<p>Pardon the bluntness, but why kick a dead horse? Comments been stated, you should propose a solution, upon reasonable grounds or be silent about the issue before it ends up a heated debate. I can already see some tension in your posts and would hate to see this turn nasty. Do you have a solution? Will anyone care to follow it? If not. Maybe we should drop the subject or move it off list for those who wish to continue?</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Dec 6, 2010 3:10 PM, "Maven" <<a href="mailto:sk8maven@yahoo.com">sk8maven@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> From: Marcolo DelMare:<br>>> I think a "little" bit of venting amoung friends is healthy. Granting<br>
>> that opportunity to your friends is one of the duties of friendship. <br>>> I don't have a clear opinion about this topic yet, as I don't feel I<br>>> know enough about it. These discussions have at least given me<br>
>> some information to chew on.<br>> <br>> Well, that's the main reason I started raising a ruckus - I wanted to get <br>> people to stop, investigate, and think for themselves.<br>> <br>> From: Janie Darby (Baroness Briana Maclukas) <<a href="mailto:briana491@gmail.com">briana491@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> I'd just like to point out that the BoD is composed of members of the SCA,<br>>> every one of whom is a Peer, who are volunteers chosen, in part, for their<br>>> mundane skillsets. <br>> <br>> Chosen, not by the membership at large, but by their predecessors (supposedly<br>
> after considering comments from the membership). It's become a veritable <br>> College of Cardinals. And I have a problem with that. See additional comments<br>> at the end of this message....<br>> <br>>> They include people whom we know and play with - two Atlantians<br>
>> in the current membership, I believe. These are not people out to<br>>> exploit us. They are people trying their best to deal with a difficult<br>>> and unfortunate situation.<br>> <br>> It's not the people per se, it's the system. And when the people who are<br>
> part of the system can't or won't change it, they are part of the problem -<br>> like it or not.<br>> <br>>> I am not going to get into the debate over whether we should decentralize.<br>> <br>
> At this point it would probably be unbuilding the barn after all the horses <br>> have already been stolen. But it still needs to be discussed - if the SCA, Inc<br>> survives the present crisis.<br>> <br>>> I think it is important, however, to remember that the BoD is, in reality,<br>
>> part of "us", not the typical corporate "them" when we cast aspersions.<br>> <br>> Only an infinitesimally small minority has any chance at all of being <br>> any part of that subset of "us". And they will never select anyone who<br>
> does not already agree with the SCA, Inc.<br>> <br>> From: "Leif Johnston" <<a href="mailto:leif@resourcecompany.com">leif@resourcecompany.com</a>><br>> <br>>> That said and with the experience of having set on many non-profit and 501c3<br>
>> boards, the job is both easy and difficult at the same time. Status quo and<br>>> smooth waters are easy and stress/issues can be difficult. Orders given to<br>>> change the direction of a battleship take a significant time to see the<br>
>> results. <br>> <br>> Point noted. But we are where we are because suggestions to change course<br>> have been ignored for at least twenty years.<br>> <br>>> A couple of thoughts.<br>> <br>>> * We (SCA Inc.) are incorporated as a protection to the membership.<br>
>> The corporation is a legal entity and thus can bear the brunt of the legal<br>>> attacks. The alternative is the each of us (or the richest of us - not<br>>> me...) could/would be sued instead.<br>> <br>
> Or, perhaps, no one would be sued, because there would not be enough <br>> money in any one place to make a lawsuit worth while. <br>> <br>>> * We are an IRS privileged organization and that can be very<br>
>> difficult to orchestrate.<br>> <br>> On the other hand, we're doing a delicate balancing act between <br>> "educational" and "social" activities, and we need to be careful <br>> not to veer too far toward the "social" side, or there will be IRS <br>
> consequences (possibly including loss of tax deductions, if we<br>> still have them).<br>> <br>>>* The more independent entities (separately filed and managed<br>>> corporations) the larger the overall administrative burden and most likely<br>
>> the larger the expense to the membership as a whole. ( It may not be <br>>> 2*(the admin burden) but it is certainly more that 1 and likely 1.5-1.75 * <br>>> the number of smaller SCA incs but I don't have the operating numbers <br>
>> to support that extrapolation. But to continue the thought, if each kingdom <br>>> were separately run and we can beat the expected burden costs per <br>>> kingdom down to 1.25 ( or 25% of the overall burden as the admin burden <br>
>> for each kingdom), then the overall expense might well is 1 for SCA Inc <br>>> and (.25*19) or almost 5 more admin expenses for a total of 6 times our <br>>> personal membership cost so just using the extra family membership <br>
>> cost of $10/year, the cost would be $60 per year for each membership. <br>>> Whatever the actual numbers the approach strongly suggests a radically <br>>> increased cost base.<br>> <br>> Maybe. And maybe decentralization would actually mean a lower administrative<br>
> overhead - it's quite clear that we have a HUGE administrative overhead as<br>> things are now, and that this situation can only get worse. I'd want some <br>> serious studies run on that, by an independent and unbiased party (if we can <br>
> find one).<br>> <br>>> * We could argue away the central SCA Inc and cut that cost to<br>>> $50/year, but what would it be like to show up at Pennsic with gear that<br>>> didn't meet a common standard? <br>
> <br>> There are already, and for a long time have been, inconsistencies between<br>> Kingdoms as to what is and is not allowed. Having an SCA, Inc has not<br>> made a difference in that respect. Inter-Kingdom activities and agreements<br>
> (including but not limited to Pennsic) have done much more to promote<br>> common standards.<br>> <br>>> How would we maintain commonality and consistency in a distributed<br>>> organization? We know how the winds of Curia blow in our own kingdom...<br>
> <br>> How do other distributed organizations manage?<br>> <br>>> * As a group, the SCA is AMAZINGLY risky from the liability standpoint<br>>> with the activities we like to pursue, be it fighting, or dress/exploration<br>
>> of topics out of the mainstream context. There are huge sexual overtones<br>>> and innuendos frequently. And often that is part of what we do as adults<br>>> that gets complicated when minors are around/engaged.<br>
> <br>> Having or not having a centralized organization will not affect this at all.<br>> Not having a centralized financial source *may* reduce the risk of<br>> lawsuits.<br>> <br>>> * We must remember that a jury of our peers will not mean a jury of<br>
>> SCA peers in a mundane court of law.<br>> <br>> True, but not relevant. I am in fact depending heavily on the totally mundane<br>> right to speak freely without fear of being suppressed by Authority.<br>
> <br>>>* Our board members are people too and as such are inclined to be <br>>> like the rest of us, or at least me in the fact that they will make mistakes.<br>> <br>> They've made some lulus over the years, but at least they reversed the <br>
> very worst one - hiring a total mundane as an Executive Director,who <br>> proceeded to give them disastrously bad advice and impose totally<br>> inappropriate policies. They won't make *that* mistake again, but they <br>
> are quite capable of making other really bad ones.<br>> <br>>> That said, we should, I humbly submit, be hesitant to shoot them as<br>>> messengers of evil and perhaps be better suited to engage them in <br>
>> discussion of our priorities. <br>> <br>> If you don't speak up, they can't hear you. (And if you *do* speak up, <br>> they may ignore you - but at least you will have spoken out.)<br>> <br>>> Just like we get to elect our congressional representatives and then<br>
>> they may run off and do things we disagree with, <br>> <br>> Not a good analogy, as the only input the membership at large gets <br>> into the selection of Board members is their (ignorable) opinions.<br>
> <br>>> we can engage them in dialog about where we think things should go. <br>>> That said, based on our core vision, shouldn't that be done with courtesy <br>>> and the grace of the courtly manner we seek to emulate?<br>
> <br>> Point granted, But I highly resent being asked to pay for the Board's<br>> own mistakes, when my opinion was never asked and would not have<br>> been listened to.<br>> <br>>>* There are serious and complicated issues that the board has to face<br>
>> with insurance and other issues. Clearly this situation has pointed out <br>>> one lesson that needs to be done better or protected differently. <br>> <br>> Let's hope we can come up with better answers - and that it isn't already<br>
> too late.<br>> <br>>> With that context, in my opinion we should make our voices heard by the<br>>> board. Particular points of concern would include how to protect against<br>>> further sexually related suits, how to we limit liabilities across kingdoms,<br>
>> are there organizational changes to be made, and how can we best continue to<br>>> live the vision that we want - with specfics?<br>> <br>>> Unfortunately some of the answers to the questions may be unpleasant to<br>
>> hear. For example, the Boy Scout solution to sexual misconduct is that two<br>>> adults must be present anytime there is a minor/adult interaction. The<br>>> impact of that decision was mandated and it significantly changed the Boy<br>
>> Scout organization - including annual discussions of sexually appropriate<br>>> and inappropriate behaviors and a review process that holds the accused<br>>> guilty until proven innocent removing them from causing further harm.<br>
> <br>> I seem to recall, but I could be wrong, that a similar policy was in fact in <br>> place <br>> <br>> in the SCA at the time of the incidents, that it was violated, and that there <br>> was<br>> no checking up on the situation - by anybody, not even by the parents involved. <br>
> Policy means nothing without verification. ("Trust, but verify" - didn't a US <br>> President say that?)<br>> <br>>> Our culture in the US has complicated the implications of minors being in<br>
>> adult situations. They are adult situations for a reason. When the<br>>> activities are engaged in by adults then they are fairly straightforward.<br>>> When minors become involved actively or even passively, much is complicated.<br>
> <br>> That's been the case since before the (first?) reign of Hanno in the East <br>> Kingdom.<br>> (The East specifically designed a "Hanno clause" into its combat rules to allow <br>> for<br>
> previously authorized minors to continue to participate in adult lists - and <br>> Hanno<br>> promptly entered and won Crown Tourney although he was not old enough to vote.)<br>> <br>> Whenever and wherever age limits are imposed - or changed - there will be <br>
> loopholes. I seem to remember a certain Olympic Gold Medalist in figure skating <br>> who had been "Hannoed" into eligibility because she had competed at Worlds<br>> before the age limit was lowered. (It did not turn out so well for her in the <br>
> long run,<br>> becoming mobility-limited before she was twenty. But she never sued the ISU.)<br>> <br>>> Rebellion...is an unpleasant situation, particularly when there may still be<br>>> points of discussion and opportunity for changing things as they are. The<br>
>> challenge then is to continue to effectively communicate the vision that we<br>>> want to see and find ways to make it viable.<br>> <br>> What I find amazing and disturbing is how rapidly and completely we have <br>
> recapitulated the history of the Original Middle Ages with respect to developing<br>> a central Authority that has ultimate power and must not be questioned or<br>> doubted. Not to put too fine a point on it, I think the Board of Directors has <br>
> evolved into a secular Papacy, complete with the power to excommunicate<br>> (revoke and deny membership). This has had a profoundly chilling effect on<br>> the expression of dissent - and that is not a healthy development.<br>
> <br>> What I wonder is, how long before someone nails Ninety-Five Theses to <br>> whatever door is relevant?<br>> <br>> Medhbhin Liadain, called "Maven"<br>> _______________________________________________<br>
> Moo mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:Moo@lists.stierbach.org">Moo@lists.stierbach.org</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.stierbach.org/listinfo.cgi/moo-stierbach.org">http://lists.stierbach.org/listinfo.cgi/moo-stierbach.org</a><br>
</div>