Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 18:18:35 -0500
From: Alexx@world.std.com
Message-Id: <199401242318.AA28389@world.std.com>
To: carolingia@world.std.com
Subject: A firsthand report of the BOD meeting (fwd)


>Xref: world wstd.mail.sca-heraldry:7629
>Newsgroups: wstd.mail.sca-heraldry
>Path: world!daemon
>From: flieg@GARNET.BERKELEY.EDU
>Subject:      Meeting report from Eilis.
>Message-ID: <199401242205.AA02551@world.std.com>
>Sender: Discussions of SCA Heraldry <SCAHRLDS@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
>Reply-To: Discussions of SCA Heraldry <SCAHRLDS@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
>Organization: The World @ Software Tool & Die
>X-To:         antir@kwantlen.bc.ca, sca-lochac@dialx.oz.au,
>              sca-west@mrfrostie.ecst.csuchico.edu,
>              scahrlds%pucc.BITNET@cmsa.berkeley.edu
>Distribution: wstd
>Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 22:02:31 GMT
>Approved: usenet@world.std.com
>Lines: 120

Flieg here -=- I am posting this because it appears that eili's post did not
make it out of her computer, except for a personal copy to me.

------------------------------
From: "Lee Forgue" <eilis@haas.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 24 Jan 1994 10:57:29 -0600 (CST)
To: SCAHRLDS%PUCC.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU,
 sca-west@ecst.csuchico.edu,sca-lochac@dialix.oz.au,antir@kwantlen.bc.ca
Cc:
BCc:
Subject: The Board Meeting

This is Eilis O'Boirne, member # 03727, member of the SCA for over 20 years
speaking here.  It is also Lee Forgue, who has given up a fair amount of her
time to this club, including a term as Seneschale of the West.

I was at the Board of Directors meeting on Saturday, 22 January.  This is my
report on what I heard there (and, oh God, I now wish I had brought a tape
recorder with me.  I heard it all, and *I* can't believe I heard it!!!)

We arrived for the 10 o'clock meeting at about 9:45.  At just before 10, we
were told that the meeting would be delayed an hour.  At just before 11, we
were told that it would not begin until 1 pm, as the Directors were in
closed session.  We went shopping and to lunch.

At 1, the open meeting began.  People with picket signs were told that the
hotel had asked that there be no picketing, either in the room or outside,
and that the signs be taken out.  Tim Moran, Chairman of the Board, stated
that if the signs were not taken out, the meeting would be declared closed.
The signs were taken out.  Flieg went to the hotel security and was told
that there was no problem with picketing outside, and that they had been
asked by someone from the Board to clear the picketers from the room.
(There is, at best, a failure to communicate clearly here.)

The meeting began with regular reports.  The report from the Society
Seneschal brought up the topic of required numbers of members for branches,
especially shires and Baronies.  This was remanded to later discussion,
which never happened.

The Finance Committee (speaking through Victoria Tisdale) made
recommendations that the membership fees be raised and that membership be
required for all activities.  We were told that these had been passed, and
that all that was left for discussion was the implementation.  When we asked
for "why" answers, we were fobbed off.  They didn't exactly say "Now,
dears, you wouldn't understand, so don't worry your pretty little heads" --
not exactly, but that was the gist of what we were told.  When asked, the
Chairman said that this would be implemented within the year.  We *were*
told that this was not really driven by insurance, that it was necessary for
"budgetary and legal" reasons, and that everything else was
"implementation".  (God save us from more implementation like the recent
"blue card" mess.)  Discussion was cut off after about 10 minutes, and they
went on to the regular meeting agenda, like approval of new branches and
bank accounts.

By the way, the proposed new fees are:
   $35 subscribing member (up $10)
   $20 student/associate member (up $8, and what's a student member?)
   $15 foreign member (down $10)
   $10 femily member (same)
if I recall correctly.  I know subscribing is right; the others were only
stated once.

Changes to the by-laws were enacted, dropping the requirement that there be
two Board members on any committee of the Board and changing the rules under
which meetings are run from Roberts Rules to Standard Parlimentary
Procedure.

The next major item to be discussed was the fact that there will no longer
be Board minutes issued to subscribers.  This is theoretically on advice of
counsel.  The formal Board minutes will be simply records of motions and
changes to the by-laws (formal actions of the Board).  A narrative of what
happened at the Board meeting will appear, either in TI or in a pamphlet
mailed to all members.  Current subscribers to the minutes will be offered a
choice of reimbursements.  Minutes will be available to those who have a
legal reason to see them.

Implementation of how to make the SCA available to newbies since membership
is now required was discussed.  It seems that the Board favors some sort of
"guest pass", good for a certain number of events or for a time period (six
months was talked about, so was a year).  These will be handed out by local
seneschals to newcomers, and signed and dated.  When the time period is up,
people will have to buy memberships.  The Board stated that this would be
enforced by the honor system.

Several items were struck from the agenda at this point, since the hotel
staff had to clear the room and set up for their next function.  (Is this
why we met in a hotel and spent money for a room?)

The vote on requiring membership to attend events was 4-2.  (The Board at
present has only 6 members.)  In favor were Tim Moran, Victoria Tisdale,
A.J. Riviezzo, And L. Jane Richards.  Voting against the requirement were
Randall Tatro and Karen Hatten.  This vote does need to be implemented by a
change to the by-laws before it can be put into effect -- and that requires
a unanimous vote as the by-laws now stand.

A change this profound to the structure of the Society should not have been
made without the advice (if not the consent) of what are formally called
the "advisory members".  Consider well your next actions, and then take
them.  Whether you choose to write to the Board, call for impeachment,
consult with your Crowns, or rage to your next-door neighbor, remember that
this action of the Board, if it is implemented, will change our game very
deeply and will affect the way we play it.  At the least, they owe us an
explanation -- and "budgetary reasons" is not an explanation.

If anyone has specific questions about any of the above, I would be glad to
try to answer them.  I am sorry for the length of this posting, and
apologize for any typos.

**They have raised the tax on tea.  We are standing on the dock watching the
ship come into port.  What next???**

  --- eilis o'boirne (glad I don't have an ulcer)  (eilis@haas.berkeley.edu)

This is being posted on SCA-West, SCA-Lochac, SCA-AnTir, and the Heralds'
List.  If some kind soul wanted to forward it to CompuServe or to any other
SCA Bulletin Boards, I would be grateful.  Also to teh Rialto, since I don't
have the time (or the heart) to retype it.

--- Flieg here again. -- Someone please post this to the Rialto. I don't
have good access there.