From: moss@cs.umass.edu (Eliot Moss)
Subject: Baronial votes of confidence
Reply-To: moss@cs.umass.edu
Organization: Dept of Comp and Info Sci, Univ of Mass (Amherst)
Distribution: rec.rog.sca
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:40:16 GMT

Gentles -- I have seen some of the discussion of baronial appointment and
replacement mechanisms, and Arval's (in my opinion) well reasoned plea not to
mess with the system until/unless one can determine there is a significant
problem and what that problem is. There has also been considerable give and
take on "monarchical" approaches, and some on what corresponds to feudal
practice.

There are two things on which I would like to see some more discussion:

FIRST: I like the institution of landed barony in that it gives the Society a
more feudal and authentic flavor. Indeed, my baron and I have even discussed
arranging for me to hold a small piece of land in fief to him, since I am a
court baron with no lands (the point being to be more fun and more feudal and
NOT for me to gain any power or responsibility over gentles living within said
land; the "legality" of this is not what I want to discuss in the current
thread). On the other hand, the institution of landed barony is there to serve
the populace (an admitted modern view) and we may have to temper a period view
so as to handle modern sensibility. In short, while I find the discussion of
historical methods of selecting and replacing barons to be of interest, and
possibly a source of useful ideas, it is in some ways not relevant: we need
something that works for the Society, which has one foot planted in modern
culture and society. Can anyone offer more insight on this issue (i.e., the
extent to which the insitution of landed barony should be "authentic" and
feudal and the extent to which it should bow to modern sensitivities)?

SECOND: My home Barony of Bergental was invested about two years ago, after a
four way baronial candidate election that was marvelous in its restraint and
lack of rancor. I have lived through a baronial election that led to group
melt down as well. Bergental's solution to the potential problem of an
unsuitable baron is to have a periodic vote of confidence, in our case every
two years. I think this approach has a number of merits:

  ONE: It gives the baron (and I mean the term generically, to include
  baroness, etc.) an opportunity to reflect, with the populace, on the
  directions the barony has been taking and where it might go in the future.
  The continued communication can strengthen the group and help prevent
  stagnation.

  TWO: It gives a baron that is tired a graceful time at which to retire.

  THREE: It gives the populace a good opportunity to replace a baron that is
  not working out.

  FOUR: It avoids the primary problem of term limits, namely throwing out the
  good with the bad.

  FIVE: Having the vote occur periodically may help reduce the chances of a
  hotheaded impeachment proceeding, since rather than starting a special
  action "mid term", which presumably takes extraordinary effort to arrange,
  one may be more inclined to wait until the next scheduled vote.

I think that in most cases the vote of confidence would be positive,
confirming the baron for another "term". If it should turn out to be negative,
one needs a more elaborate mechanism to resolve the problem. Here I think that
a combination of local and royal influence is the wisest course, since either
alone is more likely to lead to abuse. I'd be interested in hearing more
proposals on how local and royal influence can be combined. In this case,
since the local group is initiating the action, it may be appropriate for the
roylty to have ultimate say in the outcome as a way of balancing the two.
Conversely, if the royalty are allowed to request a vote of confidence, then
perhaps the local group should have more control of the outcome if the vote is
negative.

Here are some problems with the vote of confidence mechanism:

  ONE: If things are going along fine it can be a little disruptive. This is
  probably not a major problem.

  TWO: It might lead to barons trying to be "popular", especially near the
  time of the vote, rather than trying to do what is best for the barony in
  the long run.

  THREE: If something controversial (or particularly good) happens near the
  time of the vote, then it may distort the outcome. Negative votes are more
  problematical I think. One way to address this issue of topicality is to
  have a revote after a cooling off period in the case of a negative vote.

  FOUR: It is not very medieval. This gets back to the first point of
  discussion on trading off practicality and authenticity.

Bergental chose a period of two years, but I see no reason why different
groups could not choose different periods. Also, one could have, at longer
intervals, open elections as opposed to votes of confidence, to encourage some
turnover for renewal of the group and to give more people the opportunity to
serve in this way. I am less sure of the wisdom of this idea, since contested
elections seem more likely to stir things up in bad ways.

Yours in service --		Ellethel
--

J. Eliot B. Moss, Associate Professor	Visiting Associate Professor
Department of Computer Science		School of Computer Science
Lederle Graduate Research Center	Carnegie Mellon University
University of Massachusetts		5000 Forbes Avenue
Amherst, MA  01003			Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3891
(413) 545-4206, 545-1249 (fax)		(412) 268-6767, 681-5739 (fax)
Moss@cs.umass.edu			Moss@cs.cmu.edu

Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa