[Cynnabar] BoC - Settlement funding discussion

[Monique Rio]

I am firmly in the "give the minimum now, and intend to give more later" camp.

First, it's a BIG RED FLAG that we're being told to give 18% of our
2010 money without enough notice for us to have even one business
meeting to discuss it. That alone indicates caution.

Second, the only difference between giving money now and giving money
in a month is that we LOOK more generous now. APPEARING generous now
means sacrificing the discussion policy, and there's no utilitarian
gain by doing this. No one is actually helped more by us giving
without discussing first. What it does do is set a bad precedent:

1) We're telling the group that we're OK with throwing away our policy
when someone urgently asks for money.

2) We're telling Kingdom and Corporate that it's OK to spring
mandatory payments without a month's notice. DUDE that's not cool. If
they'd told us a month in advance we could have, within policy,
decided as a group to give them more money at the given time.

3) We're also telling them we're happy with the status quo, which some
of you may be, but I'm not. Among other things, I'd rather have our
kingdom be insulated from stupid people in other kingdoms.

I for one would much rather have Cynnabar appear miserly on Saturday,
and have given generously and wisely come Pennsic.

Is that crazy?

-Jadzia

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Dennis Higgins <mortisfan at comcast.net> wrote:
> (My populace hat on right now…)
>
>
>
> Perhaps this will help with some perspective on numbers.
>
>
>
> If we contribute $1200 to the settlement/Kingdom coffer replenishment (our
> 2011 18% $1160.49 rounded up to an even number) and the $300 we have already
> approved for the shade fly and the $300 we already approved for TRH travel
> fund, we still have over $4600 in our account. We can be generous and we
> still have a surplus.
>
>
>
> Is anyone denying that there is a need right now to help out the SCA? Bare
> minimum of our required obligation seems inadequate to me in our
> organizations time of need. While intellectually I understand that desire to
> go thru our normal discussion process for funding decisions, in this special
> circumstance, I don’t understand the hesitation or reluctance to just step
> up to the plate and just be generous now, this week. We have the capability.
> We have the resources and still have a good surplus. We have events and
> ideas for more fundraisers that will more than cover this. I’ve seen a lot
> of questions as to what happens if, and how does “x” happen if “y”. To me
> the question is why shouldn’t we help out the SCA right now. So many other
> groups are not even hesitating over this. Other (international) Kingdoms not
> required to help out are stepping up and sending in money. If we held our
> normal 3 meeting discussion is there really any doubt that the overwhelming
> majority will approve contributing more than our bare minimum obligation?
>
>
>
> We have enough members of Cynnabar active on this list where it should be
> clear to what the group wants to do. I say lets help out now, this week.
> Give generously as we can. Trust the people in charge will do the right
> thing and put the money to best use. And support the Society we all know and
> love.
>
>
>
> -Finn
>
>
>
> From: barony-bounces at cynnabar.org [mailto:barony-bounces at cynnabar.org] On
> Behalf Of Greg Less
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:40 PM
> To: Randy Asplund
> Cc: Barony of Cynnabar
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] BoC - Settlement funding discussion
>
>
>
> In more seriousness, and as I believe others have already said, this
> discussion is really about whether we are going to do the bare minimum of
> what is expected of us by giving 18%, or if we are going to go above and
> beyond.
>
>
>
> In my experience, Cynnabar has always gone above and beyond. It is what
> makes us the best.
>
>
>
> -Gregoire.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Barony mailing list
> Barony at cynnabar.org
> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
>