Dec 26 Special AMC meeting

 So yeah, I watched the whole thing. 

Oh my...

Dues Increase

 So The December AMC meeting agenda has a motion for a dues increase. 

While I guess I can be convinced that it’s been a while and some increase in the dues rate is warranted, 35% seems excessive. I could get behind it if there were a clear list of additional benefits, programs, and improvements that will add value to our membership. I can note that last spring, the Executive Director did  initiate a small AMC working group (which included me as Comm Officer) to discuss ways to add value, but unfortunately those discussions were abandoned before any progress was made.

Does the AMC have a plan beyond “we need more money to keep up with the status quo?"

Double-edged Sword

Despite cries of secrecy and lack of Board transparency, executive sessions are essential. It is wise for the Board to be able to candidly talk about topics without worrying about having to censure themselves or politically posture for the public.

On the other hand, it does mean that those excluded from the executive session are free to imagine and react without the Board being able to deny those imaginings.

'Tis a tricky blade to balance on.

The March 2022 AMC Meeting

The AMC meeting at the National Office went well this past weekend. It was long and covered a lot of topics, but things were calm, respectful, and productive. All the motions I put forward passed, including revision of Appendix 23, aka the Elephant!

There seems to be growing excitement and anticipation about the results of my Volunteerism Task Force, which gives me even more motivation and hopes for improvement.

All in all, I'm feeling positive.

AMC Meeting July 10, 2021

 So I’m home and recovered from my first AMC meeting of this term (as Communications Officer).

I was super pleased with how this board looks to be functional and even in the after-meeting schmoozing, got no sense of any particular factions  forming. The Marketing Officer, Tabby, and the Membership Officer (Kimberly) and I spent a lot of time talking together and we all seem to be on the same page as far as working and communicating together since really, most of what we do overlaps significantly. I think the three of us are going to be a very good cohesive team, which is fantastic.

I definitely got the feeling that I was wanted and welcome and valued by the others. I may no longer have a vote (not even on the committee I chair!) but I’m not worried that I won’t be treated and listened to with respect. I think we’ll be able to, as they say, get shit done.

I was amused a couple of times as people mentioned high priority concerns that should be tended to. One person wanted to look at how Local Groups are funded in order to incentivize them to do more for their members. I chuckled and said "I did that already, down to the granular level of how many pennies per member per month for what. Remind me when we get home and I can send you that report” (which no one seems to even know exists). Later, Lori asked me to help with the updating Officer Handbooks project. “Sure, I have those all done already. Ping me to send you all the files.” Another example of useful stuff that all got shelved because of politics back in the day.

All in all, I have high hopes for this term.

Do Appointees' Votes Give Too Much Power to the Chair?

I’ve been thinking about the bylaws amendment #2—the one about removing voting rights from the four appointed officers.  One of the arguments people use is that allowing those appointees to vote gives the Chair too much power.

If Alice wins the race for Chair, that implies that a majority of Mensans approve of Alice’s intended direction for the organization.

Now assume Alice picks four people to be Communications Officer, Membership Officer, Development Officer, and Director of Science & Education. (oops—erase that assumption, because the DSE is really the Mensa Foundation representative to the AMC and is picked by the Foundation Trustees.)

Sooo… next assumption, which seems to be the one people supporting the amendment hold, is that these three appointees are obsequious sycophants for the Chair and will nearly always vote according to her wishes.

(Never mind that it’s actually rather hard to imagine any Mensan being a mindless yes-man and that actual analysis of voting records shows this is not how things actually transpire).

If Alice wins because most Mensans like her vision for the organization, why would anyone NOT want her to have a little extra leverage via the appointed officers when it gets to making things happen and change? Sometimes people even vote for entire slates of candidates who profess to share a common platform. Why would you want to saddle a Chair you elected with a board who disagrees with her goals and ideas?

Why do so many think that disagreement amongst board members when it comes down to the actual vote on a motion is a good thing?  Many views, much lively discussion as part of the process of whittling a motion down to something most can agree on— isn’t that what we really want? When it comes to the actual vote on a motion, wouldn’t it be ideal to have it turn out unanimous—because of all that advance discussion and work that went into making the final motion something so awesome everyone agrees on it?

I understand the fears about GroupThink (see this previous post or this other post on that topic), and I agree that would be a very bad thing. But we must not use that term and that fear to make us instead institute disagreement and gridlock.

Mensa Elections 2015

So many have asked me to tell them who to vote for. I’m flattered that my judgment is so valued. We have several three- or four-way races.

Races with three or more candidates will be determined by preferential voting. This means, short of someone gaining 50%+ on the first count (which is not likely), the votes of the third (or fourth) preference will be allocated to the other candidates based on second preference in a second round of counting. Preferential voting is in place to handle "run-off elections" at the time of voting/counting.

There is a rule that you must vote in the first "conceptual" election of the preferential election. There is no rule that you must cast a vote in all three or four. Effectively, you're opting not to vote in the second and third elections if it came down to a run-off.

So say I really want Alice to win, and Bob is a decent second choice. I'd shoot myself if Charlie wins, so I vote 1 for Alice, 2 for Bob, and not at all for Charlie. Turns out Alice came in third in the first round... now what?

If Alice came in third, then it's between Bob and Charlie in a second round of counting, and Bob gets my second preference choice/vote in that round of counting, in that "run-off" election. ‪In this instance, my lack of a preference for Charlie would not come into play until a third round of voting if they couldn't achieve 50%+ in the second round.

‪

If I only see value in Alice (and not the other two candidates) and Alice doesn't make it to a second round of voting, then neither Bob nor Charlie gets my vote in that counting. Voting only for Alice might inadvertently help Charlie simply by not boosting Bob’s votes higher.

‪That's why this is something to consider carefully.

Robin’s advice: In the races with three or four candidates, please vote for at least two. Below are the candidates, my personal comments on them, and colored indicators on how I recommend voters rank them (green being first choice, yellow being second, red being third or no vote)

CHAIR

I’ve worked with Nick on a number of committees, and he even thought to consult with me when I was not on the board because he was tackling the Local Group Funding topic and knew that I was the one with all the research and data on that issue. Nick is a hard fact and data kind of guy. He’s got a corporate mindset, though he does care about member-services and has done a good job of reaching out to solicit member-input and to be as open and educational as possible regarding Mensa’s finances. “Transparency” is one of those meaningless buzzwords, like “family values” but I do believe Nick has done more than any prior treasurer towards that goal. On the other hand, he is one of the current ExComm members who helped steer Mensa in the direction it’s been going, including the retention of the current Executive Director. He is young, but experienced enough, and in this case, his youth is a good thing to mitigate the general grayness of the AMC.

I only know Deb though her online postings and the words of others. My impression is that she is an older, well-seasoned member who has been there and done that in nearly every way conceivable at the local level. She is not a sheep, not in it for the ego and status, and claims to prefer data and facts when making decisions, which I approve of. She is the “throw the bums out” choice and would not do a bad job as a Chair.

Dan has led Mensa into its current morass. I could say many more things about Dan, but he’s not worth the time it takes me to type it. Note also that if Dan loses, Russ Bakke is also removed from the AMC. Unless you’re completely content with how things are going, don’t vote for Dan. Just don’t.

FIRST VICE CHAIR

I’ve not worked with Mary Lee, but I know many who have. She may be older, but she is a proven effective get-things-done leader and she has members and groups first. She is also a strong proponent of using members as volunteers whenever possible. She thinks for herself, isn’t running for ego and status and free trips to Europe, and will likely not post pictures of exotic drinks on Facebook while traveling on Mensa business.

Heather is thoughtful and experienced and has a fair bit of wisdom to offer when she speaks up. She is also very much in the pocket of the Executive Director and part of the current ExComm who has driven Mensa into the hole it’s in.

SECOND VICE CHAIR

My impressions of LaRae are all second hand. She strikes me as hard working and effective but very much obedient and accepting with whatever the Executive Director and Chair tells her. She is one of the current ExComm who made decisions that have led Mensa astray in the past two years.

I don’t know John. What I’ve read is that he has lots of experience and respect at the local level. He is the “throw the bums out” choice.

TREASURER

I’ve worked with Ken on a number of committees, including the Finance Committee. I remember he once caught an error in a complicated formula calculation that saved  Mensa something like 17 thousand dollars. He’s definitely a numbers nerd with an eye for boring details. Policy-wise we were generally aligned in our thinking and goals for member-service and delivery methods. He’s familiar with the convoluted ways of Mensa policies, and turns out to be not nearly as sheep-like as I once expected him to be, though he is very fond of and supportive of the current Executive Director. Maybe not the most dynamic exciting person to hang with, but in a role like this, he’s good. I have heard some dodgy things about him regarding his service on his local board, but I do not know any details personally.

I’ve known Rob mainly through online interactions. We’ve never actually worked on anything together. He is most certainly a leader not a follower. He is charismatic and energetic and has a million really good ideas. Unfortunately, he is impatient with the slow process of change and AMC processes, and in his one and only term on the board, accomplished little. Whether that was due to concerted push back from more entrenched AMCers or his own inability to work within the system to get a majority on his side, I do not know. If you’re in “throw the bums out” mode, vote for Rob.

I have worked with Roger on a few committees. He is thoughtful and greatly concerned with the welfare of groups. However, I have noticed a few times when he chose policy directions based on gut feelings rather than hard cold data. He's not unskilled or evil, but I don't think he'd lead Mensa in the new direction it needs to be going.

I’m afraid I know practically nothing about William. His campaign statement mentions his desire to focus on community service & recruitment. He may have the background to understand finances, but without any previous experience on the AMC, I doubt he’d be efficient and effective as a leader at this point—he’d need too much time just to learn the job and board processes.

SECRETARY

I’ve worked with Lori. She is charismatic and colorful and speaks her mind unhesitatingly. She does like data and facts when making decisions, and definitely stands on the platform of having members being more in charge and doing more. She has AMC experience, which is helpful. The actual job of Secretary is mundane, but as a member of the powerful ExComm, Lori would be an excellent representative for members who are tired of being just dues revenue.

I’ve not worked with Andrew, but my impression of him is good. He is young, which is a plus in a graying board, but he is also part of the current AMC which has made a number of decisions I disagree with. I do not have any idea where he stands on the topic of the current Executive Director and her hold over the AMC, but my gut says he hasn’t protested it.

I worked a tiny bit with Nancy on Officer Handbooks many years ago. We didn’t get much actually done (this was before switching to the newer process). She is gregarious and hard-working at the local level and has been in Mensa a long time. Her passion for the organization and its members is high.

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.

            

A Toolkit for AMC and other Leaders

Now this looks like a very useful thing for leaders who are trying to think at high levels and still hope to accomplish something more practical than coming up with yet another "air is good—everyone should breathe it" type of strategic plan.

"All you need is a group and a goal: The CAT isn’t a rigid template for problem solving. It's designed to be flexible and accessible, with an action map and activities arranged into six categories, from building a group, to imagining new ideas, to planning change. The toolkit challenges groups to move beyond discussion to action, continually clarifying their shared goals based on what they learn through the problem-solving process. The result is a holistic approach to help groups tackle issues in their communities."


Download free