Cutting off Millie's Newsletter

It really bothers me when Local Groups, in efforts to save money and trees switch to making their "official" newsletter a tiny little flyer with just a financial statement and a notice of a few events ... and doing that only once every 3 months. These groups usually produce big, fancy electronic newsletters, and  force their members to opt-in if they want to get the nicer newsletter on paper.

According to current Minimum Standard Bylaws, ASIEs, and the Local Group Charter... this is allowable.

But when I think of Millie Member —unable or uncomfortable using a computer and who just doesn't get around to contacting her LG officers and actively requesting to continue to receive what she'd always gotten automatically just by paying her dues— this just feels wrong. Millie was already barely connected to her Local Group. How is cutting her off further going to improve Mensa?

AMC Meeting: After Lunch On Saturday

After Lunch

Money money money
Motion from Finance Committee re: dues rate increase.
• Mel asked how much is going to the LGs. Cyndi said no one proposed giving LGs a raise, even back when she asked.
• Roger spoke to the economic difficulties some members are facing and that this raise is a slap in the face. Cyndi said we'd have to reduce services because costs have risen for Mensa, just like they have to the members.
• Dan pointed to the fact that we uncoupled dues and LG funding rates.
• Nick said we need the dues increase; it's a necessary evil. Members are more concerned with the unknown rates and timing of increases.
• Ken pointed that LG are increasing their pubs use, and that helps their financial situation.
Marc asked how much effort and where the Finance Comm tried to cut costs in lieu of raising dues.
Pam says that's not how we think because the bylaws require us to have dues motions on two agendas.. which is why we cannot budget and then set dues based on what our budget requires.
Guy appreciates that we need more income, but echos Nick's comment and suggests we set modest increases every year so we can avoid these $4 and $5 shocking jumps.
Mel said his members are understanding about a $4 increase.
Cyndi said something but I didn't catch it.

Lunch is catching up with me and I'm having zoning out a bit.

Time to vote. opposed: Guy, Marc, Roger, Betsy
Dues increase passes.
......................................
Motion about updating the budgetary and purchasing policy (Appendix 20). a little chatting...but basically it's fine.

Vote: unanimous approval
.........................................

Motion to appoint auditor. Same firm, but different partners... and a bit of bargaining reduced the cost (yay!).
Vote: unanimous approval
.............................................
Motion to borrow up to $300,000 from Life Dues to be paid back by end of March.
Vote: unanimous approval
............................................
Motion to amend bylaws concerning qualification for Chairman (removing prior experience on AMC for nom-com candidates for Chairman).
Currently the Nom com candidate has to have served before, but the petition candidate does not. Dan talked about the history of the variants of this qualification and the process. Russ and Jean spoke to it.. saying that it's not good that the two routes to chair are not the same, but that two wrongs do not make a right. Guy talked to the motion, but I listened instead of taking notes. Several commented that it's a bandaid and we should wait for the Gov Blueprint TF to figure the best long term solution. Mel thought it's bad to have a chair with no experience, but he's reluctant to tell the members who they may and may not choose as leaders. Art pointed out that defeating this motion sill lets members vote for non-experienced candidates via the petition route.

Vote: failed (for: John, Guy, Marc, Betsy)
................................................
Motions for bylaws amendments about hearings. Basically eliminate a national hearings committee and replace it with regional hearings.

I'm paying attention instead of typing the discussion. I see both sides of the issue and I'm not yet sure how to vote. Closer to the members instead of judgment from on high... makes sense. Having experienced hearings comm members... makes sense. Guy talked, saying that this might encourage more hearings. John said the RVCs already do enough. Peggy pointed out that if there is a perception of national hearings members beg too politically close to the issue.. regional people wold be even more so.

Vote- Failed (in favor: Bob, Mel Roger)
................
Ombudsman Discussion—Dave Cahn
How he sees his job (handed out several typed pages). Basically he is involved in solving problems. Gets involved in complaints of unfair treatment of a member by TPTB; complaints about Mensa [governance and processes] in general; and in disputes between members. Wants to create a cadres of properly trained mediators to help in member to member disputes.

He touched on the topic of how to handle when confidential info is pertinent to a conflict.

I noted that he uses the term TPTB, and that when the National Ombudsman uses a term that has negative, us-versus-them connotations, it widens the separation between leaders and members and build barriers to trust. Others nodded and Dave agreed that it was a fair point.

One point he wrote is that the ombudsman sees that each individual member is treated fairly and justly by the leadership. I want to ask (and may outside of the meeting): is he is also going to see to it that the leadership is treated fairly and justly by the individual members?
............................................
[my] Motion to amend the "ride-sharing" ASIE. Pretty self-explanatory.
Vote: unanimous approval
.............................................
Motion to make sure RGs are listed in the Bulletin for many months. Marc made the motion, the staff already fixed the problem, I moved to substitute an amendment of ASIE 2002-101

Nick opposed to the substitution. Russ abstained.

Discussion of the substituted motion, All nice and tidy and in the spirit of Marc's motion.
Nick feels that we already dealt with it, and this binds us to do it in a particular way when we might be better off with the flexibility we already have.

Vote: passed (Nick opposed)
..........................................
Motion to go from 4 & 3 AMC meetings a year to 4 & 4 meetings a year.

I moved to substitute a motion to rescind the ASIE all together. Peggy seconded. Russ and Dan clarified that by bylaws we are already mandated to have at least 3 meetings a year. Dan made a good point that by stating we want 4 a year, we enable the site selection committee to know how many meetings we want to have a year.

Vote on motion to substitute recision of ASIE 2006-81 failed (for: Robin, Peggy, Mel, Jean; Nick abstains)

Back to original motion to amend ASIE 2006-081 to express our desire to have 4 meetings a year.

Vote: passed. (opposed: Robin, Peggy, Nick)
...............................................
Motion about Leadership Exchange Program process changes-- the AMC will review and retain final approval over the ambassadors recommended by the LD Committee.

Vote: Failed (For: Betsy, Art; Jean and Debra abstained)
..............................................
Motion to revise the MSBs (to allow for electronic distribution of ballots and tidy up a few other minor things to make it all smooth with recent changes in the AML bylaws ((such as the new ombudsman mandates))). One sticking point is that it also mandates that LGs must call an ombudsman an ombudsman, not a mediator or arbitrator.

Vote: approved (Marc opposed)
.............................................
Motion to adopt updated Model Bylaws.

Vote: approved
..............................................
Motion to publish mini-minutes in the Bulletin
Betsy's point is that this is the only way ALL members will see what the board is doing. I pointed out that if passed, we'd be printing the mini minutes of this meeting several months (February) after we publish the formal minutes and after the agenda for the next meeting is out. I pointed out that the RVCs can write about what the AMC did in their columns.

Vote: failed (For: Debra Guy Marc Jean Bob, Betsy ; Dan and Robin abstained)
..........
Motion to fix ASIE 1995-080 to include in-room internet (that we said we wanted but forgot to actually type into the motion in july)

Vote: approved
................................................
Consent agenda approved ( big surprise!)
.................................................
Good and Welfare

Only MIL candidate who asked for AML endorsement so far is Willem Bowens. Burg moves to nominate WB as MIL Chair. (Approved)

............................................
Conference call in January to decide Leadership candidates, MIL nominations, and changes to the budget if necessary.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AMC meeting-My Presentations

Governance Task Force (Notes by Nick, since I was up giving the presentation)

What did you think?
Consolidated many disparate topics
Wanted more recommendations
Frequently members want ~blah~ and others want ~not blah~

Step 1: Commit to making the small changes.
Step 2: Need to clarify if we want to save money or do we want to improve governance?
Step 3: Commit to making big changes

Next step: Review the report and decide what areas we want to work on. Will be done on the elist.

Focus on the spirit of the topics, not the specifics.

After AMC decides what topics they want then a new task force will be established to create the specific motions.

Then develop a new task force to education the members.

It's not about the money. To drop 2 members from the AMC will save $8,000 or about $5 per group per month.

End of Robin's presentation and opened the floor for discussion.

Elissa: Revamp the nominating committee so that they proactively search for highly qualified volunteers. This is where we need to start.

Ken: The skill sets of the RVCs are not critical, but the other officers need to be officially qualified.

Jean: Need to increase the quality of the Board Members and this can be done though the nom com. The current nom com is not being effectively used. They should be given the authority to require qualifications.

Robin: We need to educate the voting members.

Marc: The petition process will side step these qualifications. We need to revamp the entire process, not just the non com.

Dan: In March 2010 we gave the nom com some vetting power.

Mel: Are we fixing something that is not broken?

Russ: We ourselves do not know what we want. Concerned that we don't force our qualifications into a single cookie cutter skill set.

Guy: What do the members want?

Dave Cahn: Should keep the members in the loop when creating a governance plan.

Ken: Our Leaders of Tomorrow program gave us a good list to consider for future Board members.

Peggy: Page 16 is a good starting point: Structures and Practices of NonProfit Boards.

Greg: We should take our strategic goals and assign them to board members.

Robin: This is addressed on page 13: Reviewing the current AML Strategic Plan as it relates to governance needs.

Debra: We are all accountable for all of the goals.

Robin: "I'm so lucky and privileged to have Nick sit next to me during this meeting."
hey... how'd this comment slip in here?

Robin: Actions -
AMC: "We will make some small changes before March."
AMC: "We will make some big scary changes."
Thank and dismiss the Governance Task Force.

Guy: Doesn't want to dismiss the Task Force.
Elissa: Yes we should and we should create a Blue Print Task Force.

-----------------------------------

Name and Logo Committee Presentation (Again narrated by the magnificent Nick Sanford)

Robin:
Rules (simplified)
Use the official version of the logo...
Can use any set of colors
Cannot use multiple colors in one segment.
No slanting
Not symmetrical layouts (becomes a design)
Can't use more than once in a layout.
Has dimensional requirements.
Must frame logo and put words outside of it.
Can't use it as a logo.
Can't use it as the letter M.
The logo must stand alone, nothing else can go in the frame.
3-D logo parts and background can't be to "busy"
Context is everything
Wrongly used on Facebook, CafePress, and Zazzle

Using the name
Must include the registration mark.
Cannot add other letters
There are some grandfathered words (many are newsletters)
Common violations are in RG names.
Using the name outside of the organization is the larger problem.
"Context is king"
OK on the Simpsons or as a synonym for a smart person.

The brand name Mensa is a major attractions to people.
Big Goal: To be widely recognized...

Enforcement is critical due to litigations. "Your own members violate your rules, so why can't someone else do it as well?"

Only AML has the right to license the name.

Can local groups use the image on shirts?
Yes, but it must be used correctly and cannot compete with licensed vendors.
Having a custom shirt made for an individual is a grey area, but typically OK.
RG shirts for sale with the logo must be approved.

Cost when members don't know the rules:
A difficult person violated our rules and has cost us $11,000 this year.

Educational Campaign is in the works:
Letters to the members.
us.mensa.org/MENSABRAND
Ads in Bulletin

That photo of Nick on the screen sure does look good.
I am so not going to let him use my ipad again!

Thanks Nick!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AMC Meeting: Saturday morning

Dave Cahn addressed the AMC.

Admits he started off on wrong foot and that he didn't know the culture and traditions of the role of the ombudsman. Asks for the opportunity to build a positive relationship with the AMC.

Robin's opinion: That took some ethical and reflective fortitude. It is a much better start to a relationship we are all still trying to define.
......................
Elissa's report about the IBD meeting. Her report will appear in her column in January and in the IJ in some near-future issue.

Jean questioned why IBD still hasn't addressed their responsibility for some portion of our N&L suit costs. MIL's Exec Dir and legal team is overloaded and hasn't had time yet. (my summary of the explanation)
......................

Discussion of Conti's motion regarding Ombudsman at the table (Cahn had earlier today asked that it be withdrawn). Conti agreed to withdraw the motion.
......................
Recht: Strategic Plan

Suggests changing one of our core values: add "...and to the encouragement of trust and understanding through the an appropriate balance of openness and transparency whenever possible and privacy and confidentiality when necessary."

I proposed and the others chimed into tidy it up to:
"Intellectual integrity demonstrated by organizational dedication to ethical, truthful, and evidence-based decision making and ...an appropriate balance between openness and privacy, and between transparency and confidentiality." (passed)

Dashboard: lots of graphically illustrated, updated-daily numeric data on the Web site. (will be visible soon)

.......................
Recap of work sessions from yesterday:

We want to make sure some version of Dr. Frank's powerpoint on testing is available for others to see and make sure the AMC gets a timeline on when some of those change will roll out so we can tell LGs. Regarding events and AGs, it's a continual dialog. We'll form a committee to go forward with it.

Consensus is that how we approached and worked on the mega issues was good and productive. It might have been once to get some more closure on the topics; some wish we could have spent more time really talking about the topics, and we certainly don't have any ACTIONS that we're deciding to take as a result of all the dialog yesterday.

Dan questioned the value of our time at the TAGT luncheon and speaker. Nick thought it was worthwhile and gave Mensa more exposure to that organization.

Greg encourages us to have longer, conversation-laden breaks between mega issues.

Guy and others pointed out that the day was long and perhaps beyond what even we Mensans can handle attention-wise. (I agree-- it was grueling and my brain was pretty much dead long before I was done needing it.)

We need a siesta!

Quick discussion of what topics we want next time: I asked for education about all the "rules" for LGs and Guy asked for an update on Risk Management issues.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AMC Meeting: Second half of Friday

After the TAGT luncheon and speaker.

Mega Issue: Transparency

Argh- it is too hard to type it all and listen at same time.

Transparency is about making the decision making process clear.
• How decisions are made
• How decisions can be influenced
• What data is used to make decisions
• How people members can be come part of the process.

Breaking into groups to discuss what action(s) the AMC take.
We answered:
• What does transparency meant you as a member.
• What does it mean to Mensa?
• Where is the common ground?

Some good discussion. Not really sure how to sum it up here.

Then the AMC sat in the audience and and watched a staff meeting, followed by dinner, then committee meetings.

At the Finance Committee meeting, Cyndi and Greg did some explaining about the differences between cash and accrual accounting and how we can say that Mensa is financially sound even though we have deficit budgets and a red bottom line on our balance sheet. I asked Greg to write up what he said for InterLink.

I didn't go to the SIGHT selection or RVC meetings.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AMC Meeting: Friday Morning

(My personal notes- not official minutes!)

As Elissa was beginning the meeting and asking for roll call, Dave Cahn interrupted, insisting on having a place at the table and the right to contribute to the discussions. Burg addressed the traditions and bylaw interpretations. Russ and Jean were asked to contribute their memories of the ombudsman's role at meetings. It is clear that the Ombuds has never sat at the table unless specifically asked to contribute on certain issues. Art goes back further and said the ombuds has never participated in the way that Dave is asking.

I can't believe we're starting this meeting with this argument and power posturing. Why was this not addressed in advance?

Elissa listened to it all and said that Dave should sit in the back and be an observer. Dave acquiesced and made some veiled ominous comments about how things will have to change.

I have the sound of antlers clashing ringing in my ears.

Roll call. Only Lori is missing.

Agenda changes... fixing wording on motion about borrowing and replaying from Life Dues fund and a couple other tine lettering tweaks on another motion.

Adding a couple motions about mini minutes in the Bulletin and about choosing an auditing firm.

Guy wants to craft and make a motion regarding Cahn's request to have a place at the table.

Mega Issue: Testing--Presentation by Dr. Lawlis.
• Psych testing is down worldwide, since its a luxury in a bad economy. Online non-scientific tests give some of the satisfaction.
• Talked about the requirements for proctors and how we cant' really reduce them because of our obligations to the testing companies and to maintain the integrity of our testing program.
• We stopped giving out scores in 2001 because of changes in state laws. HIPAA changes may require more changes. We are trying to figure out a way to give test-takes their results without "interpreting" them. This may be a big change and require some re-education of proctors and local groups. On the other hand, it may make more prospects want to take the test. Prolly we'll develop a letter to give to test-takers that gives their raw scores and instructions for them to "interpret" that raw score themselves.

Marc's review of his Supervised Testing Committee:
Testing promotions- give LG too little notice if they want to set up testing plans or PR. The committee thinks we should just have a set fee and no promotions. RVCs need to be more involved with LGs that are not testing. One test session per quarter is reasonable for most groups. There is no national testing program coordinator appointed by the AMC; there should be. Free test sites are harder and harder to find-- if we identify members who are teachers, ministers, etc, they might be able to provide free testing sites for their groups. Get rid of the confusion between Proctor Coordinator and Testing Coordinator-- just use "Testing Coordinator" for everything.


Mega Issue--Events and AGs
Pam talked. There have been a lot of changes since she started. Huge changes in hotel industry trends. No longer just heads in bed. Revenue is king and the revenue manager is the gate keeper. The days when the relationship with the sales person was key... are gone. F&B plays a larger part in the mix. Internet, restaurant use, AV rental, parking... all used as revenue streams. Hotels share reports with each other.

Our AG attendance is growing, That is an anomaly compared to other associations. We take up more space and have more diversity in our programming. Attendees' expectations are growing. Many members do not understand how volunteer-intensive an AG is.

Staff time: not increasing much, actually, partly because of automation (1683 hours in 05-06; 1151 in 09-10; 1365 in 10-11). Staff handles some or all finances, advance registration, logistics, hotel negotiation, marketing and PR.

Trends in hotel rooms: booking pace and hotel pick-ups. Ours is screwy because we have trained our members to register early.. and then they cancel their reservations. Contracts change. Attrition penalties are higher. Online room-resellers under cut our rates. Hotels sell under our rates, too... and members do book outside of our block when they can.

Liabilities: children, animals, sports, alcohol, security, turning a blind eye to infractions. All of this increases the cost of insurance we have to have to make hotels willing to have us.

Things in Mensa change faster than our host contracts: children's programming, SIG events, more meetings and LDWs. The specs we had when the bid was accepted are not the specs we actually need. We put unrealistic and unknown expectations on the host groups.

This year we got zinged with attrition penalties. Too many members booked and then canceled their rooms. Way too many... cancelled at the last minute or cancelled and moved to the cheaper hotel. And so this year's AG lost $5,858 ( it was ~$14,500, but we negotiated the penalty down). Last minute registration and cancellation... screws up hospitality plans and makes it less cost-efficient.

We have policy shifts from AG to AG: should host group have flexibility to decide who gets comped rooms? Is travel reimbursed for consortium members to attend pre-AG meetings? If a group buys equipment for the AG, who does that equipment belong to? Should the AMC approve the final budget? Do standard AMC budget policies apply?

AG models changing: Local Group, SIGs, consortiums, national

Pros:
Local feel to the event is important
lots of volunteers= more attendees and lower cost
increased attendance makes more want to attend
local members feel engaged
speakers appear for free because members are the ones asking them
LG gets some financial reward

Cons:
• selection system hasn't been updated
• LG has to commit 4 years in advance
• host contract too far out
• tendency to plan for an RG only bigger
• tendency to reinvent the wheel
• members are highly critical and demanding
• lack of experience dealing with hotels/contracts
• primary concern is current year instead of reputation of Mensa
• volunteers are harder and harder to get, especially in some areas like security and hospitality
• changes this year may not be able to replicated
• attendees don't know it's mostly volunteer
•volunteers burnout over 5 years
• lack of good data passed along
• huge amounts of volunteer time for key roles
• AMC is involved after probes are happening
• too many factors impact the finances
• policies are inconsistent
• reluctant to report negatives
• we still budget for break-even... giving us no margin for errors.

Recommendation: appoint a TF to develop a new AG model that exploits the good and eliminates or diminishes the cons.









- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Doing Some Math

Wow—I just did some math...



Cutting the AMC down by two positions might save $8K. Divided among 133 Local Groups, that works out to just over $5 a month (Testing one candidate brings in three times that amount for the group.)


What service would your group improve for all your members because of that five bucks?

What would improve your Mensa experience for…. 1¢ a month? That's what the savings is per member if you eliminate two AMC members. It won't even buy you an extra page in your LG newsletter.


So why are some members so quick to advocate a simple off-with-their-heads solution that might net a penny a month? 

What I've been up to since late June

I finished my "quarterly" reports, but they only give the summaries. For those who wonder, here's what I actually did since the AMC meeting in July...

As Communications Officer

• Assembled InterLink editorial team.
• Refined and codified InterLink production process and guidelines.
• Reviewed content for June, July, August, Sept, and Oct InterLink .
• Responded to members’ concerns about the evolution of InterLoc to InterLink.
• Reviewed and gave input on my-ag.org social networking site.
• Responded to editor’s concern about legitimacy of a SIG submitting an article for publication.
• Nudged Bulletin editor regarding Research Review ad publication.
• Responded to a member’s repeated  and heated request that AML share test results with Intertel.
• Worked with Handbook Coordinator and Managing Editor to develop guidelines and procedures for ongoing Handbook review, revision, and  creation.
• Reviewed June issue of FRED.
• Responded to a member’s inquiry about not sending the Bulletin to all members unless they actively subscribe to it.
• Gathered a set of forum posts for a member’s complaint against the poster.
• Wrote and disseminated a long description of the postal complications facing LG newsletters in 2011.
• Responded to a member’s desire for more highly cerebral content in the Bulletin and using it to marshall Mensans’ brain power for the good of humanity.
• Facilitated Redwood Empire editor getting a membership list she needed.
• Responded to a member’s question regarding mandated boilerplate  wording on newsletters.
• Advised on handling a few member-to-member conflicts on the forums.
• Responded to AMC members’ desires for publishing mini-minutes in the Bulletin or InterLink.
• Discussed with staff issue of a member using membership lists for spamming purposes.
• Contacted  ECOM editor to remind him that membership lists may not be published and disseminated as pdfs.
• Responded to a member’s concerns about typos in the Bulletin.
• Sent letter of suspension to a forum member who was unwilling to follow the ToS.
• Intervened and participated in finding solutions to a Local group’s and several RVC’s complaints about length of publication time for gatherings in the Bulletin.
• Drafted a variant motion regarding gatherings’ and other events’ publication time frames for the Bulletin.
• Prepared and discussed a motion to amend ASIE 2005-081 (“Ride Sharing”).
• Worked on drafting a “Mommy Letter” for the Online Community.
• Forwarded notice of a couple members’ passing to the data person at the National Office.
• Sent notice of suspension letter to a second forum participant who declined to follow the ToS.
• Responded to an editor’s concerns about having a minor as a regular columnist.
• Discussed with Communications and Web Services departments my wish for both the Heros bracket challenge and the Top 50 Web sites program to be implemented.
• Advised editors re: AML’s mandates about hard-copy and electronic newsletters .
• Reviewed August, Sept, October, and Nov/Dec issues of the Bulletin.
• Wrote long letter to editors and LocSecs regarding upcoming changes in postal regulations and processes.
• Responded to LocSec discussion and a forum regarding incorporated groups.
• Wrote letter of apology to TideWater Mensa regarding the frustrations with their RG’s listing in the Bulletin.
• Facilitated a member’s request for additional copies of the Bulletin.

As Communications Committee Chair

• Met with ComComm in Dearborn to review goals, assign tasks, etc.
• Steered ComComm sub committee on newsletter issues towards understanding and brainstorming of solutions.
• Initiated and re-initiated (to little avail) a discussion regarding the Publications Recognition Program.
• Finalized updated Terms of Service for the Online Community.
• Proposed a process of steps for the newsletter sub committee to go through to tackle the issues.
• Revised the Internet Services Policy and presented to AMC for approval at the November meeting.

As Name & Logo Committee Chair

• Authorized use of logo on a not-for-sale garden rock.
• Confirmed acceptable logo use on iphone ap.
• Confirmed that the design for the Teen SIG shirts is acceptable.
• Reviewed and made judgement on acceptability of a logo carved into a pumpkin for a newsletter cover.
• Worked with Mid-Hudson webmaster regarding logo violations on the site.
• Reviewed AG 2011 shirt design for Logo acceptability.
• Responded to inquiry regarding name use on a SIG.
• Discussed wisdom of intervening in a former-member’s use of the Mensa name in order to promote himself.
• Advised staff regarding an ebay logo-use violation.
• Returned to discussion of Mensa Marketing, LLC-Clearwater name use and how to handle it.
• Identified several on-the-edge misuses of the Mensa name or logo on Facebook.
• Initiated discussion with N&L Comm re: updating ASIE 1989-101 (N&L on Internet use); decided to research and draft a list of Mensa on Facebook uses, but then no one actually followed through on this project.
• Worked with staff to develop a N&L Education plan for late 2010 through 2011.
• Drafted a letter to officers regarding goals of upcoming N&L education campaign and currently available and resources.
• Responded to an AMC member’s concern about the title of a LG newsletter.
• Consulted with N&L Comm regarding limitations on who can have the logo as a tattoo.
• Consulted with N&L Comm regarding limitations on who can have the logo on a gravestone.
• Advised Boulder LocSec re: logo contest.
• Advised Tucson board member re: LG use of Facebook
• Reviewed and commented on N&L ad for October Bulletin.
• Participated in discussions with LocSecs regarding LGs using the N&L to make apparel without going through Fox Imaging.
• Reviewed N&L use on products on Zazzle. Advised staff on steps to take.
• Worked with staff regarding Mensa of Wisconsin’s desire to have an independent Mensa brand and logo.
• Made inquiries regarding legitimacy of “Tulare King Mensa” on Facebook.
• Responded to members’ and AMCers’ concerns about www.usmensa.org (pointing out that I had addressed that issue in the report I gave in June).

As Gifted Youth Committee Liaison

• Worked as a go-between to untangle and clarify roles of various parties regarding gifted youth, AGs, funding, etc.
• Met in person with Gifted Youth Comm chair and staff liaison.
• Met with MERF trustees to discuss GY concerns.
• Drafted a Memo of Understanding between MERF, GYComm, AMC, and NEYPC.
• Participated in discussion regarding a very slightly questionable GCC appointment.
• Responded to correct misinformation posted by an angry, resigning member of the GYComm.
• Discussed members’ concerns regarding handling of social security numbers used for GCC background checks.
• Advised GYComm Chair to send notice to newseditors elist of a new GCC column available for reprint.

As a member of the Finance Committee

• Participated in Finance Committee teleconferences in September and November.
• Participated in Finance Committee’s discussion of dues rates and LG funding.
• Responded to AMCers’ questions regarding AML’s financial ebbs and flows.

As a member of the Governance Task Force

• Assured Elissa that the GTF will, indeed, have a useful product completed before the AMC meets in November.
• Read and summarized several books and articles.
• Read and summarized results from survey.
• Drafted list of suggestions for change.
• Managed gathering of points to consider for all suggestions for change.
• Drafted, edited, and finalized GTC report.

As a member of the MIL Name & Logo Committee

• Questioned the MIL N&L Committee regarding visually dynamic logos.
• Suggested that the MIL N&L Committee work to add a rule regarding visually dynamic logos (no results).
• Notified MIL N&L Comm of many logo violations on Italian SIG facebook page.
• Responded to MIL discussion regarding use of name with a “system of learning” in several European countries.

As Local Group Service & Funding Committee Chair

• Nothing-- Governance Task Force took precedence.

As a Chicago Area Mensa member

• Proctored tests in June, July, August, September, and October.
• Designed HalloweeM flyer, tshirt, and pin

GTF Report nearly wrapped

I think I have finished the 54-page Governance Task Force Report, despite being at 'WeeM all weekend and having no Internet access at home.

I'll post a link to it later this week.

Now to write my other four regular reports and then find a coffee shop so I can email them.

- Posted using my iPhone

Crawling out of the Hole Part 6

May 31, 2010:
    Assets: $4,548,011.44
    Liabilities: $6,216,502.72
    Net Assets: ($1,668,491.28)

August 31, 2010:
    Assets: $4,107,513.150
    Liabilities: $5,805,550.50
    Net Assets: ($1,698,037.35)

Looks like the trend in Net Assets going in the wrong direction is slowing, but not reversed yet. On the other hand, there are significant once-a-year costs associated with the Annual Gathering and as near as I can tell from my monthly financial reports, the income from the AG has not been booked yet.

"Payoff" of AMC Meetings

So yes, I read MPol, and yes, I find the noise to signal ratio to be too high to be worth really paying attention to. However, every now and then someone says something that makes me go "hmmmm…"

Recently Cary wrote "If dues subsidized meetings of governors are so critical to Mensa's success, then when can we expect to start seeing the payoff that no other way could accomplish?"

I think this is a very good question for the AMC to be asking itself, although I'd like to have "payoff" defined more clearly. I've been privy to the electronic and teleconference discussions of the AMC for nearly 6 years. If the "payoff" is  wiser, better-reasoned and more thoroughly discussed decisions and more efficient and effective collaboration on developing ideas and plans, then I assert that we are seeing a payoff from face-to-face meetings.

But does "payoff" means something else? What?

Ossified Committees

Sometimes I just need to vent.

So I'm working on the Governance Task Force and one frequent complaint theme from the survey we sent out is that the AMC doesn't seek member input enough; in particular, the opinions of committee members are ignored.

This just make me steam! I am on several committees, and run more than a few. More often then not, when I put an issue out and directly ask for input, edits, suggestions, ideas, better text.... I get nothing. Nada. Not even a "let me think on it a few days and get back to you."

Recently, I wrote up an updated version of the Internet Services Policy and sent it to ComComm asking for their input. No responses. I sent it to the AMC, and again, no responses. No one even politely offered to second it, so it's not even on the agenda.

On the GTF, the same thing occurs. People are all keen to be involved in changing the structure of AML, but most of the TF has not responded to any direct requests for contributions.

So I have to wonder-- is this a widespread phenomena? is it just how Mensans are-- wanting to feel included but unwilling to participate? Is it just me-- am I somehow always right on the first go-round? Do I intimidate others from voicing their thoughts? Is there a sense of "Robin's on it, so I can relax and not bother"?

Sometimes I feel like Henny Penny.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Off-Topic: Kid Pictures

This has nothing to do with Mensa, but I'm a proud mom and I have my own blog and...well... the pictures from Homecoming turned out really nice, so....

Petition Signature Request

As many already know, I've thrown my hat in and been nominated for First Vice Chair of American Mensa. Like some candidates, however, I am also going through the petition process, which, although a bit redundant, does seem to be a way to provide a subtle message to voters --and to me--that there really are members who feel that I would serve Mensa well.

So please, if you would like to help Mensa evolve into an modern, 21st century organization, sign my petition on AML the election page.

Moderating Comments and Posts

Leah recently shared a link with me regarding managing comments on blogs. What lept out at me was this section of the post, which, although written specifically about blog comments, so clearly explains why the AML Forums are moderated:

     ... In regards to tone/style, a comment that is hateful, condescending, or insulting in tone is rather problematic. In regards to content, hateful, obscene, racist, sexist or other such material would also potentially be problematic…
     First, they can easily drive away other readers who are not interested in reading such things. To use an analogy, allowing such comments to remain is like allowing rowdy, violent and hateful customers to remain in a typical store. Even if they are customers, they will tend to drive away well behaved customers who just want to shop. Likewise, allowing such comments can drive away those who are interested in the blog’s topics but not in being insulted or treated with contempt. The basic idea is that any value added by such comments will be outweighed by the value lost when others are driven away.
     Second, such comments can be damaging to a blog’s reputation and the experience it offers. To use an analogy, a business that wishes to appear professional works hard to maintain that appearance (and reality). Allowing such comments on a site is a bit like allowing people to urinate on the business floor, harass other customers, and so forth. As such, it seems sensible to delete such comments. This is because any value gained from such comments will be outweighed by the damage done to the blog.

Dues & Social Latching

On a forum thread about raising dues, Judy wrote: "but once you've 'latched on' socially, the price becomes a non-issue. " 

I replied:
I think you just nailed it on the head. Having seen the raw data from many surveys of members about what they want from Mensa or why they do not renew, I believe that for most, it's not the price, it's the strength of the social connection that determines whether or not someone renews his or her membership. If they join and meet no one of interest, or only see unwelcoming and abrasive mudslinging, then even dues of $10 are too high.

InterLink Guidelines & Policies

The Communications Committee just approved the following guidelines & policies for InterLink. As you can see, we started with the purposes and general philosophy from the old interLoc guidelines.

InterLink Guidelines and Policies

September 2010

Description and Purposes

InterLink, an official publication of American Mensa, Limited, is a monthly e-newsletter resource intended to serve as a channel of communication among the National Office, the AMC, the local officers, and other interested members. It is a vehicle for significant, thought-provoking ideas, suggestions, questions, concerns, or discussions from Mensa members relative to Mensa administration or operation. Its purpose is to assist Mensans interested in performing leadership duties within Mensa, now or in the future.

Embedded links help readers connect with other members’ discussions as they read. Content for InterLink is gathered and generated by a team of volunteers; input and responses from readers are included in every issue.

Content

Each issue should include at least one feature article, as well as readers’ responses and any of several standing columns. Feature articles should be pertinent to the functioning of Mensa and be of value to a reasonable number of officers. Content intended for only a few, complaints about individual instances, or suggestions for localized improvements, unless they have larger implications, should normally be forwarded to the person or persons involved for action, rather than published. Communications, even if referring to single instances, that have a constructive information value to Local Groups are potential publication material.

InterLink is a forum for intelligent and reasoned presentation of views, even if they are unpopular or controversial. However, space in InterLink will not be made available to the individual fanatic, nor for soothing personal ego bruises, nor for unsubstantiated charges or vendettas.

Because each issue may include as many as seven or eight individual pieces, no one piece should be longer than 400-500 words. Less is more; writers and columnists will be encouraged to be informal but pithy as opposed to conversational.

Pieces will not be edited extensively but rather looked over for grammar, punctuation, AML house style, etc.

The Production Manager will do a preliminary evaluation of any incoming piece to determine its adherence to the above goal statement. Any lingering questions about the appropriateness of any piece (from the PM or others) will be forwarded to and answered by the Communications Officer, who may choose to consult with the AMC Chair or others as necessary.

Deadlines

• Working backwards, InterLink will be sent out on the 20^th of each month.
• The final copy of the text will be sent out for review on the 15^th of each month. Reviewers may include the Chairman, Communications Officer, Executive Director and other national directors as appropriate.
• Materials for each issue must be turned in to the Production Manager by the 10^th of each month.

Columnists

The Communications Officer will appoint volunteer columnists and apprise the Production Manager of changes to the team.

Columnists will be reminded once about upcoming deadlines and prompted to respond with their plans, whether they are submitting material for the upcoming issue or not. Columnists are assumed to be responsible people and will not be hounded.

Not every column will be published every month.

Columnists who accept or make use of member responses are not required to use every response. The goal should be a representative sample of all responses to each question. Often the same readers will answer more than one question. Columnists should pick whichever response is likely to be the most beneficial for other members, or whichever rounds out a question the best, but should pick just one from each person. Along the same lines, all other qualifications being equal, priority should probably be given to responses from readers who have not responded before.

Rather than open the Pandora’s box of editing long responses, columnists may pass over long entries in favor of terse and substantive ones. When merited, longer articles may be serialized over multiple issues. As much of each piece as possible will be linked to its online presence, so readers can go get more information for themselves if so inclined.

[Columnists as of  August 2010: Brian Reeves- Features; James Franzen-Mensa Matters in the Online Community ; Liz Meadows-Timely Questions. Claire Natola-Newsletter Highlights; Carol Philo-Elist Round-up; Staff-Resource Review and Profiles in Leadership]

Letters

Letters to InterLink will be assumed to be for publication unless otherwise specified by the writers. A statement to this effect will be included with each issue next to the response link.

If letters are responding to a specific topic, the sequence will be as follows:

• One round of responses to any original article or piece.
• One round of rebuttal.

Anything beyond this sequence runs a high risk of adding nothing new to the conversation and instead alienating/boring other readers. Those who desire to continue the topic can, either publicly or behind the scenes, be encouraged to take the conversation to any one of AML’s online meeting places for further discussion.

Is the AMC "Out of Touch?"

Pam recently returned from her annual ASAE convention, and shared some observations and lessons and pointers to blogs reviewing the convention. I read this one at Social Fish :

Most of it was pretty specific to ASAE, however, this jumped out at me:

"Here’s a lesson: there is no such thing anymore as “unofficial” versus “official”member activity. We’re all part of the same community. We’re all building community and engagement on behalf of ASAE – for you, not for us. The point of YAP is to get young association professionals (including “young to the profession” and “young at heart”) more involved in ASAE. Get it?  We’re doing it for the love.  All we’d like in return is a little love back once in a while.  We’re feeling our love is unrequited, and if you’re not careful, one day we’ll take mom’s advice and go find other fish in the sea."

We in Mensa do try so hard to distinguish between official and unofficial, between ASIE-regulated and Fist-waving independence. Mensa has very much become a huge set of overlapping groupings of members, some of which are initiated top-down, and some of which are grown grass-up. But all are equally essential to gestalt of the Mensa experience.

Reading the comments, the recurring theme was that ASAE leaders were out of touch with their membership. I see this same complaint about AMC on some of the Yahoo lists. I really don't feel like I'm out of touch. So either I'm not and other AMCers are, or I am and I am not seeing that in myself because I don't understand what members mean by "out of touch."

So, readers.... are Mensa's national leaders "out of touch" with the membership, and if so, what do you mean by that? What actions or inactions make you reach that conclusion? 

Hhmmm.... and since there are so many members and so many member communities, are there  particular segments of the membership that leaders should be touching more than others? (Get your minds out of the gutter!)

I love my alias

So we're changing ISPs here in the Crawford household. So I had to notify everyone in my address book of my new all-purpose email address. Quite a pain in the neck, despite the  fact that I'm looking forward to cutting down on my spam.

One fun thing that results is all the bounce messages I'm getting back, particularly from friends with AOL service. I'm trying to look at this as an opportunity to cull my address files.

What I am really appreciating is how easy it is to do an address change seamlessly with all my Mensa connections. One call to Howard asking him to point my Communications@ alias to my new address and voila-- every elist, every publication, every committee.... is instantly updated.

Appointed Officers Issue, continued

I was responding to comments from yesterday's post, but decided to just make it a new post.

For what it's worth, I doubt I'd ever have thought to run for Communications Officer. Would I do this job if I couldn't speak and vote as a equal with the rest of the AMC? I'm not sure. I like to think I bring useful expertise to the table, but getting to vote is not the pay-off for me, that's for certain.

And if it's a matter of no one should vote who isn't chosen by their constituents, then should we continue to allow 60% of RVCs to vote, despite the fact that they were, in some sense, not elected by their regions? At least in the case of the appointees, there are 17 people voting to put them in office. How many people voted for the uncontested RVCs?

Question re: Appointed vs Elected Officers

So as you know, I'm on the Governance Task Force. I'd like some input:

What are the pros and cons to making the Development, Membership, and Communications Officers elected by the whole membership instead of appointed by the Chair with the approval of the AMC?

Sustaining an Online Community

Thanks, Leah, for this interesting article about sustaining online communities: How to Manage a Sustainable Online Community . Food for thought, certainly, and makes me feel better about not feeling too worried when grumblers complain that we only seem to have ~100 active posters. Triva note: the author is the founder of the company that makes the software AML is using for its online Community.

This Year's 'WeeM Shirt

Minds Like Concrete

Matt pointed me to this interesting article a few days ago: How Facts Backfire. 

Seems that despite we geniuses saying we want facts and transparency, research shows that adding facts and logic strengthens one’s resolve to believe what he or she already believes, even when wrong.

The article says:

“...We often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.”

In an NPR interview In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter ,  Researcher Brendan Nyhan, University of Michigan, explains that this strengthening of beliefs when confronted with accurate but conflicting information is a natural defense mechanism to avoid cognitive dissonance.

(Here’s his paper, When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions )

As an avid reader of arguments and discussions on the Forums and on the various Yahoo elists, I certainly see this phenomenon over and over. I think that is one reason Rick Magnus’ proposed amendment failed at the ABM… no matter how much documentation and information TPTB makes available, if it doesn’t corroborate the theories already held by the ones demanding transparency, they will just insist that TPTB is still hiding something.

Are even we thoughtful, educated Mensans really that shallow that we can’t swallow our pride and change our views when we have corrected information? And if we do change our minds as a result of new information and contemplation, are we going to be seen as just flip-flopping for political gain? 

Crawling out of the Hole Part 5

April 30, 2010:

    Assets: $4,743,340.90

    Liabilities: $6,449,221.35

    Net Assets: ($1,705,880.45)

May 31, 2010:

    Assets: $4,548,011.44

    Liabilities: $6,216,502.72

    Net Assets: ($1,668,491.28)

Ok, so this is interesting and backs up what I was told about having to pay some hefty once-a-year expenses early in our fiscal year and having to kind re-set the monthly accounting transfer of multi-years' dues from liabilities to assets before returning back to the healthy trend of improving the Net Assets line. You’ll notice that in a month, our Assets went down significantly, but our Liabilities also went down—further. And now we’re back on the crawling-out-of-the-hole trend to the tune of ~$37K.

Crawling out of the Hole? Part 4

When I think to, I’ve been posting the snapshot financial statements here, and I’ve been all rah-rah because our negative bottom line has been improving.

Before the AG, I was looking at the financial numbers for February and comparing them to April. And whoa, April showed a reversal of that trend! Bummer. So I asked the financial folks for an explanation.

Turns out there are some hefty expenses that occur once a year, and are recorded in a one-time lump (yeah, I’m not using formal accounting terminology) rather than amortized over twelve months. In April and sometimes May, AML pays renewing insurance policies. Additionally, the recording of member revenue is lowest early in the fiscal year and it increases over the subsequent eleven months as membership rises. The third factor in the “calm down, Robin” explanation is that multi-year dues revenue is shifted incrementally from a deferred liability to recorded income during the course of the year.

I’ll keep an eye on the trend, but I’m certainly understanding that to assess the financial health of the organization, one has to look deeper and wider than just the red or black color of the bottom line on a monthly statement.

Shameless RG Promotion

HalloweeM 2010 is October 28-31.

New hotel. Same awesome programming and hospitality.

Registration until 10/14/10 is $70 for Friday through Sunday.

See Chicago's Web site for details.

AMC Meeting July 2010

Presentation of bid for 2014 AG in Boston (July 20­- July 6)

March 25-27, 2011 AMC meeting will be in Atlanta.

…………………………..

Good & Welfare

Comments: Thanks. We did well. Welcome to Region 3. SEMM is awesome. GenX rocks.

Audience—Jared: Thanks to AG committee and thanks to the AMC for all the discussion on the issues- nice to see that there is so much thought and discussion that goes on.

Pam: ~1,875 at the AG. The Governor of Michigan is likely to show up to our luncheon tomorrow. Detroit has really rolled it out for us and been fabulous.

Next AMC meeting is November 11-14, 2010 Worthington Hotel in Fort Worth.

Adjourn. 2:35pm

AMC Meeting July 2010

Some appointments

I didn’t take notes. No controversies.

……………….

Leadership Development amendments

Long, long set of guidelines. Some discussion among the RVC about the details.

Vote: passed (I abstained)

AMC Meeting July 2010

Ombudsman Election results

Dave Cahn

AMC Meeting July 2010

Adjustments to Publications Policy

Gathering several ASIEs together, adding a section about Handbooks, defining InterLink.

Dan questions InterLink process. His biggest concern is no named head editor. I explained that there is a staff who is production manager, a team of content providers and columnists, and the ComComm will develop guidelines and policies.

Vote: Passed, Becker opposed(she wants handbooks to stay with Leadership Development), Burg abstained.

Rescinding all the ASIEs which are subsumed by the more comprehensive Pubs policy.

Dan offered friendly amendment to keep the ASIE about bigotry and prejudice being antithetical.

Passed unaninmously.

Rescinding InterLoc guidelines.

Passed unanimously.

aMC Meeting July 2010

Finance Committee stuff

Two boring housekeeping motions about the Finance Committee’s make up and responsibilities and updating reimbursement policies. Betsy wanted to amend so in-room Internet IS reimbursement.

Vote to amend passes; Burg, Bakke, Timmers, Kuyer abstain.

Passed and Passed.

AMC Meeting July 2010

Amending the new Ombudsman process

Now only 80 or so people form the running pool as well as who make the decision, and no one knows how and why those people were chosen by their LGs. This motion would widen the number of people who are qualified to serve and widen the number of members making the choice.

OTOH, we should give the new system a chance to work.

OTOOH, this is the only opportunity to discuss and vote on this without it being a reflection on whoever is serving as Ombudsman.

And this does not implement the changes, but merely sends it to the members to vote on.

Bob spoke to how thoroughly the voting ombudsman in this current process understood the issues and platforms of the candidates. Ken and Art concurred.

Greg said that only 40 ballots for Ombudsman were received. On the other hand, 17 AMC members make the decision about who serves as voting appointing officers.

Once again, I’m really torn on this one.  I like the concept of the new process, but I think it should be improved. I also think we should give the new process a chance before amending it.

Vote: Dan, Heather, and Russ in favor. Everyone else opposed.

AMC Meeting July 2010

Bylaws amendment regarding getting rid of past and past-past chair.

Lori (mover) was going to withdraw pending GTF results, but decided to not withdraw it.  Some good discussion, mostly about referring it to the GTF. Marc says we should vote on it since the GTF won’t get this done by Nov and we should not wait. I urged us to not just focus on who to kick off. Guy moves to refer to GTF.

Vote to refer: opposed: Lori and Marc

AMC Meeting July 2010

More on Hearings

John Sheehan spoke about hearings. He is an on a New Hamp state hearings panel. There is a wall between the people deciding whether to bring charges, and those deciding the merits of the case.  Jean agrees they should be separate, but points out if the AMC appoints the pool of people to both the review panel and the hearings panel… the separation is negated. Dan’s edits get us closer to this desired separation.

This is difficult. Both sides have really really good points. Wish I had better a feel for how the membership at large feels about this. Oh duh… sending this to the membership to decide… like making it a bylaws referendum…that seems wiser than us deciding here and now to kill this valiant attempt at process improvements. I’m inclined to vote yes, send it to the members to decide. BUT I think I am NOT in favor of everything in this motion as written. Which makes me inclined to vote no.

Vote: 9 yes 11 no. I voted no.

AMC Meeting July 2010

Hearings

Russ & Dan had long motion about Hearings revisions. Dahl & Norris amendment is long and complex about appeals. Lots of discussion. Jean and Guy made some really good points against the amendment. Too hard to listen, ponder, and transcribe, so I opted to listen and ponder. Sorry. Vote on amendment Marc. Mel, Lori for. Amendment fails.

Original motion—Dan proposed tweaking the composition of the review panel to comprise hearings chair and two people drawn at random from the pool of potential hearings committee members. Bob spoke against including the hearings chair on the review panel. Dan was cool with that. Nick: Why put something already turned down by the membership again? Dan: It’s a good proposal and it failed because there was a competing proposal at the time. This time there won’t be a competing proposal and we tweaked it to improve it since then. Jean spoke against the motion and made good points, primarily about needing to simplify the process and the fewer members involved better. Straw poll before Dan does a bit of editing: 11 in favor. 8 opposed. Guy pointed out that for a bylaws proposal it needs to pass by 2/3.

Break time!

AMC Meeting July 2010

Finances

Treasurer’s report--She talked fast and tossed out lots of numbers. Hard to take notes.

Investments down. Membership and Dues income up. Event and pubs income up. Testing income down. Licensing income up. Legal was largest expense. Net assets ugly on paper, but when you understand how the GAAP are applied, we are plenty comfortable and Mensa will be fine. Biggest concern is continued sinking testing income.

Dues motion- basically saying that we’ll have a motion in November to increase dues. Cyndi: We’re doing this because of the timing of the AMC meetings Marc: I feel foolish voting on a motion that says there will be a motion next meeting.  Lori: can we have 1^st vote in Nov, and 2^nd vote in March? Pam: It has to be approved by Nov to get it applied to the budget for 2011-12. We can put it in the Bulletin or we can do a teleconf in Oct. But we want to have the members have a proper amount of time to comment on it, and squeezing it in the other way would not be in the right spirit, although it would be legal. Debra is cool with it. Nick wants a teleconf in Oct to be the first notice and the vote in Nov. Heather: We used to have a motion about the dues increase on every agenda. Nick: Wants to consider increasing dues in order to significantly support the Foundation to improve the world. Set the dues we want now, then set a constant rate of increase for every year so members know and predict and we get fewer people quitting in reaction to raises. Guy: Something supportive of Nick’s idea about regular predictable increases. Cyndi: The committee discussed this and decided already that every other year is a wiser pace for dues adjustments. Also, data shows that dues increases do not hurt membership levels. Pam talked about using the Strategic Plan to guide our decisions regarding how much the dues need to go up. Peggy: Kiwanis is ~$200 a year. Why did we get rid of the permanent rolling motion about dues increases? Elissa this is a bylaws compliance motion. 

Someone suggested changing this to a sense motion. Dan suggested postponing and voting on it in Nov when we have an actual dollar amount. John moved to amend to strike “place on the agenda to.”

Cyndi moved to postpone, Dan seconded. Vote to postpone: opposed Art. Nick & Guy abstain.

AMC Meeting July 2010

9am. First cup of coffee.

So the appointed officers were reappointed. Phew.

Governance Task Force

Recht gave a report as liaison to Gov Task Force, which does not have a formal written report. So far Eldon found people to serve. Several discussions have taken place between Eldon, John R., Jean B. Mike Eager, Nancy Heller, Frank Parth, and myself about how to proceed, identifying problems to be solved, and research and distillation of background material. Recht talked about how big this project is and how important it is to prepare and research how all the pieces interlock before any recommendations are considered.

Jean spoke about the GFT: There are concerns about the AMC told us what to Do, but not what we are supposed to ACCOMPLISH.

Robin: I’m reading and learning and reaching some surprising preliminary conclusions. I am confident that we will come up with ways to improve Mensa and guide it forward.

Recht asked the AMC and audience to feel free to give input.

(My unvoiced note: I have an interview template I’ll be using to formally gather and organize such input after the AG.. might find a moment to pull it together tomorrow so I can do interviews while I have so many people around this weekend.)

Marc: What is the chance that we’ll have recommendations in time to get them on the agenda for November. Answer: zero.