[MR] The surcharge (fwd)

[Craig Levin]

Renard:

> Mes Camarades,
> 
> I think we're overlooking a few things here.
> 
> 1.  If someone attends just 1 event a month, you're saving money by being a
> member.

Undeniably true.

> 2.  Encouraging paid membership is a good thing.  The more members, the
> lower the cost of insurance (per person).

Insurance is already pretty low. The real kickers for the
corporation are the publications. They cost about 4.6x the
insurance. If the Post Office decides to up rates again, they'll
be all the more so. The BoD has sort of recognized this by
unbundling TI from membership; I do not know if the rate for TI
will be sufficient to cover its expenses (obviously not, since
I'm not a soothsayer). 

Basically, non-members are being asked to pay for something that
they don't see. That sort of sits uncomfortably with me. 

> 4.  A paid member is less likely to win a lawsuit if injured while playing.
> Yeah, I know, but a halfway decent attorney could blow so many holes in
> that waiver that it would look like a piece of swiss cheese.
> 
> I do agree that the manner in which the BoD reached this decision appears
> to be less than...dare I say it...chivalrous.

One wonders how many of my fellow letter-writers suggested a
revival of the NMS. Lots of us recall how loud the shouting was
last time. It wasn't nice. I figured, when I suggested an
adjustment of membership rates, that people who've supported the
corporation in the past would be the natural people to ask for
more help in the future.

> I would also like to see
> more benefits for membership.  One suggestion would be to convince some
> merchants to offer discounts to SCA members.  This would encourage
> membership by offering a tangible benefit, and would likely help their
> business by attracting more customers.  I know I would prefer to patronize
> a place that offers me a discount over one that does not.  Anyone who
> doubts this effect, look around at restaurants the next time you're out
> driving.  The ones with all the police cars out front are the ones that
> offer discounts to law enforcement.  

I've noted that some people-the best examples are Quakers-are
ethically barred from offering such discounts. 

One benefit I wouldn't mind seeing, if it's possible, would be to
get personal accident coverage a la Markland (it's an extra for
them, and I suspect it would be for us, too). While we're all
trying to avoid hurting people and getting hurt, accidents
happen, and it'd be nifty to have some sort of coverage to fall
back on in case our medical insurance backed off. 

> I also agree with Milady Alisoun that a "tax" by kingdom would be more
> appropriate (not to mention more period).  Perhaps by suggesting this to
> BoD members (repeatedly, and with great enthusiasm), we could get more
> response.  This would place the burden of raising funds on the individual
> kingdoms, who could then delegate it down through the baronies, cantons,
> etc., and allow for more creative ways of raising funds.  

Indeed-Kwellend-Njal, they *did* say that there was no problem
with other ways of coming up with the money, yes?

I could see it as a source for event schtick-"Who wants to give
to our fighting men in Outremer/the Indies?" or "Give to the
building fund for the big cathedral/mosque/synagogue in
Constantinople/Mecca/Jerusalem? Do you good!"*

Pedro

*Note: The latter might be a bit dodgy, depending on how your
group interprets the rule on the SCA's disestablishmentarianism.
I don't think it's a problem, necessarily, since the cash
wouldn't actually go to any religious organization.

-- 
http://pages.ripco.net/~clevin/index.html 
clevin at rci.ripco.com
Craig Levin				Librarians Rule: Oook!