Inside the Corporate Office: Myths and Questions
- From: Chris Zakes <moondrgn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 11:24:07 GMT
Forwarded from the SCA Announcements email list.
-Tivar Moondragon
Ansteorra
Q2 2006 Chairman?s Letter to the Membership ? Myths and Questions
Over its 40 years of existence, a number of misconceptions have
managed to work their way into the SCA?s mythology. While some baffle
the mind to think how they might have evolved, others have more
understandable origins. Among the more persistent are the ones
surrounding the Corporation, its composition and operations. What
follows are clarifications aimed at dispelling prevalent myths and the
answers to some of the most common questions. I hope you find these of
interest and value.
Myths
The Board recycles the same people over and over again.
While it is true that some Directors go on to become Corporate
officers, or vice versa, the number of ?retreads? is surprisingly low.
As of this writing, there have been 84 Director terms since the
inception of the SCA?s Board of Directors. Only 10 people have served
more than one full term as a Director. Out of those 10, one served
three full terms, three served two full terms, five served one full
and one partial term (to replace a Director who had to step down
early), and one served two partial terms. Also, of the 74 people
serving as Directors, only seven went on to become Corporate officers,
and of those seven only one served more than one term as a Director.
Part of the reason there have been repeat Directors is twofold. In
some instances, a sitting Director left before the end of their term.
Normally, when a new Director is chosen, that person has at least a
quarter to get up to speed and become familiar with policies,
procedures and current issues. When someone leaves early, that seat
needs to be filled immediately, so it is better to fill it with
someone who is ready to go, such as a former Director. The second
reason is simpler: some individuals enjoy serving the SCA, and may
throw their hats into the nominee pool more than once.
The Board and Corporate officers are the same people.
The SCA?s Board of Directors consists of seven individuals. Currently,
there are five senior Corporate officers (not Board members) who
report to the Board, and therefore do not have the same
decision-making authority. In the past, it was routine for Directors
to also hold a Corporate officer position such as that of Treasurer or
President. Today, this is no longer the practice, though the Chairman
of the Board could hold the President?s position, this would only
happen in an extreme case (and the Chairman would have to be utterly
insane to want to do both jobs, anyway). This may account for the
perception that the Board and Corporate officers are one and the same.
Board members are paid.
Not a penny ? they are all volunteers. Aside from five salaried and
hourly staff members at the Corporate office, the only other officers
who receive any monetary compensation are the Society Seneschal,
Society Exchequer, Executive Assistant, the TI?s art director and
editor, and the Compleat Anachronist?s editor. And those remunerations
are token gestures at best.
The SCA?s membership is dwindling.
Membership in the SCA remains at all-time highs, and through all of
2005, there were more than 32,000 paid members. This figure does not
take into account the membership of the affiliate Corporations in
Finland, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden.
All the Directors always vote the same way.
The Board is composed of some of the Known World?s most forceful
personalities. It?s hard enough for us to agree on what kind of pizza
to order, let alone come to a consensus on issues with serious ethical
considerations. It is true that some issues do draw unanimous votes
from the Board, but certainly not all. Just taking sanctions as an
example, since 1996, the Board has had to vote on 238 motions (some
individuals received multiple sanctions). Of those, there were 28
occasions where the voting was not unanimous; mostly because of
casting a dissenting vote, though there were a couple abstentions, as
well. That is more than a 10-percent dissent rate. There were also
scores of motions where a Director recused themselves (a recusal is
when a board member removes themselves from discussion and voting).
This usually occurs when a Board member lives in the same Kingdom as
the individual named in the motion, or knows the individual well
enough that impartiality might be difficult.
You can only get on the Board if you know someone already on the
Board.
Since I have been on the Board, there was only one time that a
majority of the other Directors was even familiar with a nominee being
considered. Sometimes, one or two of us will have previously met a
candidate, but more often than not, none of the Board members knows
the nominees beyond possibly name recognition. That is why input from
the membership is so important to us. We rely on the commentary we
receive when selecting new Directors. So, this is my opportunity to
remind everyone reading this column to send us your comments. If you
have thoughts on one or more of the nominees on the list, please send
them to us. Your thoughts are invaluable.
Common Questions
How are Directors elected?
As a general rule, a new Director is chosen every six months at the
meeting prior to the one in which a Board member is due to step down.
In the weeks prior to voting, each Director reviews the list of
nominees kept by the Board?s recruitment ombudsman. Unlike the list
you may see published on the SCA?s web site, Tournaments Illuminated
or your Kingdom newsletter, the Board keeps a master list that also
contains the commentary sent to the Board regarding all the nominees,
that only the Directors ever see ? never the Corporate or Society
Officers. It is worth noting that after a Director is elected, his or
her name and commentary are purged from the list, ensuring that
members? comments remain confidential. The Board also keeps a business
résumé and an SCA résumé that each nominee is asked to send in.
Each Director goes through the list, carefully reading the commentary
and résumés, and selects those candidates they feel best fit the
current needs of the Board. There are several reasons why a nominee
might get passed over ? sometimes it?s because of the comments sent in
by the membership; other times the Board may be in need of specific
professional or SCA experience, such as a financial background or time
in the marshallate. Additionally, the Board likes to avoid having more
than one person from a particular Kingdom on at the same time. This is
not a hard and fast rule, merely a preference (there have been times
when we have had two concurrent Board members from the same Kingdom,
but they are rare instances).
When the Directors have each shared their short lists of candidates,
the Chairman asks the senior Corporate Officers and some Society
Officers for their thoughts. Some Board members will also make
discreet, private inquiries to gather more information prior to the
meeting.
At the meeting where the actual voting is to take place, each Director
shares their opinion on the candidates. Since the vote for selecting a
new Director must be unanimous, there is usually much discussion on
the merits of those under consideration before a vote is taken. Just
because a nominee does not get voted on at one meeting does not
preclude them from ever being voted in again. A nominee is not removed
from the list unless their nomination expires, they request their own
removal or they are elected to the Board.
There are circumstances where the selection of a Board member does not
occur on the six-month schedule. This usually happens when a Director
ends their term early because of resignation or removal. In such
cases, an emergency conference call may be called to fill the seat
immediately. In order to function, the Board need not continuously
have all seven of its seats filled, but it is best to operate with a
full slate of Directors as much of the time as possible.
Why have so many more sanctions been handed down from the Board
recently, and why would a person be sanctioned?
While it does seem as though there are an increasing number of
sanctions of SCA members and participants, here are some insights to
put it in perspective.
The SCA has reached an all-time high of 32,000+ paid members, with an
estimated equal number of non-member participants. So, with a swell in
members and other participants, it is logical to expect an increase in
the number of sanctions that have to be imposed.
In recent years, our membership, especially the officer corps at the
local and Kingdom levels, has become much better trained and educated
in their use of the SCA?s Governing Documents. The resultant improved
understanding of grievance and sanctions procedures means that those
tools are being used more often now. It is likely that proportionally,
there were just as many issues years ago as today, it?s just that
people were not as aware of the tools available to them.
Today?s membership is less tolerant of those who transgress modern
laws or the SCA?s Governing Documents, or who endanger the Society in
some way. Members are more likely to hold each other accountable than
in years past. While specifics as to the nature of recent offenses
can?t be shared, we can say that it takes more than mild mistakes to
warrant a sanction. The most common reasons include: malfeasance,
sexual misconduct, assault and repeated disregard for the SCA's rules.
Also, bear in mind that almost all sanctions originate at the Kingdom
level, not Corporate. The Board does not go looking for sanctions to
hand out, and usually only gets involved if requested. Speaking for
myself, it is the single most distasteful part of my job as a
Director, and I would just as soon not have to do it. Unfortunately,
it is a sad fact we have to contend with.
The Board is always studying ways to help its membership along and
steer clear of behavior and activities that may land them in trouble.
Above, I said the SCA?s officer corps is better educated in how to
begin the sanctions process. I also believe it is better educated in
how to help folks avoid problems. The Society Seneschal has gone to
great lengths to make sure officers understand that sanctions are only
a last resort, after all other attempts to help have been exhausted.
Rumor, misperception and SCA-urban myth will never go away entirely.
It?s only natural that some of it will continue. But a few can have
counterproductive effects or be downright destructive, making the need
for verification of extreme assertions that much more important.
Have you got a myth you would like dispelled or a question you?d like
answered? Send an e-mail to chairman@xxxxxxx and I?ll do my best to
answer.
Jason Williams ? Chairman, SCA Inc.
(Duke John ap Gwyndaf, KSCA, OL)
Q3 ?06: inside the Corporate Office
Comments are strongly encouraged and can be sent to:
SCA Inc.
Box 360789
Milpitas, CA 95036
You may also email comments@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
or reply to this message. [Note that replying to *this particular*
message will only get it posted to the Rialto. To get your coments to
the Board, use the snail-mail or email addresses above. -Tivar]
This announcement is an official informational release by the Society
for Creative Anachronism , Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce
this announcement in its entirety in newsletters, websites and
electronic mailing lists.
Two things I have ever respected are warmth and the ability to sit still.
-Mayland Long in "Tea With the Black Dragon" by R.A. MacAvoy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Inside the Corporate Office: Myths and Questions
- From: Steve Mesnick
- Re: Inside the Corporate Office: Myths and Questions
- Prev by Date: Re: Medieval Bagpipes
- Next by Date: Re: Medieval Bagpipes
- Previous by thread: Medieval Bagpipes
- Next by thread: Re: Inside the Corporate Office: Myths and Questions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
