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).