Clarifying the eNewsletter Motion

There are concerns of members and local officers about the motion on the March AMC agenda regarding members’ enewsletter (or epublications) flags.

Distribution of local newsletters electronically or distribution of a newsletter less-frequently is happening more often as groups try and save money while still providing service to their members.  Some groups are sending everyone possible an electronic newsletter and require members to actively ask for paper if they want more than a minimal and/or postcard version.

Per the ASIEs, groups do not have to send paper newsletters to everyone every month.  The policy states that groups must send a quarterly calendar and notify members of meetings and elections.  ASIE 1995-024 states: “Local groups must have both a membership and a business meeting in each quarter, notice for which must be communicated to the members of the Local Group, as well as publish a regular newsletter or calendar of activities at least quarterly.” 

In order to better accommodate groups who wish to save money by sending an electronic newsletter to their members and in light of upcoming postal changes that will make print distribution difficult for some groups*, wording was included in the March agenda to facilitate this transition. 

Note, though, that the motion only changes the “default” distribution for those members who have not selected print or electronic via their member profiles. The wording of the motion on the March agenda reads:

As of July 1, 2011, electronic delivery is the default release for members to receive Local Group newsletters. Members may, via their online profile or by contacting the National Office, select print delivery of their group newsletters.

Members who do not have email addresses on file, who do not release their email addresses within the organization, or who select to receive a print newsletter via their profile will receive a print newsletter. Local Groups must comply with their delivery requests.

“Default release” refers to the flag on your member profile that tells the National Office and groups that you do or do not want an electronic newsletter.  Right now, if you haven’t specified print or electronic, the default is to send you a print newsletter.  The proposed motion reverses this practice IF you have not specified print or electronic. If you have already selected either, your choice remains in effect until you change it.

* The upcoming postal transition to the Intelligent Mail Barcode and other toughening requirements will pose additional challenges for groups who take advantage of “automated discounts” with their mailings.

How will the data reflect those people who never updated their profile to choose paper or electronic?

There are three "states" currently to the epublications flag:
* the member chose paper
* the member chose email
* the member hasn't chosen (currently assumes paper and a label prints)

If the motion passes, the "states" for that flag will be:
* the member chose paper
* the member chose email
* the member hasn't chosen (will assume electronic and include with the epubs members)
If at any time a member's email bounces and we remove it from the database, that member will flip to “print” and the group will receive a label for that month. When we receive a new email address, that member will revert back to epubs the next month.

If at any time a member restricts email within the organization, that member will flip to print and won't flip back until they indicate that we can send his or her email address internally.

Why change the default release if Groups can already send everyone electronic whether they ask for it or not?

The membership flag actually reads “I would like to receive my group newsletter electronically if available. I acknowledge that I will not receive it via regular mail.”

Groups do NOT have to send electronic newsletters to anyone, but if they wish to, flipping the “default” on the data will make it easier for groups to make this transition.

My Group feels strongly that all members should get paper newsletters every month and that they shouldn’t have to do anything in order to keep getting those paper newsletters.

Your Group can continue to send paper newsletters.

If too many people get the electronic version, the Group would no longer be eligible for the bulk mailing rate. So, depending on how many people opted for electronic delivery, efforts to save money could actually end up costing more.

Correct. This is one reason we did not try to design a one-process-fits-all solution to the newsletter puzzle. X-number of e-subscribers might force a Group to return to expensive First Class stamps, but enough e-subscribers will make that less expensive overall (printing costs go down, remember) than mailing paper to everyone at the cheaper Standard (bulk) rate. Each Group will need to do its own math to determine the best course of action.

Our members won’t know to update their information until it’s too late and they stop receiving a print publication.

Again, it’s a Group’s option to send electronic vs. print. But to ensure that members have the choice, the Communications team will implement a wide-spread information campaign to help members understand their options and to make their preferences known.

Will Groups get postal label data for all members, regardless of the epubs flags?

Yes, if Groups request labels via their monthly distribution.

This motion is taking away our Group’s autonomy.

Quite the opposite. The motion does not force Groups to send electronic newsletters and it eases the mandate that Groups send paper newsletters to everyone. It helps Groups who want to push for more electronic subscribers to do so more easily. The intention is to increase Groups’ autonomy by making it easier for them to implement their preferred process.

This flies in the face of many Local Groups' bylaws - at least in spirit - which state outright that the default for sending out the newsletters is hardcopy.

Yes and no. Groups must still send hardcopy newsletters to all members who are not eligible to receive electronic or who request paper. This motion does trump the statement in the Minimum Standard Bylaws, and if this passes and becomes an Action Still In Effect (ASIE), the next time the MSBs are updated, the change will be incorporated.

The National Office data is inaccurate.

Actually, it’s only as accurate as the information members provide them. 

Any time a mailing address returns undeliverable, a staff member contacts the member to secure a new address; if the member is unreachable, the record is marked as undeliverable and reflects accordingly on your labels or data.  Each address change from the USPS each month is reviewed, based on date and individual, before updating to the membership database. 

When they do an emailing to members (renewal statements, InterLink, the Bulletin Update, et al) and email addresses bounce, those addresses are removed from the database.

When they do a call campaign for membership, bad phone numbers are removed.  When a local officer contacts them to let them know that a directional in an address is missing or that a member's email has changed, those are updated, too.

Overall, the National Office updates some 800-2000 records each month, and that's only the current members and doesn't include their efforts with lapsed and potential members.

To ensure the most up-to-date information, groups should encourage their members to update their information with the National Office.

What happens if this motion doesn’t pass?

Not much. Groups that want to save money and frustration with the USPS challenges will just have to put in a bit more effort to get those members who have not selected electronic.

  

How do YOU feel about this, Robin?

I hate it. As a past Newsletter Editor and LocSec, I think every member should be able to get wonderful paper newsletters. In fact, I argued strongly against this three years ago. Times change.

And I accept the necessity of it—many Groups don’t have the funds to send First Class or the energy to jump through the USPS hoops necessary to send via cheaper rates. Printing prices keep rising. More and more Groups are finding that a combination of paper and electronic is the best way to keep their members connected and informed.

After nearly a year with a committee of in-the-trenches experts, after looking at every possible combination of solutions to the many issues and challenges facing Local Groups newsletters, we’ve come to the conclusion that there is not a single recipe that will work for every Group. Instead, what must be done is provide a menu of optional services from the National Office and than unfetter the Groups so they can make their own decisions.

In my ideal scenario, Groups will create wonderful newsletters and send them electronically to everyone they possibly can while still sending full-sized paper newsletters for a couple months, along with a local and national information campaign to encourage members to make their preferences clear. Then, this summer, there should be few enough members who request paper newsletters that Groups can continue to send them full-sized versions, even at easy-albeit-expensive postal rates, without busting their budgets.

Flipping the release flag to electronic is one of those steps and is the simplest method to enable Groups that choose to send electronic the ability to do so.

More choices for members and Groups; more funds available for Groups to do other good things for their members—it is the right thing to do.

What I did Nov ‘10– March ‘11

I finally finished writing and submitting my formal Quarterly Reports. I really dislike those report formats. Oh well. For those who are curious, here is a more detailed recounting of what all I’ve been doing since November 2010:

As Communications Officer

• Attended the November Planning Session / AMC meeting.

• Replied to a member’s ongoing complaints about Bulletin content and priorities.

• Discussed concerns with Bulletin Editor and Dir of Marketing & Communication.

• Consulted with Exec Director and RVC regarding a LG’s on-going complaints about Bulletin editor.

• Reviewed and clarified Bulletin advertising policy with editor and AMC Chair.

• Made content suggestions for and reviewed November, December, Jan, Feb, and March issues of InterLink

• Reviewed Nov/Dec, Jan, Feb, and March Bulletins.

• Forwarded notice of a member’s passing to National Office.

• Gave Tresurer some talking points for her presentation to the AMC in November.

• Nudged PRP Chair many times to keep the program moving along.

• Asked key staff to put Bulletin online in current month and to notify the membership that it’s there, so we can begin tracking how many members use it ( in anticipation of discussing whether or not to offer it as an e-subscription)

• Reviewed bids for Bulleting printing.

• Responded to a member’s complaint about not having her article published in the Bulletin. And responded. And responded.

• Confirmed that Central Indiana Mensa’s newsletter e-distribution plan was acceptable.

• Participated in discussion about MindGames bids on Marketing Committee.

• Developed plan to resolve the many issues regarding LG newsletters and USPS changes.

• Continued to work with Web team on renavigation of Web site.

• Appointed Jill Mabli as an InterLink columnist, then Brad Christman and Terri Keeling.

• Appointed Marc Lederman to Com3.

• Discussed logistics and costs of regional supplements in the Bulletin.

• Participated on AMC teleconference meeting.

• Helped craft a survey to learn how LGs distribute newsletters.

• Explained to a frequent columnist for LG newsletters regarding not allowing him to use Mensans’ email addresses to sign them up without their permission for a mailing list in order to advertise his book.

• Reviewed a slightly questionable ad for the Bulletin (said yes).

• Worked with staff on development of HTML emailed Events Register

• Responded to editors and circulations managers’ concerns about upcoming USPS changes.

• Checked in on Handbook Coordinator.

• Cheered when the Bulletin won and Association trends award.

• Reviewed and commented on a few marketing concepts.

• Participated in discussion on the LocSecs elist.

• Asked RVC 9 to correct Utah Mensa’s changes to newsletter delivery defaults.

• Reviewed and commented on the Marketing and Communications plan for 2011-2012

• Reviewed and commented on the Web Services Department Plan for 2011-2012.

• Participated in conference call with Dir of Operations and an expert on mailing issues.

• Offered my thoughts to staff regarding sharing background check results to the LDW committee (don’t do it).

• Forwarded requests for information to the appropriate staff.

• Discussed a member’s use of Mensans’ email addresses for spamming purposes.

• Drafted long explanatory essays for AMC and eventually editors regarding newsletter distribution issues and options.

• Drafted a motion to update and combine privacy policy, including flipping the flag to e-pubs as default delivery.

• Filled out Exec Dir’s annual evaluation.

• Advised staff regarding expanding background checks.

• Oversaw avatarmagedon in the forums and made some tweaks to approval guidelines.

• Responded to a disgruntled member who wants “Mensa” to improve society but declined to organize or participate in any such efforts himself.

• Moderated the Webmasters elist when interactions became too abrasive.

• Responded to members’ questions to candidates.

• Soothed some feathers in various Online Community conflicts.

• Responded to and RVC’s query regarding  AML’s forum use and moderation policies and how they apply to sites not on the AML server, such as Yahoo and Facebook (AML has no jurisdiction over such forums).

• Recommended topics for LDWs in Portland.

  

With the Communications Committee

• Much discussion regarding options for groups’ newsletter distribution.

• Directed Com3 to review and judge a forum member’s interactions- ultimately suspended him for 30 days.

  

As Name & Logo Committee Chair

• Developed a year-long plan for Name & Logo education.

• Created a N&L presentation for the AMC.

• Investigated uses of “Mensa” on Facebook in businesss names, and on artwork.

• Responded, yet again to questions regarding usmensa.org.

• Judged appropriateness of a newsletter running a photo of the logo carved on a pumpkin (yes).

• Began drafting a form for tracking N&L issues and actions.

• Reviewed and offered suggestion on N&L / Branding ads

• Advised a LG editor regarding picture puzzle variation of the logo.

• Reviewed and discussed continuing name and logo violations by a former member.

• Consulted about  actions to take or not take regarding continued, escalating harassment by the former member.

• Refrained from reacting to escalated online harassment by a disgruntled former member.

• Directed staff to contact Yahoo to pull the plug on a unauthorized group using the Mensa name.

• Reviewed design for candy wrappers for N&L acceptability.

• Contacted a couple groups about logo use and directed them to proper graphics.

With the Name & Logo Committee

• Developed a N&L presentation quiz

• Discussed if a member can call his web site “Mensa Science.” ( no)

• Reviewed and recommended a tiny design change to an RG shirt that wanted to use the Mensa name.

With the Local Group Services & Funding Task Force

• LGS&F Discussed questions to answer with the data from the survey we did.

• Gathered financial data from groups and developed a spreadsheet to facilitate categorization and analysis.

As Chair of the Governance Blueprint Task Force

• Facilitated AMC discussion of GTF suggestions and developed some consensus on priorities in advance of the next TF to take on the topic.

• Discussed with ombudsman the logistics and consequences of involving more members in the AMC’s discussions about  governance issues at this stage. Suggested RVCs seek additional input as they feel necessary.

• Provided an RVC with some wording about what the GBTF will be doing.

• Appointed Elissa Rudolph, Jean Becker, and Roger Durham as members. Will be asking at least three other, non-AMC members to join us.

  

As AMC Liaison to the Gifted Youth Committee

• Directed GYComm Chair where to advertise available articles for newsletters.

• Stood by the GYComm Chair when her policies for the BrightKids elist were questioned.

• Reviewed GYComm budget requests and  prompted committee chair for more information.

• Re-educated GYComm about the Foundation’s grants to LG youth programming.

• Reviewed written office process for GCC background checks.

• Worked on updating the draft of a Memo of Understanding regarding gifted youth between various parties and organizational branches.

• Attended a Mensa Foundation trustees’ meeting to speak about gifted youth issues.

• Shared an idea for a Mensa Foundation project with the Gifted Youth Specialist.

• Advised GYComm on steps to take before implementing electronic interaction services for young members.

• Provided input on directions for GYComm.

• Explained to GYComm that there is already a family discount for children of members.

• Gave input on a GYComm survey to parents.

As a member of the Finance Committee

• Reviewed draft budget and prepared 4 pages of comments and questions for staff and the treasurer.

• Attended the Finance Committee meeting.

• Recommended increasing the budget’s estimated cost of legal fees we will need to address ongoing issues and harassment by former member.

As a member of the MIL Internet Policy Committee

• Discussed ways to streamline membership verification for online SIGs.

• Discussed Facebook issues with MIL Internet Policy Committee.

As a member of the MIL Name & Logo Committee

• Discussed the use of “mensa” (as in cafeteria) on a German smart phone ap.

Chicago Area Mensa

• Served on Nominating Committee

• Proctored 5 test sessions.

As a Candidate for First Vice Chair

• Created Web site

• Participated in forum discussions

• Responded with long thoughtful essays to members’ questions

• Designed and printed campaign cards (let me know if you want some to set out at your next gathering)

• Wrote a short campaign article and submitted it to LG newsletters.

Miscellaneous

I blogged. And blogged. And blogged. :-)

I also attended Solstice RG and the Electronic Gaming Colloquium, but those were solely for my own enjoyment.

Personal Contributions to Tangible Benefits for Members

In what ways do you think you can personally contribute to increasing tangible benefits for Mensa members?

I’m not going to hand out bread and organize circuses for members (well, I help with HalloweeM, but  that's not what you're asking).

What I can do as a Board member is gather empirical data and multiple opinions in order to create policy and processes that support volunteers and staff who do provide tangible benefits to members.

For example, I worked the National Office Internet Services team to review and choose software, argued convincingly with the budget-makers that the expense should be a priority, and developed and honed the TOS and moderation philosophy that enables these forums, persnickety as its denizens are, to function relatively smoothly with very few incidents that necessitate sanctions. I didn’t personally write the code to make this Community go, but I did do the leadership tasks to make it viable.

Another example is Local Group funding. I led the taskforce that figured out how much groups really needed, presented the case (pages and pages of charts and graphs) to the AMC, and convinced a majority to increase the funding levels. I did not personally send extra money to Groups, but I did do the background research and persuasive arguing to make it happen.

First Vice Chair is typically a “special projects” position, so I would expect to do even more of this sort of contribution.

Croneyism & Back-Room Dealing

What are your thoughts on the apparent croneyism and back-room dealing of the AMC?

Croneyism is the practice of favoring one's close friends, especially in political appointments. In my observation, appointments at the national level are based on skills needed for a position and usually there is quite a bit of gathering suggestions and considering many people before making appointments. Case in point is my own appointment in 2004. Prior to that, I had had interaction only with the Membership Officer (who presented at an LDW while I was a LocSec), the Communications Officer (while I was an editor), and only one or two decidedly un-warm brief interactions with the Chair. And yet somehow, my name floated up to her desk when she was looking for someone with proven editor/webmaster/leadership abilities. I was totally surprised when she called me; until then, I'd been under the impression that I was one of the rabble-rousing outsiders she disliked.

What probably gives you the impression of rampant cronyism is that A) The actively-involved members tend to know each other because they're all... well...actively involved and B) People who work together for a common purpose tend to make extra effort to get along with each other— or at least to give that impression in public.

As for back-room dealing, absolutely there is nothing like there is in Congress as far as "I'll vote on your motion if you'll vote on mine." There are, however, efforts made before and during a meeting to craft motions that the majority approves of. In my mind, this is exactly what a Board of Directors should do—work together to develop policies everyone can support. But deal-making? Nope.

Eliminating Past Chairs

The election discussion and questioning of candidates is in full swing over in the AML Online Community. I'm cross-posting my answers here.

"How do you feel about eliminating the past chairs?"

Well, obviously, we cannot eliminate them. What you are really asking is how do I feel about having them on the BoD as voting members. Based on my extensive reading as part of the Governance Task Force, I see great value in keeping close connections with past Chairs so that the current BoD has quick access to experience and wisdom. I also resist basing my ideal composition of the BoD on cost-of-travel factors; we should not be putting dollar amounts on the value of volunteer contributions. I think that anyone on the BoD should be a full voting member of it. I also think that it is good for Mensa to have the decision-makers be experienced and wise rather than merely popular.

That said, there are many ways that Past Chairs’ wisdom can be accessed, especially in these times of near-instant communication. Someone who serves Mensa for that long and that intensely is not doing it for the reward of a few nights in yet another beige hotel. I believe their dedication to the organization runs much deeper and I cannot imagine anyone who has served Mensa as Chair would, upon leaving office, refuse to answer questions or offer advice to their successors, regardless of whether or not they are flown in and seated at the table during a formal meeting.

I think a smaller BoD would be better for Mensa, especially as the members’ clamoring for more direct consultation on decisions increases.  If we responsibly use our many communication venues, it would be quite plausible to have a functional and representative BoD comprising only 5 to 10 members.

I am leaning towards not keeping the Past Chairs on the board, perhaps phasing their roles over time. It strikes me that we could eliminate the Past-past Chair as a full board member and then have the Past Chair stay on the BoD for only the first of the two-year term to ease the transition. Another compromise possibility is to keep a Past Chair or two on the AMC elist, but in an advisory capacity similar to that of the ombudsman.

Response to Suggestions for Increased Transparency

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

Jared advocated for

Agendas and minutes posted early and quickly

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

More in-depth notes on the budget for line items

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

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

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

Video/audio recording the AMC meetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No motions made by committees.

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