Getting Members & Putting on Big Events—that's all

I have several projects in progress, and every single one grinds to a halt when I get to the point of needing staff input. I’ve nagged and kvetched and nagged, to no avail. At last I’ve discovered why I can’t get anything to the finish line.

It’s not that staff disapproves of my initiatives. It’s not that they don’t like me personally. 

 

The problem is that the staff has been given other priorities that take up all their time all year long:

 

January to April — Renewal season. 

April to July — AG preparation and implementation. It’s the big event and every year more and more has to be done by staff.

July to September — Post AG catch up and perhaps a vacation or two.

September to November — All the tech work for the next AG, MindGames, and Colloquium.

November to December — More AG/MindGames, & Colloquium work.

December to January —Holidays, vacations, and prepping for renewal season.

 

In other words, we’ve only hired enough staff to tend to getting members and making the big national events happen. That’s it.

 

There are no man-hours available for improving websites, creating new this or that, or even having thick discussions about how current processes and policies could be improved.

 

The solution is to either allocate more money to hire more staff OR to reassign some of the work to volunteers. Unfortunately, the first option doesn’t sit well with the members or the AMC, and the second option doesn’t sit well with the staff.

 

And we wonder why AML seems so clunky and behind the times.

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.

Further thoughts on the Oral History Project email/postcard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which brings us to this fiasco—

Two things need to change in the future:

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

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

Reflections on the Ombudsman's Report & AMC's Response

I’ve been watching the dissemination and discussions of the recent Ombudsman’s Report and the AMC’s Response to it. Both parties seem to have forgotten one of the key points to effective persuasive writing: They rambled on too long, diluting any salient points they hoped to make. There is even an Internet acronym for the typical reaction to such postings: TLDR

So I DID read both articles and have boiled them down:

Ombudsman’s Report

• Members have complained to me about this and that, most of which are the same things members have grumbled about for a decade.

• The AMC is ignoring complaints and not doing a good job looking over and into National Office goings-on.

• The Exec Director is leading the blind AMC by the nose, and the ExComm is leading the rest of the Board in a similar patronizing manner.

• I think I should get funded to go to every meeting and read every email and have full access to all information, even if it is private, but the paranoid AMC cabal won’t let me.

AMC’s Response

• The Ombudsman is a snooping busybody bully who goes overboard in his perception of his duties and powers. He screwed up in a way that we were able to catch and so we bounced him from our private conversations.

• We did what we did regarding personnel and we’re not going to talk about it with anyone any more. Everything is fine now. Trust us.

• Many of his accusations are not true according to how we see things. Plus he has access to much more information than he realizes if he knew how to look for it.

I’ve been on the AMC with many of the current officers. I participated in the  creation of the budget and the discussions of staff salaries. I was on the AMC when this particular Ombudsman took office. I’ve been a loud and active anti-AMC/anti-Exec Director rabble-rouser in recent years.

I have a clue about both sides’ views.

And I am utterly embarrassed for both parties. You look like poo-flinging, tantruming toddlers. Together, you are making the entirety of Mensa leadership at the National Level look like petty fools squabbling in a sandbox.

You have all damaged the dignity of the organization. I suggest you pull both articles and go sit in your corners until dinnertime.

Data Base Efficiency

So I noticed the back of my most recent Bulletin-- the one with the  post-it note on the cover to make me feel like I'm special. Except, of course, it looks like whoever is handling the membership database is a bit confused about who lives here. 

Yup, looks like things are running smoothly when it comes to our personal information.

Today's Letter to the AMC

Dear Members of the American Mensa Board of Directors,

This is not yet another “Save Howard” appeal. What is done is done, and I’m confident you all are more than aware of my opinions on the matter.

Nor is this another “Replace the Executive Director” request.

I know that you’ve gotten many emails, phone calls, and other messages expressing members’ thoughts and wishes. I know that at least the Treasurer has been given a number of questionable activities to look into. I know that you’ve been conducting an investigation into the workings of the National Office and soliciting input from current and former staff with which to base your decisions and actions going forward. Were I on the Board, I would fully endorse a full investigation.

I also know that you have chosen not to interview former staff members who left more than six months ago (and I suspect that not all of those who left in the last six months were asked to complete your survey). This, of course, strikes me as a great failing with your investigation, since I and many others firmly believe that the problems in the Office are not a recent development but started several years ago, involving a larger number of past staff.

I am also skeptical of the objectivity of this investigation, since you’re interviewing current staff members who may be less than candid, what with their livelihoods on the line, and considering rumors of recent raises and promotions.  Surely you can explain away members’ concerns that staff silence and collusion are being bought.

Be that as it may, I have a couple questions.

I believe that the Executive Director’s employment contract is up for review in the spring of each year. Did you, as a body charged with this responsibility, review and actively choose to renew her contract, or did you take no action at all, allowing the contract to simply roll over due to other considerations or simply neglect, both results, of course, being that there is no way you could, even if you wanted to give into the members’ wishes, replace her?

Assuming that your hands are legally tied by her contract, when is the next opportunity you (or the next Board) will have to review and choose to extend or not extend her employment, and will this fall directly at the beginning of Mensa’s election season where some may be reluctant to take action, positively or negatively?

I am quite sure the upcoming election will hinge greatly on this matter, and it would help members make sound voting choices if they have facts instead of rumors to base their decisions on.

Thank you in advance for your time and answers to my two questions.

Robin Crawford
Chicago Area Mensa

Politics and Proctoring

I’ve been a proctor for oh, maybe ten years or so. I forget exactly. It’s generally a joy to do—talking up Mensa, answering questions, promoting activities and participation, being the  welcoming face to new members.

But about a month and a half ago, I decided that I was no longer comfortable rah-rahing for an organization that was becoming, in my opinion, less and less welcoming. It was the whole AM Facebook meltdown that was the final straw—I could not in good conscience tell people that Mensa was this happy, accepting family they were looking for. I’ve ranted about that in previous posts; no need to repeat myself here.

Then came the Howard/Executive Director/National Office/AMC storm.  I’m angry and despondent and disgusted... and really really don’t want to do any more testing for Mensa. I was intending to notify our local Proctor Coordinator this coming week, and arrange to get him all my unused testing supplies.

So here I was this afternoon, relaxing after a long day dropping off the boy child at college and looking forward to a night without kids in the house for the first time in what feels like forever. Then the phone rang. Our LocSec was frantic—she had seven people show up for the testing session and no proctor. Since I live only 20 minutes away, could I please come over and do the test session?

I was torn.

On one hand, I was weary and disinclined to do any more testing. On the other hand, I harbor no displeasure with our Local Group, and certainly had nothing against the people who had driven far to take the test. To say “no” would have been just... well… shitty. So I changed my shirt, grabbed my testing supplies, and headed over. The session went smoothly. The Local Group was relieved and thankful.

I only hope the AMC feels the same way.

Actions to Take & a Lesson on Calumny

Many people have asked what they should do to right the wrongs they see at the National Office. It is a fact, and one I still support, that the Executive Director has the authority to hire and fire staff as she sees fit, without consulting the AMC.

There is NOTHING members or the AMC can do to reverse her decision regarding Howard Prince.  Chanting “Bring back Howard” is useless and makes us all look like whiney petulant children.

The actions that will turn Mensa back into the organization the members want are fairly simple. Pressure on the elected officers should be applied, respectfully, so they act in a manner pleasing to the members they serve.

The AMC, and the ExComm in particular, need to be inundated with concrete actionable reasons to dismiss Pam as the Executive Director of American Mensa. 

Only after the AMC has hired a new Executive Director, who will presumably act more in accordance with the ASIE, Bylaws, Constitution, and wishes of the membership, can specific staff changes occur. 

Now, before you go writing to the AMC with all your thoughts why Pam should be removed, consider this:

"Acts inimical to the society" are defined as "deliberate acts that are harmful to, or result in harm to, Mensa." “Acts inimical” to Mensa shall include (though the definition shall not be limited to) the following:
Threatening, intimidating, coercing, calumniating or otherwise interfering with persons involved in the authorized activities of Mensa including volunteers, appointees, or paid staff members;

(there are other acts listed in the ASIE, but this is the pertinent one)

Calumniating, you may recall, is what Barry Levine did to Dave Remine that led to Barry's banishment from Mensa. So what is calumny? Basically a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something.

So as long as anyone speaking out against Pam Donahue is willing and able to provide evidence for the veracity of his or her statements, it should not be considered an act inimical.

NOTE: The following examples are for illustrative purposes and ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

Calumny:

“Pam sacrifices puppies in the office.”

Not Calumny:

“I observed Pam with the remains of a dead puppy on her desk when I visited the office for the Finance Committee meeting on February 30th, 2010. Furthermore, I noted an increase in the budgetary line item for blood removal cleaning solution.”

Calumny:

“Pam’s a poopy head who believes she doesn't have to answer to the membership.”

Not Calumny:

“Pam said that she wants the AMC to butt out of how she runs the office, and here’s the IM conversation I had with her where she said that.”

Calumny:

“Pam spends Mensa’s money to buy booze for herself and her cronies.”

 Not Calumny:

“On April 31st, 2012, I was at dinner with Pam and observed her using her corporate card to pay for a round of drinks for her friends from ASAE.”

Calumny:

"Pam hires and keeps her friends on staff even if they are incompetent at their jobs."

Not Calumny:

"Pam hired Gilda Rosencrantz, who is tagged in FB pictures indicating that she went to college with Pam's daughter. Gilda was put in charge of making graphics for AML's Mental Games event and misspelled the banner image as 'Menial Games'. Gilda received a 5% raise at her review 6 months later." 

Something Is Rotten In the City of Arlington

Let me start with what I do NOT know:

I don’t know if Howard has signed or will sign any kind of non-disclosure agreement as part of the terms of his dismissal.

I don’t know of legal action he may or may not take against Pam, the AMC, or Mensa in general – and I’m not sure he would as he really does love Mensa. On the other hand, I don’t know if there would be legal action from the AMC.

Here’s what I DO know, based on years of working closely with Howard and other staff, and several years of being Pam’s new best friend – right up until I lost the election, after which I was thrown under the bus and kept out of the loop politically:

The AMC, via the ExComm, hires an Executive Director charged with running a National Office to get stuff done the AMC wants done. They hire and fire ONLY the Exec Dir. The Exec Dir, in turn, has total control over what happens in the office. Pam had her reasons for firing Howard. While I can guess, I cannot fully know what those reasons were. But I firmly believe them to have been trumped up reasons. (Cookie has posited a plausible theory on Facebook which two separate people have told me was the cause given for his dismissal.)

The working environment in the National Office has been increasingly toxic for the last three or four years. We have lost Catherine, Mary, Julies Boone and Clark, Roger, Heather, Bryan, and now Howard. Other staff, such as Paige, have been marginalized (whether it was Paige’s decision or not). New, young, and less experienced people have been hired. Testing is down. Membership remained flat for a third year. Dues are going up. Tasks deemed important enough to be touted in the Bulletin by even the Chairman—namely the Online Compendium and Guides—are not getting done due to staff time not being allocated.  

Two other former employees besides Howard have shared stories with me about her management of the office, despite being given specific directives by Pam to “not get too friendly with Robin.” Howard has been held in high regard by many of his fellow co-workers just as he is by the membership at large. They have shared with him their concerns about Pam’s erratic and abusive management style. Simply put, he knows too much.

Pam has actively worked to keep members and AMC members in the dark. Money is being spent to hire outside consultants to take over tasks formerly done by volunteers, which further limits the exposure members have to the goings on in the National Office. During the week prior to Howard’s dismissal, the Board of Directors were kept in the dark about which staff person was on the firing line. Additionally, even Marc Lederman, Howard’s Board counterpart, was told he may not speak with Howard and threatened with possible legal ramifications if he did.

Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE knows that Howard has long been the clear choice to replace Pam as Exec Director of Mensa. He was a threat to Pam’s job security, and became more and more so as her overall performance continued to spiral downward.

Howard is a member of Intertel, thus, he clearly qualifies to join Mensa. Already, a number of members have asked him to. He has always expressed a firm intention to join when he is no longer a staff member. He continues to express publicly that he loves Mensa in general.

Pam did consult with the ExComm, and a majority (of the five people ruling Mensa—the rest of the AMC was kept in the dark) backed her decision to dismiss Howard. All but one of the current ExComm members are running for re-election. If you don’t like that they supported Pam’s decision, then don’t vote for them, and spread the word to encourage other members to vote accordingly. Heck, start the process for recalling them.

As I said before, like it or not, Pam did have the authority to let Howard go. The only solution to reversing this action is for the ExComm to fire Pam and to replace her with a new Executive Director who will act more in line with the wishes of the membership, which in my opinion would include rehiring Howard. Of course, an even better solution would be for the ExComm to hire Howard back as Executive Director.

National Office Postal Machines

In reaction to an earlier post, Jared commented about the cost of the postal machine in the office and asked if we had considered alternatives such as stamps.com. Here is some information about that:

The lease and maintenance on the machines costs $21,300 for the year. It collates, folds letters (including multiple pages) stuffs the envelopes, and seals the seals. Last WEEK alone it processed 4,000 membership cards. The other machine applies the postage. It weighs, checks size, and meters the envelope, then prints the correct postage on each piece. Last year it processed over 84,000 pieces of mail. We did NOT use it for handling renewals, since that comprises more than 100,000 pieces, and necessitates a higher-capacity machine—which is one reason why we use a separate mail house for that. The machines are also used for all of the Foundation mailings. 

If we used something like stamps.com, we'd get postage... but that's it. So we are left to choose between spending the $21,300 on the machines or significantly more than that to hire (and train and insure) a staff to stuff, lick, and stamp envelopes every day.

I think sometimes, members don't grok the scale of operations at the office. Dig out the year-end stats from an AML Today and look at the number of phone calls and mailings the staff handle in a year. It's mind-boggling. 


And yes, these are the actual machines in question; I just happened to be in the office this past weekend, so I snapped the pictures.