Message-Id: <m0pObaZ-0001X5C@vishnu.reed.edu>
To: touche! 24-Jan-1994 1828 <groff@epee.enet.dec.com>
Cc: odlin@reed.edu, carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu, odlin@reed.edu
Subject: Re: More BoD decision thoughts 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:23:00 EST."
             <9401242322.AA15152@us2rmc.bb.dec.com> 
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:25:00 -0800
From: Iain Odlin <odlin@reed.edu>

Danulf wrote that he had no problem with his SCA group at a University and
seemed to imply that no University group would have a problem.  That may not
be the case, but that's how it 'sounded.'

  I fear I haven't been clear enough yet again.

  If the (generic) local SCA branch, as we found out when a University
  requirement on our "Blade Society" conflicted with an SCA restriction,
  is set up as a 'student group' at (and accepts money from -- even if the
  "SCA" budget and the "Student Group" budgets are kept apart) the local
  (generic) University, you cannot keep the public (or at least students)
  from attending meetings of the "Student Group".  If the SCA closes its
  doors like this, and the local SCA branch holds its meetings through the
  "Student Group" (as some do -- it makes scheduling space at the University
  easier), there is a clear conflict.

  And again, without the internal footnotes:
  If the local SCA branch is set up as a 'student group' at the local Uni-
  versity, you cannot keep the public from attending meetings of the "Student
  Group".  If the SCA closes its doors like this, and the local SCA branch 
  holds its meetings through the "Student Group", there is a clear conflict.

  Now that we know there is to be a "6 month membership card" (and the ex-
  orbitant amounts of paperwork associated with it), this problem is not so
  disasterous.  Perhaps it doesn't affect Carolingia at all.  But when I
  wrote this thought first yesterday, the problem was (to me) plausible and
  palpable.

  Thanks for listening.
  -Iain Odlin