Grand Council Report to the Board of Directors Society for Creative Anachronism
March 2004 (Q1 Report)

A. Committee Activity

The Grand Council has discussed the questions given by the Board in the week
before Christmas, 2003. Voting occurred and the results are as follows, with
comments from individual members included after each particular item:

1) The Board asked: "What if all levels of membership were used to determine
branch status instead of just sustaining memberships?"

The Grand Council agrees that all levels of paid membership should count
completely.

Y=21; y=2; a=0; n=0; N=0

Simple score = 23

Weighted score = 44

Member Comment: And further that all levels of membership be dropped in favor of
just a single class called Member and that all subscriptions be tracked a la
carte.

2) The Board asked: "How would the branch size requirements be best revised if
such were to occur? "

The Grand Council replies that no information currently available to the Council
supports a change to the current branch size requirements. Further research may
be necessary.

Y=14; y=8; a=0; n=1; N=0

Simple score = 21

Weighted score = 35

Member Comment: a) But it is also true that no information currently available
to the Council supports retention of any current branch size requirements. b)
Through one member, the members of the 'remote groups' SCA list indicated that
they would vastly prefer to see no change in membership number requirements as
they feel it will be easier for them, given the basic change, to become full
groups. This is particularly so in countries with unfavourable exchange rates.
c) Officer effectiveness and other metrics of fitness for advancement is a
significantly more important factor than numbers of membership cards or kingdom
newsletters in the zipcodes.

3) The Board asked: "Should member age be considered in counting towards branch
status in combination with membership status?"

The Grand Council replies that no information currently available to the Council
supports a change to the current member age requirements. Further research may
be necessary.

Y=9; y=12; a=1; n=1; N=0

Simple score = 20

Weighted score = 29

Member Comments: a) I would definitely like to see more research done. b) It
would require collecting member age information which we do not currently do at
Corporate. c) Age considerations be left to individual kingdom's determinations
of a group's fitness for a status change. d) collecting and sorting member age
information adds an immense amount of new work for little gain. The benefits for
this work are unsubstantiated, and unnecessary. Current rules preventing minors
from signing contracts and holding certain offices. e) [Member voted "yes"]
Would be a full YES if it went "There is no reason to even collect member age".

4) The Board asked: "What might the effect be on existing groups?"

The Grand Council replies that no information currently available to the Council
provides any data on which to base an answer. Further research may be necessary.

Y=6; y=14; a=1; n=2; N=0

Simple score = 18

Weighted score = 24

Member Comments: a) We can predict that groups will get bigger. We can predict
that some of those groups will now meet the population requirements for a change
in status. We cannot predict if this will produce shires, baronies or
principalities that are not otherwise ready for such status. We can point out
that the kingdoms should not (and normally do not) recommend the formation or
elevation of a group that is not seen to be ready, regardless of population
size. b) But we assume that it would make it easier for groups to form, which is
a good thing, in my opinion. c) Does the Board really want to go back to all
existing groups and restructure them in the hierarchy? Is it that bored? I think
that whether a group achieves a certain status should not be predicated upon
mere number of registered members within its boundaries. Activity level (not
just events, but meetings, guilds, practices, etc.) and whether the groups is
healthy as to reports and bank account(s) should be stronger factors. d) It
stands to reason that an increase in status change applications will result from
groups who were previously close to meeting criteria. e) I disagree... we have
enough info to predict this... the answer is it will have little to no effect on
existing groups. Groups that are ready for advancement generally aren't being
held back because of minimum sustaining membership requirements. Secondly,
existing groups who wish to have two officers in a household will find that
significantly easier as it won't require the family to spend an additional
$25+/yr for duplicated subscriptions. This will increase the available pool of
officers and in fact may allow some groups to remain viable when they might
otherwise collapse. f) This may allow groups at or near a "membership boundary"
in terms of group status to technically qualify for advancement when they
previously did not, or create a larger cushion for groups with just enough
members to retain their status. From the local groups' standpoint, this is a
positive impact, since no group is forced to advance that does not want to.
Also, since Kingdoms are not *required* to allow their subsidiary groups to
advance in status, regardless of number of members, there is no negative effect
for the Kingdoms.

5) The Board asked: "What other issues dealing with membership status and branch
size should be considered?"

The Grand Council replies that financial impact to the corporation should be
considered, however, the Counsel lacks information it feels is needed to make a
judgment or prediction about the fiscal impact of lower-cost memberships being
used in determining branch status.

Y=3; y=12; a=1; n=6; N=1

Simple score = 8

Weighted score = 10

Member Comments: a) Financial impact should be considered. b) I think that the
health of local groups is more important and should make the decision. c) While
I think that we do need to pay due attention to funding the corporation, I do
not agree that funding should drive organization. We should be willing to
consider changing administration and funding models. d) The only consequence I
can see is that a few more people will buy associate memberships, which will
produce a small positive financial benefit. e) The effect on Kingdom newsletter
subscriptions, stipends, and communications should be considered. On the
surface, the proposal may cause a slight drop in subscriptions (and attendant
costs). This in turn may or may not make communications within Kingdom more
difficult, depending on size of Kingdom and extent of electronic communication.
f) I have, I believe, clearly shown that the impact is rather minimal and only
to be seen if a newsletter falls below a minimum level to remain economically
viable. g) Since the difference in price between and Associate and a Sustaining
membership is equal to the cost of a stand-alone subscription, there should be
no change in revenues to the Corporation as a result of members potentially
"trading down" from Sustaining to Associate memberships. As there is more
incentive for non-members to buy the cheaper Associate membership, this may
result in an increase in total membership, which would be a gain in revenue.
There may be a reduction in Newsletter subscriptions as a result of the
effective total unbundling of subscriptions. However, the magnitude of this
reduction, if any, and the potential financial impact to the *Kingdoms* is
unknown at this time.

Detailed comment from one member, overall: Some councilors felt that subscribing
members was not a useful measure of group strength. Others disagreed, feeling
that the number of members, subscribing or otherwise, relative to other groups
seeking the same status was a useful measure, although it should not be the only
one. On first consideration, it might appear that simply changing the
requirements from "subscribing members" to "members" without changing the
numbers might make it possible for groups with insufficient members to qualify
for a given branch status under the current rule to qualify under the proposed
change. However, there is another factor to consider. Since the size
requirements were originally set, non-US participation has grown. In such
groups, exchange rates, the purchasing power of local income, and the variable
value of kingdom newsletters may make the current standard disproportionately
difficult to achieve. Since the population minimums apply Society-wide, leaving
the numbers unchanged while counting all members equally could be a more
appropriate minimum standard for these places. For US groups, it is already
explicit that population standards are a minimum requirement and one standard
among many, so Society officers would have ample scope to use judgment and
policy to defer branch status for groups where a particular status was
undesirable.

B. Committee Status and Commendations

The NomCom has completed its review of applications and recommendations, and was
advised by the Chair pro tem that they should offer positions on the Council to
the first (top) ten candidates on the list.

The following persons (in alphabetical order by persona name) have accepted
appointment to the Grand Council:

Aleksandr Vasilevych Lev (John Patrick Kowal) Bianca Rose Byrnes (Darlene
Cullor) Brendan ap Llewlyn (James D. Sena) Fiskr Hammondson (Jon Larsen) James
Llewellyn ap Gruffydd (Tom Pilcher) Madinia Devereaux O'Tuatail (Marsha McLean)
Nikolaos Demetriou ho Toxotes (Daniel J. Brandow) Rayne Moyra O'Ciaragain (Raine
Phillips) Tiernan Shepherd (Sarah Peck) Sir Gerald Thomas fitxGerald na Rogier
(David J. fitzGerald)

Due to an attack of life, the Chair turned responsibilities over to the
Vice-Chair for the discussion and voting this quarter. Subsequent to that, the
Board appointed Master Tibor of Rock Valley as Chair Pro Tem to hold elections
of officers.

Commendations: None.

C. Publishable Summary

The Grand Council was asked by the Board whether memberships other than
sustaining should count towards group size. The Council replies that all
memberships, whatever designation, should count. As to subsidiary questions
asked about member age, revisions to branch size requirements, and review of
existing group status, the Council advised that the information it has on these
subjects is inadequate to form a response.

D. Confidential: Nothing.

Respectfully submitted, etc.,

Margo Lynn Hablutzel, Esq.

SCA: Morgan Cain (Ret.)

For more information on the SCA, see the SCA Home Page

Last changed: 29-Nov-2007

Copyright of this site is retained by the original contributors. Contact webmaster prior to using elsewhere.