[Ansteorra] Member or Not?
rjt at softwareinnovation.com
Thu Jan 10 09:15:39 PST 2008
Pug gave a clue in his response. They are looking at the membership
requirements for a group as an indicator that the group can field a slate of
officers to operate that group over time. Sustaining members are typically
old enough to be an officer. Since the associate members usually include
family and usually include minors, it is more difficult to assume a count
which includes those represents a reasonable pool for officers. When
including all types of membership, you would have to increase the counts to
preserve the likelihood that there is a pool of officer candidates. Since
the BoD declined to increase the counts to account for this, the Kingdom
believed either they should increase the counts or continue to only count
sustaining members. The later was easier as it was already in place.
If this reasoning is not correct, I expect someone will correct me.
Caelin on Andrede
From: ansteorra-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org
[mailto:ansteorra-bounces at lists.ansteorra.org] On Behalf Of Sir Lyonel
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 10:58 AM
To: Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc.
Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Member or Not?
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
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>
Make distant family not so distant with Windows VistaR + Windows LiveT.
Ansteorra mailing list
Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
More information about the Ansteorra