Regent's Report, August 1997

The Triple Nine Society was formed as an alternative to the ISPE for those who did not like the oppressive policies of that organization, which denied members democracy, free speech, and due process. An additional point on which the founders of TNS differed from the leaders of the ISPE is that we objected to arbitrary ``political'' admission standards (e.g., 1. the exclusion of my tests--and later Ron Hoeflin's, after he criticized the ISPE--from the list of acceptable admission tests; 2. the vocabulary tests that the ISPE used to use in addition to I.Q. tests).

Now a group of dissident members has attempted to take over the Triple Nine Society. What they stand for is in direct opposition to the principles on which this society was founded:

1. Scientific psychometric standards; 2. Democratic decision-making; 3. Protection of members' rights.

Members of the opposing party are attempting to politicize psychometrics, under the guise of deferring to California law. They are engaged in a campaign to subvert the Constitution and the actions of the properly constituted Executive Committee of the Triple Nine Society. Disugised as ``eliminating adversarial material from Vidya,'' they are providing shelter to those who have used Vidya as a vehicle for actionable accusations against other members and are denying the membership their right to duly elected leadership.

Not satisfied with bringing down the California Medical Board on me for ``practicing psychology without a license,'' Paul Maxim has gone further and suggested that TNS could face prosecution for using ``illegal tests'' like the LAIT for admission purposes. Apparently, he got to Jacquelinne White. She didn't want to use a brochure approved by the Psychometrics Committee that included the LAIT and the Mega Test, so she asked Greg Grove to create a brochure without these tests.

When I found out what Greg Grove had done and objected to the Chairman of the PsyCom acting unilaterally, without consulting other members of the Committtee (which was authorized as a body by the ExCom to set TNS' qualifying scores), Greg resigned.

The ExCom passed a motion requiring the Membership Officer to use the brochure approved by the PsyCom. I informed Jacquelinne of the motion and told her that I expected her to comply with it or resign. Jacquelinne refused to do either and the ExCom removed her from office early on August 2.

We felt that we had no choice but to assert the [TNS] Constitutional authority of the ExCom over the appointive officers and to uphold the society's first-amendment [to the U.S. Constitution] right to admit members based on criteria of its own choosing. (If the state of California did, at some point, attempt to control our use of certain tests, we could--and should--move this function out of California. Anticipating this possiblity, the ExCom has done just that.)

Later that day, a message was sent around by John Hook announcing that a set of motions by Wilson Ogg intended to rearrange the membership of the Executive Committee had passed. ``Passage'' of these motions (and later of other motions) relied on the votes of people who were not members of the Executive Committee (Jacquelinne had been removed from office and Larry Jess had submitted his resignation to me in writing). Furthermore, as Provided in Article II, Section 1 of the TNS Constitution, all motions, and all votes on motions, must be submitted to the Regent. This was not done for these motions, which are therefore null and void.

The following table summarizes ExCom positions according to the reckoning of the two factions which have formed in the current situation:

Position	Adams/Harris/Kopp/Langdon	Hook/Ogg/White
Regent	Kevin Langdon	Kevin Langdon
Financial Officer	John Cooper	John Cooper
Membership Officer	Bob Kopp	Jacquelinne White
Editor	[vacant]	John Hook
Ombudsman	Dale Adams	Dale Adams
Member-at-Large	Wilson Ogg	Wilson Ogg
	Larry Jess	Larry Jess
	Loren Harris	Cal Woodruff
	[vacant]	Bob Gulley

The sequence of motions on which the Hook/Ogg/White faction bases its claim of legitimacy was supported by John Cooper. From August 3-5, John and I worked out a compromise agreement, which would have allowed the members of TNS to resolve the dispute regarding ExCom membership by means of an early election. After the six elective officers were chosen they were to have appointed the three appointive officers. Access to Vidya was to have been equally apportioned among all active disputants.

This agreement was endorsed by all members of the faction with which I am associated and by none of our opponents, resulting in the current ambiguity and the paralysis of the society's organizational machinery.

The full text of the rejected compromise agreement and a detailed history of the dispute will appear in the ExCom Memo.

The Executive Committee has authorized John Hook to produce the issue of Vidya you are holding in your hands, and one more, as guest editor.

Regardless of aegis, this issue should give you an idea of what you could expect from Mr. Hook as Editor, subject to the limitation that the initiative process provided for in Article IV, Sections 2, 3, and 7 of the TNS Constitution and the officers' reports mentioned in Article II, Sections 1 and 2, can be made use of by members to circumvent any attempt to exclude ``adversarial'' material from Vidya. (I will provide space in my Regent's Reports to ``adversarial'' material which would otherwise be excluded from Vidya.) Because of this, you can fairly compare this issue only with the many issues produced by Bob Kopp which were not dominated by TNS organizational affairs.