SCA participation (ramble)
Oct. 13th, 2003 11:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioIt's hard to balance SCA events and being a somewhat-observant Jew -- a fact I knew intellectually for a long time, but that's not the same as living it. I now go to very few non-local events, because it usually means taking Friday off from work to arrive at a hotel (with food) before sundown Friday, and I use enough vacation days for holidays and Pennsic that I'm not going to do that unless the event is very special. All events now get evaluated through the "is this worth sacrificing some of Shabbat?" filter, with the schedules of local events being compared to service times. I find that even for "just Shabbat", as opposed to a holiday, I'm reluctant to miss services. (I will still ride in a car on Shabbat if the car was going there anyway, in case you're wondering, but I am hesitant to drive. So a corrollary is that I'm not just going to drive to the event after services; Dani also has to be willing to follow that schedule.)
Shabbat restricts some activities that occur at events. An upcoming event is, essentially, a shopping event -- something I can't do on Shabbat. Since the event otherwise has little of interest for me (it's also a children's event, not my thing at all), I'm going to skip it. That means I'm skipping a choir performance, but it's just not worth $15 or so to show up just for that. It's not the money; it's the cost-benefit analysis.
And then there's the part that has nothing to do with Judaism: the SCA, institutionally, has gotten much less friendly and flexible over the years. We have a burgeoning bureaucracy filled with make-work. We have more and more objectionable rules coming down from On High. And we have fewer people willing to actually think about these issues and question them. We're getting awfully close to "how high?" as the response to "jump!", and that's not the SCA I knew 20 years ago.
I live in the home group of the "three bad peers" (so dubbed by the then-president of the corporation). We were some of the prominent folks who challenged the corporation to open its books during a period of questionable financial dealings. (And yeah, that's a personal "we"; I'm one of the three.) When the corporation made a particularly annoying rule, we were among those who found legal ways to dodge the issue. (We did not simply say "shove off"; we worked within the system.)
About a year ago the corporation reinstituted the same rule. This time, they even provided the workaround. (It's the same workaround we used before.) They have said explicitly that it's ok to structure events to avoid the new rule, using this workaround.
I expected to see lots of events take advantage of that. Instead, prominent people in the SCA argue that it is "dishonorable" to do that, and several autocrats within my own group have declined to consider structuring events this way. So far, only one autocrat has done an event that way, and she had implementation problems that had nothing to do with the policy itself.
I'm not saying all of this to start an argument over this policy. Rather, I'm disappointed by how much my local group has changed in the last ten years. I sometimes think that I'm the only person living here who actually cares about the larger picture. I know that's not true, but that's how it feels sometimes.
I don't work on events much any more. Autocratting poses Shabbat challenges (and I got a little crispy before that), but I would like to cook another feast if anyone were interested in planning a Sunday event (a rare thing, but not unheard-of). But there's another complication, too: I feel that I cannot do anything to actively support an event that follows this new rule, because I think the rule is that wrong, and as I've said, the trend in my group seems to be in favor of the objectionable policy. So while I used to show up at events and help out for part of the day, now I just show up. That should make things easier -- more time to have fun and less time to work -- except that I have a strong-enough work ethic that it's hard to just sit there and not help.
But I like the society part of the SCA, even if the bureaucracy gets annoying. I really enjoy Pennsic. I enjoy most events. I enjoy singing, and dancing, and other activities that are best done in connection with events. A lot of my friends are in the SCA.
I'm not going anywhere, but my participation is definitely changing and I'm not sure where things will end up when everything settles.
My rant...
Date: 2003-10-13 10:35 pm (UTC)I find it strange that all this bureaucracy is being created/supported but yet parents let their kids runaround free or trust pied pipers as babysitters. Wouldn't that be more of a lawsuit threat?!?!
Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-14 07:11 am (UTC)We have officers now doing things that used to happen unofficially. I created my kingdom's web site and ran it for about five years, all unofficially. (My content, my labor, my hosting.) I worked cooperatively with all the kingdom officers and other folks with interest in the site, but I didn't "report" to them. To this day I regret that when I decided to turn the site over to someone else, I allowed the kingdom chronicler to grab control and start regulating it. I was just trying to be friendly, and the site's independent control was lost. (I should note that I have no problem with my successor, who did a fine job. I have a problem with the process.) There has been talk from time to time of the SCA trying to regulate electronic mailing lists, but fortunately, so far, that hasn't happened.
We seem to have moved toward a mindset that if someone is doing something useful, it must fall under the purview of some office. Web sites are one; newsletters are another. Most groups have official newsletters, regulated by the chronicler's office. That's fine. Try having an unofficial newsletter for your group, not funded out of SCA coffers and not accountable to the chronicler hierarchy, and you'll be in for a lot of flak. I don't think you would have been back when I joined the SCA.
We seem to waffle on whether the existence of a first-aid officer (chirurgeon) for a group is required, forbidden, or permitted, depending on which way the liability winds are blowing that year.
Now, I don't want to turn you off of the SCA or anything like that. It's a fun group. Most of this stuff is invisible to people who aren't actively involved in running the group, and that's good. Go. Keep having fun. Help with the things you want to help with. Don't feel obligated to do more.
Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-14 11:44 am (UTC)The non-member tax issue - well I think it is rather discouraging for new members but also, it reinforces the fact that this is a club/society and I think that it's a good financial incentive to join. I think that it may be a good idea to waive it for members that come from school branches but I think it should be there. As for what happens to the money.. well, I consider it goes to the same pot as the member's fee.
With all the current financial scandals I'm all for better transparency. Unfortunately, I think herding the SCA membership to do something about it is a bit like harding katts. I think it may take another lawsuit to stir things up or wait until California drops into the Pacific Ocean.
I am so optimistic eh?
Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-14 12:06 pm (UTC)The liability insurance costs something under $3/member/year, so it's a little disingenuous to charge non-members $3/event for their share, yes?
Most of the corporation's costs are in the area of member services -- things non-members don't benefit from. For example, yes, they send out reminder cards to renew -- to people who paid them last year for, among things, that service. And newsletter subscriptions are part of the membership fee. There is very little that the corporation does, and that costs money, that benefits the society as a whole. Even in the area of policy-making, it's not like they send out the policy books free to, say, all the local marshals. They publish a handbook and sell it through the stock clerk, or you can get it on the web. The person who prepared that manual didn't get paid to do so. So you've got some miscellaeous photocopying and postage costs and the like while it's being developed, but this shouldn't be a frequent or large expenditure.
Now I'm not saying that the corporation is worthless. There are some (small) expenses that really should be spread across everyone. I would gladly support a model where local groups pay for the services they consume, whether it's an annual franchise fee or a buck a head for all attendees at each event or whatever. But the current model is, IMO, dishonest.
And, as you point out, non-US groups get even less out of the corporation. Our insurance policy probably doesn't do squat for you in Canada. This is part of why some groups, like Australia and Finland, have incorporated separately. I expect Canada to do this someday.
Whether membership is cheap or expensive doesn't really matter to me. Whether it's $20 or $100, if it's not spent and accounted for responsibly, and if it's used inappropriately as some sort of moral or patriotic club, I'm not favorably inclined toward it.
I am so optimistic eh?
:-)
Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-14 03:32 pm (UTC)Oh yes now that you put it that way. I'd have thought it was closer to 10$
So while I think everyone who participates in the society should support the groups where he plays, it's a leap to say that that support should come in the form of corporate membership. Frankly, if I'm an autocrat, I value the person who washes dishes, or the one who donates an extra $5 because we came up short, a heck of a lot more than the card-carrying member who does neither.
Too bad we don't have local memberships. That would be awesome.
You know I wonder that if the cost of proper accounting (not just the acocunting itself but having the right systems and people trained to do it well) is what is deterring the SCA about being public about it's financial management. Would people support potentially increased fees so that they are more transparent? I would now from your musings on the topic.
Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-14 05:27 pm (UTC)Good question. I believe their accounting is better than it was in 1994 (the time of the so-called "financial crisis"), and they even spend money on an accountant now, but I don't know if it's anywhere near generally-accepted practices yet. I would guess that they would need to make a greater investment, in time, money, and worldview-adjustment.
In 1994, when we finally got access to the books, what we got was a mess. Three CPAs began to analyze it for us and gave up. At least now they are keeping better records, and probably even organized ones. They are publishing budgets, which did not happen before. (But no generally-published financial reports yet, and no details on the budgets.) I think that one reason they fought so hard on opening the books in 1994 was that they were embarrassed. I don't think there was fraud; I think there was big-time incompetence and they didn't want us to see. They had also just hired their first professional executive director, and I think he had a lot to do with trying to hide those skeletons.
According to the bylaws, any member of the corporation is entitled to see the books. A letter to the corporation asking for a more detailed budget, or an explanation of certain line-items, might produce results. Seeing the actual books is a PITA (you have to go to Milpitas), but if they have improved their practices then they ought to be willing to answer basic financial questions.
Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-15 11:36 am (UTC)Re: My rant...
Date: 2003-10-15 12:00 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-13 11:37 pm (UTC)I expected to see lots of events take advantage of that. Instead, prominent people in the SCA argue that it is "dishonorable" to do that, and several autocrats within my own group have declined to consider structuring events this way. So far, only one autocrat has done an event that way, and she had implementation problems that had nothing to do with the policy itself.
As a data point, it's not been like that in the Central Region of the East Kingdom. Here, events are free if we can get away with it, with donations accepted, and others are working some creativity with the fee structure. I can't speak too much about events in Southern Region at all, as I don't go south of CT, and I don't get to the North too often , either.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 07:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 04:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 05:14 am (UTC)The reason that I have not followed up on doing our event bid as She'era has suggested is because it would be an entire rebid and with the deadlines that I have right now, doing so would be a huge pain in the butt.
Now, the next event that I autocrat...totally different story. I will be doing it to get around the NMS.
For now, i've been paying the NMS for the new college students who come to sing with us because it's already expensive for them to attend, and if they elect to get membership, that's their decision. I don't see a reason for them to be punished for wanting to wait and see if they want to do that.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 07:01 am (UTC)That's a great idea. I'd be willing to cover someone's NMS next time this comes up.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 07:52 am (UTC)Glad to hear it. It'll be nice to have a second autocrat trying this.
For now, i've been paying the NMS for the new college students who come to sing with us
That's very generous. I think it's particularly obnoxious that in instituting this tax, they didn't account for people just finding the SCA, particularly college students who don't have a lot of money. The board rejected suggestions about waiving the tax for first events, events in the first six months, and similar ideas. They're just not interested in the bigger picture.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 07:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 07:43 am (UTC)All of the risk of an event falls to the local group. Income for the event goes to the local group, and it's the local group's responsibility to balance income and expenses to stay out of the red. If an event suffers a catastrophic loss, it is the local group that is on the hook for that. The corporation doesn't help them out; it's not involved. And, of course, the labor that is necessary for an event to happen at all comes from the people in the SCA, not the corporation. So why is it appropriate for non-members, and only non-members, to pay an extra $3/event to the corporation, which did none of the work and bears none of the risk? Where is the moral authority for an outsider to levy an arbitrary fee?
From a pure financial analysis, the expected value to me of SCA membership is better than paying the fees, mainly because of the Pennsic non-member gouge. However, I still cannot support the corporation with my membership. Not until they adopt some responsible financial policies, stop trying to grab power from local groups, and become accountable to the membership (board elections or at least recall with teeth).
(By the way, not all of the Pennsic price difference goes to the corporation, so I don't think I'm actually giving the corporation that much more money by doing it this way. The Coopers and/or the kingdoms get a fair bit of that money, which is way better than Milpitas getting it.)
Oh, a minor terminology thing, because he who names a thing controls its spin: I won't call it a non-member surcharge, because that implies that the source of the demand had authority to charge in the first place. It's a tax. Actually it's more like a demand for Dane-geld ("nice shire you've got here; shame if something happened to it..."), but "tax" is the less loaded word.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 07:27 am (UTC)There is a "finance" or "budget compliance" committee (name varies) that reports to the board, but last I heard, its members couldn't get useful information either. They do get larger data dumps, but they're confusing and no one seems to be willing or able to answer questions about them, even when those questions come from the chair of the committee. There's a larger problem there, and that's that the board of directors is unwilling to hold its employees accountable. They are so afraid that the "indispensible" person who runs the office will quit that they won't press her to do stuff. Bizarre. No real-world company would be able to operate that way for years on end.
The employees are not, in practice, accountable to the board. The board is not accountable in any way to the membership. And the board makes rules that amount to "give us money", and the membership goes along with it. This boggles my mind. Some of these are no doubt the same people who vocally stopped supporting, e.g., United Way because of irresponsible financial matters, and yet with the SCA it's not only ok but somehow "patriotic".
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 03:08 pm (UTC)$219K for salaries??!?!
$187K for corporate offices?!?
err...
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-14 05:32 pm (UTC)Last I heard, the office had something like 6 employees (not all full-time). And I presume that benefits, to the extent they apply, are part of that figure. But yes, that's an awful lot of money to be spending on the function (as I understand it) performed by that office.
I believe the corporation has a regular accountant and a lawyer on retainer. And probably some computer consultants, because I don't think the folks in the office are technophiles. I don't know where they budget professional services; these people aren't on staff so it's probably not salaries. But I'm just guessing based on the data that's available.
"It's not the money; it's the cost-benefit analysis."
Date: 2003-10-14 06:10 am (UTC)The SCA sector that I belong to officially made a rule of "no politics" long before I came aboard.
With your full schedule, it sounds like you have every reason to "just show up and work but don't sign up to do anything huge," which is the level of helping that I am comfortable. I've belonged to other groups where I got very involved and ended up doing everything; not fun. So, I'm being very careful with my activities in the SCA, especially now I have a young child.
Re: "It's not the money; it's the cost-benefit analysis."
Date: 2003-10-14 07:54 am (UTC)Thanks. I was going to say "...the principle of the thing", but that's over-used. :-)
Yes, you definitely have to regulate your involvement in the SCA somewhat, especially if you have outside obligations like a young child. There is so much cool stuff to do in the SCA that you can find yourself spending most of your evenings and weekends on it if you let that happen.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 09:39 am (UTC)Hmm. We're actually doing it a lot locally. As would be expected of Carolingia, we had a big long debate about what to do with the NMS; the final decision was to allow the autocrat discretion of whether to formally charge (and thus pay the NMS) or to do donation-only (and not). About half the events seem to be going donation-only; we're still working out the kinks, but I think we can make it work. We also set up a fund for paying the NMS fee, which is more or less silently invoked if someone chooses not to pay it.
(We seriously considered going collectively ballistic, and doing something like outright refusing to pay. But most folks felt that it was a little too dangerous to the health of the Barony.)
So it's a pain in the ass, but we're managing to mostly shield the locals from the NMS. Of course, that matters more here, with a much younger and newer population on average than most large branches. And many of our events happen on college campuses, which are typically very cheap.
if anyone were interested in planning a Sunday event (a rare thing, but not unheard-of)
Sunday events have been getting, if not routine, at least reasonably normal around here.
There's some resistance to the idea (it's harder to really do evening activities on a Sunday), but folks seem to have accepted that it's worth considering, which is a good step.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-16 08:08 pm (UTC)We have the same policy here, but there seems to be some amount of unofficial pressure from some parts to not take risks. So we haven't had a good test case yet. When the policy came down we had one event coming up (already published) whose autocrat strongly objected to the policy, so she changed the financing of the event mid-stream. But it was planned as a small event at an expensive site (I think break-even was $10/person for site fee, not counting food), and she wouldn't put a donation jar out at the event (so you had to find her directly), and she announced loudly that the barony would incur no loss and she would cover it herself if needed, which may have discouraged donations. I would still like to see a more normal test case here: general-purpose event, site costs closer to $3-4 per person, announced from the start as donation-funded, jar/hat/whatever at the event for those inclined, etc.
I wouldn't be surprised if Carolingia is doing much more to alleviate this than any other group in the SCA. You guys ought to collect some wisdom for autocrats who are thinking about this in other groups but are timid.
Of course, that matters more here, with a much younger and newer population on average than most large branches.
Here too, though we don't have as many students -- either proportionally or absolutely -- as you do yet. We seem to be having a strong year for the college groups this year, though, and I don't want to see those people disappear. (Our college campuses are not so good as event sites, unfortunately, due to funny food rules. We do have many of our meetings and practices on the campuses, though.)
Sunday evnets
Date: 2003-10-20 03:38 pm (UTC)Where I live a Sunday continuation to a Saturday event is the norm. So as an observant Christian, I miss out on a lot of events and activities. Specifically, peers' meetings are almost always held on Sunday mornings making it impossible for me to either hear the discussion or raise my voice. Just a comment here to let you know that participation in the secular SCA is impacted by more than one kind religious observance.
Re: Sunday evnets
Date: 2003-10-20 04:31 pm (UTC)Out here most events are one day, and those that run for the weekend don't tend to have critical activities on Sunday. Sometimes they do and then the observant Christians lose out, but fortunately for them, it's not the norm.
Do you have email lists for your peerage orders? We tend to conduct a lot of our discussion that way, because any given meeting will get somewhat less than half the membership of the order (sometimes less than a quarter). The mailing lists are very important in providing continuity and plugging the gaps that would otherwise arise.
Peerage lists
Date: 2003-10-20 07:27 pm (UTC)Re: Peerage lists
Date: 2003-10-20 07:34 pm (UTC)Re: Peerage lists
Date: 2003-10-20 07:50 pm (UTC)As someone who takes the concepts of honor and honesty very seriously, I find myself put in a nearly impossible situation when every peerage meeting begins with an group oath not to discuss the meeting outside of the meeting. Yes, it is indeed "peer pressure", but it is effectively wielded in this fashion within several kingdoms.
It is indeed a culture of doing what you are told. I do not know that change is possible. Certainly change is resisted. Probably, change is not desired.
But speaking of "three bad peers" do you have a current email address for Johann?
Re: Peerage lists
Date: 2003-10-20 08:04 pm (UTC)Wow. *boggle*
I've never lived anywhere but the East and AEthelmearc, and I'm guessing that shows. I can't imagine things going that far here. I mean, even if there were an understanding that we couldn't share information with other order members who weren't there, which is a stretch by itself, the idea of asking people to swear an oath to that effect at each meeting just would not happen. That sort of insult would get screamed about.
But yeah, when you find that your basic assumptions about what constitutes appropriate behavior are that far out of whack with everyone eles's, sometimes all you can do is withdraw. It's sad and frustrating and annoying.
Where did you live before the Outlands? (Or are you in the part of Colorado that's in Artemisia?)
But speaking of "three bad peers" do you have a current email address for Johann?
Sure. I sent it by email. (By the way, do I know you? The name isn't triggering anything.)
Re: Peerage lists
Date: 2003-10-20 08:43 pm (UTC)I think the point that I was making isn't that there are 'right' and 'wrong' ways to play SCA, but that very different ways are accepted as norms in different places. If you are lucky enough to be co-resident with a group that shares your way of playing, that's great. If you are not, then is it really fair to throw a tantrum over something that others are perfectly comfortable doing, no matter how outrageous it seems to you? In this age of the world we are lucky to have the freedom of the web that allows us to form communities of interest (and culture) that are separate from our geographical areas.
You know me a little. We have corresponded a bit about period cooking matters. But I'm not quite ready to "out" myself entirely on LJ at this point and am still clutching my wispy fronds of anonymity about myself.
Re: Peerage lists
Date: 2003-10-20 08:55 pm (UTC)You know me a little.
Aha. Thank you. I believe I have now assembled the clues correctly. :-) I won't out you.