HalloweeM

October 23-26, 2008

Register soon! The next price cut-off is October 15. The $99 hotel rates are good until October 3 ( yes, the forms say the 13th, but I am recalling that this is wrong... I'll check and post an update).

See HalloweeM Web site for more details, programs, shirts, etc.

Musing on Representation

Ten of the AMC members are elected by regions. I suppose this means the RVCs “represent” the interests of their areas. But I have to wonder, what differing needs are there that are purely geographically based? What would happen if AMC Members-at-Large were elected nationally, each putting forth their platform:

• I support involvement in MIL.
• I think we should switch from a National Office to two guys in a spare bedroom.
• I’m young and hip.
• I’m old and wise.
• I want more money for LGs and fewer national-level services.
• I believe we should pay professions to do more stuff so we can relax and enjoy the fun.

And so on….

Would that make the AMC more representative of the membership?

Grumble

I have big useful projects to do, but my Mensa time is spent putting out fires and responding to accusations and complaints. Why doesn't Mensa move forward faster? Because the volunteer workers are bogged down by the roadblocks thrown up by members who react to rumors and resist change.

Sorry, but I'm too pissed off today to write much.

(stomping off to my island now...)

Woo-Hoo!

Got my official proctor kit in the mail. Just in time for Mensa Testing Day.

GenX Communications

I rarely out myself as a GenXer. My Local Group really hasn’t had any generational conflict. We’ve always had ExComm members of different generations. The whole GenX tension passed Chicago by.

But for some reason, I’m musing on the topic today.

I have seen, over and over, in LG newsletters , RVC columns, LDWs programs, InterLoc, etc, a consistent plea from Older-than-GenX leaders for younger members to step up, get involved, and take over. And I just have to comment on this:

We ARE involved.

We have been for decades.

And some of us do things differently: Less paper. More instant communication. Highly specialized mini-communities. Spontaneous gatherings. More inclination to hire someone else to do grunt work. Greater acceptance of a litigious society with less privacy.

Mensans can’t ask for new blood and fresh ideas and then complain when those new volunteers take the organization in new and fresh directions. If the well-seasoned members want Mensa to be like it was in the good old days of the 70s and 80s, then they should drive... the organization into the same state the Shakers ended up in.

But if Mensa wants younger members to take over, some members need to let go and quit all the snarky back seat driving—gripe less about the new fangled technology younger member use. We’re Mensans—we were smart enough to figure out how to program our VCRs and read emails. We’re still smart enough to learn how to use blogs, Twitter, IMs, Web-based forums, text messages, technorati, or even the AML Web site (and yes, I know the navigation is non-intuitive-- working on it).

This is how we communicate now. Come join us.

Shout out to the Grapeviners

who have finally discovered this blog!

One comment I have read recently concerns the belief that 
”Lists, groups and blogs of possible interest to Mensans should have a 
central clearing house within Mensa, whether they be official or not.
” I happen to agree. My interpretation of the AMC goal to “make it easier for members to participate in social and intellectual interactions with each other… and capitalize on technologies that build communities” supports creating exactly such a clearing house.

And so, figuring out how to gather and list without needing to bless or supervise all those various Mensa-centric online communities has been a subject of discussion for the Communications Committee for a few months. Recently, we started writing the guidelines for how such unofficial lists, sites, blogs will be selected for inclusion and what sorts of “AML isn’t responsible for the content you may find” disclaimers we need.

Implementation will be soon. Certainly before the end of the year.

And yes, I would imagine Grapevine will be included.

Amen!

Ain't it the truth!

Changes in the Editors and Newseditors Elists

Once upon a time, there was an elist for editors, but unlike any other officer elist, this one was open to any member who wished to subscribe. Lively, fun, cantankerous, helpful, and political… the list content covered all sorts of newsletter production topics and careened into other areas, as well. The editors list was also the main source of political commentary for members, and many joined and participated just for that reason, rationalizing that editors had to know everything since they were the center of the information flow for their groups. As with most Mensan gathering places, there conversation was dominated by a small handful of loud and opinionated members.

Some editors complained about the sheer volume of off-topic emails, so ComOfficer Tyger tried to do some moderation, which Mensans resented and rebelled against. I remember; I was a Local Group editor at the time. Tyger tried to make everyone happy by setting up a second list, Editors-talk, and directed members to use that list for the general chatter. Instead, they formed their own unofficial elist, M-Editing, on Yahoo.

(Note: Mike Eager has proclaimed on MPol that the M-Editing list was set up as “the ‘renegade’ group created when Robin did this the last time.” This of course, illustrates that even our experienced and wise members do not always recall history accurately.)


After Tyger came Tim, and during his year and a half as ComOfficer, there were three lists: Editors, Editors-Talk, and M-Editing.

I replaced Tim in late 2004. I noted that Editors-Talk wasn’t used, so I eliminated it. I listened to complaints from editors about the low signal-to-noise ratio on the Editors list, but, having been an editor during Tyger’s reign and watched how he was treated when he tried to make the list more focused, I decided I didn’t have the balls to tighten up the expectations or, gasp, make it open to only current editors.

And still, editors complained. So I tried Tyger’s compromise, but in a different way: I started a second list, Newseditors, open to current editors only and designed from the beginning to have less traffic but a higher concentration of essential information and advice for in-the-trenches editors. And this, of course, made the non-editors howl and complain that they were being excluded from a "secret, private" elist. After a while, I let go of the Editors list completely, assigning moderation to Thomas Thomas.

For three years now, there have been two lists, different in atmosphere and content. And there is always confusion about the lists: which to use for what, which list was a question asked on, resentment about the existence of two lists, etc.

The situation of the two lists was discussed at the Communications Committee meeting in July. And the same conclusions were reached that had been floated several other times: times change, and there are many other ways for Mensans who want to swap anecdotes about semi-colons, suggestions for good language books, or opinions on upcoming elections. It is time to go back to one list, one purpose, one set of officers, list all the other AML-hosted elists.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular -- but one must take it simply because it is right.”

This was not a sudden, autocratic decision. It was well discussed for several years by several variants of the Communications Committee, which has always included several current and former LG newsletter editors. Although my name is necessarily on the buck-stops-here signature line, there were more than a dozen Mensa members who had input into the decision: that serving the current editors with one, cohesive list is the right thing to do.

And so, the AML-hosted Editors elist is disbanded as of September 12. I’d like to extend my deep appreciation to Thomas Thomas for his years of work as facilitator and administrator of that list.

Going forward, Newseditors will comprise current LG editors, circulation managers, and pubs officers. I'm all for having experienced editors on a list to help the newbies, and really, we DO have plenty of experienced AND current editors: Think Ed Coudal. Think Gail & Gary. Think Nancy Flack. Think Jere Lull.

As for the the non-current-editor members, I heartily thank everyone for their service and encourage those members to continue to provide that valuable insight through the Online Community in the General Interest and Mensa And You areas. Likewise, current editors are encouraged to pose questions in those areas if wider opinion is sought. After all, there are language masters and Adobe wizards in Mensa who were never on the Editors’ elist; consider this a push to explore new sources of expertise within this genius organization of ours.

Ambient Awareness

Leah pointed me to this NY Times article and it struck a chord with me. Since starting the Facebook group, and now getting the knack of Twitter, I do find that I’m more involved and aware of people I would have otherwise barely known. What wonderful tools… making the world smaller and connecting us with so little work!

Names and acquaintances are becoming friends without me having to find time to go somewhere and mingle. And when I do finally meet some of these people, it’s so refreshing to be able to jump into conversation without having to do the small talk dance first.

It makes it easier for me to stay connected to people I care about, too. Again, I may not have physical time to socialize, but a one-click superpoke sends the message that my friends are not forgotten and that I haven’t dropped off the face of the earth, despite how it may seem sometimes.

Ralph's Motions Part 6

Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about additional, exclusionary AMC elists

6. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded __________, that in the nature of honesty and congeniality, that AMC agrees not to create secondary AMC-lists that exclude members from discussion on such lists. If AMC feels that a member has been acting in a manner inconsistent with AMC's desires, it should be honest enough to include that member within its discussions.
Explanation: Members should be able to defend themselves without a kangaroo court.

Financial costs: Nada.

Further Explanation: None required.

Robin’s thoughts:

I don’t have a problem with this, in general, although I’d rewrite the motion more simply:

…that all current AMC members shall be included on the distribution of AMC-centered communications.

Explanation: It is not collegial nor ethical to create and use secondary AMC elists, teleconferences, forums, etc that exclude some AMC members from discussion. If some on the AMC feel that a colleague has been acting in a manner inconsistent with AMC's desires, they should be forthright enough to include that member within its discussions.

That said, do we really need such a motion to carve in stone what is essentially an ethical directive? And would such a motion condemn any off-list discussion about colleagues by two or more AMC members? Would this be a slippery slope forbidding us to talk with one another about one another?

I’m not sure how I feel about this proposed motion and I look forward to hearing others’ views.

Ralph's Motions Part 5

Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about LG ExComms being able to bar members from local events

5. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded ________, that the governing board of any local group, by a unanimous vote, may bar any member from attending specific events (except governing board meetings) for a period of up to three months. The Executive Committee shall first notify in writing its RVC and the member of its intention to disbar such member, and must list specific alleged behavior, times, dates and witnesses. The RVC may disallow such barring. Three or more such disbarments should be considered reason to hold a Regional Hearing.

Explanation: we have certain problem members whose presence at events causes more normal members to not attend events or even quit Mensa. Although we celebrate diversity, we should no tolerate gropers or other misfits.

Financial impact: none, except a possible future regional hearing.

Further Explanation: Problem Members have existed since Mensa began. This is evidenced by the many workshops we have had on problems members at each AG. I gave one myself eons ago, and Dave Remine is giving them now. Each local group can give anecdotes about how problem members have caused more sane members from attending events or volunteering. Such problem members quickly drive away new members (hurting recruitment and retention), give LocSecs a headache, expose us to unfavorable publicity.

Robin’s thoughts:

I agree 100% that LGs should be able to bar toxic members from local events, except for board meetings. However, we wrangled with this just a year ago, in a different format. And back then, we came to the conclusion that there is already plenty of policy (ASIE 0000-111)—local leaders just need to stand up and say “No more!”

As a recap, ASIE 0000-111 says: “…Hosts or hostesses for any other activities, such as SIGs, open houses, parties, SIGHT visits, or any other activities which are not official functions, may invite or exclude individuals, including Mensa members at his/her discretion. Even at official functions a member may be evicted for specific unacceptable behavior.

“In order to promote safety, security, and a full sense of enjoyment of any Mensa activity, whether at an AG, an RG, a Local Group meeting, an event in a public venue, or a private house party, or a SIG event or a SIGHT visit, the organizers of the event have the responsibility and duty to attempt to control an offending party. This control can take the nature of asking the offending party to leave, and failing that, to request appropriate assistance in removing the offending party from the event. Whenever a member or the guest of a member is asked to leave or is removed from an event, a written report of the reason(s) and the action(s) taken may be sent to the RVC in whose jurisdiction the event took place….”

I fully support the message in this motion, but I do not support the motion, since we already have an adequately empowering tool for LGs in our governing documents. Local leaders and RVCs just need to be more aware that they really, truly, CAN bounce jerks from Mensa events. And, frankly, it would probably improve the Mensa experience for more members if such decisive actions were taken.

Ralph's Motions Part 4

Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about calumny

4. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded _______ that it is our sense that whenever a person is accused of calumny as an act inimical to Mensa, the person calumnified must provide substantial proof that (1) his ability to perform his official Mensa functions has been severely compromised, (2) that the person performing the calumny was deliberately fabricating lies, and (3) that material harm has been done to Mensa, said material harm being more than that a few people were offended.

Explanation: Even Jean Becker, as former head of the past NHC, has expressed concern about the definition of calumny. In particular, it is extremely difficult to prove that the calumnious statements were deliberate lies. This should be a difficult charge to substantiate. Members should have faith in our judicial procedures.

Financial impact: Possible fewer hearings.

Further Explanation: It is widely known that the BL case has caused even AMC members to have misgivings about how calumny was applied in this hearing. If AMC members have misgivings, it is no surprise that there is discontentment among some members as well. If new members are exposed to such discontent and learn distrust of AMC and its procedures, they will be less likely to remain members. Such discontented members may bother the local group ExComs for explantions; the discontentment IS a problem as we want a happy membership; risks are reduced as contented members will be less likely to cause problems.

Robin’s thoughts:

I have a bit of difficulty following the meaning of this motion, so I don’t have strong feelings about it. This is a case where I’m inclined to listen to others’ opinions before reaching my own conclusions.

It does seem to me that the Hearings Review Committee should be the ones to consider and incorporate this concept into its recommendations. I have no problem with just tossing the whole confusing concept of calumny from the list of acts inimical, which are not comprehensive of every nasty thing a member can do to cause harm to the society anyway.

I’m neutral on this motion as written; I need to learn more.

Ralph's Motions Part 3

Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about letting members read AMC pre-meeting discussions

3. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded ____________, that a second AMC forum be established similar to AMC-lists, and this forum be open to the membership on a read-only basis. This second forum would be for discussion of routine items. The introducer of any discussion item or proposed motion shall choose which forum he wishes his item to appear on. The Executive Committee would have the power to overrule the forum selection but this would be noted on the read-only forum.

Explanation: This would help allay comments that AMC is too opaque and would educate interested members in the workings of AMC.

Financial impact: A tad of staff time to set up the second forum.

Further Explanation: Like it or not, given the concept of Mensa as a round table of the intelligent, we should not hide behind a veil of secrecy in ALL of our deliberations. There are members who do keenly read our agendas and they have little or no clue about what takes place in our deliberations at the current time. This would provide a window into the inner workings of AMC and allow our members to better judge us, for better or worse. As AMC members, we are currently forced to tell our members, "This is being worked on but we cannot discuss it." If members have a more open, realistic and positive image of AMC, they will be more likely to positively assist in all ways and there will be less grumbling.

You must have leadership that positively acts in the sunshine.

Robin’s thoughts:
I am all for letting members know more about our pre-meeting discussions of motions. Really, I am. Why look, I’m even doing exactly that right here and now!

Currently, the process is that an AMC member proposes a motion via the confidential AMC elist before the agenda deadline, and then the AMC discusses that motion on the list. Sometimes it gets hashed out enough that by the time the meeting takes place, we’re nearly all in agreement on it and there is little public discussion. Usually, however, there is still some on-the-record, for-the-audience commentary during the meeting before the votes are cast.

Ralph’s motion would increase the visibility of the thoughts and arguments and edits that lead up to the on-the-table motions. I think this would be a fine thing for members to read.

BUT… the sad facts are:

A) Out of 21 AMC members, only a handful—the same ones each time—post comments about anything, even when they disagree about an issue (see my blog post about an AMC member voting against the budget last spring without having ever once expressed his views on why he was opposed to it).

B) We already have several vehicles, and more each year, for the AMC to use to communicate better with the membership. But again, only a small handful of us bother to use them. Adding another elist will not make additional AMC members comment publicly on motions. It will be one more shining example of how the AMC as a whole declines to share its deliberative processes with the membership.

These sets of motions and commentaries I’m putting on my blog are an experiment to see if anyone will read them; to see if any AMC members will add their thoughts publicly.

I do not support this motion as written, but I would like to see upcoming motions put before the membership via the AML Online Community and then discussed openly by the AMC members (more than just Leah, Elissa, and me) with participation by non-AMC members.

But… some deride the AML Online Community as having only a handful of members participating. Well duh. In each of the hundreds of elist/forums/social networking groups, there are only a handful of members who actively participate. Sure, there are hundreds or even thousands who are subscribed, but we all know that that most lurk or simply signed up once to check it out then forgot to unsubscribe when they grew bored by the low signal-to-noise ratio. Adding another elist will not change that, but using what we already have, and spreading the word that it is being used…that might increase participation.

In short, I support the need for the members of the AMC to share their views with members more than via the minutes of three or four meetings a year. But we don’t need this motion—we need to resolve to use the tools we already have.

Ralph's Motions Part 2

As I wrote yesterday, Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about letting incoming AMC members read posts from previous boards’ elists

2. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded _______, that new AMC members after an election be permitted to view the past several months of AMC-lists forum as this would provide them with a sense of familiarity and continuity regarding what has been discussed by AMC members and which may be ongoing in their term.

Explanation: Education is a good thing.

Financial impact: A tad of staff time but a better informed AMC.

Further Explanation: If New AMC members can be brought up to speed faster, they can be of more assistance to their constituents in all areas from recruitment to local group governance, resolving conflicts and being more effective in focusing on member satisfaction instead of spending inordinate amounts of time learning the ropes. It is not much different from new members learning the Bylaws, ASIEs and various handbooks.

Robin’s thoughts:

Incoming AMC members already have a ton of documents to read and comprehend. In particular, they have handbooks, bylaws, ASIEs Ralph mentions as the tools new members learn from. Who among them would really also read the hundreds and hundreds of messages—most of which are trivia (“I’m going out of town to Podunk’s RG this weekend,” “We hit 55,000 members a month early this year” “Please remember to turn in your receipts,” “I vote to approve the minutes,” etc.)? Few.

Of particular concern, there are some very candid and often uncomplimentary comments being shared regarding members being considered for appointments. Even now that we’re changing the RVC replacement process, it is still entirely possible that one of the appointed officers quits and several replacements are vetted on the list. Imagine coming in and reading that several of your new co-board members vehemently opposed your appointment, or that you were the fifth choice and only appointed because the others declined to serve? Would reading such comments make you a better board member? Or might it start you off with a chip on your shoulder?

I truly do not agree that reading the old list posts will help new AMC members “be of more assistance to their constituents in all areas from recruitment to local group governance, resolving conflicts and being more effective in focusing on member satisfaction.”

However, there is use in providing new AMC members with the history and background discussions on key and controversial issues and motions. I think this is the golden nugget in this motion and I’d like to find a way to pull it out and make it easier for incoming board members to quickly and completely learn about the thought processes that went into the decisions made before they got there.

Might there be a way for someone (1,2,3 not it! The Secretary, perhaps?) to cull and present the salient discussions from the previous year for the freshmen AMCers? Or perhaps writing up an annual summary could be formally part of the job description for the Secretary. Just tossing out ideas here… not trying to make anyone’s job more cumbersome.

I don’t back this motion as drafted, but I do support the underlying concept.

Ralph's Motions Part 1

Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about more explanation requirements for motions

1. Moved R. Rudolph, seconded _______ that whenever a motion is proposed, that the movers list why the proposed action would (1) improve recruitment, (2) assist local group officers in their efforts, (3) materially prevent problems, and/or (4) lead to greater membership satisfaction.

Explanation: If we are to develop a strategic vision for Mensa, that vision should be a proactive one, i.e. how can we improve Mensa for all of our members. Merely considering financial impact makes us appear as accountants, not leaders, and diminishes our focus on real matters.

Financial impact: happier members and an AMC thinking for our future.

Further Explanation: This puts forth a positive image of AMC as being strongly focused on improving Mensa in all ways. If members view AMC and AML more positively, it will involve more Members recommending Mensa to their friends and make them more willing to work towards recruitment; If members have more of a positive image of AMC and AML, they will more likely volunteer to assist their local groups, making the LocSec's and Editor's jobs easier; this will help eliminate the problem of seeing AMC as a closed monolithic group focused on itself; members seeing that AMC is positively addressing motions for their benefit will bring joy.

Robin’s thoughts:
My first response is a bit snarky, I admit. I’d like to know how this motion will improve recruitment, assist LG officers, prevent problems, or lead to greater satisfaction.

While I think these are absolutely things the AMC should bear in mind when taking actions, requiring a mover to formally write it up for inclusion with a motion is just going to lead to more bullshit, much like some of the financial statements.

When I was a Special Ed teacher, we had to have written, measurable objectives for everything students did in class. Since so often what went on in class was spontaneous grasping at teachable moments or quick responses to students’ immediate needs, this formal requirement led to great creativity. For example, I recall actually writing an objective: “Student will demonstrate mastery of stress-reducing, self-relaxation techniques in order to improve on-task concentration.”

Yup. I meant the kid took a nap. Sometimes, that’s what is necessary.

Ralph’s “Further Explanation” claims this motion will “put forth a positive image of AMC as being strongly focused on improving Mensa in all ways.” Yes, it would. But it would be an image based on pretty words—ranking right up there with “family values” and I doubt our membership is foolish enough to be satisfied with that.

Ralph goes on to write about all the wonderful things that will happen if members view the AMC and Mensa in general more positively. Some I agree with, some I don’t (the volunteering more bit, for example; come on… it’s all about how much time people have to give, not whether or not they love the AMC—we’re just not all that important to most members, fer crissakes). But…

I do not see how requiring movers to fluff up their motions with pretty explanations about how it will improve recruitment, assist LG officers, prevent problems, or lead to greater satisfaction will actually achieve any of those very noble goals.

IMO, this motion should be a guiding philosophical principle, but not another inflexible rule that will only lead to creative explanations with little substance.

Twitter

Because I need another online outlet...
Follow me!