From: mittle@watson.ibm.com (Josh Mittleman)
Newsgroups: rec.org.sca
Subject: Re: Decentralization--what we can do
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:43:44 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

Greetings from Arval!

Lothar wrote:

> I get the sense that people feel that the BoD is unresponsive to their
> wishes. How might we get them to change?

This is true: People feel that way.  The directors believe that this is
generally a false impression; all of them attend events regularly, travel
extensively, and communicate closely with corporate and kingdom officers.
They point out that they get very little unsolicited input from the
populace, and wonder how they can be more responsive if they have nothing
to which to respond.  

I think both parties have valid points: Most of the populace does not take
an interest in corporate business.  On the other hand, the Board makes very
little direct effort to tap the knowledge, expertise, and wisdom of the
populace.  The only consistent method the Board has used to get input is
published calls for discussion, which obviously don't work.  I think that
there are a lot of people in the Society who would like to help, and who
have good ideas; I think the Board needs to find ways to get them involved.
I've written to the Board on this subject, suggesting one solution.

Lothar continued: 

> 1) Get rid of most of the members. Having a zillion "Ombudsmen in charge
> of X" makes the BoD's useful functions less obvious, increases expense
> for travel and other expenses. If neccessary, have fewere paid (1/2
> time ?) BoD members.

You seem to misunderstand how the Board works.  There are only seven
directors, and none of them are paid employees.  The ombudsman system is
simply a way to assign responsibility to oversee various parts of the
Society.  Someone on the Board has to manage & oversee the Steward, the
corporate office, the chirurgeons, etc.  Someone has to field problems
arising in the several kingdoms.  The corporation has far too much business
for any one person to understand or handle all of it; I think it makes very
good sense to have one person handle one set of problems.  In addition,
having several directors means that the range of interests of the Society
will be better represented; if there were only three directors, it would be
a good deal easier for them to accidentally overlook differences in opinion
in the membership.

> 2) Institute direct elections for BoD members. 

> 3) Institute popular referendums for major policy decisions or financial
> outlays.

According to the chairman of the board, California law forbids it.  She
tells me that the law forbids the directors of a non-membership corporation
(who are the only legal members) from giving anyone else a formal say in
corporate decisions.  


I agree with you completely that some changes need to be made in the
relationship between the Board and the Society.  However, it seems that
your understanding of the current relationship is incomplete.  I encourage
you to learn more: Subscribe to the board minutes, attend a meeting.  Write
to the relevent ombudsman to discuss your concerns.  If you present
well-reasoned criticism and suggestions, you will get useful responses.

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