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.
I'm not sure I understand the "pro" argument - how does paying or not paying a proctor affect whether a proctor is good at their job? That seems like a whole separate questions. (I know I'm not in your group, but I am a proctor, so I thought I'd jump in anyway!)
ReplyDeleteIt's not that they are equated. The theory, though, being that proctors who are good at being "the face of Mensa" for the people taking the test (friendly, can answer questions about the chapter, recommend good events to attend, etc.) are often critical in the decision to join, for those who qualify to do so; alternately that those proctors who are not good at being the face of Mensa are a turn-off to people ultimately joining.
ReplyDeleteThere are many people who will not consider being proctors, though, without getting paid - and some of those would be good at being that face of Mensa.
The other part of the equation is the Testing Coordinator getting people out to the test site. There doesn't ever seem to be a conversation about paying them for the number of people who do, finally, show up to take the test.
Hope that clears it up a bit.
No worries about your not being in MWM, both in general with replying to any of my blog posts, or specifically in this one since I did request such replies. How does your local deal with paying proctors? Or do they?
I have been a proctor for more than 10 years. Some of those years I was paid a flat fee. Some I was paid per person tested. Some I was not paid at all. I think out of fairness to all your officers and volunteers, your ExCom should discuss a compensation policy that includes all positions. You don't have to treat them all the same, but you should at least discuss each one.
ReplyDelete