[Cynnabar] BoC - Settlement funding discussion

Wed Feb 8 00:24:00 UTC 2012

You're not crazy. But here is how I see things based on your points.

First, the 18% of 2010 is required by every single group in the SCA (in the
states) due to a unprecedented lawsuit over a horrible incident. There is no
red flag to me. A red flag would indicate foul play or trickery. There is
none of that here. SCA corporate is being as open and forthcoming with all
the information it can as best it can. 

1) We are not throwing away our policy. Our policy states that "The
seneschal can request an expedited expenditure [bypassing the 3 meetings]
without prior group approval, if the situation warrants it". We're making
that request here and discussing it on the list trying to get everyone's
input on this.

2) As far as I know, this is the only time Kingdom or Corporate has required
a mandatory payment. Not every group requires a month long approval process
either so there is no way for Kingdom/Corporate to know our group normally
requires a month. We pay the minimum or more, we still pay. Do you really
think that Kingdom and/or Corporate is going to take this situation and use
it as an excuse/precedent to start gouging money from the local branches
thru mandatory payments? That what it seems to me that is being implied
here.

3) And I'm not sure what you mean by "happy with the status quo". What
status quo? This is a unique situation as far as I know never encountered in
the SCA before. Would it be better if the SCA didn't have to pay for what
one person did? Yes. Should the Kingdom where the incident took place be
solely responsible? Perhaps. But it was the SCA Inc. that was sued and was
found, by the US court system to be liable for what happened. Therefore the
SCA must pay and we are all part of the SCA. Can something be put in place
to help insulate this kind of situation in the future? Perhaps. I'm sure
this is already being looked into at corporate. But refusing to help out now
will not change what has happened, nor will it show anyone that we don't
like this situation. 

It's OK to want to go thru the normal meeting process for approving $ above
our required amount. Again, I understand that on an intellectual level. But
again, I think this is a unique situation where we can make this happen now.
Other groups who don't even have to help are stepping up to the plate. Why
can't we? We are discussing it now. We can (hopefully) get an agreement on
what is the right thing to do. Do we really need to talk about this for 3
more meetings? Will those really make a difference in this situation?

Your points/questions are exactly why we are having this discussion right
now. If enough people agree that we need to talk about this beyond this
e-mail discussion, than we will.

-Finn

-----Original Message-----
From: nique.rio at gmail.com [mailto:nique.rio at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Monique
Rio
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 6:48 PM
To: Dennis Higgins
Cc: Barony of Cynnabar
Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] BoC - Settlement funding discussion

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
>