ANST - Draft of Document for Banishment Commentary

[Leslie Miller]

As Ansteorra's newest representative to the Grand Council, 
I am passing along the following possible changes to banishment 
procedures.  

This is your opportunity to comment on them.  Believe it or not, 
your comments will be considered, and they may make a 
difference as to whether or not these proposed changes are sent to 
the BoD and possibly put into use.  

If you want to send replies to me, I will forward them to the GC list 
if you so specify.

In service, etc.
Gunhilda
------------------------------------------------------------------

>From the Grand Council

The Grand Council, (GC) an advisory committee to the Board, has been asked to
suggest possible changes to banishment procedures (Currently, Corpora
VI.A.1.h.).  The GC developed an outline of possible changes, which  follows.
Before developing a formal proposal based on the outline, we would greatly
appreciate commentary from the Society, so that the proposal can reflect your
desires. If you like some parts but not others, we’d like to hear that too:
this is not yet an all or nothing final proposal. Please try to have
commentary to us by the end of January, 1999. Any comments sent to us will be
posted to the GC list, and then sent to the Board.

Send e-mail to SCAGC-L at LISTSERV.AOL.COM. Or send postal mail for the GC to:
Cyndi Everett-Baskett, PO Box 3460, University, MS  38677 (USA). Or Janna G
Spanne, Nyckelkroken 50, 226 47 Lund, Sweden Fax: +46 46 2224531 attn.: Janna
G Spanne

Anyone that wishes may subscribe to the GC e-mail list. Details on how to
subscribe, and both current banishment rules and proposed changes, are at
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~schuldy/gc/

 Banishment: Outline of Proposed Changes

1) Banishment from the presence (level 1) would be retained without major
changes.

2) Banishment from the realm (level 2) would be deleted as unclear, overused,
and straddling the boundary between medieval recreation and modern
administration.

3) Absolute Banishment (level 3) would be removed as a "medieval" sanction
that may be imposed by royalty without any prior requirements for due process.

4) Offenses against contemporary civil or criminal law that threaten the
Society should be dealt with through the contemporary legal system. Policy
should further emphasize that where a remedy exists under contemporary law,
that should be the preferred solution rather than our own internal procedures.
This would not preclude the Society taking further steps needed to protect
itself while legal action was being pursued, or from accepting suitable
settlement.

5) More serious Society sanctions could only be imposed according to due
process. This would include judgment by an impartial panel, the opportunity to
be informed of the evidence and charges, and to present evidence and testimony
in one's own defense. Sanctions should be proportionate and appropriate to the
offense.

6) Realm Grievance Panels
a)Panels meeting at the realm level could impose sanctions up to and including
a temporary ban on participation. They might also impose censure, warning,
probation, or a ban on holding office, handling Society funds, or taking part
in specific activities.

b)If a serious breach justifies a sanction extending throughout the SCA, Inc.,
or justifies a permanent ban on participation, the recommendation would be
forwarded to the corporate office for final decision.

c)Decisions of the grievance panels could be appealed to the corporate level.
Review would not be automatic, but would need to be based on a failure to
follow Society rules or the relevant requirements of due process. The panel
would collect sufficient records of the proceeding to allow later review.

7) The sanctions in item 6) would be matters of group administration rather
than medieval recreation

8) Where other Society corporations are responsible for their own operations,
their own discipline procedures should be an internal matter. However, they
would be required to offer reasonable due process. If one corporation has a
problem participant who is likely to travel to other jurisdictions, that SCA
corporation would inform the others.

9) The changes above may reduce the time the Board spends reviewing grievance
issues. If the time they must devote to these remains burdensome, they may
also wish to institute a separate review panel at the corporate level.

Galleron de Cressy (Will McLean) Secretary, GC (mclean1382 at aol.com)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.