P.O. Box 795
Berkeley, CA 94701
June 19, 1986
To the members of the TNS Executive Committee (plus Catherine
Brueckel, Michael Houston, Roy Langston, Richard May, Scott
McFarland, and Ron Penner):
It now appears to be the consensus of the Committee that
Anne Paradise is a member of the society and should not be
deprived of her membership status or her position as Ombudsman
by action of the Committee. Norm Treloar's letter of May 22
summed up the matter; I agree with every word. Therefore, for the
record, I vote that Anne should not be asked to resign.
I do not like Ron Hoeflin's proposal that we enter into an
extended contract for his editorial services.
Adoption of this proposal would legally encumber the society
and amount to an abdication by the Committee of its
constitutional duty of oversight of the performance of the
appointive officers of the society. The proposal hinges on the
vague clause "the Editor continues to perform his duties in a
faithful manner" (which I would not care to have to litigate--
and that's what a contract is all about, when push comes to
shove).
The society has had to terminate the tenure of editors with
less than six months' notice in the past. This may again become
necessary in the future and I am not comfortable with replacing
human judgement with a set of rules governing when this is called
for. Even if Ron Hoeflin is the most trustworthy person in the
world, this arrangement sets an unhealthy precedent.
I vote no.
I have no objection to holding the 1986 TNS annual meeting
in Dallas if a group of at least three members in that area will
take on the task of making it happen; I wouldn't be comfortable
with one organizer, no matter how enthusiastic, nor with holding
the meeting at an airport (too noisy).
It also seems important to me that who is in charge be
clearly spelled out, in case an emergency comes up. My
preference would be that the Committee as a whole delegate the
power to act in matters pertaining to the annual meeting to a
majority of those members of the Committee in attendance at the
meeting. (I don't plan to attend myself unless I can combine it
with other business, a very remote possibility.)
I agree with Norm Treloar that there is a need for a Chairman
of this Committee and for some rules of procedure, but until we
have something more systematic we must simply be careful not
to create a situation in which anyone can claim that he wasn't
informed of a vote or allowed time for debate on it.
I am strongly in agreement with Ron Hoeflin's remarks about
a simple set of rules for the Committee. I would suggest that
votes should be sent to the Chairman and postmarked within one
month after the postmark of the letter in which a vote is called
for; I disagree with Patrick Hill's suggestion that any member of
the Committee should be permitted to delay tabulation of any vote
by 30 days. Alternatively, votes could be tabulated in the
second issue of the official business journal following that in
which the call for a vote appears.
Looking over our latest advertising in the Mensa Bulletin, I
am struck by the omission of qualifying scores on the most widely
taken tests (e.g., SAT, GRE, Cattell Verbal, LAIT, Mega). I
believe that people will be much more likely to apply for
membership in the society if they know in advance whether they
have qualifying scores.
The word "bribe" was used advisedly with respect to what Ron
Hoeflin calls a "donation" offered to the society by R.O. Whitaker.
The money was offered in exchange for selection of one of the
"donor's" designs as the society's official logo, biasing what
should be a selection process based on merit. I didn't know
that Whitaker was the "donor" (Bill Bavin didn't disclose his
name) and I don't give a damn. It's wrong--and I believe the
logos in question should be disqualified from consideration.
With regard to the size of Vidya, my order of preference
among Ron's alternatives in his letter of June 3 is 2, 3, 1, 4.
While I do not think it wise to remove Ron Hoeflin as Editor
at this time, I cannot agree with Patrick Hill's implication that
it would not be legitimate to do so. This Committee is
responsible to the membership of the Triple Nine Society for
selecting the best available candidates for the appointive offices
of the society. The Constitution explicitly calls for review of
these officers' tenure at least yearly. Criticism is allowed as
long as it is fair and reasonable. There is no Machiavellian plot
against Ron Hoeflin (a statement which cannot be correctly
made with regard to Anne Paradise).
Patrick's indices to Vidya are an impressive and valuable
addition to the corpus of material published by the society. I
would like a copy of the complete subject index, Patrick, but
I'm not sure how large a SASE would be needed.
I am also pleased to see Patrick's other suggestions for
projects to benefit TNS. If support is needed from the Executive
Committee I will vote to provide it.
I feel very strongly about the need to replace Barry Kington
and Scott McFarland with officers who have not violated our trust
by attacking the very foundations of the Triple Nine Society. We
founded this society as a place where members would be safe
from the arbitrary acts of officers. Our fears in this regard were
based on actual abuses of power by officers of the ISPE.
I cannot support the continued tenure in office of those who
have attempted to deprive Anne Paradise of her membership in
the society.
What is more fundamental to the duties of the Membership
Officer than the safeguarding of the membership rights of members
of the society? And what is more fundamental to the duties of
the Elections Officer than remaining neutral in conducting elections?
Barry and Scott have been derelict in exercising these duties of the
offices with which we have entrusted them. We are responsible to
the membership to rectify this situation.
In addition, Barry Kington has engaged in deceptive practices--
specifically, attempting to round up votes to expell Anne from
regular membership in the society by representing to members
of the Committee that he already had a consensus when he did
not in fact have five votes in hand. This does not inspire trust in
me regarding his future conduct as an officer of TNS.
Barry has repeatedly acted on his own in the name of the society:
seeking sensationalistic publicity, asking Scott McFarland to
"investigate" Anne Paradise's membership status, reserving
motel rooms for an as-yet-unapproved annual meeting, etc.
The timing of Barry's proposal to remove Anne from the post
of Ombudsman and relegate her to honorary membership status is
most suspicious. He spoke to me about this matter months earlier
but delayed bringing it before the Executive Committee until
immediately after Ron Penner--who could have been expected to
offer some serious opposition--was no longer on the Committee.
When Barry first spoke with me about this matter, I told him
it was wrong to question any member's membership status without
evidence of fraud on the member's part and that, in my opinion,
this matter should not be made public, but he chose to go ahead
anyway, causing severe emotional distress to an innocent lady old
enough to be his mother. I didn't think a man would stoop that
low in west Kentucky.
Another very serious breach of acceptable conduct by an officer
of the society is Barry's violent words about Ron Penner in his
letter of May 26, in which he speaks of shooting or
"reconditioning the nose" of "a person like that." In California,
where I live, and in other civilized parts of the world, such
language is not tolerated even when thinly disguised as a joke.
I do not agree with Ron Hoeflin that Barry's past service to
the society, which I do not dispute, should shield him from
accountability for his usurpation of the functions of the Executive
Committee and his other misdeeds. As I have stated in the past,
a society such as ours owes its volunteer officers gratitude but
not obedience; when they begin to expect to run the show, it is
time to replace them. This is not just a case of an innocent
mistake. Neither Barry nor Scott has shown any remorse for
what they have done to Anne and to the society.
There are several misunderstandings in Ron Hoeflin's
characterization of my proposed removal of Barry and Scott
from their appointive positions as "destructive actions" and in
Patrick Hill's characterization of these proposals as "baseless
ad hominem counter attacks."
Some people have gotten so used to the unprincipled way that
things are done these days in government, business, and other
areas of collective life that they no longer recognize action on
principle for what it is.
There is nothing destructive about acting to replace those
who are guilty of actions antithetical to the principles on which
the Triple Nine Society was founded and who cause needless
suffering to innocent parties. It is a form of surgery.
My proposals are not baseless. They are based on principles
of freedom (from autocratic acts) and responsibility (for the
past actions of officers of the society).
What is destructive and baseless, in my opinion, is the kind
of ivory tower elitist thinking that places an abstract notion of
purity of admission standards above human decency.
An ad hominem argument consists of accusations against an
opponent which are irrelevant to the matter at hand. I have not
brought into the discussion Barry's or Scott's activities outside
the society, personal habits, political opinions, or any other
irrelevant matters. What I object to is their behavior as
officers of the society.
A counter attack cannot be made unless one has onself been
attacked first. I was not attacked; Anne Paradise was. Before
the current controversy arose I had spoken to Anne once or twice
on the telephone. I did not feel I knew her well. I would have
responded in the same way no matter whose membership was at
stake, because my response was a matter of principle.
As a result of the current situation, I have come to know Anne
much better and I concur with all those I have spoken with
about her that she is a very fine lady.
I hope that Anne will not mind if I share with you that she
told me that, in her long life, she has never before been vilified
as she was by Barry and Scott.
Catherine Brueckel has agreed to serve as Membership Officer
on an interim basis if Barry is removed from office.
I vote yes on all 9 of the proposals in my letter of May 29.
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon