From: samlb@optilink.UUCP (Sam Bassett)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Memberships and Autocrat's redux
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:34:25 GMT
Organization: DSC/Optilink Access Products

In article <1992Jul20.150613.20989@progress.com> schuldy@progress.COM (Mark Schuldenfrei) writes:
>No member is automatically an agent of the Society, right?

	Well, sorta -- as Steward, I tried to limit the number of
authorized agents, and have them report to me (mostly so that I knew what
the hell was goong on, and could tell the Board if they asked).
	I suspect that Hillary has the same motives and M.O.

	I _can_ be argued, however, that "mere" membership does establish
a relationship of agency -- this is what defense lawyers will tell you
when you ask about legal liability.  ***SIGH***

	My point is, that without _REAL EXPLICIT_ written rules on who is
or isn't an official Agent of the Corporation, the whole matter is in a
nebulous and possibly dangerous legal limbo.

>They still need authorization.  If we can authorize a member, why not
>a non-member?  That's my whole thesis.

	No reason at all -- so long as the rules are written and clear.

>I asked:
>  If I, as a non-member, but authorized to
>Sam'l answered:
> [ Paraphrase: If the Seneschal is authorized to appoint additional

	Again -- my point is that the rules _AREN'T_ clear, and when they
aren't, the legal situation gets _very_ fuzzy.  This isn't an either/or
-- binary-valued logic problem -- there are at least 4 possible logical
outcomes, and possibly an unbounded number.
	I.e. It is no Either A or B, but A or B, A and B, neither A nor
B, etc., ad infinitem.  We got Fuzzy logic here, not Aristotelean . . .

>Gee, thanks for the backhanded compliment.  Why?  

	As I get older, I get more cynical -- without bounds so far.
When it comes to profit-making corporations, and especially the Insurance
industry, I am not willing to grant the benefit of a doubt that I would
to an individual -- they all fit the definition of "Malefactors of Great
Wealth" that Teddy Roosevelt railed against in the early 1900s.  They
spend _much_ more on lawyers and legislative lobbyists than they ought
to, and much less on doing their homework and paying honest claims.
	Yes, your arguement makes sense -- that the fewer people 
and the fewer situations covered, the less the risk, and therefore the
lower the premium -- but it would not necessarily generate the most
profit for the insurance company.  It is my cynical suspicion that they
charge a lot more for insurance for off-beat organizations like us than
they do for Elks, for instance . . .

>But, I was wrong.  Corpora does support what she wrote:
>
>  II. SOCIETY EVENTS
>   A. [ . . . ] All Society events must be sponsored by branches of
>      the Society, registered with the Seneschal of the sponsoring
>      branch, and publicized at least to the membership of that branch,
>      and conducted according to Society rules.
>
>   C. Each Society event must have one Society member appointed by the
>      sponsoring branch in attendance and responsible for the general
>      conduct of the event. [ . . . ]

	Hmmm -- this is LOTS more rational than what I had to deal with.
Bravo, modern BoD!

	I still think Corpora needs an explicit statement of Agency . . .

-- 
Sam'l Bassett -- System Administrator 	      (among other silly things)
Work: DSC/Optilink, 1310-C Redwood Wy, Petaluma CA 94954; 1-707-792-7253
Internet: samlb@optilink.com 		      UUCP: uunet!optilink!samlb