Patricia Coontz

Question from GF: How do you think the LDW program could be used to train younger members and members from minority groups to be future leaders of Mensa without having such members lose the unique and fresh perspectives they bring to Mensa?

Answer:

Current demographics indicate the largest group of new members comes from Generation X. Attracting new members from this age group is critical for Mensa's long term well being. Now that this age group is joining, it is imperative that enough activities are provided to maintain their interest. Encouraging activities on the local calendar and at regional gatherings that interest Generation X should result in their active participation and their seeking leadership positions.

Although Generation Xers are joining, more effort is needed to attract members from minority groups. To accomplish this, a public relations effort can be made where minority groups seek news, political information and topics of interest to them. Current members must make a concerted effort to welcome members from these groups as they join. Upon joining they are in the best position to encourage their family and friends to seek Mensa membership if they find Mensa appealing. After these members become active and involved, many will seek leadership positions.

Opening the doors to various ethnic groups and the younger generation in planning, participating and attending Leadership Development Workshops (LDW) is an important step. Intelligence doesn't necessarily correlate with leadership. There may be a few natural leaders and members who have held leadership roles outside Mensa, but leadership skills are a learned skill. The LDW are designed to teach specific skills to enhance the abilities of current officers and potential candidates for leadership positions. Learning specific skills to assist not only in Mensa but their profession and business careers will have a positive impact on the new member's balance in and out of Mensa. The LDW should add to their abilities rather than replace their fresh perspectives. As an instructor and developer of leadership classes, I develop classes that encourage active participation from the attendees enabling them to express their ideas and perspectives on the roles they can play as future leaders. Seeking their input and involvement should result in a more effective LDW for everyone.

—Patricia Coontz

Carol Young

Question from GF: What are your views on the proper balance between the local groups on one hand, and the AMC and National Office staff on the other?

Answer:

I'm uncomfortable trying to respond to a question with an answer that will fit all situations. I tend to make decisions based on a specific circumstance. Therefore, there could be times when I think that the AMC should have control, times when I think that the National Office should have control and times when I think that the AMC and the NO should back off and let the local group take control.

I believe that all three components—local group, AMC and NO—play an important role in keeping American Mensa strong and growing. If I had to put them in a kind of "pecking" order, I would say that the local groups should be the strongest component, followed very closely by the AMC with the National Office acting as a support operation in the background waiting to take direction.

By that I mean that the local group should be free to function as they see best to attract and keep their members within very broad and general guidelines established by the AMC to maintain consistency throughout the country. The AMC should function in an advisory capacity for the local groups, oversee the funding and stepping in to help if and only if there is a problem that threatens the existence of a local group or if the local group asks them for help. Otherwise, if there isn't a problem, they should not be involved at a local level. For the most part in my experience, I think this has been the case.

I can use the 2002 AG I chaired as an example of how the 3 components of AML should function (though they didn't always): the local group had total control over the planning. We sent regular reports to the AMC and I generally felt the AMC was allowing us to function independently. This is how I feel it should have been—the local group able to take control, knowing they had the "safety net" of the AMC in the background should they need assistance.

We also had the National Office ready to help us with registrations, if we so desired. Since we didn't, the NO stayed in the background, helping with questions, information, etc. I was a little concerned at the indirect pressure from the AMC to have National be responsible for registrations. Although everyone insisted that having registrations handled by NO was entirely voluntary, I was continuously placed in a position of having to defend this decision at the 2001 AG in Dallas and in several e-mails over the next few months after the 2001 AG ended and we began collecting monies.

The National Office also sent more staff than I feel was necessary to the AG, I assume with funds that came from membership dues. I feel the AMC should have had the final say in who attended the AG from NO. National also booked rooms and kept up direct contact with the hotel, which led to a few communications problems when the hotel wasn't sure if a charge should be sent to the formal committee or if it should be sent to NO. This blurring of functions made it a little more difficult to finalize the bill and could have been avoided if the NO worked through the AMC or the committee, rather than independently. It seemed as through the NO was directing AG functions that either the AMC or the local committee should have. The AG was successful and I know I'm not explaining it as well as I could, but I know I started getting confused on whether the AG was an AMC function—as specified in the Host Agreement, or whether it was a National Office function. Whenever confusion like that takes place, it's a sure sign that one component of Mensa is becoming stronger than it should.

I also read the recent proposed changes to the AG Host Agreement which appears to allow the National Office to function as the hotel liaison once the contract is signed—in effect, becoming a very vital member of an AG Committee. This, I believe, is an example of having the NO become too strong and too equal to the local group and AMC, rather than function in a support capacity.

Although this appears to be a criticism of the NO, it is not intended as such. I have been involved in functions that were successful because of the NO functioning as I think they should—to keep the Mensa name in the public consciousness. A case in point was the Mind Games weekend that Phoenix hosted a few years back. Because of the marketing and publicity efforts of the National Office—tasks that the local group did not have the resources to accomplish—the weekend was a success and the Mensa name was publicized in a positive light locally. I also see the good that the National Office can do every year when the National Testing Day is held. Thanks to the efforts of the National Office—efforts that belong in the National Office—the local Mensaphone didn't stop ringing and the local group was able to test and recruit many new members.

I hope this answers the question. I feel that American Mensa can stay strong if all three pieces function interdependently with no one piece becoming too overpowering.