GC - Top 3 Appendix E RULES REVISIONS Updated Version to end of
Discussion Aug/05

NOTE:  These appendices are a mildly edited list of the discussions.
Beyond the topics as suggested topics there was little consensus on
actionable items hence the stream of thought discussions listed below.
I would suggest that within there are some very good ideas that need
fleshing out.

#3)K.    RULES REVISIONS
        K1.      Tibor: Kingdom Laws and their attendant apparatchik are growing,
not shrinking. Is this appropriate, and if not, how can that best be
managed?
        K2.      Roger & Nichelle& Groa: Review of R&D, Sanctions and
investigation processes.
        K3.     Tibor: Informally I continue to see a rise in SCA discipline
issues and extra-SCA legal fees and expenses, rising faster than the
number of participants.  Why is that, and is that a trend that can be
reversed?
        K4.     Cedric:The revision of the GovDocs in April was a good start, but
was
mostly just a rewording of the same provisions as before.  I would  like
to see the GovDocs amended to REQUIRE the BoD to use lesser
sanctions unless the person is an immediate threat to the safety and
wellbeing of the Society and our participants.  The Child molester and
the
murderer are prime examples  of this type of person.
        K5.     Madina: I would also like to see a more direct accountability of
the BoD to the members of the SCA (a more direct and transparent
director selection process, more transparent Board processes - webcast
maybe?).
        K6.     Nichelle: More accountability for BoD Membership (more kingdom
representation) - what about the Ombudsman NOT being on the BoD...?
        K7.     Fiskr: Sunshine Clause, I could easily support a rule that said all
rule sets expire every 4 years and there is an automatic reversion to
Society minimums. Kingdoms would have to determine which rules are
truly
necessary for defining their Kingdom and get them re-approved (or
pre-approved if they are really on the ball), but it would certainly
weed
out lotsa dead words.


There has been some discussion of the rules revision question already
and, personally I cannot see a possibility of reconciling the opposing
viewpoints on this. My only option would be to allow Kingdoms who feel
it necessary to have this put it in place in their laws.  I grew up in
the West and the chaos of Royal Changes (and the active involvement of
peerage in giving opinions in the 'robust debate') seem to be all the
checks that are needed.

> K.  RULES REVISIONS
> 1.  Kingdom Laws and their attendant apparatchik are growing, not
> shrinking. Is this appropriate, and if not, how can that best be
> managed?
> 7. Sunshine Clause, I could easily support a rule that said all rule
> sets expire every 4 years and there is an automatic reversion to
> Society minimums. Kingdoms would have to determine which rules are
> truly necessary for defining their Kingdom and get them re-approved
> (or pre-approved if they are really on the ball), but it would
> certainly weed out lotsa dead words. (Note from Hrolf - this should be
> a 'Sunset' clause).
In my opinion the Sunset Clause helps address #1. Should we also extend
this philosophy to Society Laws and Policies?
> Below are some of the key questions that people have mentioned. There
> has been some discussion of the rules revision question already and,
> personally I cannot see a possibility of reconciling the opposing
> viewpoints on this. My only option would be to allow Kingdoms who feel
> it necessary to have this put it in place in their laws.  I grew up in
> the West and the chaos of Royal Changes (and the active involvement of
> peerage in giving opinions in the 'robust debate') seem to be all the
> checks that are needed.
While making a sunset clause optional would likely get around some of
the debate I would argue that a continuity of policy is better than a
suggested policy that will be applied piecemeal by the assembled SCA
Kingdoms. As was mentioned before the Kingdoms are in the drivers seat
on this one. They are editing their laws and policies for re-approval.
If they re-submit the entirety as is it's a rubber stamp for approval.
If they are adding new stuff this would lead to a review just as occurs
now. if they are deleting stuff by and large the review is very simple
if any is done at all.
The issue isn't whether your particular Kingdom is doing a good job but
rather what is the overall outlook and how might me suggest a policy
that would work over all of the Kingdoms.
> 2.  Review of R&D, Sanctions and investigation processes.
> 4. The revision of the GovDocs in April was a good start, but was
> mostly just a rewording of the same provisions as before.  I would
> like to see the GovDocs amended to REQUIRE the BoD to use lesser
> sanctions unless the person is an immediate threat to the safety and
> wellbeing of the Society and our participants.  The Child molester and
> the murderer are prime examples of this type of person.
There was quite a bit of discussion on this note. I know that the
Society Seneschal is writing a new Seneschal's Handbook and within it
is a section on Administrative Sanctions. Many of these are what would
be considered lesser sanctions.
> 3.  Informally I continue to see a rise in SCA discipline issues and
> extra-SCA legal fees and expenses, rising faster than the number of
> participants. Why is that, and is that a trend that can be reversed?
I don't believe that the SCA is any more or less untouched by this
Society wide tendency to go to litigation. I'm not sure how the SCA can
counter this trend?
> 5. I would also like to see a more direct accountability of the BoD to
> the members of the SCA (a more direct and transparent director
> selection process, more transparent Board processes - webcast maybe?).
> 6. More accountability for BoD Membership (more kingdom
> representation) - what about the Ombudsman NOT being on the BoD...?
BOD Reps, More accountable how exactly? Do you want a policy that
offers BOD Reps recall?
Transparency in choosing BOD Reps? How are BOD reps chosen currently?
As I understand names are received the BOD puts them out for commentary
and then the BOD makes a choice. Is this essentially correct? The
meetings for this are they Executive or during the Open Meetings?
BOD meetings webcast? How complex would this be? A single camera
shooting the entirety of the head table of BOD Reps? Would we have to
mike the BOD reps? Being at one of these meetings it was sometimes hard
to hear individual BOD Members speak.

K1    I shall wait for discussion.
K2--K3    I too would like to know why disciplinary actions and costs
are increasing--particularly the costs.  I would like to know what
percentage of the costs are due to the actions of non-members.
K4    I would oppose any restriction on the Board's options to use what
it considers to be appropriate actions.  You do not have to be a
murderer or a child molester to bring disrepute upon the name of the
Society and severely hamper or even cripple its outreach in a locality.
  Public drunkenness, public profanity and obscenity, unwarranted sexual
advances might be only misdemeanors; nevertheless, they are all quite
effective ways to cripple or even to destroy the SCA in an area.   We
do not need such low-life's in our organization.  Misbehavior of a
lesser nature can well warrant banishment from kingdom activities.
     In case you think me prudish, I concoct cordials, use obscenity or
profanity when appropriate around a campfire only if a lady present has
used similar language without anyone taking offense.  I do not make
passes: I value certain organs more (I am married).
K5--K6  I strongly favor accountability as long as it does not impair
the functioning of an office.
K7      I like the general idea of a sunshine clause.  It puts a burden
upon kingdoms; however, certainly every kingdom has sufficient persons
with administrative, legal, and clerical backgrounds to handle such a
chore willingly.   What is the flip side of such a requirement?

The great misconception is that the BoD imposes sanctions. THEY DON'T.
KINGDOMS DO.
Kingdoms/Crowns impose sanctions. If it requires Society
review/upholding, the Society Seneschal reviews sanctions submitted to
him before submitting it to the Board for either upholding or reversal.
The Board doesn't do anything regarding sanctions unless asked first by
the Kingdoms. PERIOD.
The larger we get, the more people with less-than-desirable behaviors
we include. It's a pretty scalable percentage of population. Also, IMO,
we're getting better about not hiding things and reporting them to the
proper authorities as well, so we are hearing about more than we used
to. It's not that it didn't happen, it's just that it's getting
reported more consistently.
New Board members are chosen in Executive Session. Commentary on
nominees is only seen by Board members, and no one ever sees the
commentary on themselves. Society Officers can comment on nominees just
like any other member. The Board usually tries to fill specific
functionality depending on who is leaving - ie, legal, financial,
managerial, non-profit knowledge/experience, as well as geographic
concerns (which areas haven't had members in a while, etc.).

I have been corrected. The Board may, on its own, impose sanctions for
actions taken while someone was Crown. Kingdoms may not sanction
individuals for actions taken while they were Crown, that is reserved
to the Board alone. It is not necessary for a Kingdom to request the
sanction first.

What part of my post was pointing out was that the Society Seneschal is
working on an section called Administrative sanctions and how these
would apply more down the line ie Kingdoms and Principalities and how
these options may address the call for lesser sanctions that were being
suggested.

  I would, however like to see a REDUCTION in the amount of paperwork
that is produced and/or required, especially at the local level.  About
a year
ago, I went through our Kingdom policy handbooks and law, and made up a
listing of reports that had to be done, who they went to, and where
they
could be found.  Appallingly, there were *8 pages* when I finished
putting it together in one place *for a small group*. (Look, if you
like: http://www.ansteorra.org/reporting.php).  Seems to me that once
an office is considered, then suddenly, there must be a report on a
monthly basis
that goes to somebody.  Does not seem to matter what importance the
information has to the Kingdom or SCA's continuing existance, but the
report must be done. No wonder it is tough getting new people to take
some of the volunteer load, if we have that much stuff to deal with.
Pretty intimidating even to someone who's been in the SCA for quite a
while.

GC - Top 3 Appendix E RULES REVISIONS Updated Version to end of
Discussion Aug/05


NOTE:  These appendices are a mildly edited list of the
discussions. Beyond the topics as suggested topics there was little
consensus on actionable items hence the stream of thought discussions
listed below. I would suggest that within there are some very good
ideas that need fleshing out.


#3)K.    RULES REVISIONS

        K1.      Tibor: Kingdom Laws and their attendant apparatchik are
growing,

not shrinking. Is this appropriate, and if not, how can that best be

managed?

        K2.      Roger & Nichelle& Groa: Review of R&D, Sanctions and

investigation processes.

        K3.     Tibor: Informally I continue to see a rise in SCA discipline

issues and extra-SCA legal fees and expenses, rising faster than the

number of participants.  Why is that, and is that a trend that can be

reversed?

        K4.     Cedric:The revision of the GovDocs in April was a good start, but
was

mostly just a rewording of the same provisions as before.  I would
like

to see the GovDocs amended to REQUIRE the BoD to use lesser

sanctions unless the person is an immediate threat to the safety and

wellbeing of the Society and our participants.  The Child molester and
the

murderer are prime examples  of this type of person.

        K5.     Madina: I would also like to see a more direct accountability of

the BoD to the members of the SCA (a more direct and transparent

director selection process, more transparent Board processes - webcast

maybe?).

        K6.     Nichelle: More accountability for BoD Membership (more kingdom

representation) - what about the Ombudsman NOT being on the BoD...?

        K7.     Fiskr: Sunshine Clause, I could easily support a rule that said
all

rule sets expire every 4 years and there is an automatic reversion to

Society minimums. Kingdoms would have to determine which rules are
truly

necessary for defining their Kingdom and get them re-approved (or

pre-approved if they are really on the ball), but it would certainly
weed

out lotsa dead words.



There has been some discussion of the rules revision question already
and, personally I cannot see a possibility of reconciling the opposing
viewpoints on this. My only option would be to allow Kingdoms who feel
it necessary to have this put it in place in their laws.  I grew up in
the West and the chaos of Royal Changes (and the active involvement of
peerage in giving opinions in the 'robust debate') seem to be all the
checks that are needed.


K.  RULES REVISIONS

1.  Kingdom Laws and their attendant apparatchik are growing, not
shrinking. Is this appropriate, and if not, how can that best be
managed?

7. Sunshine Clause, I could easily support a rule that said all rule
sets expire every 4 years and there is an automatic reversion to
Society minimums. Kingdoms would have to determine which rules are
truly necessary for defining their Kingdom and get them re-approved
(or pre-approved if they are really on the ball), but it would
certainly weed out lotsa dead words. (Note from Hrolf - this should be
a 'Sunset' clause).

In my opinion the Sunset Clause helps address #1. Should we
also extend this philosophy to Society Laws and Policies?

Below are some of the key questions that people have
mentioned. There has been some discussion of the rules revision
question already and, personally I cannot see a possibility of
reconciling the opposing viewpoints on this. My only option would be
to allow Kingdoms who feel it necessary to have this put it in place
in their laws.  I grew up in the West and the chaos of Royal Changes
(and the active involvement of peerage in giving opinions in the
'robust debate') seem to be all the checks that are needed.

While making a sunset clause optional would likely get
around some of the debate I would argue that a continuity of policy is
better than a suggested policy that will be applied piecemeal by the
assembled SCA Kingdoms. As was mentioned before the Kingdoms are in
the drivers seat on this one. They are editing their laws and policies
for re-approval. If they re-submit the entirety as is it's a rubber
stamp for approval. If they are adding new stuff this would lead to a
review just as occurs now. if they are deleting stuff by and large the
review is very simple if any is done at all.

The issue isn't whether your particular Kingdom is doing a good job
but rather what is the overall outlook and how might me suggest a
policy that would work over all of the Kingdoms.

2.  Review of R&D, Sanctions and investigation processes.

4. The revision of the GovDocs in April was a good start, but was
mostly just a rewording of the same provisions as before.  I would
like to see the GovDocs amended to REQUIRE the BoD to use lesser
sanctions unless the person is an immediate threat to the safety and
wellbeing of the Society and our participants.  The Child molester and
the murderer are prime examples of this type of person.

There was quite a bit of discussion on this note. I know
that the Society Seneschal is writing a new Seneschal's Handbook and
within it is a section on Administrative Sanctions. Many of these are
what would be considered lesser sanctions.

3.  Informally I continue to see a rise in SCA discipline
issues and extra-SCA legal fees and expenses, rising faster than the
number of participants. Why is that, and is that a trend that can be
reversed?

I don't believe that the SCA is any more or less untouched
by this Society wide tendency to go to litigation. I'm not sure how
the SCA can counter this trend?

5. I would also like to see a more direct accountability of
the BoD to the members of the SCA (a more direct and transparent
director selection process, more transparent Board processes - webcast
maybe?).

6. More accountability for BoD Membership (more kingdom
representation) - what about the Ombudsman NOT being on the BoD...?

BOD Reps, More accountable how exactly? Do you want a policy
that offers BOD Reps recall?

Transparency in choosing BOD Reps? How are BOD reps chosen currently?
As I understand names are received the BOD puts them out for
commentary and then the BOD makes a choice. Is this essentially
correct? The meetings for this are they Executive or during the Open
Meetings?

BOD meetings webcast? How complex would this be? A single camera
shooting the entirety of the head table of BOD Reps? Would we have to
mike the BOD reps? Being at one of these meetings it was sometimes
hard to hear individual BOD Members speak.


K1    I shall wait for discussion.

K2--K3    I too would like to know why disciplinary actions and costs
are increasing--particularly the costs.  I would like to know what
percentage of the costs are due to the actions of non-members.

K4    I would oppose any restriction on the Board's options to use
what it considers to be appropriate actions.  You do not have to be a
murderer or a child molester to bring disrepute upon the name of the
Society and severely hamper or even cripple its outreach in a
locality.  Public drunkenness, public profanity and obscenity,
unwarranted sexual advances might be only misdemeanors; nevertheless,
they are all quite effective ways to cripple or even to destroy the
SCA in an area.   We do not need such low-life's in our organization.
Misbehavior of a lesser nature can well warrant banishment from
kingdom activities.

    In case you think me prudish, I concoct cordials, use obscenity or
profanity when appropriate around a campfire only if a lady present
has used similar language without anyone taking offense.  I do not
make passes: I value certain organs more (I am married).

K5--K6  I strongly favor accountability as long as it does not impair
the functioning of an office.

K7      I like the general idea of a sunshine clause.  It puts a
burden upon kingdoms; however, certainly every kingdom has sufficient
persons with administrative, legal, and clerical backgrounds to handle
such a chore willingly.   What is the flip side of such a requirement?


The great misconception is that the BoD imposes sanctions. THEY DON'T.
KINGDOMS DO.

Kingdoms/Crowns impose sanctions. If it requires Society
review/upholding, the Society Seneschal reviews sanctions submitted to
him before submitting it to the Board for either upholding or reversal.

The Board doesn't do anything regarding sanctions unless asked first
by the Kingdoms. PERIOD.

The larger we get, the more people with less-than-desirable behaviors
we include. It's a pretty scalable percentage of population. Also,
IMO, we're getting better about not hiding things and reporting them
to the proper authorities as well, so we are hearing about more than
we used to. It's not that it didn't happen, it's just that it's
getting reported more consistently.

New Board members are chosen in Executive Session. Commentary on
nominees is only seen by Board members, and no one ever sees the
commentary on themselves. Society Officers can comment on nominees
just like any other member. The Board usually tries to fill specific
functionality depending on who is leaving - ie, legal, financial,
managerial, non-profit knowledge/experience, as well as geographic
concerns (which areas haven't had members in a while, etc.).


I have been corrected. The Board may, on its own, impose sanctions for
actions taken while someone was Crown. Kingdoms may not sanction
individuals for actions taken while they were Crown, that is reserved
to the Board alone. It is not necessary for a Kingdom to request the
sanction first.


What part of my post was pointing out was that the Society Seneschal
is working on an section called Administrative sanctions and how these
would apply more down the line ie Kingdoms and Principalities and how
these options may address the call for lesser sanctions that were
being suggested.


 I would, however like to see a REDUCTION in the amount of paperwork
that is produced and/or required, especially at the local level.
About a year

ago, I went through our Kingdom policy handbooks and law, and made up
a listing of reports that had to be done, who they went to, and where
they

could be found.  Appallingly, there were *8 pages* when I finished
putting it together in one place *for a small group*. (Look, if you
like: http://www.ansteorra.org/reporting.php).  Seems to me that once
an office is considered, then suddenly, there must be a report on a
monthly basis

that goes to somebody.  Does not seem to matter what importance the
information has to the Kingdom or SCA's continuing existance, but the

report must be done. No wonder it is tough getting new people to take
some of the volunteer load, if we have that much stuff to deal with.

Pretty intimidating even to someone who's been in the SCA for quite a
while.