Response to Suggestions for Increased Transparency

Jared recently posted on his blog his thoughts on improving AMC transparency. We comment on each other’s posts, but in this case, my comment was getting so long I opted to just use it as fodder for my own blog.  (Hope you don’t mind, Jared)

Jared advocated for

Agendas and minutes posted early and quickly

I agree. I believe the Secretary strives for that. Unfortunately, agenda deadline always seems to take many AMC members by surprise and there is a flurry of motion-writing, discussion, and editing done in a couple days, with changes and changes and changes that the Secretary has to keep up with. Inevitably, she has to choose the best path between getting the incomplete agenda out on time and getting a more accurate version out closer to the date of the meeting.

More in-depth notes on the budget for line items

I agree in general, but the notes sure look rather in-depth to me already. It is assumed that concerned members will ask questions and get answers from Finance Committee members.

A good-faith estimate of litigation expenses is included in the budget under the normally occurring, logical line item

I agree, and in fact at this recent budget meeting, we upped one of the legal line items because of on-going issues that we anticipate increasing rather than fading.

Video/audio recording the AMC meetings

This comes up every year. The lawyers always advise against it. My understanding of why we do not do it is that legally, there can be only ONE official record of a BoD meeting, and that record is the approved minutes. If recordings exist, they undermine the validity of the minutes and could be subpoenaed in a suit. If more than one recording exists, perhaps taken from different angles and capturing different actions and comments, then you really get a mess on your hands when lawyers twist and turn to use one against another. As I said, it’s a legal thing, not a result of AMC members being unwilling to be seen and heard by the membership.

Opening up the AMC list to all AML members on a read-only basis

Doing so will not make AMC members’ conversations more transparent. There will continue to be many AMCers who simply don’t participate in discussions, like now. There will be many off-list emails and discussions in hallways, like now. We already have ways for AMC members to discuss and debate in view of members—but they refuse to use them.

I do like your idea of having the default be non-confidential, so that those of us who are so inclined can share more with members. But unless I can also share that “Gilda contributed to the discussion but requested that her comments be kept confidential” or that “Lancelot did not participate in the discussion” you won’t really get much more transparency than you do now. The real solution is to keep urging AMC members to participate openly in other venues and for the membership to refrain from making such openness a set up for being nibbled to death by ducks.

Ideally, AMC members should treat that list, predominantly, as if it's an open meeting, and should be willing to write what they'd be willing to say in front of an open mic before the membership.

Generally, most AMC members do repeat at the mic what they opined on the list. There is far less of that sort of meat than you imagine. What you don’t get to know is what we say about how to deal with legal tangles (confidential), candid discussion about appointments and award winners (so we don’t publicly embarrass anyone), our discussions about dress codes and timing for committee meetings, who is going out of town when, which regions have useful web sites, quips about snow in Texas, etc. Once in a while there is pithy discussion of real issues, such as how to react to the USPS changes and how they affect LG newsletters. In those cases, the RVCs generally do a decent job of communicating and consulting with their constituents, and all AMCers usually repeat their views at the mic.

My point is— you’re not really missing out on anything you’d get from an open elist.

The schedule of in-person committee meetings should be available to the membership …the budget for the subsequent fiscal year should be readily available …in advance of the AMC meeting.

I agree. One concern is members’ attendance at the Finance Committee meeting. I understand why you’d want to be there; it is fascinating and enlightening. I have often wished some of the vociferously accusatory members were present so they could see that we really do think and examine and question everything with the good of Mensa uppermost in our minds. On the other hand, I already slow us down enough with just my four or five pages of questions, and I have more understanding of every line item than most people. A room full of curious, self-styled watchdogs would likely stretch that grueling weekend meeting out to three days. And if enough members wanted to attend, the cost would increase, as well, since we’d have to rent a meeting room and equipment.

In the case of the budget, it is already available to the membership in advance of the AMC meeting.

RVCs should make sure to write a column … which mentions various items of interest being handled by AMC…more frequent communication from the [other] AMC.

I agree whole-heartedly. One could consider our quarterly reports to be such communication. Now how useful those reports are is another matter.

No motions made by committees.

I can go either way on this. I’m not sure I’ve ever made a motion by any of the committees I chair—never saw a need to phrase it that way. On the other hand, votes are recorded, so even if you don’t have a specific name attached to the motion, you can still determine which AMC members support or oppose the motion.