From: atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Montgomery J. Moose)
Subject: Re: Term Limits for the Landed Baroncy
Organization: National Association for the Disorganized
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:36:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.181036.38889@watson.ibm.com> mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman) writes:

>Greetings from Arval!  Alan Fairfax wrote:
>
>>   The last time this came up in the Midrealm, people commonly said,
>> "Baron is a title, not an office."  This is true.

>Interesting; in the SCA, "a title" is usually something that carries no
>formal responsibilities.  Is that how you view landed baroncy?  If so, then
>we disagree completely.  

  This is not something about which we need to disagree; it is simply a 
statement of fact.  Seneschals, heralds, and other officers have (in Midrealm
Law, at least) clearly defined responsibilities.  Barons do not. 
  I guess a better question is, "should baron be a title or an office?"  I 
would say that a baron does not need clearly delineated responsibilities or a
checklist of duties.  Unlike the offices, in which failure to perform certain
tasks has real world consequences, the barons are given power only within the
shared fantasy of the SCA.  Because of this, I think that it's better to allow
each barony (and each successive baron) to do pretty much what they want.  
  I am somewhat biased, since, as I mentioned, my barony has had the same baron
for 22 years.  (We have had a few baronesses, but the last one left the area 
about 15 years ago.)  However, when, for whatever reason, Thorvald can no
longer be baron, choosing a new baron will be difficult.  However, I honestly
don't think that writing out a list of criteria or deciding on a decision 
process will make the choice any easier when the time comes.  In fact, I would
be willing to bet that it will cause only more difficulty by creating two
political battles--one to decide the criteria, and a second to decide who fits
them--where a single one could have been endured.

>If that were true, there would be no problem.  I think our history shows
>quite clearly that it is not.  If each barony had objective criteria for
>judging their baron, then it would be obvious whether someone is a good or
>bad baron.  It would be obvious when it is time for a baron to step down
>and let someone else have a turn.  Our history and the horror with which
>many people contemplate a baron election clearly demonstrate that neither
>of these judgements is easily made.  I don't suggest that any barony can
>actually write down criteria that are so precise as to eliminate all
>subjectivity, but I do think that every barony would do well to try to
>clarify what it expects of its baron so that there is some basis for making
>these decisions.

  One of the problems with long-term barons is that their personality becomes
an important part of the job.  If asked what their baron should do, I would
suspect that a number of Carolingians (to take just one example) would say,
"Be Patri."  This is almost unavoidable in a group in which senior members have
known only one baron--adjusting to anyone new, no matter what their
qualifications, is not difficult.
  I would suggest that anyone who is seriously considered to become the baron
of a healthy barony would be qualified for the job.  "Objective criteria" won't
help simply because they're not going to make the decision--there will either
be several candidates or none.  Even with the criteria, the decision still
needs to be made, and making it isn't any easier.

		Alan Fairfax Aluricson, Fenris Herald
		Canton of the Riding of Hawkland Moor
		Barony of Northwoods, Midrealm
		atterlep@vela.acs.oakland.edu		**Magnitudo Vocis**



Newsgroups: rec.org.sca