![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
frogs in the SCA
The SCA is kind of like that.
Once upon a time, some SF fans in California founded a club. It was pretty informal. A year or two later, some folks in New York got together to do the same kinds of things, and they called themselves the east-coast branch of the same club. Things were still pretty informal. Then, a couple years after that, somebody decided that things were too informal and what we really needed was a corporation to manage the club. (Cue ominous music here.)
Over the decades, the corporation has grown and gradually assumed more control over the everyday operations of the local groups. Once upon a time, all you had to do was report up the chain about what your group was doing. The corporation didn't really provide any services to local groups, but it also didn't demand much so that seemed ok.
But over time people wanted more uniformity, so the corporation started requiring local groups to have certain officers, who would report to corresponding corporate officers. And because no bureaucrat is ever happy if he has nothing to do, those officers started coming up with more and more rules that local groups had to follow.
Mind, the corporation still wasn't doing a heck of a lot for local groups. But the groups complied, because the whole process was very gradual. Each individual demand seemed inoffensive to most people, and nobody listened to the Cassandras who thought this wasn't a good idea.
About ten or fifteen years ago the corporation did something very clever, in a Machiavellian sort of way. They required that local groups put all their money in bank accounts in the name of "SCA Inc", with the corporate tax ID. This was, allegedly, to cut down on fraud and improve accounting. What it really does, however, is to hand over group assets to the corporation. Any local group that, in the future, decides to take its toys and go elsewhere -- to another re-creation group, or to a new corporation -- will find that it has no toys. Mind, the corporation didn't supply those toys, nor the money. Things like regalia are generally donated by artisans to the local group, and money is raised by local fund-raising efforts or locally-produced events. What the corporation provides there is (1) a liability policy of questionable utility to cover events (e.g. if you damage the rental hall), and (2) tax-deductability of your direct donations, because it's a 501(c)(3).
Also over the last fifteen years or so, the corporation has gradually increased membership requirements. You see, the corporation, unlike most 501(c)(3) corporations, doesn't do any corporate-level fundraising. No grants, no mass-mailings to the public, nothing. The corporation is funded entirely by dues paid by people who want to be members of teh corporation. If members don't think they're getting anything for that money, some of them don't renew. And the corporation is lousy at PR. So membership income has been going down, costs have been going up (largely avoidable costs, by the way), and the corporation is feeling the pinch.
So, gradually, they have moved from the "chartible organization, voluntary donation" model to the "you owe us" model. It used to be that only a few officers were required to be members, and they were mainly the people who could cause legal trouble for the organization if they screwed up. But now lots of people are required to be members. And if a group doesn't comply, well, you know that bank account you used to have?
But something else has happened at the same time. Somehow, paying dues to the corporation became a patriotic obligation of people who wanted to participate in the society. Never mind that the society we know -- the events, the feasts, the classes, the tourneys, even the newsletters -- are produced by volunteers just like you and me, not by the corporation. If an event loses money, it's the local group that has to absorb that; the corporation doesn't blink.
Required membership can go only so far; in 1994 they tried to require membership for any participation in society events, and that got shouted down. But many people (these same patriots) believe that non-members are "freeloaders" who don't do their share, so it's perfectly reasonable to charge non-members more to attend events (even when the non-members spend the day washing dishes and the members sit around gabbing with their friends). They liken it to belonging to a museum, which nets you a discount on admission, but they forget that in that case it is the museum that incurs the expenses of being open. In the SCA, the presence of a non-member at an event does not cost the local group any extra money. And, again, it is not the corporation that pays for events, so membership is really irrelevant.
For about a year, the corporation assessed a $3-per-event surcharge on non-members. (A typical event, with dinner, costs about $12.) This amount is way out of proportion with actual costs. Compliance was spotty, rules-lawyering abounded (I helped, though I was a member at the time), and after about a year they rescinded it.
But the corporation still can't manage money worth
a damn, so they are once again having problems. This
past July they announced that they are going to reinstate
this tax, details to follow. From what I've heard,
thay are working very hard on the rules this time,
and they have already threatened dissolution for
groups that do not comply.
Why am I writing this now? Because last night, most of the officers of my local group demonstrated that they, too, are corporate toadies, and I'm disgusted by it. (I will publicly praise the three officers who opposed the latest action as soon as I learn who they are.)
Soon, we will have a local election for a particular office. This is an office that is purely society-side; it has no impact on the corporation. (Still, the corporation requires the holder of that office to be a member of the corporation.) In the past, when we have elected this officer, all participants in the local group have been allowed to cast ballots.
This time, they are limiting it to members of the corporation, for no good reason. (If I had known this ridiculous idea was on the table, I would have gone to the meeting. I'm not an officer, though, so I didn't.)
You know, the corporation doesn't have to seize control of the society so long as local groups are populated by quislings who are happy to just hand the society over without question. The corporation doesn't require membership for voting; that's a local innovation. So I am disgusted, first by the new tax and now by this.
I'm not going to let all this idiocy run me out of the society, but I think I am going to become much less supportive of the organization, and that I'll probably become more of a pain about some things. (For example, I will require receipts for all surcharges paid, for income-tax purposes.)
I'm probably not going to help with fund-raising efforts any more, even though my local group could really use the help. After all, the corporation could walk in and claim this money that they didn't earn, and the officers of my local group don't seem to be doing much to protect the locals from corporate stupidity.
In the past, there have been events that I have attended not because I wanted to but because I was expected to, or was asked to help run something. Now, I am going to carefully choose the events that I want to attend and the efforts that I want to support, and I'm going to be much less inclined to listen to arguments based on "duty", including "peerly duty" and duty to the local group (the latter so long as its officers behave in this way). I'm not going to pay a tax to a corporation without moral standing to demand it in order to go work at an event.
Many people aren't corporate members because they can't afford it, or because they don't "need" to be. I remain a non-member as a matter of principle: the corporation has done some things that are outright damaging, and until they reverse those actions I am loathe to support them. Now, going to events that they have no hand in running supports them, and that makes me sad, but I'm not going to stop going to events. I will go to fewer events, though, and I think they'll make less off of me from the new tax than they would from a membership.
I still resent them for claiming -- successfully, it would appear -- ownership over the society that they did not build.
no subject
Mind you, I believe that was an overcautious reading of a passage that (I felt) was obviously intentionally vague (if they'd have meant "only paid members's votes count" they would have said so, in exactly so many words.) It's also disappointing that the Membership Meme has gotten as strong among the Officers as it has. And much of last night's meeting (not just this particular point) left me with a deep-seated urge to go out to D&B's afterwords and shoot something. Repeatedly. But in the interest of fairness about at least some of us quislings...
[Also, the Baronial Election I ran was limited to paid members, as well, based on Eastern Law and Corpora (or my reading of them) at the time. The mechanism to enfranschise others emerged in the lead-up to the last election.]
no subject
I didn't remember your election being limited to corporate members, but I forgot that that requirement came from above. Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but I can't imagine the officers at that time supporting such an idea if it hadn't been imposed from above.
As best I recall, that passage in corpora hasn't changed since the last election we held. I concur that the reading is overcautious. Ultimately, what is required is a petition signed by a majority of the corporate members. Certifying an election is different from holding one, though: were I a corporate member, I would sign such a petition even if my favored candidate didn't win, if the election was held in accordance with all applicable laws and customs. I don't think I'm alone in that.
no subject
It stated (and I'm paraphrasing) that while you could seek the opinion of the non-members on issues of advancing branch status or petitioning for Baron/esses, it could not be allowed to "drown out" the opposition of the paid membership.
The emphasis above is obviously mine, and I think it's key - if we add a provision that a candidate may be eliminated by a majority "Not Acceptable" vote of the paid members, in addition to our previously existing policy, I believe that folding in the opinion of the non-members on which acceptable candidate to use in petitioning the Kingdom is clearly still within the bounds of the above.
The most substantive counter to that argument was Cardon's (he was there as a proxy for another Officer and, with Tofi, was the one raising this provision as a deal-breaker on non-member votes) who asserted that this would require sending out identifiably different ballots to non-members and members, which would be Just Wrong. Too difficult. Or would compromise privacy. Or something. It sounded like a non-issue to me, but seemed to carry some weight. Remus and Caitlyn were the only ones openly championing the "membership should have its privleges" argument. Malcom also repeatedly stated he felt that the policy that was quoted clearly said "only members count" and therefore there was no point in discussing it (which I'd reluctantly agree with if, as I said, I felt that it was that clear.) There was also discussion of waiting while we got a clarification, and that brought several over to the "don't commit to members-only now" side, but wasn't enough to carry the vote once it was limited to Officers.
no subject
I have a great deal of agreement with you about your attitude towards SCA Membership, and I wish that I had the ability to articulate my problems with requiring membership better, but it's a general sense of, "There's something wrong here."
If you want to know anything about the meeting, I have no problem telling you what I know, they are public meetings.
no subject
I appreciate it, though. I am really frustrated right now, working with Mark Waks and a few others in trying to have corpora hear our concerns. I can't afford an extra $3 for going to an event that I'm only attending because I got suckered into volunteering again. *sigh* I love the SCA, but sometimes ...
Fishing for legislation
It is in Corpora (at http://www.sca.org/docs/govdocs200204.pdf), Section III.D.2 and it reads as follows, "The Society permits very broad participation by people who are not members as defined in the By-Laws. However no part of the Society can be required to solicit or heed their views regarding branch status, or any other situation where the opinion of the populace is to be consulted. Law, custon, or actual practice may allow consultation with nonmembers, but it cannot be required."
That's what was being quoted as far as the SCA, INC side.
no subject
Re: Fishing for legislation
The key part was the one that Don and Tofi were passing the laptop back and forth on, a provision from (I think) the Society Seneschal's Handbook (which has debatable value as a legislative policy document itself) stating that in the specific case of branch advancement or in seeking to satisfy the Corpora requirement that the Crown's appointment of a Baron and/or Baroness must "not be substantively opposed by the populace", that the opinion of non-paid-members could not "be allowed to drown out" the opposition of the paid membership.
no subject
If you think it's useful, feel free. People who post strong opinions to public fora should expect that sometimes the feedback will be negative. (That said, if you could mention that this is my journal, not usenet, and that I'd appreciate it if people kept the tone polite and signed comments if posting anonymously (i.e. no LJ accounts), I'd appreciate it.)
I probably won't let myself get drawn into long arguments, though; I doubt there's much new that I could say. I mostly wrote this to work out how I'm going to respond to these actions. I've stopped trying to persuade the society at large that things like this are bad ideas...
Corrections of any factual errors, or further insights, are always welcome.
I appreciate it, though.
Thanks. And good luck in working out your own coping mechanism. Oh, and say hi to Justin et al for me. :-)
Re: Fishing for legislation
APOLOGY
I would also like to explicitly clarify that any opinions that are expressed using the username "FiannaHarpar" are solely mine and not in any way the official opinion of any organization I may be involved in. I represent no one but myself.
Re: APOLOGY
Thanks for naming names...
First off, I really do not appreciate being named and having motives implied to me, in a publicly readable forum, without being told that such comments are being made so that I can at least have a chance to respond in a timely fashion. Really.
Second, any implication that I was working with anyone else to shut out the non-paying-members of this barony is simply false. My motive in this is simple: I want us to run a clean and _valid_ election, so that we only have to do it once.
My concern is that corpora says that "the voice of the non-members cannot drown out the voice of members". Since this is not a very clear statement, we need to at least get a clarification from the kingdom as to whether or not non-member votes could count, if they do count how they need to be handled, and if they don't count, whether including them in our balloting would cause the election to be declared invalid. I do not have any personal preference _how_ we address this issue, but only _that_ it must be properly addressed; our interpretation of loose wording of corporate policy should not cause us to inadvertantly invalidate the election.
I am not interested in turning this election into a referendum on the corporate policies of the SCA, Inc. However, I welcome anyone to present their clear and well-thought-out arguments on this subject to the officers at the November meeting, where these proposed changes in policy will be discussed and either adopted, or not.
--Tofi
from the seneschal
Since I'm not on live journal, (but the recent thread has been pointed out to me), I'd really appreciate if one of your would post a clarification:
1. Yes, the officers voted to *****propose**** changing the policy to require Corporate membership for voting. That *****proposal***** will be published in the upcoming Althing. It won't be actually voted on until the November officer's meeting, where it will once again be opened for discussion (frankly I expected a lot of discussion and opposition to this proposal--this is, after all, the land of 'they'll get my membership fee when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers' ;-)).
That's the clarification. What I saw on live journal looked like the change was put forward as a done deal, which it is most certainly not.
no subject
Re: from the seneschal
2/3 of praise due
I promised public praise, so: I have been told by someone who was there that two of the votes against the chane were from Ts'vee'a and Cadell. Thank you! (Remember that officers were the only ones who voted, and not all of them were present.)
Re: 2/3 of praise due
But then, blanket "these people are good because they agree with me and these people are bad because they don't" statements make me twitch.
Re: 2/3 of praise due
SCA politics is stupid. What is happening here saddens me, but I can't say it surprises me. But I'm not going to let stupidity ruin my fun in the SCA; I can ignore it instead, or walk away if it becomes impossible to ignore.
Re: 2/3 of praise due
Tofi is right to want a clean election, but the discussion got away from that and into the whole pay to play foo, then people voted to get the issue over with. Rather than being praised for my vote, it would have been smart for me to insist on hashing out the situation right there and avoiding this later foo.
Re: 2/3 of praise due