Board Report: -

Report from the Grand Council: July, 2003

Directors of the SCA (and cc: Grand Council):

A. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY

The Grand Council continued discussion on topics from the last quarter of 2002, and addressed a number of issues concerning the Office of Minister for Children. Motions were made and voting occurred. See below for results.

B. COMMITTEE STATUS AND COMMENDATIONS

Officers recently passed a vote-of-confidence to continue their duties. Questions did arise concerning the appropriateness of Margherita Alessia (Susan Earley) continuing as an officer of the GC while she is Society Treasurer. The Nominating Committee is working on potential new members, and the Midrealm recently appointed its first Kingdom Representative, Lady Katriona ni Chonarain.

C. PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY

The Grand Council voted on several motions addressing issues with the Ministry for Children. A proposed new minor waiver for participation in activities also received a strong positive vote. The Grand Council's members were especially enthusiastic about the acknowledgements of responsibility for the child's actions by the adult bringing the child to the event, whether parent or otherwise.

A vote on whether to issue a policy clarification underscoring that children's activities are not meant to substitute for child care or other parental responsibility and control received a very strong positive vote. A vote on whether to recommend that the name be changed to "Ministry for Family Activities" received a weak negative vote.

The Grand Council voted on whether to recommend that the SCA change to a franchise situation, where groups would pay to participate in the SCA, Inc. The result of the vote was barely supportive, with significant negative commentary.

The GC voted on a proposal to set up procedures for determining group affiliations for questions currently addressed by polling. The result of the vote was supportive.

D. CONFIDENTIAL

None.

Respectfully submitted, etc.,

Margo Lynn Hablutzel, Esq.
SCA: Morgan Cain - #014527
Barony of Steppes, Ansteorra

DETAIL

1) OFFICE OF THE MINISTER OF CHILDREN AND RELATED CONCERNS.

The Grand Council addressed a number of items related to the Office of Minister of Children (MoC), with more proposed as the deadline for this report approached. A vote was taken on the matters ready by mid-June, and the results are as follows:

A. MINOR WAIVER REVISION

The Grand Council recommends to the Board of Directors that changes be made to the Minor Site Waiver as follows:

I have brought _________________, who is ______ years old, to the event ________ held at _____________________ on _________. If this is not my child, s/he has been placed in my care by his/her legal parent or guardian for the purpose of attending this event.

1) I acknowledge that I am responsible for supervision of the child at all times during the event.

A) I further acknowledge that the SCA, its officers or agents have no responsibility for supervision or protection of the child.
B) I also acknowledge that any activities offered for children are intended to be educational or entertaining in nature, and are not child care.

2) I recognize that SCA activities can be dangerous, and accept that should the named child suffer harm or injury, it is my responsibility and not that of the SCA.

A) I further accept responsibility for any harm or damage that the child may cause to any person, animal, or object.
B) This responsibility may include costs, damages, fines, and/or legal fees.
C) In legal terms, I agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the SCA, Inc., and any of its officers, agents, employees, successors and assigns from any liability arising out of any damages suffered by or caused by the minor child or by anyone claiming to act on the minor child's behalf. Those damages are the responsibility of myself, the child, and the child's parents or legal guardian if they are someone other than me. They are not the responsibility of the site or the SCA, Inc., or any of their officers, agents, or representatives.

3) If the child's behavior is deemed sufficiently disruptive, or the child violates any site rules, I may be asked to remove the child from the site. In this case, I may forfeit any and all fees paid for attendance and activities on behalf of myself, the child, and any persons who leave with us.

Signed:_________________________ Date:____________
Printed legal name: ______ _______________________

Voting: The raw result is as follows: YES/yes = 22 NO/no = 2
YES=15 yes=7 abstain=2 no=1 NO=1
Weighted result: 34
Total voting = 26

Additional Commentary: Some members qualified or explicated their votes with these opinions:

a) I still think that the "legal boilerplate" in (2C) will cause trouble
b) It makes things clearer without really changing anything serious. Clearer is better.
c) We still need a waiver signed by the parent, even if this is signed by whoever has the minor in tow. If this document was something that had to be signed IN ADDITION to the minor waiver (which was signed by the parent) -- call it an "Acknowledgement of Responsibility" and remove the actual waiver -- I would vote YES.
d) While I agree with the direction of the waiver I have some quibbles (but no solutions) I would really like to see the word "indemnify" replaced with something I didn't have to periodically look up. I would also find it hard to sign something where I am taking responsibility for "anyone claiming to act on the minor child's behalf."
I am also a bit confused. Could someone point out to me where there is a requirement for minors that are not participating in combat activities to be accompanied by an adult. And even there that is a medical authorization issue and not a waiver issue per se.
e) much better than current format, would like to suggest a similar rewrite of adult waiver

POLICY CLARIFICATION RE: CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES

The Grand Council recommends to the Board of Directors that the following policy be stated in writing in the Governing Documents:

"The SCA Inc does not offer or provide supervised child care. SCA functions may offer facilities where activities for children may occur. Organized activities using those facilities are not child care. The SCA is not obligated to provide, guarantee or ensure the capability or appropriateness of anyone to supervise children or organize activities for children at SCA functions.

"Parents and legal guardians are responsible for the supervision and behavior of their children at all SCA functions, either personally or by a designated caretaker through private arrangement. Children who violate published site rules will be escorted to their parents/guardians and may be asked to leave the site."

Voting: The raw result is as follows: YES/yes = 24 NO/no = 1
YES=19 yes=5 abstain=1 no=1 NO=0
Weighted result: 42
Total voting = 26

Additional Commentary: Some members qualified or explicated their votes with these opinions:

a) Given some of the stuff appearing in print and elsewhere, I think that this statement is urgently needed.
b) Again, clear clean and no real change, just clearer.
c) sure, why not?
d) YES YES YES YES

CHANGE OF NAME FOR MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN

The Grand Council recommends that the Board of Directors consider the following change:

"That the SCA rename the office currently referred to as the 'Ministry of Children', to make it very clear that the SCA provides family activities, not child activities or child care. Instead of the 'Ministry of Children' or 'Pied Piper', the office be referred to as the 'Ministry of Family Activities.'"

Voting: The raw result is as follows: YES/yes = 12 NO/no = 11
YES=3 yes=9 abstain=3 no=6 NO=5
Weighted result: -1
Total voting = 26

Additional Commentary: Some members qualified or explicated their votes with these opinions:

a) Aren't all SCA activities supposed to be family activities?
b) I think that the proposed name is obtrusviely modern and will also quickly accumulate as much excess bagage as the terms it would replace.
c) Changing the name does not change the function, nor in this case does it make anything clearer. In fact it smells of obfuscation. My recommendation is to get rid of the office entirely at the corporate level. That will be far better in terms of liability than changing the name.
d) while a good idea, the effort involved to change the name now would be more effort than the good it would provide in the long run.
e) If I could vote YUCK, I would.
f) I prefer dropping the office.
g) A waste of time and money that will do nothing to solve the issue of sca officers & volunteers providing supervised childcare without the proper licenses and liability insurance in place.
h) I think a name change might be good, but this has a too PC feeling...
i) mostly cosmetic, and longer than original.

2) RESTRUCTURING AND POLLING PROPOSALS.

The Grand Council finished reviewing two of the proposals that were originally presented in the Fourth Quarter of 2002. One was for Group Franchise and the other allowed Geographic Polling of the membership. Votes were taken on both proposals, and the results are as follows:

A. GROUP FRANCHISE

Motion as Voted Upon: The Grand Council recommends to the Board of Directors that the following proposal be considered as an alternate funding method:

"PREFACE: Our first priority should be to live within the means available, and belt-tightening as possible. In other words, avoid the problem entirely and avoid adding additional fees at all. A supplementary fee of any kind should ONLY be activated as an emergency measure when a significant budgetary shortfall is predicted. Should no shortfall actually occur, then no money should be collected. The concept is to spread the temporary burden of a shortfall across the SCA Inc. while giving local chapters plenty of time and options on how they want to collect it (which may include a local NMS). When the deficit crisis is over, any supplementary fee MUST be dropped, and not become a permanent feature of how the SCA Inc. acquires operating expenses.

INTRODUCTION: This proposal will be called, a "Territorial Levy." It is based on minimum populations of geopolitical units as delineated by Corpora, not actual membership nor population. Specifically, a Barony or Province would be treated as having a membership of 25 persons or more, and a Shire would be treated as having a membership of 5 persons or more. No other geopolitical units are involved in this proposal.

This proposal was originally designed to offer an alternative for the NMS to mitigate the $77,000 shortfall projected in the SCA 2002 budget. Unlike the SCA-wide NMS, the Franchise fee would give local branches a choice of how to collect necessary funds, and provide a Cap above which they would no longer have to pay.

This proposal is designed to create a new income source and to supplement but not replace current income mechanisms. The first variation was specifically crafted as an alternative to the Non-Member Surcharge. The second variation is adapted to work within a Membership-funding model (such as we have currently) or Non-membership funding model such as that proposed by Frederick of Holland. The Proposal uses specific fees as examples below. However in actual usage, the amounts will vary depending upon actual deficit amounts.

PROPOSED: "Territorial Levy"

The fees presented were derived from the $77,000 shortfall originally predicted by the Society Treasurer for 2002:

VARIATION 1:
Using a shortfall of $77,000 as an example amount to be mitigated the Levy would consist of:
$350 per year from Baronies/Provinces, internationally and
$ 70 per year from Shires internationally.
The Levy amount will be announced at least 9 months prior to the due date, and will be collected annually. If the shortfall drops substantially or is eliminated through other means, the SCA Inc. will either discount or waive the Levy for that year.

How I came up with the numbers:

a) I did a rough estimate of all Baronies/Provinces in the SCA excluding Lochac (128 US, 19 non-US, and 147 total); and of all Shires and incipient Shires (approximately 289 US, 78 non-US, and 367 total).
b) Using SCA published minimum membership requirements for each territorial unit (Barony/Province >= 25, and Shire >=5 members), I determined that they represented a statutory minimum population of approximately 5510 people.
c) Dividing $77,000 by 5500 people, I came up with $14.00.
d) Baronies = (25 X $14.00) = $350.00, and Shires = (5 X $14.00) = $70.00

VARIATION 2:
The Levy will be based total SCA Insurance Costs as a known budgetary line item to be paid by US-based geopolitical units only. Non-US units will be exempt if they cannot take advantage of US-based insurance.
Projected 2002 Insurance Cost: $72,561
$400 per year from SCA US Baronies and Provinces
$ 78 per year SCA US Shires
The Levy amount will be announced at least 9 months prior to the due date, and will be collected annually. If the shortfall drops substantially or is eliminated through other means, the SCA Inc. will either discount or waive the Levy for that year.

How I came up with the numbers:

a) I did a rough estimate of all US-based Baronies/Providences and of all Shires and incipient Shires (approximately 289 US groups).
b) Using SCA published minimum membership requirements for each territorial unit (Barony/Province >= 25, and Shire >= 5 members), I determined that they represented a statutory minimum population of approximately 4645 people.
c) Dividing $72,561 by 4645 people, I came up with $15.62.
d) Baronies = (25 X $16.00) = $400, and Shires = (5 X $16.00) = $80.00

JUSTIFICATION:

a) The Levy must be based on a confident figure such as a well-documented projected shortfall or budgetary line item. So used, the Levy allows for that portion of the total cost of the SCA budget, and is therefore a known quantity. Local groups will have the bulk of the fiscal year to generate the funds. The Levy also provides a Cap so that more active groups are not penalized for their greater activity.
b) The SCA is comprised predominately of three basic territorial units: Baronies, Shires and smaller units. Since Kingdoms and Principalities are collections of all these units, they are not separately charged. Likewise, Baronies and Shires include dependent collections of smaller units. Units under a Territorial Levy will be allowed local authority to generate the money needed by any means allowed by Corpora, including participation fees, surcharges, auctions and art sales, demos etc. This allows local groups to fund SCA operations in whatever way is most appropriate for them.
c) Since some base costs of the SCA are consistent and all groups share benefits equally and independently of activity levels, this proposal assures equal treatment for all groups of equal status. Also, since the Levy is based on minimum population, the Levy will not be an undue burden on smaller groups, and will be facilitated by the extra dispersion of the fee among members of larger groups.
d) [Variation #2 only] By charging only US groups for services enjoyed exclusively by US groups, the SCA cost recovery will be more fairly distributed.

WHAT IF GROUPS DON'T PAY?

The consequences of non-compliance are the same as those under ANY other funding scheme, including probation and possibility of downgraded group status. Exemptions can be made on a case-by-case basis dependent upon demonstrable need. Ultimately, the purpose of this proposal is to protect the financial stability of the SCA Inc., and not to unduly burden its component parts."

Voting: The raw result is as follows: YES/yes = 13 NO/no = 9
YES=4 yes=9 abstain=4 no=4 NO=5
Weighted result: 3
Total voting = 26

Additional Commentary: Some members qualified or explicated their votes with these opinions:

a) This proposal would most likely promote de facto local "dues". This is especially true given the funding levels being mentioned and the idea of totally funding the insurance costs based upon local group status. This would act as a financial disincentive for local groups to grow local nobility. At the same time, I personally know of incipient shires that are more active than some baronies so group status is not a reliable indicator of implied insurance burden.
b) I appreciate the concept, but I just don't think it's terribly fair.
c) I am very much in favor of alternate funding methods, but feel that this variation doesn't cover total funding, only shortfalls. If a local levy accompanied a federation model, where the local chapter joined the SCA, Inc and local people joined their local chapter, then it might be worth considering.
d) yes. It is one way of getting the topic on the board's agenda.
e) I don't like it, but I wouldn't mind the Board seeing it.
f) the mild yes is because I consider this as a request for the Board to consider the implications and implementation, rather than a request that they implement it. At least in my neck of the woods, this is a viable method of funding. I would to know if it is viable across the known world.
g) Too coarse an allocation.

GEOGRAPHIC POLLING

The Grand Council asks the Board of Directors to consider the following proposal for future use in polling the membership.

"A Proposal to Allow Geographic Based Participation Rolls in the SCA - Revised 23 April 2003

(Note: At each spot in this proposal where an officer is mentioned as responsible, the additional phrase "or designated deputy" shall be understood.)

Any participant in the SCA has the right to register as a pollster, or voting participant, in one (1) local group. This may be the group whose boundaries include their residential address (known as the territorial group), OR the group where they participate the most (known as the participation group).

Each kingdom shall decide a minimum age for a pollster to register, which shall not be higher than the local age of legal majority, and may be as low as the kingdom finds appropriate and prudent.

A request for registration in one's territorial group will automatically be granted. A request for registration in one's participation group may require some small proof of participation. This can be attestation of other participants, a receipt from a group event, etc. In the event of dispute, the matter will be passed to the kingdom seneschal for resolution.

It shall be the responsibility of the local seneschal, to maintain a list of those who have registered as pollsters in that group, and to provide a current list to the appropriate kingdom officers in the event of a multi-group or kingdom poll.

In the event of a multi-group or kingdom poll, it shall be the responsibility of the kingdom seneschal to collate a current list of all registered pollsters eligible to vote. There shall be no attempt to maintain a continuing current list of pollsters at higher group level.

A pollster is entitled to vote in all local, principality and kingdom polls by virtue of their one registration at the local group level.

A registration shall include the details of a pollsters name (modern and SCA) postal address, phone and e-mail. The seneschal shall treat all mundane contact information as private and privileged, to be used for the verification of status and the delivery of polls only. The seneschal is free to make a list of pollsters available to interested parties or for publication, but shall provide SCA NAME ONLY.

In the event that a participant should move from one group to another, it shall be the participant's responsibility to communicate with both seneschals to arrange for their polling registration to be cancelled in the former group and activated in the current group.

In addition, groups may choose to offer polling status to outsiders as an honour or as a show of affiliation. This honourary status will apply to LOCAL GROUP POLLS ONLY, so there is no possibility of someone casting multiple votes in principality or kingdom polls. The group seneschal shall maintain a separate list of such honourary members so that they will not be included in any kingdom poll.

Honourary pollster status does not compromise the right of registration in one's geographic group, or the right to request registration in one's participation group, or the associated rights to participate in polls as a member of these groups. One may require registration in one's singular geographic group, or request registration in one's singular participation group, but one may be offered, and may accept, honourary polling status (restricted to voting on local issues) in as many groups as feel inclined to make the offer.

It is possible that local authorities may abuse the honourary pollster provisions in order to manipulate the results of local polls. It is suggested that no more than two such honours be granted per year. It is also suggested that blatant attempts to manipulate the polling process by abuse of this mechanism be cause for removal from office, and possible revocation of honours and denial of future polling status.

The kingdom will define common standards for registration waiting periods, period of registration and circumstances in which registration lapses. For example, the kingdom may require that a person is not eligible to poll for thirty days after applying, that registration must be renewed every two years, and that a pollster who has not responded to two polls in a row be asked to show cause why they should not be stricken from the roll. The details, however, will be left to the kingdoms.

POLLING REGISTRATION SHALL BE FREE OF CHARGE

Registration as a pollster IS NOT a requirement for any SCA office, title or award, either ceremonial or organisational. A non-pollster can be an officer, a crown, enter tourneys and competitions, receive awards, be inducted into orders and in all other ways be a full participant in all SCA activities. However, ONLY REGISTERED POLLSTERS VOTE IN POLLS.

Branch size shall be determined by number of registered pollsters excluding honorary pollsters. SCA, Inc. shall determine the thresholds for each branch type as soon as hard numbers of registered pollsters are accumulated and analysed.

Voting: The raw result is as follows: YES/yes = 22 NO/no = 4
YES=5 yes=17 abstain=0 no=1 NO=3
Weighted result: 20
Total voting = 26

Additional Commentary: Some members qualified or explicated their votes with these opinions:

a) I should probably abstain, seeing as I wrote most of this, but the motion is to "consider the proposal", not adopt it.
b) [T] his may be unnecessary under current Corpora and I think that the text is overlly long-winded which is saying something coming from me especially.
c) I'm all in favor of open polling in geographical areas. I am opposed to this particular proposal because it is over-picky, a logistical nightmare and un-trusting of both the officers and populace in a way which I find annoying. (I've said this all before, this time its official.)
d) I don't think it adds anything.
e) many groups already allow multiple franchise and allow people outside of the local area to participate as full local members. I would be more interested in discussing removing territoriality of the local group with regards to officers etc... Too often for whatever reasons I have seen a person who played more with a neighboring group than their own. These people are currently barred from holding an office in the group in which they participate solely because of the zipcode where they get their newsletter. Oft' times this results in people living in a PO Box to get around the letter of the rules. It could all be simply replaced with a rule that says that you can't hold an office in two or more local branches (obvious exception being a sub-group in a larger group).
f) It has a 'too wordy', maybe to much details, feel to it. I think the thing is ok, but....
g) Not needed at this time.

3) SUBCOMMITTEES.

A. NOMINATING COMMITTEE
The Nominating Committee is working diligently to ascertain the status of existing members and consider new members.

B. GRAND COUNCIL CHARTER
The Committee has been working off and on. No deadline was set for submission of the new document. A new chair has taken the reins and a deadline of the October Board Meeting was set for a draft of the new charter.