[Artemisia] Re: [STEPS] Re: [northern] Fw: [STEPS] MERCHANT INFORMATION FUZZY FRUIT CAKE WAR

[Dan S.]

Greetings,

Below is a copy of the latest power grab over the participants of the SCA by
the Corporation.

I can't say I'm surprised, but I am disappointed the Corporation continues
in it's ongoing steady march to gather unto itself absolute control over the
SCA game. Besides the usual lists I read regularly, I'm sending my comments
to comments at sca.org <comments at sca.org> and I encourage those who read this
to do the same (not that it will matter, it never really does)

My comments are interspersed below:

> During its March 20, 2006 conference call, the Board discussed the
> Society
> Seneschal's need for a method of quickly, but temporarily removing an
> individual from participation at SCA activities. Currently, no such
> mechanism exists. This capability would be particularly useful in
> situations where an individual is engaged in a lengthy criminal trial
> with
> no clear end. Rather than requiring a series of Absolute Banishments
> to be
> prepared by Royalty, Kingdom and Society Seneschals until the trial's
> conclusion (which could potentially span many reigns producing much
> redundant paperwork), this would allow the Society Seneschal to
> continue
> the original action and suspend an individual's participation until a
> resolution is reached.
>
> It is important to note that this in no way addresses or restricts the
> rights and responsibilities of Royalty to invoke sanctions as
> appropriate.

No, it merely circumvents those rights and responsibilities, giving the
Society Seneschal a fast track method of bypassing the Royalty of a Kingdom
when the interests of the Corporation come in conflict with the interests of
a Crown.

>
> The Board proposes the following addition to Corpora as a new Section
> X.C.
> Administrative Suspension of Participation (renumbering subsequent
> Sections as appropriate):
>
> C. Administrative Suspension of Participation.
>
> The Society Seneschal may, when necessary, or when Royal Sanctions are
> inappropriate or logistically impractical, impose an Administrative
> Suspension of Participation on an individual. This precludes the
> sanctioned individual from attending any SCA function in any realm.
> Reasons for this form of sanction might include, but are not limited  to,
> when an individual is under investigation by a modern-era agency, when
> an individual is under investigation for a Revocation and Denial of
> Membership, or when an individual's behavior or actions negatively
> affect the Society.

Note that last clause.

"...or when an individual's behavior or actions negatively affect the
Society."

What it basically says is 'whenever the Society Seneschal or Corporation
feels like it'

And if you think that will never happen, read below.

>
> The Administrative Suspension of Participation is effective immediately
> upon proclamation by the Society Seneschal. The suspension must be for
> a specified period of time or meet specific criteria; for example, six
> months, the duration of a specific event, until the conclusion of legal
> proceedings, etc. A duration may not be indefinite. This does not,
> however, preclude the Society Seneschal from immediately renewing an
> Administrative Suspension of Participation.
>
> 1. Notification:
>
> The Society Seneschal must inform the sanctioned individual, Crown of
> the realm of the sanctioned individual, and the Board of Directors, as to
> the specific cause and occasion of the sanction. This notification must be
> made in writing within ten business days.
>
> 2. Review:
>
> An Administrative Suspension of Participation will be automatically
> reviewed by the Board at the next regularly scheduled meeting after
> proclamation. Active sanctions shall be included with the Society
> Seneschal's quarterly report to the Board for review.
>
> If a sanction is determined to be without merit or has been unfairly
> imposed, the sanction will be lifted and the Society Seneschal will be
> subject to sanctions.

Yeah right, when was the last time an R&D or sanction vote by the BoD was
not unanimous or unanimous with abstentions? I'll save you the trouble of
looking it up. Never.

What this means is the BoD thinks it's more important to present a united
front rather than consider the rights of those sanctioned.

Think about it.

They have been handing out about 5 R&D's and sanctions per meeting,
sometimes as high as 8, sometimes just 1 or 2. There have probably been over
100 sanctions and R&D's, maybe even 200+ for all I know.

EVERY single one was unanimous?

What a coincidence.

Society Seneschals have begun investigations with the statement 'What are we
going to do about that little bastard' and yet still they cling to the
fiction that they are 100% impartial and never once have sent on an R&D or
Sanction to the BoD that the accused was not 100% guilty.

Probably the vast majority deserved it, but there is no way that not even
ONE BoD member has ever said 'I dissent' when it came time to vote.

And let's not forget, the Society Seneschal is not only hand picked by the
BoD, they are nearly always former or future members of the BoD as well.

So, what is a better solution?

There should be a fast track Sanction applied by the Society Seneschal ONLY
when someone has been CHARGED with a serious mundane Crime that affects the
Society.

That's it. No loopholes allowing for personal agendas.

But that won't happen. We have no check on the Corporation, no way to
influence the make up of the BoD. Mark my words, they will go ahead and do
whatever they want.

Someday I'll be executively sanctioned I'm sure.

Dissent is not tolerated by the BoD.

In Service,

Sir Daniel-An Tir
(mka Dan Solum membership # 39372)