Further thoughts on the Oral History Project email/postcard

Further thoughts on the Oral History Project email/postcard (which I've shared with the AMC), somewhat colored by having been the person taking the brunt of the outrage for this in several online forums:

It was an ok idea. Little effort and cost from Mensa in exchange for some good fodder for future marketing campaigns and perhaps some ego strokes for those who participate and like to see their names in print.

Members were notified about it, and how to opt out, several times and via several means. That many chose to not receive or read or remember those notices is an all-too common problem. It’s on my CommComm plate to figure out solutions to this, if possible.

For several days, while scurrying around trying to spread explanations and smooth ruffled feathers, I said that no one, AMC or Staff, had seen the actual copy that would be used on the emails/postcards. I have since been corrected on this. I presumed that no one who has a clue about Mensans would ever in a million years word something in such a phish scammy manner. I was wrong; at least one person on the staff DID see and approve that wording before it went out.

When I learned that, my jaw dropped and shattered on the floor so significantly that I’ve had no comebacks at all.

The Board of Directors and the Staff should be partners towards a common goal, and that goal (aka Strategic Plan) is determined by the Board of Directors and implemented by the Staff, under the supervision of the Exec Director.

I’m supportive of the notion that the Board should not micromanage the professional people we’ve hired to get stuff done. However, refraining from micromanaging does not mean refraining from managing completely.

The Board should have input regarding what is said and how to the members they represent. This is the reason the Communications Officer reviews every page of every Bulletin before it goes to print. There is a line between input/review and meddling/bogging down. Should I review the Bulletin? Yes. Should Tabby review every single tweet in advance? That’s ridiculous. Should Kimberly review and approve every email sent to a member? Of course not.

That said, Tabby should be expected to tell the Staff person who types the tweets “please never mention eugenics. and do throw in a picture of a cute kitten now and then." Kimberly should be expected to have input on the topics to be included in the updated onboarding emails that get sent to every new LG Officer. 

Which brings us to this fiasco—

Two things need to change in the future:

1. Someone who is on the AMC should be expected to have input and review on future projects that are intended to solicit money from members or that are intended to bring in revenue from sale or exchange of members’ information.

2. The Board should not have to wait DAYS to learn details they are expected to defend or refute to the membership, at least not without higher quality flak jackets with sequined targets on the back.