Old Forums Moderation Process

This is a blast from the past— the organization and moderation processes for the AML Online Community circa 2007.

ORGANIZATION

Administration of American Mensa’s Forums is organized in a tiered structure as follows:

·      The Communications Officer and the staff Internet Services Manager are responsible for ensuring that the Forums fulfill the purposes stated above.

·      The Communications Committee is responsible for developing and reviewing the guidelines and policies for AML’s Internet Services.

·      The Communications subcommittee on community issues (Com³) acts as the evaluative body for issues arising on AML’s Forums. Appointed by the Communications Officer, Com³ is responsible for maintaining the sense of camaraderie, moderating or facilitating other appointed moderators, and advising the Communications Officer and the Internet Services Manager. Com³ will review complaints and may recommend corrective action for violations of the Forum Guidelines.

·      Moderators are appointed by the Communications Officer. They are responsible for the overall flow of discussion on the Forums, for resolving minor disputes, and for ensuring a congenial atmosphere. They may move, rename, edit or delete messages to keep message threads and subjects consistent and to keep topics within the scope of this service. They may declare off-topic discussion threads to be locked and warn subscribers regarding inappropriate rhetoric.

MODERATION

Mensans have many strongly held opinions, and there will be disagreements from time to time on the Forums, some of which may get quite heated. It is important that all participants remember that this is not a war zone and disagreements are not battles to be won.  If you are experiencing a difficult interaction with another member and are unable to resolve the issue yourself, please notify the moderator(s).

If a member violates the intent of this service, these guidelines, or the American Mensa’s Minimum Standards for Internet Services, he or she will be subject to any or all of the following actions:

Informal Intervention

A moderator may participate in the discussion thread, asking participants to tone down and self-edit their posts.

Take it to Private Messages

A moderator may request that participants move the conversation to private messages.

Ignore User

Members are under no obligation to read posts they consider negative or abusive. Additionally, members don't have to like everyone or agree with anyone. Members do have to get along at least within the extent of the Forum Guidelines. Sometimes this may entail ignoring and distancing oneself from other participants or discussions. A moderator may request that participants disengage from unpleasant and hostile situations by simply ignoring each other. Like shunning in medieval times, “ignoring” can be a powerful social tool.

Moderator Intervention

A moderator may warn one or more participants that certain posts are not acceptable. The moderator will note the offensive behavior, and after receiving such a warning, participants should conduct themselves more appropriately. A moderator may also edit or delete posts or “lock” topics.

Interim Suspension

If a poster’s online behavior is alarmingly out of line, the Communications Officer or Internet Services Manager will suspend that member from the Forums until Com³ has a chance to review the situation and determine the wisest long-term course of action.

Formal Warning

If a participant continues to violate the Forum Guidelines, despite moderator intervention, a formal warning will be given. Following a formal warning, participants will be monitored for compliance with Forum Guidelines.

30-day Suspension

If a participant continues to disrupt the social atmosphere of the Forums, Com³ will review the situation and may suspend Forum access for 30 days. A formal written letter explaining the specific rationale for the suspension will be sent.

90-day Suspension

If, after a 30-day suspension, a participant resumes inappropriate posting, Com³ will review the situation and may decide to suspend Forum access for 90 days. A formal written letter explaining the specific rationale for the suspension will be sent.

Longterm Suspension

If, after a 90-day suspension, a participant resumes previously identified inappropriate activity, Com³ will review the situation and may decide to suspend Forum access indefinitely. A formal written letter explaining the specific rationale for the suspension will be sent.

Other actions deemed appropriate

While these actions cover most instances of intervention, it may not cover all situations. Consequently, other actions may be taken to ensure these Forums are not disrupted or abused.

Any decision to suspend a member from the AML Forums will be reviewed by the Communications Officer, Internet Services Manager, and Com³ before implementation. If suspension for 30 or more days is recommended, the participant(s) will be requested to share their views and explanations.

APPEAL

Members may appeal to the AMC Communications Officer concerns regarding moderator interventions. The Communications Officer will consult with the moderator(s) involved, the Internet Services Manager, Com³, the Communications Committee, and/or the AMC Chairman in review of any appeal.

Today's Letter to the AMC

Dear Members of the American Mensa Board of Directors,

This is not yet another “Save Howard” appeal. What is done is done, and I’m confident you all are more than aware of my opinions on the matter.

Nor is this another “Replace the Executive Director” request.

I know that you’ve gotten many emails, phone calls, and other messages expressing members’ thoughts and wishes. I know that at least the Treasurer has been given a number of questionable activities to look into. I know that you’ve been conducting an investigation into the workings of the National Office and soliciting input from current and former staff with which to base your decisions and actions going forward. Were I on the Board, I would fully endorse a full investigation.

I also know that you have chosen not to interview former staff members who left more than six months ago (and I suspect that not all of those who left in the last six months were asked to complete your survey). This, of course, strikes me as a great failing with your investigation, since I and many others firmly believe that the problems in the Office are not a recent development but started several years ago, involving a larger number of past staff.

I am also skeptical of the objectivity of this investigation, since you’re interviewing current staff members who may be less than candid, what with their livelihoods on the line, and considering rumors of recent raises and promotions.  Surely you can explain away members’ concerns that staff silence and collusion are being bought.

Be that as it may, I have a couple questions.

I believe that the Executive Director’s employment contract is up for review in the spring of each year. Did you, as a body charged with this responsibility, review and actively choose to renew her contract, or did you take no action at all, allowing the contract to simply roll over due to other considerations or simply neglect, both results, of course, being that there is no way you could, even if you wanted to give into the members’ wishes, replace her?

Assuming that your hands are legally tied by her contract, when is the next opportunity you (or the next Board) will have to review and choose to extend or not extend her employment, and will this fall directly at the beginning of Mensa’s election season where some may be reluctant to take action, positively or negatively?

I am quite sure the upcoming election will hinge greatly on this matter, and it would help members make sound voting choices if they have facts instead of rumors to base their decisions on.

Thank you in advance for your time and answers to my two questions.

Robin Crawford
Chicago Area Mensa

Politics and Proctoring

I’ve been a proctor for oh, maybe ten years or so. I forget exactly. It’s generally a joy to do—talking up Mensa, answering questions, promoting activities and participation, being the  welcoming face to new members.

But about a month and a half ago, I decided that I was no longer comfortable rah-rahing for an organization that was becoming, in my opinion, less and less welcoming. It was the whole AM Facebook meltdown that was the final straw—I could not in good conscience tell people that Mensa was this happy, accepting family they were looking for. I’ve ranted about that in previous posts; no need to repeat myself here.

Then came the Howard/Executive Director/National Office/AMC storm.  I’m angry and despondent and disgusted... and really really don’t want to do any more testing for Mensa. I was intending to notify our local Proctor Coordinator this coming week, and arrange to get him all my unused testing supplies.

So here I was this afternoon, relaxing after a long day dropping off the boy child at college and looking forward to a night without kids in the house for the first time in what feels like forever. Then the phone rang. Our LocSec was frantic—she had seven people show up for the testing session and no proctor. Since I live only 20 minutes away, could I please come over and do the test session?

I was torn.

On one hand, I was weary and disinclined to do any more testing. On the other hand, I harbor no displeasure with our Local Group, and certainly had nothing against the people who had driven far to take the test. To say “no” would have been just... well… shitty. So I changed my shirt, grabbed my testing supplies, and headed over. The session went smoothly. The Local Group was relieved and thankful.

I only hope the AMC feels the same way.

Actions to Take & a Lesson on Calumny

Many people have asked what they should do to right the wrongs they see at the National Office. It is a fact, and one I still support, that the Executive Director has the authority to hire and fire staff as she sees fit, without consulting the AMC.

There is NOTHING members or the AMC can do to reverse her decision regarding Howard Prince.  Chanting “Bring back Howard” is useless and makes us all look like whiney petulant children.

The actions that will turn Mensa back into the organization the members want are fairly simple. Pressure on the elected officers should be applied, respectfully, so they act in a manner pleasing to the members they serve.

The AMC, and the ExComm in particular, need to be inundated with concrete actionable reasons to dismiss Pam as the Executive Director of American Mensa. 

Only after the AMC has hired a new Executive Director, who will presumably act more in accordance with the ASIE, Bylaws, Constitution, and wishes of the membership, can specific staff changes occur. 

Now, before you go writing to the AMC with all your thoughts why Pam should be removed, consider this:

"Acts inimical to the society" are defined as "deliberate acts that are harmful to, or result in harm to, Mensa." “Acts inimical” to Mensa shall include (though the definition shall not be limited to) the following:
Threatening, intimidating, coercing, calumniating or otherwise interfering with persons involved in the authorized activities of Mensa including volunteers, appointees, or paid staff members;

(there are other acts listed in the ASIE, but this is the pertinent one)

Calumniating, you may recall, is what Barry Levine did to Dave Remine that led to Barry's banishment from Mensa. So what is calumny? Basically a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something.

So as long as anyone speaking out against Pam Donahue is willing and able to provide evidence for the veracity of his or her statements, it should not be considered an act inimical.

NOTE: The following examples are for illustrative purposes and ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

Calumny:

“Pam sacrifices puppies in the office.”

Not Calumny:

“I observed Pam with the remains of a dead puppy on her desk when I visited the office for the Finance Committee meeting on February 30th, 2010. Furthermore, I noted an increase in the budgetary line item for blood removal cleaning solution.”

Calumny:

“Pam’s a poopy head who believes she doesn't have to answer to the membership.”

Not Calumny:

“Pam said that she wants the AMC to butt out of how she runs the office, and here’s the IM conversation I had with her where she said that.”

Calumny:

“Pam spends Mensa’s money to buy booze for herself and her cronies.”

 Not Calumny:

“On April 31st, 2012, I was at dinner with Pam and observed her using her corporate card to pay for a round of drinks for her friends from ASAE.”

Calumny:

"Pam hires and keeps her friends on staff even if they are incompetent at their jobs."

Not Calumny:

"Pam hired Gilda Rosencrantz, who is tagged in FB pictures indicating that she went to college with Pam's daughter. Gilda was put in charge of making graphics for AML's Mental Games event and misspelled the banner image as 'Menial Games'. Gilda received a 5% raise at her review 6 months later." 

Something Is Rotten In the City of Arlington

Let me start with what I do NOT know:

I don’t know if Howard has signed or will sign any kind of non-disclosure agreement as part of the terms of his dismissal.

I don’t know of legal action he may or may not take against Pam, the AMC, or Mensa in general – and I’m not sure he would as he really does love Mensa. On the other hand, I don’t know if there would be legal action from the AMC.

Here’s what I DO know, based on years of working closely with Howard and other staff, and several years of being Pam’s new best friend – right up until I lost the election, after which I was thrown under the bus and kept out of the loop politically:

The AMC, via the ExComm, hires an Executive Director charged with running a National Office to get stuff done the AMC wants done. They hire and fire ONLY the Exec Dir. The Exec Dir, in turn, has total control over what happens in the office. Pam had her reasons for firing Howard. While I can guess, I cannot fully know what those reasons were. But I firmly believe them to have been trumped up reasons. (Cookie has posited a plausible theory on Facebook which two separate people have told me was the cause given for his dismissal.)

The working environment in the National Office has been increasingly toxic for the last three or four years. We have lost Catherine, Mary, Julies Boone and Clark, Roger, Heather, Bryan, and now Howard. Other staff, such as Paige, have been marginalized (whether it was Paige’s decision or not). New, young, and less experienced people have been hired. Testing is down. Membership remained flat for a third year. Dues are going up. Tasks deemed important enough to be touted in the Bulletin by even the Chairman—namely the Online Compendium and Guides—are not getting done due to staff time not being allocated.  

Two other former employees besides Howard have shared stories with me about her management of the office, despite being given specific directives by Pam to “not get too friendly with Robin.” Howard has been held in high regard by many of his fellow co-workers just as he is by the membership at large. They have shared with him their concerns about Pam’s erratic and abusive management style. Simply put, he knows too much.

Pam has actively worked to keep members and AMC members in the dark. Money is being spent to hire outside consultants to take over tasks formerly done by volunteers, which further limits the exposure members have to the goings on in the National Office. During the week prior to Howard’s dismissal, the Board of Directors were kept in the dark about which staff person was on the firing line. Additionally, even Marc Lederman, Howard’s Board counterpart, was told he may not speak with Howard and threatened with possible legal ramifications if he did.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE knows that Howard has long been the clear choice to replace Pam as Exec Director of Mensa. He was a threat to Pam’s job security, and became more and more so as her overall performance continued to spiral downward.

Howard is a member of Intertel, thus, he clearly qualifies to join Mensa. Already, a number of members have asked him to. He has always expressed a firm intention to join when he is no longer a staff member. He continues to express publicly that he loves Mensa in general.

Pam did consult with the ExComm, and a majority (of the five people ruling Mensa—the rest of the AMC was kept in the dark) backed her decision to dismiss Howard. All but one of the current ExComm members are running for re-election. If you don’t like that they supported Pam’s decision, then don’t vote for them, and spread the word to encourage other members to vote accordingly. Heck, start the process for recalling them.

As I said before, like it or not, Pam did have the authority to let Howard go. The only solution to reversing this action is for the ExComm to fire Pam and to replace her with a new Executive Director who will act more in line with the wishes of the membership, which in my opinion would include rehiring Howard. Of course, an even better solution would be for the ExComm to hire Howard back as Executive Director.

Blushing

I'm touched and honored and pleased to know that despite how it feels sometimes, my hard work has not gone unnoticed.

IMO: Mensa's Unresolved Essential Problem

American Mensa's strategic plan

 VISION: 
Create a stimulating intellectual and social environment for the most intelligent people.

MISSION
: Identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity by encouraging research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence and by providing a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members.

CORE VALUES:
 (Core values are essential and enduring tenets of the organization — a small set of timeless guiding principles.)

Intelligence benefiting humanity:
   Demonstrated by support of initiatives that advance the use of intelligence in solving problems and seizing opportunities.

Intellectual integrity:
   Demonstrated by organizational dedication to ethical, truthful and evidence-based decision-making with an appropriate balance between openness and privacy, and between transparency and confidentiality. 

Valuing ideas and individualism:
   Demonstrated by celebration of the power of differing views, admiration for independent thought, and appreciation of well-intentioned and informed criticism.

Connection:
   Demonstrated by commitment to providing opportunities for fellowship among a global community of common interests.

BIG GOAL: To be widely recognized as the premier community for intelligent people seeking intellectual challenge, respect for intelligence and the opportunity to join with others to benefit humanity.

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

I agree with and support all of the vision/mission/core values/goals. I really truly do.

But Mensa is heading the way of dinosaurs, and when that happens, none of these lofty goals will be met or remembered. Here’s what I consider to be a essential unresolved problem: We are utterly aggressively inclusive. As a result, all the smart misfits of the world have a place to congregate and socialize. Sounds wonderful.

However, for every 100 adequately-socialized smarty who join, there will be two or three I would classify as unrepentant, irredeemable “jerks.” You know them:

Revolting Ralph, who hovers at the food table, eats with his hands, coughs without covering his mouth, and sticks his fingers in the chip dip.

Dirty Old Monty, who leers at the 20 and 30-year old women, makes lewd remarks, and gives tight pelvic-grinding hugs without permission.

Snotty Sara, who criticizes everyone in a snarky tone, bitches in a 500-person hospitality line about how “real” turkey should be hand carved from a whole bird instead of served pre-sliced in warming trays, and writes condescending letters to the editor when events are not planned in places and times convenient for her.

Tommy Troll, who purposely floods online venues with rude, racist, hate-filled or obscene posts and then proudly boasts about how many thin-skinned members block him.

There are more, of course, and we all know them.

BUT… people like me, and most of my readers have been around long enough to have met and befriended 100s of brilliant and colorful people who are really awesome, and we know that it’s easy enough to sidestep the jerks and find the intellectual camaraderie and acceptance we joined for.

However, we wise and seasoned members… will fade away. Until Mensa develops and distributes affordable immortality pills, there will be fewer of us. Ah, but, you say, we get new members, younger members, and they will replace older members. Circle of life and all that.

The problem is… incoming members do not have our experience. They encounter the jerks and then quietly mutter “Wow, this is sooo not what I expected or need in my life. I’m outta here.”

The new jerks, having found acceptance, stay.

Consequently, the number of jerks swells over time, which hastens the exit of more and more new members. As we gray-hairs fade away, the jerk-to-awesome ratio tilts in a very bad direction more and more.

Where is Mensa heading by virtue of its unwillingness to stop tolerating and supporting the activities and participation of the jerks? 

Is this the “stimulating intellectual and social environment for the most intelligent people” we want?

Thoughts on FaceBook Meltdown 2014

Every Mensa group, be it geographical, Special interest, or online, has it share of Revolting Ralphs who grope boobs, stick their fingers in the chip dip, and troll for infamy. We pride ourselves on tolerating and welcoming and accommodating everyone, including the Revolting ones. That's fine for people like me, who have been around enough to know for sure that there are more well-socialized members than Revolting ones. Knowing that enables me to shrug off the dickheads and move on to enjoy cold beer with people I like.

BUT... new members do not have my experience. They run into revolting Ralph too soon and they are quick to turn away. The result, over time, is more gray haired folks, fewer energetic new ones, and general stagnation. 

I think the uber Mensa leaders need to decide if Mensa in general is a club for people who cannot and will not fit in anywhere else... or if it is something a little more inviting than an insane asylum. 

And if the latter, then we need to find our collective balls and turn away the Revolting ones, regardless of their poo-flinging and howling, and concentrate on being kind and welcoming to the members who ARE the sort of people we joined in order to find.

My Presentation to the AMC in Reno, 2012

I mentioned on FaceBook about the sad neglect of the recommendations in the Governance Task Force report from 2010. I thought I'd share a bit of the follow up to that, when the AMC had claimed it wanted to work on a few topics. What follows is what I presented to the AMC in Reno.
(very long)

Governance Discussion for AMC meeting in Reno

A summary of the Governance Task Force Report

I’m not sure how to summarize that 53 page report better than it summarized itself.  It has a ton of research, gathered from professional and credible sources as well as our own investigation of our members. It ends with many many pages of changes to make or to consider making. All I can say is—read it. Really. And then read it again; answer the thought-provoking questions; scribble in the margins.

Based off of that…

What, if anything, does this AMC really want to address?

Last May, I led the AMC through some discussions to come up with a beginning list of what they wanted for Mensa. Here is what they identified and what has happened since then:

1. AML needs detailed useful job descriptions (to give the NomCom and potential candidates and voters better decision-making information).

I asked members of the AMC to review the job descriptions written by Jean Becker years ago and to update and expand them according to current practice and needs.

I heard back from Dan Burg, who said “The descriptions for 1VC and 2VC look fine to me.  For both of them, the job is really what the person makes of it.  Some do more, some do less.”

I heard back from Russ Bakke, who listed a couple Past Chair duties that were no longer current and added that the Past Chair is the liaison between the National Hearing Committee and the AMC.

I heard from Jean Becker, who said that she would review the descriptions and has lots of background information if I need it.

The Communications Officer replied, saying that I would be the best one to review and write that job description.

And that’s it. Not a single RVC replied.  Nor the Chair, Second Vice Chair, Treasurer,  Secretary, nor any of the other appointed officers.

So basically, I got nothing useful from the office-holders, even though they themselves agree that this was something to be done. And now it is the beginning of election season—when accurate and full descriptions of what each office entails and requires would be most helpful to the  NomCom and to the candidates considering  running—  but we have nothing.

2. AML needs a NomComm with teeth AND a petition process that somehow still protects the org from really unqualified candidates.

In October, I wrote to the GBTF:

Rick, Elissa, and Jean were to look at this. We seem to agree that Mensa still wants a combination of the two, that there is resistance to a process that involves some Mensans having authority to pass judgement on other Mensans, and that having no vetting leaves the organization open to wild-card candidates that suck up resources and have the potential to harm (think Birdman who gets 50 people to sign his petition -- super easy to do electronically -- as a joke, giving him mandated, uncensored access to all members for spewing any lie or hate-filled message). What is the best solution?

I received no replies.

3. There should be some formal but not excessively rigorous training for whole board on financial matters.

In October I reported to the GBTF:

Elissa and Ellen were going to take the lead on instituting this, and Jean brought up the good point that it might be best for such training presentation be integrated into the expectations of the AMC treasurer. If so, then that duty may need to be mandated in a bylaw. I know Nick (current Treasurer) did a presentation at the fall AMC meeting. How did that go? Is it what was needed? Elissa, can you gather the talking points he made and share them with Ellen and expand or refine them for regular training purposes?

I received no replies.

4. Committee and task force openings should be advertised to the general membership, with clear descriptions of what is needed.

We agreed that this has already been implemented and with much rejoicing, we took it off our to-do list.

5. There should be some formalization (bit not too intensively) of how committees set and report goals and how they receive feedback from the BoD.

In October I wrote to the GBTF:

Ellen and Jean were going to look at this. There have been several reporting forms over the years. Please dig them up and craft something better that will result in providing focused direction for officers/committees based on the Strategic Plan and goals, clear reporting of progress on those goals, and a method for the BoD to respond and redirect if necessary. Right now, an AMC member or two might raise a brow at an officer/committee report, but no one dares hint that improvements could be made in anyone's potato patch. The AMC as is cannot give direction or redirection to volunteers who may or may not be accomplishing what the AMC asked them to do--or what the membership expects them to be doing. And all of this should be transparent to the membership at large, since they are ultimately the ones who judge the value of the goals and the effectiveness of the progress. How can this be best accomplished without crossing the line into asking the AMC to make and question every micro-step of every officer and committee?

I received no replies.

6. There should be some skill-specific, non-representative, voting BoD members. Whether they should be appointed by the elected officers or elected by the general membership is still undetermined (opinions are split fairly evenly).  Appointing non-voting positions seems acceptable to everyone.

Two GBTF members (Roger and Don) came up with this proposal in August 2011:

We leave the positions appointed, but set up a process whereby the positions must be advertised to the membership prior to each national election, with appropriate job descriptions, and anyone with an interest can send a resume to someone at the National Office, who would then forward all resumes received to the whole AMC.  The Chair would nominate one person for each office but if the AMC, after seeing the resumes, feels that a particularly good candidate was overlooked, they can vote against the Chair's nominee for that office.  If the Chair fails to get a majority in favor of the original nominee, a substitute nominee must be chosen from among the remaining pool of candidates.  Repeat until someone gets a majority.  That way the competition is open to all, the Chair gets to put forward someone he or she thinks would be good to work with, but the whole AMC makes the decision as to who is best qualified.

Jean Becker suggested that something similar be done for the Nat Reps, as those are important appointed positions as well.

Elissa replied “Just commenting on Jean’s comment about NatReps  not being appointed without AMC approval. But they are! The chair presents names, as I did in Portland, and rationale and the AMC approves. I could never just appoint anyone to anything without AMC approval. Would that I had that power!!

 “FYI, the chair usually has the best fit in mind for NatReps because of interaction with MIL’s ExComm and experience beyond U.S shores. So in a way, the chair should be able to appoint without second guessing from the rest of the AMC who generally are out of that loop.”

I told the taskforce:

If we all agree, I think this will NOT require a bylaw change, but just an ASIE mandating dissemination of job description (still to be written/updated) and soliciting members to apply for the three positions followed by distribution of those resumes/applications to the entire AMC. The holes I see in the logistics are timing:

When would solicitations for applicants go out? When would they be due?

When would the AMC-- and which board in an election year-- do the voting on the Chair's nominees? 

You don't want to wait until the AG and new board, but neither do you want an old chair and board to choose the officers of the subsequent board. How do we resolve that?

I got one reply, from Rick Magnus, who told us that Henry Noble has solicited in his Chair’s column for people interesting in an appointed position to let him know and he’d pass it on.

Other than that.. no further comments were made on this issue.

In October, I wrote to the GBTF:

Non representative / Non task-defined BoD members

One refrain we hear over and over is that "the AMC is too big" and that there are AMC positions that have no clear and direct representative or strategic function on the Board: the Second Vice and Past chairs, in particular. Wisdom and input they provide, without a doubt, but is having them at the table, voting, the most efficient and effective use of resources?

This has been brought up many times. Time marches on and communication methods improve. Just because it's been considered and turned down before doesn't mean it should not be reviewed and reconsidered.

Who would like to tackle gathering the meat of past discussions and see how things have changed or not?

I received no replies.

RVC Replacement

One of the biggest gotta-do issues is the  RVC replacement problem. We KNOW we have to address this. We TRIED and failed twice to fix it. So being the Little Red Hen that I am, I took it on last fall and did a ton of research, ultimately developing a long detailed background paper and a series of recommendations, which I gave to the AMC in December.

I received praise for the comprehensiveness of the report. I received several corrections to my having left out Clark’s replacement of Doug as RVC9 during the last month of his term.

Roger voiced a concern about the projected cost of a regional election, and suggested substituting a simple approval election for an RVC replacement appointed by the AMC. . Pam opined that there were probably ways that cost could be reduced, and she and Rick suggested some options.

Elissa asked about RVC removal.

A few people questioned the accuracy of the election cost estimate (which came from Howard asking the election house for a quote). A few members said outright that the estimate was a lie and a ploy by the AMC to not have a regional election because they wanted to keep control.

And then it appears to have been dropped. The AMC not only declined to take any action, but didn’t even put it on their meeting agenda for March.

And that, my friends, was the end of the GBTF’s work.

YOU are the elected officers. YOU are the ones who should be gathering information and MAKING DECISIONS.

Instead, the AMC has become… the elected followers.

The consultant we hired a few years ago pointed to several ways that Mensa Governance could and should be improved.

The Governance Task Force Report showed many areas that need change or improvement.

Pam has fed you articles and blog posts about how association governance needs have changed in this modern age.

I have given you several long detailed research reports and recommendations.

And most importantly, members have cried out over and over for SOMETHING TO BE DONE.

And so... frozen by inaction, the AMC is now facing a set of bylaw proposals crafted by members without researching, without fully understanding  the needs and processes. And these bylaws are about to be shoved in your face in a way that you cannot just ignore them.

I told Elissa I’d try one last-ditch effort to get y’all on track. Here goes—Just three steps for this quarter, and two will get done today:

ONE

Right here, right now, divide into three groups. Each group is to list two governance-related processes that should change or improve.  Feel free to flip through your copy of the Governance Task Force report for inspiration.

But before you voice your views , which are based on your umpteen years in Mensa leadership positions, consider these two snippets:

1.  The Misconception: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Check any Amazon.com wish list, and you will find people rarely seek books which challenge their notions of how things are or should be.

You seek out safe havens for your ideology, friends and coworkers of like mind and attitude, media outlets guaranteed to play nice.

Whenever your opinions or beliefs are so intertwined with your self-image you couldn’t pull them away without damaging your core concepts of self, you avoid situations which may cause harm to those beliefs.

Over time, by never seeking the antithetical, through accumulating subscriptions to magazines, stacks of books and hours of television, you can become so confident in your world-view no one could dissuade you.

(Shared from the “You AreNot So Smart” blog)

2. Typically organizations spend way too much time, worry and effort parsing how their multiple constituencies will be represented in their various governance and operational bodies.

Ever since our Eighteenth Century call to arms– No taxation without representation!–we have been trapped in the mindset that no organization can be truly democratic unless all recognizable constituencies have a seat at the governing table. But in this new era of Internet-based communities it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine whose team anyone is on. Do you feel a certain way just because you live in Michigan, or because you work in a certain industry, or perform a certain job or practice a certain profession?–perhaps so, but increasingly not.

So what does “representation” mean in this new environment? I suggest that when it comes to board representation the primary criteria are and should be the background and skills set of the people on the board—do they help advance the organization’s strategy and the strategic goals that are part of that strategy? This is the only question that matters, everything else is or should be subordinate to that.

(Shared from a post by Steven Worth of Plexus Consulting via a blog called Social Fish)

Governance-related processes that should change or improve

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Great, so now we know what you think should be fixed. You next need to gather pertinent objective information about those processes—without jumping ahead to a conclusion you’re trying to justify.

TWO

For each of the six processes listed above, an elected or appointed member of the Board of DIRECTORS should raise his or her hand to DIRECT him or herself and others on gathering information necessary to make a wise decision about how to best improve that process.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

That’s it for now. Don’t worry about coming up with plans and solutions. Those will reveal themselves to you quite clearly AFTER you ask your questions and do your research. And no, I’m not going to patronize you by listing what sorts of questions you should be asking about these topics. You have been overloaded with background paper examples and information about how to think strategically. Use what you have learned.

THREE

In September, provide your peers with full reports detailing all the information you’ve gathered about your assigned process-to-improve.

Do this, and the next steps will be obvious.                       

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

They did task One and Two.

Then (to my knowledge)... nothing.