Is the Veil of Secrecy Really Being Wrapped Tighter?

There is a mood among some cliques of Mensans that the AMC is not only anti-transparency, but is making efforts to increase confidentiality; to become more secretive. So I got to musing, after seeing this accusation for the umptteenth time:

What information used to be easily available to the general membership which is now being withheld?

Is there any visible increase in the amount of interaction and sharing of information between the AMC members and the general membership?

My Quarterly Report

I'd been feeing bad because I've been really lazy and distracted by HalloweeM chores this quarter, but when I finally pulled together everything I've done as CO since late June (when the last report was due and not including my other committee tasks), I'm finding the guilt easing a bit.

• Kept up with all the normal tasks: Read all Local Group newsletters each month; Read members' postings on various public and AML-sponsored elists; Participated on Newseditors’ and Webmasters’ elists and handled some administrative duties for those lists; Actively participated in discussions on the AMC elist; Attended July’s AMC meeting; Discussed August, October, and November/December InterLoc content; Reviewed in great detail and discussed August, September, October, and November/December Bulletin content; Reviewed and discussed Web site content and other Internet Services; Represented communications’ concerns by actively participating on many committees; Actively participated in the day-to-day administration and moderation of the Online Community, including dealing with disgruntled participants.
• Participated in a phone interview with Leigh Wintz regarding planning and governance topics.
• Requested and appointed three new administrators (Lynn McDonald, Craig Thighe, and Kevin Mullen) for Facebook group.
• Approved (or cheered when others approved) 313 new Facebook group members-for a total of 668 as of October 12.
• Began experimenting with Twitter.
• Experimented with publishing proposed motions and my comments on them for members to view outside the AMC elist via my blog.
• Discussed development of Mensa’s favorite Web sites project with Dir of Op.
• Helped Pat C. use the member directory to find experts for the Problem Solvers SIG.
• Approved brief suspension of two members from the Online Community for flooding and resistance to moderators’ requests.
• Consulted with Dir of Op regarding a former member trying to log in to the Online Community as a current member.
• Responded to a member’s concerns about sexual harassment on the Online Community.
• Drafted criteria and guidelines for listing on the AML Web site non-official, but Mensa-centric online resources and communities.
• Explained to an editor and a member about the time delay for labels when addresses change.
• Reviewed and responded to members’ requests for new categories in the Online Community.
• Responded to members’ complaints about the consolidation of the editors’ elists.
• Tweaked the guidelines for avatars for the Online Community.
• Discussed with Dir of Op the logistics of a member’s suggestion to provide space on the AML Web site for AG presenters to present papers or files from their programs.
• Advised leaders in Denver regarding conflicts and issues with their members’ elist.
• Reviewed and cheered the internal communications calendar and tracking process Dir of Op set up.
• Responded to a member’s concerns regarding dues rates and the value of publications the dues support.
• Provided RVC10 with details regarding limits and options for editors and CSubs.
• Updated and corrected the Name & Logo Workbook.
• Answered a member’s question regarding LG letterhead.
• Discussed issues regarding Isolated M’s mailing permit location.
• Discussed ideas to make InterLoc stand out from the Bulletin better.
• Responded to a member’s concerns regarding deleting all of her posts for the Online Community.
• Worked to improve production with the author of blog posts by “Max” on the Mensa For Kids Web site.
• Researched and discussed the ramifications of providing second family members with 3- and 5-year discounts.
• Expressed opinions about goals for the Bulletin editor’s performance.
• Discussed ramifications of allowing members to use LG officer aliases when subscribing to official elists.
• Responded to inquiries regarding a Webmasters’ Handbook, suggesting instead that we produce a general Publications Handbook comprising information for newsletter editors and Webmasters.
• Reviewed the 2008-09 Web Services Project plans.
• Facilitated by snail mail a member contacting another who had written a letter in the Bulletin but who failed to allow his contact information to be included in the membership directory.
• Consulted with the Ombudsman and Advocate regarding taking legal action against a member viciously and sexually harassing me on my blog.
• Reminded editors about completing and printing the USPS Statement of Ownership form.
• Continued to urge the other AMC members to participate in the communications venues we already have in place.
• Drafted guidelines for inclusion of non-official online communities, forums, elists, etc on a full listing on the AML Web site.
• Facilitated preparation of a “Mommy Letter” for the Online Community.
• Discussed the logistics of providing blank labels to a LG instead of the normal pre-printed ones.
• Answered members’ questions regarding costs for replacement of RVC options.
• Familiarized myself with the issues surround the USPS “Move Update.”
• Answered more and more questions from CBS, on and off camera.
• Applied for and was accepted as a member of the MIL Name & Logo committee.
• Advised Minnesota member regarding national-level regulations on advertising in LG newsletters.
• Fielded a few complaints about the Bulletin.
• Accepted a position on the committee for a 2010 colloquium.
• Packed up and mailed a couple months’ worth of newsletters to the InterLoc editor.
• Bit my lip while being vilified once again for misinterpretations of words which were never intended to a wider audience.
• Contacted editor of Hoosier M regarding ways to cut costs.
• Discussed and advised regarding changes in the masthead for the Bulletin.
• Discussed, on lists, forums, and one-on-one, issues regarding AMC communications, confidentiality, privacy, and secrecy.
• Broached the subject with the AMC of increasing funding to LGs coincidental with the dues increase.
• Answered many questions from the InterLoc editor regarding the Bulletin and other issues.
• Cheered when, on a Monday morning, there were 46 Mensans logged into the Online Community. Quite a party!

Elist Confidentiality Turmoil

Ralph ranted erroneously on the AMC list and on Grapevine about a motion from a year and a half ago that never came before the AMC. I tried to correct him, as did Russ, via the AMC list. Ralph forwarded our responses to Grapevine, including the header which said “AMC posts are confidential. Obtain author permission before reposting.”

I expressed my outrage, again, only on the AMC list. What I said was: “This is outrageously unacceptable. What will be done about it?” No mention of censure, of removal from office—-nothing. Just a wail of outrage meant for a private list. Ralph apologized, proclaiming that he posted by accident… and then he forwarded THAT, including my AMC-list-only comments again to Grapevine. And he even forwarded it to MPol as well.

Lordy, how things get twisted! Now people are writing to me, telling me that no harm to Mensa has been done and that Ralph should not have any consequences. People with private axes to grind are skewering me as the bad guy here, as calling for punishment, when I have done no such thing.

To top it off, I get an off-list request by a member of the ExComm to make a motion to kick Ralph off the AMC elist. I declined to be the scapegoat, saying “I do not know what actual rule Ralph has broken. I am bone weary of being the one who stands in front of the crowd and battles the forces of dimness while the other 19 AMC members watch from the sidelines and send me off-list "you go girl" emails. I am utterly disgusted with the AMC and I don't have the energy to do the research and compose one of my brilliant omnibus arguments.

Putting forth such a motion will cause the rabble to sharpen their pitchforks and boil their tar. I'm already so raw from the abuse that I decided not to run for office. You and the rest of the ExComm are all running for office, presumably because you think you should lead this organization.

I suggest you take this opportunity to demonstrate that you can.”

And what was the reply to that? An accusation of leading the charge earlier this term to neuter the ExComm in what power it has to lead the organization and now shrinking from taking the lead that I said the ExComm should not have.

And all this while watching a different thread protesting the fact that appointed officers get to vote at all.

WTF?

Pomykala-(v)

1) To handle or fix a sudden problem, often before it even becomes apparent.

2) To acquire necessary items or things on short notice by unknown means, especially without any hotel charges.

3) An especially complete process, such that once a complicated situation is "pomykala'd" a WeeM chair can forget all about it for the whole weekend.

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!

Deciding to Volunteer

Pam pointed me to this lady's blog, and I found this entry interesting enough to share it. It's about The Decision to Volunteer.

Why look,

There at the bottom of the page...

Shout out to My Biggest Fan

The housing market slump must be affecting Habitat for Humanity, since it seems that lately my biggest fan, Tom T. of Yakima Washington, has more time than usual to spend visiting and commenting on my blog. Hey Tom, have you checked out Charter Communication's policy on cyber stalking lately?

Online Civility

One of the issues that members bring to me more and more frequently is concern about online incivility. While there are enforceable terms of service on the AML-hosted elists and forums, the Internet communities run by Local Groups, SIGs, and individual members are not subject to the same oversight.

Any services hosted on AML-owned servers must adhere to the five Minimum Standards for AML Internet Communication Services:

1) Internet Communication Services must comply with all relevant federal laws, plus applicable local and state laws, including regulations regarding copyrights, obscenity, marketing scams, etc.

2) Users may not improperly post or distribute any confidential information or information that would infringe upon the proprietary, privacy, or personal rights of others.

3) Use of the Mensa name and logo must adhere to the current standard for Name and Logo Use.

4) The following disclaimer must be prominent for members agreeing to use these Internet Communication Services. In the case of elists or newsgroups, this disclaimer should be posted at least quarterly:

American Mensa, Ltd. accepts no responsibility for the opinions and information posted via its Internet Communications Services by its members or guests. Additionally, American Mensa is not liable for damages resulting from information transmitted via these Services or from any interruption or failure of these Services.

5) Opinions and information posted via chat, discussion boards or elists remain the property of the poster. Content from national or regional Web sites remains the property of the national organization and content from group Web sites remains the property of the pertinent group, unless otherwise noted.

(ASIE 2005-080)

Other than those standards, each Local Group or SIG using AML services may create its own policies regarding acceptable interactions and consequences. Any elists, Yahoo groups, Facebook groups, blogs, or other social networking tools organized by Groups or individual members are out of AML jurisdiction.

And still, members come to me and demand that "National" step in and deal with obnoxious members on these unofficial venues. While I suspect this is a topic that we all need to mull over as Mensa becomes a conglomeration of all sorts of smaller communities, physical and virtual, currently there is nothing "National" can or should do to intervene when there's a dust-up on a non-AML service.

HOWEVER....the law goes where Mensa does not, and it might behoove members to remember that. For example, I, myself, have a frequent visitor to this blog who attempts to post rude and crude comments. Now, I realize that this fellow, Tom, is merely lashing out at me because he was suspended from the AML forums due to his excessive aggressive behavior and refusal to adhere to the TOS. Regardless, there is no reason why a member should be allowed to stalk and harass a volunteer officer.

Fortunately, it turns out that he lives in Washington state, which has a fairly broad cyberstalking statute. Washington, unlike many states, separates out cyberstalking into its own statutory section. In addition to covering situations of harassment and intimidation, the statute says that, “A person is guilty of cyberstalking if he or she, with intent to…embarrass any other person…makes an electronic communication to such other person or a third party…using any lewd…words, images, or language…anonymously or repeated whether or not conversation occurs.” By including situations of embarrassment and those involving lewd language, even those many anonymously, individuals who bully others online can be punished. (WASH REV. CODE § 9.61.260 (2008).)

So, my point is that while AML may not always be able to step in and "make members behave civilly," there is no reason why any Mensan should have to put up with vicious treatment from other members. If Mensa can't help, then in most states, the police can.

What Does This Mean For Mensa?

Shift Happens
Something to ponder...

What Committees Am I on this Term?

Chairing:
Communications
LG Service & Funding
LG Charter

Liaison:
Gifted Children
Research Review

General Member:
Finance
Marketing
Licensing
SIGs Advisory
Name & Logo

Looks like I won't get bored for at least another year!

What I Did During the AG Week

Monday:
Phone interview with Tecker Consultant
Six hours of driving

Tuesday:
Eleven hours of driving
Arrived at AG-- and began adding to my growing list of people who need a short meeting with me.

Wednesday:
Spent over 2 hours being interviewed by Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes
Met with MERF Trustees to discuss Gifted Children's issues
Met with Marie Mayer to discuss details about MERF & GCPTeam cooperation
Met with Jonathan Elliot, SIGS Officer, to discuss several concerns about SIGS and the Bulletin and Online Community

Thursday:
Editing Newsletters LDW
Photo Editing LDW
Editors' & Webmasters' Shareshop LDW (led)
USPS LDW (led due to last minute cancellation by the scheduled speaker)
Annual Business Meeting
Met with Brian Bloch, InterLoc Editor

Friday:
AMC Planning meeting with Consultant
GCPTeam meeting (led due to chair's absence)
Awards Luncheon
Online Meet & Greet LDW (led)
So You Want to be and AMC Member LDW (panel)
AML's Online Services LDW
Dinner with Francis Cartier
ComComm meeting (led)

Saturday:
AMC Meeting 9-4:30
Foundation Reception
Banquet
Chairman's Reception

Sunday:
Brunch
Drove 6 hours towards home

Front Page, Again

This time the whole family is outed.

Preparing for Fame and Glory

Well, not really. But I am preparing to interview Dr. Frank Lawlis about ADD tomorrow. The Mensa Foundation will be editing it and making a podcast of our conversation.

When I'm done with that, I have to tidy the house in preparation fro a photographer from the Kane Country Chronicle to come out and take pictures of us to go with an article about Matt becoming the new LocSec.

Any readers have any good questions about ADD I should be sure to ask?

IBD ExComm and Murder

(I'll bet that title will get a lot of attention!)

Saturday night I went out to dinner with the IBD ExComm, since they were meeting here in Chicago over the weekend. I was curious to meet the people behind the names and magazine portraits. Nice bunch. Pleasant dinner. All very much dedicated to helping Mensa grow stronger. I'm glad I went.

But the thing that I've been mulling over since then has nothing to do with Mensa. As we entered the restaurant. a woman came up to me saying "I know you-- where do I know you from?" We guessed about a few possibilities, but finally I remembered that I'd worked with her at Forest Hospital back in the 80s. We chatted about it and she asked if I'd heard about Ari Squire, the son of the hospital's owner. I live under rock, so I hadn't heard anything. She gave me a brief description, and I googled when I got home to learn more .

OMG! I knew this guy. I knew his wife (yeah, she was a shrew, just like the papers are painting her). I have a large gold and diamond ring from Ari's father. I worked closely with his older sister. When I quit twelve years ago, this arrogant, spoiled rich kid was sitting on top of the world, and now look where he is.

Certainly makes me pause before envying others who seem to have it all.

Feeling Artsy Today

Been ignoring Mensa and working on figuring out how to make an image of my tattoo so I can show it off.

The 2007 Editor Mess

This all happened a year ago, but the topic has been brought up on M-Pol recently, so I thought I'd make sure my side of the events is available to anyone who cares.

Bill was the Editor of ChiMe for a year. He did an okay job, and the group appreciated his contribution. I spent hours and hours with him, training him on software and fixing ads and photos so they would work well for him. We got along well, I thought. He was a nice fellow.

Then, in about December or January, it was decided to review and update the groups Publications Policies, and to incorporate all the ASIEs and Bylaw pieces into one grand document. I was the Publications Officer at the time, so I did just that. Bill approved of some pieces and not of others. We went back and forth a few times, and some of his suggestions were included; some were not.

In January, I presented the Board with my recommended Pubs Policy and Bill presented them with his preferences.

The policy that was approved by the Board of Directors was not the version Bill preferred. And then all hell broke loose.

Butting Heads With Ensconced Officers
Bill wrote that "I RESIGNED from ChiMe because I no longer wished to have everything I tried to do to improve the newsletter, countered by your actions" but he has still never told me what actions he has a problem with or what improvements he was prevented from implementing. He complains that the Publications Policy passed by the Board in January contains “99% of Robin’s work.” That’s a lie. Not only are there pieces in there that Bill specifically wanted included or edited a certain way, but most of it is simply a prepackaging of bylaws or previous ASIEs—that I didn’t write.

Interestingly, Bill never stated which things in that final version of the policy he is unable or unwilling to abide by. He expresses anger that the policy was passed by the Board when he was not in attendance… never noting that I was not in attendance, either. I presented the Board with my opinions in advance. Bill presented his views in advance. The Board made the final decision, incorporating some of my preferences and some of Bill’s preferences, and neither Bill nor I were there to influence their discussion.

I recall that one bone of contention during preliminary discussions was a disclaimer, originally saying “Opinions expressed herein are those of the editor and contributors. Mensa has no Opinions.” (This was the wording that had been used continuously in the submission guidelines since long before I even joined Mensa.)

I wanted to update it to “Opinions expressed herein are those of the editor, Webmaster, and contributors. Mensa has no Opinions.” (I just added the bit about the Webmaster to reflect the modern era.)

Bill wanted it to say “Opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not reflect those of any CAM officer, ChiMe staff member, the Webmaster or any official Mensa body.” (He felt very strongly that the editor should not be on the hook for the opinions of the writers.)

Which version made it into the final policy passed in January? “Opinions expressed in ChiMe and online publications are those only of the contributors. Mensa has no opinions." It was a pretty good compromise, and one that was suggested by Bill, not me.

However, Bill printed his original preferred version in the March issue, (which was created in early February and after the passage of the new policy). No one noticed that he had willfully flouted the policy set by the Board of Directors.

Then, in late February, Beth Anne, the LocSec, sent him notice about updating the Submissions Guidelines—she mentioned nothing about his incorrectly worded disclaimer, but only gave some updates about the advertising information. At this, Bill blew up, and announced his resignation. In the April ChiMe, he printed the approved disclaimer wording, adding “amended by Beth Anne Demeter and Robin Crawford in March 2007.”

WTF? Not only did I not amend the submission guidelines in March, nor in February, but I didn’t even write the version that was put into the pubs policy! Bill printed a lie in the April ChiMe.

Chicago Area Mensa elections are held at the end of April. Beth Anne was running for LocSec. I was not running for anything.

Bill included a full page ad in the April issue of the newsletter-- without having shown it to the Pubs Officer or proofreader--blasting the current administration and announcing that he was running for LocSec. Chicago Area Mensa Bylaws specifically forbid the Editor (and Pubs Officer and Webmaster) from running for election.)

The Order of Events
In addition to spreading his venom within our Local Group, Bill expanded his scope and posted on the national Editors elist, where of course they had a field day crucifying me without bothering to look for facts.

Bill posted to the national list:
>I didn't have any intention to stay in Mensa or run until I received an email from Robin, before the printer got the newsletter, in which she gave me "notice of termination" as Editor. That was after I announced my resignation and pissed me off. Thus the ad and the editor's notation.<

That is a lie. Bill received my email AFTER he placed the ad in the newsletter, AFTER he broke the bylaws, AFTER he printed his editor's column, AFTER he asserted that he was editor until the end of March, AFTER ChiMe was printed.

On March 1, Bill announced that he was resigning and that he would do the April ChiMe.

On March 6, Bill emailed me saying:
>By the way, I don't appreciate you removing me from the editors' list. After all, I am still editor until the end of this month and still a member of Mensa and CAM until then.<

I replied that I hadn't removed him from the editors list and that I was not the administrator of that list (it's since been revealed that there were problems with many elists and members who use yahoo for their email). This email did, however, indicate that, as of March 6, Bill believed his editorship to run until March 31.

On March 9, I contacted the printer and confirmed that the April issue was delivered and that the printed had begun.

On March 14, after consulting with our Ombudsman, I (in my role as Chicago's Pubs Officer) sent Bill notice that his appointment was terminated, carefully using the precise language from our bylaws ("The Publications Officer shall appoint such editors, associate editors, Webmasters, managers, and assistants as needed, and may terminate such appointments as deemed necessary."). I figured this needed to be made crystal clear, since, as I quoted above, he had earlier told me that he considered himself to be editor until the end of the month. This cleared the way for us to appoint a new editor in time for the May issue.

I did not consider if the timing made Bill more or less eligible to run for office. We have an Elections Procedure Committee for that. My job was to do what I felt was necessary to make the newsletter happen.

Addressing the Complaints in Bill's Screed
Robin’s Grip on the Group
As for this “too much say” I have in the group... my formal role was that of Publications Officer, and as such I was “Responsible for the publication and distribution of the local group newsletter and/or activities bulletin. The Publications Officer shall appoint such editors, associate editors, Webmasters, managers, and assistants as needed, and may terminate such appointments as deemed necessary." [Bylaws III 3. E. 1]. I suspect this is what Bill disliked: that anyone had authority over him and his product. In fact, he wrote, to the Steering Committee elist on March 1: “I have never been a follower, never worked for anyone but myself.”

So maybe my sin was simply being the group’s Pubs Officer. Ironically, in February I gave the board notice of my resignation as Pubs officer (for reasons having nothing to do with Bill) effective as soon as they can find someone else to do the job. So even before Bill pitched his hissy fit in March and April, I had already started to pull out of any official roles.

Perhaps he’s referring to an intangible influence-by-virtue-of-respect that others like Jay, Helen, Stacey, Cindy, and Conrad have in the group. If that’s my great failing, then I’m honored to have such good company.


A Second Printed Lie
In his ad in the April ChiMe, Bill stated that “there has been nothing reported
about their [WeeM’s, AGOG’s, or Colloquium’s] attendance or their profit or loss. (I know it’s too early for a financial report on Colloquium, but how about attendance?)” and then, just two pages later, he printed minutes which contained attendance figures for Colloquium and general information about WeeM’s success. In the February 2006 ChiMe, the Treasurer’s Report clearly lists WeeM income and expenses. Yes, we’re due for another such report, but it sure looks to me like there has been more than nothing reported. Bill printed a lie about the amount of events’ information reported to the membership.

Helping the Community
In print and online, Bill has repeatedly implied that Mensans don’t do anything for society. He has not acknowledged the $40,000 we’ve raised for scholarships, the blood drives we’ve done, the toys we’ve collected, the books we’ve donated, or the gifted children resource fairs we’ve participated in. He seems to have overlooked the reports of the Community Activities Program Chair describing the school supply drive last August and the canned food drive at WeeM, and organizing participation in “relay for Life” 5-K runs. He forgot about the full page ad John Massura ran in the July ChiMe asking for support for his 60-mile walk for Breast Cancer.

Perhaps those things don’t count. In the April ChiMe there was an article by CAM member Dave Lloyd seeking Mensans’ help to save Shakespeare’s church, but perhaps Bill didn’t read everything he when he edited that issue.

For all his passion about how Mensa should DO something for humanity, all Bill did to further that goal is… tell us that we should be doing something. He has not yet placed a notice saying “Join me on Tuesday the 28th at the VA Hospital on Main Street to visit the service men and women there” or “Here is the box for you to place your old eyeglasses in; I’ll take them to the Kiwanis next Saturday.”

More Membership Participation
He complained that only a few take an active role; that we need new blood on the Board. On the current Board, there were two wonderful young ladies who had never held any role in CAM before. In fact, Marina had only joined just a few months before she was nominated for an elected office, at age 23. How much newer did Bill want the blood to be?

That year, Bill ignored the fact that 3/5 of the candidates on the ballot had never been on the Board before; he ignored the fact that there are 43 different people listed in the April ChiMe as people who do things in the group. Our Steering Committee is larger than some groups’ entire memberships! There are another 15 or so listed in the April ChiMe as hosting an event or writing an article. Now add in the proctors and the legions who help at HalloweeM. Most Local Groups complain that only 10% of its members ever show up to anything. Our wonderful Local Group can boast nearly 5% ACTIVELY INVOLVED and leading. And this is why Chicago Area Mensa is the envy of the rest of the Mensa community.

The Election Committee determined that Bill was not eligible to run for LocSec. Bill accused them of being in the power grip of the entrenched officers, namely BethAnne and myself.

When Bill took his cause to the Local Group elist, he was otraged to find that everyone, including the copy editor he worked with and even the previous editor, who had no particular love for me, turned against him. Bill fussed and fumed and threatened to sue. He said he'd quit Mensa and leave us alone if we gave him money. And eventually, someone did some googling about Bill's Literary Agent buisness and turned up some very ugly facts. And then published the URL on the list.

At that, Bill became very quiet and resigned from Mensa.

Bill stated that he was running in order to "Bring about Good Things."
As for the election situation and the interpretation of the bylaws-- I was not on the elections procedure committee, so I was not part of that decision.

But I do know that ignoring bylaws and Board policies, printing lies, berating the membership for not living up to his expectations, threatening legal action, attempting extortion, and making baseless complaints are not the types of behaviors that bring about good things for a group.

Bill served our group well for a year and did a good job as editor of ChiMe, which requires an enormous amount of time and loving care. We all appreciate it. It is a shame that those positive contributions will not be what he is ultimately remembered for.

I don't know how carefully y'all read the RVC columns, but I read them closely. And I am, once again, disturbed by what our fellow AMC members are telling the members. I need to get this off my chest.

First Ralph tells all his members that the frequency of InterLoc has been reduced. When I corrected him, he said, publicly, "I wouldn't count on what Robin said."

Then there was Nick's column last month wherein he told everyone that the budget had a $100,000 deficit. Nick has since retracted and corrected this information, by the way.

Now I see that Dave's column contains some pretty harsh and incorrect statements:

Unfortunately I have to report that a "spend as you go" attitude prevails within the AMC.

Really? Upon what do you base that belief? Have you forgotten that the AMC has done some belt-tightening this year: Paid advertising campaigns are limited. AMC meetings have been reduced to three in 2009, rather than four. Staff size is being kept consistent, despite expanding the services we offer to our members and officers. Every attempt is being made to use electronic communications where possible to save on printing and postage while ensuring that we don’t disenfranchise that segment of the membership that is not electronic.

Increasing spending in the name of providing marginally utilized services and programs and increasing dues to finance this spending is not fiscally sound nor sustainable.

The budget is an unimaginative "add 5% to the past unimaginative budget" and raise dues to do it. There is no evidence of fiscal restraint or attempt to reign in escalating costs in national office operations or general governance costs.

Even though I'm not the Treasurer, I am deeply offended by this.

Those of us on the Finance Committee put in many many hours of thought and number crunching and analysis of current programs/services and their effectiveness BEFORE we developed a preliminary budget. Then we asked and answered questions-- lots and lots and lots of questions. I myself tend to generate three or four typed pages of questions and concerns. Then we spent TWO DAYS going over the budget line by line.

Dave, why on earth do you think the Finance Committee just added 5% to last year's budget? Did you actually compare the numbers?

Last year's budget's income was $3,324,416. This year's income is $3,410,327.
That's an increase of 2.58% Not the 5% you published.

Last year's budget's expenses were $3,314,566. This year's expenses are $3,506,378.
That's an increase of 5.79%. Close, but not exaclty what you published.

Why do you say there is no evidence of fiscal restraint? How carefully did you compare this year's budget to last year's? You usually have wise observations and suggestions...what concerns did you raise that were not answered during the pre-vote discussion? Which programs and services do you see as marginally utilized? Upon what data do you base your conclusions? And why were you unwilling to share your insights with the rest of AMC before we set out to finalize the budget?

Between release of the proposed budget and the March AMC meeting, you posted exactly 6 times. Other than your opposition to hiring a consultant, you offered exactly zero suggestions about ways to be more fiscally responsible. You said nothing about services and programs you felt should be cut. You offered no thoughts about alternatives to raising dues. And yet, after the fact, you tar the rest of the AMC as being fiscally irresponsible.

A dues increase to $59 a year was passed (and must pass a second time at the next AMC meeting). This will be used to fuel the ever increasing cost of conducting Mensa business. You either act fiscally conservative or increase income, and your AMC is choosing to increase income

.

The 13% dues increase is not being proposed because we're unwilling to cut spending. It's being proposed because:

The budget is always designed with a multi-year cycle of a dues increase resulting in a surplus, then a couple years of a balanced budget, then a year or two of deficit, followed by the next dues increase. How long a dues increase lasts is dependent largely on membership growth combined with investment performance. The last dues increase was in 2005. It's simply time in the cycle.

Groups are testing fewer prospective members, so the testing income was down by 16%. Decreased testing by Local Groups also means that membership growth is slower than we would like.

Funding to Local Groups has increased by 14% over the last year, and RVC funding has been increased by 32% for the next fiscal year.

The economy is in a slump, so we have been earning less income from our investments, which are invested conservatively so we can be sure to always maintain our principal in our 3, 5, and life funds.

The costs to protect the Mensa name and logo from misuse have increased dramatically as more and more commercial ventures attempt to infringe on our name to their advantage.

The rising fuel prices have caused trickle down increases in all areas of consumables from travel to food to office supplies.

Paper and postage costs have skyrocketed, so the Bulletin costs are up by nearly 12%.

You were there for the discussions-- how could you have missed these pieces of information?

Having the Mensa Foundation fund gifted children program grants makes perfect financial sense, especially since we give them a $50,000+ grant each year and pay them a hefty rent for our headquarters. This was easily approved. The down side is that Mensa relinquished control of how those grants are distributed. Nothing is free, as the saying goes.

Last I looked, the proposal included involvement from the AML Gifted Children Committee when distributing grants money. And I am pretty sure that everyone on the MENSA Foundation board are also Mensa members. "Mensa" comprises AML and MERF.

I've noticed the overall trend within Mensa is a strengthening of AML at the expense of local groups.

I just have to ask... what is the difference between AML and Local Groups? (if only we had some sort of way to clarify and codify that relationship!) How does strengthening the organization as a whole harm the individual components?

You do Mensa harm when you publish false, alarmist information. And your slap stings mightily to those of us who worked very hard, with virtually no input from you, to make the most of our members' money.

E-Pubs Argument Notes

At the March AMC meeting, there was a motion made by Ralph Rudolph on the agenda to change the Minimum Standard Bylaws to make electronic newsletter distribution the default and to require that members who wish to receive paper newsletter specifically request them. The rationale is that e-pubs are cheaper and that forcing Groups to go electronic would save them oodles of money.

Ralph and others, including me, want to do everything possible to make it easier for Local Groups to save money. We must also remember that we should do everything possible to ensure that members are well served. There are times when these two goals are in opposition.

A common view is that small groups are bleeding money, which, if true, is certainly alarming. However, I am not convinced of the veracity. Whenever possible, we need to look at data and facts when making decisions. Since I happen to know that there is a huge pile of recent data in last year's Local Group Funding Report, I looked there.

When analyzing the financial data from Local Groups, we learned that: even when we have reports directly from a group, it was nearly impossible to really tell how much unrestricted cash a group has at any given time and that apparent savings per member had little to do with group size. We concluded that most Local Groups are unwilling or unable to provide financial information and that the poorer the group, the less likely they are to participate in projects, even if those projects might ultimately help them.

Let me highlight that again: the groups who are really in financial trouble probably won't make the effort to switch to electronic publications even if it might improve their lot.

The LG Funding Report also concluded that in general, it costs most Local Groups ~33% more than the subsidy to serve their members and that nearly 2/3 of Local Groups are either slowly going broke, living off reserves, or are raising funds on their own through testing, RGs, ads, and other activities.

Sounds like I'm supporting the claim about groups bleeding money... but look again: 1/3 of groups are doing fine and some portion of the other 2/3 are raising funds themselves. THERE IS NO DATA IN THE LG FUNDING REPORT OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT SUPPORTS OR NEGATES THE CLAIM THAT SMALL GROUPS ARE BLEEDING MONEY.

Then I turned to the section about newsletters in particular. Currently these are the things we're cramming down the throats of Local Groups:

Minimal Newsletters must:

• Publish at least four times a year.(ASIE 1995- 024 11-Mar-1995)

• Publish ballots for local elections and bylaws referendums (Appendix 13: Minimum Standard Bylaws Requirements for Local Groups)

• Publish lists of proposed bylaws amendments (Appendix 13)

• Publish ballots for voting on bylaws amendments (Appendix 13)

• Publish a financial report not less than twice each year (Appendix 13)

• Publish notice of meetings (ASIE 1995- 024)

• Publish a calendar of activities (ASIE 1995- 024)

• Be mailed to all members, even “Second Family” members must receive any issues containing election or referendum materials

• Publish USPS forms as dictated by the postal permit under which the newsletter is mailed.

You'll notice that we DO NOT REQUIRE GROUPS TO SEND MONTHLY NEWSLETTERS. If groups are really desperate to save money, they already have a sanctioned option: don't send one a newsletter so often! Some groups have gone so far as to create two different versions-- a small, cheap print version and a larger e-version. (Personally, I think this is poor service to members and I am deeply troubled by how Arkansas Mensa is treating its members who so not wish for electronic newsletters. The post card they sent out did not include a time for the one meeting and no contact information in case Mille wanted to call someone to find out when to show up-- but changing the requirements is the subject for a different AMC meeting).

On to the evaluation of newsletter cost, quality, and group size... The Report found that: there is a huge range of qualities, from a single page comprising postal indicia and notice of one event to slick, 32 page booklets with color cardstock covers; there is no correlation between group size and newsletter cost per member per month; there is little correlation between newsletter quality and newsletter cost except for the very minimal quantity ones; and there is little correlation between group size and newsletter quality.

The Report concluded that: since newsletters are the biggest expense of Local Groups and there is no correlation between newsletters costs and group size, the per member Local Group funding should be independent of group size; Local Groups should receive enough funding to produce newsletters which meet the actual and implied standards set by the AMC, but Local Groups, not this task force, should ultimately be the ones to determine how much to spend on their newsletters; and the real key to a great newsletter is an editor with time, enthusiasm, and skill. Simply giving Local Groups more money will not ensure an improvement in newsletters.

Let me restate and expand on that... Simply giving Local Groups more money will not ensure an improvement in newsletters. If showering them with extra funds won't do it, I do not believe that FORCING THEM TO DO EXTRA WORK IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY will improve newsletters either.

As has been pointed out before, particularly in the rants last year about the Local Group Charter, if Local Groups don't like a rule, they'll ignore it. If that's the case, then making e-publications the default will NOT MAKE GROUPS GO ELECTRONIC IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.

What it will do, however, is make technically advanced groups stop sending paper newsletters to everyone. Sure, Luddite members can request paper, but will they? Think about the people you talk to when you make the lapsed member calls in June (we've all made those calls, right-- it's free money for the group). How many people you talked to said something like "oh, I meant to send in my check but I forgot."? And that after what, three mailed out renewal forms? Will groups really send out three notices to all members reminding them to respond if they want paper? How much will that cost?

What I expect will happen is poor old Millie will simply stop getting her newsletter. After a few months, she'll notice, and feel a bit hurt by the neglect. Perhaps she'll call me or the National Office to complain; perhaps she'll do nothing and simply not bother to renew the following year. Either way, she'll be cut off from her group.

I understand that we shouldn't let a minority hold the majority hostage, but there are many Millies in Mensa. And many members who have email but use it infrequently and are too lazy to actively ask to for something they've always received. Or have connections too slow to handle downloading pretty pdfs. As one AMC member pointed out, this motion asks members to do only a very small action, but experience has shown that with the exception of a huge, costly campaign like ProxyQuest, MOST MEMBERS WON'T DO SQUAT.

I believe that only slightly more than half the membership has email addresses on file and releasable to the Groups. Making paper newsletters opt-in will result in many members left out in the cold and wondering why. It might save money for Groups, but IT WILL NOT IMPROVE SERVICE TO MEMBERS.

I think that each Local Group should have the right to decide for itself if it wants to save money by offering e-publications to the members who desire that format. But as national officers, we have the responsibility to ensure that all members are properly, if minimally, served, and that includes getting a local newsletter without having to do anything other than pay dues.

I did more research, looking at the financial reports and meeting mimutes of several small groups in Region 6. My jaw dropped when I got to the Feb/March issue of The New Mensican, wherein I read that at the December ExComm meeting, they decided to no longer send out email newsletters. That's Ralph's Local Group, of which he is the editor.

I turned up Panhandle's financial statement from Dec 2005... looks like even with the newsletter expenses, they were running in the black. Obviously money was not the reason they folded. Lubbock, a small group, had more money than New Mexico at the time. Permian Basin, another small group, also seems to be running in the black, despite sending out newsletters monthly which comprise four sheets (the same as The New Mensican, although not printed on the thicker paper or saddle).

My awareness of newsletter editors' and LocSecs' complaints that the newsletter eats up their entire budget has been questioned. But actually, I happen to know a great deal about newsletter costs and budgets. In addition to reading every newsletter every month for the past 40 months and reading LocSecs, editors, and newseditors elists, I was recently a newsletter editor, LG Pubs officer, and LocSec. I also did an enormous amount of research just a year ago...did anyone read pp 18-22 of the Funding report?

Here's what I know: A year and a half ago, newsletter costs ranged from 39¢ per copy to $1.41 per copy. Since the funding as 72¢ at the time it seems that 58.6% of the responding groups' newsletters cost more than that. Now that funding is 82¢ for all members, even the second family members who don't get newsletters, which suggests that 75.8% of groups can put out their newsletters without resorting to additional fundraising, such as testing or contacting lapsed members.

The lack of correlation between newsletter cost and quality leads me to believe that throwing more money at an editor will not necessarily improve the quality of the newsletter.

The Groups who are really in financial trouble probably won't make the effort to switch to electronic publishing. I come to this conclusion based on:

• LGFR Pg 33: "Investigated last year’s participation in the Lapsed Member Contact program...[and] Correlated the financial pictures of Local Groups and whether they did or did not take advantage of the Lapsed Member Contact funding program. We Learned [that in 2006]... only 46 (roughly 1/3) of the Local Groups participated in the Lapsed Member Contact program...[that] Of the Local Groups who participated, there was no correlation of willingness to participate with per-member spending....[and that] Local Groups that participated are generally perceived by RVCs and readers of all newsletters to be active and healthy."

• LGFR Pg 44: "Many Local Groups do not respond to requests from “National” even when doing so might ultimately help them. Many Local Groups do not take advantage of all that is offered."

• Ralph Rudolph's comments on MONet April 11, 2006: "Too many of our editors are bored, jaded, burned out as are our LocSecs. Their enthusiasm is gone." and "local groups like mine have gone to the considerable extra effort to save money through e-newsletters... And it is extra effort, as I should know as publisher as well as membership officer. We have to keep an up to date list of the members receiving e-newsletters, strip these out of the labels, post the .pdf versions and figure out more complicated post office forms: many hours of extra work."

Yes, there are groups who do not have RGs and which are so scattered that they cannot raise much in funds. In theory, these Groups have no way to get the extra 33% necessary for a decent paper newsletter except by slashing services. However, even those Groups can test prospective members and contact lapsed members in June and July. These are simple ways of earning money without holding bake sales or gatherings in addition to being effective recruiting and retention techniques.

...........................................................

I have been asked if the problem is that the AMC does not really trust the Local Groups. In this case, if they did, it would seem reasonable to allow groups to make the paper-electronic default choice for their own newsletters. While I agree that there are trust issues between Groups and the AMC in both directions, the AMC is responsible for ensuring that all Mensa members, including the Millies, get adequate value for their dues. And that includes keeping paper newsletters as the default.

I do not support forcing Groups to do something that editors have described as requiring hours of extra work, which will not result in better service for members, which will essentially disenfranchise some members, and which will not be complied with by the Groups that would most benefit from it.

I do, however, strongly support Groups offering and encouraging e-pubs for their members as options and I promise to fight against any attempt to reduce Local Group funding for Groups that do choose supplement their paper publications with electronic (and no-- there have been no suggestions to do that at the AMC level).

Working on InterLoc with TJ:

My Side of the Story

I understand that my name is being dragged through the mud again. I know I should ignore it; I should chalk it up as the price any prominent volunteer must pay for...um... that prominence. On the other hand, if I remain silent, then readers will only have one half of the story upon which to judge me. It really bothers me that noone ever thinks to ask me for my side of an issue. So I'd like to share a few bits of information that TJ has left out of her screeds:

I paid actual money to support the mission of Going Forward. I wrote for GF. I didn't say "InterLoc should not carry articles by any GFers." I said "InterLoc should not JUST carry articles by GFers."

Picture it, if you can: I was thrown into a demanding role mid-term and had Jean on one side and TJ on the other--both actively working to "educate" me about how things should be done.

TJ sent articles to me in advance, and more often than not initiated the discussion about those articles and their appropriateness. When I directly asked if the process of reviewing and discussing articles was "helpful or tedious," TJ replied, "It was definitely not tedious." As her tenure wound down, TJ wrote to me: "Your comments, especially concerns, are helpful since they are not demands."

I advocated for 6 issues a year because that was how it had been done for several years up to then. The only reason TJ put out monthly issues during her half-year tenure was because there was money left over due to the long gap between editors. Regarding my cutting of the InterLoc budget, that's simply not true. The budget in 2003-04 was $15410 and the actual spending was $12,266. In 2004-05 the budget, developed by Tim, was $12,250 and the actual spending was $11,237. Hmm... Tim seems to have DECREASED the budget. In 2005-06, the budget, developed by Robin while TJ was editor, was $12,450 and the actual spending was $10,203. Notice that I INCREASED the budget even though spending was down.

Regarding the article I questioned because of the political ramifications, I simply questioned it. Didn't Meredy recently write something about how Mensans should not be afraid to question things? My hunch was that Jean would not want it printed and so I discussed it with the editor, saying: "So in short, I'm not asking you to pull it and I *do* think it's okay, but I want to cover my bases and run it past Jean before we give it a 'go.'"

I suspected that there might be more to the article than met the eye, and since the guidelines state that ""Other relevant parties may be requested by the Communications Officer or the Editor to review..." I wanted to allow Jean to see it and voice her opinion. TJ wrote volumes trying to persuade me to not let Jean see it. Deadline was upon us, so I suggested a compromise of holding the article until the next issue so I'd have more time to learn about the issue. TJ refused. She told me that either I had to let her print it now or I had to tell her to pull it permanently...all without consulting the Chairman of AML, despite the holy Guidelines giving me the right to request others to review it.

So I bowed to TJ's pressure and without consulting with Jean, told TJ to run the article. TJ once said to me, regarding Jean demanding right of review and TJ demanding that I not allow Jean to see articles before the issue went to press, "Right now, it must feel like center court and trying to play both Williams sisters at the same time." How true a statement!

In May, as she was preparing her final issue, I wrote:" I've backed you when you believed something as appropriate for InterLoc, and I'll back you when you say something is not appropriate." TJ replied, "Yes, you have, and thank you."

In another email from that same May, TJ wrote: "As I'm heading for the finish line, Robin, I'm suddenly feeling very nostalgic. Thank you for making this InterLoc experience better than it might have been under a different Communications Officer. This points out the necessity for choosing a C.O. carefully.

"Also, do I need to be writing a quarterly report for the Agenda? If so, it must be brief. I've accomplished all goals except, possibly, one. I *would* like people on AMC to know that it has been enjoyable working with you. (Okay, it's a bit of politics, but true, and it doesn't hurt to have it in writing since the 'AMC World' thinks I am hard to work with so you must have been a Miracle Worker.)"

In late May, TJ wrote: "...since one of my (and many members' gripes) about InterLoc production is that there is too much interference by the national office and the chairman, I do not want to play into that (and then whine about it). I've asked you for *advice* and you have given it. That is exactly what a Communications Officer is supposed to do. Good job! Now, if I'm going to be straightforward and 'put my money where my mouth is,' I need to take editorial responsibility in determining what goes in and what is removed. That does NOT mean I don't want further input from you; I do. It just means that the ball is in my court, and I'm the one who has to knock it over the net or take the lumps for not doing so. In a way, this is not a bad situation because it is a sort of discussion of duties and editorial prerogatives and even the fallout on the editor -- and that gives you ideas on how to best work with the next editor. Once again, I have to tell you that I'm grateful for the input and the absence of demands. You are allowing the editor to be the editor. It's what InterLoc is supposed to do."

As for my concern about being reappointed, TJ told me that "that Sander has taken my word that you would be just fine as CO." It is hard to imagine her recommending me if my reign as CO had really made editing InterLoc such a nightmare.

So how did it come to pass that all of that has been forgotten and I'm now characterized as such a typical, party-line, dictatorial member of the establishment? Were all those kind and supportive words from TJ just insincere flattery merely meant to butter me up? How could I have been I so wrong to have not taken the advice I was given --by several people on and off the AMC--when I first came onboard, "Don't trust TJ. She may be nice to you now, but as soon as you don't do what she wants, she'll stab you in the back."?

Shortly after leaving office, TJ wrote to me, "One of the difficult parts about leaving an office in Mensa is that you seem to leave behind the friendships you made while serving in that office."

Ah, yes, the friendships we make while serving Mensa. With friends like these...