Membership, Awards, Local Participation
tmcd at crl.com
Wed Jan 15 20:39:50 PST 1997
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Gunnora Hallakarva <gunnora at bga.com> wrote:
> I feel strongly that all officers and those fighting in Crown MUST
> be members, because they have the potential in some or even many
> instances to find themselves representing the SCA, Inc. as an
> officer or as Crown.
The SCA's legal agent represents the SCA, Inc., in more important
causes than any single one of us. They're not a member, so why does
anyone else have to be? (Yes, collectively we all do far more than
one lawyer. Membership is individual, though.) The stock clerk
handles more money than most branch treasurers, and she's not a member
(last I heard about Renee).
> I DO think that we should ENCOURAGE membership by whatever means.
> Let's not require it.
I have no problem with anyone wanting to encourage membership. I'll
just say that, due to history and some thought, I'm not particularly
enamored of the Inc.
Since agreement gets passed over in silence all too often: I agree
wholeheartedly with Mistress Gunnora's points about (non)support of a
local group, that there may be good and honourable reasons for it.
Daniel de Lincoln
Reply-To: tmcd at crl.com
tmcd at mcdaniel.dallas.tx.us is wrong tool. Never use this.
More information about the Ansteorra