AG 2010 Day 1

I doubt I'll compose any long thoughtful essays over the next few days, although I will try to do write ups of the meetings as I go along.

For now, everything is quiet and I'm just sitting in my room waiting for kids to wake up so we can go to breakfast making notes for my committee meetings this afternoon and evening (Finance, Communications, Meet the AMC, Planning) and scribbling thoughts for other meetings and presentations.

I had the pleasure last night of a quintessential Mensan conversation with Richard Lederer:
"So when you want to type an interrobang but don't have the actual character, do you write '?' and then '!' or do you put the exclamation mark first?"

Sooooo different from the sorts of questions asked and answered in my mothers' club gatherings!

Last day before my drive to the AG

I keep thinking of things I need or want to do:
• Print flyers for HalloweeM
• Write up notes for various informal-but-important meetings with people I work with
• Review and write up notes on previous governance reform attempts
• List potential questions for candidates
• Charge the laptop
• Improve my Web site
• Write long replies to speculations and accusations
• Catch up on email from last week's trip
• Pay bills, mow lawn, pack clothes, clean cat boxes, stop mail, vacuum minivan...

Sigh. I need a vacation from all these vacations.

But I am very much looking forward to seeing everyone, starting tomorrow evening!

Not Mensa

But this vacation picture was too good not to share.



- Posted using my iPhone

Moderating Comments

Just an FYI... I'll be out of Internet touch for a few days and unable to approve any comments to this blog.

Sorry that I moderate, but I had a very nasty go-to-the-police stalker flooding me not long ago, so I still have to manually approve comments before the get published.


- Posted using my iPhone

Busy Busy Before the AG

Preparing committee agendas. Gathering notes, printing out memos. Scheduling all the little "let's find a moment to talk about that at the AG" meetings. Writing and writing and writing. And all in a rush now because I'll be gone and incommunicado for the week before the AG sailing in the Grenadines.

Yeah my life is that rough.

My List of Governance Problems

As I've written before, I'm on the the  Governance Task Force, which is charged with
"reviewing the current governance structure (AMC and committees) of American Mensa. The task force shall gather data, identify Mensa’s current governance needs based on the Strategic Plan, review comparable structures, talk to leaders and members at various levels of the organization, and make recommendations for the optimum structures that may make American Mensa more effective, efficient, and responsive as an organization."

Seems pretty clear directive on what to do .... but not what to accomplish.

Interestingly, we're now getting bogged down trying to identify what exactly are the problems and what are the results the AMC wants.

I have my ear to the ground in many venues, so I'm going to take a stab at laying out what the problems are that we're supposed to help the AMC resolve:

1) Too many members complain about

• The price tag of sending so many AMCers to meetings
• The sense of resentment at having any sort of hierarchy of the directors who make decisions (we Mensans hate the notion of any one set of members having "authority" over others)
• The feeling of being excluded from discussions and information that they think they should be entitled to participate in or have access to.
• Some members get to be in positions of "power" without the general membership having the opportunity to put them there (the appointees and the past chairs).

2) We feel stodgy and bogged down in mountains of paper, rules, and time-consuming processes.

3) We do not always end up with directors who have the ideal sets of skills for their positions.


and so, some results the AMC wants are:

1) Less money spent on AMC travel
2) Fewer complaints from members
3) Fewer words to read
4) Quicker reactions to issues
5) Faster and better results on projects

Please note that the above is just my opinion. 

What I've Done since March

When I set out to fill in my Communications Officer and Committee Chair reports each quarter (or third of a year-- is there a term for that?), I start by listing nearly everything I've done, then I mash it all together in logical ways, based on what the reporting form du jour is asking for.

Here, for your reading pleasure, is my raw list of what I did:

As Communications Officer & ComComm Chair
• Nudged and supported PRP Chair to hit deadlines.
• Forwarded a few notifications of members moving or dying.
• Worked with a member to help her access her LG newsletter online.
• Replied to many many members 's questions and comments regarding the LGS&F Survey.
• Worked with an editor regarding how to get monthly membership data--and made a suggestion for his April Fools issue.
• Continued to hammer out the details and compromises with disgruntled member regarding InterLoc publishing his letter.
• Discussed actions to take or not take regarding an odd member using fake credentials on Facebook.
• Researched and wrote lengthy background paper about InterLoc.
• Led extensive discussion on AMC elist regarding InterLoc's future.
• Prepped agenda for ComComm meeeting in March.
• Reviewed proof of spring issue of FRED.
• Worked with Howard on design, template, and content plans for InterLink.
• Investigated correlation between lapsing members and those who received e-pubs (16% lapsing members had selected epubs).
• Went to Minneapolis for media event at Mall of America. Participated in meeting with parents.
• Wrote long reply to BC regarding his concerns about the directory and gatherings listings' changes in the Bulletin.
• Replied to St Louis editor regarding her quest for a printer.
• Forwarded some members' ideas for national events and marketing projects to appropriate staff members.
• Discussed with Exec Dir why Mensa doesn't provide testing results for Intertel.
• Brought up the ride-sharing ASIE to the AMC for revision-- it was discussed then something shiny caught our eyes and the topic faded without any motions to amend being crafted (I will revisit it next term).
• Answered a member's question about the tax status of AML.
• Discussed with Maumee Valley editor regarding finding and using material published by other editors.
• Sat in (via GoToMeeting) on Webniar: "The Best Blend: Digital and Print"
• Asked Howard to help Western Michigan editor with something about local listings on the Web site.
• Helped a member find another member he knew back in the 1960s.
• Helped a member find information about his local RG.
• Participated (via conference call) in Web Services Dept Development Calendar meeting
• Wrote too-long of an annual report for the Bulletin (Is it a bad thing that there are so many people to thank?)
• Responded to query about the cost and effort involved in creating a Mensa National Office in Second Life.
• Forwarded an editor's request regarding label stock to National Office.
• Did a ton of work on reviewing and revising many ASIEs which pertain to publications in preparation for motions for  the July AMC meeting.
• Reviewed members' comments on the Bulletin (both positive and negative).
• Forwarded a hand-written request from a member for more brochures.
• Helped Bulletin Editor respond to a member's inquiry regarding inclusion of the International Journal and InterLoc in the Bulletin.
• Participated in AMC teleconference in May.
• Forwarded a member's request  to be removed from distribution of Isolated M.
• Notified LG Editors about concerns regarding an advertisement they received from a disbanded SIG. 
• Cajoled several new volunteers into being regular contributors to InterLink.
• Wrote my InterLoc to InterLink article.
• Solicited feature article for InterLink regarding the Ombudsman election controversy.
• Discussed Bulletin advertisement policy with Exec Director.
• Forwarded a member's PR idea to the Development Officer.
• Proofed April/May Bulletin.
• Proofed June Bulletin.
• Proofed July Bulletin.
• Reviewed April/May InterLoc
• Reviewed June InterLoc
• Reviewed tasks and volunteers needed for the various positions for the next term.

As Chair of Name & Logo Committee

• Wrote an article about proper logo use for InterLoc.

• Reviewed and made decisions on various logos and designs which were similar to the Mensa logo.

• Investigated and made requests for cessation of use of the Mensa name in a variety of Web sites, blogs, Facebook, etc.

• Reviewed and worked with Local Group editors and Web masters regarding logo useage.

• Reported several infringements to CafePress and Zazzle.

• Reviewed and approved or disapproved logo designs or use of the Mensa logo on a variety of member-originated items and events.

• Worked with SIGs Officer regarding several on-going issues with SIGs’ use of the name and logo.

• Led a conference call with involved leaders regarding on-going and growing concerns and conflicts with a set of SIGs and misuse of the name and logo.

• Began discussion regarding rules for members how wish to have the logo as a tattoo.

As Chair of the LG Service & Funding Committee

• Began review of mountain of data from the survey.

• Directed Beth Anne and Jean to develop bones of a rubric for assessing LG's levels of service provision.

• Directed Don to worth with staff to gather and analyze financial data from LGs.

As Gifted Youth Committee Liaison
• Facilitated sharing of ALL information between the Mensa Foundation, The AG Committee, the NEYPC, and the members of the GYComm. 
• Tried to guide the GYComm to more setting of goals and making of policy recommendations.
• Met with GYComm chair in Minneapolis.
• Facilitated future direction and backup solutions for Kids Trek.
• Acted as a sounding board for the NEYPC.
• Firmly reminded the GYComm that they need to help LGs do things for kids and worry less about tracking statistics for a public elist.
• Questioned the connection between the committee's activities and the charges to the committee (and was told to back off).
• Worked to arrange a meeting with AMC Chair, GYComm Chair, myself, and others so we can try again to clarify what the AMC wants from this committee.
• Explained budgeting concerns and limits to committee as they got all enthused about creating tshirts to give away at the AG.
• Explained why the Kids-Forum has not been implemented (still waiting for GYComm to craft the guidelines and policies).


As a member of the Finance Committee
• Participated in discussions leading to motions for the July AMC agenda.


As a member of the Governance Task Force
• Proposed a structure for proceeding and organizing research and conclusions.
• Read and summarized three books on non-profit governance.
• Wrote summary about governance needs suggested by AML's Strategic Plan.


As a member of the Licensing Committee
• Participated in discussion about special postmark at the AG.
• Participated in a discussion about a potential book deal.
• Participated in a discussion about some games.


As a member of the Colloquium Committee
• Made a suggestion for a possible speaker.


(I'm also on the Marketing and SIGs Advisory Committees, but they've been really quiet lately.)

Responding to Assumptions about InterLoc and InterLink

So the news about the change from InterLoc to InterLink has been leaked, on a few Yahoo groups and now in the AMC agenda for July. As I anticipated, reaction has been loud and filled with all sorts of complaining reactions based on partial truths and assumptions.  I’ll do my best to calm the concerns.

I find it more than a little troubling that Robin has seemingly unilaterally terminated Interloc, with no discussion or vote by the AMC or a chance for discussion amongst the membership as a whole.

You are being troubled by an assumption you haven’t bothered to check out. I absolutely had a great deal of discussion with members, ComComm, and the AMC regarding the future of InterLoc. I find it more than a little troubling that anyone would assume I would take such a major step without others’ input!

Decisions to change to electronic means of communication should only be taken after a through analysis of the current processes and consideration for the impact of the new systems. This is standard business process analysis. I don't see an indication that this was done. Maybe it is the right choice, maybe it is not, where is the summary of the analysis?

I agree whole-heartedly about the necessity of the decision-making process you describe. But just because you don’t see…. don’t assume it didn’t happen. Actually, I did plenty of analysis and discussion with many people, including the AMC as a whole in advance of the March ComComm meeting. I shared the background paper with the entire AMC and Communications Committee (which included two past and one then-current InterLoc editors). I even posted a link to it in February on this blog.  I know that Jared, at least read it.

I know quite a few people who choose not to have computers. I don't have a 
specific number in mind, but I seem to recall seeing a national survey that 
showed only 2/3 of the country is connected to the Internet.
 I would [call] 1/3 of the population "a lot".


In the background paper I mentioned earlier, you’ll see that we do know how many member have email addresses on file (and it is reasonable to assume that there are other members who have computers and Internet access but who do not wish to share those email addresses with the National Office). The facts are that in the general population, at least 75% of Americans have reliable Internet access. Here is a site that claims an even higher rate of Americans who use the Internet. 75% of Mensa members have email that we know of. At least 91% off officers and appointees have email. 

You many not find it necessary, but I certainly read things a whole lot 
better - and with much better comprehension - when it is in print. Even 
things I've written.

And yet, you seem quite enthusiastic about reading, comprehending, and discussing Mensa topics on elists and Yahoo groups. You certainly wrote more posts on elists and Yahoo groups than letters to InterLoc.

Why the secrecy? Why not simply announce what the new  format is when announcing an end to the old one?

No great secrecy. I posted about this in February. My original plan called for one more issue of InterLoc to overlap with InterLink so that we could do exactly what you suggest. The template and content for the new publication was still being finalized when Brian decided to use his position as InterLoc editor to announce the change and his resignation, and I did not choose to bump his farewell editorial in order to make the announcement myself.

We Mensans sure are an impatient bunch—we hear something new is coming soon and we immediately start hopping up and down demanding to know all the details NOW. The other alternative is to keep all up-coming changes top-secret until they are deployed. I can’t imagine anyone would prefer that approach.

Maybe Robin got some negative feedback on her idea for an electronic newsletter from "those who count" and had to re-jigger her idea to turn it into a print publication.

Um… nope. Everyone who has seen the template and plan has been quite enthusiastic.

Oh, maybe she needed a dramatic introduction for the new pub, whatever the form, and nobody has written the scenario yet.

Everything is being rolled out and announced according to schedule, except for the original intention to have one more issue of InterLoc (in the July Bulletin) to overlap and introduce InterLink. No drama at all—just calm presentation of decisions and changes via the normal reporting mechanisms.

Whereas this "new vehicle" is so "timely and effective" that it doesn't even exist.

Well, one could also say that the July issue of the Bulletin doesn’t exist, too. But it is in production and will exist—by July. InterLink will be finished and sent to the members right on schedule… roughly the same time as the next issue of InterLoc would have been if Brian hadn’t quit two months early.

An online version, especially on the AMC website which so many people seem to difficulty navigating, there likely won't be nearly as many eyeballs on the publication this way.

Who said InterLink will be on the Web site? Stop thinking of this as a newsletter… do not assume it will be just a pdf version of a used-to-be printed publication. This is 2010! We have technology! 

The vision is to make InterLink such an inclusive, interactive, content-rich, immediate-connection dialog…that members will think the old InterLoc was scratchings on stone tablets.

Think Big.

           Take Risks.

                        Try New Things.

Mensan Control of the Bulletin

"We need to return control of the Bulletin to the members."

"Even if we have a good editor, it takes a Mensan  to understand and cater to Mensans. "

Grumble grumble... since when did being appointed as Communications Officer, responsible for overseeing the policy and direction of the Bulletin, imply I've lost my status as a Mensan?

Never Mind about the Cabana Boys

I have a handful of big, interesting projects to work on for Mensa-- the kind that require a large block of time so I can really get in that focused creative productive thinking groove. And everyday I just get more and more little gotta-dos and fires to put out in my in-box, which sap my time and energy. A N&L violation that needs attention. A Bulletin that needs reviewing. An article that needs writing A report that needs filling out. A forum controversy that needs input. A motion that needs a response. A question that needs an answer.

This is why I end each quarter with a long list of things I did and yet still feel like I've accomplished little.

No point to this-- just venting. I don't need cabana boys; I need 12 more hours in a day.

Appointing Assistants

So as the AMC works to finish up the agenda for July, many RVCs are asking to appoint Assistant RVCs.

I would like to appoint three Communications Committee Cabana Boys. I told Heather to leave blanks in the agenda for the names and I'll fill them in after the on-site interviews.


- Posted using my iPhone

Booting Appointed Officers

Three cups of coffee and lots of rambling, with few conclusions….

Some members seem to feel that there should not be any appointed voting members of the AMC— that by having such appointees, the Chair essentially stacks the board with four lackies who will be assured of voting the way the Chair wishes.

If that were true, then I can see both pros and cons to it: Pro, in that the membership ostensibly voted for a Chair who espouses a philosophy that the majority of members agree with, and therefore giving that Chair a bit more oomph with votes of the Board is reflective of the mood of the membership.

Con, because four AMC voters making decisions were not put there by the membership at large, and it just feels kinda not-cool to let a Chair have toadies with votes.

Which side of the fence do I fall on regarding these two points of view?  Somewhere in the middle. I don’t think about it much, in part because truthfully, the appointed officers do NOT have a track record of consistently voting the way the Chair would prefer. We may be on the board by grace of appointment, but we’re still Mensans and very independent-minded. I’ve been appointed by three different Chairs—and in every term, I’ve voted my mind based on what I think is the best direction for the organization, and never once was I taken aside and forcefully instructed to vote a certain way by my leash-holder. Certainly anyone who watches the AMC and how we appointees vote can confirm that we do not have a pattern of going along with the Chair’s wishes.

The appointed officers are chosen for their skill-sets. If the DevOff, MemOff, and CommOff (setting aside the DoS&E, who is really a MERF representative) were elected, would there really be more than one candidate for each office with the requisite skills and time to serve?

On the other hand, regardless of how many candidates there are for these offices, what would be so bad about letting the membership have intput into the selection? On the other other hand, I can easily see someone running for CommOfficer based on a platform of “I’ll get rid of the three remaining filtered words in the Forums” and having no clue about variations of postal regulation issues Local Group newsletters have to deal with.

Anyway, my epiphany was that I should not be taking it personally when members opine that the four appointees should get booted. They’re not saying that because they don’t like the job I’m doing. They’re not saying that because I don’t do enough and don’t “earn my keep.” They’re not saying that because the responsibilities given to the appointed officers are unimportant. Members are wanting more obvious control over the composition of the Board of Directors.  I think that if I knew that the responsibilies currently given to the Mem, Dev, and Comm officers would continue to be placed in the hands of appropriately-skilled volunteers, then I could get behind the “no more appointees” concept.

How to be assured of this, I don’t know. I mean, we have seen elections where the obviously-skilled secretary candidate lost to the obviously not-skilled-but-somehow-more-popular candidate. And we saw how well that turned out for the society. Imagine such a thing happening to the person in charge of marketing and PR?

It’s a conundrum, without a clear, obvious answer.

And then I got to my second flash of insight.

Does the sheer volume of stuff I do for Mensa entitle me to greater voice in the direction of the society? That doesn’t make sense—there are plenty of volunteers who put in just as many hours, if not more, but have no vote on the AMC.

What is the connection between the skills I (or any appointed officer) bring to the table and how valuable my input is when the Board is making decisions?

The current AMC comprises some representative and some not-directly-representative voting members: The RVCs ostensibly vote the way a majority of their consituents want them to. But what about the 1VC, 2VC, Treasurer, and Secretary? They vote based on their views, but not based on any sort of poll of their consituents. We appointees theoretically bring specific area knowledge and expertise to the table and debate. I think this is a good thing.

The case could be made to reduce the voting Board of Directors to only five or six members, generally elected, and then have a whole team of appointed people with the skills and knowledge without votes, but still reporting and advising the voters. That could work, but…. would it save any money? Would Mensa be well served if the input from those appointed people were only available vial email? Or would we end up paying to fly at least some of them to the AMC meetings so the discussions could happen face to face? What if we did do that, but only flew in the “experts” for agendas that have topics that pertain to their skill-sets?

Is the desire to eliminate the appointed officers a desire to reduce AMC meeting costs, to reduce the Chair’s “power,” or to make members feel like they have greater say in their governance?