======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #25 -- July 26, 1995 Contents of this issue: Sec'y: Hossein's Proposal Hal Ravn [fwd]: Nordmark, and Period Rules SCA Governance Catrin: International Issues Corwyn: Manifesto of GC Goals Finnvarr: Hossein's Proposal, Nordmark Wm. de Corbie, Garick von Kopke [fwd]: Nordmark Alban: longish structural skeleton proposal Alysoun: Nordmark John: Board Members 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 As promised, a quick review of some issues relating to Hossein's proposal last time. The proposal does have some possible drawbacks. One consequence of an interactive mailing list is that people tend to post faster, with a little less thought, on average. I can pretty well guarantee that at *some* point, we're going to have a flamewar, since these are issues people care a lot about. On the other hand, if we all try to act like adults, we can probably keep this from being a major or common problem. Volume will go up, probably *way* up. This could be construed as a failing, but may well be necessary if we're going to get things going at a good pace. Perhaps most importantly, it means that we don't have the postal-mail option any more. I confess that at the moment I'm not as worried about this as I used to be, due to the *extreme* lack of participation by the postal members of the GC. I believe that, over almost six months of this thing running, I have received exactly two submissions by post. The non-Net-connected members of the GC who have really participated have almost all done so by finding Net-based routes (generally friends or family who can forward messages). So, while I am reluctant in principle to cut off the postal option, in practice it isn't clear to me that it has helped much. My personal opinion is mildly favoring the idea; I think that the GC *is* moving too slowly to be truly useful at this point. I don't look forward to transitioning over to interactive (which requires rebuilding a good deal), but it stands some chance of getting us moving. I'd like people to think about it carefully. If I am not presented with a good reason not to, I will probably call a semi-formal vote on the question next week or the week after... (I also received a long note from Haraldr Bassi (dave.calafrancesco@drakkar.mhv.net, (914) 876-3996), who can provide adequate email to anyone who can afford a brief long-distance call to his BBS, BTW. He opined that it would be useful to have both the Chronicle as a sort of journal of record, and an interactive list for the real debate...) -- Justin Secretary ---------------------------------------- [Forwarded by Corwyn] From: djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu (Dorothy J Heydt) [actually Hal Heydt] Date: 95-07-19 16:13:44 EDT Hi, Corwyn.... Having sent my last commentary on GC business to Flieg, I'll burden you with this one. Feel free to forward it to the GC, use the ideas in it or dump it in the trash as suits you. The data from the gentle in Nordmark is rather alarming, but I have been mulling an idea (from other contexts) that might provide a general solution (though I doubt it could be run through the Board fast enough to forestall the impending crisis). To wit: Unless there is compelling reason (such as safety or health), any documentable period practice or artifact is permissible in the Society. While this may seem trivial, such is not the present practice in at two cases that I know of. First, there is the just mentioned Nordmark situation. Since Tings are a period Scandanavian practice, the Board would have no say if Nordmark wishes to have Principality Law specify one. This would probably defuse *that* issue. The second is likely to cause more furor closer to home. On a number of occasions Cariadoc has noted that shields built to period specifications are too light to be used under the rules in effect in the Middle Kingdom. This would _de facto_ repeal that rule. On a secondary point.... I have a currently unused IBM-PC/XT (yeah! genuine Blue!) sitting around. If I drop a serial card into it (I think I have one around the house), I could loan it to Eric Bearsbane. Thenall he'll need is a modem and service provider to be able to get to the GC discussions electronically. (I can load kermit on there and show him how to use it, too.) I could spare this machine for the duration of the GC. --Hal Ravn (Hal Heydt) ---------------------------------------- Sender: "Flieg Hollander" Subject: Grand Council Proceedings Frederick of Holland to the rest of the Grand Council, greetings: The following is a message from Hal Ravn (mka: Wilson Heydt) about what's been going on in the Grand Council. While I am not as totally pessimistic about getting results as he is (or Hossein, for that matter) I do think his idea of making the SCA, Inc. a membership corporation with the Kingdoms as members is a good one. In fact the only reason that you haven't heard about it officially here until now is that I've been bloody busy at work and haven't had a chance to write it up for presentation. So here it is from Hal, instead. ---Flieg ==============================sponsered message======================= [Hal mailing from Dorothy's account.....] Hi, Flieg.... At long last I've actually sat down and caught up on the Grand Council proceedings. Feel free to forward or 'plagerize' any of the following as it is general comments on some of the goings on. So far, it appears that what may emerge from the GC is some interesting commentary on the philosophical underpinnings of the Society and its corporate governance. Unfortunately (to me) that isn't what it was established to do--no matter how interesting the results may turn out to be. I think the whole territoriality discussion missed a very important point that would probably explain its failure to get anywhere. Some areas in which the Society operates are continuous urban regions (the Bay Area comes to mind) and some are concentrations of population separated by relatively large "uninhabited" regions. It is questionable that a single model of territoriality will optimally serve both sorts of regions. As you know, in the Bay Area it is quite common for people to be nominally in one group while actually spending their active SCA time (such as it is on the local level) several groups away. To do this in sparse regions is physically difficult or impossible. The model of governance of the SCA recently floated (that it is more a dictatorship than it is a corporation) omits the critical fact that the Society Seneschal and the Executive Director serve at the pleasure of the Board. If there is a Dictator, it is a hydra. The body that is unchecked is the Board, not any of the Boards appointees. A missing element in the various proposals to permit entities right down to the local groups incorporate separately (as if that could be prevented now) is that each such corporation will have to have its own Board of Directors, Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws. Each such entity would also have to file its own tax returns. On all of this I am rather surprised that there has been no debate over changing the SCA, Inc. into a membership corporation with the members being the kingdoms and leaving it up to the kingdoms to incorporate or not as they choose. Under such a structure it would be up to the kingdoms to control the content of the By-Laws and the makeup of the Board. such a structure would permit (but not require) the kingdoms (as the statutory members) to require the Board to answer to the several kingdoms on financial issues. I think that the change outlined above would answer all of the primary problems associated with the crisis that occured in Jan. 1994 without creating excessive numbers of potential new problem areas. The other major outstanding issue appears to be the workload on individual Directors. That, I think is something that the Directors themselves will ultimately have to deal with. As you know a through common friend, the burden needn't be that great. It may simply be that we know a particularly well organized director, but it shows that the workload *is* manageable. In the general case, I think the Directors (individually and collectively) need to learn to say "no" >from time to time, even if the "no" is phrased as "it's your problem, you have to live with the solution, you solve it." I also suspect that the Board (collectively) spends too much time trying for general and universal solutions to local, one-shot problems. Not every problem needs to be treated as if it is an example of a class of problem that needs to be solved for all times and all places. Rather, it is the *pattern* of problems that get referred to the Board that need more general solutions, just as we don't change armor standards becasue of a single accident, but rather for an injury pattern. My regards and keep up the good and interesting work, Hal Ravn (Hal Heydt) c/o djheydt@uclink.berkeley.edu ---------------------------------------- From: Janna.Spanne@kansli.lth.se Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 10:48:34 +0200 Greetings from Catrin! I very much agree with Hossein that we need to get our stuff together and start getting things done for real. In the wake of the recent upheaval in Nordmark I realized that something constructive could be gotten from it. I am now preparing a survey of all the local groups in Drachenwald, to find out to what extent they are "native" or "American", what organizational problems they encounter as a foreign group, and how they cope with them. The questionnaire should be out in the first week of August and I'm setting the deadline for answers one week into September. (This may seem long, but e.g. most of Germany is on vacation most of August.) I hope for the results of the survey to provide a foundation for some very concrete work on the international dimension of the SCA. My survey is so far directed only toward Drachenwald, but I intend to get in touch with people in Australia to see if the questionnaire can be adjusted to suit them. Do we have an international committee yet? If we do, I'd like to be on it; if not, I'd be interested in starting one. /Catrin Gwynystlum ---------------------------------------- >From CORWYN@aol.com Thu Jul 20 13:45:33 1995 Subject: GC Chron article, or Corwyn's Manifesto To one and all, greetings. I was quite interested to see Hossain's recent article regarding the pace of the council, thus far. Reasons aside, I completely agree with the assessment that we have not done enough with this, nor are we well enough organized. Quite frankly, I have recently been "complained at" by friends regarding this issue, and at least one assumed that I had quit due to the lack of input. I would second Hossain's suggestion that the non EMAIL members be linked up, and I would add that the inactivity penalties be begin to be applied to members who seem to have vanished. I also feel that we do need to move to a faster method of discussion, and committee is likely the best way to do so. So, without further ado, in the spirit of putting money in mouth, here is my outline of what we absolutely have to start considering. Corwyn's Manifesto As regards the Goals of the Grand Council, Resolved for discussion: 1. That we work to reduce the the scope of the board by a. outsourcing b. clarifying the division between mundane affairs and kingdom affairs and transfer of the latter tasks to kingdom level 2. That we ensure accountability in both action and membership of the board by a. formulating "checks" on the board, particularly with regard to finances, changes in corpora and expansion of scope and authority b. developing channels for more public input c. making the board a voted position (and define the level at which voting membership exists). d. removing wherever at all possible the ability of the board to act in secrecy in board actions. (and enumerate those specific issues allowed for closed session meeting). 3. That we define the nature and function of "membership"by defining a. Who is a citizen (ie voting) member b. the necessity for the division between "paid" and "Non paid" members 4. That we define what is the board needed for, such as but not limited to: a. a court of appeals-(banishments, new kingdoms, dissatisfied groups) b. resolution of interkingdom issues - (boundary disputes, etc that cannot be resolved at a lower level.) c. insurance d. maintaining consistency of rules across the SCA e. resolution and management of international issues f. Maintaining and publishing the TI and maintaining the stock clerk. G. Corpora level problems not solvable at kingdom level h supervision of the administrative offices 5. That we formulate methods whereby the board will be funded ? a. well, heck if I know. Overall my view of how the Kingdom's and the Board should relate is defined by the original articles of confederation, which were strictly constructional (ie if it didn't say that the government could, then it couldn't). A weak, largely arbitrational central government with the default always being action at the state (in this case kingdom) level. I would suggest that each of these main topics would be worthy of a committee. One already is (membership) and one has been partially developed (reduction). I'll take charge of the three remaining ones if nobody else wants to; in the interim, anyone else who is interested in participating can EMAIL me and I'll assemble the info. Unless we can set these up as a listserv, I would run an electronic mailing circle - ie any mail must be forwarded to all members. I'm hoping to have this set up by the first week in august; tentative deadline for a report to the committee will be 45-90 days from then, depending on how much discussion is being generated. Okay. Ready, set, GO. Corwyn, Baron, etc. ---------------------------------------- Sender: Steve Muhlberger Subject: GC #24 Finnvarr sends greetings to the Grand Council. I read Hossein's proposal with interest. Hossein wants us to work more quickly and more effectively, and proposes that our weekly discussions be turned into a LISTSERV mailing list. To make this practical, given that some of don't have e-mail access, he proposes further that the Board rent equipment or access for those left out. The only part of his proposal that I find difficult is the last. Hossein wants more speed; but getting approval, renting the equipment, etc. will add a tremendous amount of delay. And it might never happen at all. My proposal in answer to his, is to go to a LISTSERV and require all GC members who cannot manage access to drop out. This may seem harsh, but if it's effectiveness and timeliness you want, there is a price to be paid. When the US Constitution was written, it was not considered harsh to require Senators and Representatives to ride or sail for weeks to get to Philadelphia if they wanted to take part in the discussions. I did the quarterly flight to California for three years straight to be a Board Member. If one wants timely discussion, then everyone must be in the same forum at the same time. If my proposal is rejected, and no one comes up with a better one, I suggest we stick with what we have. NORDMARK: Gritting my teeth to avoid all cliches (oh, it's hard), I found the posting >from Nordmark to be the most interesting piece of material re: the reform of SCA governance that I have yet seen. So it seems Swedes cannot understand why any organization should not have decisive democratic input when major policies are in question. And in fact will not tolerate it. One is tempted to wax philosophical, but I will try to limit myself to the observation that the crisis we are trying to resolve grew out of the same gut feeling among many non-Swedes when an unresponsive, unaccountable group tried to change the rules of our game. If the crisis is not resolved in such a way that not just the Board, but all sub-institutions within our organization have an appropriate level of accountability, we will see more and more secessions from the SCA. Basing our legitimacy on the unelected Board (from one angle) or on the King's Word is Law (from another, at least in some Kingdoms) worked OK when the Board had little impact on the SCA, and when Kingdoms were small affairs where social pressure in a face-to-face environment often acted as an effective check on autocracy. Now, I am convinced, the growth of the SCA makes FACELESS autocracy all too easy. We can either build institutions that allow people to resist it in an orderly way, or people (when a particular crisis hits home in their own area) will find going it alone the more acceptable option. Alysoun's theoretical discussion of the SCA-based cat-skinning cult is a good thought-piece. No one has the legitimacy in the present SCA to ban cat-skinning. Perhaps no alternate structure would provide a basis of legitimacy for banning cat-skinning, but as things are, it isn't mere administrative wimpiness that prevents us from banning it. Cat-skinning isn't illegal (at least, we'll say it isn't) so where does the authority of even a Kingdom senschal come from to say, "We won't have it"? There is no orderly way in the SCA to debate whether cat-skinning is worth defending or is too repugnant to the public or the membership to tolerate. So any decision on such a case, not covered by our rules or ordinary laws, MUST look like autocracy. Must go carry out the garbage, Finnvarr ---------------------------------------- [This message and the next were submitted by Finnvarr, to give people an idea of what the argument around Nordmark looks like. I would like to remind people that we are seeing a lot of personal opinion on both sides, and the precise facts are still rather unclear. I would prefer not to run more of these copied-in messages -- if you're interested in the drawn-out debate, check out the Rialto, where it is currently raging... -- Justin] Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 21:17:31 +0200 From: Subject: Crisis in Nordmark (long) Feel free to cross-post and forward this within the SCA. Greetings from William de Corbie, an old fart in Nordmark. Harald Isenross wrote, in comment to a message from Catrin: >The whole idea that Swedish people need special consideration from >the SCA and Laural kingdoms such as Calontir, simply because they >were raised in a democratic culture is, if I may put things bluntly, >ludicrous. Any place where I can think of the SCA as being active >today _has_also_had_ a democratic culture for at least 50 years, >if not hundreds of years. I agree, and I frankly don't understand where you got the idea that our democratic mundane system was the reason why we desire to have slightly different rules in a few aspects of the game. >The SCA is not intended to be an entirely democratic _nor_ >authoritarian body. Just out of curiosity: Who defines what the SCA is intended to be? The Board? The founders? The general membership? I think you would get many different answers to "What is the SCA intended to be?" if you asked around. >Medival Kings usally weren't elected, and the few that were elected >certainly weren't so elected though a plebicite. Actual Monarchists >in the SCA are as rare a breed in the States as they are in Sweden, >I'm sure. It seems that you are under the impression that Nordmark wishes to have its rulers democratically elected. This is not correct. What we desire is a system which makes it possible for non-fighters to become rulers in their own right. The exact method of selection is a secondary consideration. (BTW, as a side observation: Need I remind you that there were considerably more elected kings in the middle ages than such who won their throne in a tournament? Not that it matters here; authen- ticity has never been a major consideration in SCA ruler selection or, for that matter, the medieval system of the SCA at large.) >Furthermore, the SCA is not about recreating the national history of >the local country. That is what re-enactment/Civil War type groups are >for. The SCA is about a bunch of people with broad historical interest >of having fun with the entire scope of the European Middle ages in a >_recreational_ setting. Exclusively recreating Sweden's history is not what Nordmark has sought to do. We want to retain the broad spectrum of personae from different countries; indeed, I believe that more than half of the members here have non-Swedish personae. I also believe that we prefer a feudal system of a more continental type, rather than the system practised in Sweden's middle ages. >Sounds like there really are two organisations sharing officers and >cerimonial figures. The fact that SCA rules, cerimonial structures, >and culture are not totally compatible with a narrow focus, nationalistic >interest is not at all surprising. You must have been seriously misinformed. A narrow focus has not been sought. Also, though there are indeed two organizational structures, they are in reality one and the same. The Barony of Nordmark is the SCA,Inc. registered group. But the SCA,Inc. has some rules which are either illegal in Sweden, or would create serious difficulties in dealing with Swedish authorities. Also, some of the rules were simply not acceptable to the members. This was why we created SKA-Nordmark, a Swedish corporation which serves (a) as an interface with mundane Sweden and (b) to amend some of the unacceptable SCA rules by making sure that our officers are in fact democratically elected, and that the Barony treasury treasury is controlled by the members, not the SCA,Inc. This has worked excellently for 10 years, until the SCA,Inc. discovered how awfully democratic we were and tried to enforce administration by dictate on us. When Catrin has spoken about the division within Nordmark (at least in her messages on the reform list) it was not about a division between SKA on the one side and the Barony on the other. The division cuts straight through the organizational structures and is a matter of how the members, SCA and SKA as well as non-paid participants, view the society they belong to. Nordmark is probably the only SCA group in the world which was founded by non-English-speaking people who had _never_met_ the Society; all we knew about the SCA back in 1984 came from a 2-page info leaflet. When we joined, we got help from Drachenwald but were mostly left to our own devices. All the SCA demanded was that we send in reports and fill our offices with paid members. We developed our own traditions and ways of doing things. Of our 6-700 active people, only some 5% regularly travel abroad and visit SCA events outside Sweden. Most of our activities are in the 14 or so Cantons, and most people here seldom or never see a non-Swedish SCA event. All those unwritten traditions, attitudes and "the way things are" which are shared in the flesh at SCA events in the USA have never reached them. Over the years, these people have gotten used to doing things the way they, as Swedes, chose to. I believe that most of them never imagined that a King or a Kingdom Seneschal would dare to go against the will of the populace, or depose a democratically elected officer. They all thought that "Kings word is law" was a part of the game, and were rudely awakened when they discovered that SCA Kings do in fact expect to wirld dictatorial power over the mundane side of the Kingdom, not just theatrical power at events. The current crisis is strong evidence for that ethnocentricity is not a good way to approach the running of an international society. You could argue until your face goes blue for how sensible a certain system is; faced with cultural differences, such rational arguments are pointless. You have to adapt. Look at other international groups, the Red Cross, the Catholic Church and others who have successfully spread across the globe. They have adapted to local cultures, yet remained true to their original purpose. >Outside the SCA means "not the SCA", a fringe household at the closest. >Like Darkstar in the Middle or Tuchux in the East -- not the SCA, >they just show up at events and sometimes get along, and hold no >territorial authority in the SCA. There would still be an SCA in >Sweden. I think many people here were hoping that the SCA outside Nordmark would agree with us that having exactly the same organizational structure and doing everything exactly the same way is not necessary to play together. As long as we stay within the landmarks of the Society, we hoped to be recognized as an SCA group even though we will no longer be an SCA,Inc. group. The Corporation is not what constitutes the SCA. The Estrella Compact indicated that belonging to the structure controlled by the Board is not necessary to be recognized as a valid SCA Kingdom. While the words of the Compact may not be applicable to Nordmark in this specific case, the principle laid down there should be: SCA is different from SCA,Inc. Catrin further feeds you some information on how the Baron's declaration of independence was presented. This information is seriously filtered through her SCA,Inc-colored glasses. While I am the first to admit that the way this has been done does not measure up to the highest possible standards of democracy, it should also be remembered that: 1. The baronial action was taken in response to many complaints from the populace about the SCA,Inc. and only after one of our Cantons, Styringheim, had already declared themselves independent, on their own initiative. It became obvious that other Cantons were planning to do the same. So the choice was between trying to save as much as possible of a crumbling Barony for the SCA,Inc. or trying to keep the Barony together outside the SCA,Inc. The Baron & Baroness chose the latter as the least bad option. The point is that this is not a private enterprise invented by a faction for their personal benefit, but the Baron's interpret- ation of how to best serve the will of the people. In this they have the support of the founding Baron, Ragnvald, and several others of the old core in Nordmark. 2. Before the Baron & Baroness announced Nordmark's independence, they conducted a verbal poll in all except two of our 14-15 cantons. They called the Seneschals in each group and asked them to summon all their members to meetings where they would decide whether they desired to remain under the Corporation or continue playing as an independent society. Only when this poll gave an unexpect- edly strong vote for secession, did the Baron & Baroness act on it. - All but two of the asked Cantons have answered "yes" to independence. The two remaning groups have not given any answer yet. - All of those Cantons who have answered managed to reach more than half their total population, meaning that the decisions were taken with an absolute majority. (Summer vacations mean that some people were away, but their votes would not have changed the majority, even if they had been present and all of them had voted against, which is statistically very unlikely.) - The favorable response to the proposal was overwhelming. It was as if many people had just been waiting for someone to do this. Two Cantons were not asked in the verbal polling: Aros and Holmrike. Aros was counted as a "no" since they held a vote about the same question earlier this year, on their own initiative, and voted to stay in the SCA,Inc. Holmrike is our largest Canton, and the Baron & Baroness decided that it is too loosely organized, too geographic- ally widespread, and too numerous for a verbal poll to be feasible in the same way as with the other groups. They were correct, as was demonstrated when an attempt was later made to summon Holmrike and far less than half the members turned up. >I should think that Drakenvald should at least make it known that >"members" of Nordmark are NOT obligated somehow to follow the >resigning leaders out of the SCA, (a very simple point >that is not always clear to some folk in the SCA). This is not needed since this has already been pointed out by those who work for Nordmark's independence. Individual members are welcome to remain SCA members. It is the Barony which is leaving the SCA,Inc. as an organization; it will no longer be under the Board. At least, that was our intention. However, it seems that the split will make this impossible. Since a minority intend to stay SCA,Inc. and claim that they are the SCA in Sweden, the rest of us will be forced out by not being recognized as an SCA group on the sole circumstance that we desire to play SCA on a basis of mutual respect rather than sumbission under the Corporation and the power centralists. William de Corbie ---------------------------------------- From: Garick Chamberlin Newsgroups: rec.org.sca Subject: Nordmark issues Date: Sun, 23 Jul 95 00:13:51 GMT It is with heavy heart that I discuss this at all. I am not a political person, but I must respond to William's comments. His protestations of not getting into faults and personalities aside, his was a *very* one sided post. The few fanatical pro-Drachenwald people he mentioned in his post include, interestingly enough, almost all of Nordmark's many Peers (with, I think 3 exceptions). These non-seperatists include former rulers of Drachenwald who are also Nordmarkers. It is a sad and sorry, but definitely not one sided, situation. I take the liberty of forwarding a letter written by His Majesty to the subjects of Drachenwald. I hesitate to put it forth into the Inter-Kingdom community, but William's claims must be answered. The following are the words of Michael, my undoubted King. .......................................................................... Good people of Drachenwald, it is with heavy hearts that we write to inform you that Master Eric Alstene and Kira Callanish, Baron and Baroness of Nordmark have declared their intent to leave the Society, taking as much of the Barony with them as they can, and set up a rival "Kingdom of Nordmark" in Sweden. In a letter sent to the cantons of Nordmark, they have unilaterally declared Nordmark independent, and set forth the laws for their new society. This action was taken without consulting the Crowns, but more importantly, it was done without consulting the peers or populace of Nordmark. The Baron and Baroness seem to be labouring under the delusion that Nordmark belongs to them - it does not. It belongs to the people, a great many of whom have sent messages to me indicating that they have no intention of joining Erics' new "Kingdom." Although thereNordmark has not left the SCA - Eric Alstene and Kira Callanish have. Eric and Kira, and others of their faction, have over the last year engaged in a concerted campaign to undermine and destroy the Society in Nordmark from within, and have used their powers and influence as Baron and Baroness to attack that which they had sworn to uphold. They have made it abundantly clear that they both intend to leave the Society and take a leading role in the creation of a new one. This being the case, we feel that it is a clear conflict of interest for them to remain in positions of authority in our Society. Thus we have been left no option but to remove Eric Alstene and Kira of Callanish from the Baronial thrones. To this end, their rights, priveliges and duties are now suspended, and a polling shall soon be taken to choose their successors; Master Harabanar has kindly stepped foreward and accepted the office of Vicar of Nordmark until such time as a polling has been resolved, and we have every confidence in him. We are most disappointed with the actions taken by Eric and Kira, particularly with the fact that we were never even given a chance to help resolve the political problems in Nordmark - indeed, Eric and Kira made their declaration public on the day of our coronation. This is a pity, because Her Majestey began her journeys in the Current Middle Ages in the Far Isles Society, an English Barony that left our Society nearly 15 years ago under similar circumstances. Many members of that society have now rejoined Drachenwald, and their experience of the pitfalls of regionalism and isolationism could have been of great use in solving the Nordmark debate. While we certainly acknowledge the right of Eric and Kira as a citizen of a free nation to set up another society, we feel that the manner in which they used their positions of trust within our Society to undermine and subvert it was both dishonest, ignoble and particularly unworthy of one who claims a peerage in the Kingdom of Drachenwald and the Society at large. Their actions have left deep scars in Nordmark that may take years to heal, but heal they will. Data Apud Insula Draconis die xiv Julius, AS XXX Michael, Rex Alessandra Melusine, Regina ........................................................................ I am saddened by all this, as I have many friends in Nordmark and I hate to see these ugly politics spoiling our fun. I earnestly hope that the healing comes quickly. Yours in deep regret, -- Viscount Sir Garick von Kopke Honor Virtus Est ---------------------------------------- Sender: ALBAN@delphi.com Subject: longish structural skeleton proposal Suggestions I'd like us to make sooner rather than later: 1) Request that the SCA, Inc., American version start using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, so we won't have the financial mess to deal with in the future. 2) Require at least an annual independent audit of the Books. 3) Come up with suggestions on how to impeach and _remove_ directors. 4) Suggest that sub-kingdom territorial rules be loosened, to allow for regional desires, and period forms. (I suggested this in an earlier post, and am suggesting it again.) 5) Free non-US groups from cultural imperialism, and let them follow their own countries' rules regarding waivers, financial controls, incorporation, non-profit statues, taxes, and insurance. 6) Remove the requirement that a person resigning a Peerage send a copy of the resignation to the Board; publication in the appropriate kingdom's newsletter should be sufficient notice. 7) Move the insurance down from the Board/national level to Kingdom level. California may be more expensive than Calontir. 8) Move Corporate offices to a low-rent district. I hear tell that Kansas City's suburbs are attractive... About the suggestions Baron Hossein made: Yes, we need to move faster. 1. About the telecommunicatorrily impaired: either buy used computers, or suggest that they borrow access from friends/neighbors. Snail mail is too slow to generate ideas as fast as we need 'em. I'm feeling conflicted about who should bear the costs for this. 2. A Listserv would be wonderful. Justin and Terras are the two people I believe could set this up; gentlemen? The Chronicle is nice, but I get the feeling it's too full of Position Papers and not full enough of wild ideas, gossip, and other things that get the creative juices flowing. We have the Staff Meeting, now; what we need is a water cooler and long staff lunches with a couple of martinis. Speaking of which: I'll be in my usual merchant spot at Pennsic (space 107, Potboiler Press), and am thoroughly willing and eager to serve as the bulletin board/rumor mill/spontaneous idea generator/questions-from-the-public location. It's close by the Cooper's house, which puts it close to the camp store and the Original Bath House - which means it's close to a place a lot of people pass by. (And, no, I'm not doing this to generate any new business for me; my regular customers do that for me anyway. It's just that I'm centrally located.) 3. Agenda: I've got a broad plan. See below. It's a skeleton which won't survive anywhere near its present, um, incarnation, but it's a starting point. Alban's Skeleton of a Plan (lots of stuff left out, and the bones need rearranging) The SCA shall be organized to encourage individuals and groups to recreate pre-seventeenth-century European cultures, customs, activities, and artifacts The SCA should have two separate co-axial [? best word I could come up with.] structures: the Mundane, and the Medieval. I. The Mundane, to cover business affairs, including but not limited to incorporation, waivers, tax status, registry, publications, money, membership, and so forth and so on. A. Each country having different laws, the SCA shall incorporate separately in every country in which the SCA has had a significant and long-term presence, where the incorporation is needed. [What's "significant" and "long term"? They're things to be hashed out later. Non-US countries will therefore be equal in all things legal to the US, for SCA purposes.] The entity now known as the SCA, Inc., currently based in California, shall have no jurisdiction outside of the United States, or its territories and possessions. [In other words, the US will be equal in all things legal to all the other countries.] [Note: with the recent appearance of the European Community, will an incorporation in one country be good enough for the rest of the EU? Or is there a method by which there is a EU-chartered organization available that's binding on signatory nations? In either case, assume that, if such exists, the EU can be "a national corporation".] 1. Each national corporation shall be responsible for its own affairs, including i. membership fees and/or other sources of income ii. deciding what services shall be provided to its members, provided that trans-national kingdoms shall provide identical services to members, regardless of country of habitation iii. what constitutes membership, and whether non-paying members shall have substantially the same rights as members, save for services such as newsletters that cost money. iv. how much money shall be paid to the Governing Body over and above annual dues. [See below.] v. insurance, where necessary. vi. waivers, where necessary. vii. other matters regarding corporate structure, e.g., governance, election to corporate office, and by-laws, where mandated by the national laws regarding corporations. viii. the financial books of account shall follow the generally accepted accounting principles of the appropriate country. B. There shall be created a governing body (currently being handled by SCA, Inc.) to co-ordinate, as necessary, trans-national concerns. [Yup, it's a federation, all right. SCA International needs some sort of co-ordination/government/board of directors.] Such trans-national concerns may include, but are not limited to: 1. A registry for trans-kingdom publications, such as Complete Anachronist, and Tournaments Illuminated. 2. Marshaling, armor, and fighting standards. [This is separate >from fighting _styles_. It shouldn't matter whether a person fights florentine, bastard sword and shield, or with arrows. It does matter that there be a standard for minimum armor strength, how much training marshals should have, and through how many degrees a muckin' big fighter should swing a long sword.] 3. The establishment of Kingdoms and their locations. 4. The establishment of multi-kingdom and/or multi- national groups, and whether such groups shall be self- governing, as, for example i. College of Arms ii. Group for the Arts and Sciences iii. International Association of Guilds The heads of such groups shall report and be responsible to the governing body. 5. Long-range planning of the SCA as a whole. 6. The Governing Body shall have the right to set dues owed by the various national corporations. [Franchise fee...] Said dues shall be kept to a bare minimum to cover costs. 7. Certain other concerns, such as beginning and ending dates [Period? What's period?] C. In all cases save where national laws forbid it, all decisions made by the International Governing Board and the National Corporate Boards shall be open to the membership. All financial books of account shall be likewise open to the membership. 2. The Medieval, to cover the historical aspects of the SCA. A. Individual kingdoms shall have the absolute right to: 1. establish official subsidiary groups, 2. decide whether those groups need to have a territorial basis, 3. establish the form of governance the kingdom and its subsidiary groups may be allowed to take, provided that, when a new form of governance is proposed, it have the consent of the governed, and that it be supported by appropriate research that such governance occurred in period. [Three months of debates, boiled down to one clause and 46 words.] 4. establish the form of the choosing of Crown, Coronet, and Baronage. And here I run out of steam and thoughts. Alban. Yes, it has upper case and everything! ---------------------------------------- Sender: Carole.C.Roos.2@nd.edu (Carole Roos) Subject: Nordmark Let me get this straight: The SCA, a society dedicated to the recreation of and research into the European Middle Ages, is telling SKA to ignore their real medieval heritage and the realities of their national culture and play the artificial version invented in California. What is wrong with this picture? ---------------------------------------- [from John of Sternfeld] Board of Directors; size and method of replacing members Number of Members of the Board Terras (and many others) proposed having a Board consisting of a member from each Kingdom. My discussion against such a proposal would be two concerns; 1) We would eventually have too many people on the Board to accomplish anything. Look at the boards of mundane corporations. Are they not usually a half-dozen to a dozen people? If we increase the number of members that will require/cause an increase in numbers of support people and functions. Getting the number of folks on the board now assembled for a meeting is a headache. The members of the Board should be such individuals that will look at questions put before them as issues for the Society as a whole not their home Kingdoms. If we were to increase the Board to one member per Kingdom would that not encourage the Board members to "look out for their home Kingdom first" -- I am afraid we would end up with something like the US House of Representatives (my 2nd concern). Everyone looking out for their favorite pork barrel project benefiting their home state = very counter-productive. Our Board should meet briefly, decide policy (at minnimum issues affecting Kingdoms) and get back to the fun. Requiring the Board to decide issues pertaining to individuals is mico-mananaging in the worst way, if this continues the number of Board meetings will have to increase due to the Society's growth. Getting people willing to sit on the Board will become impossible; imagine making the choice of giving up going to events for 1-2 years to be on the Board - that's where I see the current situation going. ON ELECTION of BOARD MEMBERS If Board members were to be elected, that would be one less function the Board as a body would have to look after - my reason for supporting elections. How about this? Board members are replaced by an election held by the Kingdoms, in the order of elevation to Kingdom status. Number of Board members stay at seven, with a max of one two year term. Voting members would be those with membership card (?). Other Kingdom Seneschals must ratify other Kingdom's elected choice with "ratify" meaning either no objection or I have documentation of xxxxx why this person should not serve. Please comment, amend, rewrite and send back at me. Until next Time; John of Sternfeld ----------------------------------------