From: Marcolo DelMare:
> I think a "little" bit of venting amoung friends is healthy. Granting
> that opportunity to your friends is one of the duties of friendship.
> I don't have a clear opinion about this topic yet, as I don't feel I
> know enough about it. These discussions have at least given me
> some information to chew on.
Well, that's the main reason I started raising a ruckus - I wanted to get
people to stop, investigate, and think for themselves.
From: Janie Darby (Baroness Briana Maclukas) <briana491 at gmail.com>
> I'd just like to point out that the BoD is composed of members of the SCA,
> every one of whom is a Peer, who are volunteers chosen, in part, for their
> mundane skillsets.
Chosen, not by the membership at large, but by their predecessors (supposedly
after considering comments from the membership). It's become a veritable
College of Cardinals. And I have a problem with that. See additional comments
at the end of this message....
> They include people whom we know and play with - two Atlantians
> in the current membership, I believe. These are not people out to
> exploit us. They are people trying their best to deal with a difficult
> and unfortunate situation.
It's not the people per se, it's the system. And when the people who are
part of the system can't or won't change it, they are part of the problem -
like it or not.
> I am not going to get into the debate over whether we should decentralize.
At this point it would probably be unbuilding the barn after all the horses
have already been stolen. But it still needs to be discussed - if the SCA, Inc
survives the present crisis.
> I think it is important, however, to remember that the BoD is, in reality,
> part of "us", not the typical corporate "them" when we cast aspersions.
Only an infinitesimally small minority has any chance at all of being
any part of that subset of "us". And they will never select anyone who
does not already agree with the SCA, Inc.
From: "Leif Johnston" <leif at resourcecompany.com>
> That said and with the experience of having set on many non-profit and 501c3
> boards, the job is both easy and difficult at the same time. Status quo and
> smooth waters are easy and stress/issues can be difficult. Orders given to
> change the direction of a battleship take a significant time to see the
> results.
Point noted. But we are where we are because suggestions to change course
have been ignored for at least twenty years.
> A couple of thoughts.
> * We (SCA Inc.) are incorporated as a protection to the membership.
> The corporation is a legal entity and thus can bear the brunt of the legal
> attacks. The alternative is the each of us (or the richest of us - not
> me...) could/would be sued instead.
Or, perhaps, no one would be sued, because there would not be enough
money in any one place to make a lawsuit worth while.
> * We are an IRS privileged organization and that can be very
> difficult to orchestrate.
On the other hand, we're doing a delicate balancing act between
"educational" and "social" activities, and we need to be careful
not to veer too far toward the "social" side, or there will be IRS
consequences (possibly including loss of tax deductions, if we
still have them).
>* The more independent entities (separately filed and managed
> corporations) the larger the overall administrative burden and most likely
> the larger the expense to the membership as a whole. ( It may not be
> 2*(the admin burden) but it is certainly more that 1 and likely 1.5-1.75 *
> the number of smaller SCA incs but I don't have the operating numbers
> to support that extrapolation. But to continue the thought, if each kingdom
> were separately run and we can beat the expected burden costs per
> kingdom down to 1.25 ( or 25% of the overall burden as the admin burden
> for each kingdom), then the overall expense might well is 1 for SCA Inc
> and (.25*19) or almost 5 more admin expenses for a total of 6 times our
> personal membership cost so just using the extra family membership
> cost of $10/year, the cost would be $60 per year for each membership.
> Whatever the actual numbers the approach strongly suggests a radically
> increased cost base.
Maybe. And maybe decentralization would actually mean a lower administrative
overhead - it's quite clear that we have a HUGE administrative overhead as
things are now, and that this situation can only get worse. I'd want some
serious studies run on that, by an independent and unbiased party (if we can
find one).
> * We could argue away the central SCA Inc and cut that cost to
> $50/year, but what would it be like to show up at Pennsic with gear that
> didn't meet a common standard?
There are already, and for a long time have been, inconsistencies between
Kingdoms as to what is and is not allowed. Having an SCA, Inc has not
made a difference in that respect. Inter-Kingdom activities and agreements
(including but not limited to Pennsic) have done much more to promote
common standards.
> How would we maintain commonality and consistency in a distributed
> organization? We know how the winds of Curia blow in our own kingdom...
How do other distributed organizations manage?
> * As a group, the SCA is AMAZINGLY risky from the liability standpoint
> with the activities we like to pursue, be it fighting, or dress/exploration
> of topics out of the mainstream context. There are huge sexual overtones
> and innuendos frequently. And often that is part of what we do as adults
> that gets complicated when minors are around/engaged.
Having or not having a centralized organization will not affect this at all.
Not having a centralized financial source *may* reduce the risk of
lawsuits.
> * We must remember that a jury of our peers will not mean a jury of
> SCA peers in a mundane court of law.
True, but not relevant. I am in fact depending heavily on the totally mundane
right to speak freely without fear of being suppressed by Authority.
>* Our board members are people too and as such are inclined to be
> like the rest of us, or at least me in the fact that they will make mistakes.
They've made some lulus over the years, but at least they reversed the
very worst one - hiring a total mundane as an Executive Director,who
proceeded to give them disastrously bad advice and impose totally
inappropriate policies. They won't make *that* mistake again, but they
are quite capable of making other really bad ones.
> That said, we should, I humbly submit, be hesitant to shoot them as
> messengers of evil and perhaps be better suited to engage them in
> discussion of our priorities.
If you don't speak up, they can't hear you. (And if you *do* speak up,
they may ignore you - but at least you will have spoken out.)
> Just like we get to elect our congressional representatives and then
> they may run off and do things we disagree with,
Not a good analogy, as the only input the membership at large gets
into the selection of Board members is their (ignorable) opinions.
> we can engage them in dialog about where we think things should go.
> That said, based on our core vision, shouldn't that be done with courtesy
> and the grace of the courtly manner we seek to emulate?
Point granted, But I highly resent being asked to pay for the Board's
own mistakes, when my opinion was never asked and would not have
been listened to.
>* There are serious and complicated issues that the board has to face
> with insurance and other issues. Clearly this situation has pointed out
> one lesson that needs to be done better or protected differently.
Let's hope we can come up with better answers - and that it isn't already
too late.
> With that context, in my opinion we should make our voices heard by the
> board. Particular points of concern would include how to protect against
> further sexually related suits, how to we limit liabilities across kingdoms,
> are there organizational changes to be made, and how can we best continue to
> live the vision that we want - with specfics?
> Unfortunately some of the answers to the questions may be unpleasant to
> hear. For example, the Boy Scout solution to sexual misconduct is that two
> adults must be present anytime there is a minor/adult interaction. The
> impact of that decision was mandated and it significantly changed the Boy
> Scout organization - including annual discussions of sexually appropriate
> and inappropriate behaviors and a review process that holds the accused
> guilty until proven innocent removing them from causing further harm.
I seem to recall, but I could be wrong, that a similar policy was in fact in
place
in the SCA at the time of the incidents, that it was violated, and that there
was
no checking up on the situation - by anybody, not even by the parents involved.
Policy means nothing without verification. ("Trust, but verify" - didn't a US
President say that?)
> Our culture in the US has complicated the implications of minors being in
> adult situations. They are adult situations for a reason. When the
> activities are engaged in by adults then they are fairly straightforward.
> When minors become involved actively or even passively, much is complicated.
That's been the case since before the (first?) reign of Hanno in the East
Kingdom.
(The East specifically designed a "Hanno clause" into its combat rules to allow
for
previously authorized minors to continue to participate in adult lists - and
Hanno
promptly entered and won Crown Tourney although he was not old enough to vote.)
Whenever and wherever age limits are imposed - or changed - there will be
loopholes. I seem to remember a certain Olympic Gold Medalist in figure skating
who had been "Hannoed" into eligibility because she had competed at Worlds
before the age limit was lowered. (It did not turn out so well for her in the
long run,
becoming mobility-limited before she was twenty. But she never sued the ISU.)
> Rebellion...is an unpleasant situation, particularly when there may still be
> points of discussion and opportunity for changing things as they are. The
> challenge then is to continue to effectively communicate the vision that we
> want to see and find ways to make it viable.
What I find amazing and disturbing is how rapidly and completely we have
recapitulated the history of the Original Middle Ages with respect to developing
a central Authority that has ultimate power and must not be questioned or
doubted. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think the Board of Directors has
evolved into a secular Papacy, complete with the power to excommunicate
(revoke and deny membership). This has had a profoundly chilling effect on
the expression of dissent - and that is not a healthy development.
What I wonder is, how long before someone nails Ninety-Five Theses to
whatever door is relevant?
Medhbhin Liadain, called "Maven"