======================= Grand Council Chronicle ======================= Issue #3 -- February 15, 1995 Contents of this issue: Almost Everyone: Comments on various issues from Chronicle #1 and 2 Cariadoc: How To Get There From Here: The Local Option Option Dani of the Seven Wells: A Pile of Proposals Gareth: Analysis of, and suggestions for, the Corp. structure Tibor: Cariadoc's organizational suggestion. Myrdin, Serwyl, Gareth: Introductions 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: Bart Orbons Subject: Response to GC-chronicle #1 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:46:33 +0100 (MET) Greetings all, from Bertrik van Triecht, with his opinions on the topics off the first grand council chronicle. Concerning how to finalise a proposal before sending it to the Board. Ideally, I would like to see working to a consensus implemented. BUT, realistic perspective indicates that I am afraid that a consensus is not a feasible aspect in some cases... I don't know how to solve this. Implementing a voting system sounds after elaborate discussion... sounds nice, but involves some practical problems: Should we require strict majority, majority of casted votes, how fit blank votes in this, or should we go for a 2/3 majority (or another arbitrary number? Equally relevant is off cause what is 'elaborate' discussion. Is that after a certain amount of digests, or after the discussion died, or after we all agree that the discussion will not yield new input no more, and then take a vote... I consider these kind of systems rather clumsy, all with their own advantages and disadvantages, but all generally requiring quite a lot of extra procedures, time and resources. I hope that consensus would work out ... So I think I would propose a combination idea. In principle we work towards consensus, and, if after discussion a consensus does not seem to be reached, a kind of voting system will take place... I don't really have a big preference on what voting system should be implemented .. anybody any ideas? Concerning Allowing the board members a say on the GC (and corporate officers) I don't think I have a big problem here. The board members input I always consider valuable, although I would think about what corporate officers I would allow a say. I would think that maybe the corporate officers would get a say in materials concerning their own specific terrain. This type of system could be implemented when we go to a form of edited GC-chronicle. If we implement a voting system, I would not allow the Board members and corporate officers to have a vote. They do have a right to express an opinion, But giving them a right in setting up a decision would threaten the independent character of the GC. The same type of reasoning would work out in building consensus. The BOD members and the like are not 'counted' in building consensus... Concerning allowing The Populous to have a say: This would overload the mail quota of the digest too much, and I don't think in any useful way. The indirect way, of allowing the GC-members to forward other posters idea's and concerns is much more controlled and handy. Distribution of the GC-chronicle through any means: Good idea. All the means proposed are fine. the wider the distribution the more input we might receive back, the more productive our output would be... I would indeed encourage setting up a summarising system. I expect the digest to be extremely long, and the majority of the people might simply be interested in a shorter form. So I expect there to be a need for this. What I would like to see implemented is that the summary gets 'officialised'. So, before the summary is released, the GC members (Up to definition who will be added to that), would receive a preprint of these summaries, and have a week time to approve of them (or a similar term). Concerning Edited or not: I favour the minimal edited form. Only warning if the contents of a message is very 'flammatory', personal to someone specific or the likes. That gives the writer time to reconsider. If the writer remains adamant, the article would go in... Redundancy editing, and grouping editing: I don't consider it worth the time of the person editing. especially the latter editing. Redundancy editing: I rather read an idea in someone own words than see things rephrased... It might be time to add some comment here on language: At the moment I think I am the only not native english speaker here. I think others will follow. I think redundancy editing would/might be handicapping the non-native english speaker. In trying to express subtle details differences in a proposal, but by choice of wrong words, these details might get lost in the 'redundancy editing phase'. I don't consider the risk of loosing information, combined with the effort put into it by the editor, worth it. I really would like to see some strict rules on flaming tough. I consider flaming bad for the discussion. I would not object to adding rules that if someone is flaming too much, he will be removed from GC, as being not constructive in the discussions... (As is clear: TOO MUCH is not really well defined). Also it is not really clear how that removal would take place. Who removes the person >from GC? GC itself? What in case of the kingdom representatives? All in all not a very easy topic... Well, that is about all what I would like say on how the GC should function. With friendly greetings, In service to Drachenwald and the GC, Bertrik ---------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 95 20:59:18 CST From: ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu Subject: How to get there from here How To Get There From Here: The Local Option Option In my previous missive, I described the way in which I thought the Society ought to be organized: as a federation of kingdoms, themselves federations of (legally independent) local groups. It may have occurred to some readers that there was some inconsistency in arguing in favor of decentralization while proposing that the SCA Inc. should tell the kingdoms how they ought to organize their internal structures. It may have occurred to other readers that some kingdoms might not want to run their own affairs. My actual proposal goes as follows: --- 1. The SCA Inc. draws up a brief list of "landmarks"--features of the Society that define what is or is not a Society activity. An example might be: Historical Recreation Pre-seventeenth Century With some role for SCA heavy weapons combat Primarily involving events at which everyone present is part of the recreation. That may not be the right set of landmarks, but I think it is the right level of generality. 2. The SCA offers each kingdom the option of either maintaining its present status (a branch of the SCA Inc.) or incorporating separately and becoming a group member of the SCA Inc. If it chooses the second option, the kingdom will be responsible for dealing with its own membership, finances, etc. ; the Corporation will provide it essentially no services. The Corporation requires, as a condition of permitting the Kingdom to be a member of the Corporation and use the SCA's name, that the kingdom agree to abide by the landmarks, that the kingdom pay a small fee proportional to the kingdom's membership (I am thinking of something on the order of a dollar or two per member per year) to cover whatever residual costs it imposes on the Corporation, and that the kingdom agree to make T.I. available to those of its members that want it at whatever price the SCA Inc. charges the kingdom for filling T.I. subscriptions (in other words, subscribing to T.I. will be an option on the kingdom's membership forms). Group members may if they wish purchase insurance or other services from the SCA Inc. on any terms mutually agreeable. 3. Any kingdom that wishes, whether a branch of the Corporation or a group member, may offer its local groups an option similar to that described in 2 above. Local groups that accept need not incorporate but will be legally independent, whether as corporations or associations. --- Under this proposal, kingdoms can choose the level of decentralization they like. They can keep things exactly as present, they can be independent organizations with their local groups branches of themselves, they can be branches of the Corporation with local groups that are independent, or they can follow the full decentralization program that I sketched earlier. Assuming that they do not all choose the first alternative, the effective size of the Corporation will shrink as a single member kingdom (or barony) replaces thousands (or hundreds) of individual members. That should get it back to a more manageable size. I hope that eventually all kingdoms would go all the way--but that would be up to them. I have left out in this description a lot of details, including the question of what it means for a kingdom to "choose" something (who votes how) and the question of how additional kingdoms (and local groups) would get added to this structure. If people are interested I will be glad to fill them in later. David/Cariadoc David Friedman ddfr@midway.uchicago.edu ---------------------------------------- From: dani@telerama.lm.com Date: Wed, 8 Feb 1995 17:20:38 +0500 (EST) Subject: Grand Council: A Pile of Proposals [Approved by Caroline] This is a rewrite of an article I wrote two months ago, when the Grand Council appeared to be having trouble getting off the ground. I've structured the article around proposals which have been suggested in the past year, and which the Grand Council will probably be considering in greater or lesser depth. The main purpose of the article, aside from that of collecting these proposals in one place and putting them on the table, is to focus upon the information the Grand Council will have to obtain in the course of considering them. The same information needs come up time and again. A. Restructing the Registry The Corporation's largest mundane undertaking is the running of the Registry: We spend about a quarter of a million dollars a year maintaining a database of members, sending out mailing lists or labels when they are needed, and supporting the office staff and equipment needed to do this task. It's not a task we're particularly good at -- we're amateurs running a mailing service in our collective spare time -- and it seems to eat up an inordinate share of our budget and of the Board's attention. A number of proposals have been advanced for reducing this burden: 1. Association Management Services. Initial estimates suggest that an Association Management Service can provide clerical and professional support services for the SCA at a significantly lower cost than we are currently paying. Much of the saving comes through economies of scale. (For instance, an AMS doesn't have to buy a new computer system for every organization it serves.) An AMS is also a source of something we've been having a hard time finding -- professional expertise in the area of nonprofit organizations. They also provide support services for the Board of Directors, including regular reports, training for new Directors, and legal and accounting advice. Information Requirements: The bid form: In order to get specific information on the cost of AMS services, we have to request a bid form from their association. When the form is filled out, copies are distributed to member AMS's, who may submit bids. Requesting, and even submitting, a bid form is not a commitment, just an information gathering mechanism. However, *only* a Board of Directors may request a bid form. * Action Item: Before the next Board meeting, The Grand Council, or its current members, should request of the Board that it authorize a request for an AMS bid form. Aside from its being the first step in getting information about the AMS option, this form may be valuable to the Grand Council in itself: It will tell us, in concise form, what information professionals in this field consider necessary in order to assess the needs of an organization. No matter what restructuring options we pursue, the Grand Council will want access to the same information. In addition to obtaining a bid form, and then obtaining from the Corporation the detailed information requested by the bid form (e.g., sizes of mailings, frequency of mailings), we'll need to consider one-time costs of making such a transition, possibly including the cost of adapting our software or theirs. We'll want to find out whether there is a down side to using an AMS -- perhaps in reduction of of service or flexibility. (Note: The Board, at its last meeting, initiated action to investigate the AMS option. I don't know whether they formally authorized the request for a bid form. I also don't know whether the Board simply agreed that investigating the AMS option would be a good thing to do, or whether someone was actually delegated to take action. Initially, in either case, the Grand Council's role in this may be pretty much limited to making sure that some progress is being made by the Board.) 2. Outsourcing. It is possible to outsource the Corporation's clerical functions without delegating its managerial or professional tasks. In particular, there are firms to which we could subcontract some or all of the maintenance of our membership lists, subscription lists, and mailing label lists. The potential benefits are substantial cost savings, largely through economies of scale (better and shared equipment, fewer fulltime personnel, etc.). There is also the potential that freeing Renee to deal with other head- office functions could result in substantially improved service to members and to Corporate officers. Information Requirements: Mailing services do not generally require a request from the Board, but they will still require solid and detailed numbers on current and future levels of Registry activity before they can give us bids on this option (or range of options). We'd also need to know what levels of extraordinary service (eg, sending out a new label run in an emergency) are available and what they'd cost. On the Corporate side, we'd need to know how much of our current Registry expense is committed for the long term (e.g., what would it cost to break our office lease and move to a smaller location, what would it cost to lay off clerical staff). We'd also need to satisfy ourselves that there are adequate backup and contingency plans in place in case something goes wrong, and to determine how subscriptions and memberships would interact: Would new membership forms be sent to the contractor or to the Corporate office? Would the contractor maintain the most up-to-date membership list and forward weekly or monthly updates to the Corporate office? Would we have to adopt their software? *Action Item: Approach one or more mailing services for bids. The result of the initial approach will be a detailed list of information they'll require in order to provide a bid -- mostly detailed estimates of volumes and frequencies of transactions. The next step will be to get those figures from the Registry. (We should expect that some of the information will not initially be available, but it's information the Grand Council will need eventually anyhow.) If the bids based on those figures look promising, we'll want to investigate the mechanics of splitting list maintenance from other less-costly Corporate functions. Note: Since the subject arises, the Grand Council may wish to ask what backup and contingency plans the Registry currently has in place so that we don't go down in flames if the physical office goes up in flames. 3. Decentralizing Publications. A proposal which has the potential to significantly reduce the Registry's workload (and hence cost) is to spin off the publications. There would only be one class of membership, and it would not include newsletters. Anyone who wanted a kingdom newsletter would subscribe directly. Pro: Processing a membership would become significantly simpler (even aside from no longer entailing monthly label runs), so it would cost less, and probably have more modest software requirements too. Separating memberships from subscriptions would also enable participants to get the newsletter without having to become members if they feel that membership is not a good value for the money. (This in turn builds in a feedback mechanism which the Corporation now lacks.) Con: Subscribing to multiple newsletters would become more cumbersome, as would changing kingdoms. Many members might choose to let their newsletter subscriptions lapse, and become less informed. More subscribers than the Corporation can afford might choose to let their memberships lapse. TI: Presumably TI would be available by direct subscription as well, but it is also feasible to bundle it in with the newsletters or with membership. There are technical problems in either case. Information Requirements: What is the true cost of newsletters to the Corporation? What savings could be realized by doing away with those costs? How many members would subscribe to their kingdom newsletters? Could the larger kingdoms maintain those subscription lists with volunteer labor? What's the point at which that becomes impractical -- five subscriptions per day? ten? Are there legal barriers to decentralizing subscriptions? Something we want in any case is an estimate of the true costs of the publications: How much of our infrastructure could we get rid of without them, how much of our labor costs could we save, to what extent could we simplify our procedures and software? Once we have this information, we can be in a position to rough out business plans for kingdom newsletters, and possibly for TI, to satisfy ourselves that they could, or could not, maintain themselves on subscription income, at reasonable rates. 4. Decentralizing Memberships. A more radical decentralization, but one with a better prospect of reducing costs and simplifying the running of the Corporation, is to decentralize the Registry. This plan would tie memberships to newsletter subscriptions, rather than vice versa: Newsletters would be available by direct subscription, and anyone who subscribes to a newsletter would also be cosidered a member. (One of the Corporate office's functions might be to allocate blocks of membership numbers as they're needed.) Once a month newsletters could forward to the Corporate office a membership diskette and the portion of the subscription price allocated to the Corporation's non-Registry-non-publication functions -- which presumably should be quite low. This proposal does not rely as heavily as the previous one upon the kingdoms being able to handle their workload purely with volunteer labor. Pro: The main argument for this proposal, beyond its cost-saving potential, is that it reduces the role of the Corporation to its essentials -- coordinating the Society, being a contact point, dealing with the outside world -- rather than having most of its resources and attention taken up by clerical work. This also greatly reduces the scope for mismanagement and mischance. The cost-saving is achieved by distributing the clerical tasks back to the level where they can be handled without large capital and labor overheads. Con: Subscribing to multiple newsletters becomes more inconvenient, as does changing kingdoms. There is a greatly increased chance of one or more mini-registry messing up badly. This plan may place too much reliance upon local volunteers. Information Requirements: The information requirements are similar to those for the previous proposal. What would the Corporate budget be without the registry? What would the true costs of separate newsletters be? What are the options for handling TI? What procedural controls would have to be placed upon the newsletters? Are there legal restrictions to worry about? Again, as above, we need cost estimates on the Corporate side and a business plan on the kingdom side. If this proposal results in substantial cost savings, and if most of its effects are transparent to most members, it may not be necessary to worry about the possibility of membership or subscription levels going down as a result, so that part of the information gathering needn't be considered until there are better financial estimates to hand. 5. Spinning off Kingdoms. A variation of decentralized membership which is extreme enough to be considered under a separate heading is the proposal to make the kingdoms the members of the SCA. That is, each kingdom runs its own registry, and the SCA provides services to -- and on behalf of -- the kingdoms, rather than the members, though a member of any kingdom is considered to also be a member of the SCA. I raise this for the sake of completeness, but leave it to someone else to flesh it out. B. The Role of the Board A source of much of the mischief of the past year -- and many of the early warnings of the two years preceeding it -- is the mismatch between the Board's current functions and its resources. In a world in which Boards of Directors are expected to be responsible for long-range planning, oversight, and major hiring decisions, our Directors also carry the major executive positions, handle much of the running of the Corporation, serve as a frequently-invoked court of appeal, and attempt to deal with an occasionally massive correspondence. It's an impossible amount of work: In the best of cases it burns out good Directors. In the worst of cases, much of the work just doesn't get done. Some points to consider: 1. The Interkingdom Advisory Council. The often-heard buzzword for what the Board has been trying to avoid is "micromanagement", and the IAC appeared to be a body to which the Board could turn to handle much of the medieval-side micromanagement. At this time, however, the IAC appears to be an advisory council that's waiting for someone to ask its advice. The first step towards easing the Board's workload might be to identify a list of decisions which should automatically be directed to the IAC. Assuming that in the majority of cases the Board, at its next meeting, would accept the recommendations of the IAC, it might be constructive to identify in advance those circumstances under which it would wish to reopen or reconsider a recommendation. (The most obvious answer might be that it would do so in cases where the IAC reported itself to be badly divided.) 2. Banishments. Banishments appear to eat up an inordinate amount of the Board's time. They might be included among the decisions which can be remanded to the IAC for recommendations. (There is an issue of secrecy here, but the proposition that seven people can be bound effectively to secrecy and fourteen cannot is questionable.) Alternatively, it might be worth establishing a committee specifically to deal with banishments. If this is an actual delegation of authority, it would still require the participation of a couple of Board members, but it wouldn't eat up the meeting time of the entire Board. 3. Finance and Oversight. The finance function may be developing into another political flash point. In giving the Treasurer's position to a Director, the Board has subsumed another time-consuming function. In refusing to establish an audit committee, the Board may also be setting itself up for a repeat of what happened last winter, when it acted on the basis of bad financial information and had nobody in a position to point this out. And recent indications are that the Board has been making do with extremely poor and untimely information on the Corporation's costs and membership trends. Initial Information Requirements: What does the Board do, and what is the Board required to do? Can we get a breakdown of how Directors actually spend their time? What activities can legally be delegated, and to what extent is it practical to do so? Proposals: * That the Board routinely refer to the IAC, for recommendations, all classes of decisions which fall on the medieval side of the SCA, which do not interact too closely with legal or financial decisions, and which will probably not have to be rehashed by the Board. Mechanisms should be established for getting these issues before the IAC members, for enabling them to discuss them, and for making formal recommendations at least once a quarter, in time for the Directors to consider them before Board meetings. It might be advisable to have the IAC select a Vice-Chair, as the Society Seneschal does not appear to have had the time to take an active role in coordinating this activity. * That the Board delegate consideration of banishments either to the IAC, for recommendations, or to a committee, for an actual decision, or both. * That an audit committee be formed, and given the responsibility for making sure that the Board's financial information is timely and reliable, and that its budgets reflect timely and reliable information. C. Communications Between the Board and the Membership Some of the most frequently used figures of speech, earlier this year, likened writing the Board to shouting into an unresponsive receptacle. It's no wonder that Directors didn't have time to respond to hundreds of letters, but the sense of helplessness and frustration which the lack of response engendered led to considerable mischief. (An odd catch-22 emerged at one point, when one of the Directors was reported to have said that she didn't believe that there was widespread opposition to pay-to-play because she'd only received about forty letters at that point.) Proposals: * That the Minutes include a listing of letters received, an indication of the subject matter, and a statement of what response if any resulted. Since it could be time-consuming to do this properly, a group of volunteers might be established to receive and track copies of letters to the Board (other than those which request to be kept confidential). * That the Grand Council's reports to the Board include a precis of the proposals being discussed, and a request for initial commentary on selected issues. D. Legal Issues It's the duty of legal counsel to point out potential legal problems; it's the Board's responsibility to decide how high a price it is willing to pay to guard against them. In the past couple of years, however, we've seen often-onerous rulings meant to deal with possibly remote contingencies. The changes to the Minutes, the waiver-of-the-day phenomenon, the local- treasurers policy, for instance, all seem to have arisen from fears of liability. In at least some cases the advice was clearly bad. The Board needs help in assessing the legal advice it gets: The Board can't know whether a recommendation reflects prudence or paranoia, and legal counsel neither knows nor cares what effect a recommendation will have on the membership. Proposal: Except in cases where secrecy is obviously necessary, comments should be invited on legal advice to change our procedures. Both the recommendation and the reasoning behind it should be made public far enough in advance. Conclusion: Obviously not all the proposals listed above will prove feasible. Some of them are mutually inconsistent. I've also deliberately focused on financial and technical ramifications, even for proposals that would clearly have a considerable impact on the nature of the Society. Once we get proposals down on paper, circulating among those who wish to consider them, and under detailed evaluation, I expect that people who have doubts or concerns will raise them. I also expect that once the process begins, we'll see proposals covering the many other issues I haven't addressed here. I hope I've provided some useful grist for the Grand Council's mill. It can also be a starting point for asking what the Grand Council's role in the process should be. Does the fact that someone's tossed out a dozen or so proposals obligate the GC to put resources into considering them? At the other extreme, must each proposal have a champion to be considered -- someone who will do all the legwork and drum-beating -- while the GC just functions as a clearing house? What about proposals that require information >from the Corporation: Does the GC have an obligation to expedite the digging up of information for every crackpot idea? Does the GC have a right to ignore any request for information that it considers unworthy? These questions have to be answered. I do think that the Grand Council should act now to obtain information that will clearly be needed later in the decision-making process, though. The information requirements I've listed above tend to focus on such information. ----- Dani of the Seven Wells dani@telerama.lm.com ---------------------------------------- Date: 09 Feb 1995 13:13:07 -0000 From: rgathercoal@foxmail.gfc.edu (Roy Gathercoal) Subject: Response to Digest 1 Roy Gathercoal (Gareth Tancred Wilfrith) 2504 Haworth Avenue Newberg, OR 97132 (503) 537-1162 rgathercoal@foxmail.gfc.edu You may publish all of the above information. Introduction: Gareth Tancred Wilfrith has served as Regional and Kingdom Seneschals of the Middle Kingdom, and as Deputy Steward. Now living in An Tir, he is becoming active once again, in helping to form a new shire in Yamhill County. Roy Gathercoal has completed coursework and is finishing his dissertation for a Ph.D. in Organizational Communication from Purdue University. Dissertation title (in case anyone cares. . .) "Toward Classificatory Reflexivity in Organizational Communication". I hold a Masters in Organizational Communication from Purdue, and undergraduate degree from George Fox College. I have worked in advertising, purchasing customer service, educational administration and sales. Until last year, I owned a small business consulting company. I have taught advertising, jounalism, organizational communication, and basic speech communication classes for 12 years. Comments on structure, organizational details: In general, I agree with the digest's assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of electronic communication. I would reemphasize a few points. 1. People who live much of their communicative lives in e-mail tend to underestimate the problems of access to people who do not. Full access is not simply a matter of buying a terminal and buying access time (or taking advantage of institutional connections). Each communication mode (i.e. face-to-face, public speaking, telephone, newspaper) has intricate conventions that are prerequisite for effective use. Thus an appropriate analogy might be to say "we will be conducting this discussion in Braille--braille styli and Braillewriters are available at no charge. A Braille alphabet is enclosed." Fact is, people with certain skills (and the time and desire to learn these specific skills) will have privileged access. Thus I would strongly encourage that we rely on the digest, rather than on interactive communication. Some conventions will need to be learned, but several different communication modes can gain entry to the digest. 2. As to redundancy, I would suggest that there is a certain non-verbal impact and important communicative content in the volume of responses. Simply put, the fact that 20 people responded negatively to a particular idea is a qualitatively different situation than if 1 person responds negatively. This happens in face-to-face meetings: Sometimes there is value in having people "weigh in" on a particular issue, even if they have no words to say that have not already been said. "The marketplace of ideas" is not as pristine as we sometimes allow ourselves to believe. This concern might be addressed by the "x number of people also said this" but I would encourage at least a roster telling who weighed in on a particular point. Another possible solution (makes for a longer document, but might be worth it) would be to do both, to print the summary statement, followed by the full text of each contribution. Then the reader could choose to go to the originals if the need arose, but would not have to wade through many repetitions of every point. On what should be a primary focus Here is a digest of my main arguments from a document I prepared at the request of some board members while I was serving as Deputy Steward. 1. Many of the problems cited (e.g. lack of accountability of the board, inadequate communication, improper selection of board members, lack of overall direction for the organization, failure to adequately plan ahead, hidden or private board meetings) are symptoms of, or results of some fundamental structural flaws in the organization. 2. Attempts to address any of these directly will likely not succeed because until these basic structures change, for the existing structures will continue to work against any individual reforms. 3. The board is currently doing things that others should be doing, and is not, therefore, doing what the board is uniquely qualified to do. 5. Specifically, the board is attempting to manage the Society. 6. This situation has occurred for several reasons, among which are: a) there is a prevailing myth in the SCA that says "paperwork is a necessary evil, we are really here to play, and our officers are doing us all a favor by taking the responsibility for governance." Thus the board sees its isolation from the everyday business of the SCA as a positive thing. b) in an attempt to be more accountable to the membership, the board has a long-standing policy of responding to each communication by anyone. This has the unintended effect of increasing each board member's workload and weighting the contributions of a small but vocal minority. c) because we wish to preserve "The word of the Crown is Law" but cannot strictly do so, any conflict in any kingdom goes quickly to the Crown, and then because the Crowns have historically answered only to the board, the only appeal of a Crown's decision is to the board. Consequently, the board deals with issues that should be dealt in other ways. d) because we wish to save money, society-level officers do not regularly meet, and in some cases do not ever meet each other. It is also the case that any potentially controversial decision by a society-level officer is likely to be opposed by some Crown. In that the board reserves the right to adjudicate the Crowns, each potentially controversial decision ends up being made by the board. Thus the board is frequently called upon to ratify decisions (or to make decisions) about very specific (and very specialized) issues. This results in even more demands on the time of board members, in that in order to make informed decisions, they must each become expert in many different areas of a very diverse society. e) in an effort to keep the board members as volunteers, and to save money, the board meets quarterly, and on weekends. This significantly limits the available meeting time. f) because the board is regularly making very specific administrative decisions about potentially sensitive issues, much of their business is conducted behind closed doors. It is difficult (if not impossible) to isolate the properly private from the properly public, resulting in a further isolation from the membership and sometimes (but less commonly) inappropriate public airing of what should be private affairs. 4. Because the board is trying to do too much of the wrong things, board members find themselves quickly swamped and unable to be effective in their job without making massive personal sacrifices. Few people are able or willing to keep up that level of sacrifice for 2 or 3 years (and we probably don't want those who are willing to serve on the board) so it also tends to grind board members into burnout resulting in early retirement, leaving some responsibilities undone, and/or developing a mean streak toward anyone who is seen as further complicating their lives. 7. This leads to big differences between what the board says it will do and what individual board members are able to routinely accomplish. 8. With each board meeting's agenda packed full of administrative items, there is seldom (if ever) time to either proactively deal with potential problems or to develop any sort of long term plan for the society. No other body in the Society has the diversity, experience, accountability and perspective the board has, and even if such a group was formed such important decisions as setting the future direction of the society would be subject to detailed examination by the board (for which there is inadequate time) so, long term planning does not happen. 9. In that long term planning does not occur, the short term problems keep getting bigger and more frequent. This further increases the load on the board. 10. Thus, no piecemeal or one-time fix will do anything but delay the inevitable degeneration of the situation. Structural changes need to be implemented. Such changes must include a redistribution of decision making authority in the organization, restructuring of communicative contacts among administrative and leadership bodies and between these bodies and the general membership, separation of administrative and planning functions (with resultant strong accountability of administrative to planning), and some serious time and effort set aside for long term planning and a perpetual mechanism for a constant and ongoing revision of the long term plans. My bias for accomplishing these tasks is to delegate most of the administrative functions (now performed by the board) to the society-level officers as a group. These officers will meet regularly and privately to collectively conduct the day-to-day business of the Society, and to oversee the regional (kingdom) structures. Thus, the Crowns (as Regional Chairs) would interact with this body and report to the body as a whole on the status of their respective kingdoms. The kingdom officers from each kingdom would continue to report directly to their respective society officer. This group would report to the board at each quarterly board meeting. This body of the society officers would be the final court of appeal for any organizational dispute. The board, freed from much of the administrative work, would be responsible for overseeing the society officers (but not for deciding on specific issues) and for engaging in long term planning. Most of the board's work would be comprised in initiating, maintaining and regulating a society-wide conversation about the key issues facing us. Most of their meetings would be public, as they would not be dealing with many sensitive or private issues. Board meetings would consist primarily of sessions (collectively or individually led) devoted to providing information and soliciting conversation among members throughout the entire society. Synopses of these discussions would be regularly presented in TI and other forums. Therefore, the board would be more directly accountable to the public, and the workload of board members would be dramatically reduced and altered in nature to better suit a body representing different aspects of the society rather than a body of professional administrators (which should probably now be the primary selection criteria for board members given the nature of the workload). The society-level officers would be directly (and severely) held accountable to the board. Such accountability would be based on whether the organization is truly moving in the direction set forth by the board in consultation with the populace. The board could replace society-level officers at will, but would not typically review specific decisions made by the body. The Crowns would be held accountable to the body of the society-level officers, though not to any one officer. This accountability would be based on the general well being of Their respective kingdoms and compliance with organizational practices, Corpora, etc. Kingdom-level officers would be accountable to their respective society-level officer and to Their Crown, as is now the case. This dual accountability would function more easily in this scenario than it does currently, in that lines of accountability would converge in only one step (in the body of society-level officers). In a real sense, this restructuring would subsume the corporation (administered by the body of society-level officers) to the entire society (represented by, and in constant communication directly with the board members). ---------------------------------------- From: Mark Schuldenfrei Subject: GC: Cariadoc's organizational suggestion. Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 16:06:04 -0500 (EST) Greetings from Tibor. A bit of legal background, that might help you understand how easy Cariadoc's suggestion of the the Mineral Model might be to implement. It would require some legal paperwork on the part of the Corporation, to file a new Application for Exemption, though. If you order and read IRS publication 557 "Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization", you will note on page 5 that it defines a Group Exemption Letter, as follows: [You can order it for free from the IRS.] -- Begin Quotation -- A _group_ _exemption_ _letter_ is a ruling or determination letter issued to a central organization recognizing on a group basis the exemption under section 501(c) of subordinate organizations on whose behalf the central organization has applied for recognition of exemption. A _central_ _organization_ is an organization that has one or more subordinates under its general supervision or control. A _subordinate_ _organization_ is a chapter, local, post, or unit of a central organization. A central organization may be a subordinate itself, such as a state organization that has subordinate units, and is itself affiliated with a national (central) organization. A subordinate organization may or may not be incorporated, but it must have an organizing document. A subordinate that is organized and operated in a foreign country may not be included in a group exemption letter. A subordinate described in section 501(c)(3) may not be included in a group exemption letter if it is a private foundation described in section 509(a). If your organization is a subordinate one controlled by a central organization (for example, a church, the Boy Scouts, or a fraternal organization), you should check with the central organization to see if it has been issued a group exemption letter that covers your organization. If it has, you are not required to file a separate application unless your organization no longer wants to be included in the group exemption letter. If the group exemption letter does not cover your organization, ask your central organization about being included in the next annual group ruling update that it submits to the Service. -- End Quotation -- What this means is that if the SCA filed for a group exemption letter, it could easily allow subordinate groups *who* *choose* *to* to incorporate separately, and file taxes separately. In doing so, it would automatically qualify those groups as appropriate nonprofit public benefit organizations, and the resulting paperwork is minimal. Incorporation isn't even required. The cost would be some legal paperwork, and roughly $500 dollars in fees to the Internal Revenue Service. (I recall it as $490, but it's been a while.) There are, of course, some serious legal efforts that would be required to set this up. My point being, that it can be done, and would reduce the complexity of the Society's income tax return, and its legal exposure. At some point, I think we should seriously explore this capability. It effectively decentralizes the most paperwork intensive portion of the SCA's governance, and it substantially decreases legal liability. Right now, all our eggs are in one basket. Tibor ---------------------------------------- From: Bart Orbons Subject: Re: Grand Council Chronicle #2 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 1995 21:15:09 +0100 (MET) Greetings, GC members and listeners to the affairs of the GC, from Lord Bertrik Here are my responses to the Items brought forth from the second issue if the GC chronicle. Cariadoc comes forth with a proposal to clasify the issues being discussed. Allthough I don't object to the idea, I don't see what we are trying to achieve with it. What is the purpose of these classifications? Cariadoc continues with an elaborate posting on how to restructure the society on top level. My personal opinion On the things is that there is a time for things to be brought forward. I thing that you are too early with your proposal on orginisational reform. I think that kind of discussions should be put of till the GC is on full strength, and the procedures how we run this councel is set up straight... That will be a good time for a sincere thourough discussion where the GC is intended for. So I plan on waiting with a response until the structure of the GC itself is settled... Tibor Writes: > I agree that Board members should be able to provide feedback. I am not > so sure that Corporate Officers should have privileges above those of the > membership, however. They have work enough to do. I think We agree here... I think they should be allowed input, so posting rights here, but not decission right if things come to voting and concensus building... > I am, however, toying with the idea that IAC members might deserve I hadn't thought about IAC members... I would not mind giving them posting rights but on the same condition as the board members... >3. Topic: About Kingdom Appointees? > I didn't really expect them to be Kingdom Advocates, nor did I expect > them to be subject to the will of the Crown. This is a mundane > committee, with a mundane task to perform. Nevertheless, I've gotten the > impression that the various appointees felt they were parliamentary > representatives. You bring up a good point. I was sitting with similar concerns what the status of the kingdom representatives is. I would say that, to maintain the diversity of the GC-members, if a GC-kingdom-appointed-member resigns, (or for whatever other option has to leave seat), another representative from that kingdom must be selected... > I think it would serve the purposes of the committee best to consider all > of us to be at large Society members, and not as Kingdom members. This > is obviously not under anyone's control except those appointees, though. I agree with you that We are sitting here as Society members, trying to solve a Society problem... The kingdoms are only secondarily involved... >4. Original practical planning. >5. Philosophical question. Both topics I still would not put under discussion at this moment untill the GC-structure, ways of operation etc are better established... (First things first, IMHO). >6. Background information. > > The attorney who represented the victors in the Mandamus petition, once > wrote a two page letter where he characterized the structure of the > SCA Incorporated in the legal framework, and made some recommendations > for restructuring. Would people be interested in seeing this typed in > as part of the Grand Council work? I *think* I can find the letter in my > files. Sure: I think the ideas would be very welcome, and might form a basis for a good discussion. But... When the GC is at full strength... With friendly greetings, Bertrik ---------------------------------------- From: "Potter, Michael" Subject: Re: Grand Council - introduction Date: Mon, 13 Feb 95 14:53:00 PST Introduction: Sir Myrdin the Just is a 12th Century Knight Templar who arrived in the Holy Land just after the Battle of the Horns of Hattin (otherwise the story would end here) and stayed and fought through the 3rd Crusade. He stayed on in the Holy Land and was involved in diplomacy with the various Arab rulers until the early 1200's when he went to Scotland to help to run a Temple there. In the SCA, he lives in the East, kind of between Rusted Woodlands and Thescore, depending where he went back to. Michael G. Potter is a Senior Auditor with AlliedSignal, Inc. in Morristown, NJ. He is a Chartered Accountant (4 years with KPMG Peat Marwick) from Montreal, Quebec who has been living in the US for almost 4 years. His job is almost 100% travel (currently is based in South Bend, IN), but New Jersey is technically his home. He has a Bachelor of Commerce (Accounting) >from Concordia University, and a Graduate Diploma in Public Accountancy from McGill University. e-mail: potterm1@iia.org phone: 201-455-2815 (leave a message on my voice mail) East Kingdom representative: I'm the East Kingdom representative appointed to the Grand Council. I talked to HRM Gregore last weekend to confirm why he chose me. 1) His first choice said no. 2) I have a solid professional background 3) He knew me well and knew that I was conservative and willing to speak my mind I have not been given a particular charter to represent the East Kingdom. Of course, because I live there, I'll consult the people I know (who will be from the East). I have my own views on what should be done, and I'll be expressing them, not the "official" position of the East. My SCA interests: Fighting is my main interest. I've held a few local offices, I like reading history books, I brew beer and have recently started making wine, but most of my SCA time is spent fighting. Some past issues: I was against requiring fighters to be members, against requiring membership to participate, and against the lawsuit (which I view as a waste of money) brought against the BoD. I feel that the membership fees are reasonable and that the event surcharge is fine. I like the proposed editorial policy for this chronicle, especially since the first two issues were so large that my MS Mail program couldn't call them up (I had to print them to read them). Light editing, or format is fine. I'm glad that paper versions will be available as e-mail is not as wide spread as many people believe. ---------------------------------------- Warm greetings unto the Grand Council from Serwyl ap Morgan of Trimaris. Biography: Baron Serwyl ap Morgan is a 12th century Welshman. I have served as a Principal herald and in various other local and Kingdom offices. My interests include Welsh and Celtic history, beads, stained glass, heraldry and name research. Charles Hack (Chuck) is 31, and has earned a BA in International Relations. I am currently employed with a health insurance company in claims administration and hold several claims and insurance related professional certifications. Comments on Grand Council Membership: As one of the Kingdom appointees, I would like to speak to Tibor's comments on the status of such members of the GC. I agree that the appointees should not be subject to the will of the Crown. First, Crowns change frequently and our mission would be ill served if a GC member were unable to speak freely and without fear of removal. Also, as each Crown will have a different viewpoint, there would be a loss of continuity if each appointee served only as a mouthpiece. Over the duration of this project, we will can expect to lose more than one member through an inevitable process of attrition. There is no reason to add to the number unnecessarily. That said, as an appointee, I do feel a certain responsibility to represent my Kingdom during this process. I am well aware of the need to work towards the best interests of the Society as a whole, but the people of my own Kingdom are the ones I know best, and my perspective will always be grounded in that. As to the addition of new GC members when an old member leaves, I feel strongly that a Kingdom appointee should be replaced by another appointee from that Kingdom. Otherwise, there is a chance that a Kingdom could go entirely unrepresented. Applicants to the Grand Council: Of the names submitted from my home Kingdom of Trimaris, only one is known to me. Master Jed Silverstar (Jed O'Connor) is a Laurel and currently the Kingdom Minister of Arts and Sciences. I have known him personally for a short time, as he has only recently returned to Trimaris after a hiatus. However, from my short association I believe that he is well suited to the position. Comments on Duke Cariadoc's Proposal: First, a recap. The proposal involves a situation wherein the Corporate structure becomes an organization of regional 'clubs', which presumably would start as the currently established Kingdoms. This is based upon the structure of the American Federation of Mineral Societies. The concept is intriguing. But can those concepts be applied to a structure such as the SCA? I'm not so sure. We are not a club. As I am so often reminded, many people treat our Society as a way of life. We expend more time, money and effort (as a group) than members of any other hobby of which I am aware (with the possible exception of some of the Civil War groups). And perhaps most importantly, we make a much larger emotional investment. Face it, a club's regional vice presidency does not compare to Kingship either in prestige or raw power. As long as we continue to choose our authority figures by means of sticks and shields, we will need a corporate structure that will protect the long term interests of the organization as well as the rights and interests of the individual. Does the current structure do this? Many would argue that it does not. But this proposal certainly does not. While I personally feel that at least a certain amount of decentralization is inevitable (and desirable), I think it unwise to weaken the corporate structure to the level of a club or hobby association. We are much more complex, and face similarly more complex problems. What Are We Here For? In relation to Tibor's philosophical question, 'What is the purpose of the Corporation?', I have to say that I am in agreement with his statement that 'the Corporation is a tool the Society uses to benefit itself'. It would be helpful to know where other people stand on this as I feel it is a necessary starting point in deciding what we want to do with this project. ----------------------------------------