[Ansteorra] pay and play

[Harris Mark.S-rsve60]

Clare said:
> Well, I have to say that the pay and play 3.00 surcharge is
> not surprising
> since it is the easy way out.  The Board doesn't have to
> stretch it's legs
> and go look for an alternative way of getting money.  It's
> far easier to
> tax it's participants than it is to go find grants and awards
> for groups.

Why are you saying this is the easiest way out? It has certainly
stirred up a lot of accusations against the BoD in the day or
so it has been discussed here.  Doesn't sound like the easy
way out to me.

They have asked several times for input from the membership
about what we would like to see done. Did you write them? Are
they overlooking an "easy way" out of this situation that you
or someone else has suggested that you are aware of? If so, then
write them again, or consider other avenues to get it out to
the SCA membership. They can't act on something they are
unaware of.

> Having taken several classes in grant writing for my mundane
> job as well as
> having a number of friends who work at various schools and
> museums, I am
> astonished at the amount of grants and loans that the SCA
> could solicit and
> perhaps achieve.  But the Board would rather do the "easy" thing and
> penalize people who for one reason or another are not members
> but are often
> times some of our hardest workers.

If you were astonished at the amount of grants available, then
why do you assume the BoD, who have probably not had access to
the class you have had, would not also be in the dark about this?
They may have picked the best from what was on the table. If it
is not on the table, you can't criticize them for not picking it.
Why didn't you do something to get it on the table?

Even if we go with what the BoD has seems to have decided upon,
access to these grants (I can't see where loans would help, since
they still must be repaid) would still help in the future and
perhaps other changes that you wouldn't like.

Please do the research and send any useable info to the BoD.
They seem to be open to such information. They are not
"all seeing".

> At a time when a weekend event costs 10 to sometimes 15.
> dollars and having
> an additional 3.00 tacked on it might make new people more
> hesitate about
> joining or seeing if they would like the group.

So, you'd rather see the dues go up to cover the costs of
those who participate but can't (or won't) pay? That is
certainly a legitimate opinion but not necessarily one I
would go for.

On the other hand, $3 to be able to check out an SCA event
is much cheaper than having to pay $25 for a membership to
do the same thing.

Hmmm. I'm looking for a new car, but can't decide which
one right now. If you know any dealers that would let me
drive one around for a few months, or even a single event
err weekend, for free, I'd really like to hear about them.
(I'm looking at Toyotas, Hondas and Mazdas.)

> Perhaps the Board is
> looking to reduce membership and make a more elitist SCA for
> people who can afford it.

Now, that is a pretty strong accusation. Do you have any
proof for this?

> Clare who is quite jaded at the SCA at the moment.

Stefan li Rous