AMC Committee Meetings

The conversations in the three committee meetings were pretty good. Brainstorming where appropriate, and certainly pushback when controversial items were mentioned by one person or another. (While the few of us who were spectators were welcome to contribute, there were only a few points that we decided to make within the discussion; we were mostly just listening in.) Here are some of the highlights (not exhaustive):

---

Leadership Development Committee:

The only topic that was talked about was the Leadership Exchange Ambassador Program (LEAP), given the short amount of time at hand. Several ideas were captured as to how to try to energize AML members to participate in this program. (e.g., hand out informational flyers at AGs and RGs, emphasize the MIL-paid international trip that would be had by AML LEAP participants, have RVCs actively recruiting from good speakers at RGs and AGs, etc.)

For anyone who wants to view some actual LEAP talks, there are a few available for viewing at http://animusm.com (specifically at http://animusm.com/leap) and there are also some of the initial candidate videos available on http://mensa.org (specifically at https://www.mensa.org/member-news/leadership-exchange-ambassador-program-leap).

While the deadline for this year's program is passed, the push is to try to raise the profile of this program so that we can get more applicants from which to choose presenters to send to the international level. (This year, AML only had 2 applicants. A couple of years ago, there were about 28 applicants; there has been a precipitous drop, and the committee is unclear why. Even internationally, there were only a total of 12 applicants total, down from 25 last year; and we've never put forward more than 3 candidates from AML to the international level.)

---

Site Selection Committee:

There was discussion about what the timeline for submitting AG bids should be; should we keep it at 4 years out, or change it? The change of site selection guidelines will surely affect this decision, IMO.

Some of the things discussed included:
--putting forward a new set of minimum guidelines to ensure consistency (broad-stroke items to help with matching experience to expectations; the intent here is explicitly not to create cookie-cutter AGs)
--determining how to deal with an AG committee that doesn't provide a certain task within the needed timeline (e.g., tours should be arranged for *well* in advance of the AG, so that people can properly make their travel plans and take advantage of deals, rather than not having them set up as close as 3 months out)
--have known people with a successful track record for specific AG-related tasks ready, willing, and able to step in if an AG Committee falls through on such task, even after being provided a warning and a grace period for rectifying the situation; these people would only be used in case of emergency
--have Hospitality provided 100% by the hotel, as part of the hotel contracts
--have an outside company do a search for hotels which meet our needs in certain cities which would be specified to them, to then go to those local groups and request they consider putting through an AG bid; these outside companies work like a temp firm getting an individual a job at no cost to the individual (they make their money from the hotels, rather than directly from the client who is having them do the search)

---

Finance Committee:

There was a brief discussion about the expense of moving the AMC meetings around the country. The consensus appeared to be that it was worth the additional cost (~$5k more per meeting not held at the National Office compared to holding it at a hotel elsewhere in the country).

Nick is looking to delete many finance-related ASIEs where the items are blatantly obvious, irrelevant, or the items described are going to be done anyway because of processes already in effect. He also wants there to be consideration of "revolutionary" motions, such as putting in a variable dues rate, some sort of automatic inflation of dues rate, a requirement that Life Fund Assets must equal Life Fund Liabilities. More specifics to come out for the October meeting, should he be re-elected. He requested the committee start thinking about these items and coming up with other motions which they think might be reasonable to create a basic financial framework.

There may be a survey created and sent out to help determine a pricing philosophy (including dues), but the question was whether the AMC would be open to implementing recommendations that come from such a survey (e.g., if the recommendation were to either double or halve dues, would the AMC be open to the suggestion, or know in advance they wouldn't entertain going past X point)

The committee is starting to think about the possibility of renting out the list of e-mail addresses (for those members who permit their e-mail address be used that way). Several points related to privacy issues and "selling out" the membership for a small amount were raised. Discussion will continue with respect to whether AML would receive sufficient money to be bothered, and what would be the way to implement such a system with as little confusion/pain as possible.