Change of policy passed

H6 was passed: Adopted a motion amending the previously-passed weapons motion changing weapons to firearms and adding clarifying language.

Hopefully they will actually pass a motion repealing this one, so that we can return to status ante, before any of the weapons-related policies of the last two meetings were passed.

You *CAN* Make a Difference

As noted within my updated post below, the motion (H7) on the December agenda - which would have required hiring security guards - has been withdrawn by its mover.

To those who contributed to the conversation on the Facebook page, here on my blog, in individual e-mail letters to one or more members of the AMC, and in any other way communicated your opinions on this matter to the AMC, thank you. You have made a difference.

To Marc, for having taken to heart the concerns that were being raised and withdrawing the motion from the agenda, thank you.


For anyone who still has concerns about the currently in-force weapons ban (from the prior AMC meeting) and the motion (H6) on the December agenda (which replaces the broad weapons ban with a gun ban), keep on sending the AMC your comments. Similarly for any other item on the agenda that you have questions, comments, or concerns about.

Commentary on the December AMC agenda

The December 2013 AMC agenda is online. Go peruse it (http://www.us.mensa.org/AML/?LinkServID=ECB6C2BD-E35E-D520-7FF5145152348936&type=mrep&name=2013-12-07\Agenda\2013-12-07Agenda.pdf) so that you have the proper context for my comments on several of the items, below. H6 is likely the most controversial item (replacing the weapons policy with a gun ban at national-level events), with H7 (hired security guards) a close second.

Make sure you send your comments about the agenda items at least to your RVC. Consider sending them to more members of the AMC than that. Regardless of whether your views line up with mine or are a complete 180 to them, you should make your views known.

---

F6 should be amended so that it is clear that it references a current Mensa member who gives a program at an Annual Gathering “on a day they will be attending any portion of the Annual Gathering outside of their own presentation”. After all, it makes no sense at all to charge a Mensa member to give a program if they plan on doing nothing more at the AG than give that program.

-----

H3 should be changed so that it is the Finance and Audit Committee that gives final approval to the registration rates for Annual Gatherings; it should be the AG Committee that proposes the budget. If there is conflict between what the AG Committee proposes and what the Finance and Audit Committee is willing to approve, then the two committees should work together to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. AGs are not cookie-cutter events. Rather, in addition to the standard/stock items that all AGs have, there are many things which add that local “flavor” or imprint from the committee members. There is no way that the Finance and Audit Committee can foresee what the AG Committee wants to do. Nor should the AG Committee be prevented from budgeting something for the AG because the Finance and Audit Committee didn't (and couldn't) foresee what might be planned.

[Update 11/17: Based on input prompted by this letter sent to the AMC and subsequent conversation, the motion on the agenda will be amended/updated to add a clause at the end of the motion indicating that the registration rates should be "based on a budget developed by the AG Chair(s)."]

-----

H5 – Rather than continually dip into the Life Member fund each year, how about doing what people have been asking for for years: have a rolling membership year. This would be the single biggest action that could be taken to help even out cash flow, both nationally and at the local level. There won't be a single huge (~20%) drop in membership numbers (and commensurate funding) every April, and there wouldn't be this long trough before a single spike in late March due to an auto-renewal system.

-----

H6 – Approving ANY weapons ban (whether broad like ASIE 2013-037 or specific to guns like this proposal) is something that the AMC should not be involved in doing.

First of all, any person who is committing a crime (i.e., violating local, state, and/or federal law) should be arrested and charged with said crime. There is no reason why AMC should get involved with putting in policies that relate to any criminal behavior.

Secondly, there is no meaningful enforcement mechanism of such a ban. If someone concealed carries a gun onto the premises, thereby violating such a ban, there is no way for anyone to know until and unless that person decides to display or brandish their gun. And, if and when such person would take that action, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, such action would be criminal, which brings us back to the first point.

Thirdly, by imposing such a ban, the AMC only heaps on liability rather than helping to avoid it. By banning guns, AMC then is put in the position of making sure that they have taken all reasonable, necessary steps to protect the attendees. If you don't have a robust enforcement/security policy put in place, any harm that befalls an attendee because of someone violating the ban but your not adequately policing it, that attendee has cause to sue AML, in addition to whatever action they would take against the offending individual.

Rather than banning guns, the AMC has two realistic choices in terms of diffusing liability: 1) enact a policy that states that it is expected that all attendees at the events in question will comply with all local, state, and federal laws regarding guns as well as the venue's policies (if any) regarding guns, or 2) rescind any and all weapons or gun bans and be completely silent on the issue. There is nothing in the bylaws, ASIEs, or any other communication which officially permits and/or endorses the carrying or use of guns (or other weapons) at national-level events.

Furthermore, why should repeated violations of this particular policy be deemed acts inimical to Mensa. In jurisdictions where the carrying of the gun is permitted, how can Mensa possibly take the position that someone can face sanctions (possibly as severe as expulsion) for doing something that is totally legal? That is untenable.

-----

[Update 11/19: The below commentary on H7 is now moot, as Marc Lederman (who was the initial mover of the motion) has withdrawn his motion from the agenda.]

H7 – While we certainly don't want members getting involved with having to police a weapons/gun policy, this motion says nothing of HOW such security officer(s) would enforce such a weapons/gun ban.

As mentioned in H6, there are public rooms for the following functions at AGs: games, speakers, hospitality, meals, business meetings, debates, tournaments, dances, testing, and meet-and-greets. (Omitted from that list are the rooms for the Young Mensans, Tweens, and TeenSIG. While not generally public, even to the majority of attendees, these are also rooms that would be affected by such a ban. And some would say they are the most vulnerable, too.) So, figuring a conservative estimate of 1 room for games, 6 for speakers, 1 for hospitality, 1 for meal plan meals, 1 for business meetings, 4 for debates, 1 for tournaments, 1 for dances, 1 for testing, and 3 for meet-and-greets, as well as one each for the Yms, Tweens, and Teens, that brings us to a minimum of 23 rooms that would need to be “policed”.

Clearly, not all of these rooms are occupied at all times during an AG, so figure (conservatively) that all rooms are open for 12 hours per day except for hospitality and games which are open 24/7. This brings us to a total of approximately 452 room-hours, assuming only one security officer within each room. At $40 - $50 per hour, as provided in the explanation, this is an additional cost of approximately $18,000 - $22,500. This will raise registration costs anywhere from $9 - $16 per person (likely more, given conservative estimates being used) specifically to cover this cost alone.

Cost aside, unless there is a mechanism in place for HOW a gun ban will be enforced, all that hiring security guards will do is throw away money for these people to stand and watch us cavort. If they are not routinely doing some semblance of a search on each and every person that comes into each and every public room which the AG has in use, then there is no actual enforcement being done.

In order to search people, there are a few methods: 1) Ask anyone will overly concealing clothing (such as a jacket, sweatshirt, scarf, hat/cap) to open up/remove said article to verify that no contraband gun is being carried; 2) Ask anyone carrying any opaque bag or other article large enough to conceal a gun to open it up and permit the guard to “paw around” in it as necessary to satisfy the guard that there is no contraband gun being carried; 3) Install and man metal detectors and/or backscatter machines at the entrance to areas small enough where people can't circumvent them by going in a different entrance to that larger space. While this would surely be fewer in number than the number of public rooms, it would certainly be more than just one or two.

After you deal with the matter of how this will be enforced, then comes the matter of AML liability creeping in again. As has been previously observed, if someone violates the gun ban and harms another in the process of doing so, AML has the following liability issues: 1) the injured attendee, 2) the security officer who may be injured in the process, and 3) the hotel, for any damages to the hotel or its personnel that are incurred because of the ineffective enforcement of the policy.

While some of the above points may appear to be hyperbole, rest assured that with a dminished number of rooms being “policed” and with little to no methods put in place to actively determine if the policy is being violated, AML's liability continues to rise.

Recognize the serious flaws in these motions, vote against all of the weapons/gun policy-related items on this agenda, and repeal/rescind the weapons poloicy that you put in place during the previous AMC meeting. Admit that you made a mistake, correct it, and move on to items that will actually be beneficial to AML.

-----

While it doesn't look like there's anything objectionable in H8 itself, why is it that this is being placed on the agenda without so much as a “by-your-leave” mention within the Bylaws Committee?

-----

Why is H9, the motion regarding member participation/input during the AMC meeting, the last motion on the agenda? Talk about a predisposition to vote against a motion. Given the goals of this motion, I would urge not only that it be approved, but that it be put first within this section of non-consent agenda items. In the off-chance that this passes, what better ways of being able to manifest its utility than during the discussions surrounding the various gun ban-related motions? It is obviously true that it is easier for someone on the “outside” of a discussion to pick up on points that are overlooked by those people who are in the thick of a potentially heated discussion. Clearly there are times when such observations by another party can bring clarity to an otherwise murky or controversial course of action, and provide an unexpected resolution to the situation at hand. Will this always be the case? Likely not. But if we can foster a society that actively involves the members and considers their counsel, even in an unofficial capacity, what better way to manifest our mythical “round table society” that is so often and loftily mentioned, but so infrequently realized?

While permitting Comments from the Audience before the section of motions is begun and at the end of the agenda is nice, it is insufficient for pointing out something that only becomes clear even to the observer during the actual discussion of the particular motion on the table. For example, while I would like to think that I raised all the pertinent points related to the gun ban-related motions in my commentary above, I suspect that one or more things have been overlooked. It's entirely possible that a member attending the AMC meeting will actually realize a new, pertinent angle on the situation. To miss out on that input during the discussion because of formality, tradition, or whatever else might get in the way is to do AML a disservice.

Weapons policy adopted

According to the mini-minutes of the meeting, AMC adopted a weapons policy (somewhat changed from the original proposal, but still essentially the same in effect):

----

The Board adopted a weapons policy for certain AML events, as follows: All functional weapons shall be prohibited from American Mensa Ltd. National events, such as Annual Gatherings, Annual Business Meetings, Colloquium, Mind Games®, and AML Board meetings. Sworn law enforcement officers are exempt from this policy. For purposes of this motion, a weapon is any instrument, device or thing that is both

a) Capable of causing death or serious injury; and b) Either

i) Designed or specifically adapted for use as a weapon; or ii) Possessed, carried, or used as a weapon.

Passed: 10-9-1

---

No indication here if someone was absent, or if the one person listed as abstaining is the Chair (who in previous years would have been listed in a 4th category, not voting (as is typical of the chair unless needed to either break or force a tie, depending on their desire), for Yes/No/Abstain/Not Voting). We'll need to wait until the full minutes come out to see who voted in favor, who abstained, and why there is one vote seemingly missing from the above tally (unless one person was, indeed, absent).

Gun Policy Really Necessary?

On the agenda for the October 5, 2013 AMC meeting is the following motion:

G.14 Firearms policy at official AML events

Moved BAKERINK, seconded DURHAM: All operable firearms shall be prohibited from American Mensa Ltd official events.

EXPLANATION: This prohibition will be put into place due to the diversity of State laws, State Weapons Permit reciprocity, hotel policies, and liability insurance concerns. American Mensa has had no standardized policy for allowing firearms at gatherings. This makes it difficult for event Chairs and White Hats to keep up. American Mensa has no specific liability coverage for allowing operable firearms at an event. We wish to maintain necessary coverage for our events and this will not be possible if coverage for operable firearms is included.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: There will be no financial impact.

-----

What are your thoughts about this? Pro or con, let our RVC, Cam Smart, know where you stand on this. Or, for those AML members from elsewhere in the country, let your RVC know your position on this. (Heck, you can send it to other members of the AMC if you want, too.)

Upcoming MWM Election

Just a reminder to those considering running for MWM's ExComm, you have until Tuesday to have your letters of intent to run and serve *received* by the Election Committee chairman. See CapM for specifics and the precise deadlines. As is the case with each MWM election, ALL ExComm positions are open for election. If you have questions about what a specific ExComm office entails, ask the current incumbent or even ask a former holder of that office. Most are most likely willing to give you an answer (though it may be a tight timeline, given possible holiday weekend plans). Speaking just for myself, it would be nice to see contested elections on a more regular basis. It seems to be a rarity in local group elections (at least in the three groups in which I've been a member).

MWM's Tourist SIG

Interested in thrill rides? Will you be in Virginia on Sept. 28? Come join us at King's Dominion:
https://www.facebook.com/events/1396922250527946/