Report from the Grand Council: April 5, 1999

To the Directors, Greetings.

This quarter, we have a proposal for changes to impeachment procedures, some changes to sanctions procedures that we think are ripe for publication for comments, and some further changes that we feel are nearly ready for publication, and on which we ask for feedback from the Board.

Items Requiring Board Action

Impeachment Proposal

A proposed change to impeachment procedures, strongly supported by the Council, is attached as an appendix. We recommend that it be published for commentary, and enacted if the commentary is favorable.

Clarification of Sanctions Procedures and Society Review Panel; Request for Publication and Possible Approval by Board

The Council recommends that the existing powers of officers and autocrats be set out more clearly and accessibly, that a general policy on sanctions be enacted to better guide those that impose them, and that a separate Society Review Panel be formed to reduce the Board's workload. These proposals are discussed in greater detail in Appendix II. They are strongly supported by the Council, and are ready to be put into final form, so that they can be sent out for discussion and comment by the membership-at-large. Any final editing could be done by the Board, or by someone designated by them. If desired, the GC could serve as a drafting committee for the final text.

Further Changes to Sanction Procedures: Request for Response from Board.

A proposal for further changes to banishment procedures are also attached as an appendix. While the changes are strongly supported in principle, some councilors felt that the proposal could profit from more detailed discussion and refinement before being submitted for commentary by the general membership. Before the April meeting, which I expect to be able to attend, I will attempt to get a better sense from the Council of how extensive this discussion might be, and how long it might take.

We would like to know if the Board thinks the proposal is close to something that they can approve. (Not necessarily will approve, but could approve lacking cogent arguments to the contrary.) We would also value any specific comments or suggestions from the Board. After all, you are the people that actually have to deal with banishments on a regular basis.

Commendation

I would particularly like to thank Diana Parker, Mark Schuldenfrei and Margo Lynn Hablutzel for their contributions to the proposals, and Cynthia Everett-Baskett for her work in tabulating the vote.

Summary

The Grand Council submitted a proposal for changes to impeachment procedures, some changes to sanctions procedures that they felt were ripe for publication for comments, and some further changes that they felt were nearly ready for publications, and on which they asked for feedback from the Board.

Respectfully submitted

Will McLean (Galleron de Cressy) Secretary, Grand Council 29 Sam Hill Rd, Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 827-1360 mclean1382@aol.com cc: directors@sca.org, GC list

Appendix I: Impeachment Proposal

The Grand Council, an advisory committee to the Board of Directors, was asked by the Board to develop a proposal for the possible election and removal of the Board directly by the membership. A proposal was written and published for commentary in 1998. The majority of commentary received by the Board did not favor election by the membership, and the Board chose not to proceed with that portion of the proposal. However, there was significant interest in mechanisms for removal and the Board asked the Council to investigate how this might be done while retaining the current method of electing the Board.

On investigation, the Council found that binding removal of Directors by a general membership that is unable to elect them does not appear to be possible under California law. In short, those laws seem to only give the option of removal to the membership if they also assume the responsibility of choosing the Board in the first place.

It would be possible to have a method of asking the Board to remove its own members. If enough members, or regional officers, sign such a petition, it would in practice be difficult for the Board to ignore, although there is no way to compel the Board to remove a director if they disagree so strongly that they refuse to bow to the pressure. Such mechanisms exist today, but the requirements for popular petition were set when the Society was smaller and more compact. With the current size and scope of the society, the requirements are practically unobtainable, even when there is widespread popular dissatisfaction.

A proposal for such a change follows.

Impeachment requires the Board to vote on removal of a director at the next meeting of the Board. The current rules on impeachment in the by-laws are:

VI.F.1.a. Impeachment. A Director can be impeached by a letter signed by three (3) Directors, or by a petition signed by a majority of the Corporate Officers or 10% of the current advisory membership. Additional procedures for petitions of impeachment arising out of the medieval structure of the Society are defined in Corpora.

It is proposed that this be changed to:

VI.F.1.a. Impeachment. A Director can be impeached by a letter signed by three (3) Directors, or by a petition signed by a majority of the Corporate Officers or by one thousand (1000) persons who are advisory members at the time of signing. Additional procedures for petitions of impeachment arising out of the medieval structure of the Society are defined in Corpora.

If members impeach Directors, each Director must be impeached by separate petition, although the petitions may be bundled together. The author, author's contact information, the name of the Director to be impeached and the reason for impeachment must be written at the top of each page, so that signers can uniquely identify each petition, and be able to contact its creator. Each signature must be accompanied by a verifiable membership number, a legible modern name, and a date of signature.

(End of proposed changes)

The other procedures defined in Corpora are the current procedures for impeachment by a majority of the Crowns or Kingdom Seneschals. The proposal does not recommend a change in these.

An absolute number was chosen for the petition requirement rather than a percentage of membership because it was considered highly desirable to have a simple, verifiable number to achieve that did not require verification from the Corporate Office. During a crisis, requiring the petitioners to obtain a membership count to calculate a percentage would at best add delay, and at worst, raise concerns about possible obstruction on the part of the Corporation. One thousand signatures, while somewhat arbitrary, was a figure that past experience has shown was achievable, but only if there was substantial concern on the part of the membership. If there was a significant change in the size of the Society, the number could be reexamined.

Appendix II: Clarification of Sanctions Procedures and Society Review Panel

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES Action and Sanctions by Officers The existing powers of both officers and autocrats to be emphasized and set out more clearly and accessibly. Ejection from events, removal from office by superior officers, withdrawing the right to participate in activities, such as combat, that require authorization. Calling in the civil authorities when needed. Not a change in powers, but more clarity in governing documents and other material.

General Policy on Sanctions. Provides more explicit discussion of due process and other issues. Currently, there are some vague general requirements for fairness, but not a lot of specifics to guide officers and royalty.

Society Review Panel Recommends the Board set up a small review committee, and delegate some of its review duties. One reading of the by-laws is that the Board can do this at any time as a purely internal procedure, so constitutionally it isn't necessarily that big a change.

ACTIONS AND SANCTIONS BY OFFICERS The existing powers of both officers and autocrats should be emphasized and set out more clearly and accessibly. These powers include: ejection from events, withdrawing the right to participate in activities, such as combat, that require authorization, calling in the civil authorities when needed, and superior officers removing subordinates from office. Not a change in powers, but more clarity in governing documents and other material. Applies to the officers of SCA, Inc., and members in charge of SCA, Inc., events. Applies to the officers of other Society corporations recognized by SCA, Inc. to the extent that their by-laws require them to follow SCA, Inc., rules.

Aside from the removal of great officers by the joint action of the appropriate corporate officers and royalty, these administrative actions do not require royal action.

GENERAL POLICY ON SANCTIONS Society Sanctions should not be a substitute for mediation and mutual agreement between the parties to a dispute, but should be reserved for when reasonable efforts to resolve a problem by common consent fail.

Sanctions and administrative action should be proportionate and appropriate. Major Realm sanctions, such as a ban on attendance or participation, should not be a substitute for appropriate administrative action, such as removal from office, revocation of authorization, or removal of a disruptive element from a particular event by the member responsible for the event.

Sanctions should not be more than the offense warrants. At the same time, you should not shrink from prompt action if it is likely to prevent a small problem from becoming a larger problem, or end an ongoing problem.

Make reasonable efforts to resolve a matter at a lower level before escalating to a higher level.

Maintain sufficient records to allow review of the action.

The person to be sanctioned must be informed of the charge and evidence against them, and given an opportunity to respond. Immediate administrative action, such as removal from an event or suspension from office, may be taken when needed to preserve the integrity of an event, or prevent an immediate threat to the legal or financial integrity of the Society. However, the person retains the right to know and respond to the charges and evidence if they wish to seek correction of the record or other redress.

If, because of a personal interest in a matter, you will be unable to reach a decision fairly, and if the matter can be referred to an equally appropriate authority, you should do so. If this cannot be done, inform the person of your interest and attempt to compensate for your interest as best as you can.

Some merchants and craftsmen derive a significant portion of their income from the sale of their goods at Society events. A Society sanction that prevented this could cause measurable harm to their livelihood. Exercise particular care to make sure that such sanctions are justified and appropriate.

Society procedures are not a substitute for the modern legal system. Offenses against contemporary civil or criminal law that threaten the Society should be dealt with through the contemporary legal system. Where a remedy exists under contemporary law, that should be the preferred solution rather than our own internal procedures. This does not preclude the Society taking further steps needed to protect itself while legal action was being pursued, or from accepting suitable settlement.

In particular, it is the policy of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. to vigorously pursue legal action and redress on the part of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. and its members in any case of financial malfeasance or misfeasance involving Society funds.

SOCIETY REVIEW PANEL The changes above may reduce the time the Board spends reviewing grievance issues. If the time they must devote to these remains burdensome, they may also wish to institute a separate review panel at the corporate level. The Board could delegate its power of review to panels of three. They could decide issues by phone, and three-way calling could keep the expense fairly reasonable. If the realms foot at least part of the bill, that would encourage them to solve problems themselves. A pool larger than the panel size to draw from would be desirable because of recusals.

While we believe the governing documents and California law would allow this, none of the Council practices law in California, and it might be prudent to confirm this formally.

The marginal cost of such a panel might be estimated by estimating the time the Board spends in real-time discussion of such issues, either face-to-face or by conference call, calculating the likely charges for the same time spent in three-way calling, and subtracting the amount that the Board currently spends discussing such matters by conference calls.

Appendix III: Further Changes to Sanction Procedures.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Royal Justice: A variety of individual Royal sanctions, such as withholding of recognition of titles and privileges of rank, and punishments offered in alternative to these, to be made explicitly available to royalty within the realm. It might be argued that these powers are already there, but because they aren't explicit, less subtle sanctions get used instead.

Level II banishment to go away as a standard bundle of sanctions, although all the component elements can still be imposed by the realm, either singly, or in combination, if necessary.

Royal justice may be renewed, but the total term of the penalty could not exceed six months for a single offense or process. Currently there is no limit on the number of times a Royal sanction can be renewed by succeeding monarchs. This undercuts the notion that the limited term of these sanctions is a key limitation on their power.

Royal Justice may be delegated to an assize, discussed below, if royalty wishes to and kingdom law allows. Currently it cannot be delegated at all.

Major Realm Sanctions A Realm Ban on Attendance would be similar to a current Level III banishment. Realm law could say whether it could be imposed by royal action, by assize, or either. A formal ban on holding office, imposed in the same way, would be added as a realm sanction.

If imposed by royalty, they would last no longer than the reign, and be subject to immediate review by the relevant corporation. If imposed by assize, they would not be subject to automatic review, and last up to six months. If they are to last longer, or extend outside the realm, the realm would ask for extension by Corporate or Society Sanction.

Note that as Level III banishment is currently set up, once it is imposed royalty must ask for revocation and denial of membership. In the proposals as they stand, that's no longer required. It was felt that there might be times when it is reasonable to say "we want this person to stay away for a few months, but we're not certain we want to ask to revoke his membership yet."

Assize Definition. An assize would be an impartial discipline panel with decision making power, where allowed by the law of the realm. The proposal would set minimum standards for impartiality, but give realms wide leeway otherwise.

Corporate and Society Sanctions Some minor adjustments to accommodate the other changes, allow more flexibility, and recognize potential interaction with other Society corporations.

ROYAL JUSTICE Acting in their role as rulers within the Society's medieval recreation, royalty may impose sanctions within their realm, subject to the limitations of the rules of the realm and the Society, including the general policy on sanctions.

Royalty, acting in concert, may do any or all of the following:

- Publicly censure the person from the throne. - Impose banishment from the royal presence, which requires the banished person to make every effort to stay away from the issuing royalty, and precludes attendance at court or the exercise of any privileges of rank or duties of office which would require interaction with the royalty. - Prevent the wearing of the badge or device of the Realm or any of its regions. - Prevent the exercise of titles of rank - Withdraw the privileges of rank - Require a Peer, the autocrat of the event in question, or another person acceptable to the Royalty, to be present and willing to stand surety for their future good behavior at events. If the Surety withdraws their protection, the person under sanction must leave the event site immediately and arrange for another surety before attending future SCA events.

Royalty may also offer the person to be sanctioned the choice between one of the sanctions listed above, or some other equal or lesser penalty, requirement or task.

Censure, banishment from the royal presence, and withdrawal of the right to bear the device or badge of the realm or its regions may be applied for any reason the royalty deems fit, as long as the maintenance of the realm is not impaired.

The other sanctions listed may only be imposed in response to serious transgressions against Society rules, or standards of behavior at a Society event, or repeated failure to respond to lawful requests or commands of royalty or officers.

The sanctions imposed by Royal Justice must be reviewed by the Kingdom Seneschal for compliance with Society and Kingdom Law and published in the Kingdom Newsletter.

Realm law may set further requirements for Royal Justice, such as requiring consultation with, or judgment by, the peers of the person to be punished.

Any sanctions imposed by royalty expire at the end of their reign, and may be imposed for a lesser term. Previously imposed sanctions may be renewed by the succeeding royalty, providing they follow the requirements listed in this section, and provided that the total term of sanctions for any one process does not exceed 6 months. The same or additional sanctions may be imposed in response to new or subsequent transgressions by following the requirements listed in this section.

Royalty may delegate these powers to an assize if the law of the realm allows.

Royalty may also choose to exercise those powers to remove or suspend officers specified by Society and kingdom rules. However, such action will often affect the modern administration of the Society, and it is preferable to allow the superior officer to handle the situation instead.

Royalty may also direct their officers to apply appropriate administrative sanctions. However, both royalty and the officer are jointly accountable for any improper use of that authority. Administrative sanctions and action, such as evicting a disruptive person from a particular event, do not necessarily require royal authority, and are discussed elsewhere

Coronets The general provisions of Royal justice apply equally to crowns and coronets. Coronets must also meet the following requirements:

In addition to other reporting requirements, the Coronet, when imposing Royal Justice, must inform the Crown and Kingdom Seneschal.

Aside from censure, banishment from the royal presence, and withdrawal of the right to bear the device or badge of the Principality or its regions, sanctions imposed by principality royalty require prior written approval by the Crown, and may be lifted by the Crown.

When the Crown believes the Coronet has overstepped the bounds of law and custom, the normal recourse should be to in-kingdom mediation and then to a panel meeting to determine if action by the Board is required. If the Board upholds the judgment of such a panel, the affected parties may be subject to loss of any honors and privileges deriving from their reign, and nullification of any official acts dating back to the incident which led to the invocation of the panel. If the Crown feels that rapid action is essential to protect the Society, it has the option of putting the principality reign into abeyance until either conditions change within the kingdom or the Board countermands the order. However, if the Board does not agree with the Crown's judgment regarding the urgency of the situation, the Board may choose to take action against the Crown as well as or instead of against the Coronet.

MAJOR REALM SANCTIONS These sanctions should be reserved for threats to the integrity or safety of the Society, or for persistent disruption that has not responded to lesser penalties. Major Realm Sanctions include bans on attendance, or bans on holding office, and only have affect within the realm.

Realm law can say whether they can be imposed by Royal Action, by assize, or either.

If imposed by royalty, they last no longer than the reign, and are subject to immediate review by the relevant corporation. If imposed by assize, they are not subject to automatic review, and last up to six months. If they are to last longer, or extend outside the realm, the realm asks for extension by either corporate or Society sanction, defined below.

ASSIZES Definition: An assize, for the purposes of Society rules, is a disciplinary panel, meeting under the rules of the Society and realm, with the power to impose sanctions, or to confirm or revoke sanctions imposed by executive action. It must not be composed so as to favor one of the parties in a dispute.

Composition: Members of an assize should not have a personal interest in the case, or be unable to judge the matter fairly, nor should the composition of an assize to hear a particular matter be under the control of a person with a personal interest in the case. The rules of the Realm will determine how the panel is to be selected, provided the requirements set here are met.

Relation to Royalty: The rules of the Realm may provided that the decisions of an Assize are effective once announced and ratified by royalty of the realm. In such realms royalty may chose to impose a lesser, but not a greater sanction.

Other Panels: Nothing here is intended to restrict the ability of royalty or officers to form advisory panels to assist them in a decision. However, such panels are not assizes, and royalty and officers remain entirely accountable for decisions they make on their own authority.

Terminology: Assize is a term in English law for a type of judicial panel, dating back to the 12th century. Each realm is free to use whatever terminology it likes for assizes and advisory panels, so long as it is clearly understood that such bodies have neither the authority, role or resources of actual modern or medieval courts. A court of chivalry that meets all the requirements of an assize may serve as one.

Policy on Assizes Assizes need not recreate the full formality of a modern or medieval court, and needlessly cumbersome procedures are not in the interests of the Society. They need not necessarily meet face to face, and may use such means as conference calls.

Here is one possible method: The realm maintains a list of persons willing to serve on an assize. A person who wishes to call an assize contacts a designated realm officer, such as the Seneschal, or Earl Marshal. That officer asks if the person objects to anyone on the list. They call the defendant, and see if they object to anyone on the list. Then they go to the first three people remaining on the list, and ask them if there is a reason why they need to be excused. If so, they go down the list until they get three. The person with the problem contacts them, and the assize decides if there is a need to go forward. If not, the matter drops. If so, the assize collects the information they need to come to a decision, and make it. Then those three panelists drop to the bottom of the list.

Other possible methods might include the creation of a pool of willing volunteers, from which one party selects one panelist, the other another, and both of these panelists jointly to select a third. Or, panelists might be selected from such a pool, after any with a personal interest in the case have been excused, by geographical convenience or lot. Or the members of the panel might be selected by an officer without a direct interest in the case. Royalty may appoint potential panelists to a pool from which future assizes might be formed if the appointments are for staggered terms longer than a single reign. This list of methods is not exhaustive, and any method that fulfills the requirements of fairness may be used provided it is approved by the Board or their designated representative. Members of the panel need not be subjects of the realm.

Since either royalty or the realm seneschal might themselves be one of the parties to a dispute, they should not individually control the composition of assizes to hear particular cases. If the task of determining the composition of an assize is given to a particular officer, there should be alternative procedures for cases in which that officer has an interest in the matter.

SOCIETY AND CORPORATE SANCTIONS Society Sanctions are effective throughout the Society, including all Society corporations recognized by the SCA, Inc. Corporate Sanctions are effective throughout the SCA, Inc., and in other Society corporations to the extent that their by-laws provide for it. Both are reserved to the Board of the SCA, Inc., or persons to whom they delegate that authority.

Society Sanctions are imposed by the authority of the Board to decide matters within the medieval recreation of the Society that affect more than a single realm. Degradation from the peerage or revocation of other awards or grants of arms, or the declaration that a reign is incomplete and shall confer no status, are Society Sanctions.

Corporate Sanctions are imposed by the authority of the Board to protect the legal and financial integrity of the corporation. Removal from office and bans on holding future office, or bans on fighting or being fought for in the royal lists, are corporate sanctions if effective throughout the corporation.

Revocation and denial of membership, described in Article V.C.3(4) of the by-laws, is also a Corporate Sanction. It bars both membership in, and attendance of any event held by the SCA, Inc., until it expires or is lifted.

The Board will consider a request for Society or Corporate Sanctions under any of the following circumstances:

a. The recommendation of an assize or advisory panel meeting according to the rules of the Society and realm;

b. Documentation that the person(s) to be sanctioned has endangered public health or safety, or disturbed the peace of an event in a manner which would make it reasonable for the civil authorities to be called in for assistance, and that adequate remedy does not exist below the corporate level;

c. Documentation of a threat to the legal or financial integrity of the Corporation, or a violation of the rules of the Society, for which adequate remedy does not exist below the corporate level;

d. Petition by a majority of the kingdom great officers and peers of the kingdom of residence of the person being considered for such sanction who are currently members of the Society;

e. Petition to the Board by 30% or more of the membership of the kingdom of residence of the person being considered for such sanction who are currently members of the Society.

The request for action must include a summary of the situation, the reason for sanction, and a list of persons with information about the matter. If the request comes from the administration of a kingdom it shall also include documentation of all previous actions taken at or below the kingdom level. If it comes from outside the kingdom administration, and the Board wishes to proceed in the matter, they shall require the kingdom administration to provide this information.

Upon initiation of such proceedings, the Board or its delegates shall notify the person(s) in question of when the matter will be considered and invite all relevant documentation and appeals.

The Board or its delegates will discuss and decide such a petition in accordance with its rules (see by-laws VI and XIV).

Such sanctions may be appealed, but such appeal must be accompanied by new evidence which warrants reexamination by the Board or its delegates.

The sanction shall last until the conclusion of the imposed term, unless lifted by the Board or its delegates. It shall be announced in the Board minutes, in the newsletter for the kingdom of the person's residence, and otherwise as deemed appropriate. The person shall be informed, in advance, of each publication and its contents.

The Board would prefer to have matters dealt with below the corporate level whenever possible. However, it will intervene at the kingdom level if it believes that kingdom officers are unable or unwilling to correct a threat to the legal or financial integrity of the Society, or a violation of its rules.

Appendix IV; GC Vote on the Proposed Changes Original tally by C. Everett-Baskett, reformatted by Mark Schuldenfrei

The Council voted using its now traditional method of voting YES, yes, abstain, no, or NO, with YES and NO representing particularly strong agreement or dissent.

The Mandatory Assize Variant would have imposed an assize upon any Kingdom which does not have one within a year of passage of the main proposal. It failed soundly and is not recommended by the Council. The comments against mostly indicated that the Kingdoms should be allowed to choose the method that works best for them, and not forced to accept a standard which may not work for all Kingdoms.

Summary (Collapsing yes and no)

1. Action & Sanctions by Officers Passes 27/2
2. General Policy on Sanctions Passes 25/3 1 abstention
3. Society Review Panel Passes 26/3
4. Remainder of Proposal Passes 20/7 2 abstentions
5. Mandatory Assize Variant Fails 5/23 1 abstention
6. The Impeachment Proposal Passes 25/4

Individual Votes

Name 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Aleksandr N N N N N N
Peter Volk Y Y Y Y y y
Tabitha Y Y Y y N Y
Cathal y y y y Y y
Catrin Y Y Y y y Y
Mikjal Annarbjorn Y y y y N y
Modius Y Y N N N N
Hrolf Y y Y Y Y y
Gunnhilda Y y y n n y
Magnus y Y y n y y
Morgan y Y Y y N y
Siobhan / Pat y Y Y Y n y
Midair Y Y n Y n y
Jean Louis y y Y y n y
Bertram y Y Y Y n Y
Galleron Y Y y y A y
Finnvarr Y Y y y N y
Darius y n Y N N Y
Gwynneth Y y Y y N Y
Balthazar Y A Y A N n
Flieg Y Y y y N y
Brendan y Y y y N Y
Eirikr Y y y y n y
Frithiof y Y y A n y
Tibor Y Y Y y n Y
Bertrik Y Y Y y N y
Kwellend-Njal y Y Y y n y
Baldar N N Y N N y
Grimkirk y Y y n n n

Detailed Total

YES yes Abs no NO
1. Action & Sanctions by Officers 16 11 - - 2
2. General Policy on Sanctions 18 7 1 1 2
3. Society Review Panel 15 11 - 1 2
4. Remainder of Proposal 5 15 2 3 4
5. Mandatory Assize Variant 2 3 1 10 13
6. The Impeachment Proposal 7 18 0 2 2