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.
3 comments:
I came in late to last term and had no problem catching up on all the salient issues with the assistance of minutes from prior meetings and my colleagues. I certainly hope that anyone else who finds themselves in a similar position is capable of asking around and getting the information they require, and that there will always be at least several AMC members who will make sure new folks know what they need to know. This IS the board of directors, after all.
Opening up old discussions to new folk would quash the ability to have discussions there even more than our periodic confidentiality violations have. And considering the volume and inanity of some of the conversations that go on there, I think it would do more harm than good to the new person who is already nearly overwhelmed with other information.
That's just my opinion as someone who's been there.
How can anyone predict whether an incoming AMC'er will do ANYTHING specific, from reading the documentation currently provided them to reading the back-traffic of the AMC, not currently provided them. (I know I searched some back-traffic in GLAAM when I became part of the Board there. It certainly helped.) Being PERMITTED to view prior message traffic is essential in getting an unfettered understanding of what the Board, and the individuals thereon, were thinking at the specific time something was happening or being considered. If incoming AMC members don't avail themselves of that access, then nothing has been lost. But if incoming AMC members DO take advantage of that ability, then they can get a more complete understanding of what was happening.
After all, people mis-remember things and mischaracterize things (both innocently and purposely) ALL the time. That's not AMC-specific, it's human. Having access to the actual history can help ALL of the AMC members go back and understand. If you delete your history (i.e., make the prior archives inaccessible, not just to the newbies, but to ALL of the AMC), there's NO way you can learn from it.
As for the "candid and often uncomplimentary comments" to which Robin refers, I would *MUCH* rather know where I stand and what I'm up against with those individuals (and, potentially, how I will need to handle myself for greatest advantage to all) that to be totally in the dark from the get-go. The likelihood of continuing the same exact way that has engendered such negativity is guaranteed if the incoming member doesn't know it's actually a problem. Then it's too late to do anything more about it, and it's an endless spiral downward dealing with those nattering nabobs of negativity.
Culling the salient discussions should be insufficient both for the incoming AMC'ers as well as the current members of AMC.
And having JUST the minutes to read from isn't necessarily sufficient. As we have seen in the wake of the July '08 ABM *and* AMC meetings, minutes ARE and REMAIN (at least for now) inaccurate. (I only ever have attended the meetings at AGs, so don't know how prevalent, or recent, this is.)
[NB: There were amendments offered at the ABM for the '07 ABM's minutes. They were accepted as friendly. The amended minutes were passed. They STILL have not been adjusted accordingly. It does NOT take 60+ days to do that.
Also, there was one gross misrepresentation in the July '08 AMC minutes and one thoroughly insufficient/rather inaccurate portion "recorded" there. It is unclear if there is a motion to properly correct those items.]
I'm in favor of anything that helps to break up the culture of secrecy that the present AMC seems to love so much, to the extent that they even impose secrecy on what their own new incoming members get to see. The AMC lists should be considered the property of the AMC as an ongoing institution, on behalf of American Mensa, and not of the specific individuals that comprise it at any given time. If one of you is embarrassed at the prospect of a future member of your own body seeing what you're writing now, then maybe you should be more careful about what you write?
Post a Comment