[Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways

[Leif Johnston]

Marcolo, that is a good point. Some venting is what we let friends do and
listening to opinions, even if strongly stated, helps is to focus on our
response and understanding.

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. 

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.
*	We are an IRS priviledged organization and that can be very
difficult to orchestrate.
*	The more independent entities (seperately filed and managed
corporations) the larger the overall administrative burden and most likely
the larger the expense to the memebership 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
seperately 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 mambership 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.
*	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? How would we maintain commonality and
consistency in a distributed organization? We know how the winds of Curia
blow in our own kingdom...
*	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
inuendos frequently. And often that is part of what we do as adults that
gets complicated when minors are around/engaged.
*	We must remember that a jury of our peers will not mean a jury of
SCA peers in a mudane court of law.
*	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.
That said, we should, I humby submit, be hesitant to shoot them as
messengers of evil and perhaps be better suited to engage them in discussion
of our priorities. Just like we get to elect our congressional
representatives and then they may run off and do things we disagree with, 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?
*	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 diffierently. 
*	Every time there is an insurance claim, it will tend to point out
where there are issues - just like when you get hit through a spot that
isn't well amored in the heavy list. But I submit that lesson we learn at
the hands of the opponent on the field (that my armor does not adequately
cover my upper thigh where Ranulph just hit me repeatedly...) is not the
fault of the opponent but an opportunity to change and improve for
ourselves.

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 unpleasent 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.

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.
How do we even know some are minors? Are we suggesting that anyone without
gray hair should wear a badge designating age appropriateness? Clearly
attire can not be considered the mark of age (unless it can be the
unpleasent bulges that show on my aging frame). Even with that I was
recently carded while buying alcohol, so what does that mean to us as
SCAdians?

Rebellion can be argued as the right of every american - we have the second
amendment for that purpose according to some lines of thought. Rebellion
though, 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.

Doesn't courtesy demand that we consider others, their thoughts and seek to
find an amicable solution? Efficiency suggests that we would execute
prisoners, but courtesy suggest we treat them as honored guests...

my two shillings
Wiglaf
 

-----Original Message-----
From: moo-bounces at lists.stierbach.org
[mailto:moo-bounces at lists.stierbach.org] On Behalf Of Marcolo DelMare
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 9:49 AM
To: General Mailing List for the Barony of Stierbach
Subject: Re: [Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways

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.

Marcolo

On 12/5/10, Jonathan Blaine <hourumiyamoto at gmail.com> wrote:
> Already did that myself, but I think he's asking us to boycott? Rebel? 
> I don't know, kind of lost as to where the point is on all this..
> On Dec 5, 2010 10:10 PM, "Laurie Clarkston" <garadh at verizon.net> wrote:
>> Whether we agree or not with the decision of the board, price 
>> increases
> are
>> going to happen whether we like it or not for whatever reason.
>>
>>
>> Venting to your Barony and/or canton might have a calming, cleansing
> effect for
>> you (kinda like gotta get this off my chest), but I think your inputs
> might be
>> better directed towards the very people who are making the decisions.  
>> The
>
>> Board has always been open to inputs from people in the SCA on the
> direction the
>> Society is taking.  Hearing from people who play in the SCA, good or 
>> bad,
> can
>> only help them in the decisions they take in running the SCA.
>>
>> Please share your opinions with them; this way your voice will be 
>> heard
> and it
>> just might be the voice that inspires them on the decision path they
> choose.
>>
>> Cairistiona
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Maven <sk8maven at yahoo.com>
>> To: moo at lists.stierbach.org
>> Sent: Sun, December 5, 2010 8:03:12 PM
>> Subject: [Moo] Up the Imperium - Sideways
>>
>>
>>> It's eight bucks. Big whoop.
>>
>> It's eight bucks *per person*, this time (family memberships excepted 
>> -
> this
>> time - but the "family" cap raised five dollars). With NO guarantee 
>> that
> they
>> won't have to raise it again next month, or next year - indeed, with 
>> an
> implied
>> threat that they *will* have to "because of ongoing lawsuit expenses".
>>
>> I've been in the SCA a *long* time, and every single time the BoD has
> raised the
>> membership rates, it's been to cover some screwup by the BoD. Every 
>> single
> time,
>> no exceptions.
>>
>> In the 1980's it was an insanely expensive and nearly useless 
>> computer
> hardware
>> and software system they were suckered into buying (some friends who
> *were*
>> computer experts said they could have done a much better job for far 
>> less money).
>>
>> In the 1990's it was that insane scheme to "streamline and modernize" 
>> the
> SCA,
>> Inc., to make it more "business-like" - the one that involved hiring 
>> a
> total
>> mundane to tell them how to organize the game, and nearly tore the 
>> SCA
> apart.
>> That was the *first* time they tried Non-Membership Fees (after 
>> seriously considering Pay to Play!), and it went over so badly they 
>> backed off and
> waited
>> for years before applying them again.
>>
>> Now it's that insanely expensive child molestation civil lawsuit that 
>> is
> going
>> to devour the SCA, Inc. whole, and I don't see any way that it will 
>> not do
> so.
>> Even if the SCA, Inc. "wins", the court costs will be astronomical 
>> and our
>
>> reputation is *already* irreparably tarnished. The lawsuit exists 
>> only
> because
>> the SCA, Inc. is an excessively centralized bureaucracy with one
> centralized
>> source of money - and the lawyers think they can grab it all.
>>
>> We were warned, again and again, that the SCA, Inc. was far too 
>> topheavy
> and far
>> too centralized, and needed to decentralize. But it did not suit the 
>> Board
> of
>> Directors to make any serious moves in that direction until conflicts 
>> with
> state
>> and national laws forced them to do so (Australia, Canada, now Illinois).
> Now
>> it's probably too late.
>>
>> What we all need to remember, even those who diss the increased 
>> membership
> fees
>> as "big whoop", is that the SCA, Inc. is not the SCA. It's just a
> bureaucratic
>> organization we agreed to add on to facilitate playing our game. But 
>> they
> think
>> *they* are the game and *we* aren't important.
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like that attitude 
>> and I
> don't
>> think it is or can be sustainable.
>


--
Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has
to be us.
  - Jerry Garcia
_______________________________________________
Moo mailing list
Moo at lists.stierbach.org
http://lists.stierbach.org/listinfo.cgi/moo-stierbach.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stierbach.org/pipermail/moo-stierbach.org/attachments/20101206/723eddb5/attachment-0003.htm>