ISQCCBE
College of Monarchs
Summary of Meeting of Sunday, January 11, 2009, 2:00pm
RE: request from Truly Scrumptious for reinstatement of titles
Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Public Library
Purpose of meeting: Response to a written request by Truly Scrumptious, in which she has requested reinstatement of her titles.
This particular issue, while one of high sensitivity, is also one of high
passion. As previous monarchs of the ISQCCBE, we carry a passion and pride for
the organization, and for the year that we reigned. We are all unique
individuals, commonly grounded in the Court, commonly grounded as (camp) titled
equals, and commonly grounded in our continued involvement in The Court and the
purposes for which it stands. As such, conflicts, misunderstandings and
questions can occur when we, as individuals united under a non-profit
corporation, see or are subject to behaviors, patterns and phenomena that are
perceived to be against said goals and traditions, and against the camp titles
that we remain passionate about, in some cases, long after our actual reign.
Personalities naturally inform and weave through these passions in varying
degrees.
It is true that two to three years ago, the College of Monarchs did conduct an investigation concerning Truly Scrumptious and actions of hers that are argued to have conflicted with components of what is stated above. It is also true that Truly did resign her titles – as stated below, her resignation was due in part to her personal/professional life at the time, and also to having had enough of the circumstances and events surrounding this investigation. Furthermore, as noted below, Truly indicates her reasons for wishing to be re-affiliated with the ISQCCBE. Truly answered questions and comments concerning issues of (1) Golden Lions; (2) negative talking about the Court; and (3) Spectrum.
------------------------------
Purpose of Meeting: discussion of the letter sent to the College of Monarchs from Harry Voll (a/k/a Truly Scrumptious), concerning his (her) request for title reinstatement.
In attendance: Sam Clemons; Truly Scrumptious; Ed Blevins; Keith Roberts; Roberta Bigg; Kathy King; Tom Wherry; Greg Barker; Gypsy Russell; Kevin Raleigh; Penny Tration; Will Reed; Jim Smith; Ginger Snap; Poison Ivy; Bob Gilbert
Introductory notes: Kevin put forth an apology for a change of venue from the Kenton County Public Library, as it had been impossible to confirm space either in-person or via telephone. As this meeting had already been cancelled once, felt it a higher priority to keep the date the same, despite the change of location. While a “college” meeting, discussion and comment from everyone was encouraged.
Kevin also intimated that this was the meeting for people to air their concerns, to say what they wanted to say, to ask questions to which they wanted answers.
Q (Roberta): Why doesn’t the membership have a say in Truly’s reinstatement?
A (Jim): All titles are vested with the organization. They are administered by the College of Monarchs: Truly was voted in by the membership, but when she resigned her titles, those titles reverted to the organization, and to the College.
The recent letter received by the College of Monarchs is the second of Truly’s request for reinstatement: the first happened in 2006, for which no response was received; the “scuttlebutt” was that there would be no reinstatement, but nothing official was provided.
Truly also mentioned that at Pride 2008, when at Bronze, Angela St. James (Empress I) asked her what had happened to her request, and offered that Truly should re-request. As flaws in the process handling the original request were found, Truly was then prompted to write an additional letter (and partly due to recent discussions, town meetings, etc.), and this is why we are here and this is where we are today on the matter.
Jim offered that this statement was inaccurate, in that Truly did send a request by e-mail, but that a College meeting was held. There was a vote taken, Jim responded to Truly’s request, via e-mail, and was answered by e-mail.
Q asked of Truly: Why are you re-requesting your title?
A: Truly indicated that she was not satisfied with original request for reinstatement, from 2006. She offered that with town hall meetings, and an acknowledgment of issues / procedures being flawed, she has felt encouraged to once again be an active part of the ISQCCBE. Truly has confirmed that she has great pride in this organization, noting how it has been a great part in her life. She has been heavily involved with the Court for some time, and has represented Cincinnati out of town. Also, she is part of the history of this organization, and feels that it should be re-recognized.
Q (Penny): what did you do? Why did you quit? (other than professional issues)
A: Truly indicated that events and pursuits in her personal and professional lives (non-Court, non-performance) took priority in her life at that time and that she did not have the time / energy to sit for the charges and pursue the problem. (There was also a mention of a letter [?], that 3 of the people who signed it were present in the room, though 1 had denied signing it.) There were five items that were mentioned in this regard, including the Golden Lions’ decision to exclude the Court from their bar and money received from a Spectrum event, and negative talking about the Court.
Comment (Roberta): Everyone has talked negative of the organization at one time or another, whether it has been public or private.
Q (Sam): We all work really hard to get the titles, and work hard for the year that we reign. As hard as we work for them – what was it that facilitated your anger to the point that you were so fed up that you said, “I’m done”?
A (Truly): Upon receiving the letter and attempting to respond in a reasonable time, professional and personal (non-Court) life issues took precedence, including finishing education (Master’s degree thesis), course preparation (new chemistry course), and job requirements (disciplinary administrator for over 600 students). A question had asked about why she had waited 13 years to decide to run for Empress, and that was due to having to get her “house in order” (KR [recorder] comment: not sure of the relevance of why anyone has to answer whether or not they choose to run for a position in the ISQCCBE). Other comments from Truly included regret for such action, due to the entire situation being stressful and upsetting. Truly also noted that at the time of the resignation of her titles, there was no 7-day cooling off period; and now, in trying to move forward, the legitimate route is to request title reinstatement.
Comment (unknown source): As has been said – there are 2 colleges. One group likes you; one doesn’t. It is time to stop us being persecuted for who our friends are. (relevance?)
Comment (Kathy): why are we here? The General membership may not have a clue to what is going on.
Comment (Ginger): Sylvia had come to the College, and had said that Truly had stopped any male performances that happened during her reign at the Golden Lions. Truly’s response is that it was not a policy, and that she herself had no part at all in the decision of the Golden Lions to exclude the Court.
Comment (Greg): The college tried to meet with Truly. (KR [recorder] point of clarification: yes, true. Part of Truly’s response above addresses this, and that she did not meet with the College due to anger and being fed up with the situation at the time.)
Comment (Truly): if that was one of the issues (not meeting with the College), then that was never spelled out to Truly. Issues in the letter were so vague, she could not address them.
Q (Greg) to Truly: if you had shown up at that meeting – do you think those issues could have been addressed?
(KR [recorder] comment: not sure what Truly’s response was to this).
Truly: so much on plate – put professional issues first.
Gypsy: Recap of the the 5 issues: (1) Spectrum; (2) Golden Lions; (3) negative talking; (4) ?; (5) ?.
Q (Jim) There was a private conversation between Truly and Gypsy that happened 3 days after the fact. Whatever was discussed – was this ever submitted, or recorded?
A (Gypsy): Truly wanted to express regret of this action right after it had happened.
Comment (Sam): there was no animosity, that was one reason for the open forum. It wasn’t just the college that had questions. At that meeting, we cannot say now if things would have been resolved, or if people would have gotten the answers they want. There are questions (e.g., Spectrum) for which people only heard one side of the story. Purpose of meeting was to let everyone speak their peace.
Q to Truly (Greg): discuss the issues revolving what things brought you to resigning. You resigned in my reign. We had a conversation with Spectrum; relationship begun by you (Truly). Sylvia and I had all Fridays booked; trying to get venue on Saturday, rather than on a Friday. You were taking care of the Spectrum show. Somehow – when you got there, you said that they had made an executive board decision to make this no longer a Court show. What we discovered – x amount of dollars were raised. Because this had been a Court show up until the moment it was to start, the Court was responsible for the funds, though we were not getting recognition for these funds; understanding was that the $$ were going to charities. Deposits were made; this is when Greg deferred to the College to investigate.
A (Truly): you (Greg) dealt with Matt; I dealt with Barry. I was asked to give the monies directly to the charities. There was never any co-mingling of funds at any time; money was kept in the freezer, and, at the time, Roberta made deposits when the bank at her place of work was open (only on Tuesdays). Money orders were presented to the College, and, as recalled, the only reason offered for the meeting was that “[we are] only here to discuss receipts” (Jay). No Board decision was made at that show; I was approached about the charities; Matt said Greg was so hard to deal with, that he no longer wished to work with the Court any longer. There was no Court show. Ambiguity – Greg tried to freeze out Roberta and Truly at the beginning of his reign.
Q (Tom): questions – from our perspective – Spectrum this was a Court show. We were checking if this went through our bank account. In that regard, Truly stated that the money was sent in the mail. Set of e-mails. Why would you say that they were sent?
A (Truly): the charities got their money. You were looking for someone to crucify, and I happened to be there.
Comment (Tom): this is another in a long list of “Is Truly with us, or against us?”
Comment (Jim): not sure of issues with Tom and Greg. I stepped into this situation at the very end of it. Why are we getting different stories when the facts speak for themselves?
Comment (Greg): Immediately after this, I sent Ginger an e-mail, then posted to the ICS. No animosity, and at the time, no recourse. Series of ongoing and ongoing and ongoing events. It was from you. The thing of it is – you are not joe-schmoe member. You are an elected Empress of this organization. When you take and accept that title, you take the responsibility. You destroyed it. No one with that title should have done the things that you did. After I stepped down – I stayed out of Bobby’s way. When someone steps up – those of us who have been there get out of the way, but that’s not what you did; you were an albatross.
Truly: you excluded me from your reign.
Greg: you did something heinous. My history of you and your behavior is that of heinousness.
Q (Jim): elephant in the room – the rumor has been flying for months that if not the only reason, one of the major reasons, is that you want the titles and crown back is because that is a first step toward becoming an heir-apparent. Yes or no, is that true? (Sam offered that he had also heard this rumor.)
A (Truly): No. I have no desire to be an heir-apparent. (Sam has asked Panzi about this rumor, who said, on behalf of the ICS, that it is false.)
Comment (Kathy): (regarding Spectrum): The Court has had other issues with Spectrum.
Comment (Sam): why is it Truly’s responsibility of Spectrum’s board? If so, where is the evidence that points it to Truly? Why is it Truly’s fault?
Comment (Penny): Spectrum is difficult to deal with. There are personal issues between Tom, Greg and Truly.
Comment (unknown): We know that there will always be issues that not everyone can agree on.
Comment (unknown): It would have been much better for the organization as a whole if this meeting and a consequent decision had come about sooner, but here we are.
Motion (from Kevin): I move to reinstate the permanent titles of Truly Scrumptious. This reinstatement is at this time not concurrent with readmission into the College of Monarchs, and shall effective for a probationary period not to exceed two (2) years.* This reinstatement shall be effective upon a letter of apology to the membership, showing remorse and accepting responsibility for actions. Vote will be tabled until the entire college can vote on it.
*Noted that Protocol Manual states that probation is from three months to one
year
*Kevin to also write an article for the newsletter on this subject
Web Master: Michael L. Connley
Web Updated: 12/13/2009