SCA politics

[cellio]

Last month, the officers of my local SCA group proposed changing the way we hold elections to restrict who can vote. The proposal was controversial and they had to have know that. I wrote then about why I thought this was a bad idea.

Last night was the next officers' meeting, where these changes were to be ratified. As it turns out (I'm failing to surpress cries of "I told you so"), the notion that these restrictions were now required by the kingdom and/or corporation was baseless. Someone got a ruling from the kingdom seneschal that our open policies, as they stand, are fine.

In addition, many officers (and other people) present spoke in favor of retaining our current policy on this point. Almost everyone in fact voted that way. One officer voted to restrict voting anyway.

My estimation of a couple people who were involved in this has dropped (not surprising). One of them is probably saying the same about me, but that's not my problem. At least that bit of ugliness is over now. (And hey, my estimation of some other people has risen, so it all balances out I guess.)

Now, onward to getting the officers to agree to structure events in such a way that the new, objectionable corporate tax can be avoided. (Early signs on the group email list are leaning positive, but there is also correlation between those who support the corporation in this matter and those who are email-averse, so that doesn't necessarily mean much.)

Comments

[cellio]

In addition to all the good stuff Justin wrote, consider this: the folks who are demanding the money are not the folks who are putting on the events that are the excuse for collecting the money.

Your square-dance example makes sense: the local groups put on the dances and give discounts to their members. That is their right, as they are the people doing all the work. If local SCA groups sold memberships and used that money to keep event costs down, I would support that approach in the SCA. But the corporation in Milpitas isn't doing the work, nor is it incurring risk. The new tax isn't a valid membership discount; it's closer to Danegeld. And that, in my opinion, is wrong, and that is why I am encouraging groups to find (legal) ways to avoid paying it.

[alienor.livejournal.com]

I'm not arguing that the NMS is right (that's why I asked how you could avoid it), but that it doesn't discourage newcomers from participating. They usually expect to pay extra (that's why I brought up the square dancing example).


I dislike the NMS because it was instituted when they said it wouldn't be considered and because they can't manage funds. However, I don't see it as dangerous and that's the point I was looking for clarification on. It seems that the majority of the 'dangerous' reasons stem from group dynamics that don't exist here.

Or I could just be being arguementative again (as I have been accused of being recently).