[MR] NonMember Charges

[E L Wimett]

Actually, Your Highness, many of us were told in the mid-90's that "we had 
no control" over the NMS but fought it anyway with a great deal of success.

However, Your point about the actions of the BoD being in opposition to 
their stated intent is well-taken.  Frankly, a lot of long-standing Society 
members on both coasts would have rather strongly opposed the NMS publicly 
and privately to BoD members if we had not been assured that it had been 
taken "off the table".

Moreover, I spoke with several folk - some supporting the NMS - who had 
seen the results of the "poll" and indicated that the most popular option 
was the one with the least administrative overhead at the local level: 
raising membership fees with no other changes.  After that came 
"unbundling" features such as TI.  Reinstituting "pay to play" in any form 
came only third and that apparently covered all variants, including local 
Kingdom options and "free-will" donations from the kingdoms to cover 
expenses that the BoD stated were theoretically incurred by the corporation 
for non-members participating (effectively the insurance fees).

I note that a couple of points on the BoD actions have not been made as 
clear as they might be.

Firstly, the discussions I have heard/seen tend to note that the BoD chose 
to penalize non-members rather than harm members by raising fees.  However 
in fact the BoD has effectively instituted a fee increase by decreasing the 
benefits of membership by requiring a separate fee for TI which has been a 
feature of membership for as long as I have been a member (25 years next 
week!).

Secondly, it appears that the "problem" of shortfall arises in part at 
least from poor accounting practices and planning at the national level. 
 In discussions of the shortfall of approximately $1 per member that was 
quoted to me as the working figure that needed to be "made up" on an annual 
basis, I was repeatedly told that nobody was sure of the actual costs of 
Society-wide publications like TI.  (This was in response to a query as to 
the savings that could be realized by dropping the recent multi-colored 
covers and returning to the spot printed covers which are much less 
expensive in short runs like TI.  I was told specifically that the 
"contract isn't written that way" so that it is impossible to do a sound 
cost analysis of existing costs and the savings to be realized by 
modifications.  Indeed, one individual suggested that "unbundling" TI would 
be a good way of making it stand on its own or die and at the least force 
the national office to come up with solid cost figures.)

Thirdly, I can see no evidence for the BoD exploring other forms of income 
generation that would be less burdensome from a recruitment standpoint and 
local administration standpoint.

Assume that the amount to be generated is around $100,000.  Based on 
experience with other non-profits over the years (including a stint 
designing, documenting and training on membership and fund-raising 
software), such an amount would be relatively simple to achieve through 
"normal" fund-raising activities at a kingdom or regional level.  This 
could be done in a variety of ways.  For instance, an agreement to add a 
"pro bono" $5 to the site fee at Pennsic, Gulf Wars, Estrella and the Great 
Western War alone would produce an amount in the region of $100,000 with 
little or no additional paperwork or hassle to members, non-members, 
administrators or the corporation.  Alternatively, more "normal" 
fund-raisers such as a special event for the corporation, pass the helm at 
major events, etc. could produce a rather large, though perhaps less 
predictable, amount spread across 17 kingdoms.  (It works out at well under 
$6,000 per kingdom spread evenly which it would not be, of course.)

All this, of course, assumes that the membership believes enough in the 
prudence of the corporation and its managers to support them with their 
funds.  And that may go to the heart of the issue.

I well remember being Chronicler of the East in the early 1980's when the 
BoD decided to buy a minicomputer system which most computer professionals 
- in the northeast corridor at least - saw as a "boondoggle" and a major 
unnecessary cost.  Literally half the peers of the East at that time came 
to me to ask whether they could pay their fees directly to the East to get 
Pikestaff and support the East without underwriting what they saw as an 
imprudent BoD action they could not control.  ("Millions for defence but 
not one cent for Berkeley". . .)  Of course, by the rules of the Society I 
could not do this, but a lot of folk voted with their feet.  (Followed 
shortly by the BoD requirement of paid membership for holding most offices 
and fighting in Crown!)

As has been pointed out recently, twenty years later the general membership 
still has no direct control over BoD membership, budget or even fairly 
basic aspects of the game we play apart from a theoretical "peer pressure". 
 This could lead to some fairly radical changes without any input from the 
membership of the Society at large.  Most folk do not really like to think 
about it, but a sufficiently isolated BoD (and even the most well-meaning 
and intelligent of folk tends to become isolated while on the BoD) could 
decide, for instance, in the interests of upping membership to require 
continuous membership to retain rank, heraldic registration of names and 
armory or any other "perk" of Society participation.  (Requiring membership 
to retain awards and/or heraldic registration were both fairly seriously 
suggested when I was Laurel Queen of Arms and were beaten back in part by 
the logistics nightmare involved and in part by the obvious injustice and 
potential offense to the general membership of requiring family or 
household members to maintain memberships for deceased or inactive early 
members of the Society in the older kingdoms.)

While we like to play with "the king's word is law" in the medieval aspect 
of the Society, the BoD has over and over again insisted that it deals only 
with the non-medieval logistic aspects of the Society.  In that context, a 
lot of us rebellious Yankees have had a real problem with "taxation without 
representation".  Not to mention governance by self-selecting oligarchy!!!

Interestingly enough, based on a lot of conversations I suspect many folk 
would have fewer problems with real donations like those to our Travel Fund 
because they could be legally tied to a goal they would consider 
legitimate, e.g. underwriting publications, Bod and officer travel 
expenses, etc.

Therefore, an approach where the BoD assigned each kingdom a fund-raising 
goal based on its membership numbers and left it to the individual kingdom 
how to meet that goal would probably be far more predictable and fiscally 
successful than the NMS without a lot of the controversy.  Some kingdoms 
would simply pass the hat as the West did during the last NMS to avoid p  
enalizing individuals.  I strongly suspect that a lot of long-time members 
in this kingdom would be more than willing to toss a twenty into the kitty 
once or twice a year (particularly if they got a tax receipt!).  As noted 
above, by agreement participants in kingdoms with large wars might raise 
more than their share by adding a fund-raising component to their site fees 
for those wars.

This approach, used so successfully by other groups, would do far more to 
ensure the long-term fiscal stability of the Society than the NMS without 
any of the equity and administrative issues the NMS raises.  (This would be 
particularly true if any $$$ in excess of annual *** pre-budgeted*** needs 
were placed in an endowment whose interest only could be used for 
operations.)

It is a pity that the BoD has been so reluctant to try such obvious 
approaches to our ongoing financial issues.

Alisoun
-----Original Message-----
From:	Arthur Donadio [SMTP:dukecuan at hotmail.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, August 21, 2002 5:26 PM
To:	atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
Subject:	RE: [MR] NonMember Charges

Hi everyone.  I just came online and saw all the talk and would like to
clarify some things, if I can.  Back in May the BoD was asking the Kingdoms 

to be creative in encouraging membership while telling us that 
reinstatement
of the $3 non-member surcharge was not being considered at the national
level.  So TRM in consultation with the Seneschal, and with us, decided to
give members in Atlantia a $3 discount effective July 2002.  Then, in
October, after telling us the non-member surcharge was not coming back, the 

BoD made us look a little silly by voting to reinstate it effective January 

2003.  So we will hold a curia at November Crown whereat we will put a
December 31, 2002 sunset provision on the discount, and a January 1, 2002
effective date on the BoD mandated non-member surcharge.  We were 
discussing
keeping both, but that plan seems unwieldy in the extreme for autocrats
budgeting events, and a little unfair to non-members.  So basically, fair
Atlantia will give no discount and not keep the extra $3 from non-members,
and the national will get the $3.  I am a little disappointed at the BoD's
reasoning that it is OK to reinstate the surcharge because some people
suggested it, because they fail to take into account the effect of their
announcement that the surcharge option was not on the table.  In other
words, had the BoD said the surcharge was a possibility, how many people
would have actively opposed it?  We will never know.  Anyway, whatever your 

feelings on membership, if you are not a member after January 1, 2003, you
will pay an extra $3 at the gate; over that we have no control.

Cuan Princeps


>From: "Gorm Of Berra"<gormofberra at earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: gormofberra at earthlink.net
>To: atlantia at atlantia.sca.org
>Subject: RE: [MR] NonMember Charges
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:27:04 -0700
>
>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




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

========================================================================
                   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