[Ansteorra] Ansteorra Digest, Vol 21, Issue 73
Ruth Rolston
lrolston at hot.rr.com
Mon Jan 14 12:02:48 PST 2008
Shirley,
On to the business at hand. You will remember I erased all my stuff. Could
you send me a copy of the letter we sent out to Pastoral Candidates this
time last year? We are starting our work with the Taylor Group. Thanks.
Ruth
----- Original Message -----
From: <ansteorra-request at lists.ansteorra.org>
To: <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:43 PM
Subject: Ansteorra Digest, Vol 21, Issue 73
> Send Ansteorra mailing list submissions to
> ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> ansteorra-request at lists.ansteorra.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> ansteorra-owner at lists.ansteorra.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Ansteorra digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS (Elizabeth Blackthorne)
> 2. Re: Performance event (was Bards, Brewers, and Cooks (now
> with shopping!) ) (Michael Gunter)
> 3. Re: Regions and thier population base (ksullivan6 at cox.net)
> 4. Re: Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS (David Whitford)
> 5. Re: Closed Meetings (george basore)
> 6. Re: Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS (Robert Fitzmorgan)
> 7. Re: Closed Meetings, cont. (george basore)
> 8. Chivalric fighting at Candlemas (michael young)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:08 -0600
> From: "Elizabeth Blackthorne" <eblackthorne at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS
> To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Message-ID:
> <e9159a790801141115u2b75f31ahd7a35078abdb7f40 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Your Grace,
> I can speculate on that answer and it makes sense. It is hard to get all
> of
> these people together because our Kingdom is so large. These officers
> were
> most likely going to be there anyway, so it makes the most sense to get
> business accomplished when they will be together than to try to create a
> new
> place and time to do this that is convenient to everyone.
> Just a speculation, this is in no way to be considered fact.
> L.Elizabeth Blackthorne
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 1:05 PM, willowdewisp at juno.com <willowdewisp at juno.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What I don't understand is why have it at King's Round Table. You invite
>> all the officers to share their impute and then tell them you are having
>> a
>> "closed meeting". Isn't that like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
>> As
>> far as I know it is not necessary to publish these kinds of meetings so
>> couldn't you have your "closed meeting" someplace where no one will
>> notice?
>> willow
>>
> --
> Plant a tree...We have more paperwork!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:18:24 -0600
> From: Michael Gunter <countgunthar at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Performance event (was Bards, Brewers, and
> Cooks (now with shopping!) )
> To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY121-W3319147D4C1C93A1725D00DF460 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>> The Bardic Competition is held during the evening feast,
>>with the specific goal that their bardic champion (Troubadour)
>>be one who can command the attention of the table for > which they are
>>performing, above the noise of the crowd,
>>other performers, and through the distraction of courses being
>>served. The bards who have won, rose to this challenge in
>>spectacular fashion.
> That's exactly what I look for in a "True" bard.
> Many, many, many years ago when I was knighted at the last
> Steppes Warlord to be held at Camp Burnett of the fond memory,
> I issued a bardic challenge. The challenge was for a bard to
> be able to enter the main party place and do a piece so well
> that the rowdy drunks shut up and listened. The prize was
> a coin dating to the Second Crusade that was found in a
> section of excavated wall in Jerusalem.
>
> A bard walked away with the coin as well.
>
>> I think you would enjoy it, too, > and I encourage you to attend later
>> this year!
> Sounds like fun. I'll have to pencil it onto my calendar.
>> Zubeydah Jamilla al-Badawiyyah> Northern Region
> Gunthar
> _________________________________________________________________
> Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.
> http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:20:33 -0500
> From: <ksullivan6 at cox.net>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Regions and thier population base
> To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Message-ID: <20080114142033.AJAIP.4850.root at eastrmwml05.mgt.cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Robin,
> yes you are right the min # for a shire is 5 sustaning members.
> the # for the 5 groups being desbanded are:
> for 8/1/07
> Adlersruhe 9
> Am Loch 5
> Blacklake 7
> Crossrode Keep 6
> Mendersham 8
> And if you go back to '92 Am Loch is the only one who ever droped below
> min. and that was just 1 report period the next report they where back to
> min.
> one of the stated reasons for disbanding these groups was membership . Now
> unless the membership #'s on the seneschal's page are wrong , they are
> being held to a higher standard.
> Alix
> --
> Work hard,keep the ceremonies,live peaceably, and unite your hearts.
> (Hopi)
>
> ---- Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net> wrote:
>> Alix wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Well I have been watching the descusions on the size of the area
>> > formerly known as the Western Region, all the comments have been
>> > on the acutal land of the area combaried to the other Regions, so I
>> > thought I would look at the population bases of the Regions and
>> > the number of SCA memberships in each Region.
>>
>> That may be a fun game, but it won't change the actual rules. Branch
>> requirements are not based on a per-capita basis. Only the SCA people
>> count. The hundreds of thousands of people who aren't in the SCA have no
>> effect on branch status, for obvious reasons.
>>
>> > For the population base I used the numbers on a web site called
>> > city-data.com.the SCA member # are from the Ansteorran web site
>> > the # from Aug 07.
>> > Here is what I found.
>> > Central has 452 SCA members and a population base of 4,159,371 this is
>> > a
>> > per capita of 11 members per 100k
>> > Coastal has 430 SCA members and a population base of 2,699,390 this is
>> > a
>> > per capita of 16 members per 100k
>> > Northern has 466 SCA members and a population base of 1,440,981 this
>> > is
>> > a per capita of 32 members per 100k
>> > Southern has 409 SCA members and a population base of 2,429,883 this
>> > is
>> > a per capita of 17 members per 100k
>> > Western has 106 SCA members and a population base of 835,511 this is a
>> > per capita of 13 members per 100k
>> > Now some of you are going to say that Western does not have viable # 's
>> > well acording to Capora a Knigdom need 400 members a principality needs
>> > 100 a Barony 25, shires and cantons need 5.
>> > Now just because I thought it would be intersesting I took the numbers
>> > one step further, and took the membership #'s and pop base #'s for
>> > Crossroadkeep and took that per capita to see what other groups should
>> > have as memberships if they had the same per capita memberships ,here
>> > are
>> > just a few,
>> > Elfsea 358 they have 141
>> > Stepps 893 they have 117
>> > Staregate 708 they have 115
>> > Northkeep 138 they have 115
>> > Bjornsborg 428 they have 105
>> >>From the numbers is appears that the Western Region is being held to a
>> >>higher standard of memberships.
>>
>> Not at all. You can't change the requirements and then draw any
>> conclusions from that.
>>
>> You have documented that the Western region has roughly 1/4 as many
>> members
>> as any other region, and fewer people than several baronies. Look at the
>> actual count, not the "per-capita" figures. You have also documented
>> that
>> the other region in a similar situation, the North, has more than met the
>> challenge, maintaining more than twice as many members per capita than
>> the
>> rest of us. With no major metropolitan areas, they nonetheless maintain
>> four baronies and a province. Nobody else is even close. Vivat
>> Nordsteorra!
>>
>> If you wish to maintain that the requirements are harder to meet in less
>> populous areas, well, of course -- nobody ever suggested otherwise. Yes,
>> it's harder to maintain numbers in a smaller population. Bordermarch has
>> struggled with this problem for decades. But that doesn't mean they are
>> held to a "higher standard"; it means the standard won't be lowered.
>> There's no branch in Quinlan, Texas for exactly this reason. Elfsea was
>> a
>> shire for years while Steppes was a barony because it takes longer to
>> build
>> in a smaller population pool. Now they've passed us in membership. They
>> didn't need lowered standards; they met the challenge and surpassed their
>> elder sister.
>>
>> The minimum remains 5 sustaining members for a shire and 25 sustaining
>> members for a barony, and the standard remains sufficient qualified
>> officer
>> pools and meeting the reporting requirements.
>>
>> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ansteorra mailing list
>> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:27:51 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Whitford <dbw6969 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS
> To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Message-ID: <188425.94368.qm at web30109.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> In the court system the duties and rights off the
> baliff are defined. The judge can also have everyone
> removed from the gallery for sensative testimony. A
> court is not an open meeting.
> R
> --- bsmall at suddenlink.net wrote:
>
>>
>> ---- David Whitford <dbw6969 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > You suggest have a Sgt at Arms to inforce a quiet
>> rule
>> > and/or remove disruptive elements, yet by the very
>> > reasoning you feel you should be allowed into the
>> > meeting then sgt at arms has no right to remove
>> you.
>>
>> There's nothing wrong with that logic. In the real
>> world, there are public trials, are you suggesting
>> that the judge shoudn't have the right to have the
>> bailiff remove disruptive elements? It happens all
>> the time and no one seems to have a problem with
>> that. Why should this be different?
>>
>> Ansgar
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ansteorra mailing list
>> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
>>
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:29:05 -0800 (PST)
> From: george basore <murray_kinsman at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Closed Meetings
> To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> Message-ID: <569071.93111.qm at web35209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Dear Gentles of Ansteorra,
> I have been following this thread closely, and it
> seems to me that some people have misunderstood the
> situation.
> In explaining that some metings require being closed
> due to sensitive information being involved, Master
> Phelim Gervase tried to expain that such information
> REQUIRES that the meeting in question be losed, due to
> stipulatios covered in the Privacy Act
> (ie. Federal Law). He also pointed out that the ,non-
> sensitive, financial and other information WILL be
> made public shortly thereafter.
>
> This issue is aready turning into a tempest in a
> teapot,needlessly.
> Folks, we all need to step back, take a deep breath,
> and and think about this carefully.
> It is not a matter of the information
> "inconvenient".
> The information REQUIRED
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Looking for last minute shopping deals?
> Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
> http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:29:32 -0600
> From: "Robert Fitzmorgan" <fitzmorgan at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Transparency. was CLOSED MEETINGS
> To: "Kingdom of Ansteorra - SCA, Inc." <ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org>
> Message-ID:
> <52f0db3e0801141129j645b582ew53f06c5bafb48daa at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> So there are times when closed meeting are appropriate? So who gets to
> decide if this is one of those times? I would suggest the people who have
> the information and know what is going to be discussed are in a better
> position to decide than those who do not know what is going to be
> discussed.
> As someone who has held several offices, there have been times when I
> was privy to other peoples private information, and I was obligated to
> respect their confidence. There have been several times when I had to
> discuss with other officers things which cast some people in a bad light.
> I
> prefer to to do that in private when possible.
> Some things have to be handled in a private meeting. Some things are
> better handled in a private meeting. And some things should be handled
> publicly.
> That being said I feel that secrecy should be used sparingly. My
> experience in the SCA is that some people have a bad reaction to secrecy.
> At times when some are feeling distrust of their leadership, secrecy can
> often create more problems than it prevents. It's always a judgement
> call.
>
> Robert Fitzmorgan
>
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 10:40 AM, Richard Yeager <chuymonstre at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> It is obviously not about transparency if the proceeding are closed. As
>> I
>> indicated earlier. It may be more convenient for the officials involved.
>> And the end product may be "presented" to the public later. It is still
>> a
>> very poor business practice for a non-profit organization. You can
>> announce
>> that no questions or comments will be allowed from non-GOofS members.
>> Even
>> have a "Sargent at Arms" to enforce the no questions rule. But at least
>> the
>> process is held in the open where all of the discussion and arguments can
>> be
>> seen. Otherwise you will always have the suspicion of "What were you
>> hiding?"
>>
>> I have heard from several officers (Baronial and Kingdom) lately talk
>> about not holding some discussions publicly because "things will get out
>> of
>> hand". Will some people go off on weird tangents or possibly bog things
>> down with what the officers feel are irrelevant? Possibly. Hell,
>> Likely.
>> That can still be handled diplomatically and things can be kept
>> functioning. Is it more of a pain for the people holding the discussions
>> or
>> making the decisions? Absolutely, at least initially. But it may save
>> other problems in the long run. Other than the reasons previously
>> stated, I
>> can think of no reason that ANY discussions are held behind closed doors.
>> Even if most of us have no choice but to accept the decision made by
>> others
>> in those discussions.
>>
>> We may be trying to re-create a medieval setting where sovereigns and
>> landed nobility could make decisions affecting the population at large,
>> without concern about informing the populace of the decision-making
>> process.
>> The reality of the situation is that we are a member-supported
>> organization. As much as the crowns and nobles might wish, they cannot
>> have
>> irritating elements of the populace sanctioned for disagreeing with them.
>> Convenience, expediency, and officer comfort aside, as members we have a
>> right to know what is being discussed and why.
>>
>> Cuan
>>
>>
> --
> "If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been
> much
> of a day." John A. Wheeler
>
> Fitzmorgan at gmail.com
> Yahoo IM: robert_fitzmorgan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:38:18 -0800 (PST)
> From: george basore <murray_kinsman at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Ansteorra] Closed Meetings, cont.
> To: ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> Message-ID: <455097.59737.qm at web35212.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Sorry about the interruption, my computer sometimes
> has too many moving parts.
>
> As I was saying, some information is REQUIRED by law
> to be protected from public dissemination needlessly.
>
>
> Ld. Robert Haddock
> (MKA, George A. Basore, Sr., US Navy, retired)
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:43:45 +0000
> From: michael young <uther42 at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [Ansteorra] Chivalric fighting at Candlemas
> To: ansteorra ansteorra <ansteorra at ansteorra.org>
> Message-ID: <BAY111-W11D9CABECF6C3D5DBEDD8BB7460 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
>
> To celebrate the new found peace between the Saxons and the Danes a series
> of Chivalric "Friendship Games" are planned at Bryn Gwylad's Candlemas
> Event:
>
> Demonstrations of Individual Prowess:
>
> This will be similar to a "bear pit" format, but with several timed
> segments fought in different weapon styles of the period including short
> spear and round shield, ax/mace and round shield, slashing spear (unpadded
> glaive) and whatever other styles strike the fancy of the Marshal in
> Charge.
>
> Demonstrations of Group Prowess:
>
> Saxons vs the Danes in match of Ogre Ball. In the spirit of the event,
> early period weapon/shield styles are strongly encouraged, but not
> required.
>
> Demonstrations of Brotherly Love:
>
> "I went to a Saxon melee and a feast broke out..." In this melee
> scenario, all combatants will begin seated at tables. All weapons larger
> than a dagger will begin the melee "sheathed". Any Shields or two handed
> weapons will begin the melee placed at the edge of the fighting field
> (walls of the feast hall). Any Feast table item--food, eating daggers,
> goblets, serving trays, etc that can be made chivalric combat legal and
> safe will be allowed. Please be creative and have fun.
>
> I hope to have this be a relaxed and fun day of fighting. I strongly
> encourage all fighters to adopt a Danish or Saxon fighting persona for the
> day. Round shields and short spears will be available to borrow. Bring
> gauntlets if you have them.
>
> Feel free to e-mail me with any questions.
>
> Uther
> Chivalric fighting coordinator
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista? + Windows Live?.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ansteorra mailing list
> Ansteorra at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/ansteorra-ansteorra.org
>
>
> End of Ansteorra Digest, Vol 21, Issue 73
> *****************************************
>
More information about the Ansteorra
mailing list