[MR] From a SCA Cook

[Peggy Brodie]

Dear Ladies Tirza and Adriana,  Bless you, bless you, bless you!

As one of the groups currently trying to hammer out policy on this exact 
point, I so appreciate what you have just said so much better than I could 
have said it.  Even when a group or event is happy to ignore the dollar 
issues, YOU CAN"T IGNORE THE LEGALITIES!

Thank you so much!

Margaret Obrolchan
Exchequer
Barony of Black Diamond

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kelly Keck" <kellylynne at gmail.com>
To: "Merry Rose" <atlantia at atlantia.sca.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: [MR] From a SCA Cook


> Greetings to the Tavern,
>
> I feel compelled to point out a few things regarding the topic of whether
> guests at high table should pay for feast.
>
> First of all, I think it's a misnomer to say that any group's financial
> policy "demands payment" from guests at high table.  As a rule, people
> attending event are expected to pay.  People eating feast are, likewise,
> expected to pay for their meal.  Financial policies spell out the 
> **specific
> exceptions** to that general expectation--those people who provide some
> special service related to the event and are therefore "comped" because of
> it.  Royalty are generally comped, many groups comp landed baronage, and
> some comp key event staff such as the autocrat or head cook.
>
> It's not that groups have written in their financial policies "Guests at
> high table must pay," but that they do *not* have financial policies that
> state, "All guests at high table will be comped, with their meals paid for
> by the barony."   It's not a matter of demanding, it's a matter of *not*
> making a specific exception for someone called to sit at high table.  And 
> it
> is **Kingdom** financial policy that requires any group providing a comp 
> to
> budget it in advance.  It must be in the budget for the event, with a
> written justification, or it must be written into the group's financial
> policy.
>
> Specifically, kingdom policy says "Branches in Atlantia may choose to 
> waive
> event fees (agree to absorb the cost themselves) for the following event
> attendees:  the king, queen, prince, princess, and local landed baronage.
> To waive the fees of additional attendees, the local branch must include a
> list of those approved for waived fees in the branch's financial policy
> and/or have the waiver of fees approved by the branch's financial 
> committee
> with justification/documentation for the additional names added to the 
> Event
> Report."  Therefore, as per kingdom, a group is not allowed to simply 
> decide
> to waive the feast fee for someone who's not on kingdom's list of approved
> comps and has not been added to the event budget.  At the very least, the
> group would have to call a meeting of their financial committee (assuming
> enough members of the committee were even on-site) in order to add to the
> list of people receiving a free meal and would have to provide 
> documentation
> to kingdom.
>
> Secondly, when dealing with money, an autocrat or local officer has many
> obligations.  He or she is accountable to the barony for how the group's
> money is spent and for ensuring that the group's rules are followed, as 
> well
> as being accountable to kingdom and regional exchequers for the same.
> Certainly, a kingdom exchequer might question why a group fed 100 people,
> collected money from 90, but only had 4 in the budget as comps.  That's 
> also
> the sort of thing in an event report that would look rather shady under an
> IRS audit.  Also, what about the case of a kingdom event?  If six people 
> are
> given free meals that were not budgeted or approved, that cuts into the
> event profits, including kingdom's share of the profit on that event.  In
> that case, the kingdom would be well within its rights to hold that shire 
> or
> barony accountable for the "missing" money.
>
> An autocrat who unilaterally decides at the last minute that someone will 
> be
> comped (in the case of having someone sit at high table who hasn't paid 
> for
> feast) has gone against kingdom policy, as well as shire or barony policy.
> Someone who's willing to disregard the rules laid out by kingdom and the
> local group isn't necessarily someone I want as an autocrat.
>
> Legally, we're also accountable to the IRS, which has rules dealing with 
> how
> non-profit groups may spend their money.   As I've never been an exchequer
> or a lawyer, I won't delve into that too deeply (since I'm sure others 
> will
> do so), but I do wish to point out that the question has been raised 
> whether
> it's even *legal* to provide a free meal to someone simply because they 
> were
> asked to sit at high table.  Generally, money belonging to a non-profit
> organization isn't supposed to be spent on gifts to individuals--this is 
> why
> things such as queen's teas or special food for high table don't come out 
> of
> group budgets.  If a group *did* wish to pay for the meals of all high 
> table
> guests, that group would have to have such a financial policy approved by
> the kingdom exchequer.
>
> I do agree that events should be about more than making money.  Having 
> fun,
> learning about the Middle Ages, and striving to recreate a chivalric
> atmosphere should be our first priority.  However, everything the SCA does
> costs money, and if we ignore that bottom line completely, how will we put
> on events?   Most events are already funded pretty heavily from donations 
> as
> it is--people donate site tokens, or food, or prizes.  But, as an
> organization, we have to be careful about how much we stress the 
> generosity
> of our people.  If we budget poorly, what happens when that person who
> "always" donates site tokens hits a financial rough spot and can't do it 
> any
> more?   Distasteful though it might be to some, we do need to budget our
> events with the expectation of making money and to watch our expenses
> carefully.
>
> Yes, sometimes there's plenty of food and adding another person isn't an
> issue.  Many times, it might not even be noticed that someone has been
> added.  It isn't as though most shire or baronial exchequers walk from 
> table
> to table at each feast, making sure someone has paid.  However, sometimes 
> it
> is an issue.  I've been at feasts where there are more leftovers than the
> staff can carry home, but I've also been at a few where wasn't enough of
> everything to go around.  Some dishes also can't be portioned by the cup 
> or
> half-cup.  While you could take a teaspoon from each plate without anyone
> noticing, you can't suddenly add another pie or pastry, nor can you
> redistribute something like a whole roasted chicken.
>
> Additionally, on the subject of being a good host, in a sense, a financial
> policy that states that high table guests will be comped can make a group 
> a
> worse host rather than a better one.  Certainly, the group is being 
> generous
> to those seated at high table, but the money that would be spent on those
> meals has to come from somewhere.  Because it's all part of the event
> budget, it has to come from the feast fees of those who do pay.  Granted,
> there are often leftovers, but a responsible cook and autocrat won't just
> cross their fingers and hope to have extra--they'll budget for the people
> they expect to feed and the money they expect to receive.  So, a cook who
> wants to feed 100 people when only 92 are paying will either serve less 
> food
> or ask for a larger budget.  Either way, everyone who is not sitting at 
> high
> table is paying a portion of the meal for those who do.  While the cook
> could choose to go over budget in the interest of being a good host, 
> that's
> not a responsible way of handling the group's money.
>
> Also, a group might not be able to afford to budget that all high table
> guests be comped.  His Highness cites an average feast of 100-125, but 
> some
> feasts are a good bit smaller than that. My barony, for example, often 
> does
> feasts for 60-80 people. In that case, the guests at high table represent
> 10% or more of the feast budget.  If a site is pricey, the budget is
> stretched thin, or a group has just lost money on another event and needs 
> to
> make a profit on this one, that kind of expense might simply not be an
> option.  Kingdom also requires event budgets to have a 10% "fudge
> factor"--that is, expected expenses are multiplied by 1.1 before 
> subtracting
> them from expected income to get the expected profit.  This is a good 
> idea,
> but it means that every planned expense becomes larger than life on the
> budget.    Sometimes, the cost of comping all of high table simply can't 
> be
> budgeted in.  And, as per kingdom policy, if the group don't plan it into
> the budget and get it approved, then they aren't allowed to do it.
>
> Any time anyone is comped, it is a gift, not an obligation or a
> requirement.  Groups are not even required to comp Their Majesties or 
> Their
> Highnesses.  They do so because they appreciate what the royal presence 
> adds
> to the event and the enormous personal sacrifice made by the Crowns to 
> hold
> that position.   Comping attendees at high table (*if* it is even 
> allowable
> under kingdom policy and mundane law) is also a gift that some groups 
> choose
> to bestow.  But to take a gift and a courtesy and say that it would be 
> rude
> not to offer it cheapens the gift.  Now, the giver of the gift isn't being
> especially generous--all they're doing is not being rude.  Rather than 
> going
> above and beyond, they're just fulfilling expectations.
>
> Certainly, it would be rude to have event staff go from table to table
> checking feast tokens or asking people if they have paid.  However, I have
> never seen this happen.  I've *never* had an autocrat or other event staff
> ask if I had paid my site fee or checked to see that I was wearing a site
> token (except at Pennsic, of course).  If someone forgot to pay or didn't
> realize they needed to, and it wasn't noticed until after the event, I 
> don't
> think it's a big deal.  It would also be rude to handle it tactlessly.
> There's a difference between standing over someone at feast and demanding
> money from them and quietly reminding them that they do need to pay, but
> don't worry about it at the moment--enjoy their meal and look for the head
> troll before they leave.
>
> Although I feel that we need to remember politeness at all times, I also
> feel very strongly that  if it **comes to the attention** of the event 
> staff
> that someone who is going to eat has not paid, then the appropriate staff
> person (probably the autocrat, exchequer, or seneschal) needs to either
> require that person to pay, or make other arrangements (calling an 
> emergency
> financial committee meeting if there's some reason the person should be
> comped, or seeing if someone else is willing to kick in a few bucks toward
> that person's fee).  It might be easier to simply let it slide, and
> certainly it would save that staff member from being in an uncomfortable
> position.  But it would be wrong to turn a blind eye to a violation of the
> rules, especially as an officer of the SCA.  It would be that person's
> responsibility to address the situation rather than ignoring it.  Not only
> because it's their job to ensure that rules are followed, but also because
> if they don't, it sets a bad precedent.  If it's all right to squeeze in a
> high table guest who hasn't paid at the last minute, someone will argue 
> that
> it must also be all right to provide a free meal for someone else who 
> hadn't
> planned to stay, or for someone who came at the last minute to help with a
> class or in the kitchen, or perhaps for anyone on the event staff who 
> hadn't
> paid for feast, etc. etc. etc.  And it must be all right for the person 
> who
> didn't get on site until 5 PM not to pay at all, since troll is already
> closed.  Once you start squeezing people in, where do you draw a line?
>
> In the same vein, ignoring some rules also makes it rather difficult to
> enforce the rest.  Suppose an exchequer knows that people are eating feast
> who haven't paid, but lets it go.  Then, a person who spent money for the
> event and didn't get a receipt wants a refund anyway, even though it
> violates kingdom policy.  But why, they ask, can't that exchequer simply 
> let
> it slide--after all, that's what they did for the guests at high table.
> And why can't this other person who was budgeted $50 but spent $150 get a
> refund for the full amount?  After all, this group is willing to break the
> rules for some--why not in other cases?  Not a position I'd want to be in 
> as
> an officer or an autocrat.
>
> In my opinion, the bottom line is this.  If people in the local group are
> acting responsibly, they'll take both financial concerns and kingdom and
> group policies into account when making decisions and will plan in 
> advance.
> Money shouldn't be our only concern, or our biggest, but we can't simply
> ignore it.  Nor can we simply ignore the rules laid out by the kingdom and
> the society.  Additionally, any time a local group provides a free meal or
> waives the site fee for anyone, that is a gift that should be appreciated,
> not a right to be expected.  And if a group cannot do so in a certain 
> case,
> it is not necessarily rudeness.  Perhaps an autocrat or feast cook who is
> trying to, as Lady Tirza put it, "make a penny cry" in the hopes that 
> enough
> pennies can be pulled together to make an event successful, should be 
> given
> the benefit of the doubt, and should not be assumed to be rude simply
> because they haven't included free meals for everyone at high table as 
> part
> of their budget.  Likewise, a local group that does not feel it can afford
> to provide free meals to everyone at high table, and therefore doesn't 
> write
> those comps into their financial policy, should not be assumed to be
> discourteous or greedy. Giving others the benefit of the doubt, rather 
> than
> reading negative motives into every action, is an important part of
> courtesy.
>
> In Service to the Dream,
> Lady Adriana Michaels