[MR] From a SCA Cook

[Barbara]

> Hrothgar wrote:
I see no problem with having the majority subsidize the meal for others who 
cannot otherwise eat. 
<
Alas, sir, I DO see a problem with this.  While it would certainly be a
kindness, subsidizing someone who otherwise cannot eat sounds to me like
"providing a gift to an individual with SCA funds."  And we can not provide
gifts to individuals with SCA funds, as that is personal-inurnment, a no-no
for non-profit organizations (501c3 orgs, like the SCA). 

This is stated in the SCA's Financial Policy as "Our earnings, in whole or
in part, are not used to the benefit of private individuals or
organizations;..."  (By "earnings" read "any group money")  
and in the SCA's LocalExchequerHandbook as " A. Money may not be used in
whole or in part to the benefit of private individuals or businesses.
These include, but are not limited to, disaster relief funds, special
occasion gifts to members such as flowers or a birthday present, or
replacement of private property broken at an SCA function."

So it is clear to me that we can not give someone a meal (at least one where
the feast is being run through SCA funds) just because they otherwise
couldn't afford to eat.  We already stretch this to allow policies for
"comping" people by position - Royalty, visiting Royalty, Baron/Baroness,
etc, and this is approved because (I believe) there is some aspect of "it is
their job to be there, to run the organization" and the recipients certainly
change over time.  Beyond that, and it starts sounding (to me) like we are
benefiting an individual, which is where I believe we are on risky ground.

So it is this "gift" business that is, I believe, the crux of our dilemma,
at least as I see it from an my Exchequer point of view.  It is not that we
don't want to be good hosts, it is not that we want to be ungracious to our
Monarchs or friends, it is not that we are so focused on making money that
we leave courtesy aside.  It is because some of us consider it our job to
keep ALL of us out of trouble with the Kingdom, Society, and US tax laws,
making sure that all our actions and policies are not "grey" but clearly
appropriate.  It might be a negligible amount of money, but we want all our
actions clearly legal.

On a more positive note, however, Dame Hrothny has already proposed some
solutions that have great merit, and are used effectively in other
circumstances:  it's called "pass the hat."  Individuals or groups of
individuals can give all the private gifs they want.  I have personally paid
fees for people who otherwise wouldn't attend; other people do, too.  I have
seen lovely examples at troll someone subsidizing a stranger who came up
short.  Certainly these private examples of courtesy are the most honorable
in my eyes!

Mistress Anne of Carthew