CATM's Modernized Toastmasters Program

Capital Alumni Toastmasters meetings have always had a unique flavor, a blend of practices and style inherited from the experiences of the founders and the clubs they previously belonged to. Chief amongst these influences was the Evening Track of the (now defunct) University Club Toastmasters, which ran from September 2001 until its free meeting space was cancelled in mid-2003.

Key club characteristics dating back to CATM's founding in 2003 include:

• Optimal meeting duration. At CATM we have always felt that an hour and a half was sufficient time for a pleasant and useful meeting. Some clubs try to cram a very complicated meeting into just one hour, which often comes to resemble a frantic fire drill, at best. Other clubs, recognizing that this pace is too rushed, plan on a two-hour meeting—but after a long day at work this seems too long to us unless it includes dinner, and adding dinner into the program requires catering and extra costs, which, in turn, limit venue choices and may hurt recruitment efforts.
   
• Toasts. Most clubs meet in the afternoon. Few meet in the morning or evening. CATM is an evening club and we like to enjoy a glass of wine with our meeting. And after the Toastmaster presents the theme of the evening, he or she offers a toast and then gives everyone a chance to rise and offer a toast. Toasting may be a lost art elsewhere, but not at our club.
   
• More Table Topics. At CATM we never short-change the Table Topics segment. Like the opportunity to make a toast from the floor, Table Topics mean more chances to speak.
   
• Diversity and dynamic age range. We realize that Toastmasters has a bit of a reputation of being for retirees. By Toastmasters standards, we are a youthful club. But while the average CATM member is about 33 years old, we have members and officers younger and older than our statistical mean and we believe that this age diversity is a good thing. Our members come from many parts of the region, the country, and the world, and this lends a cosmopolitan air to our mix of ages and professional backgrounds.
   
• Enhanced Toastmaster role. Even prior to the changes listed in the next section, CATM placed a high premium on proficiency in the Toastmaster role. We believe that being a confident and capable master of ceremonies is more useful and personally rewarding than some of the ancillary roles in the traditional Toastmasters program. At CATM, when a new member is first assigned the role of Toastmaster, he or she is supplied advanced guidance to help him or her master the toast and the art of properly introducing speakers.

After nearly two years of using what was then a fairly typical Toastmasters agenda, we decided to make some changes. We felt we were wasting a lot of energy on staffing non-essential roles, and whenever we fell short of the a full roster some people would have to wear more than one hat and explain the changes to guests and prospective members (or risk having them think the workarounds were part of our intended way of doing things). We decided to consider all options. Our goal was to simplify the meeting and the reduce planning and management overhead required per speaking opportunity.

Since enacting September 2005 agenda reforms, the character of CATM meetings has evolved further. Here are the most notable policies and features:

• More feedback. Previously open floor sessions were optional. Now they are standard. Smaller and more timely reports. Rather than having several long, consolidated reports at the end of the meeting after voting has occurred, at CATM we call for reports about time, vocalized pauses, etc., after each segment.
   
• No General Evaluator. This is perhaps our most radical change. We have reduced and merged evaluative roles and functions and the need to have someone else besides the Toastmaster oversee half of the meeting was thus lessened. So we eliminated this role and we now ask unassigned members—especially the club veterans—to provide feedback about the Toastmaster and the meeting during the open floor session.
   
• Reduced number of introductions and transitions. Many clubs have a Sergeant-at-Arms call the meeting to order and then introduce the president or presiding officer. Then the presiding officer offers remarks and introduces the Toastmaster. Then the Toastmaster eventually introduces the General Evaluator, and then he or she, in turn, introduces introduces the Speaker Evaluators and up to four other team members (Timer, Grammarian, Ah Counter, and Vote Counter). This all requires more transitions at the podium or lectern, which costs time and adds little, if any, value. And if it is rushed—as it is in many clubs that still use the old format—then all the effort put into these roles is even less justified. At CATM meetings we skip directly to the Toastmaster and he or she calls the meeting to order and has fewer transitions to deal with. Thus, the lower yield overhead items have been reduced down to what is more optimal for our objectives.
   
• No dedicated Table Topics Master required. At most CATM meetings, the Table Topics Master role is added to the Toastmaster’s duties. Since the Toastmaster sets the theme for the meeting, we feel that it is a very natural and obvious combination. It also reduces recruitment needs, introductions, and podium/lectern transfers.
   
• Counter role. In our new "Counter" role, CATM has merged most of the duties of the traditional Timer, Ah Counter, and Vote Counter roles into one consolidated quantitative job.
   
• Grammarian role partitioned. For most meetings, the traditional Grammarian role is eliminated. The duty of keeping track of the grammar used in the prepared speeches has been delegated to the Speaker Evaluators. The grammar of other meeting participants is not normally monitored.
   
• No “Word of the Day”. When we eliminated a regular, dedicated Grammarian from our agenda and added grammatical feedback duties to the Speaker Evaluators, there was no obvious place to delegate this function.
   
• No Best Speaker Evaluator award. Prior to our reforms, we awarded a BSE ribbon at each meeting. But we decided to "purify" the Speaker Evaluator role by removing even the slightest motivation that might have previously existed besides that of simply trying to help the Speaker.

Less important or notable attributes and policies of our club are listed below. Most of these were in force before our 2005 reforms:

• Prepared speeches first. CATM has always put formal speeches before Table Topics and the intermission on the agenda. Some clubs have it in the latter half of the meeting, but we feel Speaker Evaluators need some time to prepare for their presentations after the prepared speeches have concluded. Furthermore, we believe that audience attention spans are sharpest before intermission.
   
• Formal votes. Most clubs conduct votes for Best Speaker, Best Table Topics Speaker, etc. We do too. But we recognize that there are pros and cons to this practice. CATM considers votes one of several important feedback mechanisms that help members become better speakers. Like nothing else, secret votes show speakers how effective a speech was in reaching the audience. This is important, even while it is imperfect. Voting results comprise one unique leg of the feedback equation. Other legs include the dedicated oral and written feedback of the Speaker Evaluator, the comments offered by members and visitors during the open floor evaluation session, and, of course, the Speakers own self-assessment.
   
• No second place ribbons. It never made sense to us to give out second place ribbons or "most improved awards". The latter seems demeaning, and if there are only two Speakers, the former is silly to do. And if there are three Speakers, giving two of the three a ribbon and not the third is awkward and has no benefit.
   
• No tie votes. It does not happen often, but occasionally two or more Speakers or Table Topics Speakers will receive the same number of votes. Our policy is to secretly inform the Toastmaster of the tie and have him or her break it. The fact that a tie was broken is never alluded to or recorded.
   
• Speakers not disqualified by times. We ask that times be considered by all when voting for Best Speaker or Best Table Topics Speaker, but we do not automatically disqualify those who went over their allotted time or did not reach the minimum duration required.
   
• Qualitative evaluation after voting. Some clubs schedule the evaluation of speeches immediately after each speech is completed (before the next Speaker). We think it is better for the flow of the meeting to have this after the intermission, and we don’t even understand how a proper evaluation can be delivered without giving the Speaker Evaluator any time to compile his or her observations. Additionally, as mentioned above, we believe audience approval is best gauged by voting before formal evaluations have a chance to influence opinions.
   
• Awards at the end of the meeting. Some clubs offer awards after each segment. We have always consolidated this into one brief agenda item just before adjournment.
   
• No “Educational Evaluator”. Some clubs have added this role to offer feedback and comments to any “Educational Speaker” or Skills Master. CATM has never had this role.
   
• No pledge of allegiance. This is not a political statement; rather, it saves time and is more consistent with the standards of most business and professional meetings in the 21st century. Besides, we have a number of international members and U.S. citizenship is not a membership requirement at CATM, nor is it a focus of what we do at the club.
   
• No “Jokemaster” or “Jest of the Day”. However, participants are welcome to inject humor into their speaking whenever they desire.
   
• No “Thought of the Day”. Sort of, that is. The Toastmaster is encourage to provide an inspiring or interesting invocation and toast, and so we do not feel it is necessary or desirable to have an additional person assigned to provide another.