New CommComm Project: Newsletters

Now that the giant LG Communications Guide is in the hands of the Leadership Development committee, awaiting approval ( or coming back to me for revisions), I find that my to-do list for Communications is sparse. I suppose that's good; it means I've gotten most of what I intended to do this term done. 

But it also means I'm bored.

So recently I got CommComm started on a new giant project to really dig deep into all aspects  of newsletters to see what we can learn that might help us better help Local Groups. Like all my big vague research projects, we're starting by generating a long list of questions we'd like to have answered.

• What correlations are there between LG size, geography, newsletter quality, and newsletter cost?
• What are newsletter purposes for different age demographics?
• Why do members choose paper newsletters
• Does age correlate to paper vs digital choice?
• What do we really mean when we say newsletters are a membership benefit?
• Is there a correlation between population density and the value members place on the newsletter?
• Does knowledge of a more expansive digital newsletter being offered make members-who-want-paper feel disenfranchised or undervalued?
• What do all the paper newsletters look like-- number and size of pages, content, efficient use of space, paper weight, color, etc.?
• How much do LGs spend on [paper] newsletters? Each LG does something different, but can we come up with a concrete average cost-per-quantity of content?

PRP 2012 Cancelled

So I'm bemused that the PRP cancellation due to only 5 (out of what, 50,000 something?) members bothering to vote is now causing people to be all up in arms and complaining that they didn't know about it, that it wasn't promoted enough.

I'm no longer on the editors' or webmasters' elists, so I cannot count how many times messages were sent to those lists encouraging editors and web masters to vote. However, I went back through my regular-vanilla-member emails and found that I'd been nudged to vote a total of 7 times:

     AML Today:  March, April, May
     InterLink: February (description of change), April
     AMLNewsflash: April, May 4, May 21

I still didn't bother. It was too much work and I was not inclined to put in the time and effort to look at other groups' efforts if I'm not allowed to crow about the work of my own editor's and webmaster's products. I would imagine other people felt the same. It seems that the editors and webmasters were more interested in winning recognition than in giving it to others.

I had a few wicked moments of considering asking a few friends who are members of other Local Groups to log in and vote for Chicago. I also thought about voting for the most dismal newsletter and site, just to be snarky and disruptive. I didn't do either of those things, of course, but still, when I get helplessly slammed by nut jobs on YouTube or Facebook for work I did on behalf of Mensa, I have my dark passing thoughts, like anyone.

So now the fault for the failure of PRP is being blamed on lack of information and promotion. Bah... there was plenty. Self-proclaimed active, involved members were "caught" being apathetic and are trying to assuage their guilt by blaming whoever they can find to blame.

Marc and I are waiting to see how this will eventually be twisted into being my fault.

Serif or No Serif?

I've been an editor for a long long time, and always heard and believed that serif fonts were more legible. But I believed without researching beyond swallowing whole the conventional wisdom in a few old graphic design texts I learned from.

The quick brown fox

jumped over the lazy dog.

This article changed my mind. Hope you enjoy it!

Clarifying the eNewsletter Motion

There are concerns of members and local officers about the motion on the March AMC agenda regarding members’ enewsletter (or epublications) flags.

Distribution of local newsletters electronically or distribution of a newsletter less-frequently is happening more often as groups try and save money while still providing service to their members.  Some groups are sending everyone possible an electronic newsletter and require members to actively ask for paper if they want more than a minimal and/or postcard version.

Per the ASIEs, groups do not have to send paper newsletters to everyone every month.  The policy states that groups must send a quarterly calendar and notify members of meetings and elections.  ASIE 1995-024 states: “Local groups must have both a membership and a business meeting in each quarter, notice for which must be communicated to the members of the Local Group, as well as publish a regular newsletter or calendar of activities at least quarterly.” 

In order to better accommodate groups who wish to save money by sending an electronic newsletter to their members and in light of upcoming postal changes that will make print distribution difficult for some groups*, wording was included in the March agenda to facilitate this transition. 

Note, though, that the motion only changes the “default” distribution for those members who have not selected print or electronic via their member profiles. The wording of the motion on the March agenda reads:

As of July 1, 2011, electronic delivery is the default release for members to receive Local Group newsletters. Members may, via their online profile or by contacting the National Office, select print delivery of their group newsletters.

Members who do not have email addresses on file, who do not release their email addresses within the organization, or who select to receive a print newsletter via their profile will receive a print newsletter. Local Groups must comply with their delivery requests.

“Default release” refers to the flag on your member profile that tells the National Office and groups that you do or do not want an electronic newsletter.  Right now, if you haven’t specified print or electronic, the default is to send you a print newsletter.  The proposed motion reverses this practice IF you have not specified print or electronic. If you have already selected either, your choice remains in effect until you change it.

* The upcoming postal transition to the Intelligent Mail Barcode and other toughening requirements will pose additional challenges for groups who take advantage of “automated discounts” with their mailings.

How will the data reflect those people who never updated their profile to choose paper or electronic?

There are three "states" currently to the epublications flag:
* the member chose paper
* the member chose email
* the member hasn't chosen (currently assumes paper and a label prints)

If the motion passes, the "states" for that flag will be:
* the member chose paper
* the member chose email
* the member hasn't chosen (will assume electronic and include with the epubs members)
If at any time a member's email bounces and we remove it from the database, that member will flip to “print” and the group will receive a label for that month. When we receive a new email address, that member will revert back to epubs the next month.

If at any time a member restricts email within the organization, that member will flip to print and won't flip back until they indicate that we can send his or her email address internally.

Why change the default release if Groups can already send everyone electronic whether they ask for it or not?

The membership flag actually reads “I would like to receive my group newsletter electronically if available. I acknowledge that I will not receive it via regular mail.”

Groups do NOT have to send electronic newsletters to anyone, but if they wish to, flipping the “default” on the data will make it easier for groups to make this transition.

My Group feels strongly that all members should get paper newsletters every month and that they shouldn’t have to do anything in order to keep getting those paper newsletters.

Your Group can continue to send paper newsletters.

If too many people get the electronic version, the Group would no longer be eligible for the bulk mailing rate. So, depending on how many people opted for electronic delivery, efforts to save money could actually end up costing more.

Correct. This is one reason we did not try to design a one-process-fits-all solution to the newsletter puzzle. X-number of e-subscribers might force a Group to return to expensive First Class stamps, but enough e-subscribers will make that less expensive overall (printing costs go down, remember) than mailing paper to everyone at the cheaper Standard (bulk) rate. Each Group will need to do its own math to determine the best course of action.

Our members won’t know to update their information until it’s too late and they stop receiving a print publication.

Again, it’s a Group’s option to send electronic vs. print. But to ensure that members have the choice, the Communications team will implement a wide-spread information campaign to help members understand their options and to make their preferences known.

Will Groups get postal label data for all members, regardless of the epubs flags?

Yes, if Groups request labels via their monthly distribution.

This motion is taking away our Group’s autonomy.

Quite the opposite. The motion does not force Groups to send electronic newsletters and it eases the mandate that Groups send paper newsletters to everyone. It helps Groups who want to push for more electronic subscribers to do so more easily. The intention is to increase Groups’ autonomy by making it easier for them to implement their preferred process.

This flies in the face of many Local Groups' bylaws - at least in spirit - which state outright that the default for sending out the newsletters is hardcopy.

Yes and no. Groups must still send hardcopy newsletters to all members who are not eligible to receive electronic or who request paper. This motion does trump the statement in the Minimum Standard Bylaws, and if this passes and becomes an Action Still In Effect (ASIE), the next time the MSBs are updated, the change will be incorporated.

The National Office data is inaccurate.

Actually, it’s only as accurate as the information members provide them. 

Any time a mailing address returns undeliverable, a staff member contacts the member to secure a new address; if the member is unreachable, the record is marked as undeliverable and reflects accordingly on your labels or data.  Each address change from the USPS each month is reviewed, based on date and individual, before updating to the membership database. 

When they do an emailing to members (renewal statements, InterLink, the Bulletin Update, et al) and email addresses bounce, those addresses are removed from the database.

When they do a call campaign for membership, bad phone numbers are removed.  When a local officer contacts them to let them know that a directional in an address is missing or that a member's email has changed, those are updated, too.

Overall, the National Office updates some 800-2000 records each month, and that's only the current members and doesn't include their efforts with lapsed and potential members.

To ensure the most up-to-date information, groups should encourage their members to update their information with the National Office.

What happens if this motion doesn’t pass?

Not much. Groups that want to save money and frustration with the USPS challenges will just have to put in a bit more effort to get those members who have not selected electronic.

  

How do YOU feel about this, Robin?

I hate it. As a past Newsletter Editor and LocSec, I think every member should be able to get wonderful paper newsletters. In fact, I argued strongly against this three years ago. Times change.

And I accept the necessity of it—many Groups don’t have the funds to send First Class or the energy to jump through the USPS hoops necessary to send via cheaper rates. Printing prices keep rising. More and more Groups are finding that a combination of paper and electronic is the best way to keep their members connected and informed.

After nearly a year with a committee of in-the-trenches experts, after looking at every possible combination of solutions to the many issues and challenges facing Local Groups newsletters, we’ve come to the conclusion that there is not a single recipe that will work for every Group. Instead, what must be done is provide a menu of optional services from the National Office and than unfetter the Groups so they can make their own decisions.

In my ideal scenario, Groups will create wonderful newsletters and send them electronically to everyone they possibly can while still sending full-sized paper newsletters for a couple months, along with a local and national information campaign to encourage members to make their preferences clear. Then, this summer, there should be few enough members who request paper newsletters that Groups can continue to send them full-sized versions, even at easy-albeit-expensive postal rates, without busting their budgets.

Flipping the release flag to electronic is one of those steps and is the simplest method to enable Groups that choose to send electronic the ability to do so.

More choices for members and Groups; more funds available for Groups to do other good things for their members—it is the right thing to do.

Cutting off Millie's Newsletter

It really bothers me when Local Groups, in efforts to save money and trees switch to making their "official" newsletter a tiny little flyer with just a financial statement and a notice of a few events ... and doing that only once every 3 months. These groups usually produce big, fancy electronic newsletters, and  force their members to opt-in if they want to get the nicer newsletter on paper.

According to current Minimum Standard Bylaws, ASIEs, and the Local Group Charter... this is allowable.

But when I think of Millie Member —unable or uncomfortable using a computer and who just doesn't get around to contacting her LG officers and actively requesting to continue to receive what she'd always gotten automatically just by paying her dues— this just feels wrong. Millie was already barely connected to her Local Group. How is cutting her off further going to improve Mensa?

What do members want from LG newsletters?

Do we know --I mean empirically-- what members what from a Local newsletter? Has anyone done any research to determine if they want thick, juicy newsletters with locally-written articles, puzzles, photos, etc, or if they just want to know when and where the next get-together is? Do your readers want to read about upcoming AMC motions, or do they just want light-hearted reviews of local events? Are we creating bigger, more expensive newsletters than our members need or wish for? What are your customers' priorities?

(and no, I don't have the answer to my questions-- I'm just wondering outloud here.)

It seems to me that we should start by determining what the members really want and need from a local newsletter before we try to determine how to deliver and pay for what we think they want and need.

This is actually a piece of what the Local Group Service & Funding committee is trying to figure out.

Changes in the Editors and Newseditors Elists

Once upon a time, there was an elist for editors, but unlike any other officer elist, this one was open to any member who wished to subscribe. Lively, fun, cantankerous, helpful, and political… the list content covered all sorts of newsletter production topics and careened into other areas, as well. The editors list was also the main source of political commentary for members, and many joined and participated just for that reason, rationalizing that editors had to know everything since they were the center of the information flow for their groups. As with most Mensan gathering places, there conversation was dominated by a small handful of loud and opinionated members.

Some editors complained about the sheer volume of off-topic emails, so ComOfficer Tyger tried to do some moderation, which Mensans resented and rebelled against. I remember; I was a Local Group editor at the time. Tyger tried to make everyone happy by setting up a second list, Editors-talk, and directed members to use that list for the general chatter. Instead, they formed their own unofficial elist, M-Editing, on Yahoo.

(Note: Mike Eager has proclaimed on MPol that the M-Editing list was set up as “the ‘renegade’ group created when Robin did this the last time.” This of course, illustrates that even our experienced and wise members do not always recall history accurately.)


After Tyger came Tim, and during his year and a half as ComOfficer, there were three lists: Editors, Editors-Talk, and M-Editing.

I replaced Tim in late 2004. I noted that Editors-Talk wasn’t used, so I eliminated it. I listened to complaints from editors about the low signal-to-noise ratio on the Editors list, but, having been an editor during Tyger’s reign and watched how he was treated when he tried to make the list more focused, I decided I didn’t have the balls to tighten up the expectations or, gasp, make it open to only current editors.

And still, editors complained. So I tried Tyger’s compromise, but in a different way: I started a second list, Newseditors, open to current editors only and designed from the beginning to have less traffic but a higher concentration of essential information and advice for in-the-trenches editors. And this, of course, made the non-editors howl and complain that they were being excluded from a "secret, private" elist. After a while, I let go of the Editors list completely, assigning moderation to Thomas Thomas.

For three years now, there have been two lists, different in atmosphere and content. And there is always confusion about the lists: which to use for what, which list was a question asked on, resentment about the existence of two lists, etc.

The situation of the two lists was discussed at the Communications Committee meeting in July. And the same conclusions were reached that had been floated several other times: times change, and there are many other ways for Mensans who want to swap anecdotes about semi-colons, suggestions for good language books, or opinions on upcoming elections. It is time to go back to one list, one purpose, one set of officers, list all the other AML-hosted elists.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular -- but one must take it simply because it is right.”

This was not a sudden, autocratic decision. It was well discussed for several years by several variants of the Communications Committee, which has always included several current and former LG newsletter editors. Although my name is necessarily on the buck-stops-here signature line, there were more than a dozen Mensa members who had input into the decision: that serving the current editors with one, cohesive list is the right thing to do.

And so, the AML-hosted Editors elist is disbanded as of September 12. I’d like to extend my deep appreciation to Thomas Thomas for his years of work as facilitator and administrator of that list.

Going forward, Newseditors will comprise current LG editors, circulation managers, and pubs officers. I'm all for having experienced editors on a list to help the newbies, and really, we DO have plenty of experienced AND current editors: Think Ed Coudal. Think Gail & Gary. Think Nancy Flack. Think Jere Lull.

As for the the non-current-editor members, I heartily thank everyone for their service and encourage those members to continue to provide that valuable insight through the Online Community in the General Interest and Mensa And You areas. Likewise, current editors are encouraged to pose questions in those areas if wider opinion is sought. After all, there are language masters and Adobe wizards in Mensa who were never on the Editors’ elist; consider this a push to explore new sources of expertise within this genius organization of ours.

The 2007 Editor Mess

This all happened a year ago, but the topic has been brought up on M-Pol recently, so I thought I'd make sure my side of the events is available to anyone who cares.

Bill was the Editor of ChiMe for a year. He did an okay job, and the group appreciated his contribution. I spent hours and hours with him, training him on software and fixing ads and photos so they would work well for him. We got along well, I thought. He was a nice fellow.

Then, in about December or January, it was decided to review and update the groups Publications Policies, and to incorporate all the ASIEs and Bylaw pieces into one grand document. I was the Publications Officer at the time, so I did just that. Bill approved of some pieces and not of others. We went back and forth a few times, and some of his suggestions were included; some were not.

In January, I presented the Board with my recommended Pubs Policy and Bill presented them with his preferences.

The policy that was approved by the Board of Directors was not the version Bill preferred. And then all hell broke loose.

Butting Heads With Ensconced Officers
Bill wrote that "I RESIGNED from ChiMe because I no longer wished to have everything I tried to do to improve the newsletter, countered by your actions" but he has still never told me what actions he has a problem with or what improvements he was prevented from implementing. He complains that the Publications Policy passed by the Board in January contains “99% of Robin’s work.” That’s a lie. Not only are there pieces in there that Bill specifically wanted included or edited a certain way, but most of it is simply a prepackaging of bylaws or previous ASIEs—that I didn’t write.

Interestingly, Bill never stated which things in that final version of the policy he is unable or unwilling to abide by. He expresses anger that the policy was passed by the Board when he was not in attendance… never noting that I was not in attendance, either. I presented the Board with my opinions in advance. Bill presented his views in advance. The Board made the final decision, incorporating some of my preferences and some of Bill’s preferences, and neither Bill nor I were there to influence their discussion.

I recall that one bone of contention during preliminary discussions was a disclaimer, originally saying “Opinions expressed herein are those of the editor and contributors. Mensa has no Opinions.” (This was the wording that had been used continuously in the submission guidelines since long before I even joined Mensa.)

I wanted to update it to “Opinions expressed herein are those of the editor, Webmaster, and contributors. Mensa has no Opinions.” (I just added the bit about the Webmaster to reflect the modern era.)

Bill wanted it to say “Opinions expressed herein are those of the contributors and do not reflect those of any CAM officer, ChiMe staff member, the Webmaster or any official Mensa body.” (He felt very strongly that the editor should not be on the hook for the opinions of the writers.)

Which version made it into the final policy passed in January? “Opinions expressed in ChiMe and online publications are those only of the contributors. Mensa has no opinions." It was a pretty good compromise, and one that was suggested by Bill, not me.

However, Bill printed his original preferred version in the March issue, (which was created in early February and after the passage of the new policy). No one noticed that he had willfully flouted the policy set by the Board of Directors.

Then, in late February, Beth Anne, the LocSec, sent him notice about updating the Submissions Guidelines—she mentioned nothing about his incorrectly worded disclaimer, but only gave some updates about the advertising information. At this, Bill blew up, and announced his resignation. In the April ChiMe, he printed the approved disclaimer wording, adding “amended by Beth Anne Demeter and Robin Crawford in March 2007.”

WTF? Not only did I not amend the submission guidelines in March, nor in February, but I didn’t even write the version that was put into the pubs policy! Bill printed a lie in the April ChiMe.

Chicago Area Mensa elections are held at the end of April. Beth Anne was running for LocSec. I was not running for anything.

Bill included a full page ad in the April issue of the newsletter-- without having shown it to the Pubs Officer or proofreader--blasting the current administration and announcing that he was running for LocSec. Chicago Area Mensa Bylaws specifically forbid the Editor (and Pubs Officer and Webmaster) from running for election.)

The Order of Events
In addition to spreading his venom within our Local Group, Bill expanded his scope and posted on the national Editors elist, where of course they had a field day crucifying me without bothering to look for facts.

Bill posted to the national list:
>I didn't have any intention to stay in Mensa or run until I received an email from Robin, before the printer got the newsletter, in which she gave me "notice of termination" as Editor. That was after I announced my resignation and pissed me off. Thus the ad and the editor's notation.<

That is a lie. Bill received my email AFTER he placed the ad in the newsletter, AFTER he broke the bylaws, AFTER he printed his editor's column, AFTER he asserted that he was editor until the end of March, AFTER ChiMe was printed.

On March 1, Bill announced that he was resigning and that he would do the April ChiMe.

On March 6, Bill emailed me saying:
>By the way, I don't appreciate you removing me from the editors' list. After all, I am still editor until the end of this month and still a member of Mensa and CAM until then.<

I replied that I hadn't removed him from the editors list and that I was not the administrator of that list (it's since been revealed that there were problems with many elists and members who use yahoo for their email). This email did, however, indicate that, as of March 6, Bill believed his editorship to run until March 31.

On March 9, I contacted the printer and confirmed that the April issue was delivered and that the printed had begun.

On March 14, after consulting with our Ombudsman, I (in my role as Chicago's Pubs Officer) sent Bill notice that his appointment was terminated, carefully using the precise language from our bylaws ("The Publications Officer shall appoint such editors, associate editors, Webmasters, managers, and assistants as needed, and may terminate such appointments as deemed necessary."). I figured this needed to be made crystal clear, since, as I quoted above, he had earlier told me that he considered himself to be editor until the end of the month. This cleared the way for us to appoint a new editor in time for the May issue.

I did not consider if the timing made Bill more or less eligible to run for office. We have an Elections Procedure Committee for that. My job was to do what I felt was necessary to make the newsletter happen.

Addressing the Complaints in Bill's Screed
Robin’s Grip on the Group
As for this “too much say” I have in the group... my formal role was that of Publications Officer, and as such I was “Responsible for the publication and distribution of the local group newsletter and/or activities bulletin. The Publications Officer shall appoint such editors, associate editors, Webmasters, managers, and assistants as needed, and may terminate such appointments as deemed necessary." [Bylaws III 3. E. 1]. I suspect this is what Bill disliked: that anyone had authority over him and his product. In fact, he wrote, to the Steering Committee elist on March 1: “I have never been a follower, never worked for anyone but myself.”

So maybe my sin was simply being the group’s Pubs Officer. Ironically, in February I gave the board notice of my resignation as Pubs officer (for reasons having nothing to do with Bill) effective as soon as they can find someone else to do the job. So even before Bill pitched his hissy fit in March and April, I had already started to pull out of any official roles.

Perhaps he’s referring to an intangible influence-by-virtue-of-respect that others like Jay, Helen, Stacey, Cindy, and Conrad have in the group. If that’s my great failing, then I’m honored to have such good company.


A Second Printed Lie
In his ad in the April ChiMe, Bill stated that “there has been nothing reported
about their [WeeM’s, AGOG’s, or Colloquium’s] attendance or their profit or loss. (I know it’s too early for a financial report on Colloquium, but how about attendance?)” and then, just two pages later, he printed minutes which contained attendance figures for Colloquium and general information about WeeM’s success. In the February 2006 ChiMe, the Treasurer’s Report clearly lists WeeM income and expenses. Yes, we’re due for another such report, but it sure looks to me like there has been more than nothing reported. Bill printed a lie about the amount of events’ information reported to the membership.

Helping the Community
In print and online, Bill has repeatedly implied that Mensans don’t do anything for society. He has not acknowledged the $40,000 we’ve raised for scholarships, the blood drives we’ve done, the toys we’ve collected, the books we’ve donated, or the gifted children resource fairs we’ve participated in. He seems to have overlooked the reports of the Community Activities Program Chair describing the school supply drive last August and the canned food drive at WeeM, and organizing participation in “relay for Life” 5-K runs. He forgot about the full page ad John Massura ran in the July ChiMe asking for support for his 60-mile walk for Breast Cancer.

Perhaps those things don’t count. In the April ChiMe there was an article by CAM member Dave Lloyd seeking Mensans’ help to save Shakespeare’s church, but perhaps Bill didn’t read everything he when he edited that issue.

For all his passion about how Mensa should DO something for humanity, all Bill did to further that goal is… tell us that we should be doing something. He has not yet placed a notice saying “Join me on Tuesday the 28th at the VA Hospital on Main Street to visit the service men and women there” or “Here is the box for you to place your old eyeglasses in; I’ll take them to the Kiwanis next Saturday.”

More Membership Participation
He complained that only a few take an active role; that we need new blood on the Board. On the current Board, there were two wonderful young ladies who had never held any role in CAM before. In fact, Marina had only joined just a few months before she was nominated for an elected office, at age 23. How much newer did Bill want the blood to be?

That year, Bill ignored the fact that 3/5 of the candidates on the ballot had never been on the Board before; he ignored the fact that there are 43 different people listed in the April ChiMe as people who do things in the group. Our Steering Committee is larger than some groups’ entire memberships! There are another 15 or so listed in the April ChiMe as hosting an event or writing an article. Now add in the proctors and the legions who help at HalloweeM. Most Local Groups complain that only 10% of its members ever show up to anything. Our wonderful Local Group can boast nearly 5% ACTIVELY INVOLVED and leading. And this is why Chicago Area Mensa is the envy of the rest of the Mensa community.

The Election Committee determined that Bill was not eligible to run for LocSec. Bill accused them of being in the power grip of the entrenched officers, namely BethAnne and myself.

When Bill took his cause to the Local Group elist, he was otraged to find that everyone, including the copy editor he worked with and even the previous editor, who had no particular love for me, turned against him. Bill fussed and fumed and threatened to sue. He said he'd quit Mensa and leave us alone if we gave him money. And eventually, someone did some googling about Bill's Literary Agent buisness and turned up some very ugly facts. And then published the URL on the list.

At that, Bill became very quiet and resigned from Mensa.

Bill stated that he was running in order to "Bring about Good Things."
As for the election situation and the interpretation of the bylaws-- I was not on the elections procedure committee, so I was not part of that decision.

But I do know that ignoring bylaws and Board policies, printing lies, berating the membership for not living up to his expectations, threatening legal action, attempting extortion, and making baseless complaints are not the types of behaviors that bring about good things for a group.

Bill served our group well for a year and did a good job as editor of ChiMe, which requires an enormous amount of time and loving care. We all appreciate it. It is a shame that those positive contributions will not be what he is ultimately remembered for.

E-Pubs Argument Notes

At the March AMC meeting, there was a motion made by Ralph Rudolph on the agenda to change the Minimum Standard Bylaws to make electronic newsletter distribution the default and to require that members who wish to receive paper newsletter specifically request them. The rationale is that e-pubs are cheaper and that forcing Groups to go electronic would save them oodles of money.

Ralph and others, including me, want to do everything possible to make it easier for Local Groups to save money. We must also remember that we should do everything possible to ensure that members are well served. There are times when these two goals are in opposition.

A common view is that small groups are bleeding money, which, if true, is certainly alarming. However, I am not convinced of the veracity. Whenever possible, we need to look at data and facts when making decisions. Since I happen to know that there is a huge pile of recent data in last year's Local Group Funding Report, I looked there.

When analyzing the financial data from Local Groups, we learned that: even when we have reports directly from a group, it was nearly impossible to really tell how much unrestricted cash a group has at any given time and that apparent savings per member had little to do with group size. We concluded that most Local Groups are unwilling or unable to provide financial information and that the poorer the group, the less likely they are to participate in projects, even if those projects might ultimately help them.

Let me highlight that again: the groups who are really in financial trouble probably won't make the effort to switch to electronic publications even if it might improve their lot.

The LG Funding Report also concluded that in general, it costs most Local Groups ~33% more than the subsidy to serve their members and that nearly 2/3 of Local Groups are either slowly going broke, living off reserves, or are raising funds on their own through testing, RGs, ads, and other activities.

Sounds like I'm supporting the claim about groups bleeding money... but look again: 1/3 of groups are doing fine and some portion of the other 2/3 are raising funds themselves. THERE IS NO DATA IN THE LG FUNDING REPORT OR ANYWHERE ELSE THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT SUPPORTS OR NEGATES THE CLAIM THAT SMALL GROUPS ARE BLEEDING MONEY.

Then I turned to the section about newsletters in particular. Currently these are the things we're cramming down the throats of Local Groups:

Minimal Newsletters must:

• Publish at least four times a year.(ASIE 1995- 024 11-Mar-1995)

• Publish ballots for local elections and bylaws referendums (Appendix 13: Minimum Standard Bylaws Requirements for Local Groups)

• Publish lists of proposed bylaws amendments (Appendix 13)

• Publish ballots for voting on bylaws amendments (Appendix 13)

• Publish a financial report not less than twice each year (Appendix 13)

• Publish notice of meetings (ASIE 1995- 024)

• Publish a calendar of activities (ASIE 1995- 024)

• Be mailed to all members, even “Second Family” members must receive any issues containing election or referendum materials

• Publish USPS forms as dictated by the postal permit under which the newsletter is mailed.

You'll notice that we DO NOT REQUIRE GROUPS TO SEND MONTHLY NEWSLETTERS. If groups are really desperate to save money, they already have a sanctioned option: don't send one a newsletter so often! Some groups have gone so far as to create two different versions-- a small, cheap print version and a larger e-version. (Personally, I think this is poor service to members and I am deeply troubled by how Arkansas Mensa is treating its members who so not wish for electronic newsletters. The post card they sent out did not include a time for the one meeting and no contact information in case Mille wanted to call someone to find out when to show up-- but changing the requirements is the subject for a different AMC meeting).

On to the evaluation of newsletter cost, quality, and group size... The Report found that: there is a huge range of qualities, from a single page comprising postal indicia and notice of one event to slick, 32 page booklets with color cardstock covers; there is no correlation between group size and newsletter cost per member per month; there is little correlation between newsletter quality and newsletter cost except for the very minimal quantity ones; and there is little correlation between group size and newsletter quality.

The Report concluded that: since newsletters are the biggest expense of Local Groups and there is no correlation between newsletters costs and group size, the per member Local Group funding should be independent of group size; Local Groups should receive enough funding to produce newsletters which meet the actual and implied standards set by the AMC, but Local Groups, not this task force, should ultimately be the ones to determine how much to spend on their newsletters; and the real key to a great newsletter is an editor with time, enthusiasm, and skill. Simply giving Local Groups more money will not ensure an improvement in newsletters.

Let me restate and expand on that... Simply giving Local Groups more money will not ensure an improvement in newsletters. If showering them with extra funds won't do it, I do not believe that FORCING THEM TO DO EXTRA WORK IN ORDER TO SAVE MONEY will improve newsletters either.

As has been pointed out before, particularly in the rants last year about the Local Group Charter, if Local Groups don't like a rule, they'll ignore it. If that's the case, then making e-publications the default will NOT MAKE GROUPS GO ELECTRONIC IF THEY DON'T WANT TO.

What it will do, however, is make technically advanced groups stop sending paper newsletters to everyone. Sure, Luddite members can request paper, but will they? Think about the people you talk to when you make the lapsed member calls in June (we've all made those calls, right-- it's free money for the group). How many people you talked to said something like "oh, I meant to send in my check but I forgot."? And that after what, three mailed out renewal forms? Will groups really send out three notices to all members reminding them to respond if they want paper? How much will that cost?

What I expect will happen is poor old Millie will simply stop getting her newsletter. After a few months, she'll notice, and feel a bit hurt by the neglect. Perhaps she'll call me or the National Office to complain; perhaps she'll do nothing and simply not bother to renew the following year. Either way, she'll be cut off from her group.

I understand that we shouldn't let a minority hold the majority hostage, but there are many Millies in Mensa. And many members who have email but use it infrequently and are too lazy to actively ask to for something they've always received. Or have connections too slow to handle downloading pretty pdfs. As one AMC member pointed out, this motion asks members to do only a very small action, but experience has shown that with the exception of a huge, costly campaign like ProxyQuest, MOST MEMBERS WON'T DO SQUAT.

I believe that only slightly more than half the membership has email addresses on file and releasable to the Groups. Making paper newsletters opt-in will result in many members left out in the cold and wondering why. It might save money for Groups, but IT WILL NOT IMPROVE SERVICE TO MEMBERS.

I think that each Local Group should have the right to decide for itself if it wants to save money by offering e-publications to the members who desire that format. But as national officers, we have the responsibility to ensure that all members are properly, if minimally, served, and that includes getting a local newsletter without having to do anything other than pay dues.

I did more research, looking at the financial reports and meeting mimutes of several small groups in Region 6. My jaw dropped when I got to the Feb/March issue of The New Mensican, wherein I read that at the December ExComm meeting, they decided to no longer send out email newsletters. That's Ralph's Local Group, of which he is the editor.

I turned up Panhandle's financial statement from Dec 2005... looks like even with the newsletter expenses, they were running in the black. Obviously money was not the reason they folded. Lubbock, a small group, had more money than New Mexico at the time. Permian Basin, another small group, also seems to be running in the black, despite sending out newsletters monthly which comprise four sheets (the same as The New Mensican, although not printed on the thicker paper or saddle).

My awareness of newsletter editors' and LocSecs' complaints that the newsletter eats up their entire budget has been questioned. But actually, I happen to know a great deal about newsletter costs and budgets. In addition to reading every newsletter every month for the past 40 months and reading LocSecs, editors, and newseditors elists, I was recently a newsletter editor, LG Pubs officer, and LocSec. I also did an enormous amount of research just a year ago...did anyone read pp 18-22 of the Funding report?

Here's what I know: A year and a half ago, newsletter costs ranged from 39¢ per copy to $1.41 per copy. Since the funding as 72¢ at the time it seems that 58.6% of the responding groups' newsletters cost more than that. Now that funding is 82¢ for all members, even the second family members who don't get newsletters, which suggests that 75.8% of groups can put out their newsletters without resorting to additional fundraising, such as testing or contacting lapsed members.

The lack of correlation between newsletter cost and quality leads me to believe that throwing more money at an editor will not necessarily improve the quality of the newsletter.

The Groups who are really in financial trouble probably won't make the effort to switch to electronic publishing. I come to this conclusion based on:

• LGFR Pg 33: "Investigated last year’s participation in the Lapsed Member Contact program...[and] Correlated the financial pictures of Local Groups and whether they did or did not take advantage of the Lapsed Member Contact funding program. We Learned [that in 2006]... only 46 (roughly 1/3) of the Local Groups participated in the Lapsed Member Contact program...[that] Of the Local Groups who participated, there was no correlation of willingness to participate with per-member spending....[and that] Local Groups that participated are generally perceived by RVCs and readers of all newsletters to be active and healthy."

• LGFR Pg 44: "Many Local Groups do not respond to requests from “National” even when doing so might ultimately help them. Many Local Groups do not take advantage of all that is offered."

• Ralph Rudolph's comments on MONet April 11, 2006: "Too many of our editors are bored, jaded, burned out as are our LocSecs. Their enthusiasm is gone." and "local groups like mine have gone to the considerable extra effort to save money through e-newsletters... And it is extra effort, as I should know as publisher as well as membership officer. We have to keep an up to date list of the members receiving e-newsletters, strip these out of the labels, post the .pdf versions and figure out more complicated post office forms: many hours of extra work."

Yes, there are groups who do not have RGs and which are so scattered that they cannot raise much in funds. In theory, these Groups have no way to get the extra 33% necessary for a decent paper newsletter except by slashing services. However, even those Groups can test prospective members and contact lapsed members in June and July. These are simple ways of earning money without holding bake sales or gatherings in addition to being effective recruiting and retention techniques.

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

I have been asked if the problem is that the AMC does not really trust the Local Groups. In this case, if they did, it would seem reasonable to allow groups to make the paper-electronic default choice for their own newsletters. While I agree that there are trust issues between Groups and the AMC in both directions, the AMC is responsible for ensuring that all Mensa members, including the Millies, get adequate value for their dues. And that includes keeping paper newsletters as the default.

I do not support forcing Groups to do something that editors have described as requiring hours of extra work, which will not result in better service for members, which will essentially disenfranchise some members, and which will not be complied with by the Groups that would most benefit from it.

I do, however, strongly support Groups offering and encouraging e-pubs for their members as options and I promise to fight against any attempt to reduce Local Group funding for Groups that do choose supplement their paper publications with electronic (and no-- there have been no suggestions to do that at the AMC level).

Working on InterLoc with TJ:

My Side of the Story

I understand that my name is being dragged through the mud again. I know I should ignore it; I should chalk it up as the price any prominent volunteer must pay for...um... that prominence. On the other hand, if I remain silent, then readers will only have one half of the story upon which to judge me. It really bothers me that noone ever thinks to ask me for my side of an issue. So I'd like to share a few bits of information that TJ has left out of her screeds:

I paid actual money to support the mission of Going Forward. I wrote for GF. I didn't say "InterLoc should not carry articles by any GFers." I said "InterLoc should not JUST carry articles by GFers."

Picture it, if you can: I was thrown into a demanding role mid-term and had Jean on one side and TJ on the other--both actively working to "educate" me about how things should be done.

TJ sent articles to me in advance, and more often than not initiated the discussion about those articles and their appropriateness. When I directly asked if the process of reviewing and discussing articles was "helpful or tedious," TJ replied, "It was definitely not tedious." As her tenure wound down, TJ wrote to me: "Your comments, especially concerns, are helpful since they are not demands."

I advocated for 6 issues a year because that was how it had been done for several years up to then. The only reason TJ put out monthly issues during her half-year tenure was because there was money left over due to the long gap between editors. Regarding my cutting of the InterLoc budget, that's simply not true. The budget in 2003-04 was $15410 and the actual spending was $12,266. In 2004-05 the budget, developed by Tim, was $12,250 and the actual spending was $11,237. Hmm... Tim seems to have DECREASED the budget. In 2005-06, the budget, developed by Robin while TJ was editor, was $12,450 and the actual spending was $10,203. Notice that I INCREASED the budget even though spending was down.

Regarding the article I questioned because of the political ramifications, I simply questioned it. Didn't Meredy recently write something about how Mensans should not be afraid to question things? My hunch was that Jean would not want it printed and so I discussed it with the editor, saying: "So in short, I'm not asking you to pull it and I *do* think it's okay, but I want to cover my bases and run it past Jean before we give it a 'go.'"

I suspected that there might be more to the article than met the eye, and since the guidelines state that ""Other relevant parties may be requested by the Communications Officer or the Editor to review..." I wanted to allow Jean to see it and voice her opinion. TJ wrote volumes trying to persuade me to not let Jean see it. Deadline was upon us, so I suggested a compromise of holding the article until the next issue so I'd have more time to learn about the issue. TJ refused. She told me that either I had to let her print it now or I had to tell her to pull it permanently...all without consulting the Chairman of AML, despite the holy Guidelines giving me the right to request others to review it.

So I bowed to TJ's pressure and without consulting with Jean, told TJ to run the article. TJ once said to me, regarding Jean demanding right of review and TJ demanding that I not allow Jean to see articles before the issue went to press, "Right now, it must feel like center court and trying to play both Williams sisters at the same time." How true a statement!

In May, as she was preparing her final issue, I wrote:" I've backed you when you believed something as appropriate for InterLoc, and I'll back you when you say something is not appropriate." TJ replied, "Yes, you have, and thank you."

In another email from that same May, TJ wrote: "As I'm heading for the finish line, Robin, I'm suddenly feeling very nostalgic. Thank you for making this InterLoc experience better than it might have been under a different Communications Officer. This points out the necessity for choosing a C.O. carefully.

"Also, do I need to be writing a quarterly report for the Agenda? If so, it must be brief. I've accomplished all goals except, possibly, one. I *would* like people on AMC to know that it has been enjoyable working with you. (Okay, it's a bit of politics, but true, and it doesn't hurt to have it in writing since the 'AMC World' thinks I am hard to work with so you must have been a Miracle Worker.)"

In late May, TJ wrote: "...since one of my (and many members' gripes) about InterLoc production is that there is too much interference by the national office and the chairman, I do not want to play into that (and then whine about it). I've asked you for *advice* and you have given it. That is exactly what a Communications Officer is supposed to do. Good job! Now, if I'm going to be straightforward and 'put my money where my mouth is,' I need to take editorial responsibility in determining what goes in and what is removed. That does NOT mean I don't want further input from you; I do. It just means that the ball is in my court, and I'm the one who has to knock it over the net or take the lumps for not doing so. In a way, this is not a bad situation because it is a sort of discussion of duties and editorial prerogatives and even the fallout on the editor -- and that gives you ideas on how to best work with the next editor. Once again, I have to tell you that I'm grateful for the input and the absence of demands. You are allowing the editor to be the editor. It's what InterLoc is supposed to do."

As for my concern about being reappointed, TJ told me that "that Sander has taken my word that you would be just fine as CO." It is hard to imagine her recommending me if my reign as CO had really made editing InterLoc such a nightmare.

So how did it come to pass that all of that has been forgotten and I'm now characterized as such a typical, party-line, dictatorial member of the establishment? Were all those kind and supportive words from TJ just insincere flattery merely meant to butter me up? How could I have been I so wrong to have not taken the advice I was given --by several people on and off the AMC--when I first came onboard, "Don't trust TJ. She may be nice to you now, but as soon as you don't do what she wants, she'll stab you in the back."?

Shortly after leaving office, TJ wrote to me, "One of the difficult parts about leaving an office in Mensa is that you seem to leave behind the friendships you made while serving in that office."

Ah, yes, the friendships we make while serving Mensa. With friends like these...

Political Correctness

Every now and then I read members’ complaints about if Mensa has no opinions, then why does the Bulletin, Forums, local newsletter, etc. have the right to censor members’ contributions? Isn’t that censorship basically the editor’s or moderator’s expression of a personal value? Has Mensa become so concerned with being politically correct that it stifles intellectual debate from fear of offending someone?

“Politically correct” describes language, ideas, policies, or behavior which seeks to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. I can see how that would curtail free debate on many topics, and I agree with the editor of the SCAM that “political correctness has no place in Mensa.”

If controversy and edginess are good for our minds and conversations, why then does the magazine ever reject such content? Here’s my opinion: articles or ads are not rejected from publication because the content is considered by some to be offensive or politically incorrect—they’re rejected because the person with the authority to judge decided that the content is poorly written or not of significant interest to enough people to warrant the space.

There is a difference between censorship of potentially offensive ideas—and rejection of shameless self-promoting or mean-spirited crap. Good editors are expected to distinguish between the two.