Executive Session

Every now and then, a Board needs to conduct itself in Executive Session. This is usually because the commentary that the Board may wish to engage in could be potentially embarrassing to the subject of the discussion (in the event of the removal of an officer or the concurrence with the expulsion of a member) or of a confidential nature (discussing the legal tactics of an ongoing lawsuit).

However, discussion in Executive Session is a far cry from conducting actual votes on motions in Executive Session. When the MWM ExComm took the action of removing an officer from the ExComm, while we conducted our discussion in Executive Session, making the actual motion and voting on it was done in open session, in full view of observers and plainly recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Such should also be the case in almost all instances with the AMC. (I am hard-pressed to come up with a single instance where a vote on any particular motion *requires* being taken in Executive Session and not be reported out as to who made and seconded the motion, and who voted Yes/No/Abstain.) There have been a few times in recent years where fundamental functions of the AMC have been conducted secretively that should have been in full view of the membership: the vote  (done by written ballot) to go into Executive Session for the purpose of dealing with funding extra days for the AMC'ers to attend the WG, the actual vote on funding those extra days (conducted in Executive Session), and the vote to concur with the expulsion of Barry Levine (also conducted in Executive Session - no way of ever knowing who voted which way). The membership deserves to know how AMC members voted on these items so that we can hold them accountable for their vote come election time. In these particular circumstances, we're talking about the spending of members' dues money and the AML "judicial" system.

The only circumstance that comes to mind where voting in Executive Session makes sense is where there are several items before the AMC in Executive Session and, rather than come out of Executive Session for each vote and re-enter it for the subsequent discussion (which is disruptive for any observers present, and confusing for the AMC'ers as to what was in Exec. Session and what wasn't), the motions and votes can be done in Executive Session with the explicit understanding that the precise motion, who moved, who seconded, and who voted each Yes/No/Abstain on the motion be reported out in open session and, thereby, included in the AMC meeting's minutes, giving the net effect of only the respective discussions being covered by the secrecy of Executive Session, not the votes themselves (so an AMC member can freely acknowledge how they voted).

It would be great if the AMC would hold itself to this standard. There should not be the *need* for an ASIE or a bylaws amendment. However, if there is sufficient resistance from AMC such that the AMC doesn't willingly hold itself to this standard, it would be instructive for there to be an official vote on a motion constructed to mandate this practice be implemented (if a mover and seconded can be secured).

Self-Limiting Beliefs?

I finally got around to reading the Governance Task Force's report. While there are many items that could be used for springboards for discussion, the thing that jumped out at me most was a list of self-limiting beliefs supposedly held by Mensans. While I admit that I hold some of the beliefs that were listed (though I don't consider all of those, even, to be "self-limiting"), what struck me most were things that I have not heard before. Do you believe any of the following? Do you think these are beliefs held by many Mensans? If so (for either of the preceding questions), then what do you think are some good ways to overcome them?

--Because we are all smart and are equals in a round table society, any willing member can do any job if they have the time and energy for it. (This was alternately phrased as "our veneration of equality hobbles us because we refuse to accept the truth that we are not all equally capable of every job that needs doing.")
--Young people are too busy to take on large, time-consuming volunteer jobs.
--Highly educated, socially adept professionals do not need Mensa because they already have other venues for interacting with intelligent people.


I found the first one above to be the most fascinating. I don't know anyone who has ever said that any willing member can de facto do (i.e., can accomplish) any job that put their hand to merely because they are willing to give it a shot, especially in the context of ExComms and the AMC, the latter of which is the underlying context of the GTF Report. What has been said many times, and which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that GIVEN we are a society of equals (i.e., equals-in-standing within the society), everyone should be equally permitted to seek office, regardless of what their prior involvement - or even success - is. It is then up to the membership to decide which of the members who is seeking office is the most qualified for the respective positions. It seems to me that it's a blatant statement of obvious fact that not all members are well-qualified for all positions on AMC, a local group ExComm, or any other role that can be named. But if we attempt to go around and tell people that they are not permitted to seek office because they don't meet an individual or group's potentially arbitrary criteria (such as might be ascribed to a Nominating Committee), we certainly hobble ourselves by turning OFF the desire to volunteer, lend a hand, and improve Mensa in a group of willing members.

MWM Website

In the coming days and weeks, the MWM website will be changing a fair bit. At the January 9 meeting, the ExComm will be discussing what should be on the website, what information should be behind the "Members Only" banner and what should be on the public side, and just how much leeway and discretion the webmaster has in making changes (especially with design and functionality).

What do you want to make sure is retained on the website? What are your "must-have"s?
What do you want to see on the website that isn't already (or regularly) visible?
What ideas for new functionality would you like to pass along for consideration?

Lack of courtesy in prolonged delay in replying

Sometimes "life" gets in the way of sending a reply to an e-mail. I certainly get that, and never *expect* an immediate reply to an e-mail I am initiating (though I'm always pleased to get them). A few days, and even a week at times, are totally reasonable amounts of time in which to respond to something. (And if one is out of contact for a long amount of time on vacation or somesuch, then it is appropriate to either give forewarning of same when that is possible or lead off with an acknowledgement of that when one finally gets back online and is replying to e-mail. Obviously if a dire emergency has intervened, it may take a considerable amount of time for some reflection of that to wind its way to people making inquiries on various topics.) Multiple weeks, let alone a month, without replying to any extent comes across as an avoidance tactic, especially when there are multiple people on the e-mail and no one replies.


As many may know, Barry Levine (no relation) was expelled from AML in 2008. Recently, he appealed that decision to the International Board of Directors (IBD) for the one thing they could offer him - Direct International Membership (DIM) status. He posted his official request on M-Pol and has provided brief (believe it or not) updates about how long it has been since he last inquired about the status.

Eventually, I wrote to a source (who I have promised, so far, not to identify and who is listed as [X] below) asking for the status of the decision. A full month after being informed that a decision has actually been reached (and I have no idea when that decision was made), that decision has not been conveyed to Barry nor to AML writ large. Nor has a simple explanation been provided as to what the extensive delay in conveying the decision is.

The below letter, I think, speaks for itself from this point on.

----

[X] and Ms. Rudolph,

I am flummoxed by the rather thorough lack of communication that seems to be occurring with respect to this situation. 5 weeks ago, I inquired about the status of Barry Levine's appeal to IBD. In what I thought was a reasonable amount of time (one week, especially since my e-mail was sent via the MIL website), [X] sent a reply indicating that a decision had been reached, but had not as yet been conveyed to Barry.

It seemed likely to me that a decent chunk of the posts I would read upon my return from a 2-week vacation would have been related to Barry's forwarding on whatever the decision was since, surely, he would have received that decision sometime during my time away. However, quite obviously, such was not the case. 

And still, 2 weeks further hence (a total of one month since the time you mentioned the fact that a decision HAD actually been reached, and an unstated amount of time since that decision was reached) there has not been any communication with Barry from IBD regarding this matter, nor have either of you responded to my simple query (in the thread backquoted below) as to what the delay is. While I am keenly interested in why it should take such a long time to inform the central party to this matter what the final resolution is, and am disappointed that neither of you appear to want to answer such, that is of lesser concern than making sure that the actual decision is finally conveyed.

This is hardly something that affects only Barry. Rather, it affects all of AML and, I dare say, all of MIL. The underlying matter is the fairness of AML's hearings process. Does IBD think that Barry, via the process that AML has in place and as applied to him with respect to his 2008 expulsion from AML, was treated to a fair and impartial hearing? If not, then IBD should do the one thing that it has at its disposal and offer him DIM status. This would be a clear signal to all of AML as well as the other national Mensas that MIL will take what action it can to ensure fairness within our respective hearings systems and would hopefully serve as a clarion signal to AML that reform of our system needs to be implemented.

If the IBD thinks that Barry was treated fairly, then it should not waver in stating so. In such an instance, this sort of delay is mind-boggling.

Regardless of what the IBD has already decided, Barry (as the petitioner), AML members (as the Mensan party with the highest vested interest), and MIL members writ large deserve to know what the decision was. If there is a particular technicality or legality that is holding up the process of disseminating that information, then it is a matter of simple propriety and courtesy that demands a basic explanation of same and an expected time by which we can expect to have the final decision rendered in its final form.

Ms. Rudolph, as AMC Chairman and a member of the International ExComm, I would appreciate it if you would do what you can to move this process along. I would also appreciate it if you would provide your understanding as to why there has been such a long delay (clearly over one month) in communicating the final decision of IBD in this matter (even if you aren't empowered to be the one to relay the actual decision itself).

Thank you, both. I look forward to your replies as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Jared Levine

LocSec, Metropolitan Washington Mensa

Candidate for AMC Secretary

Looking for a Few Good Volunteers

Like all local groups, MWM is always looking for some additional volunteers. Usually it's in reference to chapter-specific items (and I'll post something on that score soon enough). This time, however, it's for something non-Mensan (though there is a Mensa-specific opportunity within it).

I am certainly a proponent of Odyssey of the Mind. (See http://www.odysseyofthemind.com/) It's a great competition that teaches kids K-12 all about independent and creative thinking, teamwork, responsibility, self-reliance, and even specific subjects. They can ALWAYS utilize more people to volunteer as judges for their competitions. (And the more people who do so without having children in the competition, the more parents can actually watch their child compete and lend that critical piece of support.)

I would very much like to have at least as big a turn-out from MWM this year as came last year to assist with judging; we had about 7 people (not including having two people man a Mensa table during the competition, too). Having that many otherwise-unattached judges is a boon for the tournament organizers.

My focus, again, is on Sterling, VA (hey, it's my back yard!) and working with their coordinator. Training for the judging positions is on Saturday, Feb. 26 at Park View HS. The tournament itself is on March 12 at Park View HS. For additional information, go to the above website, contact the coordinator (Dennis Godfrey at pridefarm@gmail.com), or drop me a line directly and I can be an intermediary. If you have any interest in judging or volunteering in any capacity for the tournament, please drop me a line. If you are interested in manning a Mensa table and helping to recruit the next generation of Mensa members, make sure to contact me. Alas, if you're interested in doing both, you can't do so at any one location - you've gotta choose. And both are perfectly good and viable choices.

There are other locations (Alexandria, plus Reston and Falls Church), however please note that the Reston and Falls Church locations do not have sufficient space for a Mensa table and they mandate that you train at their specific location if you want to judge at their regional tournament. More details on those and the one WV location in my article on Odyssey in the January CapM. At present, Maryland-specific details are unknown.

So, if you're interested in judging for Odyssey of the Mind or for manning a Mensa table, make sure to contact me.

SIG Guidelines and Anti-Discrimination Policy wrap-up

Finally, after several months of discussing what can be recognized as a SIG and what needs to be done to be listed in the CapM SIGs Directory, the ExComm has set a policy in place. It is not the policy that was suggested on the past couple of agendas, rather, it is, in large measure, the same as is written atop the SIGs Directory in the March issue of the Mensa Bulletin, with minor adjustments that change AML-specific references to MWM-specific references.

In short, however, it says:
1) SIG leaders must submit a report to the SIG Coordinator (currently the Member-at-Large) at least once every 6 months to maintain their listing, and
2) Having one's SIG placed in the SIG Listing is at the discretion of the SIG Coordinator.

On a similar vein, the recently proposed anti-discrimination guidelines that would have applied to all calendar events and SIGs were voted down. There was no subsequent motion for an anti-discrimination policy of any sort put forward.

While the discussions that we have had over the past several months have been rather instructive on some issues, I'm happy that we finally have an end-result and hope that we can move on to other items, such as encouraging more active participation and volunteerism by members, improving the involvement of our child members, updating/upgrading/revamping the website to be a vehicle that encourages further involvement from the members and provides an even better face and up-to-date information to curious non-members, putting together the LDW, having an RG, and putting together Mind Games 2012.