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.

Double-edged Sword

Despite cries of secrecy and lack of Board transparency, executive sessions are essential. It is wise for the Board to be able to candidly talk about topics without worrying about having to censure themselves or politically posture for the public.

On the other hand, it does mean that those excluded from the executive session are free to imagine and react without the Board being able to deny those imaginings.

'Tis a tricky blade to balance on.

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.

The Backfire Effect

Correcting misinformation with facts strengthens belief in falsehoods. Could this happen in Mensa? Nah... We're too smart.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Why I Blog

Recently, Lee Berkovits,
Candidate for Chairman of American Mensa, wrote about me:

“…frankly, why she 
blogs about what happens in Mensa - instead of posting it to the forums or 
discussion groups - is beyond me. Do we really need MORE avenues of 
communication, when so many good ones are available already?”

Wow. A Communications Officer daring to use additional venues for communication?! Outrageous!

Why do I blog? Several reasons:

• Sometimes I write looooong essays— too long for the AML forums, and certainly too long for micro blogging venues, like Twitter.

• Millions of people blog or have personal Web sites for sharing their views with whomever wishes to read them. In Mensa, for example, I know that Dick Amyx ,Sander Rubin, John Recht, Dan Tobias, and Jared Levine all have had Web presences, some for many years. Heck, even Lee himself has a Web site now, so apparently the forums and discussion groups are not meeting all of his communication needs.

• If I were to use the official forums for my essays, I’d be accused of taking advantage of a medium I oversee in order to further my own slanted views, especially in light of no other AMC members doing so.

• My blog site costs Mensa nothing. I suspect that if I used up so much space on the AML forums, I’d be taken to task for spending members’ money for my own advancement.

• There are no appropriate official elists for generic discussion of Mensa issues.

• Using official venues limits what I can write. Like any other Mensan, sometimes I prefer to express myself without worrying about political correctness and oversight.

• There are times when I wish to express myself as just Robin, regular member, and not as “Robin Crawford, Communications Officer” writing ex cathedra. That is harder to do on official forums.

• If I were to use unofficial discussion groups, such as the Yahoo groups Lee is fond of, I would be limiting my audience to only subscribers of those lists, and there are many involved members who do not care for the climate of those groups and would never read what I write.

• Long emails are not generally read thoroughly.

• Email is too ephemeral for some of what I care to write. A blog has a bit more of a static publication feel to it, and new visitors can easily find and read old posts.

I have been sharing information and opinions for years. Quarterly reports, year-end articles in the Bulletin, participation on various official and unofficial elists and discussion groups, Twitter, Facebook, forums, and here. Not every member sees everything, but limiting myself to only one or two of those media would decrease, not increase the flow of information. When I have something significant to share, I do cross-post it, or at least a link—in many venues.

 It comes down to this—there are many ways to communication, and each has different advantages and disadvantages. A good communicator knows how and when to use them all. Yes, Lee, Mensa needs more communication.

Reflections on the Lawsuit

In one of my several campaign messages, I pledge to offer members my “bravery.” Ok, time to put my actions where my words are. You won’t like my answers, but I’ll bravely share my thoughts on the lawsuit.

First, refresh your knowledge by reading the FAQ.

Next, understand that what follows is just my ever-dimming memory of how things played out. Do not consider this essay as the definitive "minutes" of the lawsuit process. It is quite possible that I have factual errors in this. This is just me, Robin, sharing my own perspectives and recollections.

Yes, I think we were right to contest their trademark application. That's a step we take frequently. It’s not a lawsuit.

Yes, I think we were right to negotiate with Ipharmatica to get them to not call their product ADMENSA, or AdMensa. Part of those negotiations were asking them to use "Admensa" or some other variant of font sizes that downplayed the "mensa" part of their chosen product name. They refused. They weaseled and prevaricated and dragged out the negotiations. Meanwhile we found smoking gun evidence that they planned to draw a marketing connection between Mensa and their "smart" product. No wonder they were unwilling to negotiate to lessen the confusion between the names.

Yes, I think we were right to initiate a suit when our good-faith negotiations failed. We had strong evidence. And we knew that letting one company use our name and cachet would forever diminish our ability to stop other companies from doing the same. We did not have our eyes on some big pile of gold settlement. We never ever went into this hoping to make money. Keeping our grip on our property and hopefully recovering some of our costs for doing so were the only goals we had. Yes, I think those are reasonable goals.

Inpharmatica turned the tables on us and counter-sued, saying that AML doesn't own the name "Mensa." This was a big deal. Fortunately, we had evidence to prove that we do own it, so we did not roll over and give it up. Yes, I think we were right to defend ourselves when counter-sued.

Warning: the figures in the next two paragraphs are made up for illustrative purposes!

(but the relativity of the figures to each other is fairly accurate).

The kicker was the concept of "fame." According to our research, which was diligent, a mark is famous if 40% of the general public and 75% of a specialized subset of the public (such as professors or landscapers) recognize the mark. Our data proved that 50% of the general public and 85% of the specialized subset knew what Mensa is and stands for. Awesome— Mensa is plenty famous for our case.

My memory is starting to fade on this a bit, but as I recall, the judge seems to have looked as different case law, and somehow took the 50% figure and noted that it is less than the 75% figure necessary for fame.... and ruled that "Mensa" is not famous. Something like that; I'm neither a lawyer nor do I have a eidetic memory. Basically there was a judgmental mix up we did not anticipate, but which deflated our case significantly.

We authorized our lawyers to negotiate a settlement instead of proceeding with the trial. I think we were right to offer settlement. Our offers did not include recouping everything we'd spent up to that point let alone any "profit." We were pretty damn reasonable. However, the other side had also spent a fortune on this mess, and saw an opportunity to recoup their costs.

Inpharmatica smelled blood, and declined our settlement attempts. We had to go to trial. Could we have given up and relinquished our claim of ownership of “Mensa?” I suppose so. We chose not to. I think we were right to fight to own our name.

We won ownership.  This is huge, as it will significantly strengthen our case if we are ever in this situation again.

We considered going into a full-blown appeal, with the possibility of recouping some of our costs, but by then we were all weary and unwilling to spend additional money on it. Instead, we did some wrangling with appeals and settlements and blustering (all kinda dim in my mind now) that resulted in getting the judge to vacate his ruling on the fame issue. While it would have been better to have him say “Yes, Mensa is famous,” at least we no longer have on the record a statement that Mensa is NOT famous. Yes, I think the wrangling instead of fully pursuing was wise.

We absolutely did not see a little mash-up of our name on a product not generally seen by the public and think to ourselves, “heck, let’s sue ‘em!” It was a step-by-step process, and at each stage, the AMC was informed and consulted and asked to decide how to proceed. It was never seen as frivolous, and we were never blithe about the costs.

Would I be willing to spend two million on a frivolous lawsuit?  Of course not. I’m not sure I’d be willing to spend that much on a non-frivolous lawsuit, and as a result of the Inpharmatica suit, I suspect we won’t ever have to. We have established that we own the mark. We have demonstrated to would-be challengers that we are not push-overs. We get to keep the piles and piles of evidence we already paid for that can be used in our defense if we ever need it.

The whole thing took several years and was financially and emotionally draining. We won—kept ownership of our name and got Inpharmatica to not use it— but it was a pyrrhic victory. We learned much and I do not anticipate ever having such a legal nightmare again.

Croneyism & Back-Room Dealing

What are your thoughts on the apparent croneyism and back-room dealing of the AMC?

Croneyism is the practice of favoring one's close friends, especially in political appointments. In my observation, appointments at the national level are based on skills needed for a position and usually there is quite a bit of gathering suggestions and considering many people before making appointments. Case in point is my own appointment in 2004. Prior to that, I had had interaction only with the Membership Officer (who presented at an LDW while I was a LocSec), the Communications Officer (while I was an editor), and only one or two decidedly un-warm brief interactions with the Chair. And yet somehow, my name floated up to her desk when she was looking for someone with proven editor/webmaster/leadership abilities. I was totally surprised when she called me; until then, I'd been under the impression that I was one of the rabble-rousing outsiders she disliked.

What probably gives you the impression of rampant cronyism is that A) The actively-involved members tend to know each other because they're all... well...actively involved and B) People who work together for a common purpose tend to make extra effort to get along with each other— or at least to give that impression in public.

As for back-room dealing, absolutely there is nothing like there is in Congress as far as "I'll vote on your motion if you'll vote on mine." There are, however, efforts made before and during a meeting to craft motions that the majority approves of. In my mind, this is exactly what a Board of Directors should do—work together to develop policies everyone can support. But deal-making? Nope.

Response to Suggestions for Increased Transparency

Jared recently posted on his blog his thoughts on improving AMC transparency. We comment on each other’s posts, but in this case, my comment was getting so long I opted to just use it as fodder for my own blog.  (Hope you don’t mind, Jared)

Jared advocated for

Agendas and minutes posted early and quickly

I agree. I believe the Secretary strives for that. Unfortunately, agenda deadline always seems to take many AMC members by surprise and there is a flurry of motion-writing, discussion, and editing done in a couple days, with changes and changes and changes that the Secretary has to keep up with. Inevitably, she has to choose the best path between getting the incomplete agenda out on time and getting a more accurate version out closer to the date of the meeting.

More in-depth notes on the budget for line items

I agree in general, but the notes sure look rather in-depth to me already. It is assumed that concerned members will ask questions and get answers from Finance Committee members.

A good-faith estimate of litigation expenses is included in the budget under the normally occurring, logical line item

I agree, and in fact at this recent budget meeting, we upped one of the legal line items because of on-going issues that we anticipate increasing rather than fading.

Video/audio recording the AMC meetings

This comes up every year. The lawyers always advise against it. My understanding of why we do not do it is that legally, there can be only ONE official record of a BoD meeting, and that record is the approved minutes. If recordings exist, they undermine the validity of the minutes and could be subpoenaed in a suit. If more than one recording exists, perhaps taken from different angles and capturing different actions and comments, then you really get a mess on your hands when lawyers twist and turn to use one against another. As I said, it’s a legal thing, not a result of AMC members being unwilling to be seen and heard by the membership.

Opening up the AMC list to all AML members on a read-only basis

Doing so will not make AMC members’ conversations more transparent. There will continue to be many AMCers who simply don’t participate in discussions, like now. There will be many off-list emails and discussions in hallways, like now. We already have ways for AMC members to discuss and debate in view of members—but they refuse to use them.

I do like your idea of having the default be non-confidential, so that those of us who are so inclined can share more with members. But unless I can also share that “Gilda contributed to the discussion but requested that her comments be kept confidential” or that “Lancelot did not participate in the discussion” you won’t really get much more transparency than you do now. The real solution is to keep urging AMC members to participate openly in other venues and for the membership to refrain from making such openness a set up for being nibbled to death by ducks.

Ideally, AMC members should treat that list, predominantly, as if it's an open meeting, and should be willing to write what they'd be willing to say in front of an open mic before the membership.

Generally, most AMC members do repeat at the mic what they opined on the list. There is far less of that sort of meat than you imagine. What you don’t get to know is what we say about how to deal with legal tangles (confidential), candid discussion about appointments and award winners (so we don’t publicly embarrass anyone), our discussions about dress codes and timing for committee meetings, who is going out of town when, which regions have useful web sites, quips about snow in Texas, etc. Once in a while there is pithy discussion of real issues, such as how to react to the USPS changes and how they affect LG newsletters. In those cases, the RVCs generally do a decent job of communicating and consulting with their constituents, and all AMCers usually repeat their views at the mic.

My point is— you’re not really missing out on anything you’d get from an open elist.

The schedule of in-person committee meetings should be available to the membership …the budget for the subsequent fiscal year should be readily available …in advance of the AMC meeting.

I agree. One concern is members’ attendance at the Finance Committee meeting. I understand why you’d want to be there; it is fascinating and enlightening. I have often wished some of the vociferously accusatory members were present so they could see that we really do think and examine and question everything with the good of Mensa uppermost in our minds. On the other hand, I already slow us down enough with just my four or five pages of questions, and I have more understanding of every line item than most people. A room full of curious, self-styled watchdogs would likely stretch that grueling weekend meeting out to three days. And if enough members wanted to attend, the cost would increase, as well, since we’d have to rent a meeting room and equipment.

In the case of the budget, it is already available to the membership in advance of the AMC meeting.

RVCs should make sure to write a column … which mentions various items of interest being handled by AMC…more frequent communication from the [other] AMC.

I agree whole-heartedly. One could consider our quarterly reports to be such communication. Now how useful those reports are is another matter.

No motions made by committees.

I can go either way on this. I’m not sure I’ve ever made a motion by any of the committees I chair—never saw a need to phrase it that way. On the other hand, votes are recorded, so even if you don’t have a specific name attached to the motion, you can still determine which AMC members support or oppose the motion. 

Minds Like Concrete

Matt pointed me to this interesting article a few days ago: How Facts Backfire. 

Seems that despite we geniuses saying we want facts and transparency, research shows that adding facts and logic strengthens one’s resolve to believe what he or she already believes, even when wrong.

The article says:

“...We often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.”

In an NPR interview In Politics, Sometimes The Facts Don't Matter ,  Researcher Brendan Nyhan, University of Michigan, explains that this strengthening of beliefs when confronted with accurate but conflicting information is a natural defense mechanism to avoid cognitive dissonance.

(Here’s his paper, When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions )

As an avid reader of arguments and discussions on the Forums and on the various Yahoo elists, I certainly see this phenomenon over and over. I think that is one reason Rick Magnus’ proposed amendment failed at the ABM… no matter how much documentation and information TPTB makes available, if it doesn’t corroborate the theories already held by the ones demanding transparency, they will just insist that TPTB is still hiding something.

Are even we thoughtful, educated Mensans really that shallow that we can’t swallow our pride and change our views when we have corrected information? And if we do change our minds as a result of new information and contemplation, are we going to be seen as just flip-flopping for political gain? 

It’s NOT about the Children, Dammit!

I get so tired of members ranting about the auto filters used in the AML forums.

They claim that the filters are in place because we stick-in-the-mud, risk-adverse, control-freaks want to protect the underage members from seeing certain naughty words… who are we to dictate what words kids can see… kids these days already know and use those words anyway… it’s the parents’ responsibilities, not Mensa’s… Robin is foisting her personal conservative sensibilities on members and treating adults like children and wah wah wah…..

Sigh.

It’s not about protecting children or old ladies with smelling salts. I am a parent of kids who do read the forums, and I very strongly believe that it is up to me, not Mensa, to judge what they should read and not read.

It’s about creating a community from which new members will not recoil in surprise when they discover that the intellectual society they joined is no different than a junior high school bus. The words in the auto-filter were chosen because they are words or phrases that shut down discourse, stifle safe expression of opposing views, and generally turn any conversation to a broiling emotional mudpit.

The list comprises: assfucker, asshole, cunt,  fucker, and twat.

There are a few other terms and phrases that have been used in demeaning and offensive ways, and we decided that such insults are not conducive to improving the Mensa experience for anyone. These are:

“Howard” (with quotes-- as if he is not a real person)

hired help 

Mensa Masters

That’s it. Note that the list doesn’t include fuck. Or shit. Or even motherfucker. Dick, pussy, bitch, and poopyhead are all unfiltered.

We do ask that posts outside of Firehouse be kept moderately PG in language choices, but I’ve also instructed the moderators not to get their panties in a bunch if someone slips an “I had a shitty day” into a paragraph. 

As for my kids, our policy is that when they encounter a word they don’t know, I will explain it to them. “Jizz” was an interesting topic of conversation I had with my daughter not too long ago.

Now you know. And if you cannot manage to express your thoughts and views to other Mensans without those eight terms, well…

AMC Communication

While digging through old emails for other reasons, I found this. Looks like the start --and end-- of a Mega Issue discussion about AMC Communications a year ago.

I asked the AMC:

1) What types of internal-AMC communication are necessary?
2) Of those, which are for the eyes of we 22 only?
3) When information becomes appropriate to share outside the AMC, who decides and how are the rest of us informed?
4) What communication venues does AML currently offer and support?
5) What are the technological comfort and skill levels of each AMC member?
6) What are the predicted technological comfort and skill levels of each incoming AMC member?
7) Why do some current AMC members rarely or never participate in electronic discussions?

Interestingly, my records indicate that I received no answers to these questions. Sigh. So much for a information-driven decision-making process. Maybe I'll nudge them again, since one  of the formally-blessed Mega Issues this AMC identified in July is about communication.

Why a Local Group Charter?

     Lawyers: You need a charter.
     AMC: The lawyers said we need a charter-- Robin, go make one!
     Robin to AMC: Here ya go, how's this?
     Robin to LocSecs: Here's what the AMC will be voting on--
                                     would you like to give a bit of feedback first?
     LocSecs and AMC: Um... why do we need a charter?

(To see a copy of the proposed Charter template, download the pdf from my public folder.)

Everyone is asking why is this necessary. Three times the AMC as a whole decided Mensa needs this, so I am doing it. Why did they decide they needed it? Why is it up to me, the implementor of the AMC's wish, to be the one to now defend the rationale for doing it?

Here's what I know:

1) I have in my hands a copy of a memo from Clif McCann to the AMC dated March 19, 2005. It is marked confidential, but I suppose it is safe to tell you that in this memo he stresses the need for formal, written clarification of the relationships between AML and its Local Groups.

2) In July, 2005, the explanation given when forming the first incarnation of a charter committee (Marghretta as chair) was: EXPLANATION: It has been recommended by legal counsel that the AMC address the clarification of the relationships between AML and its local groups. Nowhere are American Mensa's groups formally listed: not on our 990 tax return, not in our Bylaws, Constitution or even our ASIEs. Reference is made to them, but they are not delineated. and DISCUSSION: MCBEAN said this was brought up by our outgoing interpretive counsel. This has a lot of legal implications we should address. Most organizations that are umbrella organizations such as ours that have groups list the names of the groups; ours does not. CRAWFORD said there are tax changes coming for some of the larger local groups and we need to help them deal with that.

3) In September, 2007, the committee was formed again, with Leah as chair. That time, EXPLANATION: There was an ad hoc Local Group Charter Review Committee last term. The AMC did not adopt the Committee's recommendations. The Committee is being re-established to continue this important project. DISCUSSION: none-- it was on the consent agenda.

4) In 2008, I attended a legal seminar about the new 990 reporting requirements for non-profits. Most of it went over my head, of course, but what struck me is that we must now include many pages of descriptions about he structure, nature, purpose, and processes of our organization. Digging up my notes, I see that I wrote: "Local Groups will need to follow the purposes of the organization and AML needs to be able to document that they are, or we'll get in trouble with the IRS." This backs up the requests from our accountants to please get something formal, in writing, that defines what a Local Group is and how it relates to AML.

5) In July, 2008, this third incarnation of a charter task force, which I am chairing, was formed by the AMC. The charge to me was: "The charge of this committee shall be to codify the relationship between AML and its Local Groups." It was on the consent agenda, and no explanation or discussion was included.

6) I have seen the letters from the auditors in which they remind us, every year, that we really should have a clearly defined relationship with the groups. It was on yellow paper. I have not been able to find that memo on my desk.

7) Do we have all the rules and expectations already written down somewhere? Yes, sure,- but it's a mishmash of bylaws and ASIEs and appendices and handbooks. Two pages are much easier to read; much easier to staple to a 990 form.

8) LocSecs obviously don't get trained about how their group fits with the greater organization. This document makes it clear. A good thing, when we have long-time, involved members screaming that they never knew that the AMC could make and enforce rules for them.

9) Even we use the term "Local Group" without really sharing a meaning. When you write in your campaign statement "Local Groups are the life blood of Mensa," do you meant the four or five volunteers of the Excomms or do you meant the members in general? When you say(in reaction to an earlier draft of the charter) "Local Groups have 30 days to comply" (not the words of the draft, btw-- that was fear-mongering propaganda) do you mean the specific volunteer who has to get his act together and start producing a newsletter more often or do you mean that Mille Member has to.. um... something?

10) Lori Norris (RVC1, on the Charter Task Force, and a lawyer in real life) wrote: Why a Charter? A charter: 1) grants legal authority to use the name and logo of Mensa (pursuant to guidelines, of course); 2) grants legal authorization for the group to use AML's not-for-profit status (The IRS will recognize a group of organizations if they are affiliated with a central organization which prevents each group from applying for 501(c)(4) status. Current regulations require an applying organization to provide a uniform governing instrument such as a charter. Knowing the IRS someday they will look backwards.); 3) codifies the relationship between AML and the Local Group; and 4) many times I have heard that the AMC should be proactive and not just reactive – so we're being proactive and dealing with an issue before it becomes a problem (and look at all the flak Robin gets for spearheading it). And why not a charter? The charter does not create any new obligations on the Local Group, merely sets forth in a simple document the existing obligations.

Thoughts about Transparency

According to Wikipedia, "Transparency, when used in a social context, implies openness, communication, and accountability. Transparent procedures include open meetings, financial disclosure statements, the freedom of information legislation, budgetary review, audits, etc."

I think we have that now.

One of the questions I have put to those members clamoring for more transparency is “what information did you used to have access to that you no longer to?” So far, no one has answered that. The closest answer came from Pam, I think, who noted that the frequency of executive sessions during AMC meetings has increased in recent years.

What I have gleaned from conversations and elists and forums and such is that some members wish to be in the loop on our thinking and discussion processes in advance of the actual formal motion-second-discussion-vote records.

I am not overly afraid of this. If I have half-baked ideas, I’ll keep them to myself or talk quietly with a few people out of public view until I get them fully formed. What does concern me is if the membership were to see how some of our internal “discussions” end up with one AMC member making another look utterly foolish via with superior arguments. I confess I’ve done that more than once. I’m not regretting it, since I think the results were better board decisions, but I’m glad for Mensa as a whole that the other members didn’t witness it.

…………………………………………..

More from Wikipedia: "Radical transparency is a management method where nearly all decision making is carried out publicly. All draft documents, all arguments for and against a proposal, the decisions about the decision making process itself, and all final decisions, are made publicly and remain publicly archived."

This is certainly something some members wish for.

How can we increase the members’ opportunities to know the WHYs of our decisions?

Suggestion #1: Would it be possible to consider the AMC elist non-confidential except when the poster requests it to be? That way we each have control over how public we’re willing to be with our words and half-baked ideas and yet those of us who do feel comfortable participating on the forums can have the freedom to share with members much more of what we on this list talk about?

Suggestion #2: Assign someone to write and submit short monthly articles to InterLoc (or make it a regular column in the Bulletin) about what the various committees and appointments strive for, accomplish, and need. Pull the goals from the quarterly reports and publish them for members to see. Stop assuming that burying something on the huge and complex Web site is enough.

Suggestion #3: Play with the members. Suck up the courage and participate in the Online Community. Do so in the fun areas, not just the Mensa Matters section. Go ahead and throw sheep at people on Facebook. Tweet about mundane things. Let people see you as individuals and not just TPTB.

Transparency means proactively showing our thoughts, our process, our goals, our failures, and OURSELVES… to the members via many venues and mediums.

Is the Veil of Secrecy Really Being Wrapped Tighter?

There is a mood among some cliques of Mensans that the AMC is not only anti-transparency, but is making efforts to increase confidentiality; to become more secretive. So I got to musing, after seeing this accusation for the umptteenth time:

What information used to be easily available to the general membership which is now being withheld?

Is there any visible increase in the amount of interaction and sharing of information between the AMC members and the general membership?

Ralph's Motions Part 3

Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about letting members read AMC pre-meeting discussions

3. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded ____________, that a second AMC forum be established similar to AMC-lists, and this forum be open to the membership on a read-only basis. This second forum would be for discussion of routine items. The introducer of any discussion item or proposed motion shall choose which forum he wishes his item to appear on. The Executive Committee would have the power to overrule the forum selection but this would be noted on the read-only forum.

Explanation: This would help allay comments that AMC is too opaque and would educate interested members in the workings of AMC.

Financial impact: A tad of staff time to set up the second forum.

Further Explanation: Like it or not, given the concept of Mensa as a round table of the intelligent, we should not hide behind a veil of secrecy in ALL of our deliberations. There are members who do keenly read our agendas and they have little or no clue about what takes place in our deliberations at the current time. This would provide a window into the inner workings of AMC and allow our members to better judge us, for better or worse. As AMC members, we are currently forced to tell our members, "This is being worked on but we cannot discuss it." If members have a more open, realistic and positive image of AMC, they will be more likely to positively assist in all ways and there will be less grumbling.

You must have leadership that positively acts in the sunshine.

Robin’s thoughts:
I am all for letting members know more about our pre-meeting discussions of motions. Really, I am. Why look, I’m even doing exactly that right here and now!

Currently, the process is that an AMC member proposes a motion via the confidential AMC elist before the agenda deadline, and then the AMC discusses that motion on the list. Sometimes it gets hashed out enough that by the time the meeting takes place, we’re nearly all in agreement on it and there is little public discussion. Usually, however, there is still some on-the-record, for-the-audience commentary during the meeting before the votes are cast.

Ralph’s motion would increase the visibility of the thoughts and arguments and edits that lead up to the on-the-table motions. I think this would be a fine thing for members to read.

BUT… the sad facts are:

A) Out of 21 AMC members, only a handful—the same ones each time—post comments about anything, even when they disagree about an issue (see my blog post about an AMC member voting against the budget last spring without having ever once expressed his views on why he was opposed to it).

B) We already have several vehicles, and more each year, for the AMC to use to communicate better with the membership. But again, only a small handful of us bother to use them. Adding another elist will not make additional AMC members comment publicly on motions. It will be one more shining example of how the AMC as a whole declines to share its deliberative processes with the membership.

These sets of motions and commentaries I’m putting on my blog are an experiment to see if anyone will read them; to see if any AMC members will add their thoughts publicly.

I do not support this motion as written, but I would like to see upcoming motions put before the membership via the AML Online Community and then discussed openly by the AMC members (more than just Leah, Elissa, and me) with participation by non-AMC members.

But… some deride the AML Online Community as having only a handful of members participating. Well duh. In each of the hundreds of elist/forums/social networking groups, there are only a handful of members who actively participate. Sure, there are hundreds or even thousands who are subscribed, but we all know that that most lurk or simply signed up once to check it out then forgot to unsubscribe when they grew bored by the low signal-to-noise ratio. Adding another elist will not change that, but using what we already have, and spreading the word that it is being used…that might increase participation.

In short, I support the need for the members of the AMC to share their views with members more than via the minutes of three or four meetings a year. But we don’t need this motion—we need to resolve to use the tools we already have.

Ralph's Motions Part 2

As I wrote yesterday, Ralph Rudolph, RVC 6, has proposed several motions to the AMC for inclusion on the November meeting agenda. As some members wish to read AMC members’ pre-meeting thoughts and in the spirit of transparency, I am placing them here on my blog (with permission) and making my comments on them open to the public. Please note that the motions are drafts meant for discussion at this time and not necessarily the version that may or may not be voted on.

Motion about letting incoming AMC members read posts from previous boards’ elists

2. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded _______, that new AMC members after an election be permitted to view the past several months of AMC-lists forum as this would provide them with a sense of familiarity and continuity regarding what has been discussed by AMC members and which may be ongoing in their term.

Explanation: Education is a good thing.

Financial impact: A tad of staff time but a better informed AMC.

Further Explanation: If New AMC members can be brought up to speed faster, they can be of more assistance to their constituents in all areas from recruitment to local group governance, resolving conflicts and being more effective in focusing on member satisfaction instead of spending inordinate amounts of time learning the ropes. It is not much different from new members learning the Bylaws, ASIEs and various handbooks.

Robin’s thoughts:

Incoming AMC members already have a ton of documents to read and comprehend. In particular, they have handbooks, bylaws, ASIEs Ralph mentions as the tools new members learn from. Who among them would really also read the hundreds and hundreds of messages—most of which are trivia (“I’m going out of town to Podunk’s RG this weekend,” “We hit 55,000 members a month early this year” “Please remember to turn in your receipts,” “I vote to approve the minutes,” etc.)? Few.

Of particular concern, there are some very candid and often uncomplimentary comments being shared regarding members being considered for appointments. Even now that we’re changing the RVC replacement process, it is still entirely possible that one of the appointed officers quits and several replacements are vetted on the list. Imagine coming in and reading that several of your new co-board members vehemently opposed your appointment, or that you were the fifth choice and only appointed because the others declined to serve? Would reading such comments make you a better board member? Or might it start you off with a chip on your shoulder?

I truly do not agree that reading the old list posts will help new AMC members “be of more assistance to their constituents in all areas from recruitment to local group governance, resolving conflicts and being more effective in focusing on member satisfaction.”

However, there is use in providing new AMC members with the history and background discussions on key and controversial issues and motions. I think this is the golden nugget in this motion and I’d like to find a way to pull it out and make it easier for incoming board members to quickly and completely learn about the thought processes that went into the decisions made before they got there.

Might there be a way for someone (1,2,3 not it! The Secretary, perhaps?) to cull and present the salient discussions from the previous year for the freshmen AMCers? Or perhaps writing up an annual summary could be formally part of the job description for the Secretary. Just tossing out ideas here… not trying to make anyone’s job more cumbersome.

I don’t back this motion as drafted, but I do support the underlying concept.

Political Correctness

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

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

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

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

Secret Ballots and That WG Funding Vote

Here’s another couple questions posed to candidates this past spring:
Did you vote in favor of casting the secret vote re: funding the extra days for the AMC at the WG? Why? (Note: I am not asking what your vote on the funding itself was.) And for those that were not on the AMC at the time, would you have voted in favor of casting the secret vote as per above had you been on the AMC at the time? Why?

No, I did not vote “yes” on the motion to make that a secret ballot.

The entire AMC votes to approve AG bids. When the AMC awarded the 2010 AG, they voted 14-6 to hold the discussion in closed session. Those voting against the closed session were Lederman, McBean, Kinder, Kuyper, O'Connor, and Crawford. Do you think the AG bid discussion should have been held in closed session? Why or why not?

Well, obviously I didn’t think it should have been discussed in closed session, although I didn’t feel very strongly in that particular case.

Secret ballots are useful if the voting is about a specific personal issue that may result in a slap to someone. For example, if we’re voting to remove Gertrude from office, I don’t want Gertrude to know if I vote to keep her or to can her—if I knew that she was going to know how I voted, I’d be less able to vote based purely on what I think is best for Mensa and more likely to allow my value of her friendship (or our enmity) to influence my choice. In the case of the AG bids, it’s hard to talk candidly and possibly critically about projects that members have put so much of themselves into when those members are in the room and their hearts are on their sleeves where we can see them. It’s kind of like always having the firing squad include one blank bullet. If someone is likely to get hurt by the outcome, then a measure of privacy in the implementation seems reasonable.

But on other things, I don’t have a problem being open. The argument that a secret ballot lets us vote based on how we really feel rather based on political considerations doesn’t make sense to me. In a representative body, we should be voting based on political considerations. If the folks I’m representing want me to vote X, then that’s how I should vote. If I consistently vote in opposition to what the majority of members prefer, I won’t get re-elected/appointed; which is as it should be. As it happened, for that particular issue I polled my constituency—the Editors and Webmasters, as well as members of my Local Group, to find out their thoughts on the extra nights at the WG. Even though the majority thought that the AMC should be in attendance all five days and that our expenses should be covered accordingly, once at the table I attempted a compromise: if you read the minutes of that meeting, I moved to amend the original motion to say that the AMC would get only the gala banquet paid for in addition to the normal 3 nights and meals.