[SCA-AE] NMS--wider consideration

[Taranach McLeod]

I see... so you *are* a member?

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:54 PM, Joel Welling <welling at psc.edu> wrote:
> 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.

I wonder just how many events you would be able to run without that
insurance, and without the 501(c)3... Are you fully cognizant of what
is required to run a 501(c)3? I am... and it is not a "zero cost"
situation. There are also fewer and fewer sites that are willing to
rent without that insurance or at least mandatory membership in THEIR
group.

>> 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.

Why don't you just show us how to do it then? I mean if it is all so
"easy"... Yes, Milpitas is not exactly "low maintenance" but it is
another 'tradition', among many, that a LOT of people keep hanging on
to. As to the budget, in case you haven't noticed, EVERYTHING has gone
up in price, and yet you are still expecting everything for nothing
more than it was thirty to forty years ago? Every time there is even a
hint of raising membership, everyone starts screaming, so they try to
cover the increasing costs through other means and still get screamed
at... they resort to those Kludges because their hands are tied by
impossible expectations. All the NMS has managed to do is offset the
converging lines of rising expenses and relatively stagnant revenue.

>> 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.

So you would rather be the "reluctant member" paying an average of $60
a year so that those non-members could continue to participate without
the NMS fee? Or perhaps you would like to have every group incorporate
as it's own 501(c)3 and cover the $300-$500 for insurance per day for
every single event. How long do you think it would be before each
group starts to diverge from the others? How long before the groups
start getting to the point where the rules are too far apart to play
with each other? When the real world differences within a single
kingdom geographical area such as ours would factionalise each group?
It already happens to a limited extent with inter-kingdom
anthropology. The overall corporation is what keeps everyone on
roughly the same page.

>> ...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.

That's exactly right... if there was no NMS then those slackers and
freeloaders would be taking advantage of the insurance that the
MEMBERS paid for. The insurance that allowed us to get the site where
that event is held because the owner would not rent without it.

> 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.

I see, so I cook and clean and participate and do everything else that
they do as well as pay my membership, hold offices that facilitate
their playtime, organize the events and yet their voices are an equal
to mine? Sorry, no... They may have earned the right to participate
but not to govern.

If someone comes over to your house and helps to cook and to clean and
participates does that give them the right to direct your finances?
Does that give them the right to tell you what to do or "vote" on what
your family should do? I was raised old school where you pull your own
weight or just go along for the ride. By every indicator I have found
there are at least as many non-members participating as there are
members and that is the conservative estimate, most numbers are nearly
triple... throw in the total received from NMS and that is only about
15% of the total revenue... that means that half the participants
(members) are carrying more than 85% of the load for everyone else to
play. So with all else being equal, such as event and feast costs, it
is completely fair that members should be doing all the same things as
well as running the offices and covering over three quarters of the
costs of running the game.....

If anyone should be angry, it should be the members that care enough
to take on that additional burden for those that refuse to pay for
their entertainment and scream long and loud that WE are being unjust.
Remember, the BoD are members too...

> 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

Many of those I have been hearing screaming loudest have been those
who are self avowed "non-members" who refuse to pay on "principle"...
I am generally a generous and easygoing kind of person, but these
arguments have been blown far out of proportion and are getting me
rather steamed at those who want to do and get everything for nothing
or the barest pittance at best. Ridiculous... I enjoy a freebie as
much as anyone else but not when it comes at anothers expense.

Taranach