[MR] re: Value of membership (long post)

[David W. James]

Quick answers...

On Friday, August 23, 2002, at 06:39 PM, E. Georges wrote:
> My 2 farthings:

> 1) We seem to be turning the non-member surcharge issue into yet another
> discussion of "who is the BOD and what the heck gives them the right to 
> tell
> us what to do?"  Well, you like this game called the SCA, don't you?  
> You
> like going to events.  You like fighting or sewing or cooking or 
> whatever it
> is you do.  You like Pennsic.  You like the fact that the SCA is as big 
> and
> popular as it is.  You like the awards, the titles, the heraldry.

> Let's posit a world without the BOD, without a national corporation.  
> Let's
> take a look at how our game might change:

	I'll emphisize 'might'.

	Also, your entire 'analysis' is  based on an assumption of complete 
balkanization of the SCA.  I can't say that I know or have heard of 
anyone advocating that except for people arguing against any change from 
what we have now. There are several examples of the federation model 
already in existence, and the model can work, and would work, for the 
SCA.

	Your creation of 16 individual kingdoms with no oversight and going 
16 different ways is a straw man that you set up so you could knock it 
down.  I hope you had fun, but it doesn't have much to do with the 
suggestions others have put forward here or in the past.

> -- Assuming that each SCA Kingdom chose to stay in its present form, 
> and to
> play with the other SCA Kingdoms, each would have to maintain an
> organizational structure that established it as a 501 (c) (3) 
> corporation.
> That would entail each kingdom to have its own BOD. (Corporations under 
> law
> MUST have a Board of some kind.  It's the law.)  It would have to have a
> separate corporate identity, and someone would have to be designated to
> receive all notices on behalf of the corporation.  That same person 
> would
> have to be responsible for maintaining all corporate filings with the 
> states
> in which we operated, and with the federal government.  That person 
> would
> have to have an office, and the address for that office would have to 
> be on
> file with all the states we operated in.  If the Kingdom were sued, that
> person would be the one to take service of the legal papers.  That 
> person
> would have to hire and manage legal counsel, accountants, etc.

	This is no different from the current set up with regard to legal 
activities, save that A) individual kingdoms would make smaller targets 
and B) some (perhaps minor) duplication of effort.

	Several people have suggested and proposed that the SCA should 
re-organize as a federation of corporations rather than its (until 
recently) monolithic structure.  "Until recently" is because the SCA is 
no longer a single corporation *now*, and hasn't been for some time.  
This is a trend that I and others expect to continue, and the Board has 
slowly, over the last 4-5 years, been working as if that is the 
Corporate goal as well.  Strike one.

> --  Each time you went to a different kingdom, you would have to worry 
> about
> authorizing in that kingdom (much in the way Angelssey and Markland and
> other groups have to authorize in the SCA before they fight at our 
> events).
> No, Atlantia could not simply say that if you are authorized in 
> Ansteorra or
> wherever you are authorized here -- our insurance company would not 
> cover
> that.  And yes, we would need insurance, even if it were swiss-cheese
> insurance.  Try renting a campground to host events like ours without 
> it.
> You won't get far, I assure you.  Oh, and in case you think insurance is
> cheap, remember that the larger the group the cheaper the policy.  It's 
> how
> actuarial tables work.  A policy for Atlantia alone would be more 
> expensive
> than the one Militpas has, not less.

	You conflate two issues here, and make a (possibly invalid) 
assumption as well.  You currently do have to authorize anew if you move 
to a new kingdom.  And I have never seen anyone say before that 
insurance is why we require authorizations.  Authorizations were a 
safety innovation that arose in the mid-80's; prior to that we didn't 
require them.  I was never asked to 'authorize' until, oh, 1986? when I 
moved to the Midrealm and got active again after a year in a place with 
no SCA presence. (Actually, I had been fighting in the Midrealm for a 
year before anyone asked me if I had an authorization card.  I had never 
heard of them before...)

	Now, you may be talking about visiting, in which case you are 
probably correct; with exceptions.  Not every kingdom authorizes the 
same way now.  Some have a blanket authorization, others break it into a 
few different styles, some have several (I'd have to dig out my old Mid 
card to see how many styles they had, the East's card had room for 8 or 
10 styles, though I think we only had 6 in reality.)

	If you actually have evidence that insurance was the primary reason 
for the creation of the authorization system, I would love to see it.  
Otherwise this item is in error at its base.

	It may also be in error in its conclusion.  A federation of 
corporations may or may not require individual insurance, depending on 
the nature of the federation and the local corporation's relationship(s) 
with the umbrella organization.  It would certainly be possible for the 
umbrella organization to hold the policy and for the 'locals' (which I 
and others have expected to be kingdom-level) would buy into it.  And 
even if the local's did purchase individual insurance, your assertion 
that it would be more expensive is just that, an assertion.  Insurance 
cost is determined by exposure to liability and potential costs; both 
would be lower on a kingdom basis.

	Just as an example, my insurance agent says that a $2 million 
'umbrella' liability rider on our home owners policy would be less than 
$200 a year.  Small exposure, small cost.  I would expect that if we 
were a business it would significantly higher.

	It is possible, even likely, that local insurance would result in 
some duplication, and some areas known for higher litigation (or lower 
safety standards) would pay more.  On the other hand, currently everyone 
in the SCA is paying to insure those areas.  It is a trade off.

> --  You are now a group with one Kingdom and therefore one King (or 
> Queen).
> Atlantian Law would now be the final word on everything.

	Not correct.  The highest level would still be the mundane courts. 
Less extreme, the by-laws of the local corporation (remember, you 
required one, and they are required to have by-laws) and the Board of 
Directors of the corporation would trump the game side nobles.  Now, as 
with the SCA's board, it is entirely possible that they would be one and 
the same, but since I suspect that regional corporations would require 
'member' election of the local Board, that isn't a foregone conclusion.

	The rest of this example is the same old straw man I've already 
addressed.

> So, without a national corporation, here is what you would have:

	Not 'would', 'might'.  You're changing wording in mid-stream.

>  -- a local corporation, with a BOD, who would have to take on all the
> responsibilities of the national BOD.  My guess is that people would 
> still
> be grousing about the BOD in the same way we do now.  We might even 
> grouse
> about it worse becasue we would know the people better and our personal
> feelings about them might get in the way of an objective view of their
> decisions.

	Conversely, the local Board, being closer to the people affected by 
their decisions, might well be more responsive and communicate better 
with the 'members' of the corporation.

> -- we would still need insurance, office space, staff and the other 
> things,
> and we'd have less resources available to maintain them.

	Also a lot less to maintain, perhaps back to where we can run 
without paid employees.  Is the kingdom Seneschal currently renting 
office space?  How about the Lists?  Triton/Golden Dolphin?

> -- It would be harder for our members to "live the dream" the way they 
> do
> now.  If my job transfered me to Phoenix I might not be able to use my 
> arms,
> might not be recognized as a member of the nobility.  For me this poses
> little inconvenience, but I would hate to see an accomplished and
> well-recognized individual from our Kingdom have to "strart over" in 
> this
> game merely because they got transferred.  If I wanted to fight at 
> Pennsic,
> I would have to make sure I was fully authorized to fight in AEthelmarc
> first.  My Atlantian authorization wouldn't track.  Are these 
> insurmountable
> obstacles?  No.  But why impose them when we gain nothing from it?

	Straw man time again.  Only you seem to be advocating completely 
throwing out the National Corporation with nothing in its place.

> Bottom line:  You may not like Militpas and the SCA BOD, but getting 
> rid of
> them creates more problems than it solves.  There is perhaps something 
> to be
> said for reforming the way the BOD is selected or the procedures for BOD
> resolutions, but getting rid of the BOD or the national office is not a
> realistic option.

	Perhaps, but your arguments do nothing to establish this as fact or 
even likelihood.

> 2) Is it fair to impose a surcharge to attend events on non-members?
> Organizations hosting events that are open to the public do this every 
> day.

	Ah, 'everyone else is doing it'.  Always a wonderful argument.

> I believe we need to do everything we can to keep event prices down, but
> this is an issue that is wholly unrelated to the "non-member
> whatchawannacallit."  Event prices are set based on feasts, site fees,
> equipment rentals.  All of those costs go up if there are more people.

	And down on a per-person basis, yes?

> Because we do permit attendance to non-members, more people come.

	'Permit'. What a wonderful word.  It assumes ownership of something 
so that it can be refused.  The SCA, Inc. learned back in 1994 that they 
didn't 'own' the game; the players do.  There were players around before 
the corporation, and it was many years after the creation of the 
corporation (solely to facilitate the playing of the game!) before the 
Corporation and the players started to forget that fact.

	You appear to have made a classic mistake; that of mistaking the 
symbol for the thing it refers to.  Symbols are useful things, but they 
are not the thing they refer to. "Sea" is safe; the sea is not.  
"People" are easily treated as numbers, people aren't.  The SCA, Inc. is 
not the SCA, it is a tool created to make it easier to play the game of 
the SCA.

	The corporation, the SCA, INC., is not the reason we play the game.  
The game is the reason for the SCA, Inc.

	For 27 years the SCA, Inc., showed regular, steady growth in 
"membership".  In the 28th year a bad set of management decided that the 
Inc was the reason and the game their plaything, and tried to act in as 
if it were true.  Since then the SCA, Inc.'s growth has been negative to 
zero; the Corporation still hasn't achieved membership levels they had 
in 1993 (currently we are just under 25,000; I recall that we were over 
28,000 in '92/'93.)

	Beware of 'permit', my lady.  That way lies stagnation, at best.  At 
worst?  Well, take your straw man and multiply it times the number of 
people in the Society.

	
> And the
> site fee covers the cost of their attendance at events.  But the only 
> money
> that supports our corporate identity currently comes from our membership
> fees.  Like it or not, our corporate identity allows this game to be 
> played
> with a level of sophistication that would be impossible otherwise.

	No, it does not.  In my opinion it has actually been hindering the 
play of the game for the last, oh, 15 years or so, to one degree or 
another.  Judging by the response 8 years ago and now, I am not alone.

David/Kwellend-Njal