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.
"Permitted to seek office"... can be just that your CIF will be willingly and objectively reviewed by the NomCom. Should it also that include--for anyone who wants it-- using time and money for Bulletin space? Does it include access to every email address for sending out campaign messages?
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what you're asking. (I think your fingers got ahead of what you were think, as it feels a little jumbled to me.)
ReplyDeleteTo me, anyone wishing to go the NomComm route should have the information on their CIF fact-checked for accuracy (and given the opportunity to correct errors), verify that they are a member in good standing with dues paid for the appropriate period by the given deadline, and at least 18 years of age (given that's a NYS legal requirement for NYS NFP organizations). Treasurer candidates should be bondable. Hopefully the requirement of prior service on AMC for Chairman candidates will be done away with, but it's still currently in effect for NomComm-nominated candidates. That's all that the NomComm should be doing in terms of vetting candidates, IMO. It should be more of a search committee than anything else. The membership should be the ones who vet the candidates, by way of any questions they may ask in advance of the election and, ultimately, whittle down to the winning candidate. I don't see any good reason to deny the membership at large that opportunity just because a very small subset of the membership (no more than about 30 - and a majority of that, no less) thinks that specific candidates aren't "up to snuff."
So long as paid ads in the Bulletin are permitted (are they for national elections?), then there shouldn't be any arbitrary bar to purchasing such ads. Really unclear what you were asking, or the connection to the "seeking office" comment.
And, yes, currently every candidate for office is permitted to receive a list of all of the email addresses for the relevant election (whether it be national or regional, or even local, actually) for the purposes of sending out campaign materials/messages and for no other purposes -- those email addresses being only those where the member indicated on their PDQ an interest in receiving such emails. This is right and proper, IMO.
All candidates get free space in the Bulletin. Think how many pages the election issue already runs.
ReplyDeleteWhat I worry about is that we have a system in place that seems right and proper, but which also makes it easy for any fringe-thinking member with 50 friends to be able to use AML resources as a soapbox to spread whatever messages they wish to. I'm not talking about the usual anti-establishment politicos. I'm talking about a system that makes it easy for people like the anti-semetic Birdman to spam the membership with his vitriol. Furthermore, no one vets those messages for accuracy and ethical content.
Think of some of the more colorful characters in your own local group. Do you really want them to have an unedited page in the Bulletin and thousands of email addresses?