AMC Minutes   

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Inconsistencies in the Minutes in grammar and style are verbatim.]

Since the AMC started with the "Consent Agenda," we will as well. Remember that the motions in the "Consent Agenda" section are voted in omnibus without discussion by the AMC members, who, instead of openly deliberating, have opted to take this shortcut. In the discussion below, we will point out the danger of this approach to the Society.

4. Moved VASILIAUSKAS seconded BURG:

SO/ASIE 2003-065 is hereby rescinded. ASIE 2000-126, 2000-127, and 1986-085 are changed to replace "Standing Orders" with "Actions Still In Effect."

This item, while relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things, serves as a perfect illustration of why careful consideration and deliberation of motions should be an essential part of AMC activity. The change to "Standing Orders" was never adequately explained or justified. The reversion to the original language was to return to terminology consistent with that used by Mensa International — and American Mensa, for all but three months out of 40 years.

The next item — still on the "Consent Agenda" — is more serious. We reproduce it here in full, with emphasis (boldface) added by Going Forward:

5. Moved COONTZ, seconded SEIGLER to amend ASIE 2003-012 as follows:

AMC Handbook Development Process

I. Ideas and concepts for new Handbooks can come from a variety of sources, including:

A. Leadership Development Committee

B. LDW Coordinator

C. National Office Staff

D. Local Group Officers

E. Another Committee or AMC

A. Representatives from relevant committees or appointees
B. Appropriate staff liaisons
C. Appropriate AMC appointees or officers

III. The editor or content team:

A. Begin to gather content, consider using:

1. Committees
2. Local Groups
3. Other Organizations
4. LDW materials

IV. Develop outline

A. Submit Content Outline for Review to Leadership Development Committee
B. Confirm/seek budget approval
C. Set deadline
D. Determine distribution means (notebook, electronic, etc.)

V. Content Draft submitted for review to:

A. Leadership Development Committee Representative
B. AMC representatives, liaison, appropriate appointees
C. National Office staff
D.Communications Officer
E. Risk Management Committee

VI. Content Editor makes updates and changes

VII. Content is formatted by National Office Staff

A. for consistent format
B. standard file
C. working with Content Editor

VIII. Final Draft approved by Content Editor, AMC liaison, AMC Chair, L.D. Chair, & Executive Director.

IX. Distribution

A. Sent to all local groups
B. Made available on the Web
C. Send when requested

X. Periodic Review and Update

A. Determine if annual, biannual, other at time of publishing
B. Leadership Development Chair appoints Update editor for handbooks due for update, at the beginning of the year.
C. Time needed for update should be minimal if regularly reviewed.

As noted in Going Forward's "AMC Agenda Alert" last issue, this motion inserts the Risk Management Committee into yet another facet of Mensa operations. This, ironically, creates the risk of "blanding" Mensa out of meaningful existence. By passing this motion without discussion, another entirely inappropriate part of this process was left in place: making a non-member employee, the Executive Director, one of those in charge of the final approval of handbooks, which should be solely by and for Mensa members.

Moving on through the motions that were passed without debate, we come to yet another way the members' awareness of the transactions of the "officer class" is reduced.

9. Moved Finance Committee to rescind ASIE 1995-082 and replace it with the following:

A report detailing expenses paid to members of the AMC is to be furnished quarterly to the entire AMC. This same report is available to any member and shall be posted on the AML Web site and mailed upon request to the National Office.

This is a minor improvement over the original motion, which did not include the Web posting provision. Here is the ASIE that was replaced:

OLD: 1995-082 26-Aug-1995

That the expenses of all AMC officers and appointees be listed quarterly in InterLoc, in a format consistent with the current RVC expense listings. This report is to be prepared by the [National] office staff.

While the addition of Web posting is an improvement, there was no reason to remove one of the functions of InterLoc. There is a value, especially in our digital age, to reporting essential business in a fixed form. InterLoc is such a form and had been serving this purpose for many years.

That is not the only issue exposed by this motion. If AMC members are unwilling to stand behind a motion by name and for the record, that motion should never see the light of day. These committee motions are a form of obfuscation.

Item 11, still in the "Consent Agenda," is a change to the charge of the Risk Management Committee. The heart of this new ASIE is as follows:

It is the responsibility of the Risk Management Committee to effect the mission of American Mensa by identifying exposures to risk and recommending methods for their management, in order to best protect the assets of AML and the health, safety, and well-being of its members and other constituents.

So there we have it. The nature of Mensa redefined in one bold, undeliberated, dismissive stroke. Risk management raised to a purpose of American Mensa. Mensa no longer for its members alone, but also for some undefined "other constituents." Watch how that clause is defined in the future. It will point the way toward just how our society is going to be mutated beyond all recognition.

The next item seeks to codify the procedures for dissolution of a local group. The sections in bold were added without provenance or comment to the original, anonymous motion.

13. Moved Bylaws Committee to adopt the following document:

GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL GROUP DISSOLUTION

The following guidelines are intended to be an aid to the group which is in process of dissolving. The RVC is given broad discretion in the interpretation and implementation of these guidelines.

1. THE DISSOLUTION QUESTION.

The dissolution process may be initiated by a petition signed by 10% of the members of the group in question, and presented to the RVC. The petition may but need not specify another group or groups (specifying which zip codes which will be transferred to which group) into which the group will be folded. The RVC or his representative will ballot the members of the group as to whether or not to dissolve, with a simple majority of valid votes cast deciding. There should be ample time for the membership to consider this action, and comments pro and con may be presented with the ballot. The same proposal should not be balloted more often than every three years.

In the event a group appears moribund, the RVC will first contact current (or last known) elected officers in an initial attempt to revive the group. If that fails, the RVC will contact each member of the group by mail informing them of the possibility of dissolving the local group and their reassignment to another local group. The members will be given a reasonable amount of time (at least 60 days) to respond, either to volunteer to reorganize the local group or to specify the local group to which they wish to be reassigned. If this still does not result in reactivating the group, the RVC may dissolve the group on his/her own authority without a ballot.

2. WHERE THE GROUP GOES

If the group grew out of a neighboring group, or there is a logical affinity for a neighboring group, or the petition specified a group, then the members are reassigned to that group. If there are two or more groups specified in the petition or a logical division exists, the members are reassigned accordingly.

The members should receive notice, either in a special mailing or in their new newsletter, that they are going to be transferred. They will be told that they may also by preference transfer their membership to any other local group (including Isolated M) on request to the National Office with instructions on how to do that.

3. GROUP ASSETS

The existing assets of the group will be transferred to the new group. Records will be kept so that if the group is able to reform within two years, the same assets may be transferred back. If there are two or more groups receiving the members, the assets will be transferred in proportion.

If this violates a local group's bylaws, the AMC has the authority to simply dissolve a local group, and in such cases the AMC will take special pains to distribute group assets fairly.

In the case of a separately incorporated local group, the RVC, acting in consultation with the AMC and AML corporate counsel will develop a special plan for proper distribution of the local group's assets.

This furthers the cause of an imperial AMC — in one regard, at the expense of ignoring the laws of several states (how is that for risk?). First, the authority for members of a local group to seek its own dissolution is limited, while the authority of an RVC in this respect is explicitly unchecked. Second is the thinking evident in the last paragraph. The new ASIE presupposes that the AMC has the authority to dissolve a local group that is separately incorporated under the laws of its state. We doubt somehow that any of the states in question recognize the power of the AMC to do any such thing.

Item 23a (the original item 23 was withdrawn) appoints a list of members to the Nominating Committee. The troubling aspect of this ASIE is that it provides for the NomComm to be expanded by e-mail ballot of the AMC between now and August 1, 2004. Since e-mail ballots are reported in AMC Minutes after the fact, this means that most members will not know the full membership of this committee until some time in October. Hardly a transparent process.

Item 25 was the budget. The only discussion reported on a specific item involved Web-authoring software: A deficit of $50,000 to $60,000 is projected. This was swallowed whole by unanimous vote. We hope the delegates sent to Geneva, Switzerland, for the 2005 Service Club Leadership Conference meeting enjoy contributing to the shortfall.

The software issue was revisited in item 25a. Rainey and Beatty proposed a delay in the actual expenditure ($72,000) for up to 90 days, so that a committee could review the actual need and any possibilities for less expensive software. The motion was defeated, with only Beatty, Wilterding, McBean, Gordon, Rainey and Vasiliauskas voting in favor of more in-depth consideration.

Item 27, a proposed dues increase to $52 per year, was postponed until July.

Item 29, the motion to make Special Interest Groups (SIGs) a membership benefit, brought a great deal of discussion, with votes made and unmade by multiple reconsiderations — a circus with more than three rings (and the proverbial elephant that nobody wants to notice). What ultimately failed was the radical idea of asking the membership directly what they think of this, by publishing articles in the Mensa Bulletin. In spite of strong opposition by Jackowski and Wilterding, what passed is the AMC's taking control of Special Interest Groups (SIGs) associated with Mensa. From the AMC discussion, expect non-Mensa members to be refused SIG membership and National Office to take control over SIG member lists and funds. This is the beginning of the end for SIGs.

Item 30 was a discussion item on taking risk management to the next level. Local groups' serving food was a specific consideration.

Item 42 made more changes to the hearings procedures.

The iron hand of central control over all American Mensa activity has only begun to squeeze the life out of our society.

— compiled by Staff