From: bq434@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael A. Chance)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Perceptions of BoD
Date: 16 Oct 1992 20:59:06 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bq434@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Michael A. Chance)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hallo!

Several people have commented, both lately and in the past, on the
apparent (mis)perception that the Board of Directors is unresponsive to the
"real" needs of the Society, and "out of touch" with the general consensus
of the "real" participants (as if there ever was such a thing).  Siobhan
rightly points out the the members of the Board genuinely care about the
opinions of the membership.  Many have lamented that far to few folks in
the Society ever take the time to put pen to paper (or turn on their
printers), address an envelope, invest in a postage stamp, and take the
effort to place a letter in the post box.  I freely admit to being guilty
of this crime more times than I would like.

But, as others have pointed out, "they" (the Board members) are some of
"us".  All of the Board members are senior members of the Society, with
many years of playing our game, and from many Kingdoms (though, granted,
this last point was not always true).  Although I cannot say for all of the
Board members, all of the one that I know are member of the Order of the
Pelican, indicating that they are among the most respected participants of
our Society, and have been recognized for long service and contributions to
the SCA.  These are not faceless bureaucrats that the Corporation has hired
off the streets.  "We have met the enemy, and he is us", as Pogo once said.

But perhaps the fact that they _are_ senior peers is a contributing factor
to the lack of information they receive from the general membership.  The
decline in the art of correspondance has been noted; but these people are
in attendance at many of the same activities that we are.  So why don't
they get an earful when they are "in the crowds"?  Consider:

1)  Most major events are crammed full of "required" activities for senior
peers, leaving them with very little time for general conversation.  I've
seen very few events where the Crowns (or Coronets) were in attendance that
didn't have at least one peerage or kingom-level order meeting, which
naturally run much longer than scheduled.  Plus, there's always the need to
talk face-to-face with other senior peers on various topics unrelated to
the business and structure of the SCA, Inc., changes to Corpora, etc., like
"Is Lady Whozit's ready for elevation?" or "What do you know about Sir
Hackem's new squire?".  Peers write to each other about as often as the
rest of us write.

2)  Small events (those with 75 or fewer in attendance) have all but
disappeared.  A newly incipient shire's first event is flooded with folks
from the older neighboring groups wanting to "help out" the fledgelings.
But it's these small events that have all of the free time for idle
conversation about the nature of the SCA.

3)  The kingdom calendars are quickly loaded up with "major" events, like
kingdom/principality events (Crowns, Coronations, etc.), major annual
events (12th Night, annual wars, etc.), or anniverary events.  Since most
of us have to pick and choose which events to attend, the smaller events
often get pushed aside in favor of the "majors", especially for senior
peers.

4)  Local meetings and activities have their own agendas.  No one wants to
discuss changes to the peerages at a local dance practice or a cooking
session the night before an event.  There tends to be more pressing
concerns on a local level, and the fact that one of the locals is also
a Board member never (or rarely) is considered.

5)  Rank intimidation is a reality.  Very few of us "middle class" folks,
and certainly no newbie, would every consider approaching senior peers to
start a conversation about the current "hot" Kingdom political topic, let
alone some of the stuff the Board is considering.  Heck, I'm not
comfortable with broaching some of these topics with peers I've known on a
first name basis for 10 years (particularly when I know the topic is a "hot
button").

The result:  Very few folks talk to the Board members at events, local
meetings, guild workshops, etc. about the topics that the Board makes
decisions about.  They end up making their decisions based on the few
letters they receive, and the few conversation they've had, and their years
of experience.  And since they receive very few letters, and few folks talk
to them, they only get a very limited view of the mythical "general consensus"
by which to make decisions.

Unless they make one that _nobody_ likes.  Then they hear from _everybody_!

Mikjal Annarbjorn
-- 
Michael A. Chance          St. Louis, Missouri, USA    "At play in the fields
Work: mc3078@sw1sta.sbc.com                             of St. Vidicon"
Play: bq434@cleveland.freenet.edu
      mchance@nyx.cs.du.edu
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca