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post below, the motion (H7) on the December agenda - which would have required hiring security guards - has been withdrawn by its mover.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

MWM's RG -- Matrix VI: Villainous Edition

Want to keep up-to-date with everything about our RG? Well, then, you have some options.

Subscribe to our blog:
http://villainousedition.wordpress.com

Like us on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/villainousedition


Easy way to contact the RG Committee? E-mail mwm2014rg@gmail.com

2014 MWM RG Registration Rate Schedule

We've finally crunched the numbers and have figured out... we can REDUCE the registration rate for next year's RG for most people. How much will it cost?

Full-Weekend (Note: New this year - this does NOT include Saturday dinner):

$70 thru September 30, 2013

$75 October 1 - December 31, 2013

$80 January 1 - April 30, 2014

$85 thereafter and walk-in

$55 youth (under 18 years old)

Single-day rates (adult or youth):

$30 Friday only

$40 Saturday only (Note: This does NOT include Saturday dinner)

$30 Sunday only

Saturday night dinner (separate purchase required): $20 (deadline for purchasing dinner: May 9, 2014)

Cancellations accepted through April 30, 2014 (8% fee retained for cancellation, same as this past year)

To be crystal clear, meals included in Hospitality with the full weekend price:

Friday dinner, Saturday breakfast and lunch, Sunday breakfast and (new this year) lunch. 

As soon as our webmaster's schedule frees up enough, you will be able to register online at mwmrg.org

Stay tuned for further updates, as we hope to get our blog up and running in the near future.

2014 RG

Jess Byron and I are reprising our roles as co-chairs of the MWM RG, taking place May 16-18, 2014, once again at the Hyatt Dulles, Herndon, VA. Over the upcoming days and weeks, the initial bare-bones details will be decided: registration rate and schedule (it may get modified compared to what's currently "out there"), theme, additional RG committee members, etc. We will start filling in some of those details at http://www.mwmrg.org.

Once we have enough information determined, and our Publicity Chair Extraordinaire has sufficient time, we will create a new blog where we will provide regular updates, like we did this past year for the Superhero Edition RG.

Stay tuned for more information regarding MWM's 2014 RG!

AMC Election results

Survey and Ballot Systems, the election house for the 2013 board election and referenda, reported the following certified results this afternoon. These results include 5,404 returned ballots from 44,101 eligible members with a final participation rate of 12.25%. It is also worth noting that 2,257 ballots were submitted via Web voting and 3,147 paper ballots were returned via regular mail.

Congratulations to all of the winners. To those who were not elected, thank you for being willing to serve Mensa. Questions regarding the election should be directed to Election Chair Megan Edwards at ElectionChair@us.mensa.org.
______________________________________________________________________

The following positions were unopposed and the candidates were declared elected: RVC 1 – Andrew Heffernan; RVC 4 – Ellen Voie; RVC 6 – Roger Durham; RVC 8 – Harold Ward; and RVC 10 – Thomas George Thomas.
______________________________________________________________________

Chair – Daniel Burg is declared elected.
Daniel Burg 3130 59.6%
Robert Salkin 2125 40.4%

1st Vice Chair – Heather Miller Poirier is declared elected.
Heather Miller Poirier 3339 64.5%
John Recht 1841 35.5%

2nd Vice Chair – LaRae Bakerink is declared elected.
Round 1
LaRae Bakerink 2162 41.7%
Debra Reiger 1649 31.8%
Kenneth Silver 1376 26.5%

Round 2
LaRae Bakerink 2752 53.9%
Debra Reiger 2353 46.1%

Secretary – Brian Reeves is declared elected.
Brian Reeves 2888 56.2%
Jared Levine 2254 43.8%

Treasurer – Nicholaus Sanford is declared elected.
Nicholaus Sanford 3569 69.6%
Cary Chilson 1558 30.4%

RVC 2 – Cam Smart is declared elected.
Cam Smart 331 50.1%
Nancy McMahan Farrar 330 49.9%

RVC 3 – Julia Ashley is declared elected.
Julia Ashley 266 55.6%
John Voymas 212 44.4%

RVC 5 – Baker Ring is declared elected.
Baker Ring 232 52.1%
Bertha Clarke 213 47.9%

RVC 7 – Gregory Kontz is declared elected.
Gregory Kontz 179 59.9%
William Jacob Winship 120 40.1%

RVC 9 – Desiree Sagray is declared elected.
Desiree Sagray 333 52.1%
Clark Jones 306 47.9%

___________________________________________________________________
The following bylaw amendments were put before the membership. They required 2/3 of the voting membership to pass. You can find full text of these amendments online athttp://www.us.mensa.org/election.

Bylaw Amendment 1 – Passes.
Yes 4589 92.1%
No 391 7.9%

Bylaw Amendment 2 – Passes.
Yes 4465 89.8%
No 506 10.2%

Let the counting begin!

For those who voted for me, thank you. Sometime in the next 1-2 weeks, we'll have the final tally on all of the contested races.

March AMC meeting minutes released

The minutes for the March 23, 2013 AMC meeting are now online. Visit www.us.mensa.org/meetingreports and select "2013-03-23 -- Washington DC"  from the pulldown box on that page.

If you have trouble accessing this or any part of our Web site, please contact WebServices@americanmensa.org.

Comments on AMC Teleconference Agenda

My comments in italics. Text of many of the motions, explanations, etc., have been snipped so as to keep the size of this from being crazy-long.

A1a.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  

<snip> 

The resulting section will then read:

"(3) No later than one month before the deadline for submitting candidate petitions, the Nominating Committee shall nominate one or more candidates for each of the elective offices of American Mensa Ltd., …..The Nominating Committee shall submit a list of the nominated candidates to the American Mensa Committee and to the Election Committee, and the list shall be published."

While the length of time for the election process is on the overly long side, this proposed amendment would disadvantage anyone who, for whatever reason, wants to wait until after the NomComm-nominated candidates are known – whether it be a decision for them to run themselves or to convince someone else to run.

As written, the list of nominated candidates could be submitted as late as one month prior to candidate petitions being due. While it states that the list shall be published, it does not contemplate the necessary lead time to get the information into the Mensa Bulletin and printed there. With this timeline, the list of nominees potentially wouldn't be visible in print until after the deadline for candidate petitions. This is unacceptable.

Furthermore, if the proposal is that putting the information on the website and/or in some of the blast e-mails (such as AML NewsFlash) is sufficient, the simple fact of the matter is that it is not; there are many people who do not get such blast e-mails, who do not go on the website, and get their communications via hardcopy. These members should not be disadvantaged for the possibility of shortening the election time window; it's not like having a long period for the election is harmful or any more costly than having a shortened window.

-----

A1b.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 1996-116 is amended as follows:

<snip>

According to the ASIEs that currently appear on the AML website, there is no such ASIE as 1996-116. Rather, it would appear the appropriately referenced ASIE would be 1999-116.

The same objection applies as above as to the too-short period of time between publishing the list of nominated candidates and the deadline for candidate petitions.

-----

A2.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:

<snip>

The resulting section will then read:

(3) …The Nominating Committee shall nominate one or more candidates for each of the elective offices of American Mensa Ltd., of whom all nominees for Executive Committee positions shall (unless no individuals with the requisite qualifications are willing to run for that office) be members of the American Mensa Committee then in office, or have served at least one year on a prior American Mensa Committee.

As I have said on several occasions, this is going in the wrong direction – the exact opposite direction as the way MIL went a few years ago.

This precludes people who have relevant outside experience from even being considered by the Nominating Committee. This also assumes that the only way to have good knowledge of AML is to have served (or be serving) on the AMC itself. While it certainly gives you *more* insight than you would have otherwise, it isn't necessary to have that, in my opinion.

Furthermore, I don't understand what part of the proposal is being referenced by the portion of the official explanation that states “[i]t also makes clear that nominees for the position of Treasurer must have appropriate financial expertise and experience, leaving the Nominating Committee the ability to consider various combinations of education and experience.” The proposal as listed in this agenda makes no reference to anything specific to the Treasurer's expertise and experience. (That is included only in motion A3 related the the relevant ASIE.)

-----

A3.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:

In section a, sixth paragraph, third sentence,

<snip>

is changed to

"each nominee for AMC Executive Committee positions must either be a member of the current American Mensa Committee or have served at least one year on a former American Mensa Committee (unless no individuals with the requisite qualifications are willing to run for that office); and each candidate for the office of Treasurer must have appropriate financial skills and experience".

The same objection applies as above with respect to mandating current or 1-year's prior time served on the AMC to run for one of the Executive Committee positions. Also, as noted above, the last clause re: the Treasurer's financial skills and experience is included in this ASIE but *not* in the proposed bylaw amendment at the moment, though the bylaw explanation states otherwise.

I would strongly urge the AMC to make this ASIE amendment contingent on passage of the related bylaw amendment, just as in motions 1a and 1b. If the membership votes against something that is appropriately bylaws-related, why should the AMC feel free to institute it anyway by fiat?

-----

A4.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  In ASIE 1999-114, two new sections are added

<snip>

This seems reasonable to me.

-----

A5.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  In ASIE 1999-114, a new section is added at the end of the ASIE as follows:

<snip>

I think that it is unnecessary and inappropriate to specifically seek out former AMC members. There are enough people (approx. 30, at its maximum). If the necessary qualifications are written clearly enough, prior AMC experience should be unnecessary to gauge if a potential candidate's history/experience corresponds appropriately with those qualifications. Furthermore, this change would give the appearance of conflict of interest (just as if a current AMC member or someone running for AMC were on the committee).

What's more, if we were to actually put forward a full list of recommended knowledge, skills, and abilities for each of the offices (and refresh it, say, each term) and publish that at the same time as the ballot materials, the voting membership can make the informed choices for themselves, rather than having a comparatively small group of members substitute their own collective judgment in place of the membership's.

-----

A6.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER: ASIEs 1999-118 and 1999-119(b) are deleted; and ASIE 1999-119(a) is changed to:

"An informal session shall be held during the Annual Gathering for candidates and members.  This session shall be scheduled so as not to conflict with any AMC meeting and shall be included in the written schedule of AG programs.  The purpose of this session is to allow the candidates to speak to all interested Mensans about their views and agendas."

“[A]ny AMC meeting” should be changed to “any AMC meeting or the Annual Business Meeting” - as the ABM is not an AMC meeting, per se. While it is unlikely that such a session would be scheduled opposite the ABM anyway, this helps guarantee that. Otherwise, this is a good change.

---

A7.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:

<snip>

This seems reasonable to me.

----

A8. Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:

In section a, sixth paragraph, add a new final sentence:

"If the Nominating Committee feels an applicant would be better suited to a position other than the one(s) applied for, they are encouraged to recommend that to the applicant."

While understandable in the context of the current theory that the NomComm should be a subjective body in making its determinations of who to nominate, I think the NomComm should be completely objective in determining if a potential candidate meets a minimum set of requirements. If so, it shouldn't matter if the NomComm thinks the candidate would be even better qualified seeking a different office – the candidate should be nominated for the office sought. Let the members decide if the candidate was the best choice for the office sought.

------

A9.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:  In section a, remove the last sentence in the current sixth paragraph "The Nominating Committee is to nominate those candidates it finds well-qualified for the various offices."  Add a new paragraph between the current sixth and seventh paragraph that says:

<snip>

This is 100% wrong, IMO. The NomComm *should* be a mere rubber stamp of thos who are at least minimally qualified. It is the VOTING MEMBERS who should make the ultimate decision as to whether they think someone is qualified enough, against the full field of candidates who are minimally qualified, for the office sought. What this ASIE change does is lay out the ideal of how the full voting membership should be considering all the candidates before them on the ballot. Stop treating the members like we're incapable of making such decisions.

Also, it seems ludicrous to me that only ONE candidate should be deemed acceptable to the NomComm (and rarely two). It is insulting to the members that the NomComm should substitute ITS judgment and assessment of the candidates over that of the membership writ large.

-----

A10.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  It is the sense of the AMC that the job descriptions for all AMC positions should be reviewed and updated as necessary by current AMC members, but at least every two years, during the final quarter of each two-year term.

I agree with the theory that the job descriptions should be updated each term. It should be noted that the current phrasing has the update done during the balloting phase of each election, and that such updated material should be used for the subsequent election's materials.

Rather than making it merely a sense of the AMC, though, why not write this in as a requirement within the job description of all AMC positions?

-----

A11.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  It is the sense of the AMC that the Nominating Committee and the Election Committee should ask candidates to submit the same statements, in the same order.

This seems unnecessary but harmless.

-----

A12. Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  The Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force is thanked and dismissed.

Appropriate.

-----

Item A13                Change to mailing and membership list policies

Moved Finance Committee: Eliminate ASIE 1994-053 and amend two ASIEs as follows.

1981-077                        29-Aug-1981

<snip>

This is a big change. Currently, phone numbers and e-mails are forbidden from being released outside of Mensa. (There's rather a prominent disclaimer to that effect inside the PDQ section of the profiles on the AML website.) This would necessitate another option being implemented. Currently, a member can opt in to permitting their snail mail address on such a list. E-mail should be a SEPARATE option. There are plenty of people who are willing to accept one of those options, but not both. They should not be lumped in together, as would be the effect with the current phrasing of this ASIE and as explained further in the official explanation.

1997-092                        06-Dec-1997

<snip>

This seems reasonable to me.

May 20 AMC Teleconference Agenda

Here is the agenda for the upcoming teleconference. (NB: There is mention of red text to distinguish parts of the text -- that color was not present in the e-mail from which I am copying it, so have no way of doing an extra offset of some sort.) (My comments about it to be put up as a separate post.)


Agenda
AMC Teleconference
20 May 2013

Call to order; roll call; review of agenda


Item A1a-A12            Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force motions

A1a.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  The following is passed to a referendum of the membership on the next regular ballot after the 2013 election:
Article VI, section 3 of the bylaws of American Mensa are amended as follows:
In the first sentence, "No later than the October 1st preceding each election"
is changed to
"No later than one month before the deadline for submitting candidate petitions",
and in the second sentence, "and the list shall be published" is added at the end of the sentence.   The third sentence is deleted.
The resulting section will then read:
"(3) No later than one month before the deadline for submitting candidate petitions, the Nominating Committee shall nominate one or more candidates for each of the elective offices of American Mensa Ltd., …..The Nominating Committee shall submit a list of the nominated candidates to the American Mensa Committee and to the Election Committee, and the list shall be published."
EXPLANATION:  This is the first of two motions to implement bylaw changes recommended by the Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force.  It allows the nomination and election process to be shorter than it is currently.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  The cost of putting a bylaws amendment on the ballot and tallying the votes.

A1b.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 1996-116 is amended as follows:
In section a, first sentence, "No earlier than May 15 and no later than August 15 in the year preceding an election"
is changed to
"No earlier than July 1 in the year preceding an election and no later than two months before the date the list of nominated candidates is due";
and in section b, first sentence, "No later than September 1 in the year preceding the election"
is changed to
"No later than one month before the deadline for submitting candidate petitions".
This action shall take effect only if the associated amendment to the Bylaws of American Mensa is adopted.
EXPLANATION:  This is the corresponding motion to implement the same recommendation as 1a.   1a passes the corresponding change in the Bylaws to a referendum, and 1b changes our ASIEs, if the bylaw passes.  It moves the start and end date for accepting petitions later and allows the nomination and election process to be shorter than is currently the case.  The ASIE change cannot be implemented until and unless the Bylaw change is approved.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A2.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  The following is passed to a referendum of the membership on the next regular ballot after the 2013 election:
Article VI, section 3 of the bylaws of American Mensa are amended as follows:  In the first sentence, "the nominees(s) for the position of Chairman" is changed to "all nominees for Executive Committee positions".  The resulting section will then read:
(3) …The Nominating Committee shall nominate one or more candidates for each of the elective offices of American Mensa Ltd., of whom all nominees for Executive Committee positions shall (unless no individuals with the requisite qualifications are willing to run for that office) be members of the American Mensa Committee then in office, or have served at least one year on a prior American Mensa Committee.
EXPLANATION:  This is the second of two motions to implement bylaw changes recommended by the Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force.  In light of the expanding role of the Executive Committee and the breadth of decisions they make under time pressure, this motion expands the requirement to have AMC experience to all Executive Committee positions.  It also makes clear that nominees for the position of Treasurer must have appropriate financial expertise and experience, leaving the Nominating Committee the ability to consider various combinations of education and experience.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  The cost of putting a bylaws amendment on the ballot and tallying the votes.

A3.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:
In section a, sixth paragraph, third sentence,
"and each nominee for the position of Chairman must either be a member of the current American Mensa Committee or have served at least one year on a former American Mensa Committee (unless no individuals with the requisite qualifications are willing to run for that office), per section VI.3 of the Bylaws of American Mensa"
is changed to
"each nominee for AMC Executive Committee positions must either be a member of the current American Mensa Committee or have served at least one year on a former American Mensa Committee (unless no individuals with the requisite qualifications are willing to run for that office); and each candidate for the office of Treasurer must have appropriate financial skills and experience".
EXPLANATION:  This is the corresponding motion to implement the same concept as Motion 2a to the ASIE that currently requires AMC experience for each nominee for the position of Chairman.  It extends the requirement of at least a year experience on the AMC to the entire Executive Committee.  Since it does not contradict the Bylaws, it can be added whether or not the bylaws are changed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A4.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  In ASIE 1999-114, two new sections are added as follows:
"e.  If there are fewer than three candidates for the Nominating Committee in a given region within one week before an AMC meeting at which candidates are to be appointed to the Nominating Committee, the Nominating Committee chairman may name additional candidates for that region for AMC consideration on his or her own initiative.
f.  If there are fewer than three members of the Nominating Committee from a given region after the AMC has made its appointments, or if a vacancy from a given region occurs on the Nominating Committee during its deliberations, the Nominating Committee chairman may appoint members from that region until the number of members from that region equals three.  If the AMC has named one or more alternate Nominating Committee members from that region, the alternate(s) shall be appointed first."
EXPLANATION:   This will address a long-standing problem of partial Nominating Committees.  It allows the Nominating Committee chairman to fill vacancies on the Committee until each region is represented by three members.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  Possibly a small communication cost increase because of the potentially larger committee size.

A5.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  In ASIE 1999-114, a new section is added at the end of the ASIE as follows:
"In addition to the members of the Nominating Committee selected from the regions as outlined above, three additional members of the Nominating Committee shall be added, selected from previous AMC members.  The additional members, each of whom must be a current member in good standing of American Mensa, shall be selected from the following ordered list until three members have accepted the appointment: the three most recent Past Chairmen; then the three most recent First Vice-Chairmen who are not currently serving on the AMC; then the three most recent Second Vice-Chairmen who are not currently serving on the AMC; then the three most recent Secretaries who are not currently serving on the AMC; then the three most recent Treasurers who are not currently serving on the AMC; then the most recent RVC from each Region who is not currently serving on the AMC, ordered by a random draw conducted by the Nominating Committee chairman; then the second-most recent RVC from each Region who is not currently serving on the AMC, ordered by a new random draw conducted by the Nominating Committee chairman; and then the third-most recent RVC from each Region who is not currently serving on the AMC, ordered by a new random draw conducted by the Nominating Committee chairman."
EXPLANATION:  This is a recommendation from the Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force.  It adds former AMC members to the Nominating Committee in the same manner as adding members to a Hearings Committee, as former AMC members have the most knowledge about what AMC service requires.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  Possibly a small communication cost increase because of the larger committee size.

A6.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER: ASIEs 1999-118 and 1999-119(b) are deleted; and ASIE 1999-119(a) is changed to:
"An informal session shall be held during the Annual Gathering for candidates and members.  This session shall be scheduled so as not to conflict with any AMC meeting and shall be included in the written schedule of AG programs.  The purpose of this session is to allow the candidates to speak to all interested Mensans about their views and agendas."
EXPLANATION:  These ASIEs describe how Nominating Committee sessions at the AG are to be structured.  Deleting one and rewriting the other gives the Nominating Committee more flexibility regarding how it is to perform its job.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  Possibly a small communication cost increase, depending on how the Nominating Committee decides to communicate.

A7.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:
In section a, replace the second paragraph with the following:
"The Nominating Committee shall publicize a call for candidates through multiple communication vehicles.  Information on how to find Job Descriptions, CIFs and other nominating and election materials should be publicized and freely available to any interested member. Each representative should contact members and groups and follow up on candidates suggested to them by others and encourage those interested in serving on AMC to submit a Candidate Information Form (CIF) to the Nominating Committee Chairman."
EXPLANATION:   This update adds the requirement to publicize the call for candidates, as opposed to the current language which says "Each [Nominating Committee] representative should contact the active Mensa members of his/her acquaintance…".  It emphasizes the goal of transparency, wide publication and access to the information needed be a viable NomComm candidate to any interested member.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A8. Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:
In section a, sixth paragraph, add a new final sentence:
"If the Nominating Committee feels an applicant would be better suited to a position other than the one(s) applied for, they are encouraged to recommend that to the applicant."
EXPLANATION:  This clarifies it is proper for the Nominating Committee to work with candidates to find good candidates for every position.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A9.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  ASIE 2010-010 is amended as follows:  In section a, remove the last sentence in the current sixth paragraph "The Nominating Committee is to nominate those candidates it finds well-qualified for the various offices."  Add a new paragraph between the current sixth and seventh paragraph that says:
"The task of the Nominating Committee is not to be a mere rubberstamp or pass-through of all applicants who are minimally qualified; rather, the Nominating Committee is to be discriminating regarding whom to nominate.  The Nominating Committee is to consider the background, experience, and job performance of each applicant in Mensa and/or in other organizations in light of the position's job description.  When faced with multiple applicants for a position, the Nominating Committee is to nominate the one best candidate where possible. More than one candidate may be nominated only when the evaluation system finds them very close to each other, and those candidates are clearly superior to the rest."
EXPLANATION:  This amendment reinforces that the Nominating Committee is to nominate the candidates whom it determines are the best for the various positions, rather than simply passing along anyone who applies and is found to be minimally qualified, which is essentially no different than running by petition.  It also emphasizes that the Nominating Committee is to use current job descriptions as the primary guide regarding what each position requires.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A10.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  It is the sense of the AMC that the job descriptions for all AMC positions should be reviewed and updated as necessary by current AMC members, but at least every two years, during the final quarter of each two-year term.
EXPLANATION:  If the Nominating Committee is to use the job descriptions when evaluating potential nominees, the job descriptions need to be up to date.  When left to chance, job descriptions have not been updated.  The purpose of ASIEs is to record and remind future AMC members about how and when things need to be done.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A11.  Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  It is the sense of the AMC that the Nominating Committee and the Election Committee should ask candidates to submit the same statements, in the same order.
EXPLANATION:  This housekeeping recommendation from the Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force will make the process smoother for candidates and Nominating Committee members alike.  It is less confusing and more useful to each use the same questions.  At the time of this writing, the statements and order are a biographical statement, followed by a campaign statement, followed by answers to questions posed to candidates by the AMC.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

A12. Moved BECKER, MARK, and REIGER:  The Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force is thanked and dismissed.
EXPLANATION:  The Nominating Committee Task Force has completed its work.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:  None.

Item A13                Change to mailing and membership list policies

Moved Finance Committee: Eliminate ASIE 1994-053 and amend two ASIEs as follows.

1981-077                        29-Aug-1981
The Executive Director is authorized to rent or otherwise make available to non-Mensa organizations the Mensa mailing list, provided that a) such mailing list consist solely of the names, addresses, and/or emails of those members who have specifically granted permission to be on such a list, and b) the specific use to which the list is to be put, including the actual materials to be mailed, is first approved by the Executive Director.

1997-092                        06-Dec-1997
(last amended 01-Dec-2001 by 2001-096)
AML, its Local Groups, and the Mensa Foundation may use the American Mensa Ltd. membership list for the purposes of telemarketing or email marketing.  The use of the AML membership list for such purposes by other than AML, its Local Groups, and the Mensa Foundation is prohibited unless specifically approved by AML.

The text of ASIE 1994-053 is as follows:

1994-053                17-Sep-1994
The Executive Director is authorized, with the advice and consent of the Executive Committee, to engage a List Management firm, for the purpose of marketing the names from the membership list of members who have approved the use of their names. Further, the Executive Director, or the designee of the Executive Director with the specific approval of the Executive Committee, is authorized to approve mailing list rentals similar to those approved by the Executive Committee in the past. All approvals or denials of mailing list rentals shall be reported by the Executive Director to the AMC on a quarterly basis. The Executive Committee shall have to approve any type of list rental not previously approved. This motion superseded ASIEs 1986-017 and 1991-082.

{Secretary's note: The amendments to the ASIEs are represented by red text.}

EXPLANATION: This motion changes the authority to rent the membership list from the Executive Committee to the Executive Director.  It also allows telemarketing and e-mail marketing to our members by outside companies.

Our current policies, written in 1981 and 1997, limit information we may provide to list rental agencies. We currently don't allow usage of emails, and the result is diminishing income in this area as direct mail gets more expensive.  Based on inquires and our list, the list rental company estimates by allowing email use we'd gain anywhere between $4,000-$7,000 a year.    ** Members are still in control if this information is used in this manner through their use of opt-out questions on the PDQ.**

The current wording on the PDQ forms is as follows, and this would change only item #8 (noted):

HOW YOU RELEASE YOUR INFORMATION
American Mensa, Ltd. and its groups understand that respecting the privacy of their members is of utmost importance and, as such, agree to respect and seek permission before distributing member information. Please pay careful attention to questions 1-10 as they provide authorization to distribute information that you have supplied to American Mensa. Leaving a statement unanswered for questions 1-10 will be considered a "yes" response. For members under 18, a parent/guardian must endorse the Scantron form to change privacy release information.

1. Release my phone number within the organization.*
2. Release my email address within the organization.*
3. Release birth date and PDQ information** within the organization.*
4. Include my home address in local and national online or printed directories. Note that if "no" is selected, the default for a printed directory is name, city and state.
5. Include my phone number in local and national online or printed directories.
6. Include my email address in local and national online or printed directories.
7. Include other PDQ information** in local and national online or printed directories.
8. Release my name, address, and email  information, excluding phone <and email,>  to authorized benefit and service providers for approved  promotions< mailings >  that may be of interest to me.
9. I would like to receive periodic Mensa-related notices via email.
10. Release my contact information to candidates in American Mensa elections.

* Information released within the organization will be distributed to your Local Group for administrative purposes and may also be distributed to Special Interest Groups and the Mensa Foundation. Name and physical address may be released to Local Groups and Special Interest Groups for administrative purposes.
** PDQ information may include answers to questions 11-19.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: As noted in EXPLANATION section.