|
 "Disservice
to Mensa," Carl Howes' article (GF, March `03) about
American Mensa's membership in the Service Clubs Leadership Conference,
is itself a disservice to readers. It misrepresents American Mensa's
position, misunderstands and ignores the benefits of belonging
to the Service Clubs Leadership Conference (SCLC), exaggerates
the financial burden of participating in SCLC activities, and
accuses American Mensa of taking a political position in contravention
of our charter.
First and foremost, AMC Chair Jean Becker states categorically,
"We are not a service club." Former Chair Bob Beatty
may have had ideas of moving Mensa in that direction, but Beatty
is no longer the Chair. Additionally, our Executive Director,
Pam Donahoo, says, "Our participation [in SCLC] is not meant
to move our organization any closer to a social service mission
than we already are. We are by our own IRS application a `Social
Service' organization."
Howes appears to indicate that as a justification for our membership
of SCLC, our belonging "has been presented to the Mensa membership
as a networking opportunity about member recruitment and retention."
I endorse the notion that networking about membership recruitment
and retention is exactly what our leadership should be doing.
I seriously doubt that our membership is being misled and that
Mensa membership in SCLC has any other agenda.
Howes states that, justification notwithstanding, American Mensa
has no real common ground with other members of SCLC. He acknowledges
that SCLC members, like us, use dues as the primary source of
income and have social contact as a strong component. But he ignores
the common bond of 501(c)4 status (loosely, not-for-profit) among
SCLC members and the additional similarities that status brings.
He fails to follow where all these commonalities go. That's
what networking groups do — members look for correlation
and exchange ideas on how to solve mutual problems. Businesses
belong to networking groups because they all have similar staffing
issues, accounting problems and marketing goals, not because their
products are related. Our membership in SCLC is the same —
membership in a networking group that best fits our needs.
What do we get from our "networking group"? At a recent
SCLC conference, topics covered included legal issues with Web
sites, officer and leadership training, the aging of members,
the impact of the Internet on attendance at meetings and events,
risk management and encouraging younger members to take on leadership
roles. Issues of children's privacy and protection, also discussed
at the conference, led to the AMC's modifying the information
routinely sent to local groups about members under the age of
18.
Turning to financial issues, "Disservice to Mensa"
asserts that "your dues money has been spent to send at least
three Mensa delegates to annual SCLC meetings," leaving the
reader to believe that at times there could have been multitudinous
Mensa delegates. Five, six, a dozen? SCLC rules permit no more
than four, which is exactly how many attend annually from Mensa
and MERF combined.
Still on money, Howes tells us that membership in SCLC costs
us "thousands of dollars." In a recent e-mail, Mr. Howes
says $2,521 is expected to be spent in 2003/4. He's right, that's
thousands, but only just! Is it a justified expense? Let's assume
that the expertise gathered by the Mensa people attending SCLC
meetings for the year results only in the retention of a paltry
52 members. At $49 each received for dues, we cover all the expenses.
Not mentioned in the article is that the $2,521 budgeted is for
travel and lodging — if we don't go, we don't pay. No dues
are charged to belong to SCLC.
What about our hosting the SCLC annual meeting in 2003? Surely,
as "Disservice to Mensa" said, "the money issue
will loom larger this year." Actually, it won't. The Fort
Worth Convention and Visitors Bureau is a co-sponsor with the
SCLC. Also, two of our participants won't need to fly or stay
in a hotel. The AMC was aware of this, and approved hosting the
convention with the words "there is no financial obligation
to Mensa." The only expense will be registration, the same
as going to an RG.
Carl Howes submits that SCLC membership is a violation of Mensa's
principles, in that the SCLC, in supporting a United Nations (UN)
resolution promoting volunteerism, took a political stand. As
Howes put it, "It has put Mensa in a position of having ideological,
philosophical and political affiliations." In fact, the essence
of the UN resolution regarding "Year of the Volunteer"
for 2001 was to increase recognition and highlight the achievements
of volunteers all over the world and to encourage more people
to volunteer their time. In Howes' eyes, what makes it political
and ideological is that President Bush mentioned the program in
his State of the Union address. The SCLC then sent a letter of
support to the President and said, "We encourage you to include
our organizations in your call to service."
Well, so what? American Mensa chapters were involved in community
service — volunteer work under another name — long before
most Mensans ever knew of SCLC. In fact, American Mensa specifically
appoints a volunteer to head its community service efforts.
In its charter, the SCLC specifically eschews partisan politics.
Its support of volunteerism doesn't embrace Mensa's taking an
opinion. The UN resolution backed by the SCLC promoted the idea
of human beings working to help other human beings. President
Bush, as head of one of the world's most populous nations, routinely
supported it. Big deal.
As for ideology, Project Inkslinger promotes literacy. That's
taking a social or ideological position. And we ask for volunteers
to do the work, too.
Beyond Carl Howes' article, one must ask whether American Mensa
is indeed changing and becoming something different, whether it's
a service organization or a hybrid of concepts not previously
envisaged. Do our financial arrangements with a credit card company
and an insurance company contradict the spirit of Mensa? I believe
that, had these affiliations been common in 1946, we'd have signed
up then. We'd have used the royalties to pay for long-distance
telephone calls and international postage to promote the growth
of Mensa worldwide. Are "commercials" that sell liquor
the same thing? I think not, and I think we shouldn't go there.
But that's just my opinion, one of thousands.
It's been said that our newer, younger members would like some
kind of service benefits as an added incentive to join, over and
above the primary social goal. If our leadership does this well,
there should be room within Mensa for members with different priorities.
We're supposed to be able to think outside the box, to be open-minded
enough to accept changes within Mensa.
Membership in SCLC by the United States' arm of Mensa is just
a step in our progress, not a commitment to a group bent on influencing
our principles. We've already prospered financially through an
idea gathered at an SCLC meeting. We pick up connections and learn
or refine management techniques by associating with peer groups
in SCLC. And we're smart enough to belong without taking American
Mensa down some murky path to destruction.
—Brian Bloch
|
 Carl
Howes' article in the July issue of Going Forward explained
why he believes American Mensa should not belong to the Service
Clubs Leaders Conference (SCLC). I agree with him and would like
to add some thoughts on Mensa's role with regard to community service,
volunteers within Mensa and Mensa's participation in the SCLC.
AML currently has a Community Activities Program, and Mensa itself
is run by volunteers. Community service itself does not inherently
violate the Mensa International stance, which is that "Mensa
takes no stand on politics, religion or social issues." Mensa's
membership in the SCLC and Mensa's ensuing endorsement of the
U.N. resolution, however, takes a different turn — a turn
that moves into endorsing government action, which is taking
a stand on politics and social issues, a turn which is in conflict
with Mensa's stated purpose.
Volunteers run Mensa, but I see a difference between volunteering
within an organization and volunteering as community service.
Volunteers who hold positions (Chairman, RVC, LocSec, RG Chair,
S.I.G.H.T. Coordinator) and volunteers who take on a task at a
time (baking cookies for a party, FSM-ing) keep the organization
serving itself. Mensa volunteers are what allow Mensa to meet
its purpose of "promoting intellectual and social opportunities
for its members."
According to Mensa's Constitution, Mensa's other two stated purposes
are:
- "to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit
of humanity"
- "to encourage research in the nature, characteristics
and uses of intelligence"
Certain types of volunteerism fit into that mission statement.
AML has a Community
Activities Program to work with local groups that "have
sponsored elementary-school science fairs, raised scholarship
money, donated school supplies, and stocked local libraries with
new books." Those activities are community service; they
also "foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity."
On the other hand, the AML website also refers to "bike rides
for kidney research"; it would be a stretch to consider that
as enhancing or researching intelligence — which implies
it should not be directly supported by Mensa. In other words,
allocation of Mensa resources to provide community service ought
to maintain the narrow focus of Mensa's goals.
Of course, community service is not the only method of
meeting Mensa's goals. Mensa's missions of identifying and fostering
intelligence and encouraging research can be met in other ways.
For-profit organizations and institutions of higher learning are
other avenues, as are lectures, writing articles, and holding
colloquiua.
A statement that government ought to support community
service steps outside of the narrow focus of Mensa's purpose;
it is a political and a social opinion _ and not one that
everyone shares. It may seem that community service is such a
"Good Thing" that there would be no problem with endorsing
government support. But that isn't the case. There are people
who don't believe in community service at all. There are
people who believe in community service _ but totally without
government involvement. There are those who believe community
service is the duty of religious organizations, and so a call
to "community service" is a religious issue. And, then,
of course, there are those who believe community service is one
of the duties of governments.
That leads to the question of the U.N. resolution, SCLC's endorsement
of it, and Mensa's association with SCLC. Was the UN resolution
really taking a political and social stand, as opposed to endorsing
a concept so humanitarian that it would be impossible to be opposed
to it? Can the resolution be viewed as broad enough to allow for
Mensa's endorsement to be read as only supporting Mensa's specific
focus? I don't think so. Two key excerpts from the UN Resolution
make it clear that the resolution was a political stance on a
social issue: "Urges Parliaments and their members around
the world ..." and "To encourage governments to ..."
It's a huge step to go from "community service is one method
of meeting some of Mensa's goals" to "AML supports community
service volunteerism and wants the US government to do so also."
Certainly Mensa leaders and organizers (at every level) should
be showing appreciation to their own volunteers. And local groups
will continue to engage in community service work that identifies
and fosters intelligence.
But neither volunteering with Mensa nor performing community
service at the local group level is the question at hand. The
questions stem from the fact that SCLC is an umbrella group of
service-based organizations, and as a group, takes a stand on
political and social issues. The questions I see are: Should Mensa
belong to SCLC, given that SCLC takes a stand on political
and social issues? Should Mensa spend money to belong to
SCLC, given that SCLC takes a stand on political and social issues?
Should Mensa allocate other resources (time, good will)
to participate in SCLC activities, given that SCLC takes a stand
on political and social issues?
I don't see the question as "is it valuable for Mensa to
belong?" There's a clear difference between "what is
valuable" and "what is part of Mensa's charter."
I think the AMC has to be careful to use the charter to determine
what associations AML joins, what dues AML pays, and what resolutions
AML endorses. Is AML belonging to the SCLC a method of meeting
Mensa's stated goals?
I wanted to know more about the Services Clubs Leaders Conference,
so I searched for it on-line. I was looking for its mission statement.
I didn't find a website for SCLC, but I did discover other references
to SCLC.
Ruritan claims to be "America's Leading Community Service
Organization." An explanation of how they spend their money
included the comparison, "at the present level of 11 full-time
employees the Ruritan staff is smaller than all service clubs
of similar membership size including Civitan (25), National Exchange
(29), Sertoma (14), Pilot (15), and MENSA (18)." As a source,
Ruritan cites "Service
Club Leaders Conference statistics for 2001"
Kiwanis Club President Brian Cunat wrote, "Kiwanis also
took the lead in drafting a letter
representing the 21 service-based organizations that make up the
Service Club Leadership Conference. That letter, which follows,
was forwarded to the White House this morning."
The letter to President George W. Bush begins, "Congratulations
on a unifying and patriotic State of the Union address."
The letter reads, in part, "Several years ago, 21 leading
service organizations joined together to form the Service Clubs
Leadership Conference. We encourage you to include our organizations
in your call to service. Though charities and faith-based organizations
play a key role, it's important to remember that our service club
members — 4.2 million strong — are exactly those Americans
whose support you seek. Our members are generous, courageous,
and committed to community and country." AML was not one
of the fourteen members of the SCLC who signed the letter, but
AML is a member of SCLC.
There is a line between participation in community service that
fulfills Mensa's goals and endorsing government support of community
service in general. Belonging to SCLC puts Mensa on the wrong
side of that line, and resigning from SCLC would move Mensa back
toward its chartered purpose.
—Beth Weiss
|