Getting picked for AMC Committees

RR opined on a semi-public elist recently:

Having been on the "old" AMC and "new" AMC, I can comment on group think. First, the AMC has changed in how it is run behind the scenes. It has added an absolute ton of committees, and their pronouncements have become almost sacrosanct. If you are not on the committee (and the committee chairs hand pick their members), any objections you have don't count. I suppose this streamlines things as it blocks dissent. If I sent in a recommendation privately, I was told, "We are already working on that. Go away". This same attitude carried over to the private AMC e-list. If you are a "good soldier" type this is wonderful. If not, the door is shut. The "old" AMC allowed any AMC member to join whatever committee he/she wanted, allowing dissenting opinions.

I'd just like to point out that I have never turned down anyone asking to be on one of the committees I've chaired. As for hand-picking, I'd say that half of the people on my committees were picked for me by ASIE or by requests from the AMC chair. That's fine- I can work with anyone. I do, however, dislike filling committees with mostly AMC members, since to me the point of sub-committees is to get more members involved. As for allowing dissenting opinions, hah! That is exactly the reason I keep Dan Wilterding on my committee! Other committee members I am pleased to work with include Mike Eager, Jared Levine, and Brian Bloch--hardly people known for non-dissent.

RR never asked to be on any of my committees. I wonder which ones interested him that he was turned away from.

Looking at AMC voting patterns

What a fascinating exercise!

I decided to go look at data to evaluate the accusations of Groupthink on the AMC. I went through the minutes of all the AMC meetings starting with July 2007 through November 2008. The March 2009 minutes are not available yet.

I made a big spreadsheet recording everyone’s votes on motions. I ignored all the consent agenda stuff and motions like thanking the local group for hosting, etc. I included or substituted motions which were amended during the discussion.

The really contentious votes were: Limiting ExComm powers 2007-075, Sending the RVC replacement problem back to committee for more refinement, Revising the nominating process, Approving the vision statement 2007-086, Paying for the consultant (a very close vote!) 2008-017, Decreasing the # of CSubs 2008-018, Having AML handle the AG finances 2008-021, and Deleting or defining calumny.

The following 5 AMC members were never on the minority side of any vote: Ken, John S., Scott, Heather, and Peggy.

The other 15 members, Nick, Jean, Dave, Cyndi, Dan, Ralph, Clark, Leah, Bob, Lori, John R., Maggie, Greg, Elissa, and myself all had one or more motions that didn’t go the way they wanted.

So what I see here is lots of agreement, but not a pattern of resistance to voting against the pack.

When three quarters of the body is in the minority at some point, I cannot see this as evidence of "going along to get along."

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: agreement does not equal Groupthink. Agreement indicates that a group is working together to reach compromises that will please most members of that group, which, in my mind, is exactly what we should be striving for.

(and if anyone wants to see my spreadsheet, you can down load it here )

MIL Election

Lots of surprises in the MIL election results. One of the biggest in my mind was the numbers of members who voted from each country. According to one person who claimed to have been a vote count observer, Americans cast only 890 votes. British Mensans cast 1,420 votes, Germans 397, Dutch 330, and the remainder of the 3,790 total ballots came from the other twenty or so countries. Oddly, no votes came from Australia.

I wonder why Americans chose not to vote.

Just something to notice

There are 38 members currently (well, as of my posting this) logged into the AML Online Community. When was the last time your local group had that many members gather for a weekday lunch?

food for thought....

Event Horizon Joke

Finally, I managed to finish designing the art and setting up the Cafe Press store so people can order Event Horizon shirts!

What I've Done as CommOff since March

Finally finished writing up my “quarterly” report as Communications Officer. Here’s what I did in that role since March:


• 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 March’s AMC meeting; Participated in May and June’s AMC and Finance Committee’s conference calls, Reviewed InterLoc content for April/May, June, and July; Reviewed in great detail and March and April/May Bulletin content and discussed the June issue in great detail with the new editor; 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.
• Approved (or cheered when others approved) 358 new Facebook group members-for a total of 1,967as of June 7. Thank you to Lynn MacDonald, Kevin Mullen, Dennis Clinefelter, and Brian Smith!
• Responded to inquiries regarding deleting forum posts a year after the fact (can’t be done).
• Responded to a member’s question regarding how many candidates participate on the AML Online Comm.
• Interviewed two candidates for Bulletin editor.
• Neglected to confront a LG which has an opt-out policy for electronic newsletter distribution.
• Helped a member who needed some of her potentially harmful posts removed form the Online Comm.
• Forwarded a few address changes, death notices, and requests to unsubscribe from the Bulletin to the appropriate Nat Office staff.
• Responded to accusations of preferential treatment regarding Online Community suspensions.
• Responded to Maine Mensa’s questions regarding N&L limits on names for newsletters.
• Reviewed progress on Web Services plan.
• Tried to set up a phone conference with Gifted Children and Mensa Foundation representatives.
• Contacted editor of Bluegrass Mensa regarding logo use.
• Discussed content and potential writers with InterLoc editor.
• Responded to members’ concerns that there are no members who carefully review the Bulletin before it goes to press (I do, every issue, down to semi-colons versus em-dashes).
• Responded to a member’s inquiry to allow electronic-only subscriptions to the Bulletin (we’re not ready to do this yet).
• Reviewed the updated Marketing/Communications Dept plan.
• Looked into a misunderstanding about the budget available to the Research Review Committee.
• Discussed Bulletin design and priorities with Catherine, Hilary, and Roger.
• Helped draft wording to go with the Bulletin Online archives.
• Fielded a few requests from Staff to help members trying to participate in the AML Facebook group.
• Answered an RVC’s questions regarding LG funding policy and history.
• Answered an editor’s question regarding use of AML-originated notices.
• Answered a circulation manager’s questions regarding opt-in and opt-out rules for e-publications and what to consider when deciding to provide e-subscriptions to members.
• Appointed two new moderators for the Online Community (Rob Vittoe and Tim Vogt).
• Poked the AMC to stop ignoring members who publish inaccurate information and lies about AML.
• Scanned and forwarded (to the N&L Comm) several N&L violations from LG newsletters.
• Drafted a motion to drastically reduce the corporate subscription program.

Ignoring Ranters Spouting Untruths

Recently, Chairman Russ sent the following regarding AML’s financial situation to the LocSecs and other interested members:

"…Legal fees have been paid out of returns on these investments and the principle of our life dues fund remains intact…"

Shortly afterwards, Ralph, speaking as one who has inside information about AML finances, published:

“I am unsure whether AMC reviewed Russ' claims beforehand, as they are smoke and mirrors. Why Russ and the AMC don't want to tell the truth says a lot about our leadership....THERE WAS NO TALK ABOUT SOME MYSTERIOUS RESERVE because there is none.”

Now this certainly looks as if one man or the other is lying. Having been on the Finance Committee for a few years and having seen the investment reports and other figures, I am quite confident that Russ is telling the truth.

I brought up the issue to my colleagues, asking at what point in the publishing of such lies do we consider it to be an act inimical?

I have been advised to just ignore it. No one puts any stock in what Ralph and his cronies say. If we respond or take action, we’ll just be giving him the attention he wants and creating a martyr. Only a few people read those lists…

But I disagreed.

Several hundred do read those lists, and many editors pick it up and publish it as gospel in newsletters. Others repost it to the Online Community. What we have here is Ralph speaking to a potentially large audience as the lone voice of truth about AML and the AMC.

By doing nothing, we are giving public credence to what he and others like him say. Are we serving Mensa best by letting such people spread lies and discontent? Will ignoring really make the controversy fade-- or will it fester and live on? It may have worked in the days before such ubiquitous communication, but in 2009, does ignoring really make the buttheads' lies go away?

People will believe whatever they read the most. 62,400 repetitions make a truth. What I have observed is the AMC putting out truth out there once, then retiring to our tower and ignoring the doo-doo heads repeating their lies from every street corner, elist, forum, and newsletter.

Reflect on the current atmosphere of Mensa. How's this tactic of ignoring working out?

Oh wait, the election results are in….

My bad. Turns out the voting membership isn’t so gullible after all.

My apologies to my colleagues on the AMC.

Restructuring the Board of Directors

There are 21 people on the AMC. That means there are 21 people’s worth of paper to be printed and mailed, plane fares to be bought, meals to be ordered, hotel rooms to be paid for, etc. Every year or two, there are calls from within and from outside the AMC to reduce the number of people on the Board. And every time it is attempted, it fails. Why?

Because the attempts are done the same way: survey and discuss and rationalize which AMC members Mensa can do without. And of course, everyone you survey has a different opinion of which positions are less worthy of high status and which should be given the boot. And so there is no consensus and nothing changes.

Currently, the the AMC comprises people with specified duties, somewhat vaguely defined representatives, and a handful of extra people who are assigned tasks as needed. The 21 voting members of the AMC include the Chairman; First and Second Vice Chairmen; Secretary; Treasurer; 10 Regional Vice Chairmen; two Past Chairmen; the Communications, Membership and Development Officers; and the Director of Science and Education.

I think we’re going about it backwards.

Our organizational goals should determine our structure. We should identify the goals of the organization (the strategic plan does this) and then put in place volunteers who are empowered to make those goals happen.

For example, AML's goals, according to the Strategic Plan are:

MEMBERSHIP: American Mensa will be a thriving, progressive organization with members who find participation rewarding and valuable.

A. Increase membership numbers.

B. Increase member satisfaction (recognition, products, services).

C. Increase diversity within the membership.

So for this goal, we need:

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will provide nifty stuff for members.

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate that will get us more members of greater diversity.

GOVERNANCE: The association will be structured, governed and managed efficiently, effectively and with transparency.

A. Increase understanding about roles, responsibilities and relationships among the board of directors, committees, National Office staff and Local Groups.

B. Promote a collegial atmosphere that is supportive of approved actions and is welcoming to unique perspectives.

C. Decrease barriers to effective work and decision systems.

So for this goal, we need:

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will make it easy for other volunteers to understand and do their work.

LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT: Leaders at every level will feel confident in their roles and will practice inspired leadership.

A. Increase the numbers of members willing to serve in elected and appointed positions.

B. Improve leader effectiveness and confidence.

C. Attract younger members to leadership roles.

So for this goal, we need:

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will inspire service and leadership from others.

PUBLIC AWARENESS: American Mensa will be recognized as an intellectually stimulating organization whose members use their intelligence to better their communities.

A. Decrease incorrect use of the Mensa brand.

B. Raise public awareness about the mission of American Mensa.

C. Increase the prestige of being a member.

So for this goal, we need:

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will monitor and correct brand use.

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will promote the coolness of Mensa.

FINANCE: Sufficient funds will exist for American Mensa to accomplish its goals.

A. Increase non-dues revenue.

B. Decrease the financial burden of protecting the Mensa name and marks internationally.

So for this goal, we need:

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will raise funds.

a volunteer to lead/coordinate/facilitate activities and policies that will make Mensa so famous internationally that it gets easier and cheaper to protect the name and marks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That’s eight volunteers needed, at least on the first pass. Looking again, I think some can be combined. The volunteer providing nifty stuff for members should probably be two people- it’s just too broad of an area.

Then I got to thinking about what else important gets done/guided by current AMC members that really should continue, strategic plan or not?

* Help LG officers with their local problems and questions. (RVCs, Com Officer, and Mem Officer do this currently, and actually, so do the Chairman and 1VC and 2VC)

* Get information out to members. (RVCs, Secretary, and Chairman do this currently)

* Direct the publications, print and electronic, to meet members’ desires. (Com Officer)

* Be the member responsible for money and budget preparation. (Treasurer)

* Be the buck stops here member for the ever expanding online interactive services (Com Officer)

* Bring members’ concerns to the attention of the policy-makers. (RVCs, mostly)

* Act as go-between with MERF.

So with that in mind, here is my proposed composition of an all-elected Board of Directors for American Mensa:

1) Chairman: make it easy for other volunteers to understand and do their work.

2) Service Officer: provide and oversee nifty services for members and Local Groups, including online interactive services.

3) Programs Officer: provide and promote nationally-run activities and recognition for members and Local Groups (CultureQuest®, Project Inkslinger®, Gifted Children, SIGHT, Mensa WorldConnect, awards).

4) Membership Officer: get and retain more members.

5) Leadership Officer: inspire service and develop leadership in others.

6) Marketing Officer: monitor and correct brand use, promote Mensa, and make us famous internationally.

7) Fundraising Officer: raise funds.

8) Information Officer: record and disseminate information.

9) Treasury Officer: oversee money and budget preparation.

10) Publications Officer: direct print and electronic publications.

11) Foundation Liaison: act as representative to and from the Mensa Foundation.

12) Local Group Liaison: Help LG officers with their local problems and questions and actively seek input from Local members for the Board (might have several of these, but surely we don’t need ten).

My plan does not include a clear succession, which we need, obviously. Nor did I address the notion of an ExCom or who gets to be a Nat Rep to MIL. But hey, it’s my blog, and I can spout my ideas, even if they’re only half formed.