Message-Id: <9403111502.AA09108@bloom-beacon.mit.edu>
From: hablutzelml@attmail.com (Margo Lynn Hablutzel )
Date: 11 Mar 94 14:48:27 GMT
To: cclaus@willamette.edu (Conrad Claus),
        mittle@watson.ibm.com (Joshua Mittleman)
Cc: antir@Kwantlen.BC.CA, sca-west@ecst.csuchico.edu,
        carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu, calontir@unl.edu,
        nordmark@ludd.luth.se, northshield@stolaf.edu, e5@uriacc.uri.edu,
        sca-reform@MIT.EDU, jaymin@maths.tcd.ie, lgrant@lanczos.maths.tcd.ie,
        rgoff@mcimail.com, 71233.3035@compuserve.com, MMS6824@tntech.edu,
        mittle@watson.ibm.com
Phone: +1 312 220 9140
Fax-Phone: +1 312 220 9261
Subject: Re: The recent past and the near future
In-Reply-To: your message <Pine.3.88.9403101329.A15295-0100000@minerva> of Thu Mar 10 13:38:48 -0800 1994
Content-Type: text

Thursday, Arval wrote to all, in a message titled "The recent past 
and the near future" that:

	>> I must point out that nothing has changed.  The Board is still
	>> not accountable to the membership nor representative of its
	>> interests.  The Estrella documents signed by the Crowns are
	>> unanswered.  The Board made no special effort to consult the
	>> Crowns or the general populace in appointing new directors;
	>> indeed, it is hard not to see their rush to fill these
	>> vacancies and their choice of past directors rather than new
	>> nominees to provide new perspectives as a repeat of the
	>> mistakes of 22 January.

With due respect, there was nothing else under either the SCA, Inc., 
documents nor the laws of California that the Directors could have done!  
With an undersized Board, they could take no action, including 
consideration of the "Estrella Proclamation."  They could not either 
alter the By-Laws to provide for a different method of selecting 
Directors, nor could they accept persons upon whom the advisory 
membership had not been offered the opportunity to comment.  Any person 
who had not been a Director or was not on one of the list of nominees 
would lack that possibility.  At least there has been the possibility, 
now or in the past, of commenting upon the persons selected.

Additionally, a corporation cannot continue without a President or 
Treasurer, as the SCA, Inc., had been forced to do by the resignations.  
These are the two statutorily-required offices, and it could be 
construed as malfeasance to allow them to continue unfilled.


	>> All the offending policies stand: compulsory membership,
	>> pay-to-fight, the membership fee hike, the restriction of Board
	>> minutes, the new exchequer reporting policies, the SCAM,
	>> renting the mailing list, etc.

Yes, but some have been stayed pending the April Board Meeting, and the 
more egregious ones have not been implemented.


	>> I ask you each to sit down today and write another letter to
	>> the Board, and to send a copy to your Crown.  Continue to
	>> collect signautres for impeachment and if you have some
	>> signatures already, please send them _today_ to one of the
	>> addresses on the petition form; the petition is our best means
	>> to demonstrate widespread support for real change.  Even though
	>> it is partly out-of-date, a successful petition drive will send
	>> a message that cannot be mistaken.

In other words, don't give the new Directors time to get up to speed and 
determine what steps to take.  It seems almost as if Arval is asking 
that we tell the new Directors, "because you are a Director and you were 
chosen by the previous Directors, you are de facto a bad person."  What 
other interpretation can they make of the fact that the impeachment 
drive continues?  It is really not fair, IMHO.  It is as if those of us 
asking for change were told, "you are just a hotheaded radical who 
doesn't care that the Society is not longer a backyard club, and you 
need to get your head out of the 1960's."

I would preach a more moderate line: Let's give them a chance.  If we 
put unnecessary pressure on the Board, they could decide that the 
advisory membership is so hostile and unworkable, there is no hope of 
finding a solution to the problem.  They may very well say, "the plans 
are in place, tough" -- and I really don't want to see that.

If we are really committed to mending the Society, we should let the new 
Directors have a chance to get up to speed.  Continuing with the 
impeachment petitions at this time, or an immediate barrage of demanding 
letters, could hurt the cause of change.  Sometimes when you put enough 
of a siege on people, they prefer to all die and destroy the culture 
than to capitulate.  Let this not happen here.

						---=  Morgan Cely Cain