Board Report: -

Report from the Grand Council: July, 2000

To the Directors, Greetings.

Items Requiring Board Action

In response to some of the comments received from the Board on the Royal Justice and Attendance Bans Proposal, the GC has revised parts of the proposal. They ask if the revisions answer the Boards concerns for those sections.

The proposed revisions are appended.

Commendations

Fernando Vigil was conscientious and effective in maintaining good communications between the Council and the Board. His kingdom's gain is our loss.

Status Report

The Council continues to work on responding to the remainder of the Boards comments, and will submit further revisions as they are completed.

Summary

In response to some of the comments received from the Board on the Royal Justice and Attendance Bans Proposal, the GC revised parts of the proposal, and submitted them to the Board. They asked if the revisions answer the Board's concerns for those sections.

Respectfully submitted

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

Appendix: Some Revisions in Response to Board Comments on Royal Justice and Attendance Bans Proposal

Original draft is marked <thus> and our response to Board comments are marked (thus)

Royal Justice (replaces: VI.A.1.h to VI.A.1.h (2)

1) Acting in their role as rulers within the Society's medieval recreation, royalty may impose sanctions within their realm for just and stated cause, subject to the limitations of the rules of the realm and the Society, including the general policy on sanctions.>

We suggest striking "Acting in their role as rulers within the Society's medieval recreation," and "including the general policy on sanctions." Also replace "rules of the realm" with the normal phrase "laws of the realm." This gives us: "Royalty may impose sanctions within their realm for just and stated cause, subject to the limitations of the laws of the realm and the Society."

(OK)

Do we need to define "just cause"? We don't know that we have to, but if we could come up with a good definition it might be nice. We don't want a "laundry list" of "just causes" as this would most likely create more problems than we solve. (What about the offense that nobody ever thought of, which turns out not to fit the definition?)

(We discussed this, and don't think a more detailed or explicit definition is practical)

Since "Lesser Royal Sanctions may be applied for any reason the royalty deems fit, as long as the maintenance of the realm is not impaired", does "just cause" need to apply? If "I don't like you" is enough then this is moot. Perhaps "just cause" should apply only to the "Greater" sanctions?

(Just cause to be discussed later)

<2) Royalty, acting in concert, may do any or all of the following:>

We suggest making this "The crown or coronet may..."

(OK.)

(We skipped ahead to 4), since it was mentioned earlier)

<4) Lesser Royal Sanctions may be applied for any reason the royalty deems fit, as long as the maintenance of the realm is not impaired.>

Not if they must be "just". We may need to add "subject to <section 1>" to this.

(We propose:

4) Lesser Royal Sanctions may be applied for any reason the royalty deems just and appropriate, as long as the maintenance of the realm is not impaired.

Our reasoning:

Royalty shall "maintain an impartial justice for all in the realm."

If royalty wish to impose a lesser sanction, they need a just cause.

However, where lesser sanctions are concerned, the Board is unlikely to second guess royalty's judgment of whether the cause is just. Royalty does need to consult their own conscience as to whether they are being a just by banishing someone from their presence because they don't like the person.)

(We also skipped ahead to 7), to answer an issue raised in your comments on the summary

<7) Any sanctions imposed by royalty expire at the end of their reign, and may be imposed for a lesser term.>

We believe it might be more clear to say: "Any sanctions imposed by royalty expire at the end of their reign. Sanctions may be imposed for a lesser term."

(OK)

We understand the GC concerns about the potential for abuse. No one wants generations of Royalty sanctioning the same person just because they're all from the same household and don't like the person. Yet the Board would like to see a mechanism in place for extending sanctions beyond 6 months when necessary. Please see if you can find a mechanism that addresses both issues.

(When we wrote it, many of us felt that the price of freedom from review would be no renewals. But if you want renewals, we suggest the following change."

Previously imposed sanctions may be renewed by the succeeding royalty, providing they follow the requirements listed in this section. Renewals that result in a total term of sanction disproportionate to the offense may be grounds for an appeal to the Board.)

cc: directors@sca.org, gc