Broadside of a Board II - No. 6
n.b-reid at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU
Fri Aug 18 07:42:35 PDT 1995
>Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:07:26 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Flieg Hollander" <flieg at garnet.berkeley.edu>
>To: <sca at mc.lcs.mit.edu>, <ansteorra at eden.com>, <antir at gaia.ucs.orst.edu>,
> <atlantia-l at netcom.com>, <sca-caid at ecst.csuchico.edu>,
> <calontir at unl.edu>, <sca-east at world.std.com>, <sca-middle at dnaco.net>,
> <outlands at alcor.unm.edu>, <sca-west at ecst.csuchico.edu>
>Subject: Broadside of a Board II - No. 6
>Sender: owner-ansteorra at eden.com
>Reply-To: ansteorra at eden.com
>This is being posted to rec.org.sca and to the mailing lists for the
>following Kingdoms: west, east, middle, atlantia, caid, calontir, outlands,
>and antir. Cross posting to other venues is allowed and encouraged.
>Duplication of hardcopy of this Broadside and circulation to non-e-net
>people in all or in part is also encouraged, as long as individual articles
>are left intact.
>Broadside of a Board Vol. II - No. 6
>Purgatorio Coronation Special Edition
>+Broadside+ at the Board Meeting: The Inside Story!
>-- by Frederick of Holland
> I found myself able to attend the Summer meeting of
>the Board of Directors held in Pittsburgh this last 21 and 22 July.
>I found things better than they have been in the past, but at the
>same time there was a discouraging lack of change in some areas.
> I wrote to Johnny Fulton (John Bearkiller), President of
>the Board, and requested permission to attend the Friday
>Working Session of the Board of Directors as a witness and
>potential contributor. This time, unlike previous occasions, I was
>not only _told_ that I could attend, but was actually _allowed_ to
>attend that session (at least most of it.) Also in attendance at the
>open parts of that session were Master Bertram of Bearington,
>Baron Hossein Ali Qomi, the Society Chronicler, the Society
>Marshal and Mark Long (co-chair of the Waiver Committee.) In
>attendance at all parts of the session were the Board, the Society
>Seneschale, the Executive Assistant and Rene! Signoretti, the
>head of Membership Services.
> The Working Session was held in a small conference
>room at the Parkway Inn, where the Board was staying. The
>Session started at 9:00 and lasted until about 5:30 with a short
>break for lunch. There was an Executive Session from about 1:00
>to 4:30 from which we were excluded. I spent much of my time
>taking notes. I have fifteen pages from the Friday Session and
>twenty-two pages from the meeting. The notes are available for
>view at the B.C. information table.
> Of particular interest to me was the establishment of the
>contents of the Executive Session. This included several "Under
>the Rocks" matters brought up by the Society Seneschale (see
>accompanying Editorial). These were discussions of the Nord-
>mark secession movement, a problem in Ansteorra, a possible
>(not actual) banishment in Trimaris, and "a problem in Calontir".
>A.J. Riviezzo, the Treasurer, then asked that the discussion of
>the Budget, on the agenda for the Working Session, be moved to
>Exec. Session "because of salaries". Other Board members
>suggested that discussion of the Budget could be open except for
>the salaries, but A.J. was adamant. He was not overruled.
> Also of interest was the discussion on guidelines for
>attending the Working Session. Lee Forgue had drawn these up
>and there was a deal of discussion on them, clearly divided
>between those who were in favor of more openness and those
>who were not. The final result appears to be that Kingdom Sene-
>schals, Royalty, and Corporate Officers have the right to attend
>if they give proper notification and that members of Board
>Committees and all others must petition for permission to
>atttend. The deadlines for such petitions (and notification of
>intent to attend) are the same as the deadline for commentary to
>be considered at the regular Meeting.
> The regular meeting of the Board was held in the
>basement of a church on Saturday, 22 July. All in all there were
>about 50-60 people in attendance, almost all of them local. The
>only Royalty present were the Prince and Princess of !thel-
>mearc. The meeting started at 9:00 with a one-hour Executive
>Session, went public at about 10:00, broke for lunch at 12:30 with
>an Executive Session from about 1:00 to 2:30 and finally ended
>around 5:45. Items of interest from the Board Meeting are given
>in several articles below. Audience participation was allowed
>more or less freely in the public sessions and there was much
>more give-and-take than in many previous Board Meetings. The
>free lunch, feasting and entertainment provided by the Barony-
>Marche of the Debateable Lands were most excellent.
>Report of the Waiver Committee:
> At the Board Meeting the Waiver Committee made
>their final report. They are done with the U.S. version. They
>emphasized that this is the U.S. version only. (There are other
>groups working on the foreign equivalents.) The text was
>analyzed and the dreaded word "indemnify" was explained in the
>context of the waiver. (Basically it means that if you cannot sue
>the SCA directly, due to the waiver, then you can't collect any
>money via an indirect suit by a third party, either.) Mark Long
>(co-chair of the committee) noted that the waiver needs to be
>periodically reviewed, but it's done for now. There is also a new
>Minor's Waiver. The Committee was thanked for its work.
> The Waiver Committee also suggested that the SCA,
>Inc. needs to keep waivers for at least 7 years, and minor waivers
>until the minor isn't a minor any more. Implementation of the
>new waivers is to be considered by the Board at the October
>meeting. If you have concerns about that implementation, you
>should write to the Board immediately.
>New Waiver Can Be Used Now!
> In a surprisingly sensible move triggered by a question
>from the audience, the Board allowed that the new waiver text
>may be used immediately, in place of the text currently on mem-
>bership forms and site waivers. Your local Seneschal(e) should
>have the new text; ask that it be published, circulated, and used.
>It is a far superior text in terms of your legal rights and interac-
>tion with your insurers. You can sign the new waiver text and
>send it in with your membership form and it will count as a
> Well, it said in the agenda that there was going to be a
>Budget Review. However, what happened was a report on the
>Budget, presented by A.J. Riviezzo, not really a review. There
>were very few questions from the Board, and the report was not
>clear enough for there to be many rational questions or critiques
>from the floor.
> The bottom line was that for the first six months of this
>year Income was ahead of projections (55%) and Expenses were
>behind projections (45%) (this despite the fact that the entire
>liability insurance premium of more than $40,000 was paid in the
>first half of the year). There was no commentary on the Board
>Tax despite the fact that the Budget is solidly in the black.
> Also of note: The Soc. Sen. and Exchequer stipends
>have been moved to Salaries, but as far as I could tell the
>originally budgeted amount for the stipends was not moved to
>the Budget for Salaries. A.J. in several cases claimed he didn't
>have exact figures for expense items. A question from the
>audience about the Kingdom Refunds on the Board Tax revealed
>that A.J. could not tell whether the figure he had for the Board
>Tax ($39,500) was a figure before or after refunds!
>TI and CA Report:
> The Society Chronicler reported that T.I. and the
>Compleat Anachronist should be caught up to schedule by this
>Fall. He publicly apologized for the condition of the Spring
>T.I., which just arrived. He also publicly kissed the feet of the
>new CA editor, Martha Wallenhorst, who is apparently working
>minor miracles with what she was given. This action was greeted
>with cheers and applause from the audience.
>Marketing Committee -- Role of the Stock Clerk
> The report of the Marketing Committee brought about
>a lot of commentary on the role of the Stock Clerk. Should it be
>only a source of official documents you can't get anywhere else
>or should it be a money-making operation for the general
>budget? There was no general consensus either on the Board or
>in the audience. Input is requested from the populace, and there
>is a general survey planned. Look to your T.I. for the survey.
>Board Recruiting Wants Commentary!
> L. Jane Richards once again asked for letters comment-
>ing on the proposed Board Member list and for more volunteers
>to go on the list. There was a public plea for letters of recom-
>mendation for new entries. What is needed is input about the
>people you know, not commentary on the entire list. It was
>emphasized that you do not have to be a Peer or an officer to
>Editorial: UNDER A ROCK?
> Several items of discussion were sent to Executive
>(Secret) Session during both the Board Working Session and the
>Board Meeting itself. These included not only discussion of
>personnel, but also the Budget and three highly political situa-
>tions -- one each in Trimaris, Ansteorra, and Drachenwald. These
>situations were public knowledge to all the non-Board people
>sitting in the room, to a greater or lesser extent. In the case of
>the Drachenwald crisis, the threatened secession of the entire
>Barony of Nordmark (Sweden), there was at least one person
>who was excluded from the Board's discussion who had direct
>knowledge of the situation which the Board did not have! Each
>of these cases was classified by Sedalia as an "Under the Rocks"
> "Under a rock" is where you find disgusting messes, not
>where you should discuss them! Messes found under rocks react
>best to being exposed to fresh air and sunshine! No reasons were
>given for putting the discussions of these matters to the Executive
>Session, no request for input from those present was made, no
>opportunity was given for a parallax view which might open
>discussion on the Board to alternatives.
> It does not seem to us that this is the way to solve a
>problem (such as Drachenwald's) where part of the problem is
>the response of the Board itself. Write to the Board and demand
>sunshine and public discussion!
>Editorial: Budget Matters.
> A couple of issues ago I published a list of questions
>about the SCA, Inc. Budget. I sent a copy of that column to the
>Board for this meeting. The Board "reviewed" the Budget, but
>none of those questions were answered or even addressed. Nor
>was the matter of the Board Tax on the Kingdoms addressed, not
>even to officially extend it. Given that the Board Tax was
>supposedly a temporary measure to balance the Budget, I regard
>the fact that it was not even discussed as prima facie evidence
>that the Board does not intend to remove it, but rather is willing
>to have it drift into being the status quo.
> IS THE BOARD TAX HERE TO STAY? I SAY NO!!
> PREPARE TO RESIST!
> We _can_ resist the Board Tax. Firstly and foremost we
>can write and talk to our Kingdom Officers and ask them to tell
>the Board to "go shove" its Tax. The Tax is an unethical and
>untraditional infringement on the rights of the Kingdoms and
>undermines the traditional support of the SCA,Inc. through
>voluntary donations by its members.
> Secondly we can talk to our local group officers and the
>other people in our areas and encourage them to hold all events
>with "suggested donations" rather than "site fees". This is already
>happening in the West. There is no Board Tax on events without
>a site fee, so this denies the money if not the Tax itself. If people
>remember that our gate contributions make the event possible,
>then there will be little in the way of free-loading.
> We can also encourage the collection of the money as
>a minor tax on everyone, which is what it is, rather than as a
>surcharge on a few. The West is still paying its tax as a lump sum
>and is thus in perfect "compliance". I wish it weren't, but I think
>it's still the second best way of doing it if we won't confront the
> Finally, you can write or call the members of the Board
>who have publicly stated their opposition to the Board Tax, and
>encourage them to vote their consciences and force discussion of
>the Tax at the next meeting. Lee Forgue, Ed Morrill, Ed Kreyling
>and Johnny Fulton have all at one time or another said that they
>oppose the Tax. Help them overthrow it!
>Write the Board! Now!
> There are three items of importance which are supposed
>to be on the agenda of the October Board Meeting, the changes
>in the relationship between the Soc. Sen. and the Exec. Director,
>the sixty day comment period on changes to operations and
>Governing Documents, and implementation procedures for the
>new waivers. The Board also wants opinions on nominees for the
>Board (there will be two new Directors appointed in October).
>So why haven't you written yet? It is important. Do it!
>Where to write:
> SCA Office: SCA, Inc., P.O. Box 360789, Milpitas, CA,
>95036-0789. (If you are writing to the Board you can send your
>letter here. If you write to individual Directors, please send a
>copy to the SCA Office with a clear indication of which Directors
>need not be copied.)
>Board Meeting Coming Up
> The next Board of Directors meeting will be held in
>St. Louis, MO on October 21, 1995. The Friday Working
>Session will be on 20 October. The deadline for commentary
>is 30 September, 1995. That is the date for receipt of letters
>at the Corporate Office, not a postmark date. It is also the
>deadline for applications for people to attend the Friday
>Working Session. (See above.) Hotel: Holiday Inn Airport
>West, St. Louis. Autocrat: Ron Broach, 2420 Laclede Station
>Road #3, Maplewood, MO 63143-1827, (314)781-5123
>(e-mail:broach at twinearth.wustl.edu).
> Further down the road, the January meeting is
>scheduled for January 20, 1996 but the schedule is not yet set
>up for further ahead than that.
>West Kingdom ombudsman
> The West Kingdom ombudsman is: L. Jane Richards,
>2925 South 7th St. West, Missoula, MT, 59801 (406) 721-9658.
>Broadside of a Board is an occasional publication of news and opinions on
>matters concerning the Board of Directors of the SCA, Inc. and its vari-
>ous Kingdoms. We welcome contributions by any subject of the Crowns
>of the Known World. All opinions contained herein are those of the au-
>thors. Unattributed commentary and news was written by the publisher.
>The publisher is Frederick of Holland, (Flieg Hollander), 3334 California
>Street, Berkeley, CA 94703. (510) 653-3652 e-ad-
>dress:flieg at garnet.berkeley.edu This issue is Volume II, No. 6. The next
>issue is scheduled for October Crown.
> * * * Frederick of Holland, MSCA, OP, etc.
> *** *** *** flieg at garnet.berkeley.edu
> (((Flieg Hollander, Chem. Dept., U.C. Berkeley)))
> ================== Old Used Duke =================
> [All subjects of the Crown are equal under its protection
> and no Corporation is going to convince me otherwise.]
More information about the Ansteorra