From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: William vs Arval on membership
Date: 6 Apr 92 20:48:06 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

Greetings from Arval!

Discussing the role of the corporation in the SCA, William de Corbie wrote: 

> It can be argued that there are some roads which are not necessary to
> society; if they were closed, it would force people to drive a few miles
> extra to get where they are going -- but they would still get there. If
> the corporation ceased to exist, the SCA would not vanish with it. Most
> of the things that the Corporation does today would get done in different 
> ways. But the costs would still be there. We would drive on a different
> road, but we would still need roads. 

I believe you are assuming that the things the corporation does are
necessary to the Society (which is different from the earlier question of
whether the corporation itself is necessary to the Society).  That is a big
assumption.  

Some functions of the corporation are valuable for their contributions to
the Society (publications, the stock clerk).  These are not necessary, but
the Society might not be as fertile without them.  On the other hand, these
functions could be (and are) provided by individuals without any help from
the official hierarchy.

Some are important if we want to maintain the unity of the Society as it is
today (Board as High Court, uniform fighting standards, uniform method of
choosing royalty).  These are not clearly necessary, though without them
the Society might eventually fragment.  It is certainly true that one of
the things that we have going for us is our size and basic structural
unity, which allows people to move freely and continue to participate.  On
the other hand, this same unity could be maintained by the kingdoms
themselves through a less formal and less expensive council.

Some functions assist kingdoms and local groups in running their activities
(tax-free status with all the accounting and reporting that goes with it,
liability insurance, central office for contacts, information, etc).  These
are also not necessary, though local groups would have to work a little
harder to do without them, and their absense would probably also lead to
some fragmentation of the Society.  Cariadoc's example of country dancing
groups is illustrative: They function without any central organization.  I
strongly doubt that every local club has an insurance policy and tax-free
status.  

There are other functions of the corporation which simply maintain the
corporation.  Every office of the corporation has created a ponderous
bureaucracy to carry out its jobs.  Whether those jobs are necessary or
not, the bureaucracy itself generates a large proportion of the work that
has to get done.  If you eliminated the several layers of reporting
required to keep the corporation in touch with every local group, there
would be a whole lot less to get done.  If you have no corporate steward,
then kingdom seneschals don't need to write annual reports.  Eliminate
membership, and you can eliminate the registry.

Finally, there are some functions of the corporation which are simply a
waste of time, which I see no need to detail.  These should obviously be
eliminated no matter what.

I'm not arguing that we should eliminate the corporation, but I am arguing
that the corporation must revise its self-image: It serves us, and its
functions are necessary only to the extent that we think them necessary.
If the corporation cannot convince us of their utility, it should be bound
to eliminate them.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com