From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Term Limits for the Landed Baroncy
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:49:38 GMT
Organization: IBM T. J. Watson Research

Greetings from Arval!  Alan Fairfax wrote:

> Seneschals, heralds, and other officers have (in Midrealm Law, at least)
> clearly defined responsibilities.  Barons do not... 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.

The fact that barons act only within the medieval world of the Society and
the fact that your baron has no formal list of responsibilities are
unrelated.  Kings and Queens and heralds act only within the medieval world
of the Society, but have very clearly defined responsibilities.  Whether or
not your barony wishes to give its baron a list of formal duties is
entirely the barony's affair, but please don't suggest that such a list is
incompatible with the institution of baroncy.  

> "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.

That is clearly not true.  Here's a list of objective criteria for choosing
a landed baron:

1) Must be the tallest man in the barony.

That would be a pretty foolish way to choose a baron, but it definitely
makes the choice easier.  Here's a more reasonable list:

1) Must be able to attend every baronial event published in the kingdom
   newsletter, and hold court at least twice each year; must either attend
   Coronation or some other royal court each reign to swear fealty.  
2) Must have a good enough voice to be effective in court.  
3) Must have enough nice garb to make the barony look good.
4) Must live in the barony, be employed, and have reasonable prospects for
   remaining employed & resident in the area of the barony, to ensure some
   stability.

I'm not saying that these criteria are the right ones for any particular
barony, but they do define qualities that a barony might want to have in
its baron.  It is still obvious that these requirements would help select
among potential candidates: A lot of people simply won't qualify.  They
rule out someone who works three Saturdays each month, or who can't travel,
or who works for a company that is likely to transfer him across the
country in a year, or who has no talent for public speaking.  More
important, they say what the barony expects the baron to do; if he fails
too often, then they have a clear & objective reason for wanting him to
retire.

You wrote:

> I would suggest that anyone who is seriously considered to become the
> baron of a healthy barony would be qualified for the job.

Here you stated your own criterion.  Implicit in your criterion are lots of
ill-defined qualities that you want your baron to have: popularity,
political astuteness, whatever.  We all have ideas about what barons should
be; what's wrong with getting people together and writing them down?

You appear to be still arguing against any centralized definition of a
baron's duties and qualifications, or procedures for appointment and
removal.  In case you have misunderstood me, I never supported any such
thing.  I'm not arguing that there should be universal criteria for
selecting barons, as a class, but rather that every barony would be
well-advised to have its own guidelines for selecting its own baron and to
understand what they expect their baron to do from year to year.

===========================================================================
Arval Benicoeur                                       mittle@watson.ibm.com
From: Joe.Bethancourt@f4229.n124.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Bethancourt)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet