[Ansteorra] Member or Not?
Sir Lyonel Oliver Grace
sirlyonel at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 10 08:57:30 PST 2008
Part of what confuses everyone over this matter of which memberships get counted in the populace tallies is the rule fluctuations in the last few years. As was noted earlier, Ansteorra was involved in the experiment under which every membership counted in the tallies. When the experiment ended, Ansteorra apparently reverted to counting only subscribing members. Shortly after the experiment, however, the SCA governing documents were changed to remove the adjective 'subscribing' from member requirements for local branch minimums. The Ansteorran Kingdom Law was not changed to match the SCA governing documents.
Master Pug's post makes it clear that he and Their Majesties have been interpreting the SCA governing document membership requirements as a minimum. As a kingdom, we are allowed to make our requirements more restrictive. Sir Burke posited his rebuttal of this interpretation earlier:
While we can make things more restrictive in some cases (like requiring that groups have more officers or greater membership counts) we can not countermand Society Law. Preventing groups of members from counting would not be considered more restrictive but would be considered countermanding.
Honestly, I can't see Sir Burke's point. If--by his admission--it would be okay to require greater membership counts, why is it not acceptable to require that greater membership count by counting only subscribing members?
In any case, does anyone know our rationale for retaining the subscribing member counting scheme? Did someone actually decide to leave the Kingdom Law that way based on a specific goal, or was it just an oversight that is being enforced simply because it's there?
Impedimentum via est
(The obstacle is the path)
> From: colin at mccr.org> To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 09:33:09 -0600> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Member or Not?> > On Thursday 10 January 2008, Jay Rudin wrote:> > You will not be counted as a sustaining member unless you buy a sustaining> > membership. Only sustaining memberships sustain the local branches in> > Ansteorra, and you were never told otherwise.> >> > The membership requirements for shires and baronies, since I joined in the> > 1970s, have been based on sustaining memberships. You will not be counted> > as a sustaining member unless you buy a sustaining membership. This is not> > "unfair"; this is not denying your rights. This is simply part of the> > rules of the game.> > After seeing the governing documents as quoted elsewhere in this discussion, I > see that you are indeed correct. However, I would also point out that this > information is very well hidden. To the ordinary person filling out the > membership form the only difference between sustaining and associate is > whether you receive the kingdom publication. I believe Rose's point, and > indeed my lady is in the same position, is that if they knew of this > difference they would have opted to get a sustaining membership.> > I do agree it's not up to SCA Corporate to identify this distinction since it > is Ansteorra-specific, but I also find it significant that the difference is > so well hidden that even some kingdom officers did not know it.> > Colin> _______________________________________________> Ansteorra mailing list> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™.
More information about the Ansteorra