I keep contributing to discussions, but...

 

Brick Walls

Every project I set out to work on lately is running into a wall at the stage where I need information from someone else. While this happens all year long, it's particularly bad between April and June, when all of AML seems to shut down except for handling renewals and preparing for the AG.

That's a quarter of the year when progress on anything else grinds to a halt. I am beyond frustrated.

Lately I've been trying to work on the section of the LG Communications Guide that covers websites. There is ZERO training, and few resources provided by AML. Further complicating matters is the resources AML does offer are so outdated that they can't be used with the other resources developed by the Marketing Committee (WordPress templates). And those templates, while pretty and well-crafted, require a novice webmaster to know far far more than they do.

Everyone seems to be working in individual silos with no one coordinating and no one really considering their audience or applying appropriate education techniques. No wonder LGs are floundering.

Well damn, Robin, this sounds like a communication issue. If only AML had a proper Communications Officer to sort it all out.

Sigh.

Why Do I Even Bother?

“We need a new formula for better LG funding."
Robin researches, surveys, crunches numbers, researches more, develops fancy spreadsheets and graphs.

“Here you go—a better way to fund Groups.”

... crickets.


“We need to improve our governance structure and systems.”
Robin researches , surveys, crunches numbers, researches more, develops spreadsheets and graphs.

“Here you go—a whole list of ways to improve our governance.”

... crickets.


“We need a comprehensive Code of Conduct.”
Robin gathers everything we already have and puts it into readable form.

“Here you go—a CoC that doesn’t require any additional motions.”

... crickets.


“We need to improve the quantity and happiness of volunteers.”
Robin researches , surveys, crunches numbers, researches more, develops spreadsheets and graphs.

“Here you go—more than a hundred ways to increase volunteerism.”

...crikets. 

AWOL Committees

I'm flabbergasted and frustrated beyond belief by people who eagerly join committees and then ignore requests for helping  don't participate in discussions. I mean, they just seem to vanish completely without ever telling anyone they've changed their minds about helping out.

Most of the time I just slog on without their help and input. But there are plenty of times when a project or process MUST have others' input in order to move forward. When those people simply don't respond... the project stagnates and goes nowhere. This is happening too often in too many committees.

Damnit, Robin, that's exactly the sort of thing your Volunteerism Task Force should be investigating and solving.

Yeah, well doing that would be much easier if I could get my task force members to... you know, read and respond!

Beasts in the Room

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

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

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

IMO: Mensa's Unresolved Essential Problem

American Mensa's strategic plan

 VISION: 
Create a stimulating intellectual and social environment for the most intelligent people.

MISSION
: Identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity by encouraging research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence and by providing a stimulating intellectual and social environment for its members.

CORE VALUES:
 (Core values are essential and enduring tenets of the organization — a small set of timeless guiding principles.)

Intelligence benefiting humanity:
   Demonstrated by support of initiatives that advance the use of intelligence in solving problems and seizing opportunities.

Intellectual integrity:
   Demonstrated by organizational dedication to ethical, truthful and evidence-based decision-making with an appropriate balance between openness and privacy, and between transparency and confidentiality. 

Valuing ideas and individualism:
   Demonstrated by celebration of the power of differing views, admiration for independent thought, and appreciation of well-intentioned and informed criticism.

Connection:
   Demonstrated by commitment to providing opportunities for fellowship among a global community of common interests.

BIG GOAL: To be widely recognized as the premier community for intelligent people seeking intellectual challenge, respect for intelligence and the opportunity to join with others to benefit humanity.

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

I agree with and support all of the vision/mission/core values/goals. I really truly do.

But Mensa is heading the way of dinosaurs, and when that happens, none of these lofty goals will be met or remembered. Here’s what I consider to be a essential unresolved problem: We are utterly aggressively inclusive. As a result, all the smart misfits of the world have a place to congregate and socialize. Sounds wonderful.

However, for every 100 adequately-socialized smarty who join, there will be two or three I would classify as unrepentant, irredeemable “jerks.” You know them:

Revolting Ralph, who hovers at the food table, eats with his hands, coughs without covering his mouth, and sticks his fingers in the chip dip.

Dirty Old Monty, who leers at the 20 and 30-year old women, makes lewd remarks, and gives tight pelvic-grinding hugs without permission.

Snotty Sara, who criticizes everyone in a snarky tone, bitches in a 500-person hospitality line about how “real” turkey should be hand carved from a whole bird instead of served pre-sliced in warming trays, and writes condescending letters to the editor when events are not planned in places and times convenient for her.

Tommy Troll, who purposely floods online venues with rude, racist, hate-filled or obscene posts and then proudly boasts about how many thin-skinned members block him.

There are more, of course, and we all know them.

BUT… people like me, and most of my readers have been around long enough to have met and befriended 100s of brilliant and colorful people who are really awesome, and we know that it’s easy enough to sidestep the jerks and find the intellectual camaraderie and acceptance we joined for.

However, we wise and seasoned members… will fade away. Until Mensa develops and distributes affordable immortality pills, there will be fewer of us. Ah, but, you say, we get new members, younger members, and they will replace older members. Circle of life and all that.

The problem is… incoming members do not have our experience. They encounter the jerks and then quietly mutter “Wow, this is sooo not what I expected or need in my life. I’m outta here.”

The new jerks, having found acceptance, stay.

Consequently, the number of jerks swells over time, which hastens the exit of more and more new members. As we gray-hairs fade away, the jerk-to-awesome ratio tilts in a very bad direction more and more.

Where is Mensa heading by virtue of its unwillingness to stop tolerating and supporting the activities and participation of the jerks? 

Is this the “stimulating intellectual and social environment for the most intelligent people” we want?

Mensan Control of the Bulletin

"We need to return control of the Bulletin to the members."

"Even if we have a good editor, it takes a Mensan  to understand and cater to Mensans. "

Grumble grumble... since when did being appointed as Communications Officer, responsible for overseeing the policy and direction of the Bulletin, imply I've lost my status as a Mensan?

Rolling my eyes

So it seems that according to an expert editor, the Bulletin redesign is terrible and this is what is causing members to not renew their membership, which in turn means fewer members and less dues money for Local Groups, which means poorer service to their members who do stay.  And it's all my fault!

Geesh... does anyone not notice the personal vendetta in that woman's posts?

Oh Frak!

Looks like I'm going to be doing ChiMe for a few months.

Now I have to wonder: will I be allowed to enter Dave Gudjonis' fabulous issues in the PRP, or does he--and Chicago-- get penalized because I'm in the group and I'm stepping in to help out?

And I thought I was going to have a calm, get-caught-up month, at last.

Never Mind

So I had thought to take a couple hours to craft an informative response to L's rambling questions and accusations about AML's finances. After all, I spend not hours, but days every year pouring over and questioning every line of the budget. However, when a member who is neither a CPA nor attends the committee meetings publishes statements like:

The budget process can accurately be described as being something between a shambles and a joke.

that simply makes me discount his opinions as those of a close-minded, fear-mongering, drama-diva. And honestly, I have better ways to spend my free time than trying to enlighten to such a person who obviously has no real wish to hear or consider others' opinions and explanations.

So never mind.

Find some honey and quit trying to drown me in vinegar.

Ignoring Ranters Spouting Untruths

Recently, Chairman Russ sent the following regarding AML’s financial situation to the LocSecs and other interested members:

"…Legal fees have been paid out of returns on these investments and the principle of our life dues fund remains intact…"

Shortly afterwards, Ralph, speaking as one who has inside information about AML finances, published:

“I am unsure whether AMC reviewed Russ' claims beforehand, as they are smoke and mirrors. Why Russ and the AMC don't want to tell the truth says a lot about our leadership....THERE WAS NO TALK ABOUT SOME MYSTERIOUS RESERVE because there is none.”

Now this certainly looks as if one man or the other is lying. Having been on the Finance Committee for a few years and having seen the investment reports and other figures, I am quite confident that Russ is telling the truth.

I brought up the issue to my colleagues, asking at what point in the publishing of such lies do we consider it to be an act inimical?

I have been advised to just ignore it. No one puts any stock in what Ralph and his cronies say. If we respond or take action, we’ll just be giving him the attention he wants and creating a martyr. Only a few people read those lists…

But I disagreed.

Several hundred do read those lists, and many editors pick it up and publish it as gospel in newsletters. Others repost it to the Online Community. What we have here is Ralph speaking to a potentially large audience as the lone voice of truth about AML and the AMC.

By doing nothing, we are giving public credence to what he and others like him say. Are we serving Mensa best by letting such people spread lies and discontent? Will ignoring really make the controversy fade-- or will it fester and live on? It may have worked in the days before such ubiquitous communication, but in 2009, does ignoring really make the buttheads' lies go away?

People will believe whatever they read the most. 62,400 repetitions make a truth. What I have observed is the AMC putting out truth out there once, then retiring to our tower and ignoring the doo-doo heads repeating their lies from every street corner, elist, forum, and newsletter.

Reflect on the current atmosphere of Mensa. How's this tactic of ignoring working out?

Oh wait, the election results are in….

My bad. Turns out the voting membership isn’t so gullible after all.

My apologies to my colleagues on the AMC.

Elist Confidentiality Turmoil

Ralph ranted erroneously on the AMC list and on Grapevine about a motion from a year and a half ago that never came before the AMC. I tried to correct him, as did Russ, via the AMC list. Ralph forwarded our responses to Grapevine, including the header which said “AMC posts are confidential. Obtain author permission before reposting.”

I expressed my outrage, again, only on the AMC list. What I said was: “This is outrageously unacceptable. What will be done about it?” No mention of censure, of removal from office—-nothing. Just a wail of outrage meant for a private list. Ralph apologized, proclaiming that he posted by accident… and then he forwarded THAT, including my AMC-list-only comments again to Grapevine. And he even forwarded it to MPol as well.

Lordy, how things get twisted! Now people are writing to me, telling me that no harm to Mensa has been done and that Ralph should not have any consequences. People with private axes to grind are skewering me as the bad guy here, as calling for punishment, when I have done no such thing.

To top it off, I get an off-list request by a member of the ExComm to make a motion to kick Ralph off the AMC elist. I declined to be the scapegoat, saying “I do not know what actual rule Ralph has broken. I am bone weary of being the one who stands in front of the crowd and battles the forces of dimness while the other 19 AMC members watch from the sidelines and send me off-list "you go girl" emails. I am utterly disgusted with the AMC and I don't have the energy to do the research and compose one of my brilliant omnibus arguments.

Putting forth such a motion will cause the rabble to sharpen their pitchforks and boil their tar. I'm already so raw from the abuse that I decided not to run for office. You and the rest of the ExComm are all running for office, presumably because you think you should lead this organization.

I suggest you take this opportunity to demonstrate that you can.”

And what was the reply to that? An accusation of leading the charge earlier this term to neuter the ExComm in what power it has to lead the organization and now shrinking from taking the lead that I said the ExComm should not have.

And all this while watching a different thread protesting the fact that appointed officers get to vote at all.

WTF?

I don't know how carefully y'all read the RVC columns, but I read them closely. And I am, once again, disturbed by what our fellow AMC members are telling the members. I need to get this off my chest.

First Ralph tells all his members that the frequency of InterLoc has been reduced. When I corrected him, he said, publicly, "I wouldn't count on what Robin said."

Then there was Nick's column last month wherein he told everyone that the budget had a $100,000 deficit. Nick has since retracted and corrected this information, by the way.

Now I see that Dave's column contains some pretty harsh and incorrect statements:

Unfortunately I have to report that a "spend as you go" attitude prevails within the AMC.

Really? Upon what do you base that belief? Have you forgotten that the AMC has done some belt-tightening this year: Paid advertising campaigns are limited. AMC meetings have been reduced to three in 2009, rather than four. Staff size is being kept consistent, despite expanding the services we offer to our members and officers. Every attempt is being made to use electronic communications where possible to save on printing and postage while ensuring that we don’t disenfranchise that segment of the membership that is not electronic.

Increasing spending in the name of providing marginally utilized services and programs and increasing dues to finance this spending is not fiscally sound nor sustainable.

The budget is an unimaginative "add 5% to the past unimaginative budget" and raise dues to do it. There is no evidence of fiscal restraint or attempt to reign in escalating costs in national office operations or general governance costs.

Even though I'm not the Treasurer, I am deeply offended by this.

Those of us on the Finance Committee put in many many hours of thought and number crunching and analysis of current programs/services and their effectiveness BEFORE we developed a preliminary budget. Then we asked and answered questions-- lots and lots and lots of questions. I myself tend to generate three or four typed pages of questions and concerns. Then we spent TWO DAYS going over the budget line by line.

Dave, why on earth do you think the Finance Committee just added 5% to last year's budget? Did you actually compare the numbers?

Last year's budget's income was $3,324,416. This year's income is $3,410,327.
That's an increase of 2.58% Not the 5% you published.

Last year's budget's expenses were $3,314,566. This year's expenses are $3,506,378.
That's an increase of 5.79%. Close, but not exaclty what you published.

Why do you say there is no evidence of fiscal restraint? How carefully did you compare this year's budget to last year's? You usually have wise observations and suggestions...what concerns did you raise that were not answered during the pre-vote discussion? Which programs and services do you see as marginally utilized? Upon what data do you base your conclusions? And why were you unwilling to share your insights with the rest of AMC before we set out to finalize the budget?

Between release of the proposed budget and the March AMC meeting, you posted exactly 6 times. Other than your opposition to hiring a consultant, you offered exactly zero suggestions about ways to be more fiscally responsible. You said nothing about services and programs you felt should be cut. You offered no thoughts about alternatives to raising dues. And yet, after the fact, you tar the rest of the AMC as being fiscally irresponsible.

A dues increase to $59 a year was passed (and must pass a second time at the next AMC meeting). This will be used to fuel the ever increasing cost of conducting Mensa business. You either act fiscally conservative or increase income, and your AMC is choosing to increase income

.

The 13% dues increase is not being proposed because we're unwilling to cut spending. It's being proposed because:

The budget is always designed with a multi-year cycle of a dues increase resulting in a surplus, then a couple years of a balanced budget, then a year or two of deficit, followed by the next dues increase. How long a dues increase lasts is dependent largely on membership growth combined with investment performance. The last dues increase was in 2005. It's simply time in the cycle.

Groups are testing fewer prospective members, so the testing income was down by 16%. Decreased testing by Local Groups also means that membership growth is slower than we would like.

Funding to Local Groups has increased by 14% over the last year, and RVC funding has been increased by 32% for the next fiscal year.

The economy is in a slump, so we have been earning less income from our investments, which are invested conservatively so we can be sure to always maintain our principal in our 3, 5, and life funds.

The costs to protect the Mensa name and logo from misuse have increased dramatically as more and more commercial ventures attempt to infringe on our name to their advantage.

The rising fuel prices have caused trickle down increases in all areas of consumables from travel to food to office supplies.

Paper and postage costs have skyrocketed, so the Bulletin costs are up by nearly 12%.

You were there for the discussions-- how could you have missed these pieces of information?

Having the Mensa Foundation fund gifted children program grants makes perfect financial sense, especially since we give them a $50,000+ grant each year and pay them a hefty rent for our headquarters. This was easily approved. The down side is that Mensa relinquished control of how those grants are distributed. Nothing is free, as the saying goes.

Last I looked, the proposal included involvement from the AML Gifted Children Committee when distributing grants money. And I am pretty sure that everyone on the MENSA Foundation board are also Mensa members. "Mensa" comprises AML and MERF.

I've noticed the overall trend within Mensa is a strengthening of AML at the expense of local groups.

I just have to ask... what is the difference between AML and Local Groups? (if only we had some sort of way to clarify and codify that relationship!) How does strengthening the organization as a whole harm the individual components?

You do Mensa harm when you publish false, alarmist information. And your slap stings mightily to those of us who worked very hard, with virtually no input from you, to make the most of our members' money.

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...

Groupthink and the AMC

Another question from this past spring: Some are worried that the goal of collegiality on the AMC precludes active disagreement and leads to groupthink. What do you think?

According to Wikipedia, the word collegiality connotes respect for another's commitment to the common purpose and ability to work toward it. Collegiality does not mean that the board members expect to bond together as friends. Rather it strikes me as meaning an ability to work together as respected peers rather than adversaries; this seems like a proper and reasonable goal for 21 board members to aspire to. I do not believe that mutual respect precludes disagreement when it comes to priorities and processes. 

Regarding “groupthink,” Irving Janis, who did extensive work on the subject, calls it: “A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action.” Nope, no groupthink on this board! I see no striving for unanimity. If anything, I see many AMC members striving to stand out from the pack: preening, posturing, and bragging about how they are the lone voice of truth and fairness on the Board. I also don’t see the 21 AMC members comprising a cohesive in-group, nor do I foresee us becoming such. A little more cohesiveness would be a good thing; right now there is a great deal of animosity and mistrust and that makes it hard to really address sensitive topics and difficult projects—we need a bit more collegiality, actually. 

A little more research about “groupthink” turned up this: Social psychologist Clark McCauley identifies three conditions under which groupthink occurs: • Directive leadership. • Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology. • Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis. Once again, I don’t see any of those traits on this AMC. So perhaps it’s really not a case of groupthink when the AMC appears to circle the wagons defensively—perhaps it is simply a matter of actual agreement by a majority of the members.

Some Members are Worth More?

Someone opined on a forum discussion that active members are worth more— more attention and resources and acceptance.

I was incensed.

Many Mensans go through phases throughout their membership lifetimes. When I first joined, I was young, single, and attended many things— for the fun of it. I did not lift a finger to help. Not once. I didn't even offer to clear a table of debris at the RG. I was lazy and a taker. But still I felt welcomed.

Then I got married and had babies and spent several years under a rock. I went to nothing. I tossed my Bulletins unread. I glanced at our local newsletter occasionally, but it only contained information about events I would miss and people I didn't know. However, that once-a-month paper reminder on the coffee table reassured me that there was more to me than laundry and diapers. It kept me connected, though Mensa officers didn't know I existed.

A few years later, the kids started school and I emerged from my rock. This time, I was looking for challenging projects to do that would stay done (unlike laundry) and I wanted to give something back to the group that welcomed me and kept me hooked despite my laziness and lack of participation. And I have volunteered and given thousands of hours to Mensa since then.

If anyone had told me I was not worth his time or attention in my two earlier phases, Mensa would be one volunteer poorer today. So to all you silent, seemingly inactive members I say: You are wanted. You are valued. You are needed. Mensa is here for you when you need us.

Using Paid Staff instead of Volunteers

There seems to be so much anger and resentment over the concept of paid staff in Mensa. If there are so many qualified volunteers with the time to do big tasks like running the national Website or editing the Bulletin, why do so many Local Groups, even giant ones like San Francisco and Chicago, have difficulty recruiting and keeping them? And of those qualified volunteers, how many of them would really be willing to take all the conflicting orders from members?

How many volunteers are available, during business hours, to answer 26,283 calls in a year? How many are available to score 4,369 tests? To process 5,107 offers of membership and 4,930 new memberships? How many are willing to sort and stuff materials for ~500 LG officers every month? How many will patiently provide forgotten passwords to ~50 members every month?

Which volunteers are best suited for processing credit-card payments and all of the daily cash receipts from dues, new members, testing and prior evidence? Who do you suggest to call members to follow up on declined or invalid cards and sends letters to members regarding NSF checks?

Who will volunteer to daily (during non-renewal-season) process more than 100 member data changes from the Web, more than 100 direct requests for testing information, 50 Mensa Home Test requests, 50 PDQ updates, 50 renewals, 30 address corrections from the U.S. Postal Service, 20 event transactions and 20 customer service emails? Which volunteer will process a 150 pieces of undeliverable mail each week, checking the database and contacting members for their new information?

Maybe it’s a generational thing, but I’d much rather hire people to do those chores so I can spend my volunteer time on more interesting, rewarding endeavors.

Dining at the Corporate Trough

I finally got around to filling out my expense form for the recent AMC meeting. Since nearly all the meals were catered on site (coffee and muffins for breakfasts, a couple simple lunches at the hotel, On The Border take out for a dinner, and one hearty meal at a restaurant), I didn’t have much to report. I probably could get reimbursed for my lunches at the airport, since my travel days were part of the trip, but I don’t usually remember to keep track of that sort of thing. My hotel and airfare were booked and paid for directly by AML, so all I really had to turn in were receipts for some breakfasts and part of my transportation to and from the airport (I live an hour away from O’Hare—and even the remote parking is $13 a day).

This got me to thinking about how frequently disgruntled members complain about the AMC getting free pleasure jaunts with fancy expensive meals and nights in luxury hotels. The travel doesn’t suck, but neither is it anything more luxurious than I’d do if I were paying for it myself—economy plane seats, regular hotel room, some cheap, quick meals and some nice, relaxing meals.

My husband, who has never been on the AMC but does do a fair bit of traveling for his job, had this to say on the subject:

There is a broad spectrum of people in American Mensa. While they have a common characteristic in intelligence, they differ markedly in accomplishments and demonstrated abilities. Those with skills in business and leadership generally (generally, I say) exercise them outside of Mensa. We benefit if they exercise those skills inside Mensa as well. Since we don't pay them, and they seem to get less appreciation than stones thrown at them by armchair critics, it is necessary to make their volunteer experience at least tolerable. Otherwise, you can recruit only the sort who think fleabags and "baloney sammiches" are appropriate and don't know the difference between a luxury hotel and a business hotel.

As an independent level setting, consider the per diem rates set by the GSA for travel by federal employees and federal contractors' employees. Certainly nobody is getting rich in that sort of work. The GSA allows a traveler to Davenport, Iowa $39 a day for meals and incidental expenses. That's the lowest rate they give for anywhere in the contiguous states. To Orlando, Florida, it's $49, and in Chicago, $64. The GSA allows the traveler exactly the specified amount regardless of actual expenses. Mensa reimburses actual costs only, up to the limit of $40. That nearly always comes out less than the GSA rate, and never more than $1 greater. No one I know accuses the GSA of being too generous! And they're dealing with employees and contractors who have a limited choice of whether to travel or not. Imagine if they needed volunteers.

Joining the Group

Every now and then a new member complains because there’s nothing interesting to do and no one cool to do it with. Other members point out activities, but they’re turned down with disdain. When someone suggests that the new member start up whatever it is that he finds interesting, the suggestion is ignored, and if the new member does try to initiate something and gets little or no response, he throws in the towel and gripes about how resistive to change the established group is.

That really bugs me.

“Mensa” is not resistance to change, but plenty of members are. So many new, younger members come in expecting a large crowd of fascinating and available people to rush to befriend and entertain them at times, places, and methods they prefer. Dinners out? Not spontaneous enough. Elists? Too 20th Century. Newsletters? Too static and dull. Meetings? Too far to drive.

Geesh. These members have to meet people half way if they want to make friends. And they have to make a few friends before anyone will jump at the chance to spontaneously join them for coffee.

A High IQ and $52 does not buy a pre-made clique—we all have to forth a little effort to accept what we find and to create what we wish for.