My Side of the Story
I understand that my name is being dragged through the mud again. I know I should ignore it; I should chalk it up as the price any prominent volunteer must pay for...um... that prominence. On the other hand, if I remain silent, then readers will only have one half of the story upon which to judge me. It really bothers me that noone ever thinks to ask me for my side of an issue. So I'd like to share a few bits of information that TJ has left out of her screeds:
I paid actual money to support the mission of Going Forward. I wrote for GF. I didn't say "InterLoc should not carry articles by any GFers." I said "InterLoc should not JUST carry articles by GFers."
Picture it, if you can: I was thrown into a demanding role mid-term and had Jean on one side and TJ on the other--both actively working to "educate" me about how things should be done.
TJ sent articles to me in advance, and more often than not initiated the discussion about those articles and their appropriateness. When I directly asked if the process of reviewing and discussing articles was "helpful or tedious," TJ replied, "It was definitely not tedious." As her tenure wound down, TJ wrote to me: "Your comments, especially concerns, are helpful since they are not demands."
I advocated for 6 issues a year because that was how it had been done for several years up to then. The only reason TJ put out monthly issues during her half-year tenure was because there was money left over due to the long gap between editors. Regarding my cutting of the InterLoc budget, that's simply not true. The budget in 2003-04 was $15410 and the actual spending was $12,266. In 2004-05 the budget, developed by Tim, was $12,250 and the actual spending was $11,237. Hmm... Tim seems to have DECREASED the budget. In 2005-06, the budget, developed by Robin while TJ was editor, was $12,450 and the actual spending was $10,203. Notice that I INCREASED the budget even though spending was down.
Regarding the article I questioned because of the political ramifications, I simply questioned it. Didn't Meredy recently write something about how Mensans should not be afraid to question things? My hunch was that Jean would not want it printed and so I discussed it with the editor, saying: "So in short, I'm not asking you to pull it and I *do* think it's okay, but I want to cover my bases and run it past Jean before we give it a 'go.'"
I suspected that there might be more to the article than met the eye, and since the guidelines state that ""Other relevant parties may be requested by the Communications Officer or the Editor to review..." I wanted to allow Jean to see it and voice her opinion. TJ wrote volumes trying to persuade me to not let Jean see it. Deadline was upon us, so I suggested a compromise of holding the article until the next issue so I'd have more time to learn about the issue. TJ refused. She told me that either I had to let her print it now or I had to tell her to pull it permanently...all without consulting the Chairman of AML, despite the holy Guidelines giving me the right to request others to review it.
So I bowed to TJ's pressure and without consulting with Jean, told TJ to run the article. TJ once said to me, regarding Jean demanding right of review and TJ demanding that I not allow Jean to see articles before the issue went to press, "Right now, it must feel like center court and trying to play both Williams sisters at the same time." How true a statement!
In May, as she was preparing her final issue, I wrote:" I've backed you when you believed something as appropriate for InterLoc, and I'll back you when you say something is not appropriate." TJ replied, "Yes, you have, and thank you."
In another email from that same May, TJ wrote: "As I'm heading for the finish line, Robin, I'm suddenly feeling very nostalgic. Thank you for making this InterLoc experience better than it might have been under a different Communications Officer. This points out the necessity for choosing a C.O. carefully.
"Also, do I need to be writing a quarterly report for the Agenda? If so, it must be brief. I've accomplished all goals except, possibly, one. I *would* like people on AMC to know that it has been enjoyable working with you. (Okay, it's a bit of politics, but true, and it doesn't hurt to have it in writing since the 'AMC World' thinks I am hard to work with so you must have been a Miracle Worker.)"
In late May, TJ wrote: "...since one of my (and many members' gripes) about InterLoc production is that there is too much interference by the national office and the chairman, I do not want to play into that (and then whine about it). I've asked you for *advice* and you have given it. That is exactly what a Communications Officer is supposed to do. Good job! Now, if I'm going to be straightforward and 'put my money where my mouth is,' I need to take editorial responsibility in determining what goes in and what is removed. That does NOT mean I don't want further input from you; I do. It just means that the ball is in my court, and I'm the one who has to knock it over the net or take the lumps for not doing so. In a way, this is not a bad situation because it is a sort of discussion of duties and editorial prerogatives and even the fallout on the editor -- and that gives you ideas on how to best work with the next editor. Once again, I have to tell you that I'm grateful for the input and the absence of demands. You are allowing the editor to be the editor. It's what InterLoc is supposed to do."
As for my concern about being reappointed, TJ told me that "that Sander has taken my word that you would be just fine as CO." It is hard to imagine her recommending me if my reign as CO had really made editing InterLoc such a nightmare.
So how did it come to pass that all of that has been forgotten and I'm now characterized as such a typical, party-line, dictatorial member of the establishment? Were all those kind and supportive words from TJ just insincere flattery merely meant to butter me up? How could I have been I so wrong to have not taken the advice I was given --by several people on and off the AMC--when I first came onboard, "Don't trust TJ. She may be nice to you now, but as soon as you don't do what she wants, she'll stab you in the back."?
Shortly after leaving office, TJ wrote to me, "One of the difficult parts about leaving an office in Mensa is that you seem to leave behind the friendships you made while serving in that office."
Ah, yes, the friendships we make while serving Mensa. With friends like these...
No comments:
Post a Comment