AMC Oxymoron: One Size Fits All

Mensa, both nationally and locally, continually touts our uniqueness, our individuality, and our independence of thought as salient selling points for what the organization offers. And this is certainly true, which is why we have a proliferation of T-shirts announcing that "Leading Mensans is like herding cats." Or, "You put 10 Mensans together and you'll have 100 different opinions." Individually, we have been used to being the brightest in our peer environments, and we often dismiss those who do not agree with us as being a few cards short of a full deck.

Despite all this talk of individuality, however, Mensa local groups are intensely regulated, at least on paper, through the AMC's Minimum Standard Bylaws (MSBs) and Actions Still in Effect (ASIEs). How and why did it come about that all local groups, large or small, compact or spread out, must conform to page after page of detailed rules that most members don't know about; and how do these rules affect the local groups?

When I first joined Mensa (1969), there were no MSBs or even many requirements for how local groups should act. Some of the LocSecs were directly appointed by our Executive Director, Margot Seitelman, simply because they were the first member living in a new area. For the most part, that worked; but, due to the highly individualistic nature of local groups, there were other sources of strife. Warfare between different factions in groups did exist (and still exists), and an occasional treasurer did abscond with funds and the like. Sometimes local groups in those days had all power consolidated into one person, which worked as long as that person was reasonable and which was disastrous if the person was dictatorial.

The genesis of Minimum Standard Bylaws was fairly simple, created with the hope of making sure that local groups had enough minimal structure to assure that elections occurred when they should and that groups recognized who their members were. Group boundaries weren't always clearly defined, nor were group procedures.

The AMC passed ASIEs that were fairly undemanding; e.g., to get a subsidy, the group must produce a calendar of events at least quarterly. Big deal. Any group in these early days could easily meet the requirements.

It was an unenlightened move to pass an ASIE that the MSBs were automatically part of a local group's bylaws (even though some groups did not even have bylaws) and that if a local group ever wished to update its bylaws, that update must meet the MSBs. Some local groups just ignored the initial MSBs, and most RVCs (thankfully) ignored this.

As the MSBs have grown, many smaller groups have proven to have too few active members to be able to meet all the MSBs' requirements. In my group, as an example, our former Treasurer was involved in some outside legal matters that took up much of his time, and he did not always file necessary reports, although I did audit his books (against MSBs) and found them in order. We have, on paper, an Assistant LocSec, but she warns that if I ever quit, she will resign as well, so where does that leave a specified order of succession? Will our Mediator mediate or our Ombudsman ombud if required? They're names on paper, but what good are names on paper?

Some groups are worse off than mine. We at least have a core city with enough members to have some activities here. However, similarly to those less fortunate groups, some of the only members we could get to be officers are located far away. The only way we can have regular ExCom meetings is to agree to meet in our website chat room at a specified time. It works, but does it comply with the regulation that all business meetings must be open to all members?

We could have a simple set of MSBs for groups smaller than perhaps 200 members, another for groups up to 500, and the full current set for groups over 500. But there are several other ways to structure this. Perhaps dividing lines should be based on number of members per square mile in the group, or perhaps some of the requirements should only be recommendations for smaller groups. This latter suggestion might prove the easiest to implement. And it is far more democratic.

What is sure is that our current, ever-growing MSBs are forcing more and more smaller groups to be in noncompliance, and kind RVCs to look the other way — so far. Do we want functioning smaller groups who stray from the MSBs shivering in apprehension of some RVC's wrath? Does the MSB-obsessed AMC wish for RVCs to smash these small groups with an iron fist, demanding that they conform or be dissolved? Can this happen? Yes. Back when I was Chairman, AMC member Henry Noble demanded the dissolution of St. Joseph Mensa because it failed to follow the MSBs. I saved St. Joseph Mensa from an AMC-mandated breakup through some cleverness, artifice and hocus-pocus. RVCs are human and can get pissed. And can use the nonconformance to the MSBs as a reason to disband or penalize a local group.

One size does not fit all. If we want things to change, we must do it, not just talk. And so far, all we've done is talk. Pressure your RVC to reconsider the MSBs that regulate all local groups alike, regardless of size. Write your protest and/or ideas for publication in your newsletter or InterLoc. Sign petitions. Recapture Mensa!

Ralph Rudolph

 

Previous Article | Contents | Next Article