[Artemisia] Some clarification of the Grand Council Discussions

[Dr. C. M. Helm-Clark Ph.D.]

Mea Culpa!  I should have posted this when I
did my original post to the Aerie.  What you
see below is further clarification of what 
the BoD wants the GC to consider.  This should
answer some of the questions people have posed
about the BoD's request for discussion. (This 
clarification is from the GC's ombudsperson
on the BoD.)  Remember that any comments you
have can posted here where Thea and I will see
them or you can send them to gc ATbigroom DoT 
org (my email address for GC related business)
or to Dame Thea, the other GC rep living in 
Artemisia.

here's the clarification info from the BoD to the GC:
************************
> This topic is an outgrowth of some of the things that we had discussed at
> our long range planning meeting and some questions that have been asked of
> the Directors and Corporate staff.
> 
> We talked about this from a variety of perspectives:
> 
> Should there be a uniform fee structure across all Kingdoms? Would an "A
> la Carte" format be more useful for the membership?
> 
> Does the NMS help us, or not? Is there a better way to accomplish the same
> goals?
> 
> Membership fees are holding steady, but our costs are rising. There may be
> the need to raise fees in the future. (We do, and are, looking at ways to
> cut costs.) If we have to raise our fees, are we apportioning the cost
> correctly?  We have new people, students, experienced members, people who
> just come to chat, does "one size fit all" with respect to membership
> fees?
> 
> Is there a better way of handling the whole membership fee thing?
> 
> We've also been discussing the benefits of membership -- what do people see
> as the benefits of membership, and if we can add to the benefits.
> 
> Does that help? It's a pretty far ranging topic, and we're looking for
> input from all perspectives.
> 
> *We are getting a few comments, mostly from the East and West Kingdoms who
> are assuming this is a "done deal". That is unfortunate, as it is
> panicking many needlessly, and not contributing to the overall discussion.
> I think it might be useful if any comments were to go to the GC (not to
> the Directors or Comment lists) list, so that the GC could actually see
> them and consider them.*
> ...
> I'll reiterate, we have no plan to institute this, as we have no idea what
> the plan, the goal or the process should be. The goal was to function as
> proactive Board, and glean information about potential long term ideas
> that may, or may not, benefit the Organization. No more.
*****************************

So basically, the BoD is looking at rising costs, 
static revenue and searching for a way to fund things 
that won't send people like students and seniors 
to the poor house - which I think is a really good
idea, especially since they are looking before they
even think about leaping...

(What?!?!? The BoD is doing long-range planning 
and looking for input on a touchy issue before
even proposing changes on how we do business?
Is this the twilight zone?  Is the world about
to end? Did someone slip LSD into the cider at
feast???)

sorry, couldn't resist...   ;-)

To get a general idea of the SCA Inc.'s expenditures
and revenues, you might want to go to:
http://www.sca.org/officers/treasurer/2007budget.html
to see what the numbers look like for the SCA Inc.
There are three things that really stand out, at 
least from my point of view:

1. Costs are proportional to the number of memberships
(because the largest labor sink at the Milpitas office
is the processing of memberships)
2. The NMS is a very substantial part of the SCA's revenues
3. The stock clerk's office has gone from making money
to losing money.

Anyway, I hope this answers some of the questions
that people have raised so far.

ttfn,
Therasia