======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #15 -- May 10, 1995 Contents of this issue: Sec'y: Call for a Deputy Fiacha: Territoriality Finnvarr: Kingdoms Incorporating Kyle: GC Issues; Various Alban: replies to modius, betram; committee topics Caroline: Need Territoriality Proposal Magnus: Territoriality; SCA Int'l; G&PD 6 This is the Grand Council Chronicle, the proceedings of the Grand Council of the Known World, a body chartered to examine the structure of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc., and make recommendations of changes. The contents represent the opinions of the contributing authors, and do not necessarily represent the official policies of the SCA, Inc. ---------------------------------------- >From the Secretary's Desk It occurs to me that summer is fast approaching, as are my summer vacations. I'll be away for a total of three weeks this year; presumably we don't want to shut things down for that. So I think we need to do two things: First, I need a deputy, who can take over when I'm not around. That specifically means the first week of July and last two weeks of August this year (Worldcon, not Pennsic); also, some other times as we need it. (When I'm sick, and presumably later vacations.) This deputy should have a solid email connection, and reasonably good editing skills (to turn the morass of messages into the usual format). They don't need a *ton* of time; routine production of the Chronicle takes a couple of hours a week, tops. They *do* have to clearly understand their own biases -- while it's perfectly fine for the Editor to have opinions on the issues we're discussing, it is *not* acceptable for those opinions to bias the way the Chronicle gets put together. The Editor needs to make a particular effort to separate their own biases from the job. If you're interested in doing it, talk to me. Second, to facilitate such times when we want to switch editors, people should start getting into the habit of mailing to the list address, instead of directly to me. It's a little more hassle for me (since it results in piles of headers to delete), but it will make it *much* easier to switch over to a different person temporarily. So send your GC submissions to: scagc-l@lists.princeton.edu This isn't critical now; I'm just telling people so they can get into the habit. (Indeed, it won't be *critical* then, but if you send your messages to me while I'm on vacation, they won't run until I get back.) -- Justin ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 14:15:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Nigel Haslock Subject: Re: Grand Council Chronicle #13 Greetings from Fiacha, The territoriality issue seems to have died and I would like to add fuel to that fire before it goes out completely. I asked on the AnTir mailing list for comments on four questions related to the use of ZIP codes to define branch boundaries. 1) Is counting membership by zipcode a reasonable way to measure the size and stability of a branch? 2) Is the fact that zipcodes enshrine the concept of exclusive territory good or bad? 3) How do you identify the nearest group to an enquirer if you cannot use ZIP codes for this purpose? 4) At what point in the size progression do you need well defined borders? The answers to 1) were NO. The commonly proposed alternative was to put a branch affiliation field on the membership form and count that instead. The answers to 2) were that this is bad. These answers were backed up by a set of examples where the use of zipcodes has damaged local branches. However, this did not mean that anyone supported coexistant branches. Instead, the support seems to be for branches with a core territory and a fuzzy border. No one answered 3). No one answered 4). It was clear from the responses that the writers were concerned with local issues to the exclusion of global issues. One person replied that he didn't have problem with multiple groups sharing a limited set of sites. While this may be true for him, there are areas where this is a severe problem that must be addressed by any attempt to reform this aspect of the society. Naturally I have my own opinions and suggestions for each of the four questions. 1) ZIP codes are a poor measure of size and activity and a better system should be found. Rather than use a membership count of paid members, I would prefer to require a branch affiliation field on event sign in sheets and require regional seneschals to track attendance at small events. 2) Everyone knows that dense areas have fuzzy borders, pretending otherwise is foolishness. Many people know that ZIP codes do not work outside of the US. Some people know that the things we try to do with US ZIP codes fail in some area. I would prefer to see branches have a core territory defined to the satisfaction of the regional and kingdom seneschals (guided by kingdom law) and make no effort to define borders of any sort. 3) If these requests are as rare as I believe them to be, I would like the registry to create a mailing label for the requestor and include that mailing label in the next batch of labels to be sent to the appropriate kingdom newsletter editor. The requestor can then make his or her own choice about who to contact (the registry might need to keep track of these people to ensure only one freebie per address). If these requests are too common for the previous solution to be affordable, I would have the registry mail the names and addresses to the kingdom chatelaine on a regular basis, i.e. weekly or monthly. 4) I am not convinced that any branch, even a kingdom, needs a defined border. We do better by identifying population centers with kingdoms. Defined borders do not enhance the game. People play where they feel welcome and where they fit in. Pretending otherwise is foolishness. Forcing people to create mailing addresses so that they can continue to be counted with their favorite kingdom is officious insanity. Instead, allow the member to specify which kingdom newsletter they wish to recieve, regardless of their home address. This may present a problem for clueless new subscribers. This can be cured by each kingdom distribution membership forms claiming their own kingdom as the default. Regards Fiacha ---------------------------------------- Sender: Steve Muhlberger Subject: Kingdoms Incorporating A quick comment on Eichling's proposal before I forget it. There are at least four Kingdoms that cross international boundaries. Thus Kingdom by Kingdom incorporation will not solve some of our worst paperwork and potential liablility problems. Finnvarr ---------------------------------------- >From LSmith5696@aol.com Sun May 7 15:50:30 1995 Subject: gc I have the impression that the GC was created to take a hard and in-depth look at what the SCA is, and how it functions. The board realizes that we have problems and that they need to be addressed. I do not feel that sending a morass of varied and conflicting opinions or proposals to the BoD will accomplish anything. The non-committalists attitude of the SCA is one of its problems. Lots of people will stand around and talk about what's wrong with the organization, but few will make substantive, thought-out suggestions that are both viable and constructive. If we, as a group cannot, or more importantly, will not make hard, based on sound reasoning, proposals to the board, we become another discussion group with no real purpose. If I want to hear myself talk, I can do so at almost every event. If the need to see my name and opinions in print becomes overwhelming, I can write to Thinkwell. We are, from the postings so far, an intelligent and (not including myself) well educated group. Our diversity in background and SCA experience is one of our strongest suits. We should be able to clarify our ideas down into proposals that are substantive, objective, and sound. Getting a general consensus on a subject is not enough. I think our chances of having a suggestion accepted by the board will be significantly higher if it is obvious that we have thought it out, argued it through and are willing to stand behind it. I have two thing that I would like you to vote, YES VOTE, on. How we do this is not all that important, doing it is, simply send a YES or NO to Justin by your normal means and he can publish the results when the totals are in. [Actually, I'd prefer *not* to collect such votes. Nathan, are you willing to do this? -- Justin] Please understand that these proposals are not final or binding, we can fine tune them later. One of you is probably far more qualified to write such things. I just want to start the ball rolling and see what happens before we get bogged down in a load of discussion. 1) Mission Statement for the Grand Council. The GC will conduct an in-depth analysis of the SCA its structure, methods of operation, financial status, and make suggestions to the BoD that, if adopted, will enhance and if possible expand membership services, make these services cost effective, provide the SCA with responsible, answerable and efficient management that will insure stability and growth. Analysis shall include but not be limited to : The Board of Directors, its function, responsibilities of the members The society officers, function and responsibilities Society finances Legal liabilities Non-member services 2) Voting procedure: When it become obvious the discussion has become redundant or that we seem to have a consensus, a GC member will make a motion that we condense the discussion views into a proposal. (Hopefully someone qualified will volunteer to do the writing) Once a writer has been selected, they will have 30 days to send a draft to the editor who will distribute it separately (so it will not get mixed with ongoing discussion) to the GC members who will then have 30 days to comment on and refine the proposal. The final draft will be voted on. I suggest a 2/3 rule here. 2/3 of the GC must vote and a 2/3 majority of those voting will be needed to pass. A complete tally of voting should be sent with the proposal to the board. If the GC is decisively split over an issue, then a second proposal can be written and sent along with the tally of who supports which proposal. I realize the procedure is some what deliberate, but when making recommendations that might include a total overhaul of the Society, I think the time taken will be well spent. Think about these two items and send Justin your votes as well as any caveats. As I said earlier these are not final drafts, merely some place to start. We have been given a difficult job and I would like for us to take it in hand, forget about business as usual, and get it done. The SCA already has its share of people and groups that are more concerned with feeding their egos and taking credit than doing what's necessary. I will argue my points as well as I am able and will give differing views the consideration they deserve and ask that all of you do the same. If we can agree on this one small point, even if the proposals I have made are rejected, Justin should not have to squash very many flames. My views are conservative and tend toward centralization, the thought of not having something at the top to keep things from going completely awry is scary. What happens when a kingdom gets an unruly crown ? How do groups from different regions interact if we don't have some common areas ? Insurance and fighting rules are one example. On the other hand I want to know where our money goes, and would like membership have benefits that are truly attractive and cost effective. Therefore encouraging people to join, which would solve some of our money problems, maybe keep us out of the courts and give the SCA some way to deal with the radical loonies. People calling BoD members and crowns in the middle of the night to make threats or tell them to commit suicide is cowardly (I actually have some much stronger language I would rather use) and serves only to drive out honest, dedicated people who have given up considerable time and effort to the care and feeding of our organization, even if they didn't do the best job. Accountability is an issue we are sure to address, but in our discussions we need to differentiate between those that are simply screaming like a child that doesn't want to go to bed and reasoned arguments concerning the possibilities of real detriment to the society. We can't teach the world to sing and nothing in life is free. We exist in a world that is not friendly and no amount of wanting and wishing will ever change this fact. The need for a corporate structure is probably going to increase as time goes on. This doesn't mean we can't decrease the work load, through sub-comities, sub-contracting, and some decentralization. Maybe simply defining when the Board can and cannot interject itself into a situation. Without an org chart and some financial info I can't rattle on much further so I'll get off my soap box and close by saying that the SCA is the most unique organization I have even heard of. Care should be taken when comparing ourselves to other clubs, ect... Our diversity, both in participants and activities is, I believe, unequaled. Other organizations may emulate part of what we do and the knowledge of how they do things will be helpful, but they are not us, we are different and, I feel, special, and we need to remind ourselves of this from time to time. Kyle ---------------------------------------- >From ALBAN@delphi.com Sun May 7 20:25:07 1995 Subject: replies to modius, betram; committee topics on modius' voting procedures: 2/3 majority vote (i'm presuming that's 2/3 of 40, which means 27) is fine by me. minority opinions: you want to include all of them, if it means an individual report from 13 separate dissenters? or opinions >from groups of 2 or more? or the biggest minority? >Nix or Spin Off the TI to Kingdom level - Fine, lets give the >Kingdoms the money normally spent on TI and let them come >up with their own version of a TI or maybe enhance their own >Kingdom level newsletters. no! there should be, must be, at least one corporate publication. this does not mean ti should remain exactly as it is now, but there must be _something_ that comes out quarterly or bi- monthly from the corporate/federal/whatever-we-come-up- with level, just to keep everyone educated as to what's happening. besides, some of the articles _are_ almost useful. bertram's ideas about splitting the council into committees is a good one. in addition to his points, it's a lot easier for someone to talk frequently with 3 or 4 others on a single (or 2 or 3, but not more) topic than with everyone about everything. there would have to be a super-committee of 3-7, perhaps, to be sure to coordinate everything, and that the proposals one group comes up with fits snuggly with all the other proposals, of course. or we could simply dump that problem onto caroline's lap, since she is at least officially our coordinator chick from atlantia, residing in calontir. and, of course, all final recommendations would go the grand council at large, meeting as a committee-of-the-whole. we seem to be creeping toward deciding what particular areas we should be thinking on (as opposed to, i guess, the "where we're coming from" comments in past chronicles). i'd like to suggest the following areas as possible topics, in no particular order, with no attempt at completeness, and with no particular grammatical correctness: outsourcing. how to persuade the board that delegating authority is a good thing. how to decrease the board's workload. financing the sca, inc. financing the kingdoms. how to ensure the corporation's finances are open to the membership. what, exactly, is a member. what services the corporation should provide members as part of membership. what services can be provided to the members at cost. what services the corporation can provide non-members (e.g. educational materials to high- school teachers). what services presently provided by the corporation should be split off into self-sustaining organizations. what is a group. who decides when to advance a group. how local groups should be organized (territorial? guild/household federation?) methods of getting people onto the corporate board. methods of _removing_ people from the corporate board for just and stated cause. methods of acquiring corporate officers. methods of removing corporate officers. location of corporate office (is milpitas really the best place?). publicizing the sca. how to defend the sca from scurrilous attacks. the support of sca- related research. whether there should be educational grants for historical research. how much corporate support of (inter)national publications there should be (and whether there should be corporate support; or, should publications be self- supporting). how to make the board international. whether to make the board international. whether to have a federation of separate international boards. how to keep the board from making *really really stupid* decisions. what a good waiver is. whether different countries need waivers. and, following a suggestion of caroline's: i'll be in my usual spot at pennsic, merchanting. since i'll be there most of the day throughout the war, i'd like to offer it as a gathering place for notes, comments, questions, and other informational-type things from the populace to the council members attending pennsic and from the council to the populace. does this sound like a good idea? (my space is in "town": close to the cooper's house, the old showerhouse, and the camp store. i've been in the same spot for seven years now, and most book-buyers know where to look....) alban, all wet, in calontir ---------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 07 May 95 21:41:49 cst From: "CAROL L SMITH" Subject: GC: Need Territoriality Proposal Greetings from Caroline! As some of you have mentioned, the discussion on territoriality seems to have died down. I'd like to get a feel of the GC on this topic. Therefore, I ask that someone who has been involved in this discussion to write up the proposal for voting upon by the GC. Please send the proposal to ME (clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com/14713 Mill Spring Dr., Chesterfield, MO 63017-5654/Fax 314-693-4655) NOT JUSTIN, so that I can ensure that only 1 proposal gets into the Chronicle for voting. If more than 1 of you send me a proposal, I'll have you work together to hammer out the wording. Or, if those of you who have been hotly discussing this topic wish to do this yourself and send the results to me, that's fine too. I'd like the proposals sent to me by 16 May so they can be ready for the 24 May issue. Looking forward to a mailbox full of proposals, Caroline clsmit@ccmail.monsanto.com ---------------------------------------- >From Maghnuis@aol.com Mon May 8 16:10:20 1995 Subject: GC Submission Magnus Maguire unto the Council: Several Points to comment upon: 1. I agree with the Methods for conducting the GC as set out by Modius. 2. In regard to Territorial exclusivity, I believe the current structure of exclusivity is not broken therefore in need of no fixing. Our discussion have been good so far to enlighten us on the way it works. Coming from the point of view of a small group starting up, I believe we should avoid the ompetative aspects of more than one group in an area. I think that those with narrow interests or who require Some exclusivity can be served by setting up households as they currently exist. No matter what household they belong to they are still members of a local group 3. It is my beleif that the SCA Inc can be converted to an SCA International Inc. This group could act as an an umbrella organisation for a number of "Kingdom" Inc's. This model will work well in the U.S. I suspect that this will work well to meet the requirements of Foreign countries as well. In fact I suspect that it will be Required in many other Countries. They way it works is skeletonized as such: The Incorporated Kingdoms are the General voting members of the SCA International. Any of a number of simple or complicated methods could be used to elect the BoD. The regular memberswill me members of both a Kingdom and of SCA international. SCA INternational can set various stands which would be required fo the Various member Kingdoms and of the regular membership. In other words it would act very much like it does today while meeting the Tax etc requirements of the various nations involved. Bad points: It would require each Kingdom to Incorporate, gain 401(C)(3) status and file Annual reports with the IRS {I don't know what other Nations May require} Advantages: The SCA International tax return would probably be simplified as would some of the central administration. For our recommendations we need to determine what runs best at Kingdom Level and what works best at SCA Int Inc. level and make those decentralization plans. I suspect that this will take very little away from the current BoD. It may keep them from expanding their sphere into areas in which theyt do not belong. 4. There is one other "Issue" that I wish us to address. Gpd 6. Our Midrealm bbs had a burst of discussion recently centering around some "Interpretations"? of the Society religion policy made at Estrella. My viewpoint is that there may now be to great a restriction on religion, which was made because of too much "Sponsorship" of religious activities... No, actually, as far as I can see, it was because of the rumors, of appearances, of sponsorship. This was combined with fears of appearing to be a cult which seem to me to be unfounded. I personally believe the GPD 6 itself to be appropriate. Some of the recent "interpretations" may not be. And the Council members respond... Yours in Service to the Society, but mostly to the Dream, Magnus Maguire Maghnuis@aol.com ----------------------------------------