Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 14:43:03 -0500
From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Joshua Mittleman)
Message-Id: <9402101943.AA18362@blinn.watson.ibm.com>
To: antir@kwantlen.bc.ca, sca-west@ecst.csuchico.edu,
        carolingia@bloom-beacon.mit.edu, nordmark@ludd.luth.se,
        northshield@stolaf.edu, e5@uriacc.uri.edu, sca-reform@MIT.EDU
Subject: Concerning courtesy
Reply-To: mittle@watson.ibm.com


Greetings from Arval!

Over the past few days, several people in several forums have protested
that those of us who are opposing the Board's policy changes are acting
discourteously or unchivalrously.  I consider these to be grave
accusations, deserving of proper response.

The Board of Directors can be viewed from two perspectives: as the
directors of a business set firmly in the real world, or as six noble lords
and ladies of the Society.  In both contexts, courtesy and duty should rule
our actions; I feel that we have rigorously adhered to both standards, and
that any violations were committed solely by the directors themselves.

The directors have been asking us for years to consider them _as_
_directors_ only in the second light; they remind us that the Board has no
existance in the medieval context of the Society.  If we take their advice,
then we must evaluate their actions in a purely business context.  In that
context, we find that at the October meeting, the directors stated that the
corporation was on sound financial footing, but that in January, they were
faced with a crisis so severe that it justified ignoring the Corpora
requirement to publicize changes in the bylaws before they are adopted.  In
fact, examination of the new budget and past years' financial data shows
that the budgetary crisis that supposedly triggered this emergency was no
surprise at all: The Board committed the corporation to considerable new
expenses and expensive new projects without first ensuring sufficient
funding.  Finding the bills had come due in January, the Board acted in
such haste that the directors themselves do not clearly understand what
changes have been made (A. J. Riviezzo at An Tir Crown Council, Tony
Provine in various phone calls, Victoria Tisdale in phone calls, etc.), and
adopted the one solution which they knew to be opposed by "an overwhelming
majority" of the membership (Board Minutes, July 92).  From a purely
businesslike perspective, what is the proper response when the directors of
a corporation take it from financial health to near bankruptcy in three
months, and then choose a recourse opposed by 94% of their customers?  I
think it is obvious: They should be replaced.

Impeachment is the formal means of redresses defined in the bylaws; the
directors know that is there, and they must expect that in extreme cases,
it will be used.  It is not a discourtesy - and certainly not contrary to
the ethic of chivalry - for the advisory members of the corporation to
exercise properly defined avenues of complaint.  Note that we are
exercising _all_ avenues of complaint, including encouraging letter writing
and ensuring that all available information on the subject is distributed
throughout the Society.

However much the directors have protested that their role is purely
mundane, they are certainly part of the Society individually, and I think
we all do see them collectively as part of the Society as well; we must
consider the significance of our actions from that point of view.  Some
people have said that there is a bond between each of us and those six
gentles, based in our mutual love of the Society and the ideals we share.
I agree.  The nature of that bond is difficult to describe, but at its
heart, it must surely be defined by Corpora and the Bylaws.  Like any bond
of faith, like the feudal vow, it is a two-way relationship, an exchange of
services and loyalty.  How then should we judge six gentles who took it
upon themselves, without consultation and in violation of Corpora, to
impose a fundamental change to the Society?  I am afraid that the kindest
conclusion I can reach is that they simply did not understand the meaning
of their actions.  Anyone can be wrong, but it is surely our duty -- our
duty under the bonds that tie us -- to tell them that they are wrong in the
strongest possible terms.  Each reign I re-new my fealty to my Crown,
promising to offer my advice when it is requested and when it is needed.
When my Crown is wrong, it is my duty to tell Them so.  The more
dangerously wrong I think They be, the more strongly I must object.  Never
has the Crown been so wrong as the Board is today; never has my duty been
so clear.

I accept some gentles have faith that less formal means of protest will
suffice to resolve this crisis, but I do not share their faith.  My duty is
clear: I must give my utmost effort to preserve the ideals of the Society
and to ensure their safety from a corporation that ought to be their
servant.  I have been honored to find that many of the noblefolk of our
Society are in agreement; I will stand with them.

	Arval.

===========================================================================
Arval d'Espas Nord                                   mittle@watson.ibm.com