Goals for the Next Couple Months

Haven't posted in a while, sorry. For those of you who wonder what I do, here are my goals for between now and March ( assuming I ever get over this nasty cold I've got— two weeks and I'm still coughing up a lung a few times a day):

• Nudge the LG Service & Funding Task Force back into working mode and get that project done, including having a concrete list of what members most need and want from LGs and how much those things cost.

• Finish guiding the AMC through the process of prioritizing and big-picture vetting of the GTF recommendations.

• Choose a few more members for the new project, the Governance Blueprint TF, and get that set up and moving.

• Finalize and explain the menu of options to present to LG editors and circulation managers regarding newsletter distribution as the USPS tightens it's regulations.

• Tidy up the N&L presentation, including translating the whole thing into PowerPoint (I made it in Keynote) so it can be a turnkey LDW resource.

• Develop a flowchart for dealing with N&L violations.

• Get working on modern policy to cover N&L use in social media.

• Put  few more finishing touches on my campaign Web site.

• Review the preliminary budget and write up my standard 3 or 4 pages of questions and comments before the Finance Comm meeting.

• Write motions for the March AMC meeting to smooth the newsletter distribution changes.

• Attend the budget meeting.

Not a goal, just something I'm doing for my own enjoyment ( and on my own dime, if you care):
attending the Electronic Gaming Colloquium!

Governance Concepts Being Discussed

The AMC is discussing general preferences regarding the many GTF suggestions, in preparation for directing the Governance Blue Print task Force on what to move forward on. I figure I can share this, since I'm the one initiating the discussions.

Currently we're beginning to grapple with two huge conceptual areas:

Representation
What is the  best way to define the segments represented on the BoD? Currently we base it on geography, but are there other ways of categorizing the membership that would serve the organization better?

Specialized Voting BoD Members
Is Mensa best served by having skill-specific, non-representative, voting BoD members? And if "yes," should the general membership elect those specialized voting BoD members or should there be a method of appointment removed from the direct voice of the general membership?

Cutting off Millie's Newsletter

It really bothers me when Local Groups, in efforts to save money and trees switch to making their "official" newsletter a tiny little flyer with just a financial statement and a notice of a few events ... and doing that only once every 3 months. These groups usually produce big, fancy electronic newsletters, and  force their members to opt-in if they want to get the nicer newsletter on paper.

According to current Minimum Standard Bylaws, ASIEs, and the Local Group Charter... this is allowable.

But when I think of Millie Member —unable or uncomfortable using a computer and who just doesn't get around to contacting her LG officers and actively requesting to continue to receive what she'd always gotten automatically just by paying her dues— this just feels wrong. Millie was already barely connected to her Local Group. How is cutting her off further going to improve Mensa?

AMC Meeting: After Lunch On Saturday

After Lunch

Money money money
Motion from Finance Committee re: dues rate increase.
• Mel asked how much is going to the LGs. Cyndi said no one proposed giving LGs a raise, even back when she asked.
• Roger spoke to the economic difficulties some members are facing and that this raise is a slap in the face. Cyndi said we'd have to reduce services because costs have risen for Mensa, just like they have to the members.
• Dan pointed to the fact that we uncoupled dues and LG funding rates.
• Nick said we need the dues increase; it's a necessary evil. Members are more concerned with the unknown rates and timing of increases.
• Ken pointed that LG are increasing their pubs use, and that helps their financial situation.
Marc asked how much effort and where the Finance Comm tried to cut costs in lieu of raising dues.
Pam says that's not how we think because the bylaws require us to have dues motions on two agendas.. which is why we cannot budget and then set dues based on what our budget requires.
Guy appreciates that we need more income, but echos Nick's comment and suggests we set modest increases every year so we can avoid these $4 and $5 shocking jumps.
Mel said his members are understanding about a $4 increase.
Cyndi said something but I didn't catch it.

Lunch is catching up with me and I'm having zoning out a bit.

Time to vote. opposed: Guy, Marc, Roger, Betsy
Dues increase passes.
......................................
Motion about updating the budgetary and purchasing policy (Appendix 20). a little chatting...but basically it's fine.

Vote: unanimous approval
.........................................

Motion to appoint auditor. Same firm, but different partners... and a bit of bargaining reduced the cost (yay!).
Vote: unanimous approval
.............................................
Motion to borrow up to $300,000 from Life Dues to be paid back by end of March.
Vote: unanimous approval
............................................
Motion to amend bylaws concerning qualification for Chairman (removing prior experience on AMC for nom-com candidates for Chairman).
Currently the Nom com candidate has to have served before, but the petition candidate does not. Dan talked about the history of the variants of this qualification and the process. Russ and Jean spoke to it.. saying that it's not good that the two routes to chair are not the same, but that two wrongs do not make a right. Guy talked to the motion, but I listened instead of taking notes. Several commented that it's a bandaid and we should wait for the Gov Blueprint TF to figure the best long term solution. Mel thought it's bad to have a chair with no experience, but he's reluctant to tell the members who they may and may not choose as leaders. Art pointed out that defeating this motion sill lets members vote for non-experienced candidates via the petition route.

Vote: failed (for: John, Guy, Marc, Betsy)
................................................
Motions for bylaws amendments about hearings. Basically eliminate a national hearings committee and replace it with regional hearings.

I'm paying attention instead of typing the discussion. I see both sides of the issue and I'm not yet sure how to vote. Closer to the members instead of judgment from on high... makes sense. Having experienced hearings comm members... makes sense. Guy talked, saying that this might encourage more hearings. John said the RVCs already do enough. Peggy pointed out that if there is a perception of national hearings members beg too politically close to the issue.. regional people wold be even more so.

Vote- Failed (in favor: Bob, Mel Roger)
................
Ombudsman Discussion—Dave Cahn
How he sees his job (handed out several typed pages). Basically he is involved in solving problems. Gets involved in complaints of unfair treatment of a member by TPTB; complaints about Mensa [governance and processes] in general; and in disputes between members. Wants to create a cadres of properly trained mediators to help in member to member disputes.

He touched on the topic of how to handle when confidential info is pertinent to a conflict.

I noted that he uses the term TPTB, and that when the National Ombudsman uses a term that has negative, us-versus-them connotations, it widens the separation between leaders and members and build barriers to trust. Others nodded and Dave agreed that it was a fair point.

One point he wrote is that the ombudsman sees that each individual member is treated fairly and justly by the leadership. I want to ask (and may outside of the meeting): is he is also going to see to it that the leadership is treated fairly and justly by the individual members?
............................................
[my] Motion to amend the "ride-sharing" ASIE. Pretty self-explanatory.
Vote: unanimous approval
.............................................
Motion to make sure RGs are listed in the Bulletin for many months. Marc made the motion, the staff already fixed the problem, I moved to substitute an amendment of ASIE 2002-101

Nick opposed to the substitution. Russ abstained.

Discussion of the substituted motion, All nice and tidy and in the spirit of Marc's motion.
Nick feels that we already dealt with it, and this binds us to do it in a particular way when we might be better off with the flexibility we already have.

Vote: passed (Nick opposed)
..........................................
Motion to go from 4 & 3 AMC meetings a year to 4 & 4 meetings a year.

I moved to substitute a motion to rescind the ASIE all together. Peggy seconded. Russ and Dan clarified that by bylaws we are already mandated to have at least 3 meetings a year. Dan made a good point that by stating we want 4 a year, we enable the site selection committee to know how many meetings we want to have a year.

Vote on motion to substitute recision of ASIE 2006-81 failed (for: Robin, Peggy, Mel, Jean; Nick abstains)

Back to original motion to amend ASIE 2006-081 to express our desire to have 4 meetings a year.

Vote: passed. (opposed: Robin, Peggy, Nick)
...............................................
Motion about Leadership Exchange Program process changes-- the AMC will review and retain final approval over the ambassadors recommended by the LD Committee.

Vote: Failed (For: Betsy, Art; Jean and Debra abstained)
..............................................
Motion to revise the MSBs (to allow for electronic distribution of ballots and tidy up a few other minor things to make it all smooth with recent changes in the AML bylaws ((such as the new ombudsman mandates))). One sticking point is that it also mandates that LGs must call an ombudsman an ombudsman, not a mediator or arbitrator.

Vote: approved (Marc opposed)
.............................................
Motion to adopt updated Model Bylaws.

Vote: approved
..............................................
Motion to publish mini-minutes in the Bulletin
Betsy's point is that this is the only way ALL members will see what the board is doing. I pointed out that if passed, we'd be printing the mini minutes of this meeting several months (February) after we publish the formal minutes and after the agenda for the next meeting is out. I pointed out that the RVCs can write about what the AMC did in their columns.

Vote: failed (For: Debra Guy Marc Jean Bob, Betsy ; Dan and Robin abstained)
..........
Motion to fix ASIE 1995-080 to include in-room internet (that we said we wanted but forgot to actually type into the motion in july)

Vote: approved
................................................
Consent agenda approved ( big surprise!)
.................................................
Good and Welfare

Only MIL candidate who asked for AML endorsement so far is Willem Bowens. Burg moves to nominate WB as MIL Chair. (Approved)

............................................
Conference call in January to decide Leadership candidates, MIL nominations, and changes to the budget if necessary.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AMC meeting-My Presentations

Governance Task Force (Notes by Nick, since I was up giving the presentation)

What did you think?
Consolidated many disparate topics
Wanted more recommendations
Frequently members want ~blah~ and others want ~not blah~

Step 1: Commit to making the small changes.
Step 2: Need to clarify if we want to save money or do we want to improve governance?
Step 3: Commit to making big changes

Next step: Review the report and decide what areas we want to work on. Will be done on the elist.

Focus on the spirit of the topics, not the specifics.

After AMC decides what topics they want then a new task force will be established to create the specific motions.

Then develop a new task force to education the members.

It's not about the money. To drop 2 members from the AMC will save $8,000 or about $5 per group per month.

End of Robin's presentation and opened the floor for discussion.

Elissa: Revamp the nominating committee so that they proactively search for highly qualified volunteers. This is where we need to start.

Ken: The skill sets of the RVCs are not critical, but the other officers need to be officially qualified.

Jean: Need to increase the quality of the Board Members and this can be done though the nom com. The current nom com is not being effectively used. They should be given the authority to require qualifications.

Robin: We need to educate the voting members.

Marc: The petition process will side step these qualifications. We need to revamp the entire process, not just the non com.

Dan: In March 2010 we gave the nom com some vetting power.

Mel: Are we fixing something that is not broken?

Russ: We ourselves do not know what we want. Concerned that we don't force our qualifications into a single cookie cutter skill set.

Guy: What do the members want?

Dave Cahn: Should keep the members in the loop when creating a governance plan.

Ken: Our Leaders of Tomorrow program gave us a good list to consider for future Board members.

Peggy: Page 16 is a good starting point: Structures and Practices of NonProfit Boards.

Greg: We should take our strategic goals and assign them to board members.

Robin: This is addressed on page 13: Reviewing the current AML Strategic Plan as it relates to governance needs.

Debra: We are all accountable for all of the goals.

Robin: "I'm so lucky and privileged to have Nick sit next to me during this meeting."
hey... how'd this comment slip in here?

Robin: Actions -
AMC: "We will make some small changes before March."
AMC: "We will make some big scary changes."
Thank and dismiss the Governance Task Force.

Guy: Doesn't want to dismiss the Task Force.
Elissa: Yes we should and we should create a Blue Print Task Force.

-----------------------------------

Name and Logo Committee Presentation (Again narrated by the magnificent Nick Sanford)

Robin:
Rules (simplified)
Use the official version of the logo...
Can use any set of colors
Cannot use multiple colors in one segment.
No slanting
Not symmetrical layouts (becomes a design)
Can't use more than once in a layout.
Has dimensional requirements.
Must frame logo and put words outside of it.
Can't use it as a logo.
Can't use it as the letter M.
The logo must stand alone, nothing else can go in the frame.
3-D logo parts and background can't be to "busy"
Context is everything
Wrongly used on Facebook, CafePress, and Zazzle

Using the name
Must include the registration mark.
Cannot add other letters
There are some grandfathered words (many are newsletters)
Common violations are in RG names.
Using the name outside of the organization is the larger problem.
"Context is king"
OK on the Simpsons or as a synonym for a smart person.

The brand name Mensa is a major attractions to people.
Big Goal: To be widely recognized...

Enforcement is critical due to litigations. "Your own members violate your rules, so why can't someone else do it as well?"

Only AML has the right to license the name.

Can local groups use the image on shirts?
Yes, but it must be used correctly and cannot compete with licensed vendors.
Having a custom shirt made for an individual is a grey area, but typically OK.
RG shirts for sale with the logo must be approved.

Cost when members don't know the rules:
A difficult person violated our rules and has cost us $11,000 this year.

Educational Campaign is in the works:
Letters to the members.
us.mensa.org/MENSABRAND
Ads in Bulletin

That photo of Nick on the screen sure does look good.
I am so not going to let him use my ipad again!

Thanks Nick!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

AMC Meeting: Saturday morning

Dave Cahn addressed the AMC.

Admits he started off on wrong foot and that he didn't know the culture and traditions of the role of the ombudsman. Asks for the opportunity to build a positive relationship with the AMC.

Robin's opinion: That took some ethical and reflective fortitude. It is a much better start to a relationship we are all still trying to define.
......................
Elissa's report about the IBD meeting. Her report will appear in her column in January and in the IJ in some near-future issue.

Jean questioned why IBD still hasn't addressed their responsibility for some portion of our N&L suit costs. MIL's Exec Dir and legal team is overloaded and hasn't had time yet. (my summary of the explanation)
......................

Discussion of Conti's motion regarding Ombudsman at the table (Cahn had earlier today asked that it be withdrawn). Conti agreed to withdraw the motion.
......................
Recht: Strategic Plan

Suggests changing one of our core values: add "...and to the encouragement of trust and understanding through the an appropriate balance of openness and transparency whenever possible and privacy and confidentiality when necessary."

I proposed and the others chimed into tidy it up to:
"Intellectual integrity demonstrated by organizational dedication to ethical, truthful, and evidence-based decision making and ...an appropriate balance between openness and privacy, and between transparency and confidentiality." (passed)

Dashboard: lots of graphically illustrated, updated-daily numeric data on the Web site. (will be visible soon)

.......................
Recap of work sessions from yesterday:

We want to make sure some version of Dr. Frank's powerpoint on testing is available for others to see and make sure the AMC gets a timeline on when some of those change will roll out so we can tell LGs. Regarding events and AGs, it's a continual dialog. We'll form a committee to go forward with it.

Consensus is that how we approached and worked on the mega issues was good and productive. It might have been once to get some more closure on the topics; some wish we could have spent more time really talking about the topics, and we certainly don't have any ACTIONS that we're deciding to take as a result of all the dialog yesterday.

Dan questioned the value of our time at the TAGT luncheon and speaker. Nick thought it was worthwhile and gave Mensa more exposure to that organization.

Greg encourages us to have longer, conversation-laden breaks between mega issues.

Guy and others pointed out that the day was long and perhaps beyond what even we Mensans can handle attention-wise. (I agree-- it was grueling and my brain was pretty much dead long before I was done needing it.)

We need a siesta!

Quick discussion of what topics we want next time: I asked for education about all the "rules" for LGs and Guy asked for an update on Risk Management issues.




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad