Kevin Langdon, P.O. Box 795, Berkeley, CA 94701; June 25, 1992
To the Triple Nine Executive Committee:
I'm pleased to see this Committee functioning and accomplishing some business, but there
are still a number of matters unresolved (e.g., the society's finances and constitutional
revisions).
Although I like Tim Hardy and appreciate his support in the past, I would not be able to
support his reappointment as Financial Officer until after he completes the long-overdue
financial report.
On the face of it, it seems like a good idea for there to be machinery for removing
officers, and Cyd's suggestion about how to do it is reasonable according to this
viewpoint (though it would require a constitutional amendment to implement such a plan).
We have already made the third of the society's three key officers with specific
responsibilities (F.O.) appointive (along with the M.O. and the Editor of Vidya).
The Ombudsman and other directly-elected representatives of the membership (Regent and
Members-at-Large) need to be independent. We can't give a future Executive Committee
dominated by bad apples the means to exclude the voice of the opposition from its
deliberations.
There is an additional point about the position of the Regent. An (in my opinion)
ill-advised amendment to the TNS constitution made the Regent automatically Chairman of
the Executive Committee (the Committee formerly elected its own Chairman). This is fine
when the Regent is active and takes seriously the responsibility of a moderator to give
everyone equal access to the deliberative process, as is now the case. Unfortunately,
former Regents have left the society rudderless or taken unilateral actions beyond the
scope of the Regent's constitutional authority, without the approval of the Executive
Committee.
I opposed the idea of a ``chief executive'' of any kind during the original discussions
leading to the adoption of the TNS Constitution, but I was outvoted and the position of
Regent was established. Beyond chairing the Executive Committee, the Regent is empowered
to ``speak for the society.'' I think that this is not a good idea. The constitutional
officers can act for the society within the limits defined in the Constitution; the
Executive Committee can take action for the society in other operational matters; but only
a vote of the membership can really speak for the society.
I don't think we should delay putting a new ad in the Mensa Bulletin until we're
sure we're caught up with the backlog of inquiries, as there's a lead time of several
months--and we need to get current before then in any case.
We need an ad which will pique people's interest without being excessively long and
expensive. Here's an example of a possible ad:
TRIPLE NINE SOCIETY. 99.9th percentile plus. Democratic and participatory. Emphasis on
intellectual fellowship and uncensored exchange of ideas. Qualifying scores include:
Cattell Verbal, 173; GRE, 1500; LAIT, 150; Mega, 24; SAT, 1460; others (inquire). Kjeld
Hvatum, Membership Officer, [address omitted]. Not affiliated with Mensa.
The SAT score is approximate. Pat Thomas tells me that the Psychometrics Committee is in
the process of voting on a new SAT cutoff, but it is likely that it will be close to the
figure I've mentioned in the ad; our old cutoff of 1550 is clearly quite inaccurate.
This ad contains 48 words and would therefore cost us $48 per insertion, but I think it
would be very effective. I would be interested in comments and other suggestions regarding
ad copy from members of the Committee and others receiving this memo.
I'm glad that Cyd supports the idea of mailing copies of Vidya to Minerva (and, I
assume, Cincinnatus) members, but I don't see much point to doing it 50 copies at a time;
the whole list of members of one or both of these groups who are not current TNS members
includes only about 200 people. This is a much more reasonable sample size for us to judge
how this works. Sending them all the same issue will make it easier for us to insert a
notice in that issue inviting them to join us.
I would be willing to coordinate the efforts of the Constitutional Revision Committee. I
wrote the original draft of the TNS Constitution, on which the ``officers' draft'' which
was eventually adopted was loosely based, and I have a number of ideas regarding
constitutional changes. I am strongly committed to making sure that our constitutional
deliberations are truly participatory and that all interested members have a chance to be
a part of the process.
In Pat Thomas' letter included with Cyd's June 6 memo, he wrote, ``Am surprised at John
Kormes' statement that more than five members on ISPE's committee proved unmanageable.''
We had the same experience on the original TNS Psychometrics Committee, more than ten
years ago. There were six members of the committee, but only Ed Van Vleck and I were
willing to do the research that was needed or even to comment on data and arguments
presented by us; the others just sent in their votes. Another point is that there are very
few people who are knowledgeable in high-range psychometrics and not all of them are
currently members of TNS, so a large committee may mean one composed of people without the
background to make informed decisions.
I have spoken with Pat about these considerations and am forwarding to him some SAT data
from my files to assist in the committee's current deliberations on where the 99.9th
percentile of the general population is on this test.
It's good to see Cyd's ``Suggested Procedures for New Members.'' We need to reduce the
routine activities of the society's officers to explicit procedural form, to avoid
unnecessary confusion when an office has a new incumbent.
With regard to the duties of the Membership Officer, I would like to request that the M.O.
compile statistics on test scores submitted (both qualifying and non-qualifying), on
various tests. (Scores submitted by the same person should be coded to indicate this
fact.) This will be useful for the Psychometrics Committee and will be of interest to many
members of TNS.
John Kormes refers, in his letter of April 30, to a remark by Croft Warn that ``. . . at
one point, most of what seemed to be going on in TNS was a battle between `warrring
factions'.'' A majority of those on the ExCom memo circulation list remember those days
all too well. The cause was officers who thought they were above other people and the TNS
Constitution and who violated the rights of many members. After three disastrous years,
the group to which these officers belonged failed to field enough candidates in the 1991
election to maintain control of the Executive Committee, and where there was a contest
they were turned out by the membership.
The present situation in ISPE is similar in a number of respects, but it has been going on
far longer. Indeed, TNS owes its existence to a rebellion against the authoritarian
leadership of the ISPE.
In her letter of April 20, ISPE President Betty Hansen shows that she's unclear on the
concept of freedom of expression. She berates Cyd for allowing the publication in Vidya
of ``attacks on ISPE and its officials'' (and ain't that highfalutin word typical of the
ISPE leadership's attempts to puff itself up) and ``hostilities against ISPE.''
All members of TNS have the right to submit material for publication in Vidya.
The Editor chooses what to publish, based on the quality of the material submitted,
limitations of space, and the need to present a balance of views on subjects on which TNS
members differ. It would be a violation of the democratic and participatory tradition of
TNS for the Editor to systematically exclude certain views, and if an Editor were to do so
on my watch as a member of the Executive Committee, he would earn my vote for his removal
from office.
Dennis Wilson, on the other hand, is scrupulously fair in his selection of material and is
doing a damn good job of editing Vidya. Mrs. Hansen maligns both Cyd and Dennis
in presuming to divine an intention to refuse publication of certain material. Cyd asked
Betty to withdraw material which she felt was inflammatory. Cyd has also asked those to
whose material Betty objects to moderate their remarks, but this is a not a thinly-veiled
threat of censorship (though it would not be unreasonable to take it that way if
``suggestions'' were made to a mere Member [or lowly Associate Member] of ISPE by the ISPE
President, in the light of what has happened to ISPE members who have insisted on their
right to be heard in the past).