ANST - Site rules and new NFP corp.

[James Crouchet]

On 30 Apr 98, Stephanie Edwards wrote:

> I'm not convinced another NFP with another bod would be any better. 
> This still boils down to a small group of people making rules
> everyone must be able to abide by. This still leaves the questions
> I listed about how rules are established and what to do if an SCA
> group does not follow the rules.

Absolutely. However, it does have the advantage that the control is 
LOCAL, it is dedicated to that one purpose (thus less likely to 
dispose of the one asset on which it's existence is based) and it is 
free to make very Texas, Oklahoma and/or Ansteorra specific rules 
without conflicting with other State or even other National laws.

Of all of these, I think the local control is the most important.

Rules about site use, penalties for misuse, etc. and enforcing the 
same are exactly the kinds of duties the new NFP would perform.

> Also, do the bod members have to be SCA members?  If not, would
> they one day decide they don't want the SCA there anymore? 

That, along with how BoD members are chosen, if there are members 
(and if so, how one becomes a member), how rules are put in place 
(i.e. vote of membership, whim of the BoD or some combination) and a 
variety of other issues would be the subject of the charter and the 
bylaws. Your comments seem to indicate that you would prefer some 
sort of kingdom wide voting/polling, at least before any major 
changes. A new NFP can be set up that way.

Yes, this would be a lot of paperwork to establish, but I can't help
but think that we would do at least as good a job as the SCA has
done (could we actually learn from past mistakes?) and that a LOCAL
organization would be more responsive and subject to OUR influence. 

Christian Dore
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.