Overheard in Hospitality at the AG

"Her comments at the AMC meeting were such transparent BS. Does she not realize she's dealing with people smart enough to see right through her?"

"I was on the fence about Pam, but after hearing her talk at the ABM... Wow. That was the most arrogant whiny speech I've ever heard."

Mensans' Opinions

In a long long long Facebook thread, I commented that Local Groups are allowed to express opinions. One member reasonably requested that I point him to the policy upon which I based my statement. Here it is:

Constitution of Mensa

II. The Policy of Mensa

B. Mensa encompasses members representing many points of view. Consequently, Mensa as an organization shall not express an opinion as being that of Mensa, take any political action other than the publication of the results of its investigations, or have any ideological, philosophical, political, or religious affiliations.

C. Members or groups of members may express opinions as members of Mensa, provided their opinions or actions are not expressed as being those of Mensa as an organization.

So no one can say “Mensa endorses Jenny McCarthy for President.” (However Mensa can sponsor academic research and publish results which say that blondes who hate vaccinations statistically perform higher than billionaires who wear toupees on certain tests of political leadership aptitude.)

Furthermore, groups of members may express opinions. Local Groups are groups of members. They just can’t present themselves as speaking for all of Mensa as a whole.

Side note-- I didn't find anything that says "Mensa has no opinions."

If I were Communications Officer…

(I'm not.)

Major areas needing attention:

• Facebook presence and functioning of that community so that it benefits Mensa as a whole. This includes finding a solution to the bullying without squashing the free spirit of the members who participate.

• Updating and enhancing communication methods between Local Groups and their members.

• Managing the vast amounts of information in a way that members can access it easily and effectively.

I know that data does not always support assumptions, as in the case of “large groups need less money because they spend less on newsletters due to economy of scale.” I want real objective facts and data first; those should determine the options and most effective choices.

Unlike many, I do not assume that my intuition and observations regarding these issues is the one and only correct view. I won’t even assume that the two or three solutions floating around are the best ones. I would start at the very beginning--by working with a committee to determine what exactly we need to know in in order to make the best policy decisions. And I’d want to use the PDQ to find at least one member with a background in marketing research survey construction, so we don’t just ask questions that lead respondents to answers we want.

For example, I want to know who uses the Facebook group and AML forums. What kinds of members are they? Why do they participate in that way, and what needs do those online venues meet that SIGs and in-person get-togethers do not meet? What kinds of members do NOT use those venues, and why? And by “kind” of member, I don't mean just age; I want to know about the sets of personality types and information-consumption habits of those who gravitate to or away from online communities.

I would arrange to interview (not just survey) members representing all ages about how they really get and manage information regarding Mensa participation options.

I want to know what actually motivates and enables volunteers at the LG level to create and maintain communication vehicles. Clearly it wasn’t the annual awards and based on research I did many years ago, it wasn't funding.

I want to know what sorts of members use what sorts of nationally-generated data/guides/archives/materials. Why do they use them? How do they most comfortably gather and consume what they need and want?

Voting on Proposed Bylaws Amendments

Here’s my take on the Bylaws amendments (I’ve shamelessly lifted some of what Howard wrote on Facebook).

1. Replacement bylaw text. NO

Some good, some bad, some that really ought to be debated separately. So just No for this omnibus proposal.

2. Non-voting membership on the AMC. NO

This is the one near and dear to my heart and I went so far as to submit a Con statement for the Bulletin. Contrary to what some think, this does not take these folks off the board. It saves no money. It means they do everything they do now, which, frankly, is a ton more than many other AMC positions, and then twiddle thumbs and bend paperclips when an actual vote is called for. It also means they cannot vote on the action committees they chair, nor on motions involving budget areas they are responsible for overseeing.

3. Voting membership on the AMC (past chairmen). YES

There is value to past Chairs being around to advise, but in these days of easy instant communication, their presence at the table is no longer necessary. Plus, if you really hate a Chair and vote him out of office, do you want him hanging around voting for another 8 or more years?

4. Recall elections. YES

We need a mechanism in place.

5. Nominating Committee. YES

My personal opinion, based on a great deal of research and reading I did for the Gov’t task Force, is that we need a strong NomComm with teeth. But since that is a no-opt for Mensans who can’t stand the thought of other Mensans sitting in judgment, then what we do have is pointless and should go.

6. Petition Signatures. YES

I ran for 1^st VC. I got my 50 signatures in under eight hours. HOURS. Surely someone hoping to lead at that level should be able to work a little harder and gather up a few more straw votes of confidence.

7. Candidate Nomination Deadline. NO

As Howard wrote: “There is too much potential in this amendment for an extremely short election period — if the removal of the NomComm in Amendment #5 does not pass. One month between the NomComm deadline and the end of the petition process is far too short a period of time for people to know about the NC decisions and choose to run and secure petition signatures.”

8. Nominees for Chair, 1VC and 2VC with AMC experience. NO

I’m wishy-washy on this one, but inexperienced people can run if unopposed—why shouldn't they also run if opposed? If we really want only experienced people in those positions (which I’m kind of in favor of), then the amendment should not allow inexperienced unopposed people to run.

9. AMC meeting announcements. NO

I’m wishy-washy on this, but having been on the board, I know that the only time quick meetings are called are in emergencies, and in an emergency, 14 days is an eternity.

10. Audio and video recordings. YES

Sure, there are some legal risks with having recordings that might contradict the official minutes, but these days, meetings are going to be recorded, openly or surreptitiously, with an electronic devices or by watch dogs with pens and papers. So accept the reality of the modern world and do the right thing to show the members you’re not afraid of them knowing what goes on in meetings.

11. & 12. Duties of the Ombudsman NO and NO

There are pros and cons in each of these, but in my mind, amendments that are originated as reactions to personality-driven conflicts are not the right way to run an organization.

13. Annual Dues. NO

A weak “no,” that is. As Howard wrote: “There is too much ‘wiggle room’ in pushing a dues increase through currently, whether the increase is necessary or not.” True, but Nick makes some very good points in support of how things are done now. I’d really rather nix this amendment and change it next election cycle in some sort of manner than eliminates the wiggle room but still takes into consideration the lead times of meetings and very importantly, the announcement of the MIL component.

Do Appointees' Votes Give Too Much Power to the Chair?

I’ve been thinking about the bylaws amendment #2—the one about removing voting rights from the four appointed officers.  One of the arguments people use is that allowing those appointees to vote gives the Chair too much power.

If Alice wins the race for Chair, that implies that a majority of Mensans approve of Alice’s intended direction for the organization.

Now assume Alice picks four people to be Communications Officer, Membership Officer, Development Officer, and Director of Science & Education. (oops—erase that assumption, because the DSE is really the Mensa Foundation representative to the AMC and is picked by the Foundation Trustees.)

Sooo… next assumption, which seems to be the one people supporting the amendment hold, is that these three appointees are obsequious sycophants for the Chair and will nearly always vote according to her wishes.

(Never mind that it’s actually rather hard to imagine any Mensan being a mindless yes-man and that actual analysis of voting records shows this is not how things actually transpire).

If Alice wins because most Mensans like her vision for the organization, why would anyone NOT want her to have a little extra leverage via the appointed officers when it gets to making things happen and change? Sometimes people even vote for entire slates of candidates who profess to share a common platform. Why would you want to saddle a Chair you elected with a board who disagrees with her goals and ideas?

Why do so many think that disagreement amongst board members when it comes down to the actual vote on a motion is a good thing?  Many views, much lively discussion as part of the process of whittling a motion down to something most can agree on— isn’t that what we really want? When it comes to the actual vote on a motion, wouldn’t it be ideal to have it turn out unanimous—because of all that advance discussion and work that went into making the final motion something so awesome everyone agrees on it?

I understand the fears about GroupThink (see this previous post or this other post on that topic), and I agree that would be a very bad thing. But we must not use that term and that fear to make us instead institute disagreement and gridlock.

Mensa Elections 2015

So many have asked me to tell them who to vote for. I’m flattered that my judgment is so valued. We have several three- or four-way races.

Races with three or more candidates will be determined by preferential voting. This means, short of someone gaining 50%+ on the first count (which is not likely), the votes of the third (or fourth) preference will be allocated to the other candidates based on second preference in a second round of counting. Preferential voting is in place to handle "run-off elections" at the time of voting/counting.

There is a rule that you must vote in the first "conceptual" election of the preferential election. There is no rule that you must cast a vote in all three or four. Effectively, you're opting not to vote in the second and third elections if it came down to a run-off.

So say I really want Alice to win, and Bob is a decent second choice. I'd shoot myself if Charlie wins, so I vote 1 for Alice, 2 for Bob, and not at all for Charlie. Turns out Alice came in third in the first round... now what?

If Alice came in third, then it's between Bob and Charlie in a second round of counting, and Bob gets my second preference choice/vote in that round of counting, in that "run-off" election. ‪In this instance, my lack of a preference for Charlie would not come into play until a third round of voting if they couldn't achieve 50%+ in the second round.

‪

If I only see value in Alice (and not the other two candidates) and Alice doesn't make it to a second round of voting, then neither Bob nor Charlie gets my vote in that counting. Voting only for Alice might inadvertently help Charlie simply by not boosting Bob’s votes higher.

‪That's why this is something to consider carefully.

Robin’s advice: In the races with three or four candidates, please vote for at least two. Below are the candidates, my personal comments on them, and colored indicators on how I recommend voters rank them (green being first choice, yellow being second, red being third or no vote)

CHAIR

I’ve worked with Nick on a number of committees, and he even thought to consult with me when I was not on the board because he was tackling the Local Group Funding topic and knew that I was the one with all the research and data on that issue. Nick is a hard fact and data kind of guy. He’s got a corporate mindset, though he does care about member-services and has done a good job of reaching out to solicit member-input and to be as open and educational as possible regarding Mensa’s finances. “Transparency” is one of those meaningless buzzwords, like “family values” but I do believe Nick has done more than any prior treasurer towards that goal. On the other hand, he is one of the current ExComm members who helped steer Mensa in the direction it’s been going, including the retention of the current Executive Director. He is young, but experienced enough, and in this case, his youth is a good thing to mitigate the general grayness of the AMC.

I only know Deb though her online postings and the words of others. My impression is that she is an older, well-seasoned member who has been there and done that in nearly every way conceivable at the local level. She is not a sheep, not in it for the ego and status, and claims to prefer data and facts when making decisions, which I approve of. She is the “throw the bums out” choice and would not do a bad job as a Chair.

Dan has led Mensa into its current morass. I could say many more things about Dan, but he’s not worth the time it takes me to type it. Note also that if Dan loses, Russ Bakke is also removed from the AMC. Unless you’re completely content with how things are going, don’t vote for Dan. Just don’t.

FIRST VICE CHAIR

I’ve not worked with Mary Lee, but I know many who have. She may be older, but she is a proven effective get-things-done leader and she has members and groups first. She is also a strong proponent of using members as volunteers whenever possible. She thinks for herself, isn’t running for ego and status and free trips to Europe, and will likely not post pictures of exotic drinks on Facebook while traveling on Mensa business.

Heather is thoughtful and experienced and has a fair bit of wisdom to offer when she speaks up. She is also very much in the pocket of the Executive Director and part of the current ExComm who has driven Mensa into the hole it’s in.

SECOND VICE CHAIR

My impressions of LaRae are all second hand. She strikes me as hard working and effective but very much obedient and accepting with whatever the Executive Director and Chair tells her. She is one of the current ExComm who made decisions that have led Mensa astray in the past two years.

I don’t know John. What I’ve read is that he has lots of experience and respect at the local level. He is the “throw the bums out” choice.

TREASURER

I’ve worked with Ken on a number of committees, including the Finance Committee. I remember he once caught an error in a complicated formula calculation that saved  Mensa something like 17 thousand dollars. He’s definitely a numbers nerd with an eye for boring details. Policy-wise we were generally aligned in our thinking and goals for member-service and delivery methods. He’s familiar with the convoluted ways of Mensa policies, and turns out to be not nearly as sheep-like as I once expected him to be, though he is very fond of and supportive of the current Executive Director. Maybe not the most dynamic exciting person to hang with, but in a role like this, he’s good. I have heard some dodgy things about him regarding his service on his local board, but I do not know any details personally.

I’ve known Rob mainly through online interactions. We’ve never actually worked on anything together. He is most certainly a leader not a follower. He is charismatic and energetic and has a million really good ideas. Unfortunately, he is impatient with the slow process of change and AMC processes, and in his one and only term on the board, accomplished little. Whether that was due to concerted push back from more entrenched AMCers or his own inability to work within the system to get a majority on his side, I do not know. If you’re in “throw the bums out” mode, vote for Rob.

I have worked with Roger on a few committees. He is thoughtful and greatly concerned with the welfare of groups. However, I have noticed a few times when he chose policy directions based on gut feelings rather than hard cold data. He's not unskilled or evil, but I don't think he'd lead Mensa in the new direction it needs to be going.

I’m afraid I know practically nothing about William. His campaign statement mentions his desire to focus on community service & recruitment. He may have the background to understand finances, but without any previous experience on the AMC, I doubt he’d be efficient and effective as a leader at this point—he’d need too much time just to learn the job and board processes.

SECRETARY

I’ve worked with Lori. She is charismatic and colorful and speaks her mind unhesitatingly. She does like data and facts when making decisions, and definitely stands on the platform of having members being more in charge and doing more. She has AMC experience, which is helpful. The actual job of Secretary is mundane, but as a member of the powerful ExComm, Lori would be an excellent representative for members who are tired of being just dues revenue.

I’ve not worked with Andrew, but my impression of him is good. He is young, which is a plus in a graying board, but he is also part of the current AMC which has made a number of decisions I disagree with. I do not have any idea where he stands on the topic of the current Executive Director and her hold over the AMC, but my gut says he hasn’t protested it.

I worked a tiny bit with Nancy on Officer Handbooks many years ago. We didn’t get much actually done (this was before switching to the newer process). She is gregarious and hard-working at the local level and has been in Mensa a long time. Her passion for the organization and its members is high.