![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
SCA membership survey
The SCA is conducting a survey about membership issues (requirements, a little about decentralization, etc). They'll accept comments both from current corporate members and non-members. We of course can't know if they'll heed the results should those results call for change, but I think it's important for everyone who cares about these issues even a little to fill out the survey. Go here.
I'm including the questions and my answers here. This is mostly for me, but if my thoughts prompt others to think about these issues in new ways too, I won't complain. Just don't cut and paste my answers, ok? Fill this out on your own.
1. Currently, the SCA's corporate operations are financed almost entirely through annual membership fees paid by individuals. The SCA's corporate operations should be financed primarily by: (Please mark any category that you agree with)
I marked:
- Annual fees paid by branches.
- Flat fees paid by each event.
- Fees paid by each event based on the event's attendance.
I did not mark:
- Annual membership fees paid by individuals.
- Fees paid by each event based on the type of event.
- Fees paid by individuals at each event.
Comments:
Costs that are related to servicing memberships (such as
maintaining subscription databases) should be paid for by
membership fees. Costs associated with supporting society
activities (such as maintaining insurance coverage, combat
rules, etc) should be paid for by those activities. I would
support the simplification of a group franchise fee, rather
than a per-event fee, if the franchise is based on the size
of the group. The Shire of Podunk, with one 50-person event
a year and no fighters, shouldn't pay the same as the Barony
of Megotroplis, with large monthly events and daily martial
practices.
2. Currently, while participation in most SCA activities is open to all, participation in certain activities is limited to those who have paid an annual membership fee.
Eligibility for all SCA activities should be based solely on a person's attendance at local group meetings and SCA events. (standard 5-point scale here)
Strongly agree
Comment:
There is an important difference between the society and the
corporation. Financial support of the corporation has very
little to do with whether one is fit to run an event or serve
as list minister. And we should not impose additional burdens
on the people we ask to volunteer considerable time and effort
to make the society function.
3. Currently, membership is tracked by the corporate office based on payment of membership fees.
Local branches should be responsible for tracking attendance for the purpose of maintaining membership records, based on participation.
Strongly agree
Comment:
It will probably be easier to maintain this at the kingdom
level than at the shire level (with local groups submitting
info periodically).
4. Currently, paid membership in the SCA is required only for officers, including Royalty (and those entering Crown and Coronet Tournaments), Territorial Barons and Baronesses, and event Autocrats. (Please note: Some Kingdoms have imposed additional membership requirements.)
If membership continues to be defined by payment of annual fees, membership:
a. should not be required for any form of SCA participation.
Agree [This was my calculated "ok, this person isn't a fanatic who just answers "strongly X" to everything, and she might be resonable" response.]
Comment:
Kingdom officers, including royalty (but not entrants in
crown/coronet lists) probably consume a disproportionate
amount of corporate resources, so requiring financial
support from them might be justifiable. But not everyone
down to the A&S office of a canton, no.
Note that it's perfectly reasonable to require something like bonding from those who handle money, but agency is different from membership. The corporate bookkeeper probably isn't a member, for example.
b. should be required to attend any event.
Strongly disagree
Comment:
Aside from philosophical issues, this would kill
recruiting and preclude bringing in outside experts
(e.g. to universtiy events) who are not otherwise part
of the SCA.
c. should be required to participate in martial combat activities.
Strongly disagree
Comment:
Waivers on file should be required, and it's appropriate
to charge a small fee to process that paperwork. But
anything more than about $5/year is way out of proportion
to the actual costs.
d. should be required to participate in target archery.
Strongly disagree
Comment:
This shouldn't even require waivers, but if it does, same comment as above.
e. should be required to participate in Arts and Science competitions.
Strongly disagree
Comment:
What on earth for?
f. should be required to receive awards.
Strongly disagree
Comment:
The society we create at events and the like really
has no real-world implications. We should be able
to reward the guy who washes dishes at all our events
without also requiring money from him (above and beyond
the event fees we all pay). This is egregiously unfair
to those who do all the grunt work so the rest of us can
have fun.
5. Currently, paid membership in the SCA is required to participate in pollings regarding group status changes, appointment of Territorial Barons and Baronesses, etc.
Membership should be required to participate in pollings regarding group status changes, appointment of Territorial Barons and Baronesses, etc.
Strongly disagree
Comment:
This should be based on who actually shows up at
events, meetings, etc. Those are the people who will
be impacted by the outcome -- not the inactive folks
who maintain a membership for the Pennsic discount but
never show up anywhere else.
6. Currently, all officers from the local through corporate levels, including Royalty, Territorial Barons and Baronesses, and event Autocrats are required to be paid members.
The following should be required to be members (as currently defined):
(Please mark each category that you agree with)
The options were (I didn't mark any):
- Royalty (Kings, Queens, Princes, and Princesses)
- Territorial Barons and Baronesses
- All kingdom officers
- Some kingdom officers (Please expand in comments)
- All local officers
- Some local officers (Please expand in comments)
- Event Autocrats
- No officer should be required to be a paid member
Comments:
At most, sitting royalty and kingdom seneschals, treasurers,
and marshals.
7. Currently, subscriptions for all kingdom newsletters are managed by the SCA's corporate office. Money from these subscriptions provides the basic funding for kingdom-level production and distribution of the kingdom newsletters.
a. The SCA's corporate office should continue to manage subscriptions and to provide funding for the production and distribution of kingdom newsletters.
Disagree
Comments:
A single point of contact for subscribers is convenient,
but administration of such a large database appears to be
expensive. Kingdoms can manage smaller databases with
volunteer labor, as demonstrated by principality newsletters.
In addition, I used to be a kingdom chronicler and it was
frustrating to be unable to set subcription rates that
actually covered costs, and to not even know how many
newsletters I needed before I had to commit to a number
with the printer (thus forcing me to be conservative and
print many extra copies, which of course costs money).
b. Kingdoms should be solely responsible for managing subscriptions and funding the production and distribution of their newsletters.
Agree
Comment:
See previous comment.
8. Currently, subscriptions to kingdom newsletters, Tournaments Illuminated, and The Compleat Anachronist are generally available only to paid members of the SCA.
a. Subscriptions to kingdom newsletters should be available to members and non-members alike.
Strongly agree
Comment:
And make the information freely available on the web.
Most of what's in a kingdom newsletter is short-term
information that facilitates the main activities of the
society -- events. We need to make this easy.
b. Subscriptions to Tournaments Illuminated and The Compleat Anachronist should be available to members and non-members alike.
Strongly agree
Comment:
These should be priced to cover their costs and sold to
anyone who wants them.
9. I have the following additional comments on membership:
Comment:
We should move toward a model where the SCA Inc is a
"conventional" charity that people donate money to because
they support the organizaion's goals, not because they get
something out of it personally. Costs incurred through
society functions should be paid for by those functions;
we already do this for site rental, food, etc, so it seems
reasonable to place additional costs there if applicable.
The corporation should be careful not to appear to be charging for services it does not provide. For example, local volunteers put on events and local groups incur the financial risk from them; the corporation does neither, so it should not be charging for the privilege of participating in events. Similarly, unless the corporation pays stipends to newsletter editors, it shouldn't be charging extra fees (associate membership) for access to the newsletters, because they're not the ones doing the work.
By pushing some responsibilities down to the kingdoms and local groups (membership tracking and newsletter management), you can reduce tasks we currently pay a lot for to ones that can be done by volunteers, thus saving the corporation a great deal of money. This would more than offset the loss of fees from people who were only maintaining memberships because they "have to". And with the right spin, you could actually see memberships increase, as people see the corporation acting responsibly to reduce costs.
There were also some demographic questions (not reproduced here), which included years in the SCA, years as a member of the corporation, and levels at which one has been an officer (local, principality, kingdom, society -- I was able to check the first three). They also asked whether you donate time or money to other charities, which I do. (So, with luck, that eliminates the "this person is just a cheap bastard" argument.)
no subject