Kevin Langdon
P.O. Box 795
Berkeley, CA 94701
[old e-mail address omitted]
June 26, 1995
To the TNS EXecutive Committee:
As usual, paragraphs containing motions are marked with an
asterisk followed by the motion number, for the convenience of
voting members of the Executive Committee.
In Clint Williams' memo of March 8, he noted that my motion to
appoint Cyd Bergdorf Regent does not require a second, citing
ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. Clint's conclusion is correct,
but ROBERT'S is not the primary authority here, as it itself gives
precedence to explicitly adopted rules of a body using it as a
parliamentary guide. The TNS Constitution gives the ExCom the
authority to fill a vacancy and procedures adopted by the ExCom
do not require seconds for this or any other motion.
I vote YES on all the outstanding motions made by me and
contained in the ballot circulated with the June 12, 1995 ExCom
memo, except Motion (1) and the motion labeled ``past'' by Cyd,
both of which I vote to HOLD for further consideration (see
below). My replies to Clint Williams' comments on my motions
(1) and (5) follow:
Motion (1) (Publication of Dale Adams' Letter in ExCom memo):
While I would not like to see TNS involved in a libel suit, I
believe that the Regent (who edits the ExCom memo) and the
Editor of VIDYA are under an obligation to ascertain whether
the society is actually at risk legally before censoring a
contribution. The most important part of this is examining
supporting documentation when allegations are made which could
be actionable if not provably true. Such documentation should be
requested if there is any question. If a situation arises in which the
Regent or the Editor does not understand the legalities involved,
he or she should be able to request assistance from the Legal
Officer, one of which we therefore should have. I'm glad that Cyd
has initiated the process to appoint a Legal Officer.
Dale, what is your view regarding the letter in question? Do you
still want it published? I add my HOLD to Larry Jess' on Motion
(1), to give us a chance to hear from Dale and others on this
matter.
* (8) Thirty days is the way the rule was originally written; I
move that we change the delay period to the greater of 30 days or
until publication of the next ExCom memo. Also, the rules require
only one HOLD vote to delay tabulation of the vote by one cycle;
the intent of the rule was to prevent anything from being
railroaded through without opportunity for comment before voting.
I see no reason to change this part of the rule.
Motion (5) (Apology to John Kormes): Clint wrote: ``A previous
VIDYA Editor was advised that he had exposed himself and the
Triple Nine Society to libel action by publishing, in the Jounral
of the Triple Nine Society, uncontested allegations of I.S.P.E.
improprieties.'' Obviously, nothing published in VIDYA need be
uncontested; the pages of our journal are available to the ISPE
leadership--and Betty Hansen has made use of them recently.
Also, we have nothing to fear legally if criticism of the ISPE printed
is demonstrably TRUE, no matter how harsh.
Welcome, Travis Houser! I'm sorry you had so much trouble voting,
but I'm glad you alerted us to the problem. Our election
procedures could use some tightening up.
I sympathize with B.B. Crawford, the Greeter with no one to
greet. The main problem here is simple enough: not enough new
members. We need to get VIDYA going again and then to advertise
in the MENSA BULLETIN. Hopefully, the nemes and addresses of
new members will be sent promptly to the Greeter, as well as to the
person in charge of the mailing list, by the Financial Officer, when he
accepts new members' initial dues payments. If this is already being
done, cool.
In Cyd Bergdorf's memo of February 21, she commented favorably
on Paul Maxim's suggestion that members be given the opportunity
to vote ``NO'' instead of for the candidates appearing on election
ballots. Of course, this postpones the problem of finding an
acceptable candidate to do the job. The best way to give the
members a choice is to run for office yourself; please consider
doing so if you can anticipate being able to give enough energy
to your office to stay in the loop.
Cyd brought up an important question having to do with the
Executive Committee's participation in setting editorial policy
for VIDYA. I think that we should establish such a policy. I
would like to propose a few elements to be included in the
policy, in order of priority:
1. Official announcements, petitions, candidacy statements (of
up to half a page), and other official business shall be
published in full without editorial changes.
2. Anyone who is attacked in the pages of VIDYA shall be
afforded commensurate space to reply, whether or not he or
she is a member of the Triple Nine Society.
3. All sides of controversial issues shall be presented, without
editorial favoritism.
4. Editorial decisions shall be made on the basis of the quality
of thought contained in contributions and not according to
whether the Editor agrees with the authors' conclusions or
approves of the authors' character and/or behavior.
5. The Editor shall try to be responsive to the interests of the
membership.
I will be intrested in others' comments on and additions to the
above.
I'd like to get all the votes in on my motion for TNS to
apologize to Kent Shultz. I think it's the right thing to do. But
I'm pleased that Cyd is willing to support a motion to apologize
for the ``O.J. Shultz'' cover.
Cyd is not taking into account the point that I made at the end
of my memo of February 17, in her opposition to my motion for
an apology to John Kormes: CLINT HIMSELF said that he
was not publishing John's material pending the outcome of a vote
on Clint's (illegal) motion to expel John, thus, as I also pointed
out, violating John's right to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. Therefore, it's irrelevant whether, as Cyd wrote,
``people in this group show very little talent for accurately
divining each others [sic] motives.''
Cyd has expressed reluctance to contact the FBI regarding the
Zaslove matter. The ExCom has voted that this needs to be done
and has directed the Regent to do it. This is reasonable, given
that the TNS Constitution provides that only the Regent is
authorized to speak for the Society. But if Cyd's is
uncomfortable with this, I'm willing to take this into account.
Cyd mentioned the motion to bar Barry Zaslove from TNS for
life. I voted NO, mainly to avoid setting a precedent that could
be used against some innocent person in the future, but I do
think that we should do something about this. I like Cyd's ideas
on thesubject (see below).
In Hal Darancette's memo of February 8, he wrote:
Ron Hoeflin was also present at that meeting [the
constitution drafting meeting at the home of the late
Alice Grant], and even though I beat him at chess, we
got along quite well for years. Then I think he was
taken in by the siren song of certain barbarians and
it was all down hill from then on. I am still not
satisfied that he has properly accounted for all monies
received fromt the TNS funds for editing VIDYA
(circa Zaslove et al.).
Ron Hoeflin agrees that he owes TNS money. A few months
ago, when I was searching for a way to get VIDYA back on
track, I suggested that we hire Ron again, as we did a few
years ago, to edit and publish VIDYA, as he has a recond of
publishing on time.
When I discussed this with Ron, HE suggested that he could do a
few issues for free to pay off his debt to TNS. This would be
much more possible for him than to come up with the cash, as he
lives on a very samll income.
[Ron Hoeflin did, in fact, eventually repay TNS in full.]
Kent Shultz' figure of three percent, in his memo of January 16,
for repeat offences among paroled sex offenders does not accord
with other figures I've seen, even allowing for the fact that the
average time out of prison for subjects of the study was only two
years and that those who were not apprehended were not included.
I don't have time to research this before I must send off this
memo, but I don't believe that number.
Confirmed, lifetime pedophiles, the kind who belong to NAMBLA,
have showed up in circles of people I've known on several
occasions. I know that these individuals, at least, repeated
their offense every time they got a chance--and actually claimed
not to see anything wrong with it! I'm sure these people don't
present their NAMBLA membership cards to the police and the
courts; there's no way (short of number of arrests and/or
convictions, too little too late as a criterion) to tell them from
somebody who just got a lttle confused. Society can't afford
to take the risk. Molest a child, go to prison for life, with no
possibility of parole until a doctor certifies that you're dying.
Them's hard lines, but I believe in the priority of protecting our
children over the (poor) chance of rehabilitating the perpetrators.
Comments on the ExCom memo of June 12, 1995:
I have already mentioned above the inaccuracy of Cyd's remark
that ``Motions with three or more `Hold' votes will be held for
the next ballot.'' It only takes one.
Cyd wrote, ``The position of Editor is now officially vacant.''
The truth of this proposition depends on whether you believe that
it's possible to put a HOLD on an officer appointment. The HOLD
procedure was developed with regard to MOTIONS specifically.
Ignoring Cyd's HOLD, which will in any case no longer prevent
passage of the appointment as of the next ExCom memo, the table
on page 5 of the June 12 memo lists Bob Kopp as voting for
himself as Editor. This would give Bob a majority of five votes
out of eight. But, although Bob is not eligible to vote on his
own appointment (TNS Constitution, Article IV, Section 1), he
STILL has a majority of four out of seven votes. Perhaps another
vote for Bob will remove the need to rely on legal fine points.
Cyd continued, ``Bob Kopp, currently Membership Officer, is
guest editor for the next issue.'' Depending on how you understand
the above, it could also be the case that Bob is now Editor for real
and ``guest'' Membership Officer.
The appointment of Bob Kopp as Editor is not controversial at
this time, so the sticky ambiguities mentioned above probably
will not lead to major problems here, but the TNS Constitution
is full of land mines like this. They have already created big
headaches during past disputes in TNS. Therefore, I respond
strongly in the affirmative to Cyd's request for expression of
interest on page 5 of the ExCom memo:
I agree that our Constitution should be amended to
allow for more flexibility when volunteers are scarce,
and will gladly revive the Constitution Review
Committee if others are interested in that.
Back on page 1, Cyd wrote:
Either Psychometrics Committee mailings have stopped
or my name has fallen from the mailing list. I will
contact PsyCom Chair Kjeld Hvatum to determine his
intentions for the group.
The Psychometrics Committee has been inactive ever since Kjeld
was appointed Chairman. I think we need to start over on this.
At a minimum, an announcement should be made in VIDYA calling
for anyone interested in serving on this Committee to write to the
Regent. Also, the last Committee was too large. It's very difficult
to find nine people willing to do even as much as sending in votes
on pending business; five would be about the right size.
We need to take a hard look at our admission criteria. New tests
have appeared and old ones (like the LAIT) are no longer being
scored. Some tests that we've accepted in the past probably
should not be accepted at all. There have been mistakes in
setting qualifying scores (such as in our SAT cutoff, which
resulted in our lowering the cutoff on that test by 80 points).
Cyd doesn't seem quite clear to me on the issues in the Shultz/
Williams matter. I don't care if Clint criticized Kent or called
him names ACTING AS AN INDIVIDUAL; the point is that
he vilified a member IN HIS CAPACITY AS EDITOR OF
Vidya.
Cyd suggested that individual members circulate a ``letter of
protest or regret'' and submit it for publication in VIDYA.
That's not enough. The society itself must apologize for the
mischief caused by an officer of TNS acting in his official
capacity.
I agree, for the most part, with the conclusions drawn by Cyd
in her summary of the status of the ``free lifetime membership''
proposal. It's an interesting idea but not the answer to a
crisis and there is no consensus yet as to what kind of program
would be best. I wouldn't like to see something enacted in
haste but I'm open to further exploration of our options.
Cyd reproduced the contents of a postcard from Loren Harris:
To the ExCom: I find it a bizarre and highly
questionable procedure that Mr. Langdon continues to
resubmit motions that were previously defeated--
perhaps in the hope that someone who previously voted
in the negative might be caught napping. Can anyone
play this annoying game, or is it only open to those
who ``oppose tyranny wherever they find it'' (and
define tyranny as whatever they oppose)?
A motion in the ExCom has passed when it has received five
or more YES votes and has been defeated when the number
of NO and ABSTAIN votes is five or more. Due to the
disorganization of the ExCom's parliamentary machinery during
Clint's term as ``Acting Regent'' and to the procrastination of
some members of this Committee, a number of matters have
not been resolved. Hopefully, the missing votes in Cyd's table
of motions will be in hand by the publication of the next ExCom
memo.
In addition to saving my own ass a few times, I've defended a
78-year-old woman I didn't know who was being bullied by
officers of TNS, objected to the demotion of 3/4 of the
members of the Mega Society to honorary membership, and
spoken out against official mistreatment of a convicted child
molester, among other actions in the arena of higher-I.Q.-
societies governance. It shouldn't take a card-carrying genius
to see that I act on exactly the principles of democracy and
member rights that I espouse in these societies.
I like Cyd's idea of sending Barry Zaslove a bill for the amount
he walked away with, and agree that we should do this before
contacting the FBI. We should also contact Zaslove's present
employer if he gives us any crap.
In Clint Williams' memo of April 8, he wrote:
A Triple Nine Society member whose essays and letters
were published in VIDYA is attempting to sue a past
Editor of that journal for libel and defamation.
Although the plaintiff's initial filing of a ``civil action''
names only the past Editor as ``Respondent,''
attorneys representing either party in the action might
interpret the Triple Nine Society's Constitution as
asserting authority over VIDYA's Editor such that the
Society itself must inevitably be a ``Co-respondent''
to this civil action. THe Executive Committee might
therefore consider whether comments on any pending
legal action of which it has knowledge and discussions
of any disciplinary actions against past Editors might
so undeniably demonstrate Executive Committee
responsibility for its Editors and its journal that the
Executive Committee itself might become a party in
any such civil action.
This paragraph is a sneaky attempt to scare the members of this
Committee into voting against the motion for TNS to apologize
to Shultz. In fact, if what Clint has written is true and we could
be drawn into Shultz' lawsuit, that's all the more reason that
we should distance ourselves from Clint's action by passing the
motion.
In John Kormes' memo of March 14, replying to Cyd Bergdorf,
he wrote:
I am not ``annoyed,'' as she indicates, that she urged
me to drop the suit against ISPE. Au contraire, I am
annoyed that seemingly she did not (does not)
understand that my suit was brought for the benefit of
every member of every high IQ society in the world. Mr.
Head, who allegedly contributed $5,000.00, and Mr.
Williams, who sent me a copy of his $25.00 check to the
``defense fund'' of ISPE, and others, were (are) aware
that the Trustees and President of ISPE acted in total
violation of the group's Charter.
I understand that John's actions accrue to the benefit of the
members of the high-I.Q. societies generally. If I weren't broke
right now, I'd send my own check for $25.00 to the``prosecution
fund'' to help John defray the expenses of his suit. Violation of
the ISPE Charter by the officers of that group has been going on
for years. Many people have been abused. I applaud anyone who
stands up to the ISPE leadership.
In his memo of March 18, John Cooper wrote:
I located Barry Zaslove (anyone else of lesser
intelligence could also have called information in
Boston and done the same thing) and turned the
information over to the Regent at that time.
This is good, as John, as Financial Officer, should be the one to
send the bill to Zaslove. Thanks for taking the initiative here,
John.
John wrote:
I oppose any attempt to sanction an apology to Kent
Shultz from the Excom or published in VIDYA. I thought
his article was interesting, but he opened the door
and walked in. A letter of apology would, to me, seem a
sanction for what he has done, and I would personally
like to see him burn in hell.
I don't agree that apologizing to Shultz for the Editor's
characterization of him would in any way sanction his behavior,
which I condemn, especially since Kent himself has expressed
his disapproval of the behavior in question (though I am among
those who would be more impressed by an abject apology to
society in general).
Within the Christian worldview, as I understand it, one must
not hope that anyone burn in hell; rather, one hopes that he
will repent before it is too late (``Hate the sin, love the sinner'').
This doesn't mean that we have to let him out of prison; that's
not Christian forgiveness, it's tempting fate.
John also wrote:
In the interest of protecting the TNS treasury from
misappropriation of funds, I will not pay any bills
from any printer directly without written authorization
form the editor that the work has been performed
satisfactorily.
I approve of this attitude in a Financial Officer. I didn't mean
to suggest that money should be advanced before the finished
work is approved by the Editor. I've spoken with a number of
Editors of the journals of the various high-I.Q. societies and
people who've contemplated editing them; cash flow is one of
the considerations that makes them hesitate to take on the job.
I'm interested in the TNS history project mentioned in Paul
Maxim's memo of March 28 and would like to see Dale
Adams' manuscript. But I think it might be better for historical
documents concerning these societies not to be produced
under the auspices of the societies themselves.
Paul description of his VIDYA reprint program includes the
following language:
Dale Adams will be named Triple Nine's DE FACTO
historian.
Although DE FACTO, and DE JURE are not mutually exclusive
logically, the phrase is usually used in an XOR sense--``in fact
only, not officially.'' Thus if Dale is NAMED Triple Nine's
DE FACTO historian, he will cease to be DE FACTO.
Paul proposed the publication of a series of reprints of back
issues of VIDYA. This is an interesting idea but is probably too
ambitious to undertake until we get things better organized.
In his memo of April 1, Paul proposed a book of essays on high-
range psychometrics. As I and others have pointed out, there is
a need for a peer-reviewed journal in this field. I have recently
proposed in NOESIS, the journal of the Mega Society, that, as
NOESIS itself is currently the main vehicle for publication of
material in this field, Mega should take formal responsibility
for carrying out this needed function. NOESIS is available to
nonmembers by subscription ($2/issue). Write to the Editor,
Rick Rosner, [address omitted].
What is the status of this year's annual meeting? We need to act
without delay to get announcements into the journals of all the
higher-I.Q. societies in time for them to be printed before the
meeting.
Cyd: I've used CAPITALIZATION in place of italics in this ASCII
file. Please make changes where appropriate if you have time (and
watch out for the places where caps are intended).