there must have been a better way to do this...

[cellio]

The following from the corporate seneschal's report of the latest SCA board meeting left me scratching my head:

Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 26, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: None. Opposed: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood. Recused: Shawn Reed. Motion failed.

Motion by Gabrielle Underwood to revoke and deny the membership of Clarence Womble (Eoin Mac Lochlainn) effective January 27, 2007. Seconded by Jeff Brown. In favor: Jeff Brown, Heather English, Tom Hughes, Hal Simon, Gabrielle Underwood, Opposed: None. Recused: Shawn Reed. Chairman Williams exercised his option to vote and did so in favor of the motion. Motion carried.

I had to read it a couple times to spot the difference. They changed the effective date. That's all. There has to have been a better way to do that, no? Doesn't standard parliamentary procedure permit both amending and withdrawing a motion on the table?

When I read the first one my reaction was "wow, the case for this was so weak that even the person making the motion recanted". But (and noting that we do not have access to the actual discussion), that appears not to have been the case.

Comments

[dragontdc.livejournal.com]

I went and looked at the proceedings. I was astonished at the volume of banishments being handed down. Back when I played they were rare and awesome things. Looks like they're business as usual now.

Makes me glad I decided to quit. I can't imagine so many banishments NOT being political.

[anastasiav.livejournal.com]

Sad to say, but at least in the case of banishments we can track down the reasons for, all too often they are not political, but rather caused by serious infractions (like misappropriation of funds or crazy-type harassment of other SCA participants). Of course, the Board isn't allowed to say the reason for R&D, so mostly you have to do some research to find out the reason why, but in every case save one where I've taken the trouble to research the why its been clear that its the banishee that caused the action.

I suppose its a function of the growth in participation - once it was a family, now its just a club.

[baron-steffan.livejournal.com]

I agree that "the Board isn't allowed to say the reason for the R&D" but I vehemently disagree that it must be that way. The way you structure laws and regulations is that you say "we declare this to be a Bad Thing, and if you do this Bad Thing this will happen to you". Drive drunk, lose your license. Embezzle funds, spend X years in prison. Fail to wear a tie, be prohibited from getting seated at my fancy restaurant. Don't return your DVD, pay this fine. But no, the SCA's rules say "you will do this thing". So when you don't, there's no clear path to a penalty. And if you do a *bad* thing, it's entirely up to a Star Chamber to say *that* it was bad, and make up a punishment on the spot. It would be entirely reasonable for the BoD minutes to say "Mr. Thusandsuch, known as Lord Soandso, a member of the Kingdom of Ruritania, has been R&D'd for violations of Corpora Chapter 395, section 842, regarding private inurement of Society funds." Note that there is nothing here about mundane crimes such as "violation of 21USCxxx.yyy, embezzlement" so the banishee can't scream libel: he's gone before prescribed club procedures and has been duly judged guilty of violating this club rule, the club penalty for which is XYZ, and that punishment has been meted out. What's the problem?

[cellio]

They have certainly become more common, and disproportionately with growth in membership so far as I can tell. Part of it is probably that there's more money in group and corporate coffers now, so more of an attraction to those inclined toward financial misappropriation. I have the impression that financial misdeeds account for a non-trivial portion (but still a minority) of banishments. As for the rest, I'm not sure. This state does not make me happy.

Banishments

[rob-of-unspace.livejournal.com]

If they're working under Robert's Rules of Order, either they changed their minds necessitating the change in date, or they just decided this was the quicker way to do it. I wonder what was really up.

Banishments are common? Things that make you go "Hmmm."

Re: Banishments

[sdorn.livejournal.com]

Under Robert's Rules of Order, it would have been simpler to amend the motion. But under Robert's, you also don't write down the names of everyone voting unless the by-laws or other documents require a roll call for all votes or unless a member of the body calls for a roll call (and that's usually done only when someone on the losing end thinks after a division of the house that minds will change if there's a roll call). Either they're following a different system or they're incredibly inefficient at running meetings.

Re: Banination

[brokengoose.livejournal.com]

I've seen groups who use modified rules to prevent "rule hacking" (I move to amend the motion to support the amendment to the motion..." etc.).

"If a motion is made and seconded, it must be voted upon immediately" is a fairly common adjustment to Robert's Rules. If that was in play here, there may have been some disagreement about the date. Somebody got sick of it and called for a vote. They were shot down, and the matter was discussed more. After a date was worked out, they called for another vote. That's speculation piled on top of speculation, though.

Re: Banishments

[cellio]

Either they're following a different system or they're incredibly inefficient at running meetings.

Why choose? :-) The SCA board is, or at least used to be, remarkably bad at doing things correctly or consistently. The most egregious example that I have personal knowledge of is when they made an illegal bylaws change, made policy based on that change, stirred up a firestorm and a lawsuit, and ended up undoing the policy change but refusing to undo the bylaws change. I just don't get that. I can see accidentally making an illegal change, and I think that's probably what happened, but then to be so uninterested in going back and fixing it... boggle. (That said, it's not just the corporation either. My own local group recently made, or quasi-made, an illegal change to its policies. When I pointed it out, the reaction of the officers was "shrug, it doesn't matter anyway". I wasn't inclined to ever be a local officer again anyway, but that would make me even less inclined.)

I don't think the people running the SCA are, generally, malicious. I do think enough of them are inept to cause problems for the rest. This is a spare-time activity for everyone and most are ameteurs; mistakes are bound to happen.

Ok, I'm curious enough to check. SCA governing documents say the board follows The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure by Alice Sturgis (except as stated in the bylaws).

Re: Banishments

[sethg]

I have Marshall McLuhan Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, right here...which says, FWIW, that a "Previous Question" motion (commonly known as "calling the question", i.e., asking that debate end and the main motion be voted on) has precendence over a motion to amend (and all other subsidiary motions, except for a motion to lay on the table) and may not be debated.

Re: Banishments

[cellio]

More common than they used to be, and not a positive trend in my opinion. Some of it's due to the SCA (that is, groups, not people) being richer, so there's more of a target for those inclined toward financial misdeeds. But that doesn't explain most of it, to my knowledge. (The board cannot share reasons, and I don't go looking for other sources unless it came from my own kingdom.)