[SCA-AE] NMS--wider consideration

[Joel Welling]

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 20:27 -0500, Taranach McLeod wrote:
> Why yes, the money does belong to the corporation.... just as the
> group does, and the kingdom does and so on and so forth. Your point
> would be?

No, Taranack, *we* are the group, the kingdom and so forth.  *We* make
the regalia, cook the feasts, fight the tourneys and do the arts.  Only
the bank accounts belong to the Corporation, and the only reason we have
anything to do with them is that we're emotionally attached to the name
'SCA'.  Oh, and we can't leave because they would get to keep our bank
accounts.

> 
> As I pointed out in another post, the membership fees have long lagged
> far behind what the economy would indicate and they have continued to
> shave and trim to keep offering everything they could *WITHOUT*
> raising membership cost.... and that membership has been the same for
> well over a decade!

What's your point?  The Board has covered an ever-increasing budget by a
variety of kludges while keeping the overt rise in 'membership' fees
low.  The NMS is one of those kludges, and as their budget has continued
to grow they have decided they need to milk that particular kludge more
efficiently.  As far as shaving and trimming go, they've kept an office
in a very expensive location, and they employ six people.  So far I
haven't heard what work they're doing that I couldn't reasonably expect
of a web server and a clerical assistant.  They may have shaved and
trimmed, but they still look pretty shaggy to me.

> If the membership in the SCA had kept pace with the rest of the
> economy you would be paying $55 to $65 and then there would be no need
> for the NMS to make up the shortfall...

Exactly my point.  It's just a different form of fee.

> ...and we could keep letting the
> slackers and freeloaders take advantage of the insurance we pay for
> that gives us the ability to hold our events... 

Um, here we go.  Slackers and freeloaders?  

Also, just how much do you think the cost of insuring that individual
adds to the cost of the event?  Well, the right answer is $0, because
the insurance cost for the event is the same whether those 'slackers and
freeloaders' attend or not.  But if you want to think about amortizing
the cost of the insurance for that event over the number of people who
attend, we can probably do that calculation.  Do you think it will even
come close to the size of the NMS?  I don't.

And finally, please remember that the insurance doesn't cover *them*.
It covers the group officers in case the 'slackers and freeloaders' try
to sue them, by providing a target with bigger pockets.  I suppose it
would come into play if they burned down the hall.  But I honestly don't
see how you can claim that they're 'taking advantage of the insurance'.

> and they could
> continue to complain and whine about how it is so not worth it for
> year after year after year but they still keep coming and acting like
> their voice should be counting for something and demanding changes and
> criticizing every rule or regulation but won't become part of the
> process....

They earn the right to be heard by cooking and cleaning, by
participating, and in fact by doing everything *we* do to earn the right
to be heard.  *Except* for sending money to this group in California,
and as far as I can tell, my having payed the fee hasn't earned me the
right to be heard out there.

> 
> Sorry if I sound a little bitter but I am hearing the same whining
> from EVERY quarter... grow the heck up people.
> 
> Taranach
> Proud member for over  fifteen years

I'm not bitter, I'm angry.  This financial nonsense has been going on
way too long, and the fact that there is no mechanism to hold the Board
accountable to the 'membership' is the  main cause of it.

Maghnus
who has been a reluctant member for over *thirty* years