Consistency

[gwyneth1362]

In light of the recent membership announcement, people in the SCA have been asking "What do we need the corporation for, anyway?"

Consistency.  Do you want to belong to a multi-national organization that has members around the world, all playing by (basically) the same rules?  Do you like going to Pennsic, and Gulf Wars, and Estrella, and actually

Comments

[gwyneth1362]

If I ran the zoo, I would hire an ED as soon as possible. But in my vision, they would only manage the corporation. They could set the budget, help make financial decisions, worry about lawsuits, and any other decision related to the corporation itself. They could handle fundraising, finding new member benefits, coordinate the website, publish documents and design and produce member materials. The ED would be the contact with the Corporate World on behalf of the SCA.

Ultimately I also envision a publications manager, who does what the TI/CA editors and designers do now, only on a higher scale. Make a beautiful publication that scholars are proud to publish in, and people outside of the organization might buy.

The Board could drop to meeting twice a year in person, and handle gameside issues. They would vote on rules changes, R&D's, etc., and continue to coordinate with/oversee the Corporate Staff. But they would not be the ones running the corporation itself.

Does that make sense?

[gwyneth1362]

Oh, and work with the foreign corporations. That needs to be managed better, too.

[rustmon]

Also, there are some things that may be already there. There is a publication manager in charge of TI and CA who is advancing things in *light years*. The Board is really looking at the future as well as the present. (see below note)

[thatpotteryguy]

I agree with you totally. Professional leadership would benefit the Corporation, and therefore the game we play, on a number of levels.

But the first thing that people will bring up when this conversation is raised is "Tony Provine". I'm just sayin'...

[gwyneth1362]

Just to expand on that a bit, Tony Provine hit a lot of sacred cows by suggesting sweeping changes to the game we play. Most people don't actually pay as much attention to what is happening with the corporation, they pay attention to what is happening to their experience. Someone moving the corporation forward but staying out of their experience could work.

[gwyneth1362]

And, frankly, that was 16 - almost 17 years ago. a-a lot of folks weren't here then, and b-I got a different response from people even 5 years ago when I was on the Board. It might be working up to being doable.

[rustmon]

While I think that we need a full time role to help run things (president/ED/etc), I think the main thing that we may need to focus on is 'gameside' vs. 'corporate'. That line blurs at times and it shouldn't. While we don't need someone messing with our experience, we do need someone to handle the day to day ins and outs of the corporate world.

[gwyneth1362]

Yes - exactly. I was trying to articulate that and may not have.

[saraidh]

That definitely makes sense to me. My impression is that the BOD is made up of the people who are trying to manage the uncomfortable places where the Game meets the realities of being a modern corporation.

[ghita]

YEP. that's exactly it.

[mstress_elianor]

I work as the publications and marketing manager for a state association of 19 community action agencies. We have often worked to run other organizations (at one time my office provided all the operational support for the Head Start Association and currently we write all the external checks for the State emergency management office).

I agree that the corporation needs a full time person to oversee the helm. A board of directors is fine, but having worked with the board of *my* association, it's often my executive director moving things forward and helping others envision better ways to achieve our goal (ending poverty in Missouri).

[imdonnan]

I would have to agree with all that is said so far. The Board might be different now but it if I remember right the BoD spent most of it's meeting time talking about the here and now of sanctions and fill-in-the-blank hot issue(s) than it did future planning. Not that it was bad... it needed to be done but it does speak of the lack of focus.

Also, with a group it is a lot harder to get things done because ideas have go to the group for approval which almost always slows down a bit as all the angles are debated. For sure, a single person in charge could move on issues and projects faster. Of course, the one person should have the right experience to know what to topics to hit and how to move ahead.

Good topic for sure.