Tag: Grange Policy

By Walter Boomsma
207 343-1842
Communications Director

Can we “c” this?

The recent reminders of the Grange’s “non-partisan” policy are timely, as it has become increasingly difficult to comply with for at least two reasons. First, many people have become quite intense over their political affiliation. Second, political issues are increasingly seen as party issues.

Pick a “hot” issue–it almost doesn’t matter what the issue is. Gun control? Education? The environment? Can we discuss it without becoming partisan? The odds are good the discussion will quickly devolve into “choosing sides.” Of itself, that’s not a bad thing until the “side” becomes the issue. Often, labels take the place of the actual issue. It’s tempting to ban political discussions in the interest of maintaining harmony.

Have you noticed that the words “party” (or partisan) and “political” are being used almost interchangeably? If the Grange is non-partisan, must it be non-political? What happens to our legislative interests and efforts? How do we write and then discuss resolutions without stumbling over the line?

Years ago, I worked with a guy who often noted that people like to talk about things, but they rarely talk about HOW they are going to talk about those things. So, if the Grange is to remain “non-partisan” but not abandon our interest (and original purpose!) in legislative matters, how do we do that? (That, in and of itself, is an interesting topic. I am tempted to digress into the point that practice is ultimately policy. What we do communicates our values as an organization far more than what we say.)

In all our discussions and deliberations, we need to “c” some things about the purpose of communication. Here’s a partial list:

• compassion,
• cordiality,
• concern,
• consideration,
• cooperation,
• collaboration,
• charity.

In essentials, unity; In non-essentials, liberty; In all things, charity.

The Grange Motto

Too often, we communicate to convince. Can we, instead, communicate to explore? Can we, in all sincerity, ask another with whom we might initially disagree, “Help me understand…” It’s a great question. Let’s communicate to understand. Understanding does not have to equate to agreement.

Within the Grange, we aim to reaffirm (and hopefully agree on) the essentials of community building, education, and non-partisan grassroots advocacy. We succeed when we allow personal freedom and respect for diverse opinions that are not crucial to the organization’s core mission. The wisdom of the founders is evident in the fraternal nature of the Grange.

The order of our motto is critical. First and foremost, let’s focus on the essentials. (The Declaration of Purpose is a good place to start.) We allow–maybe even encourage–personal freedom of choice. And we practice the “c’s” in the interest of achieving the essentials.

Let us be quiet, peaceful citizens…”

If things start to get out of hand during a Grange meeting, the master might do well to bang the gavel and declare loudly, “Let us be quiet, peaceful citizens,” not because we’re about to “separate and go our separate ways,” but because one essential thing we’ve agreed to is simply that. We will be quiet (but not silent), peaceful citizens. And we’re going to help each other understand what that means while we explore.

We’re Grangers; we help each other.

► FACT: The Communications Department’s Annual Report has been released and is available on the Program Books and Information Page.

By Walter Boomsma
207 343-1842
Communications Director

How are you communicating?

A Grange “brother” recently reached out by email, and we had an interesting “conversation” with a series of back and forth. He admitted that he was not spending much time on Facebook as he was “tired of the rants and stuff and knowing that everything I wrote was data that Zuckerberg would sell.” We commiserated briefly.

Facebook is probably one of the least understood communication vehicles we have available. It, and social media in general, serve some useful purposes—one reason these platforms have been so readily adopted. Since this is about and for Grangers, I think it raises some important questions.

In  my not-scientific study, most Grangers I know who use social media do so to “stay in touch with family.” I might fall into this category. I try to ignore the “rants and stuff,” including the many ads, sponsored posts, and outright scam attempts. Given my role as MSG Communications Director and naturally curious nature, I wonder how many Grangers have social media accounts. Again, it’s not very scientific, but I know that most of Valley Grange’s members do not have a Facebook account. We (Valley Grange) do have a Facebook Page, but we do not rely on it to communicate. If we only communicated on Facebook, most of our members would be ignored.

My marketing mind would love objective demographic data, What percentage of Grangers are active on social media? A broader question would be, “What percentage of people likely to become members are active on social media?”

Given the rapid advances in technology, the data would almost immediately become somewhat obsolete. Nearly two years ago, Instagram introduced a feature called “threads” that allows users to create text-based conversations. This could make your eyes glaze over because Meta owns both Instagram and Facebook. Let’s not go there.

One important aspect of social media is that the platform tries to figure out your interests and decides what you should see. Equally important, you are the product, not the beneficiary. As my Grange brother noted, Zuckerberg is selling that data to advertisers and, more recently, using it in the runaway development of AI (artificial intelligence).

This is not an attack on social media. It is an attempt to encourage perspective among Granges and Grangers. I know posting events and information on Facebook is easy, and doing so can create a sense of accomplishment. But what have you truly accomplished?

Once a year, I “audit” any Facebook Pages or Groups I’m aware of or stumble upon. You might be surprised at how many of those are for Granges that no longer exist. You might also be surprised that, for some, where the Granges still exist, nothing has been posted for a year or two. The only action I can take is to eliminate any reference to the defunct page on the MSG Website. (I will advise the Grange involved.) I also occasionally discover inappropriate posts on individual pages and groups.

We could, and probably should, revisit the Grange’s social media policy. But for now, let’s get thinking about how we are communicating with members and potential members.

An important reality is that it is relatively easy to move information from the MSG Website to Social Media. Moving in the other direction is almost impossible. (And, remember, Facebook decides whether or not I get to see the information you have posted.) There are several methods for submitting your news and information to the site. More about that later. Once we have it on the site, you can share it on Facebook with a couple of mouse clicks.

A secondary reality is that when you submit events and news to the website, we offer a degree of quality control. I recently stumbled on a Grange Facebook post full of spelling and grammatical errors, not exactly an example of putting our best foot forward. Perhaps even more importantly, we check for missing information. In fact, if you submit using the website itself, you fill out a form that asks for the specific details. If time permits, I will also assist with flyers, etc. We’re Grangers. We help each other!

Enjoy social media, just keep it in perspective. When you’re planning an event (or have had one and want to share the news) make sure someone is assigned the task of submitting them to your MSG website!

► FACT: The Communications Department of one has a goal that email and voice mail will be replied to within 24-48 hours.

By Walter Boomsma
207 343-1842
Communications Director

Honest Communication

I know a health care provider who has an interesting recording that callers hear when a person doesn’t answer the phone. (That never happens.) The message includes a statement noting that “…we probably won’t call you back.”

That might qualify as brutal honesty. If we ignore the brutality, he gets credit for the honesty.

I suspect many Grangers would be surprised at the number of times I, as communications director, am contacted by frustrated folks who have tried to reach someone in our organization unsuccessfully. Usually, they have left multiple voicemails or sent emails that have gone unanswered. I’m pretty easy to find, and with the title “communications director,” I don’t blame them for thinking I can help.

Sometimes I can help if it’s a question of a general nature. Other times, I can verify whether they are using the correct contact information.

But occasionally, I admit that I can’t force people to reply to emails and return phone calls.

It seems ironic that, with all the communication technology developed over the past several decades, it’s debatable whether actual communication has improved. In the case of the healthcare provider, perhaps it has. He’s using technology to let people know he’s not interested in them.

So consider this. If you are a Granger holding a position of responsibility at any level of the organization, what are your communication priorities? More importantly, how do your priorities impact others and their opinion of our organization?

“A Patron places faith in God, nurtures hope, dispenses charity, is noted for fidelity, returns phone calls, and answers email.”

► FACT: The Communications Department of one has a goal that email and voice mail will be replied to within 24-48 hours.

By Walter Boomsma
207 343-1842
Communications Director

Did I Lie or Miscommunicate?

Our Memorial Day Program here in Maine’s #1 Town (alphabetically) includes an opportunity to chat with friends and neighbors—one of the joys of rural living. After the small crowd had mainly disappeared, I noticed two of those friends chatting intensely—one I hadn’t seen for some time. As I approached, I said, “I don’t mean to interrupt, but I must say ‘Hi’ to…” Of course, I said more than that as we needed to briefly “catch up” on each other’s health and doings.

Later, as I strolled to my vehicle, it occurred to me that I had lied. I had, in fact, fully intended to interrupt their conversation. I know both well, so I felt comfortable interrupting. I also trusted both would honestly have said “This is not a good time…” if that were the case. So why did I lie, even if it was unintentional?

As I consider that question, I am reminded of the conversation between Caesar and Mark Antony in Act 1, Scene 2.

“Let me have men about me that are fat, Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’nights. Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look, He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.”

While I’m not sure I am sleek-headed or have a lean and hungry look, I am occasionally accused of thinking too much. For Shakespeare Fans, we could think too much about the context of the quote. The digression is enticing, but to pursue it might make the point. “He thinks too much.”

Spontaneous communication means we are not thinking much. Had I been thinking more critically as I approached these friends, I might have said, “I’m sorry to interrupt, but I must say ‘Hi’ to…” If a similar situation develops, that would be a more likely line now that I’ve had time to think about it. I’m not sure that’s overthinking.

While the characters in Julius Caesar are speaking, it’s important to remember that they are not speaking spontaneously. They are speaking words that were written carefully. A writer has an opportunity to think and edit what will be “said.” Thanks to technology, we now have AI that helps with the written word. Even as I’ve written this, a great deal of thought has been given and many changes have been made. I can even ask the computer to read it aloud and listen to how it sounds. This might be another digression.

All this thinking ultimately aims at the continuous improvement of our communication. It’s admittedly easier when communication is written, but the patterns are similar. Over forty years ago, I taught an interpersonal skills course that primarily focused on communication when speaking and listening. “When your initial response is to reject or ignore, clarify and confirm what the speaker is saying.” The idea behind it was to ensure you understood what the speaker was saying and why they were saying it. Students who “got it,” realized that it was equally important to understand that when they were speaking, they should be clear on what they were saying and why they were saying it.

Communication should be about understanding. During my days as a real estate instructor, I will never forget an instructor’s meeting during which a colleague said, “I want to be sure we are all saying (teaching) the same thing.” I couldn’t resist responding that I hoped our students would all hear the same thing, but doubted it. Let’s not forget that while we think words have meaning, ultimately, people give meaning to those words. It’s not an exact science and never will be.

Social media offers endless opportunities for miscommunication. A recent post reported the death of three children, allegedly at the hands of their father. One commenter wrote, in part, “I am angry at those poor babies who were murdered by their father…” If we think before reacting, we can conclude she probably wasn’t angry at the babies. She was probably angry at the situation. If she were a politician, there would soon be a news story announcing that she was angry at the murdered children, perhaps even speculating that they were somehow responsible for their own deaths. It wouldn’t take much effort to turn her miscommunication into a lie.

Speakers and writers should attempt to communicate accurately. Listeners and readers should attempt to hear and read accurately. That involves some discipline and thinking. Of course, skill helps, but the focus needs to move beyond communicating to understanding.

This article was initially posted on the Brain Leaks and Musings Site by Mr. Boomsma, educator and author.

► FACT: Your website was viewed nearly 1,400 times by over 500 people in the month of May!