Publications Recognition Program Nominations

Congratulations, Dave Aronson, former Editor of Capital M, for your two nominations in this year's PRP contest: Member Recognition and Mensa Awareness.

And, somehow, I also managed to snag a PRP nod for Non-Fiction (Mensa-related) with one of my LocSec columns (June 2010).

We'll see if we take home any of the owls that get handed out at the AG in July. Good luck, Dave!

Last-minute voting?

For those of you who have not voted yet in the AML election, there's still time, though realistically only enough time to do so on-line. (Online voting ends 11:59pm CDT on May 31, 2011.)

To be able to do so, you need both your Membership Number and the specially provided E-Signature (election passcode) that was mailed to you with the ballot materials in mid-April. Once you have those on-hand:

--Go to https://www.directvote.net/mensa

--Login using the Member Number and E-Signature (election passcode) provided

That should bring you to the ballot for you to vote; hopefully it is self-explanatory from there. (I voted via paper, so can't provide any more directions, not having ever seen directions for filling out the ballot itself online nor coming up with them from memory.)

Please vote. And make sure your fellow Mensans vote, too! (And, obviously, I would appreciate it if you voted for me for AMC Secretary while you're at it.)

Incentivizing proctoring?

There are some members (both proctors and non-proctors) who have stated they think that proctors should be paid something (unstated in the general conversation) for proctoring the Mensa test, be it some set amount for the test session or a fee per person tested.

The main arguments seem pretty straightforward to me:

Pro:
Proctors are the main driver in terms of bringing testing candidates into the organization; if you've got a bad proctor (especially one who can't well-represent the organization and/or one who can't give sufficient answers as to what is done in the chapter), it is quite possible to turn that candidate off from joining should they qualify.

Con:
1) There is a current prohibition in paying officers. (NB: Either the outright prohibition or proctors' inclusion within the term "officers" could be changed, though, if desired.)
2) Why should we pay proctors but not other officers in the organization, especially some that may spend more time and energy than proctors in many cases: Editor and LocSec are the two most obvious examples; there may be many others.
3) Paying one category of officers but not others may be a disincentive for people to volunteer for those other unpaid positions.

Thoughts on other pros/cons for paying proctors for testing (beyond expenses related to the testing, which should be reimbursed, of course)? And do you favor paying proctors or not? (So far, the consensus seems to lean towards not paying them, though strongly acknowledging the pro argument listed above.) And if you're from a different chapter than MWM, what does your chapter do regarding payments to proctors.?

I've vacillated a bit on this myself, because of all of the above; I'll likely wind up abstaining on a motion that specifically provides for a stipend of some sort (above and beyond simple expense reimbursement) since I'm in the process of becoming a proctor, even though it will take a few months to complete that.

MWM LDE a Great Success

The LDE - Get the Lead Out: Time to Take the Lead - went VERY well today. We had 34 of the people who RSVP'd show up and most of them were there the whole day.

Hospitality (put on by George and Chris Cooper -- our upcoming RG's Hospitality Chair and Registrar, respectively) was VERY good. Plenty of food for everyone throughout the day. Snacks. Healthy stuff. Tasty "junk" (such as doughnuts). More than enough soft drinks and water.

The speakers, by and large, went over VERY well. Thank you to:
Loren Kropat
Karen Caron
Dave Cahn
Eileen Roberts (with additional assistance from both Karen Caron and GCC Donna Campbell)

Also thanks to Nancy Vogel, our emcee, for her intros of the various speakers. My apologies for not realizing where the microphone was during the first couple of intros.

Kudos go out to Leslie Jane Fahrney, for showing up very early to help out with the set-up, and to staying to the bitter end helping with breaking things down, clearing out the room, and even volunteering to hauling out the trash!

The people who stacked the chairs to the sides of the room -- THANK YOU! I was distracted enough by other stuff I was doing and people I was talking with, I didn't notice who was doing the stacking. It made clearing things up SO much easier.

For the several people who handed in the sheets re: volunteer -- THANK YOU! We will do our best in terms of taking "advantage" of your interest/offers as soon as possible. And all of the comments that were handed in will be helpful, especially if/when we hold another such event.

And, once again, a big thank you for the person who kicked this all off by putting in an entry into last year's contest and winning the Region 2 version -- Hal Handerson.

Proctors Needed!

We have an approximate 1,000-person backlog, in our chapter alone, in people who have, at one point in time, indicated some level of interest in testing for and joining Mensa. With more people being added onto that list all the time, it's a daunting task to whittle that down.

How can we do it? With as many proctors as we can possibly get certified from among our ranks.

What do you need to do to get certified?
1) Fill out and mail in the Proctor Application which you can find at https://www.us.mensa.org/lead/certifications/proctors/ -- making sure to have (either on the hardcopy of that form or as separate e-mails to the National Office) the endorsement of both the LocSec (me, through the end of October) and the Testing Coordinator (currently Nancy McMahan Farrar). You'll get a manual and need to send back an open book exam.
2) Attend one or two testing sessions as an observer - dependent on your background and having conducted such tests previously. Depending on timing, you might be able to attend a webinar instead, "bypassing" this requirement. (The next webinar is on May 26 at 8pm CDT. The one after that is tentatively scheduled for late July or early August.)
3) Proctor one or two testing sessions while observed by a Mensa-certified proctor.

It's really that simple.

The benefits? You help out the chapter by whittling down our backlog, describing just what Mensa is and does to the testing candidates, and bolster the number of members in the chapter with each person who passes your proctored test that decides that they want to join after all. You also get to meet lots of new people and be "the face of Mensa"/the authoritative expert for everyone who attends your sessions.

So, if you're a member of MWM, contact me and our Testing Coordinator. If you're a member of a different chapter, you need to contact your chapter's LocSec and Testing Coordinator.

Interested in ExComm Positions?

This year is an election year here in MWM. As is the case with each election, all positions are available for election (or re-election, if an incumbent runs again for the same seat). Ideally, we will have as many contested offices as possible; there is no individual that is so indispensable or whose vision is "the only" one that they shouldn't have competition for the office. Competition for the Executive Committee (ExComm) positions is a healthy way of getting the members involved, getting additional ideas into the mix, and improving the chapter.

If you have been curious about just what it is that the ExComm as a whole or any of the individual ExComm members actually DO in their capacity on the ExComm, please ask us. To reiterate (compared to CapM) what the specific positions on the ExComm are:
Local Secretary (a.k.a. President)
Membership Officer (a.ka. Vice President)
Programs Officer
Treasurer (a.k.a. Exchequerer)
Publications Officer
Scrivener (a.k.a. Secretary)
Member-at-Large

Earlier today we, essentially, officially kicked off the election season in the chapter in two ways:
1) Appointing the Chairman and members of the Election Committee: Deb Morris (chairman); Nancy Vogel, Paul Bethe, Jody Carlson, and Stephanie Smilay (committee members)
2) Re-affirming that the Election Party will be conducted on Sunday, October 9, within the venue of the RG. (NB: The Election Party is free to all members of MWM.)

Consider running for the ExComm and making a difference for the better in the chapter. There's lots to be done, lots that can be done, and new ideas and energy are vital to keeping the chapter vibrant and thriving.

What are your opinions of the local, regional, and national status quo?

Are things in Mensa going the way that you want them to and/or approve? That question can and should be asked regularly, and is applicable at all levels of Mensa - locally, regionally, and nationally.

If you answered "no" with respect to any of those three "levels" of Mensa, are you doing anything about it? That doesn't necessarily mean running for office, running a local event, or even attending the local ExComm or national AMC meeting. It could be as simple as talking with an officer at an event you both attend, making a phone call, or sending an e-mail or snail-mail letter to them.

Letting one's opinion be known can be some of the most powerful tools at one's disposal. That said, ideally one won't hold everything back until there's one straw that finally breaks the proverbial camel's back. That does no one any good. To do so and then finally let loose with a litany of previously unstated complaints lessens the impact of any of them and potentially lets fester legitimate problems that might be going on unrecognized by anyone else.

Make your voice heard. Vote in elections to help steer the organization where you want it to go, and provide timely feedback.

May 15 ExComm Meeting

At the next meeting, these are the major items that will be on the agenda:
--Appointing the Election Committee
--Appointing a new webmaster
--Discussions related to AMC's March motion re: electronic default for newsletter delivery, bylaws, and the timing of this year's Election Party

If you are an MWM member and would like to get a full copy of the agenda (once it's finalized earl-mid next week), please let me know. Also, if you would like something addressed, please let me know by, say, Tuesday May 10.

LDE almost full

With the deadline tomorrow (Saturday), there's very little time left for you to RSVP to the Leadership Development Event we're holding on May 21. And, to boot, there's precious little room left. RSVPs are set to be cut off at 50, and we are currently at 48 people already signed up. Should be a good time. Take advantage of it while you can.

Late-breaking edit: As of May 6, we are completely FULL -- we've hit our max of 50. So, if you STILL want to attend the LDE, send me an e-mail to place you on the waitlist. If people cancel in advance of the event, I will proceed down the waitlist to add people in to fill up to that 50-person limit. Only members of MWM and their immediate family members, now, please.

Which is more important in voting for an AMC Secretary?

Recently, I have been asked which I consider to be more important in an AMC Secretary: the secretarial skills or the "AMC skills", ill-defined as the latter is.

I think that, first and foremost, when one is electing someone to a position that calls for specific skills and tasks, which AMC Secretary certainly is, that specific role is more important in the calculus of voting than the general role as shared by the entirety of the AMC.

If someone is elected to the office of Secretary who is unable to fulfill those specific duties (or, at least to the AMC and/or membership's satisfaction), then the AMC is left with the unenviable position of appointing someone to take over that role. (And that's been done previously.) Whereas, if someone is elected to the office of Secretary who can well fulfill the specific duties but isn't adept at the rest of the AMC matters that are spread across the AMC as a whole (or shared among them all, more likely), there is nothing that really needs to be done to rectify the deficiency; the odds that their individual vote will turn the tide on matters is small.

In the ideal situation, the person being elected to the office of Secretary will be able to not only do the secretarial skills well, but will also be able to fulfill the other AMC "skills" well, too.

Clearly, I feel that I will be able to fulfill the secretarial and general AMC skillsets well.