[MR] NonMember Charges

[Logan]

insurance is not free.  we get the use of many of our sites because we can
insure them against damage caused by our participants, members or not.

i am sure that the members of the board took your counsel to heart when you
sent comments into them during the time that they asked for our opinions.
and, i agree with most of what you are saying.  i think that if we all paid
a fair price (which is easily within the $35 a year we pay now) then perhaps
some level of personal insurance could be had.  but thats not the way this
game is structured currently.  who knows what might happen.

logan

-----Original Message-----
From: atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org
[mailto:atlantia-admin at atlantia.sca.org]On Behalf Of Gorm Of Berra
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 3:27 PM
To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject: RE: [MR] NonMember Charges


Your Majesty,

I do not dispute that the BoD has the "right" to institute a tax, they do
have
that right by the virtue of the way things are governed (ie they wrote the
rules, and gave themselves the power).

However, I do dispute the wisdom of the decision.

While it is true that most groups require membership to gain the benefits of
membership, it is not true that participating in an event incurs a cost upon
the Corporation which must be made up.

Last I checked (and subject to the BoD's changing the rules since then),
paying Milpitas gives me a very few benefits:

1.  The right to hold an office, and therefore work harder than the
"average"
member.

Yes, service is a backbone of the Society, and one which I, and many others,
undertake willingly, however I don't see how someone not having this right
penalizes the group as a whole.

2.  A subscription to Tournaments Illuminated and my Kingdom newsletter

This, IMO, is a benefit, most definetely.  But one who is not a member does
not get these items, and therefore does not cost the Society anything.

3.  The right to fight in a Crown Tournament

This is a benefit the vast majority of members never take advantage of.
Again, a person who is not a member does not have this benefit, so how is
the
society harmed?

4.  The right to receive pollings on matters of group concern (Baronial
pollings, etc).

Again, if I am not a member, I don't get the pollings, therefore the
Corporation incurred no expense.

On the other hand, a Non-Member can add much to the Society by their
attendance:

1.  Their site fee contributes to the defrayment of expenses of the local
group (which never sees any of the $35/year sent to California).

2.  Their voluntary service in the kitchens, cleaning the site, working at
Troll, or any of the hundreds of other ways in which an event is
successfully
run makes the event more pleasant for everyone.

3.  Their goodwill towards the SCA as a whole can be incalculably valuable,
particularly in this age of ever-tightening site availability, cost, and
restrictions on use.

4.  Their skills they bring from the outside world in areas of research can
do
much to increase our ability to reinact events in a more period fashion.

I fail to see how any of these require a tithe to a Corporation.

If someone could actually explain how a non-member's attendance at an event
is
more costly to the hosting group than a member's attendance, then I could
perhaps be persuaded otherwise.  However, I don't see it.

Yes, it is likely that a card-carrying member is more likely to volunteer to
work at an event than a visitor...but is that a bad thing?  We are in a
membership crunch, we aren't growing at all.  If anything, we're losing
members.  Which of these scenarios is more likely to stem that tide:

1.  A new person is invited to attend an event by a friend, he shows up,
pays
the same fees as everyone else, enjoys the atmosphere and activities, eats
feast and goes home happy.  Then a few days later, in speaking with the
friend, he asks "When is the next event?" and is told "Well, we have one in
a
few weeks at X, but if you want to know more, the best way might be to
become
a member, then you'll get the newsletter and..."

or

2.  A new person is invited to attend an event by a friend.  He shows up, is
told "Since you're not a member, you must pay $6 more than your friend just
did (under the current rules this seems to be the case)...oh, and sign this
waiver while you're at it...", he watches the activities and enjoys them,
eats
feast and goes home.  He calls up the friend and says "When is the next
event?", and is told "It's in a few weeks, and really, if you want to come,
you need to join the SCA, Inc. and start helping out with things".

If we want more members of the SCA, Inc, the Board must investigate ways to
make Membership seem to be an economic benefit.  Things like the Magazine
and
newsletter help.  Esoteric arguments about standardization of the rules of
the
list don't (especially not when there is no standardization).

There have been several independant folks who have made suggestions on
reform
over the past 5 years (that I know of).  To the best of my (admittedly
incomplete) knowledge, no substantive changes have occurred in the financial
policies of the Corporation.

Again, I find it amazing that the Corporation is losing money while the
local
groups in sum total are making money.  This tells me that the "Game" is
healthy, but the "Corporation" is not.

I used to be a member of the Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA...model
airplane flyers).  They had about the same membership base as we do
(~35,000 -
50,000 active participants), and they charged about the same in dues
annually
($25 back then, equivalent to about $40 nowadays).

In return for that, I received comprehensive insurance against injury
incurred
as a result of a dangerous activity (up to $2Million), a 200+ page magazine
monthly (which was profitable, mostly due to advertisers), a coherent and
understandable set of rules for competition which I could be assured would
be
followed across the U.S.A. should I want to compete, the right to
participate
in National Championships, active lobbying with the FCC and other
governmental
groups for protection of the radio spectrum we used, a National Museum, and
the right to vote on the By-laws and rules of the organization.

That's value for money spent.  IF the SCA was able to duplicate those
benefits, I would expect that we wouldn't be having a membership crisis.

Alan MacNeill
Again, speaking outside the Game.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:18:37 -0400 Logan <dukelogan at directvinternet.com>
wrote:

> im not sure why anyone would have a problem
> with non-members paying a little
> bit to defer the costs that the society as a
> whole incurs due, in part, to
> their attendance at events while they
> contribute nothing.
========================================================================
                   The Merry Rose Tavern at Cheapside
    List Info: http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
  Submissions: Atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subscriptions: http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/mailman/listinfo/atlantia