[Sca-cooks] Midrealm News regarding royalty OT OP

[Ian Kusz]

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Nick Sasso <grizly at mindspring.com> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> > In defense of the BoD, what happens the next time someone has almost the
> > same situation----perhaps not quite as severe a medical emergency?  Will
> > the BoD have to review every combat to make sure all is as it should be?
> > And, most importantly, was it so critical for this couple to be King and
> > Queen that they were willing to circumvent this simple and basic SCA
> > requirement, that of membership?
> >
>
> A while back, the BOD asked what it would take to make people
> well-disposed to the SCA.inc and the BOD. Unfortunately, as long as they
> consider the SCA.Inc and the BOD a governing body rather than a membership
> organization, I think they will have trouble getting loyalty for all but
> their direct reports. This is the way it works with governing
> organizations -- the people they look after are positive toward them, the
> people they enforce things on are negative toward them. > > > > > > >
>
>
> It does sound on the very surface like picking nits over a 3-day lapse.
> But, fighting in a Crown Tournament involves qualifications, regulations
> and
> being granted a priviledge.  It is a sad set of circumstances that I hope
> can be resolved, but I have to fall back to a position that no one has an
> inherent  "right" to participate in a crown tournament.  It is not the
> coporate responsibility to give everyone a chance to participate . . . in
> my
> small little mind, it is their job to interpret the rules and apply them
> evenly (and hopefully with a modicum of wisdom and heart) so as to keep the
> corporate entity intact, and it is seldom there is a true winner when
> appeal
> is made to a legal appeal entity.
>
> Herein lies a critcal rub in the whole existance of this organization and a
> Board of Directors.  The SCA tries to exists in both the legal world and
> the
> casual membership world.  The BoD has a fiduciary responsibility to protect
> the Corporation and its members from potential ficscal and legal
> liabilities
> . . . especially in the litigious culture of 2000's.  Unfortunately, that
> means they will have to make decisions that are counter to the social and
> casual desires of the paying members/subscribers of the SCA.  If the BoD
> takes action or decision that is contrary to their responsibilities, or the
> policy and procedures of the corporation, they potentially expose
> themselves
> to legal anf financial liability.
>
> niccolo difrancesco
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sca-cooks mailing list
> Sca-cooks at lists.ansteorra.org
> http://lists.ansteorra.org/listinfo.cgi/sca-cooks-ansteorra.org
>

Well, actually, I recently had a contact with a legally-organized,
real-world organization.  I had a doctor's bill I owed, and was on a payment
plan.

I missed a payment due to digitalis poisoning (apparently, there was a drug
recall, and I was taking double doses), and the lab was very understanding,
and reinstated me on my payment plan.

If you think about it, I was being given a privilege, here; that of not
paying it all up front.  And this office has to meet legal responsibilities,
too, since it's a legally-organized corporation.  So, if even mundane
organizations can be flexible, doesn't the "legal organization" argument for
the BOD's inflexibility go away?

I mean, if it says "at their discretion," that means they can use that
discretion as they see fit...and it's already incorporated into policy.

Not that I'm complaining about the BOD.  I just don't think that particular
argument is very useful.

-- 
Ian of Oertha