(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duties that were no longer current and added that the Past Chair is the liaison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.
No comments:
Post a Comment