Report from the Grand Council: July, 1998

To the Directors, Greetings.

The Grand Council (GC) is now discussing banishment, under its new chair, E. F. Morrill. He would like some clarification of what the Board would like the Council to produce on this issue. He would also like confirmation of his understanding that the Council is still an Executive Committee of the President. This was less of an issue when the President and GC Ombudsman were the same person.

Items Requiring Board Action

The Chair has asked for clarification. Is the Council still an Executive Committee reporting to the President of the Corporation? He has also asked for direction from the Board on how they would like us to proceed. Does the Board think the current banishment procedures need to be changed? If so, what portions of the current procedures, in the Board's opinion, present problems, and why? Does the Board want a discussion of the pros and cons of proposals submitted so far? Does the Board want another banishment proposal, if the Council thinks that would be preferable to the IAC or Colbert proposal? Or does the Board feel it has enough information to determine any changes to the banishment procedure, either itself or through the creation of a three person committee?"

Detailed Status Report

Steve Muhlberger did not seek another term as Chair, and E. F. Morrill was chosen to replace him.

Susan Earley submitted a draft proposal on banishment to the GC. It would remove second and third level banishment as sanctions, retaining and encouraging greater use of specific actions by specific officers, such as removal from office, revocation of authorization, etc. Revocation and denial of membership would also be remain as a sanction, with consideration triggered by the non-banishment avenues remaining in the Governing & Policy Decision. Mundane legal action could also be taken as appropriate. She has not yet formally submitted her proposal to the Board, although all the directors who follow the GC list will have had the opportunity to read the draft.

She has invited the Council to either suggest improvements or come up with something better. She has expressed a willingness to withdraw her proposal if we come up with something she likes better, but reserves the right to submit some version of her proposal if we don't.

A subcommittee was appointed to compare existing proposals, and their summary comparison is available if desired. The Council discussed banishment issues.

1) Nobody felt that the current banishment process wasn't flawed.

2) The Council voted 8-7 in favor of using the Earley proposal as a basis for further discussion and modification, with three abstaining. While a plurality of the Council favored this approach, support was less than overwhelming.

3) ALL of proposals see a greater role for panels below the Board level to examine serious offenses, and either recommend or impose sanctions. Such panels are already a limited part of Society procedures for dealing with problems, but Corpora and Policy say little about the requirements for due process. Some kingdom law sets specific and reasonable standards for such panels, some does not. Some members of the Council felt it would be desirable to examine requirements for due process, regardless of what other action was taken on banishment.

Summary. A report on Board Elections has already been submitted as an interim report. The Council has chosen E. F. Morrill as Chairman, and is currently discussing banishment.

Respectfully submitted

Will McLean (Galleron de Cressy)
29 Sam Hill Rd,
Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 827-1360 mclean1382@aol.com
Secretary, Grand Council

cc: directors@sca.org, gc