[Artemisia] Fwd: [schattentor] SCA myths and legends

[Syeira]

I am forwarding this from my home list in NS because it is good information. Warning it is LONG but worth reading. I am incluging the note from the Schattentor Seneschal.
   
  YES,
  Syeira

Dray Pillbiddit <ruminating at yahoo.com> wrote:
  
this is a forward from Viscountess Shava who advised
that it be sent to all groups.  it was scrolling for
miles, so i tried to condense it so that it wouldnt be
hell to read, but did not change the wording in any
way.  this is thick and heavy and from corporate,
concerning certain perspectives that have been
erroneously passed on.  here follows the post:

Q2 2006 Chairman's Letter to the Membership – Myths
and Questions

Over its 40 years of existence, a number of
misconceptions have managed to work their way
into the SCA's mythology. While some baffle the mind
to think how they might have evolved, 
others have more understandable origins. Among the
more persistent are the ones surrounding
the Corporation, its composition and operations. What
follows are clarifications aimed at dispelling 
prevalent myths and the answers to some of the most
common questions. I hope you find these
of interest and value.

Myths

The Board recycles the same people over and over
again. 

While it is true that some Directors go on to become
Corporate officers, or vice versa, the number 
of "retreads" is surprisingly low. As of this writing,
there have been 84 Director terms since the 
inception of the SCA's Board of Directors. Only 10
people have served more than one full term 
as a Director. Out of those 10, one served three full
terms, three served two full terms, five served
one full and one partial term (to replace a Director
who had to step down early), and one served 
two partial terms. Also, of the 74 people serving as
Directors, only seven went on to become
Corporate officers, and of those seven only one
served more than one term as a Director. 

Part of the reason there have been repeat Directors is
twofold. In some instances, a sitting Director 
left before the end of their term. Normally, when a
new Director is chosen, that person has at least 
a quarter to get up to speed and become familiar with
policies, procedures and current issues. 
When someone leaves early, that seat needs to be
filled immediately, so it is better to fill it with 
someone who is ready to go, such as a former Director.
The second reason is simpler: some
individuals enjoy serving the SCA, and may throw
their hats into the nominee pool more than once. 

The Board and Corporate officers are the same people.


The SCA's Board of Directors consists of seven
individuals. Currently, there are five senior 
Corporate officers (not Board members) who report to
the Board, and therefore do not have 
the same decision-making authority. In the past, it
was routine for Directors to also hold a
Corporate officer position such as that of Treasurer
or President. Today, this is no longer
the practice, though the Chairman of the Board could
hold the President's position, this 
would only happen in an extreme case (and the Chairman
would have to be utterly insane 
to want to do both jobs, anyway). This may account for
the perception that the Board and
Corporate officers are one and the same.

Board members are paid. 

Not a penny – they are all volunteers. Aside from five
salaried and hourly staff members at the
Corporate office, the only other officers who receive
any monetary compensation are the Society 
Seneschal, Society Exchequer, Executive Assistant, the
TI's art director and editor, and the
Compleat Anachronist's editor. And those
remunerations are token gestures at best. 

The SCA's membership is dwindling. 

Membership in the SCA remains at all-time highs, and
through all of 2005, there were more 
than 32,000 paid members. This figure does not take
into account the membership of the 
affiliate Corporations in Finland, Australia, New
Zealand and Sweden. 

All the Directors always vote the same way. 

The Board is composed of some of the Known World's
most forceful personalities. It's hard 
enough for us to agree on what kind of pizza to order,
let alone come to a consensus on
issues with serious ethical considerations. It is
true that some issues do draw unanimous 
votes from the Board, but certainly not all. Just
taking sanctions as an example, since 1996,
the Board has had to vote on 238 motions (some
individuals received multiple sanctions). 
Of those, there were 28 occasions where the voting was
not unanimous; mostly because 
of casting a dissenting vote, though there were a
couple abstentions, as well. That is more
than a 10-percent dissent rate. There were also
scores of motions where a Director recused 
themselves (a recusal is when a board member removes
themselves from discussion and
voting). This usually occurs when a Board member
lives in the same Kingdom as the individual
named in the motion, or knows the individual well
enough that impartiality might be difficult.

You can only get on the Board if you know someone
already on the Board. 

Since I have been on the Board, there was only one
time that a majority of the other 
Directors was even familiar with a nominee being
considered.Sometimes, one or two of us will 
have previously met a candidate, but more often than
not, none of the Board members knows 
the nominees beyond possibly name recognition. That is
why input from the membership is so
important to us. We rely on the commentary we receive
when selecting new Directors. So, 
this is my opportunity to remind everyone reading this
column to send us your comments.
If you have thoughts on one or more of the nominees
on the list, please send them to us.
Your thoughts are invaluable.  

Common Questions

How are Directors elected? 

As a general rule, a new Director is chosen every six
months at the meeting prior to the one 
in which a Board member is due to step down. In the
weeks prior to voting, each Director
reviews the list of nominees kept by the Board's
recruitment ombudsman. Unlike the list you 
may see published on the SCA's web site, Tournaments
Illuminated or your Kingdom newsletter,
the Board keeps a master list that also contains the
commentary sent to the Board regarding
all the nominees, that only the Directors ever see –
never the Corporate or Society Officers.
It is worth noting that after a Director is elected,
his or her name and commentary are purged
from the list, ensuring that members' comments remain
confidential. The Board also keeps a 
business résumé and an SCA résumé that each nominee is
asked to send in. Each Director 
goes through the list, carefully reading the
commentary and résumés, and selects those 
candidates they feel best fit the current needs of the
Board. There are several reasons why 
a nominee might get passed over – sometimes it's
because of the comments sent in by the 
membership; other times the Board may be in need of
specific professional or SCA experience, 
such as a financial background or time in the
marshallate. Additionally, the Board likes to avoid 
having more than one person from a particular Kingdom
on at the same time. This is not a hard 
and fast rule, merely a preference (there have been
times when we have had two concurrent 
Board members from the same Kingdom, but they are rare
instances). When the Directors have 
each shared their short lists of candidates, the
Chairman asks the senior Corporate Officers and
some Society Officers for their thoughts. Some Board
members will also make discreet, private
inquiries to gather more information prior to the
meeting. At the meeting where the actual voting 
is to take place, each Director shares their opinion
on the candidates. Since the vote for selecting
a new Director must be unanimous, there is usually
much discussion on the merits of those 
under consideration before a vote is taken. Just
because a nominee does not get voted on at one 
meeting does not preclude them from ever being voted
in again. A nominee is not removed from 
the list unless their nomination expires, they request
their own removal or they are elected to the 
Board. There are circumstances where the selection of
a Board member does not occur on the 
six-month schedule. This usually happens when a
Director ends their term early because of
resignation or removal. In such cases, an emergency
conference call may be called to fill the
seat immediately. In order to function, the Board
need not continuously have all seven of its
seats filled, but it is best to operate with a full
slate of Directors as much of the time as possible.

Why have so many more sanctions been handed down from
the Board recently, and why would a person be
sanctioned?

While it does seem as though there are an increasing
number of sanctions of SCA members and
participants, here are some insights to put it in
perspective. The SCA has reached an all-time 
high of 32,000+ paid members, with an estimated equal
number of non-member participants. 
So, with a swell in members and other participants, it
is logical to expect an increase in the 
number of sanctions that have to be imposed. In recent
years, our membership, especially 
the officer corps at the local and Kingdom levels, has
become much better trained and educated
in their use of the SCA's Governing Documents. The
resultant improved understanding of 
grievance and sanctions procedures means that those
tools are being used more often now.
It is likely that proportionally, there were just as
many issues years ago as today, it's just that 
people were not as aware of the tools available to
them. Today's membership is less tolerant of 
those who transgress modern laws or the SCA's
Governing Documents, or who endanger the 
Society in some way. Members are more likely to hold
each other accountable than in years
past. While specifics as to the nature of recent
offenses can't be shared, we can say that it 
takes more than mild mistakes to warrant a sanction.
The most common reasons include:
malfeasance, sexual misconduct, assault and repeated
disregard for the SCA's rules. Also, bear
in mind that almost all sanctions originate at the
Kingdom level, not Corporate. The Board does
not go looking for sanctions to hand out, and usually
only gets involved if requested. Speaking 
for myself, it is the single most distasteful part of
my job as a Director, and I would just as soon 
not have to do it. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact we
have to contend with. The Board is always 
studying ways to help its membership along and steer
clear of behavior and activities that may
land them in trouble. Above, I said the SCA's officer
corps is better educated in how to begin
the sanctions process. I also believe it is better
educated in how to help folks avoid problems.
The Society Seneschal has gone to great lengths to
make sure officers understand that sanctions 
are only a last resort, after all other attempts to
help have been exhausted. 

Rumor, misperception and SCA-urban myth will never go
away entirely. It's only natural that some
of it will continue. But a few can have
counterproductive effects or be downright destructive,
making
the need for verification of extreme assertions that
much more important.

Have you got a myth you would like dispelled or a
question you'd like answered? Send an e-mail to 
chairman at sca.org and I'll do my best to answer.

Jason Williams – Chairman, SCA Inc.
(Duke John ap Gwyndaf, KSCA, OL)

Comments are strongly encouraged and can be sent to: 
SCA Inc.
Box 360789

Milpitas,  CA 95036

You may also email comments at lists.sca.org



Lady Syeira of Schattentor, mother of DragonBait



		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.