<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:tahoma, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div><span>Constantine,</span></div><div><span> thank you! That section has bothered me since the beginning, but I couldn't figure out a way around it. Brilliant! I think you worded it very well and I am in favor of adopting this. It is so much more "Wyewood" than the other! LOL</span></div><div> IS</div><div><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Lady Matillis atte Hethe</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:13px;font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;background-color:transparent;font-style:normal;"><br style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;color:rgb(0, 0, 255);">Exchequer<span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 64);"> </span><span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 64);">of
</span>Wyewood</span><br style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;">Bendy <span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);background-color:rgb(255, 255, 255);">argent</span> and <span style="color:rgb(96, 0, 191);">purpure,</span> a <span style="color:rgb(0, 0, 255);">tower azure</span> atop a <span style="color:rgb(0, 191, 96);">mount vert</span></span><br></div><div><br></div> <div style="font-family: tahoma, new york, times, serif; font-size: 10pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Jason Pfafman <jpfafman@yahoo.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> "officers@wyewood.org" <officers@wyewood.org> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Dietrich <devk31@gmail.com> <br> <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Monday, March 19, 2012 2:05 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> [Officers] (no subject)<br> </font> </div> <br>
<div id="yiv1301668853"><div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:tahoma, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt;"><div>Officers:</div><div><br></div><div>There is one section in particular of the Customary that I keep coming back to, even though it has gone through commentary. The section in question is 7.4 Term of Office:<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>7.4 Term of Office<br><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.1) All Officers of Wyewood shall serve for a (2) two-year term. Under normal circumstances, an officer shall make the commitment to serve the full two years.<br><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.2) Offices renew as follows:<br><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.2.a) Odd years: February 1: Armored Combat Marshal, Family Activities Coordinator; May 1: Exchequer; August 1: Arts
& Sciences Minister; November 1: Pursuivant, Chirurgeon.<br><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.2.b) Even years: February 1: Archery Marshal, Web Minister; May 1: Seneschal ; August 1: Chatelaine, Chronicler; November 1: Rapier Marshal.<br><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.3) If an officer is appointed in the middle of a term, their term of office ends as per the listed above. This is to prevent confusion as to when their term is over.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>While section 7.4.2 is well meaning, attempting to alleviate a scenario whereby too many branch officers end up changing in rapid succession or at the same time, I cannot help but think that maintaining this schedule is impractical. We as a branch aren't even close to this cadence. Thinking back to Dame Esclarmonde's question, 'Why put
something in if it cannot or will not be enforced?', I believe this section needs to be
simplified.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>7.4 Term of Office<br>
<span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.1)
All Officers of Wyewood shall serve for a (2) two-year term. Under
normal circumstances, an officer shall make the commitment to serve the
full two years.<br>
<span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.2) Regarding the office of the Seneschal and the Exchequer<br>
<span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.2.a) Neither the Seneschal nor the Excehquer should change office until the Year End Summary (Seneschal) and the Domesday Report (Exchequer) is completed (due February 1st).<br>
<span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span><span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.2.b) At a minimum, there should be six months between any rotation of offices of the Seneschal and the Exchequer to provide adequate training and to assure smooth transition of either office.<br>
<span class="yiv1301668853tab"> </span>7.4.3) Removed</div><div><br></div><div>My thoughts on how I arrived at this:</div><ul><li>The SCA is a volunteer organization. We gladly serve as a our time and skills permit, but life happens and usually not on our timetable. We have seen all the present offices run a little long or a little short and we should expect that to be the norm. Therefore, offices should try to rotate every 24 months, but that is situation dependent. The exception is for the Seneschal and the Exchequer. Due to the need to file the Year End Summary and the Domesday report to maintain our branch status, the current Seneschal and Excehquer should see to it that their term office ends only after the reports have been submitted. Further, we as a branch should see to it that these two offices do not change over at the same time. Because of the complexity in their respective roles, one
office or
the other should be able to rely on an experienced officer to assist the newcomer during their settling period. </li><li>Since we would be de-emphasizing a strict timetable, if an officer should need to step down (e.g. Countess Elisabeth takes on the role of Baroness for Madrone, so Lady Wenyeva steps in to fill the A&S Minister position), why not just allow the new officer to serve two years unless otherwise planned? <br></li><li>Eliminating the timetable also allows under certain circumstances an individual to fulfill a position for less than two years. I would rather fill a position for one year (save the Seneschal and Exchequer) than to not have it filled at all. <br></li></ul><div>I welcome your comments on this topic. Maybe there is a more eloquent way to reword my intent? I think though that the general idea makes it easier on all of us and allows the process to be more
dynamic.</div><div><br><span></span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Thanks,</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Constantine</span></div><div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>Officers mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Officers@lists.wyewood.org" href="mailto:Officers@lists.wyewood.org">Officers@lists.wyewood.org</a><br><a href="http://lists.wyewood.org/listinfo.cgi/officers-wyewood.org" target="_blank">http://lists.wyewood.org/listinfo.cgi/officers-wyewood.org</a><br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>