and thus endangers the *entire* SCA. With separate incorporation of kingdoms or local groups: - the individual tax returns are easier to prepare than the current grand unified return. - failure of one kingdom/local group to file does not endanger other kingdoms. - Bill From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 20:24:13 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 13:44:07 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Hossein - Re: Some issues To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Yosef... -- Justin >Subject: Re: Hossein - Re: Some issues >From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN) >Date: Mon, 23 Oct 95 18:42:00 -0500 >References: <8B39053.010005DAFC.uuout@execnet.com> Hossein says... S::>We have become so fixed on pseudo-medieval ideas of royal or bureaucratic ::>absolutism that it contaminates what should be a question of how twentieth- ::>century people organize voluntarily to provide the material basis for ::>playing at medieval recreation. I'm not so sure that the idea of bureaucratic absolutism is medieval or pseudo-medieval. I _work_ for a modern bureaucracy (NYC PD), and I see, day-to-day, many of the absolutist problems that we in the SCA have been complaining about in our bureaucratic hierarchy. S::>A little tinkering around the edges won't change the fact that the corporation ::>and its bureaucracy have had an organization style with more in common with ::>the Stalinist _apparat_ than the collective efforts of people trying to ::>voluntarily organize a game. It requires fundamentally rethinking how we ::>do business. I think the comparison with a Stalinist apparat is a little overblown - we could stick with our own home-grown variety and be a little more accurate. A Stalinist bureaucracy would shoot you for complaining. Ours simply ignore you. S::>We need an elected Board. What incentive is there for an elected Board to ignore us any less, except around election time, than the current insulated, self-selecting clique does? What incentive is there for the membership to take an interest in the political process of electing a board? What part of the membership currently writes to the Board with comments about nominated individuals? What part of the membership even knows anything about most of the nominated individuals? I don't see the general membership as being significantly different in terms of political involvement from the population-at-large; when was the last time the United States (which is certainly the dominant nationality among SCA members) had anything other than a piss-poor turnout for a general election? Even the 1994 midterms only involved about 40% of registered voters - and registered voters are a minority of eligible voters. S::>We need elected officers to handle the mundane business of the corporation. Same questions and comments as above - with the additional question of how we can be certain that the people we're electing are competent to fill the position. S::>We need referenda on fundamental policies. We need a greater level of involvement at the "grass roots", first. Otherwise, all you're doing is taking the power from a small clique and giving it to a vocal minority. How do you propose to get that involvement? S::>We need to give the average participant a voice in the governance of our ::>Society. See above. S::>And no amount of lip-service to self-selecting bureaucracy or martially- ::>selected monarchs will address these fundamental problems. How the game ::>is organized and governed is not the same thing as the game. We can enjoy ::>a medieval fiction only if we are prepared to grant that the material ::>preconditions of that fiction can be gained only by democratic institutions ::>which are appropriate to the modern world. If I'm reading you right, here, you're saying in essence that there is no overlap between the medieval and modern/mundane sides of the game. I'll accept that. So why are we giving our mundane officers medieval titles? Which immediately brings up the next question - should we be considering required officers for the medieval aspects of the organization separately from the modern side, and do we necessarily need a required slate of officers on both sides? I'll accept the need for a secretary, a treasurer, and an administrator (be he called President, Director, or what-have-you) on the mundane side; what (if anything) should be required on the medieval side, and what are the required duties of said required officers? It looks to me like you're proposing a significant reorganization of the structure of the SCA. That's fine; it appears to me that it needs it. But I have to ask it you've thought out _all_ the ramifications of such a reorganization, both on the medieval side, and the mundane side. Your post doesn't indicate either way. ========================================================================== Yosef ben Lazar jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com --- þ OLXWin 1.00a þ MODEM: n, Monumentally Overpriced Data Eating Machine. From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Wed Oct 25 23:49:52 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Greg Rose Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 22:33:36 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Greg Rose Subject: Re: My post and your reply To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Greetings from Hossein! Sir Myrdin writes: >It's obvious that I touched a sore spot with you (obvious by the strong >words you used in your post). I disagree with many of the statements you >made in your reply post and feel that you again have seized the high ground >inappropriately (by the use of "tyranny" and "Stalinist", pretty strong >words). You're right about one thing: I'm pretty steamed at the way in which a fundamental concern of the reform movement has been trivialized as either hotheadedness or a rhetorical trick in your comments. What I say here may be either right or wrong, but I assure you it has nothing to do with any rhetorical device of "seizing the high ground." And I find it deliciously ironic that someone who calls himself "the Just" accuses anyone else of trying to seize the moral high ground by a rhetorical trick. >Yes, we can all cite occasions where the Board or some King or some Officer >has inappropriately used their power or authority. I can also cite many >occasions where this has been done in a local area where someone used their >popularity to suppress someone, I can cite occasions on this very mailing >list where strong language and opinions have been stated which has had the >effect of suppressing someone's opinion. So what, seems like the baser part >of human nature to me, and I do not think that you can build a very strong >case that the SCA officers in general use their power incorrectly. Do you seriously equate strongly stated opinions with misuse of power? Do you really think that there is no need for institutional safeguards against abuses of power because it's just a matter of "the baser part of human nature"? Do you really believe that all injustice is excused by original sin (that seems to the philosophical thrust of your argument)? Do you think that pay-to-fight and pay-to-play, adopted with no serious consultation of the membership at large, were examples of anything but high-handedness on the part of the Board? Do you think the attempt by the national chronicler and a number of kingdom chroniclers to prevent local chroniclers from publishing the impeachment petition and news of opposition to Board policiews wasn't a serious abuse of power? Do you not think that the Board chairman threatening the mandamus petitioners with revocation of membership (a matter which Mr. Riviezzo tried unsuccessfully to recapitulate in Board policy as late as last weekend) wasn't a serious abuse of power? Do you not think that the Society Seneschal's attempt to build a case for revoking my membership for daring to publish on the Rialto the refusal of the Crown of Ansteorra to implement the non-member surcharge or the Provine waiver (ask the former Ansteorran seneschal, Sir Frederick von Sternwald, if you doubt my account) wasn't a serious abuse of power? Do you not think that the refusal of the King of Atlantia, abetted by his Earl Marshal, to allow residents of Atlantia to fight for the East at Pointless War (recall that Atlantia is a pay-to-fight kingdom and refusal to allow any paid member to exercise his right to engage in martial activities except for reasons of safety is a violation of the membership contract -- what the King of Atlantia did was say "fight where I tell you to or you can't participate") wasn't a serious abuse of power? I could go on at length -- anyone who has seriously examined the history of the SCA could as well -- but I'm not certain that anything I could say would persuade you that there is a need for institutional safeguards against tyranny at every level in the SCA. >I disagree with many of the statements you make that are actually opinion. > I disagree that small changes are not enough. One of your most important >points is that the members have little say in where the money is spent and >what decisions are made. Actually, at the local level, the average member >does have a fair amount of say about where the money is spent and what the >group does and election of local officers is pretty common. Most >participants in the SCA participate at the local level and this is the level >that effects them. Making the election of local officers mandatory would be >a small change, but would put local resources in the hands of the local >groups. Having an effective audit and financial reporting of SCA, Inc. >would be a small change, but would provide much better information to the >members about where their money is being spent. Election at the local level is acceptable, but at higher levels isn't. On what grounds? Do you mean to say that you want to vote to city councilmen, but wouldn't mind if someone took away your right to vote for Congress or President? >>The principal tyranny in the SCA is the tyranny of the elite minority over >the >>mass of the membership. That's the first issue which has to be addressed. > >I also disagree that there is an "elite minority" that rules the SCA. Elite >in which way? If you look at the work experience and background of the >typical officer/board member/royalty, I doubt that a case could be built >that they are "elite". Sure there is a sub-set of elite fighters who win >crowns. However, their influence when not on the throne is based more >personal presence than anything else. Yes, we do have some elitism within >the SCA (that is, at least partially, what being a Peer is), but the ideals >of the SCA are high as well. Do you have a problem with hiring experts >(such as tax lawyers)? Experts is a form of elitism. Even if we elect >leaders, short of constant votes on issues, decisions will be made by our >elected leaders which members will disagree with. That's the lot of being a >leader. I mean a self-selecting elite in two senses: (1) selected by martial prowess or (2) selected by a fellow bureaucrat. And in both cases selected to exercise power without any checks or balances in most cases. The general thrust of your views seems to be that (1) the leader is always right (students of political theory have a technical term for that viewpoint, but I won't burden the list with it) and (2) when the leader is wrong, it's a result of perverse human nature, so nothing can be done about it. The reason why democratic societies adopt checks and balances on power is that they fundamentally reject the attitude toward leadership to which you seem to adhere. >>We need referenda on fundamental policies. > - define what is fundamental and explain why referenda is the best form >to decide. > >You do not appear to be fond of bureaucracies. However, even with elected >leaders, there will be a need for a bureaucracy to gather information, to >keep members informed, and to carry out decisions that are made. In >addition, it is often very difficult to get people to become officers. I >think that the average member wants to go to events and have fun (usually by >pursuing and studying their favorite activity), and do not want to be >involved in the details and work that go along with running the SCA and SCA, >Inc.. You claim that the SCA has been damaged by the actions of the Board >and other officers. In my opinion, much of the damage that was done is a >shared responsibility between the Board and the people (including the CSOS) >who strongly and vocally opposed and attacked each other, much of it >publicly. The damage that was done was the intrusion of modern concerns >into the "game", especially the negative and counter-productive struggles >that occurred. We could not more fundamentally disagree. You prefer that a small group of people acting in secret make all decisions (that certainly seems to be the thrust behind your remarks on the wrongness of people criticizing the Board _publicly_). It seems to me that you oppose CSOS and the reform movement because their ideas are democratic and, if implemented, would extend the power to make decisions to the participants in our Society generally, rather than the narrow elite of which you are an example. It would be more honest if you simply said that you didn't like your ox being gored, rather than claiming there are no problems. >>We need concrete structures to guarantee that people can play the game in >the way they >>please without intrusions from above, but we also need concrete, >enforceable >>and effective sanctions against injustice; and sanctions which do not >>depend on mobilizing large numbers of people to see that justice is done. > >If people can play the game the way they feel, what about the vampires, the >bunny-fur barbarians, and the other less mainstream groups? There already >is a system of checks and balances in place in many kingdoms (such as Courts >of Chivalry or Courtesy, the various Peerage and Order meeting, banishments, >etc.). These do not require mobilizing large numbers of people. Injustice >is a hazy word, easy to get impassioned about but hard to define. Almost >any hard choice will involve disappointed people, some who may feel that >they were a victim of an injustice. Remember that there is much support for >the "pay to play" policy that started the current debate. I am really sick of this business about vampires and bunny-fur barbarians. We have wasted enough time on this. It's not a serious problem anywhere in the SCA. It is intellectually dishonest for anyone to claim that the discussion of injustice and institutional checks and balances is in any way connected to that issue. I have made clear above the sort of thing I am talking about. If you think there is mass support for pay-to-play, then call for a referendum in which every participant can vote either for or against it. This is an empirical question -- let it be decided by a show of hands. If a majority of the participants in our Society voted for pay-to-play, I would accept it. Would you do the same if a majority voted against it? >Believe it or not, I do agree that the current process to remove a Board >member is far too cumbersome and should be one of the first issues that we >tackle. My real concern here is that if it is only one member, the Board >itself would be likely to act. How would you remove the entire Board? What >circumstances Recent history does not seem to support your view, but I am pleased to see that you recognize at least one institutional problem for which there should be institutional safeguards. >In summary, my post was about overheated arguments and presentation styles. > I used your post as an example because of the use of "tyranny". I think >that it is too strong an argumentative style and it makes it too easy to say >that any opponent of the opinions contained in the message is pro-"tyranny". This is too precious. This isn't the first time you have advocated silencing a member of this council because his remarks were, in your opinion, "overheated." You have no right whatsoever to question the right of any member of this Council to say anything he or she pleases. It is insulting to the intelligence of members of this council to suggest that they cannot discern and respond to specious arguments, however they are put. We do not need a self-appointed arbiter of what arguments will be heard (because they are palatable to him) and what will not (because he finds them distastefully "strong"). I don't frankly much care whether how I write is to your taste or not. Virtually everything you have said is offensive to me, but I defend absolutely your right to say whatever you please in this forum in whatever words you choose. But that doesn't mean that I won't publicly and vigorously disagree with you. If you don't understand the free exchange of ideas in a democratic society, then perhaps I can understand why you seem so blythe about real abuses of power. Hossein Ali Qomi (Gregory Rose) From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 10:13:21 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Rooscc@AOL.COM Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 09:38:55 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: "Carole C. Roos" Subject: responsibility & leadership To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Earlier I had asked for help in posting, requesting people add their name. On aol, all I get is SCAGC-L@LI for the sender and the subject line (not even all of long ones). Do you realize how many posts use the same subject lines? If I am trying to find a particular post, I have to go through and open them all, one by one, to find the one I want. In trying to file these posts, the system assumes they are duplicates so I have to alter each subject line. I am not the only Council member on aol. Despite quite a few reservations, we moved to the list. Not everyone has unlimited access to the net or the time to keep up on a daily basis. Early on, we realized that the people not on-line were not participating. We did not make additional efforts to include them. Justin, Tibor, and Caroline spent many hours in selecting the members of the Council, seeking to make it balanced if not wholly representative. In less than a year we have eroded that effort. We do need some leadership. Even more we need to take personal responsibility. Individuals can ask themselves whether what they are posting is relevant to the topic at hand or can wait until a more appropriate time. They can look to see if the subject line is accurate and helpful to their fellow members. They can stop to remember that not all Council members may have unlimited access to the net, or the same background information on a topic, or the same SCA experiences. And those who are not posting because they feel we are not addressing the right topics do all of us a discourtesy by failing to say what they think those topics should be. I withdraw my name from consideration but I hope to be able to help the Council move forward. Alysoun From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 10:36:27 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 3232 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:59:01 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Gareth--paying for lawyers (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan: > Esclarmonde commented upon my suggestions for the possible panel of > attorney-advisors: > > M> The problem I can see with this panel is that there are a lot > M> of attorneys within the SCA who have no competency in the areas > M> named by either me or Esclarmonde, and who are willing to donate > M> time but may do more harm than good. > > E> First, ask for resumes or c.v.s and keep those handy. That gives > E> you a fair idea of areas of practice. > > Exactly. If the firm is listed in Martindale's or Sullivan's or a similar > place, you can check to see what they claim to do there, but not all firms want > to pay the money to get a large listing. > > > E> Being in gov't brings a fair number of ethics/conflicts problems > E> which the attorney should know about. On the other hand, I know a > E> couple of folks at IRS who I might quietly run an argument past > E> to see if it works. > > Informal things like this are always useful, but this was not what I was talking > about for the advisory panel. I know a lot of attorneys (judges too) that I can > run things past on a "have you ever?" basis. > > E> There are also folks like Yaakov who have some interesting experiese > E> in areas not related to their duties who could kibitz informally. > > Except that Yaakov has in the past offered things styled legal opinions, so I > think he needs to be a bit more careful. I have seen attorneys fired if their > employer gets wind that they are doing outside work. > > M> f'instance, that just because the corporation has an employment issue > M> does not mean the corporate attorney can handle it. > > E> Not that they _can't_ handle it, but that they aren't the best person > E> to handle it. I'm licensed for general practice in Mass., but that > E> doesn't mean I should try a murder case. > > A more elegant way of saying what I meant, and I sure would not take on a murder > case either. In fact, one reason I am resisting joining the Federal Trial Bar > is that they require you to take one or two criminal cases each year on federal > issues, usually drug or battery/assault and murder charges. Having to represent > kids who peel cars through one of the conflict panels I'm on is quite close > enough, thank you very much. > > Corporations often face, in addition to the "basic corporate" questions, issues > of leasing, buying businesses, buying/selling goods and services, construction, > employment, intellectual property, taxes, securities, and those are just off the > top of my head. It is why many big corporations either have a large in-house > legal staff, or farm out detail work to law firms with the appropriate knowledge > and experience. > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 11:51:30 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:00:44 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: digest truncated To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Digest 10/23-10/24 arrived truncated. Could someone please resend? Thank you. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 11:53:01 1995 Return-Path: Priority: normal X-Mailer: ExpressNet/SMTP v1.1.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Approved-By: Roy Gathercoal Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 08:00:49 -0800 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Roy Gathercoal Organization: George Fox College Subject: On surcharges To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L I do dislike the surcharge of any amount. I have three basic problems with it. 1. Increased paperwork. It gives the people at the gate/troll/registration table yet another thing to do. In that these are often manned into the wee hours (or all night) by untrained volunteers, we should do what we can to make the task less complex, not more. This is particularly the case involving money. It is far easier to fudge the number of surcharges coming in than to fudge the number of bodies on site. 2. Belonging vs. admission. I strongly feel that one of our strengths is that our events are not for "public display." This gives us greater freedom to explore the complex social and political implications of some of our alternative structures (such as peerages, monarchy) without having to keep everything on the "how can we explain this to the public" level. Thus I believe we do ourselves a disservice by saying in any fashion that anyone could walk in off the street, plunk down the price of admission, and play as if they belonged. I don't have a problem with saying "you can come and see first hand what we do before you decide whether you wish to join" and I believe there is a place for demos--designed expressly for non-members. But let's keep events and demos clearly separated. 3. It is difficult to calculate the real value that the central organization provides. Some have apparently assumed that the most obvious (e.g., publications, insurance, tax-exempt status) are the most valuable. I would disagree completely with this. The most valuable contributions of the central organization is providing and maintaining the framework that allows us to be a Society of tens of thousands rather than of tens. It permits me to move from Indiana to Oregon and join in activities here with a running start. It allows my friends of similar interests from all over creation to interact on common ground. It ensures that if I am visiting in Florida, or British Columbia, or California, or Arkansas, I can drop in on an event and be sure of a certain minimum standard of behavior and of safety. These are far more important to me than any publication or insurance policy, which can be bought for a few dollars. Thus, setting a surcharge based on only the most obvious benefits not only increases the cost on me (and other members) for the really important things but it also sends exactly the wrong message--that we are fundamentally about a publication or two and liability insurance. These are not the purposes of the SCA, though these services might help the SCA fulfill its real purposes. Gareth -- From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 12:20:25 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1766 Approved-By: Mark Schuldenfrei Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 11:37:53 -0400 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: Re: My post and your reply To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L In-Reply-To: <199510260233.WAA29241@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> from "Greg Rose" at Oct 25, 95 10:33:36 pm Greetings from Tibor. While I can't match the language, I can echo some of the sentiments at a lesser level. Myrdin, by your own logic, human nature will lead to tyranny. This point of argument drives me straight into Hossein's arms. We must build systems that reduce and address tyranny short of revolution. (Well, maybe not revolution. But having too many people vote with their feet is just as bad an outcome, in my book.) Hossein also has a leg up on you upon another level, Myrdin. He has identified the problems that he wants addressed, and those problems do require some top to bottom reassessment. You appear to agree that those problems exist, although for reasons that escape me, you give them little importance. But you have not identified the problems that require only minor re-adjustment. Given almost any problem that anyone could raise, I would have expected you to say "No big deal, let's just adjust and move along." As I would expect Hossein to say "Raze the structure, and start anew." In the cases Hossein was discussing, I must say, that I'm far closer to his ideas than yours. The SCA is not an organization rich in feedback at any level, and the higher levels most frequently act to support the lower in this regard. In my experience, anyway. This is not always incorrect. Many individual instances seem quite correct. But the totality of the pattern seems to be, that once raised to an office, you are answerable to no one "beneath you", and quite unlikely to be held to accounts by those "above you". Lastly, and more generally, I hope that each of us will seriously reconsider discussions of posting or language style. It's a great distractor. Let's each of us make our points, as we see fit, and work from there. Tibor From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 17:06:05 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1044 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:47:23 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: My post and your reply (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan > Hossein asked Sir Myrdin: > > >> Do you think that pay-to-fight and pay-to-play, adopted with no serious > >> consultation of the membership at large, were examples of anything but > >> high-handedness on the part of the Board? > > I don't know about Sir Myrdin, but *I* think it was an example of people being > scared into a poor choice of remedy by some inadequate legal advice; however, > that's been my take on the situation for the last couple of years. > > > ---= Morgan > > > > > > > > |\ THIS is the cutting edge of technology! > 8+%%%%%%%%I=================================================--- > |/ Morgan Cely Cain * 72672.2312@compuserve.com > > -- joe (314) 882-5000 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu University of Missouri - Columbia "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin ccjoe From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 17:06:54 1995 Return-Path: X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1274 Approved-By: Joseph Heck Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:49:16 -0500 Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Joseph Heck Subject: Re: Gareth on Surcharges (fwd) To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Morgan > I am of two minds on this topic. > > First, yes, let us be socialistic or libertarian or whatever you wish to call > it, and not charge anything extra to those who do not belong. This is fair, and > open, and friendly, and however else you choose to characterize it. I am not > trying to sound perjorative here, I am trying to be supportive of the > no-surcharge movement, especially because of all the paperwork it creates. > > {Our answer is simple -- no site fee. We do fundraising to pay the rental.} > > Second, I am very used to members getting discounts from groups on admission and > so forth. Museum members get in without paying the admission charge. Bar > association members get $5.00 off on lectures and seminars. And so on. It is a > fact of the world that for many/most organizations, those who are members get a > financial advantage over those who are not. > > I don't think the surcharge should be the focus of the GC's discussions, > although it seems to be everybody's hot button. It's a lesser issue than the > questions of restructuring and franchising. I think the GC ought to be spending > its energy there, and once a new structure has been determined, figure out about > the surcharges. > > ---= Morgan From owner-scagc-l@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Thu Oct 26 17:07:41 1995 Return-Path: Approved-By: Mark Waks Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 14:45:20 EDT Reply-To: SCA Grand Council Discussion list Sender: SCA Grand Council Discussion list From: Mark Waks Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... To: Multiple recipients of list SCAGC-L Forwarded for Esclarmonde... -- Justin >Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 18:17:15 -0400 (EDT) >From: Lisa Steele >Subject: Re: Alysoun: membership 4 [Va... >In-Reply-To: <9510251649.AA27418@dsd.camb.inmet.com> On Wed, 25 Oct 1995, Mark Waks wrote: > >From: Mistress Tetchubah of Greenlake (Carolyn Richardson) > >To: Eichling von Amrum > > are an educational organization and how difficult this was. What > stuff did you have in mind? The only thing you have to do to prove [snip] > between those two requirements. Simply educating our own members is > sufficient to maintain our educational status. > I believe the regs do indeed say "or". The questions posed in my report are (1) is what we do "educational" based on the few rulings and cases that have discussed that point and (2) is "education" our exclusive purpose or do we have a signficiant non-exempt purpose. > About a year or so ago there were all sorts of panicked rumors about > the IRS auditing us and pulling our status because of the financial As I think both Tibor's letter and my report discuss, the odds of SCA, Inc. being audited in any given year are low. The question, IMHO, is not what can we do without getting caught, but whether we are properly entitled to the status we claim. FREX. I can drive faster than the posted speed limit. The odds of getting caught are generally prettly low. The consequences if I don't get caught often or going too fast are also pretty low _and_ only affect my license/insurance. If SCA, Inc., is improperly claiming a (c)(3) status, the odds of getting caught ar low, but the consequences are devistating--back taxes, interest, additions to tax, etc. Moreover, IMHO, SCA purports to uphold a ideals like chivalry, honor, etc., which I think would be violated by knowingly or even willfully ignorantly claiming a benefit to which it is not entitled. > are squeaky clean compared to some other tax exempt organizations that > are making far bigger bucks than we are. Here's a short list of some Size does not make a heck of a difference if IRS gets interested. Pointing the finger and saying that SCA, Inc., is more moral than others is not, IMHO, a good enough answer. Our standards of conduct are higher than that expected of most sports figures, FREX. > (501(c)(3)); National Rifle Association (501(c)(3)); National As a note, NRA is getting audited for its lobbying, I read in the Boston Glob this spring. > Revenue Agent. We'd all go down the tubes because someone got sloppy. Were you an agent in the (c)(3) area? --Lisa