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%

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.

AMC and MIL elections underway

If you haven't yet, you should receive your ballot for both of these elections soon. Please note that the election for AMC and the two AML bylaws amendments will be voted on the WHITE ballot (or done electronically), while the election for MIL and the three constitutional questions (comprising a total of seven amendments) will be voted on the BLUE ballot (no option for electronic).

http://www.us.mensa.org/lead/amc/elections/voting-instructions/

Please vote for me, Jared Levine, for Secretary. And vote "yes" on both of the AML bylaws amendments. Once I read through the materials for the constitutional questions, I'll give you my opinion/rationale on how to vote on those.

Tell the AMC to vote NO...

At the March AMC meeting, among other last-minute items put forward by the Nominating Committee was the following bylaws amendment proposal (emphasis added mine):

-----
1a.  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";  also in the first sentence, "the nominees(s) for the position of Chairman" is changed to "all nominees for Executive Committee positions"; and in the second sentence, ", and the list shall be published" is added at the end of the sentence; and 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., 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. 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 a recommendation from the Nominating Committee Process Review Task Force.  It allows the nomination and election process to be shorter than it is currently.  It also extends the requirement of at least one year experience on the AMC to the entire Executive Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:  The cost of putting a bylaws amendment on the ballot and tallying the votes.
------


Given how close to the meeting itself this and the other Nominating Committee-originated proposals came out, the AMC only had a brief discussion on the items, but voted to postpone an up/down vote on each of the proposals until their next teleconference, sometime before May 31.

I strongly urge you to contact the AMC (at least your RVC) to ask them to vote AGAINST this proposal.

It goes the wrong direction with respect to requirements for nomination. Currently, the bylaws require that candidates put forward by the NomComm for the position of Chairman must either be serving on the AMC at the time, or must have previously served at least a year. 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.

And, rather than removing this requirement (like MIL did with a similar requirement that used to be in the Constitution), this proposal would expand it, applying to the positions of First Vice Chairman, Second Vice Chairman, Treasurer, and Secretary, too.



Also, it seems like the timeline would be narrowed *too* much. (Some is certainly welcome.) As it currently stands in the bylaws, the candidate petitions are due on Feb. 1. Therefore, the list from the NomComm (per above) would be due on Jan. 1 and published. While there are lots of people who would be able to see any e-mail/online notification, there are plenty of members who would not, and would require seeing it in hard-copy. The amount of time they would then have to collect signatures on petitions (either for themselves or someone else, prompted by seeing one or more names they think should be run against) is unduly short. Sure, in the ideal world, people would have already been gathering signatures before the announcement, but there are times where it is only the knowledge of the nominated candidates that galvanizes some people to take action.

Unofficial mini-minutes

Below is my brief set of mini-minutes from the AMC meeting that was held this past Saturday. Note that these are unofficial. Mini-minutes, by their nature, are supposed to just mention, in brief, those actions taken during the meeting. The vast majority of this AMC meeting comprised discussion items, rather than votes. The minutes should have more of the detail of those discussion.

The AMC met at the Hyatt Dulles in Herndon, VA on March 23, 2013. Approximately 16 members (mostly from MWM) were present in the audience at some point.

The Executive Director gave a brief report covering the American Mensa Academy app, memberhsip numbers, licensing efforts, and a series of video spots that will be available for local groups to use.

Discussion items:

1) SIGs program – Presentation/Discussion led by SIGs Officer Barbara Kryvko

2) Welcoming suggestions for local groups – Presentation/Discussion led by Membership Officer Beth Anne Demeter

3) Discussion of general legal matters – Presentation given by Intellectual Property Counsel Cliff McCann

4) Mensa Foundation – Presentation given by Foundation President Dave Remine

5) Mega issues – Exercise with AMC and audience led by Executive Director Pam Donahoo

6) Mobile tech and local groups – Presentation/discussion led by RVC1 Andrew Heffernan and Secretary Heather Poirier

7) Awards Task Force – Discussion led by Past Past Chair Jean Becker

Adjustment to Strategy:

1) Treasurer's report/Budget presentation – Presentation given by Treasurer Nick Sanford. Budget was approved.

2) Administrative fee approval – Add $20 fee to the proposed 2014 AG registration rate schedule to cover staff-time expenses. Adminstrative fee was approved.

3) Appointment of auditors – Clifton Larsen Allen was appointed to perform the audit for AML and the Mensa Foundation.

Policy Determination:

1-10) 1 bylaws amendment and 9 ASIEs were proposed by the Nominating Committee Task Force. After brief discussion on each, vote approved postponing consideration to a later conference call, to be held before May 31.

11) Approval of March teleconference minutes: the minutes were approved.

Routine Business:

1-2) Consent agenda approved

Adjourned 4:45pm.

July AMC Meeting and the ABM

As announced earlier today (emphasis added mine):

The American Mensa Annual Business Meeting (ABM) will take place at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 4, 2013, in conjunction with the American Mensa Annual Gathering in Fort Worth, Texas.  The ABM will be held in the Norris Conference Center across the street from the Worthington Renaissance hotel.

 

The order of business will include reports from the Chairman, Treasurer, Foundation President and Executive Director of the society, followed by motions, resolutions and questions to officers. Those wishing to submit motions or resolutions for consideration should send them, along with explanatory information as needed to Chair@us.mensa.orgwith a cc to ExecutiveDirector@americanmensa.org or via regular mail to: American Mensa, Ltd., Attn: Annual Meeting, 1229 Corporate Dr. W., Arlington, TX 76006-6103.  Motions and resolutions must be receive by 11:59 p.m., Central time, on June 1, 2013.

 

Those motions that are considered proper for consideration by the membership at the ABM include proposed changes to the AML bylaws or sense motions to advise the AMC on desired actions to be considered by the board. Members who submit motions must be present at the ABM for the item to be considered.

 

Additionally, the summer 2013 AMC meeting will take place at the Norris Conference Center, across the street from the Renaissance Worthington hotel, on July 4, 2013. The AMC meeting will begin at 9 a.m.

Final tally of signatures on bylaws amendment proposals

I just received the notification that was sent to the Bylaws Committee and the Chair of the Election Committee the results of the attempt to get signatures on the various petitions:

138     Change Nominating Committee to Search Committee
130     New hearings procedure
135     Recall elections
137     Replacement of Regional Vice-Chairmen
138     Removal of past chairmen from the American Mensa Committee

As none of the above received the needed 250 signatures, none of them will appear on the ballot. Also, as Lee didn't formally submit his petitions to receive signatures on the website (and didn't send in any hardcopy petitions), none of the six that he had put on this group and had submitted for comment to the Bylaws Committee and the Interpretive Counsel will be on the ballot either.

Only the two amendment proposals passed earlier this term by the AMC will be on the referendum ballot.

Brief explanations of bylaws amendment proposals

Here are brief explanations of the five bylaws amendment proposals I have put forward. Please ask any questions that you may have, as my trying to predict all of them would likely have overly-long descriptions no one would want to read through. :-)

Change Nominating Committee to Search Committee (http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=9)
This referendum would change the Nominating Committee into a Search Committee. All candidates for office would be required to submit petitions; there will be no candidates nominated by any committee (as is currently the case). There will be no candidates “recommended” or “endorsed” by any committee. The timeline is adjusted since there would no longer be an initial tier of nominated candidates and then an additional tier of petition candidates. 

New Hearings Committee Procedure (http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=7)
This referendum would overhaul the current procedure for a Hearings Committee. No member of the AMC would be a member of the Hearings Committee; it would now be composed of essentially-random members of American Mensa. Also, any sanction imposed by the Hearings Committee would require concurrence by the AMC. And if a member were to lapse membership or resign before the start of the hearing, the hearing process would stop, with the option to reinstate it if/when that member rejoins.

Recall Elections (http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=5)
This referendum would institute a provision allowing a recall election of elected officers. Most local groups have such a provision, but there is currently no provision for the members of American Mensa to recall elected officers on the AMC.

Removal of Past Chairman from AMC (http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=6)
This referendum would remove the Past Chair and the Past Past Chair of American Mensa from being members of the American Mensa Committee. The AMC would then comprise the five nationally elected officers, 10 regionally elected officers, and 4 appointed officers. (These positions are relics of a time when the institutional memory was not as easily accessible as it is nowadays. For them to also have a vote on the AMC, still, doesn't make much sense, as they are no longer elected, even though they are currently deemed as elective officers in the bylaws.)

RVC Replacement (http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=8)
This referendum would correct a long-standing problem with the bylaws which don't currently have a legitimate way of replacing a vacancy in the position of Regional Vice-Chairman. (The provision that currently exists has been deemed invalid for over 4 years.) This proposal would institute a special election process whereby the members of the region would be able to elect a replacement RVC if the vacancy occurs during the first 15 months of the term.

Bylaws amendment petitions online

The amendments are finally available for signature. We need to get 250 signatures on any bylaws amendment petition to get it to appear on this Spring's referendum ballot. Please sign ASAP. (The original Nov. 1 deadline has been extended to Nov. 15, but I would still like to meet the original deadline.)

The main page listing all amendments (both being put out via petition and by AMC) is
http://www.us.mensa.org/lead/amc/elections/referendum-petitions/referendum-petition-listing/

The individual URLs for each of my five petitions are:

Recall elections

http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=5

 

Removal of past chairmen

http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=6

 

New hearings procedure

http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=7

 

Replacement of RVCs (Special Elections)

http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=8

 

Changing the Nominating Committee to a Search Committee

http://www.us.mensa.org/referendum?ID=9

And while you're clicking on links to sign petitions, how about going to one more, my petition to run for AMC Secretary (so I can exceed the minimum by as many as possible): http://www.us.mensa.org/petition?id=46