Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Why have the SCA, Inc.?
From: David Schroeder <ds4p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 13:38:44 -0400 
Organization: Doctoral student, Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Greetings once again, good gentles --

A fellow Rialtan dropped me a note to say that she appreciated my brief
reference to the possibility of Kingdoms splitting from the Corporation
in the future if the burden of regulations becomes excessive.  That made
me think back to the 70's when I joined the Society and helped me remember
just what the Corporation did for us back then.

Yes, the Corporation gave us a tax-free non-profit legal basis from 
which to operate, and yes, the Board okay'd group advancement and 
adjudicated inter-kingdom disputes and helped keep _some_ customs
standard across the Known World... But the BIGGEST service the
Corporation offered was providing the Registry and managing/printing
mailing labels for 2,000 plus members using time on Cliveden's
husband Guy's company mainframe computer system.  Back in the
dim past, before powerful microcomputers were around, it was 
quite a big deal to manage 2,000 plus names and addresses.  We were
lucky to have free computer time donated for us to use. 

Today that is no longer the case.  Even TI's 20,000+ record mailing
list could be kept on a less than $5,000 computer system, given a
Mac or PC with a large hard disk, a heavy duty printer, software,
and a tape-backup device.

Please realize that I'm not necessarily arguing that we should
abolish or severely restrict the scope of the current corporation
(though I'd certainly be willing to consider ways to pare things down).
I do believe that some things are better handled by the Corporation than
the kingdoms.  I just thought it would be valuable to point out that one
of the primary reasons for _having_ the Corporation (that hasn't been
mentioned in previous discussions) no longer MUST be done at the
corporate level.  The Australian Registry and the soon to be coming
European Registry are excellent examples.  There's no longer any
*technical* reason why kingdom newsletters can't keep their OWN 
subscription lists and collect their own money.

So, let's try talking about which services would and would not be
more effective provided by a large group (the entire corporation)
versus smaller groups (like kingdoms).  Insurance may be one --
those companies like big numbers, the bigger the better.
Adjudicating/arbitrating kingdom disputes, yep -- though
a panel of arbitrators from uninvolved kingdoms might be
just as good.  Reporting to the IRS?  Maybe -- though
kingdom treasurers have to report to corporate as things
stand today -- reporting directly to the IRS wouldn't be
too much added hassle (barring audits, sigh...).

What do others think?  What would be the 'minimum effective set'
of responsibilities, if any, that the corporation should retain?
Clearly the Steward's job *as currently defined* has become too
much for any single person.  What's the right balance between
centralizing and decentralization?

I'll look forward to your thoughts and observations.

Much obliged -- Bertram

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Bertram of Bearington                                      Dave Schroeder
Debatable Lands/AEthelmearc/East               Carnegie Mellon University
INTERNET: ds4p@andrew.cmu.edu                         412/731-3230 (Home)
+------------------------ PREME * Press On * PREME ---------------------+
      "He indulged in every excess, yes in each licentious whim..."