A few people have noticed that the Directory and Gatherings listing in the Bulletin is less comprehensive than in past years. This was not a random change but was done with thought and intent. Our reasoning includes:
1) Because of the inconsistent timing of Local Groups’ elections and officer appointment schedules, the directory information is obsolete before the issue gets to the printer. While it is useful for traveler to find and locate SIGHT coordinators, it is just as likely that the names listed in the March issue will not be the same names one should contact in October. In general, however, at least LocSecs are diligent about knowing who in their group is handling which responsibilities and forwarding on information requests from outsiders.
2) Many Mensa volunteers have complained in recent years about privacy and have asked to NOT be listed in the available-to-the-public magazine.
3) Reducing the directory allowed us to cut 8 pages and improve readability. Multiply that by 55,000 issues, and we saved 440,000 pages. Between printing and postage, this decision saved Mensa approximately $11,717.
4) The Gatherings pages are considered advertising as long as they list a hotel and hotel rates. Since we are charged postage based on advertising percentages, these changes in the Gatherings should reduce our postage.
5) For the most part, we actually use all or almost all of the gatherings listings sent in. Even if we list every piece of information and include the ridiculously long Web addresses, members still have to go online, write someone, or make a phone call to move forward. All of that information is still printed. In fact, the hotel information (and the corresponding direct link) is just about all we leave out.
Note that we plan on doing a member-survey in the next month or so to gather feedback on all elements of the redesign, so that will provide data for future decisions and tweaks.
2 comments:
Would that the National Office had been informed of this decision sufficiently ahead of the deadline for the March issue. The LocSecs had to send in corrections for officer contact info by sometime in mid-December, I think. One of our volunteers, whose position was one of the ones standardly printed, was vehement in her opposition to her SNAIL MAIL address being printed, but was perfectly fine with her e-mail address being printed.
The National Office was vehement in its insistence that the ASIE that the AMC passed a few years ago (I'll find it later if need be) requiring all officers have their address and phone/e-mail published meant there was no discretion re: snail mail, that it MUST be included. (Funny that the ASIE is virtually unknown to the members writ large and, I wager, most members of most ExComms, even. And for local groups to suffer from the reduced pool of willing volunteers because of this single issue is ridiculous.)
We nearly lost a volunteer over this issue. Thankfully she was fine with merely being omitted from the Bulletin's listing (whereas there are surely some who would have seen that as a personal slight). It was the only reasonable solution I could come up with where we keep her as a volunteer and stay, essentially, in compliance with the rule as it was being thrust upon us.
I included my RVC in the whole discussion and he brought up the matter to the AMC on the e-list, if I recall correctly. Apparently, there wasn't the stomach for revising the ASIE so that it would be the volunteer's choice as to WHICH contact information would be given out (any or all of snail mail, phone, and e-mail address) in the print listing.
If AMC seems to recognize that many volunteers don't want to be listed in the available-to-the-public magazine (as you seem to imply by #2), then how about changing the ASIE in the manner in which Marc suggested on the e-list? Care to be a second on such a motion? Can we get it onto the July agenda?
#1 seems to be a poor rationalization. Many former LocSecs have no desire to continue to answer the sorts of questions that they would need to field during their terms, and have absolutely no obligation to answer any such inquiries. By having at least a FEW more of the group's officers listed (the titles that were ever chosen before seemed arbitrary as it was), the odds increase of getting someone who is responsive in the case of former officers because of this election timing issue. True, the website is listed, which *should* have more current info than a potentially-month's old print publication, but that doesn't help those people who don't/can't access the internet and, thus, must rely on the printed publication.
#3 is 100% valid, and pretty much what I had chalked up the change to when I saw the substantially reduced size of the Directory.
Yes, it's tricky to manage decisions and budgets and deadlines when they are often so far apart chronologically. I'm sorry it put you in such an awkward situation. It was in fact your volunteer's complaints that put the nail in the coffin of the more comprehensive listings.
You feel #1 is a poor rationalization. Others feel it is sound. Because there is more than a day between deadline for submission and delivery of the magazine to your mailbox, it is impossible to print a truly correct list of all LG officers. With fewer officers included, we increase our accuracy.
I'm not strongly for or against changing the ASIE off the top of my head, but I'm certainly willing to go look at it again.
Post a Comment