[MR] From a SCA Cook

[Donald Wagner]

As Windmasters' Hill, I was comped in my own lands.  I didn't like it. 
It just bothered me.  I am not sure why.  Maybe Pride or Vanity, a 
wekness of mine.  Before I run off to confession again, I'll tell you 
how I handled it.

I paid anyway, in my own lands, and insisted that the funds be used to 
pay another's way to the site and feast, since the mundane side of our 
game had deemed that I be given a higher status and insisted they show 
this defference.  Occasionally, this happened to me in my cousins' lands 
as well when I arrived and was informed that I was not to pay my way.  I 
was surprised at how foreign my practice seemed to the troll staff.

I am not speaking of this to sound high and mighty.  I find it a bit 
emabarassing, actually, and asked many to keep it quiet.  Truthfully, I 
agree with His Highness.  Not in the instance that I will eschew groups 
with certain financial policies, but that our monarchs should be able to 
be magnanimous, in the situation of feasts, to honor the worthy or exalt 
the brave.  I believe it as strongly as I believe that I can pay my own 
way and should.

I am not sure what the financial issues are concerning this at high 
table in Windmasters', but I do believe the Good Baron Gaston and 
Baroness Rosalind, and the Windmasters' Knights of the Their Majesties 
will see to any discrepancies in the books for our King and make any 
amends with the Event staff straight away.  Honor whom you will, Your 
Highness.  Your father's knights have your six.

Baron Rodrigo Ralcone, KSCA

Kelly Keck wrote:
> 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
> ========================================================================
>                    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
>