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.

Ready for AMC meeting

Clothes?  check.
Dog boarding reservations?  check.
Kid boarding reservations?  check.
Copy of ASIE?  check.
Feedback on Bulletin design?  check.
Archive stuff from CAM to the Nat office?  check.
Hotel & shuttle instructions?  check.
Charged laptop?  check.
Home email caught up?  as if that will ever happen....

Looking at Prior research

As part of our work on the Local Group Service & Funding committee, we had to read and analyze some of the prior research. There was a lot to chew on, but our job was to focus on teasing out conclusions regarding

What members expect and require at the local level

Here are my conclusions.

Renewal Survey 2003 (lapsed members):

* Most lapsed member did not participate in anything.

* 31% did some Local Group things.

* Most joined to meet other smart people.

* Greatest reason (34%) for lapse was inability to participate in things.

* Other reasons for lapsing included low value to dues ratio, meetings not interesting, locations not convenient, LG not friendly , too expensive to participate, obnoxious members, wishing for more service opportunities.

Marketing Survey (aka Mensans 24-44 of Gen X Survey) 2005:

* People join to prove their intelligence and to find intellectual stimulation.

* They want others to plan convenient brainy activities for little money.

Forum Survey 2006:

* Online interaction is a good thing.

Mensa Bulletin Readership Survey 2006:

* Members like to read about science, social problems & solutions, and humor. (Presumably they also like to talk and listen about these topics.)

* Members want intellectual stimulation.

Local Group Funding Report 2006:

* Volunteers, more so than money, are the key to a LG being able to provide good service to its members (although adequate funding is still essential).

* Money does not buy talented and enthusiastic volunteers.

* Local volunteers should receive training and encouragement to use funds to expand existing or initiate new methods of member interaction.

Local Group Study (aka LocSec Survey) 2008:

* LocSecs’ greatest concern is lack of interest on the part of members.

* Their second greatest concern is lack of volunteers.

* The main reason people don’t volunteer is lack of time.

* To improve the group, LocSecs want more members, volunteers, and participation.

Governance Survey 2008:

* The core purpose of Mensa is social. The overriding thing we need to do to improve Mensa is get more members. And then, teach them how to interact and be social.

What do members want from LG newsletters?

Do we know --I mean empirically-- what members what from a Local newsletter? Has anyone done any research to determine if they want thick, juicy newsletters with locally-written articles, puzzles, photos, etc, or if they just want to know when and where the next get-together is? Do your readers want to read about upcoming AMC motions, or do they just want light-hearted reviews of local events? Are we creating bigger, more expensive newsletters than our members need or wish for? What are your customers' priorities?

(and no, I don't have the answer to my questions-- I'm just wondering outloud here.)

It seems to me that we should start by determining what the members really want and need from a local newsletter before we try to determine how to deliver and pay for what we think they want and need.

This is actually a piece of what the Local Group Service & Funding committee is trying to figure out.

Crisis Solved!

People often wonder why there are so few "young" members in leadership positions (and oh, I do love that in Mensa, at least, mid-40s is still considered "young!").

I think that much of the reason is just age and stage of life. Members in their 30s and 40s are working and raising families, and simply can't give the big, consistent chunks of time and freedom to travel required for some of these positions-- like being on the AMC, for example.

The next AMC meeting is this weekend, As it happens, my husband has to travel for work this same weekend. And of course, the school arranged to have a teacher institute on Friday, making the childcare problem even more difficult. So we forked out a few hundred to fly my mother up from South Carolina to stay with the kids while I go to Dallas. We're not thrilled about the extra expense, but Mensa is my hobby, and all hobbies cost money. This is not a complaint.

But...

20 minutes ago, my mom called to say she's injured and not likely to be able to come this weekend to watch the kids. My plane ticket, and Matt's are already bought. We have no other family in the area who can watch the kids. I was going to start pricing two tickets so I can drag the kids along with me to Texas, but my $#^&! Internet is still being really wonky and I can't get through to Orbitz.

And then I called Beth Anne. With great enthusiasm, she jumped at the chance to drive to my place Friday, pick up the kids, and keep them all weekend long. Wow! So all is well, and I just have to board the dog for the weekend. Hooray! Thanks, Beth Anne! I totally owe you a few shots at Pretentious Drinking.

So back to Mensa.. as I see it, if we want "younger" members more involved, we need to embrace the attitude of "it takes a village."

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.