[Sca-cooks] Peers, Pressuring the BoD

[Elaine Koogler]

----- Original Message -----

> And here I have to object. What would you expect the BoD to do?
>
As I said in a message I sent of a little bit ago this morning, I guess the
idea of having them make a ruling that all SCA sites must be handicapped
accessible, I was going too far.  Perhaps it should be more of a statement
that there should be a reasonable attempt to make them so.  My only thought
was that if it came from the BoD, it might have more of an impact.

I realize that, if I'm to be part of the BoD (and we all know that just a
nomination doesn't make it so), I still have a lot to learn.  But I do feel
that this is the kind of thing that should certainly be considered by the
BoD...what can be reasonably done by them to help make this part of our
population feel that we really do care about them and want to do all we can
to insure their ease and comfort in participating.
> I think it would just stir up a bunch of anti-BoD
> feeling about the BoD trying to force things down the throats
> of the kingdoms, again. How the BoD is not the voice of the
> People, etc, etc.

I fear you are right, here.  But making a strong recommendation for a
reasonable accommodation could still be done and not be "...trying to force
things down the throats of the kingdoms....".
>
> Among other things, the question is accessible to who? How
> severe a disability? In some areas accessible sites may be
> easy to come by. In others, very difficult. Is an accessible
> site one where every square foot is accessible? Or just the
> main event area? Or just some of the site? Pennsic and the
> Gulf Wars site don't meet some of those requirements. Are
> you going to require that the only porta-johns used at
> camping sites be the larger disability accessible ones?
> If not, how do you determine how many is enough and make
> it as an enforceable rule?

I think that this is the sort of thing that people like Muirdeach should be
involved in determining....
>
> Kiri, you are in nomination for a position on the BoD.
> What would you expect them to do? With luck you may get
> that chance.

See my thoughts above....
>
> Don't get me wrong. I think the SCA and those organising
> SCA events should make every effort to choose and or/make
> sites accessible. But I would much prefer a series of
> grass-roots movements to do this, rather than just throwing
> it on the BoD to do. That doesn't mean the BoD can't put
> their reputation behind encouraging the Kingdoms and local
> groups to do this.

And I think that this is exactly what needs to happen...but it won't unless
they know that we want them to.
>
> If my experience with the web side of things is any indication,
> the BoD IS already doing some of this. There is a Corporate
> mandate that official SCA sites meet various disabilities
> access levels.
>
> Unfortunately my own site, the Florilegium, is well behind
> where it should be in converting to a more accessible site.
> Of course if someone would like to help me with this effort,
> I'm always looking for helpers for the Florilegium.
>
> The other thing I have offered to do is put on the Florilegium
> any articles on choosing or making sites more accessible. I
> have explicitly made this requirement to Gorgeous Muiredach
> in the past and it still stands. Admantius mentioned that
> there was an East Kingdom Officer in charge of Accessiblity,
> and I hope other disability issues. If that officer would
> like to write an article about what his office covers, what
> he has managed to accomplish and what didn't work or an
> article on what other similar offices could do, I'd certainly
> consider that for the DISABILITIES section in the Florilegium.
>
> I do have a little information on the silent heraldry that
> someone mentioned:
> SCA-SL-art        (14K)  9/ 8/94    SCA specific sign language.
> sign-lang-msg     (18K)  7/31/01    Sign language in the SCA and in
period.
>
> I can also understand Gorgeous' being upset. A similar situation
> having to do with my eyesight and combat archery currently has
> me reconsidering how active I wish to be in the SCA. It often
> does seem to be easier to say this is just one person with a
> disability. Just tell him he can't do that activity. And then
> when the same issue comes up involving non-handicaped folks
> to ignore the previous decision.

I really appreciate all that you are doing and have done.  I hope my
explanation of my thoughts above will help you and others understand that,
in my dismay over what happend to Muirdeach, I may have over-reacted.
However, I do believe that a strong statement from the "top of the heap"
needs to be made to a)discourage this kind of behavior and b)let the folks
in the SCA who are handicapped know that their participation is welcomed and
that we will try to make every accommodation possible.

Kiri
>