Well......

 So that happened!

Voting on Proposed Bylaws Amendments

Here’s my take on the Bylaws amendments (I’ve shamelessly lifted some of what Howard wrote on Facebook).

1. Replacement bylaw text. NO

Some good, some bad, some that really ought to be debated separately. So just No for this omnibus proposal.

2. Non-voting membership on the AMC. NO

This is the one near and dear to my heart and I went so far as to submit a Con statement for the Bulletin. Contrary to what some think, this does not take these folks off the board. It saves no money. It means they do everything they do now, which, frankly, is a ton more than many other AMC positions, and then twiddle thumbs and bend paperclips when an actual vote is called for. It also means they cannot vote on the action committees they chair, nor on motions involving budget areas they are responsible for overseeing.

3. Voting membership on the AMC (past chairmen). YES

There is value to past Chairs being around to advise, but in these days of easy instant communication, their presence at the table is no longer necessary. Plus, if you really hate a Chair and vote him out of office, do you want him hanging around voting for another 8 or more years?

4. Recall elections. YES

We need a mechanism in place.

5. Nominating Committee. YES

My personal opinion, based on a great deal of research and reading I did for the Gov’t task Force, is that we need a strong NomComm with teeth. But since that is a no-opt for Mensans who can’t stand the thought of other Mensans sitting in judgment, then what we do have is pointless and should go.

6. Petition Signatures. YES

I ran for 1^st VC. I got my 50 signatures in under eight hours. HOURS. Surely someone hoping to lead at that level should be able to work a little harder and gather up a few more straw votes of confidence.

7. Candidate Nomination Deadline. NO

As Howard wrote: “There is too much potential in this amendment for an extremely short election period — if the removal of the NomComm in Amendment #5 does not pass. One month between the NomComm deadline and the end of the petition process is far too short a period of time for people to know about the NC decisions and choose to run and secure petition signatures.”

8. Nominees for Chair, 1VC and 2VC with AMC experience. NO

I’m wishy-washy on this one, but inexperienced people can run if unopposed—why shouldn't they also run if opposed? If we really want only experienced people in those positions (which I’m kind of in favor of), then the amendment should not allow inexperienced unopposed people to run.

9. AMC meeting announcements. NO

I’m wishy-washy on this, but having been on the board, I know that the only time quick meetings are called are in emergencies, and in an emergency, 14 days is an eternity.

10. Audio and video recordings. YES

Sure, there are some legal risks with having recordings that might contradict the official minutes, but these days, meetings are going to be recorded, openly or surreptitiously, with an electronic devices or by watch dogs with pens and papers. So accept the reality of the modern world and do the right thing to show the members you’re not afraid of them knowing what goes on in meetings.

11. & 12. Duties of the Ombudsman NO and NO

There are pros and cons in each of these, but in my mind, amendments that are originated as reactions to personality-driven conflicts are not the right way to run an organization.

13. Annual Dues. NO

A weak “no,” that is. As Howard wrote: “There is too much ‘wiggle room’ in pushing a dues increase through currently, whether the increase is necessary or not.” True, but Nick makes some very good points in support of how things are done now. I’d really rather nix this amendment and change it next election cycle in some sort of manner than eliminates the wiggle room but still takes into consideration the lead times of meetings and very importantly, the announcement of the MIL component.

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.

Election Committee Report

The final Election Committee report is available. Just as I'm starting to feel better, I got to read over and over and over again how I lost. Oh joy.

I think one thing that steams me is how I spent so much time being open and transparent with my views on issues, unlike Cookie and Dan, only to learn that voting members don't care (I tracked how many asked me questions or visited the Web site with all my information). Are my views so way off-base that I would have done better to keep my mouth shut and fingers duct taped?

To The Election Committee

I have seen what Lee is writing and publishing about Maggie and the Election Committee.
His message is --how shall I put it-- really petulant and vicious.

Speaking as one of the more aggrieved parties in this election mishap, I would like to take this opportunity to state, publicly and unequivocally, that:

It's Been a Week

It's been a week since I got the call telling me that I lost the election. During that week I've been hobbling around on a sprained ankle and eating pain pills, steam cleaning the carpets because of a sick dog, and listening to the wheedling of a son who came within half percentage point of the all-Bs necessary to keep his computer in his room over the summer (you do understand who is really feeling the punishment, right?).


I've had to endure all that while still reading letters complaining about fonts in the Bulletin and answering questions about acceptability of name and logo use on liner notes, artwork, and SIG URLs. I am still working like mad to wrap up the giant Local Group Service & Funding report. I've been cleaning out my inbox and either answering dangling questions and requests or forwarding things to my successors. I even had the joy of proofing the July Bulletin— with the original set of election results (ouch).


I've been composing the messages to my various elists, committees, and helpers to thank them and to make introductions. I've even been doing a little bit of AMC-motion discussion. I've been talking with people who ask me to take on this or that national role for the next term. I've had conversations with other losing candidates about whether or not to contest the election (I'm not going to).


And I've been fielding calls and emails from well-wishers. At first, I was miserable and didn't want to talk to anyone. Emotions swirled, many of which were not very pretty. I'm allowed to feel like crap at how the campaign went and how the election turned out, so I'm not going to apologize for that. But those calls and messages have made me remember that while the uninformed voters may not know what skills and talents I offer, plenty of people do know, and do appreciate me. I'm able to see that the sun will still shine and Mensa still has a welcoming place for me.


It's been a week.
It's time for me to quit wallowing, put on my big-girl panties, and do the right thing.

Saying Thank You

I'm working my way down my list of "Things to tell Brian" about communications, "Things to tell Roger" about Name and Logo, and "Goodbye and you rock" messages to all the fabulous members who have served with me on committees and projects. I was very fortunate to find and keep the people I worked with:

Sallie, Guy, Mel, Nancy, James,
Brian M., Gary, Dennis, Brian R., Gail, Thomas, Greg, Dan W., Barbara, Terri, Bill, Erik, Tim, Rob, Dana, Lynn, Kevin, Sheila, Brad, Zee, Marc, Carol, Claire, Jill, Lessa, Kathe, Don, Jared, BethAnne, Jean B., Jean D., and many others over the years.

One of the calls I got yesterday, expressing the usual "surprise at the election outcome / gosh you sure did lots of great work / what will we do without you" sentiments also commented on my annual report in the Bulletin and how while most other officers' were filled with  "I, I, I," and wrote about everything they did and accomplished, my column was taken up with thanking my people. Well, yes, I've always believed that was the purpose of that column. Members know I get stuff done. I already had my name in lights, so to speak. For the other volunteers, that annual mention was all the reward and glory I could offer them.

They deserve everyone's thanks.

Reactions to the Election Results

So just as the congratulations poured in when I "won," now the "Well shit, that sucks" messages are filling up my inbox. My favorite exchange so far:


"The voters in these elections a woefully uninformed.  I just don't know who's going to drive the train anymore without Robin there."


My reply: "Don't worry about no Robin to drive the train. No one wants to get anywhere."


And yes, I've heard from Dan. I was shocked at what he wrote to me. I'm debating the ethics of posting it here. It would be unethical to publish a private email, but then again, so many things in this election were underhanded and slimy and my consistent effort to take the high ground approach did not exactly teach me that being ethical is of any value in Mensa. 

Silver Linings

• I will save about a thousand dollars a year on dog boarding.
• I will no longer have to listen politely to raving loons.
• I can unsubscribe to MPol because I have no need for the three grains of value per thousand posts generated by the hate-filled crazy people on it.
• I will not have to deal with Tony Lash, Tom Taffee, or Barry Levine in Portland.
• I get 50 or so hours of time back each month.
• I don’t have to hold back and be politically correct and sensitive to people’s feelings on my blog.
• I can enter the PRP and other competitions, just like a regular member with full rights.
• Less email. Way less email.
• I won’t have to pretend that I think the vaunted “Strategic Plan” has any meaning. I can shout “the emperor has no clothes” from the rooftops.
• No more proofing the Bulletin, InterLink, FRED, and other materials.
• No more meaningless quarterly reports.
• I can stop telling people “NO.” As in “No, you can’t use the logo that way.” “No, you can’t be a dick on the forums.” “No, you can’t distribute membership data without a release.” “No, I can’t make the butthead stop harassing you on your unofficial elist.” “No, we’re not going to print your moronic article.”
• I won't have to get in the middle of the conflict between the AMC and the bullying tactics of the ombudsman.
• Now that I’m not TPTB, the ombudsman might take my side if I push for action regarding the continued seriously damaging libel about me on the web.
• I can put away my big brass balls and stop doing the difficult, right things instead of the easy, popular things.
• I no longer have to research and consult members before making decisions only to be flogged for not researching and consulting enough, sooner.
• I can take on projects because they interest me, not because "but Robin, you're the only one who can..."
• Less writing.
• More desktop space.
• Fewer deadlines.
• I can be safe from arrows I endured because others on the AMC were too chicken to speak up to the membership.
• I can sit back and be amused as little forward-thinking action is taken while concerned members whine about how “we have to find ways to engage the younger members.”
• Annual Gatherings will be for fun, not for work.
• No one will complain about the cost of my dinner.

Today's Mood

The Election Screw-up

As angry and shredded as I am by the events of this week, I do firmly believe that the office staff and election committee acted impartially, ethically, and as efficiently as possible at every step. The balloting company we hired messed up, caught their mistake, and corrected it. There was no conspiracy or manipulation.

Sometimes the universe just fucks with people. 

And the recount tells a different result