Unintended Consequences

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

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

What happens when members figure that out?

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

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

The Communications Committee is dead.

The Membership Committee is dead.

The Strategic Planning Committee is dead.

The Technology Committee is dead.

The Gifted Youth Committee has no AMC liaison.

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

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

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

AMC's Amendment re: Replacing RVCs

The AMC has put this on the ballot. It is titled "Replacement of Regional Vice-Chairmen"

Proposed amendment:  a.  In Article III, Section (10)(a), first sentence, insert “, other than Regional Vice-Chairmen,” after “Elective and appointive officers”.  The resulting sentence would then be “Elective and appointive officers, other than Regional Vice-Chairmen, may be removed by resolution of the American Mensa Committee for any of the following reasons:”. b.  In Article III, delete the current language in section (11) and its subsections, and replace them with the following: (11)  In the event of the resignation, removal, advancement, or death of an elective officer other than a Regional Vice-Chairman, or in the event of an office other than Regional Vice-Chairman not being filled by election, the remaining members of the American Mensa Committee shall elect a successor to fill the office for the remainder of the term of office; provided that, in the case of vacancy in the office of Chairman or First Vice-Chairman, the officer(s) next in line shall move up and the successor shall serve in the office of Second Vice-Chairman.

My question is this: Where does it talk about how to replace RVCs? It describes how to replace everyone EXCEPT RVCs. What am I missing?

RVC Job Description

So I addressed the AMC about governance last week, and led them through coming up with a couple things to work on. I emphasized that they don't need to solve anything yet-- just gather information on the topics of concern (They chose specialized positions such as a Leadership Officer and the continued need or lack of need for past chairs on the AMC). They claimed to have come up with an acceptable RVC replacement proposition.
And so, on that topic, I thought I'd do a bog post about what I believe to be the full job description for an RVC as currently done:

RVC Duties and Responsibilities

(from interviews with current and former RVCs and LocSecs and various governing documents)

According to Article IV (6) “The duties of the Regional Vice-Chairmen shall be to act as liaison between local groups in their respective Regions and the American Mensa Committee, and to carry out in their respective Regions the policies and programs formulated by the American Mensa Committee.”

According to Appendix 4: Principals of Conduct of AMC Officers, RVCs are “the chief operating officers in their respective regions, and they are responsible for serving the needs of the groups in their regions and are responsible for executive supervision of those groups.”

Manage

·    Supervise LocSecs to make sure they're doing what they need to do. Encourage and pressure them to cooperate and participate and follow rules.

·    Help Local Groups meet legal requirements. List and remind the leaders of duties and deadlines.

·    Facilitate material requests.

·    Approve group formation, dissolution, and gatherings.

·    Reassign Local Group boundaries.

·    Appoint acting LocSecs.

·    Facilitate leadership development workshops and efforts.

·    Certify that a candidate in a local election is a bonafide candidate so that he or she may receive membership information for the purpose of campaigning.

·    Appoint regional scholarship chairs, Ombudsman, and others as needed.

Liaison

·    Keep Local Groups informed about national things that matter.

·    Write column so membership hears about what is going on regionally and nationally.

·    Be the connective glue between groups in a region, and between groups and the national board.

·    Know what is happening in the groups... Bring that insight to the board.

Solve Problems

·    Mediate and soothe conflict.

·    Resolve local and more often personal issues when asked.

·    Convene and facilitate regional hearings.

Support Local Efforts

·    Advise local leaders as requested.

·    Act as a cheerleader for groups and local volunteers and leaders.

·    Create parties and socialize with members.

·    Act as a conduit to resources and experts who might know how to do something.

·    Give out regional service awards.

·    Promote participation in national programs such as CultureQuest®, Gifted Children, SIGHT, scholarships, etc.

·    Promote bids for Annual Gatherings (AG), Colloquia, Mind Games®, and other national events within the region.

Represent

·    Make self accessible so people can give opinions— so it seems to locals that someone high up is interested and listening.

·    Carry local concerns up to AMC level.

·    Gather input from locals to help form voting choice.

Act as BoD member

·    Serve on committees.

·    Conduct an election by the region’s LocSecs for National NomCom representatives.

There is no indication that RVCs do or should poll their constituents and vote accordingly—there is no indication that RVCs are direct carriers of a region’s members’ votes. In fact, I recall Alan, when he was RVC3, polling his members regarding the extra night's stay at the WG. He said that although the majority of his members thought the AMC should be compensated for the extra night, Alan himself disagreed and voted against that motion.

Members who are in Region 00, Isolated M, have no RVC, and no AMC member directly assigned to represent their concerns or wishes. 

Case For No REGIONAL representatives

(Shared from a post by Steven Worth of Plexus Consulting via a blog called Social Fish)

Typically organizations spend way too much time, worry and effort parsing how their multiple constituencies will be represented in their various governance and operational bodies. It is a thankless task where the end result usually is a state of tense political gamesmanship and/or stalemate as one group of constituent interests warily faces off against another. Some people enjoy such games—most do not; and those in the middle usually are reduced to exasperated cynicism about the whole process.

Ever since our Eighteenth Century call to arms– No taxation without representation!–we have been trapped in the mindset that no organization can be truly democratic unless all recognizable constituencies have a seat at the governing table. But in this new era of Internet-based communities it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine whose team anyone is on. Do you feel a certain way just because you live in Michigan, or because you work in a certain industry, or perform a certain job or practice a certain profession?–perhaps so, but increasingly not.

Traditional lines that used to be convenient for determining which “side” people are on are blurring. Slowly nations and people and communities are emerging from our ancient tribal states—call it “the pursuit of happiness,” a concept made famous by another famous Eighteenth Century document—thanks in no small part to the freedom the Internet has provided us. In this evolving environment, overarching strategic purpose becomes key—much more so than the traditional identification by geographic location. It is what draws people and companies to membership organizations and it is what motivates them as donors and engaged members.

So what does “representation” mean in this new environment? I suggest that when it comes to board representation the primary criteria are and should be the background and skills set of the people on the board—do they help advance the organization’s strategy and the strategic goals that are part of that strategy? This is the only question that matters, everything else is or should be subordinate to that.

Read more

Looking at the March 2012 AMC Agenda

Remember that long fully researched report about Local Group funding and needs and uses? The AMC threw up their hands "omg, change bad..." and took no action.


(Side note: I got an email from Rob Salkin recently letting me know he's my AMC liaison and asking if there was anything I'd like him to bring up at the meeting. I replied "What are you my liaison for?" to which he answered "the Local Group Service & Funding Task Force." Ummm, Rob, you guys dissolved that in September.)


But look, now there's a motion, by Rob, of all people, to give groups 1/3 of dues income— DOUBLING the amount groups used to get 8 years ago. No research. No details about why. Oh, and the financial impact says "No impact to the bottom line... but one or more budget areas will likely need to be cut..." to the tune of half a million dollars.  Hmmm... half a million sounds like a wee impact on the bottom line of a budget.

In other news, as everyone knows, I did a ton of work, at the request of the AMC, to solve the issue of RVC replacement—an issue that must, by law, be resolved. I gave it to them in December. I see on the agenda for this meeting... er......nothing.

No mention of it at all.

Wow. Just wow.

Writing for InterLink

I was asked to write something for InterLink. Gee... what should I write about? RVC replacement, perhaps? (Why did I hear Dana Carvy's "Church Lady" voice in my ear when I wrote that?) The trick is to figure out how to condense ten pages of data into a ~500 word article.

Links to Some of My Reports

Matt helped me set up DropBox, and now I have several of the big reports I've written for Mensa available for anyone who wants to download and read them:


The RVC Conundrum Background Paper 2011
The Local Group Service & Funding Report 2011
Governance Task Force Report 2010
InterLoc Background Paper 2010
Name & Logo Workbook 2009
Local Group Service & Funding Report 2006

RVC Replacement Proposal

My RVC Conundrum Background Paper is done. Wanna see it? 


Keep in mind this is not an AMC proposal, nor was it developed by the Governance Blueprint Task Force. This is plain vanilla member Robin's work and proposal. How it will be received I cannot predict, but at least the necessary dialogs will be shaken back to life, this time with plenty of hard data to consider.


Thank you to Howard and Pam at the National Office who kept answering my requests for information. Thank you to Marc for helping sum up the previously floated solutions' pros and cons and to the current and past RVCs who took time to answer my questions about their jobs.

Frequency of RVC Replacements

I'm feverishly working to finish up my background paper regarding RVC replacement solutions. Here's one of the bits of data I dug up:

Out of 88 RVC terms (Region 10 was added in 2000) since 1995, there have been 10 mid-term vacancies. Of those, 5 left office before the first year was over.

Ignoring the term that just started this summer, in the past 15 years, just over 6% of RVC have needed to be replaced within 12 months. Nearly 13% have needed to be replaced at some point during the two-year term.

The RVC Conundrum

The bronchitis is lifting, WeeM is over, and I'm trying to get my motivation back to work on Mensa projects.

In my last report to the AMC from the Governance Blueprint Task Force, I specifically requested  "A statement from the AMC indicating this project is important, and that they are inclined to actually consider structural changes would do much to encourage our efforts." Since then, I have heard nothing, not even from the AMC members of the task force. I sent out an email to the committee, asking some questions and trying to nudge some action on some of the small governance issues we're hoping to tackle. I asked for some specific actions, such as "We need someone to gather up and list the options [for RVC replacement] considered and the basic pros and cons of them." I received one response from one committee member supporting an idea already discussed (regarding advertising for appointed positions), and utter silence from the rest.

To say that I'm frustrated is an understatement.

Ok, so I already knew that Mensa leaders are not in a "change is good" mood. I get that. So I'm not going to pound my head against a wall in hopes of making sweeping changes. But there are a few that can be made now, and one in particular that MUST be made now-- the RVC Replacement problem must be solved.

So, finding myself being the little red hen, yet again, I'm taking it on and preparing a background paper in hopes that a solution we haven't thought of will leap out. The good news is, I am seeing a shimmer of an inexpensive solution not yet proposed. I prefer not to describe my idea here yet, since I have more facts to gather first and may yet discover that I'm way out in left field.

I've been combing through the bylaws pulling relevant set sections regarding AMC  appointments and RVC elections.

I've been interviewing people —current and past RVCs and LocSecs— to create a thorough  description of what an RVC really does or is expected to do (fascinating and eye-opening, by the way— and yes, I'll blog it later).

Today I'll go find the New York law and section that is hanging us up regarding not letting the AMC or LocSecs appoint replacement RVCs with voting rights. I have a good notion of what it says, but I need the actual words. 

So there you have it— I'm working to make progress, in tiny tiny stages.

RVC Replacement

Some people advocate having proper special elections for RVC replacement, and using the Bulletin as the vehicle for the process.

Let's suppose RVC 11 quits today. The deadline is past, but with effort, the call for candidates gets put into the Aug Bulletin. Candidates raise their hands and get listed in the Oct Bulletin (having missed the deadline for the Sept issue).Let's shorten voting for 6 weeks to only 3, add a week of counting and triple validating, and the new RVC 11 starts Nov 1.

Nearly 4 months and only one AMC meeting, in the best scenario.

If RVC 11 waits until mid-Aug to quit, the call for candidates goes into the October Bulletin, ballots into the Nov/Dec, vote validation complete by mid January. Region 11 will have had no voting representation at 2 AMC meetings.

As I see it, there are two issues to consider: Making sure there is someone knowledgeable and able to advise Local Groups and ensuring that the collective opinion of the region is voiced at the board meetings. It is quick and easy to appoint someone to be a regional advisor. It is quick and easy to appoint someone to poll a region's members and ferry their thoughts to the board meetings. It is not so quick and easy to replace a voting member of the board. 

So my question is this: Are RVCs like delegates of the Electoral College, without whom a segment of the membership is uncounted? Do RVCs objectively poll their entire membership and voting accordingly for every motion?

Back from Exec Session

RVC replacement discussion continues.

Vote on (my) motion to postpone: Failed (Ayes: Poirier, Sanford, Crawford, Conti, Lederman, Mark, Recht, Becker)

Vote on amendment to motion to take this to the ABM:  Failed (Ayes: Sanford, Lederma,,n Norris Mark, Conti, Crawford, Timmers, Kuyper)

Vote on the motion to have LocSecs replace and remove RVCs: Passed (Opposed: Norris, Lederman, Mark, Conti, Crawford).

RVC Vacancies

Hoo boy... here we go!

This is a series of proposed bylaws amendments to make it possible to replace RVCs via a vote of LocSecs in the region. Also covered is removal of AMC members for cause--again, by the LocSecs.
Lederman spoke against it. Conti spoke against it. Conti moves to amend the motions to put  it on the agenda at the ABM.  Burg did not accept this as a friendly amendment. Norris seconds the amendment.

I move to postpone  this until we receive recommendations from the Governance Task Force. Conti seconds. Burg says put this on ballot now, and if the governance task force comes up with something between now and next spring, then fine, we'll withdraw this proposal. Cyndi agrees with Dan.
Conti asks for closed session to discuss a pending legal issue germane to this topic.

(my notes stop for now, obviously)

AMC Meeting Day One

Today is day two of the AMC meeting. Yesterday went well. It was long and dull in parts. We broke it up into a bit of formal motion-discussion and voting and then long periods of "planning."

Planning Sessions

Most of the "planning" was listening to explanations of prior efforts and progress, followed by a few small group work. My table worked on aspects of the  membership strategic goal. We identified, using the quarterly reports and our own knowledge, what the organization as a whole has accomplished in that area since July. And then we identified a bunch of pieces of data we wanted to have and track over time to help the AMC and staff stay on top of and react to and assess various aspects of the membership goal. I felt a bit patronized during the process, and my eyes glazed over a few times, but in general, it was useful and I'm feeling a bit more positive about this "strategic planning" stuff. Now if only we could get rid of all the fluffy words so I wouldn't be constantly wanting to shout out "but the emperor is naked!"

Tweeting

I tweeted as best I could during all this. Yes, De, I know you don't like Twitter, but it was much easier to use from my iphone than the AML Online Community ( I didn't have my laptop out during the meeting). If you are interested in the tweets about the whole day, including the things the various small groups came up with, go look at my twitter feed (to the right of this column).

Charter

The motion on the LG Charter passed with little discussion- what was left to say, really? I am soooooo glad to have that off my plate!

Discussion on LG Directories

We had some formal discussions about LG directories-- should they be allowed to email them, should they be allowed to create them at all, etc. Result is that LGs can make local directories but that we'll keep the rule that LGs can't email the electronic versions out of concern for member-privacy issues.

MIL Exchange program

We talked about the MIL program to send a few Americans to the European AG to give some LDWs, and to send some Europeans here to our AG for the same reason. Sounds useful and interesting. The Leadership Committee ( Peggy is chair) will choose candidates and the AMC will approve. (I think that's how it's going to work.)

Replacing RVCs

We talked about the options for replacing RVCs. Narrowed it down to:

* LocSecs choose

* LocSecs and Excomms choose

* Nominate regionally, elect nationally- each member has one vote to cast

* Nominate regionally, elect nationally- each member has ten votes to cast

* Elect and RVC and a spare the first time around

* Hold a full regional election

* Do nothing-- appoint a regional rep if we have to, and a non-voting rep if there are two RVCs who leave in a term.

All have merit. None are perfect. We had a series of straw polls to determine preferences so we could then direct the Bylaws Committee  to craft the proposals. First round of straw votes showed a clear preference for the LocSec option, and fairly even splits for the other options.  I voted for the Nom regionally, elect nationally with each member casting one vote option. In discussion, Burg explained why the LocSec option was legal. I pointed out that our membership had already told us that they don't think it's legal enough. Then he chewed me a new one.

The downside of the concern about the full regional election is the cost and the time it would take. The upside is that members in a region would really, no bones about it, get to vote for their representative. I then pointed to RVCs Lori, Marc, Betsy, and Ken (in my line of sight) and asked them how many members voted for them in the last election. The answer: none. My point is that if we held a regular style full regional replacement election, at least 60% of the time it would go fast and cost little, simple because there would be only one volunteer willing to do the job. And that all this howling about members should get to choose their representatives' replacements  is kinda lame, since plenty of times, they have no choice the first time around.

Anyway, second straw poll had most "votes" (most in this case being about 8) supporting the LocSec option again, so the Bylaws Committee was instructed to go work on that. Guy asked for a poll to confirm that there would be at least 11 AMC members who would support that option, as otherwise it's useless for the bylaws Comm to spend time on it. We did yet another poll, and yes, it looks like more than 11 AMC members would support that method. I voted against it. So did Guy. I did not take notes and cannot recall who else voted against it. But this was a straw poll- not a formal vote. I doubt it will be in the official minutes.

Day is Done

We broke up, some went to a Site Selection meeting ( not me, so I have no idea what they discussed). We had dinner. I went to the Finance Committee meeting ( two hours!). We reviewed our motions we're making today, answered questions of committee members, looked at budget projections and balance sheets, gnashed our teeth, and pounded our chests. The thing that is clear to me, at least, is that we only have to borrow (from life dues principal) the amount listed in the motion before the AMC today. The rest of the ~$2 million spent on the lawsuit we had in reserve. The other finance motion is not about replaying that $2mil (we didn't borrow it, so who would we repay it to?), but about building our reserves back up until the net assets are positive on the balance sheet. I suggested an LDW presentation at the AG about how to find and read AMLs financial documents. Others scoffed that no members would attend such a presentation.

And then, a glass or two of wine in hospitality, and off to bed around 11pm.

Uncontested RVC Replacements

In the great debate about replacing RVCs mid-term...

It occurs to me that no one has brought up the sad fact that very often there is only one candidate for an office, and that person is declared elected without the members of that region actually casting any votes. I wonder how often this would occur with a full-regional special replacement election?

I don't remember the break down of why a regional special election will cost ~$5k, but if each region has about 5,000 people in it, to print, mail, and pay the counting house to count that many ballots would, very likely, cost around $1 a piece. But if you figure that the chances of those elections being uncontested as 60% (as was the case in the last election)... well, maybe that's not so bad, looking at the longer term financial picture.

RVC6 Resignation

The AMC didn't kick him out; he quit. Why isn't anyone asking RR how his actions and decisions served the members who elected him?

Musing on Representation

Ten of the AMC members are elected by regions. I suppose this means the RVCs “represent” the interests of their areas. But I have to wonder, what differing needs are there that are purely geographically based? What would happen if AMC Members-at-Large were elected nationally, each putting forth their platform:

• I support involvement in MIL.
• I think we should switch from a National Office to two guys in a spare bedroom.
• I’m young and hip.
• I’m old and wise.
• I want more money for LGs and fewer national-level services.
• I believe we should pay professions to do more stuff so we can relax and enjoy the fun.

And so on….

Would that make the AMC more representative of the membership?