[SCA-AE] Change in Corpora Proposed
dorinda.e.courtine-white at cummins.com
dorinda.e.courtine-white at cummins.com
Mon Jan 5 15:47:23 EST 2009
I don't think it is a huge burden, and certainly the Crown should be
members, but if a Kingdom or Corporate officer lapses, what happens? I
have never heard of a Kingdom Seneschal or Exchequer being booted from
office because their membership lapsed. And certainly, at local levels,
officers lapse in membership all the time.
I support making the Crown be members, but I have never understood why
their burden to do so is larger than the officers that handle most of the
legal stuff we deal with as an organization. Shouldn't they all be treated
the same?
Dorinda
Gwilym/Bill
<scalongbow at winds
tream.net> To
Sent by: discussion at aethelmearc.org
sca-aethelmearc-b cc
ounces
+dorinda.e.courti Subject
ne-white=cummins. Re: [SCA-AE] Change in Corpora
com at lists.andrew. Proposed
cmu.edu
01/05/2009 03:41
PM
Please respond to
discussion at aethel
mearc.org
Having held a Kingdom office twice, once in the east (3 yrs),
and once in AEthelmearc (4 years), and been a Society Officer (6 yrs).
I don't see a problem with requiring paid membership in order to hold the
most visible office there is. As K or Q of any given kingdom.
Or am I missing something here?
Not only did I have the 'required' membership to hold my offices, but
also paid for additional kingdom newsletters as well.
If your serious about wanting to be king, then a paid membership
as part of the requirement of entering the list field during crown torney
should not be difficult.
If you wait till the last moment to pay up, then what kind of K or Q will
you be? One who waits till the last minute to do the duties required?
Been there, saw that and its not a pretty sight. All kingdoms deserve
better.
And its not that big of a burden. Most entrants in to Crown 'are' card
carring members as it is.
Gwilym
Ben Cogan wrote:
>Yes, I cannot condone this action. What's next, requiring that great
>officers show proof of their 3 year membership as part of their letter
>of intent? I know that they're trying to avoid a lapse of membership
>negating a reign, but there are much simpler methods than requiring
>everyone with passing interest in the crown, or who just wants to show
>up and be seen to have to buy up to do so. That sounds like a poll
>tax, actually.
>
>I'd be fine with requiring the winner to renew membership pretty much
>at the tourney, and be happier still to see the kingdom or society pay
>for it. I know that we'd likely have to not use SCA funds for this,
>as it does benefit an individual, but on the same token it benefits
>the realm. SCA money pays for royal travel fund, they are commonly
>comped at events, why can't it pay for memberships to keep the kingdom
>healthy?
>
>Brandubh O'Donnghaile
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Sca-aethelmearc mailing list
Send general discussion email to discussion at aethelmearc.org to post to the
list.
Email Official announcements to announcements at aethelmearc.org .
Visit https://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/mailman/listinfo/sca-aethelmearc for:
more info, archives, subscription changes, etc.
When replying to posts, you should remove excess quotage.
_________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
More information about the Sca-aethelmearc
mailing list