SCA corporate antics, again

[cellio]

On Saturday, the SCA Inc board of directors apparently voted to reinstate a $3-per-event surcharge on each attending non-member. This charge is payable to the corporation; note that, otherwise, event fees are not. This will start January 1, and implementation details will be forthcoming. They did this several years ago and eventually repealed it because it was so divisive; I cannot imagine why they have chosen to restart that argument.

I am not a member of the corporation, for philosophical reasons. I am uncertain how I will respond to this new move. It will probably involve reduced participation. I am pesimistic that even my local group will push back, let alone my kingdom or other local groups near me. Too many people seem to think that the corporation enables the SCA to exist, but really, it's the local groups. The organization is run on volunteer labor, not membership dollars.

There are two primary reasons that I am not an SCA member. The lesser is that, when they implemented compulsory membership for any degree of participation, which was a move at odds with 30+ years of custom, they accomplished that change by making an illegal change in the bylaws of the corporation. In the eight and a half years since then they have not rescinded or reversed that illegal change. Requests that they address the issue have gone unanswered. It does not matter if they would ever act on that change again; they have left the door open to it and they did not follow the rules in opening that door. This is a stumbling block for me.

The greater reason is that I am bothered by the corporate tendency to assert ownership over that which it does not provide. This new tax, for example, is supposed to be in payment for the services the SCA Inc renders for events -- but it's way out of whack. (Something under a quarter per attendee would be about right.) The corporation does not provide events; local groups do, without any corporate money. Local groups bear all of the risk. The SCA is, financially, a confederation of independent local groups, with rules that come down from above. Over the years the corporation has bullied local groups that wanted to do things differently, to the point where most groups have caved.

There are other areas where the corporation regulates what it does not actually provide -- newsletters, web sites, structure of local groups, and more. It's one thing to say, for example, "we provide the web server so you'll follow these rules", but in fact what happens is that some volunteer provides a web site for his local group, on his own server, and the corporation tells him that in order to provide this service he must follow these rules and purchase a membership in the corporation. There has been more and more of this sort of thing over the last ten years or so. I don't want to help fund a corporation that behaves in this way. It is the classic case of a corporation that was created to serve its members but now expects its members to serve it.

It is most definitely not about the money; every year I donate several times the cost of a membership to my local group and kingdom, and Pennsic for that matter. (Pennsic imposes a surcharge on non-members that equals the cost of the basic membership, but I'd rather give the money to Pennsic than to the corporation.)

Comments

From the Pennsic class schedule:

[tangerinpenguin.livejournal.com]

The Corporation and You ["SCA Life" track]
Melisande de Belvoir
2:00 PM 8/14/02
A&S 3
No limit, no fee, 2 hours

Ever wonder what the SCA, Inc. does with your membership fee? Or who's on the Board of Directors and how they got there and what they do? Or whether your opinnions really matter? Come discuss these and other issues with Directors and Officers of the Corporation.

Re: From the Pennsic class schedule:

[cellio]

Yup, should make for an interesting discussion. (However, note that Dani spent 6+ years as nominal head of the finance committee and he couldn't figure out how the corporate finances work, either. The sloppy bookkeeping didn't end after the troubles of 1994.)

[fiannaharpar.livejournal.com]

I maintain an official membership for a couple of reasons, neither of which being affection for the BoD, nor agreement with their practices.

The $3 surcharge is bullshit. I have a feeling that if we stopped paying the few salaries that we *do* pay and either move the offices somewhere cheaper or eliminate them all together, we would have the money that they seem to think that we need. The other problem is, what recourse would the BoD really have if people refused to do it?

*feh* dumbass policies serve no one.

[cellio]

The corporation is run very inefficiently, and the board lacks either the will or the knowledge to fix it. They have said at times that they're afraid to act because the office manager, who is the "only person" who knows how some stuff is done, might leave -- so instead they approve spending vastly more than it ought to cost to run such an operation. (The office manager has apparently refused instructions that she document her processes and account for her staff's time. Astonishing!)

There is a basic rule in business: if you have an employee who is truly indispensable -- fire him. He will leave some day anyway, and while he stays then either he can blackmail you or you will kow-tow to him. Better to bite the bullet early; you're going to bite it eventually anyway.

As for what recourse the BoD has if people refuse: this one is so clever that you've got to admire 'em for it, because they actually got the local groups to turn over the means to manipulate them. You know how every local group has a bank account, because each group is responsible for its own funds (and liabilities)? Well, several years ago the SCA Inc said to the groups that in order to maintain our tax status, they had to put all of those accounts in the name of "SCA Inc, [local branch name]". The vast majority did so, and those who did not were bullied until they gave in. Then, the corporation said "in order to protect against fraud, you must allow the kingdom treasurer to have signatory authority" (the ability to sign checks) -- and again, groups did so or were bullied until they did. The corportion, of course, controls the appointment of the kingdom treasurers.

At any time, therefore, the corporation can raid all of the local accounts. This would currently net them a few million dollars. They wouldn't do that, but do you think they might freeze the assets of a particular group if that group refused to cooperate with corporate dictates? They can at any time.

If a group decides that it doesn't care to support the corporation but instead would like to buy insurance coverage and whatnot on its own, taking the tax hit, the corporation can seize all of their money and all of their assets that were bought with group money. Baronial coronets and thrones? Gone. Baronial pavillions, cooking equipment, loaner armor, archery equipment? Gone. Yes, a group could rebuild, but it would be time-consuming and expensive -- so there would always be a vocal part of the group saying "paying the Dane-geld isn't so bad" and arguing against disentangling the money.

[cellio]

Kwelland-Njal's notes from the meeting are here:
http://members.aol.com/vnendid//20020720_SCA_Board_Meeting.html