Unintended Consequences

Whatever one’s opinion on the right or wrongness of the recent AML Hearings result, the consequences are starting to come to light:

The General Discussion group on Mensa Connect is essentially unmoderated, as are the regional groups of the 8 vacant RVCs. 

What happens when members figure that out?

Savannah was scheduled to hold a testing session—the first in 12 years. The RVC was supposed to conduct it and in the process further the  certification of a local Proctor. Now that won’t be happening.

It’s budget preparation time, but the voices from 8 regions and two specialties responsible for significant portions of the budget will not be heard.

The Communications Committee is dead.

The Membership Committee is dead.

The Strategic Planning Committee is dead.

The Technology Committee is dead.

The Gifted Youth Committee has no AMC liaison.

The Leadership Development Committee has no voting AMC members, so cannot act.

The Research Review Committee has only one voting AMC member, so cannot act.

The Bylaws Committee has only one voting AMC member, so cannot act.

Beasts in the Room

Maybe we should back up and talk about the real elephants in the room— the AMC hierarchy, respect given to each other’s roles, and general trust of each other to do what is best for Mensa.

As Communications Officer, my very job description includes Oversees the AML website; Oversees social media; Provides guidance, training, and policy interpretation for the social media administrators and moderators; and Is authorized to make policy decisions on electronic and written communications.

I was appointed for a reason. It would be nice to be allowed to do my job.

Elephant in the Mud

Well the Elephant got bogged down in committee. Although officially the vote on CommComm was 4 to 3 in favor of it, I decided that with such support, it probably couldn't go to the AMC. The "no" votes were based on criticism of a section implying that the CO could overturn an RVC's moderation decision or based on a vague "it's not ready yet." Despite my repeated requests, there were no concrete wording suggestions offered.

After talking to some AMC ExComm members, I went ahead and presented it to the AMC as a whole as a potential motion to gauge support and get input. After some discussion, I presented an amended section covering rescission of administrator decisions.

I do not like my amended section, but better to compromise on this point in order to get the overall policy update through. I still think it's going to bite the AMC in the ass at some point.

Here are some illustrative scenarios (note- Ralph and Dave are based on actual former RVCs I’ve served with):

Scenario 1
Gilda is a cantankerous member of Region 11, and has a history of being a bit of a troll online, though usually clever enough to stay one millimeter back from crossing the line. Ralph is the RVC for Region 11. He was elected on a platform of “All AMC members are power-hungry idiots who want to squash free speech.” Ralph is close friends with Gilda.

In the Region 11 community, Gilda gets into a conflict with Rosa. At one point, Gilda posts “Oh come on, @Rosa, everyone should know the REAL reason you are such a fan of tacos at events. You’d better lick those juices carefully--one of these times, you may find yourself choking on a razor blade.”

Other members complain to Ralph that Gilda’s post was outing Rosa as a lesbian and making a veiled threat. Ralph decides to let it stay, either because he’s oblivious, because he’s buddies with Gilda, because of that awkward result when he tried to “flirt” with Rosa back in an Asilomar hot tub, or because of his strong belief in being completely hands-off as an administrator.

In this instance, when members shift the complaints upwards to the Comm Officer, it is entirely possible that the CO, after talking to plenty of people, will determine that the Minimum Standards were violated (Gilda revealed confidential personal information about Rosa’s sexual orientation and made an implied threat of violence). The CO goes back to Ralph, who refuses to take the post down or sanction Gilda in any way.

In this scenario, the CO should rescind Ralph’s decision to let Gilda’s taunt to Rosa stand and take action—Gilda’s actions were against the governing documents of AML.


Scenario 2
Gilda and Rosa get into an online tussle. Rosa posts something about Gilda being a member of MidState Mensa, which is widely known as a hotbed of anti-microchip fanatics. Gilda complains that Rosa violated the Minimum Standards by outing her as a member of that particular Local Group. Ralph takes the post down and suspends Rosa from posting for a month because she posted confidential information.

Rosa complains to the CO, who looks into it and determines that which LG a member belongs to is NOT confidential information and Ralph’s decision, based on Rosa violating the Minimum Standards, was incorrect. The CO contacts Ralph, who simply responds with “butt out.” In this scenario, depending on many factors, the CO should consider rescinding Ralph’s decision and reinstate Rosa.

Scenario 3
Region 12’s RVC, Dave, is a nice guy but very quiet. So quiet, in fact, that he doesn’t participate in AMC discussions, has excuses for not attending AMC meetings, never visits his Groups, and hasn’t sent his editors an RVC column all year. Basically, he’s gone AWOL. He never appointed an assistant or moderators for his Mensa Connect community. The whole situation is weird and the AMC has started to look into maybe replacing him, but that process is long and arduous.

In the Region 12 Mensa Connect community, a couple members dust it up pretty obnoxiously. Members complain, but the RVC doesn’t answer, so the concerns get kicked up to the CO. In this scenario, the CO should probably rescind Dave’s “decision” to ignore his responsibility to tend to his community.

The Relationship between a BoD and Staff

Members (and some AMCers) are complaining about the lack of input/review/approval the AMC had over the Oral History Project. We were informed that it was happening, and the general timetable and expectations, but that’s it. 

This is a good time for a quick lesson on the relationship between a Board of Directors and the paid staff.

 

The BoD handles the big picture stuff. Visions, goals, general values and direction of the organization. They hire an Executive Director to “make it so.” The Board communicates their big goals to the ED and approves a budget. From there, The ED is responsible for hiring and supervising other staff to get stuff done. The Board is apprised of things, consulted when there are problems, but generally stays hands off on the details. This is a good thing—the Board comprises members who may or may not be diligent and skilled, and the turnover rate is high. 

 

If the Board doesn’t like how the ED is or isn’t getting stuff done, they replace the ED.

 

So as an illustration, let’s say the AMC has as a grand goal “make it easier for members to gather in person” and after much discussion, determines that it would be really super awesome to have physical Mensa clubhouses. The AMC would then tell the ED “we want clubhouses for members, and we’re authorizing $1,000,000 towards that goal.”

 

The ED can then decide to make one big clubhouse in the most populated city, or three smaller clubhouses in cities where the groups are wobbling. They might decide, after research, that the best way to allocate the million dollars is to rent rooms on Thursdays in 500 park districts across the country. The ED would apprise the AMC of this decision, and at this point, the AMC could say "gosh no, we want to own buildings, even if it’s only two." The ED would change course or lay out the case for renting in many cities instead of buying in one or two.

 

The AMC does NOT get consulted on furniture, which internet company to contract with, or what color the carpeting will be.

 

Back to the situation at hand—somewhere along the way, The AMC said, among other goals, “preserve our history” and "increase membership." The ED, or more likely the staff responsible for marketing and increasing membership, thought "personal anecdotes and stories are effective tools for bringing in members," heard about this history publishing company, cut a deal with them that seemed good, and made it happen. The AMC was informed of this deal in a general sense, and for whatever reason, didn’t say “gosh no!” The AMC was NOT informed of the specifics and certainly not the wording of each communication, any more than they’d be consulted on the decision to paint the clubhouse walls griege with puce accents or which direction the refrigerator door should swing.

 

What we’re learning, or at least I am, is that there needs to be some tweaking of the “hands-off; don’t micromanage” division. 

 

The next AMC meeting is going to be interesting.

Mensa is TOO Tolerant

Over and over I see conflicts between members-- in person or online. These conflicts occasionally escalate to the Hearings Committee level. More often than not, hands are wrung and nothing is done about anything because Mensa strives to be accepting and tolerant of everyone's beliefs and personality quirks and views.

I stumbled across this post on Facebook long ago, but it's worth reading and digesting again.