[MR] re: Value of membership - a request

[Susan and Frank Downs]

> Well here's the inverse of the problem.
> 
> WHy don't people communicate with the BoD?
> 
> At least some of the problem is that there is an impression that we, the
> average member, have no say in the matters of the BoD.
> 
> And we don't, in the most important way.  The SCA is the *only*
> organization I am a member of that the Board of Directors is not elected,
> either directly or indirectly, by it's members.

> Yes, nominations are accepted, as is commentary, but the ultimate decision
> of "Who will be on the BoD" is made by the current members of the BoD.

Okay, there are two issues here.  First, you say,"there is an impression
that we, the average member, have no say in the matters of the BoD."  I can
guarantee you, from seeing it with my own eyes, that the Board is very
interested in what you have to say, and will take it into account in making
their decisions.  If you are very interested you can go to a meeting and
talk to them about it as they actually make their decision (at least at the
meeting I attended).  I know the impression you speak of still exists,
because I had it too, but it is false.

Second, you imply that you have little voice in who will be on the Board,
and that that would be different if the board were elected.  In my
experience, in every organization I belong to which elects officers, they
send out a ballot card, sometimes with a brief c.v. of each candidate, and
then I ask someone else if they know anything about any of these people and
usually just end up pulling some name out of my butt to vote for.  Maybe you
have the time and energy to carefully research the candidates for each
office in every organization you belong to, but I don't, nor the
inclination.  And I know there are a lot of people like me who would do the
same kind of thing with an elected board for the SCA.  As the situation
stands now, if you feel very strongly either way about a candidate, you can
write the Board, they will read and consider your opinion and most likely
research any pertinent claims you make about the candidate, at least
superficially, and you will have a much larger influence over whether or not
that candidate is selected.  So I'm not arguing against electing candidates
because it's not period, I'm arguing against it because I don't think it
would work as well as what we already have.  Heck, I'm not all that crazy
about how well it's working for the _country_ these days.

> 
> As it is now, if the BoD does something completely against the wills of the
> membership, about all that can be done is waste millions of electrons in
> mailing list writing.
> 
> That's the issue.

Again, I tell you, your electrons are not wasted.  They are much less wasted
if you send them in advance of the decision on the issue.
  
> I didn't write in on the "we need more money" issue, because I didn't have
> any good suggestions on the subject.  And since the reinstitution of the
> non-member penalty wasn't on the table, I didn't see a need to say "Oh,
> btw, that's a bad idea".

Okay, but it was clear that they were going to raise money somehow.  If you
didn't communicate any better ideas to them, it seems counterproductive and
rude to complain about the method they did choose.

-- 
Takenoshita Naro
Frank Downs