P.O. Box 795
Berkeley, CA 94701
July 19, 1986
To the members of the TNS Executive Committee and others:
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of June 23:
I am grateful for Norm's half vote for me as Chairman. I
appreciate the vote of confidence, but I still think Norm is the
man for the job.
Recent changes in postal regulations have brought second and
third class mailing rates much closer together. Second class
mail is subject to a lot more constraints than third, especially
regarding publishing frequency (which has become a problem for
us several times in the past), so I am inclined to think that third
class is the best long-term solution for Vidya mailing. As a user
of third class mail myself, I agree that it's at least no more trouble
than first and possibly less trouble. I agree, also, that we have a
good thing going with Ron as Editor, so I'm willing to accept first
class mailing for the time being.
I still see a paid editor as a temporary measure, so I don't
want to see us institutionalize this arrangement too much, but
I'm realistic enough to know that we're likely to continue with
it for at least several months and that it will probably be a future
Executive Committee that will take up this matter the next time
it is considered.
I'd like us to offer Ron all the help and encouragement we
can, but I can't go along with the idea of entering into a long-
term agreement of any kind. The Executive Committee is charged
with oversight of the performance of the appointive officers by
the Constitution; rendering ourselves unable to exercise that
oversight by entering into a long-term contract would be a breach
of our fiduciary duty to the membership.
I don't really care one way or the other between having an
official business journal and setting a one-month time limit for
voting; the important thing is to have some kind of procedures in
place. Members of the Committee must be able to place their
views in the hands of other members, just as we do now by means
of these circular letters. That is why I propose that everything
be printed verbatim if we are to have such a journal.
Failing that, I personally would only send in my votes to
the official business journal and continue to express my thoughts
by means of circular letters, where I know that some damn fool
isn't going to mess with them.
Of course, with regard to very delicate matters, some members
of the Committee might choose to confer by means of telephone
conversations or private letters, as they do now.
I have no interest in looking good or bad; I simply feel that the
membership has a right to know what's going on.
In the case of the current dispute regarding Anne's membership
status, I must balance that interest against Anne's right to
privacy, which I feel is more important. I will not be the first
to disclose this matter to the membership; if it is raised more
generally, I will speak to a wider audience at that time.
I agree that publishing all the logos (especially adjusted to a
common size) would be tedious for the editor and the readers
--but the members seem to want a logo and, if we're to have
one, the selection process must be conducted fairly.
Perhaps the best solution would be to publish a separate
booklet of logo designs and mail it with an issue of Vidya (for
postal economy). Ron would have to do some extra work but
he'd also make some extra money; he'd also realize some
reduction in the normal per-issue work load through the
combined mailing.
I have spoken with Ron about this matter. He mentioned that
he is planning to put out a double November/December issue and
suggested that the logo designs could be accommodated in that
issue without squeezing out other material.
I agree that voting on hundreds of proposed logo designs
requires something more than simply casting one's vote for one
of them, but I'd like to suggest a refinement to Norm's system.
Each member would rank all the logos, using a point system
(say, from minus five to plus five; anything not marked would be
considered to have been ranked zero).
This would result in a clear consensus regarding the value
of competing designs, while making it possible for a member to
boost or retard the chances of selection of any given logo.
I would be willing to let Whittaker's designs compete,
provided that the Executive Committee were to state publicly
that any financial contribution based on the selection of particular
designs will be refused, but I would rather see them excluded
from consideration entirely. If we are to have a logo, it should
be selected for aesthetic merit and appropriate symbolism, not
won by the highest bidder.
In response to Barry Kington's letter of June 29:
Barry's letter begins with a paragraph in which he characterizes
my letters regarding Anne's membership and his status as
Membership Officer as "misconcived" [sic], "emotional reactions,"
"juvenile," and a "RED HERRING," but without providing any
specifics, and concludes by insinuating that I have some sort of
ulterior motive. My motives are exactly as I stated in my letter
of June 19, but it wouldn't matter if they weren't; my proposals
must stand or fall on their merits; who proposed them and why is
irrelevant.
Barry's protestation that he likes Anne and she is a nice
person reminds me of a verse from the song "Going Back to
Berkeley," by Peter Krug, written in the thick of the revolutionary
youth movement of the 60's, which I have reproduced below:
Police are so polite in Berkeley
And each one has a college degree.
If ever one should shoot you with his gun
He's sure to say, "Oh, pardon me!"
For the Membership Officer to agonize over his duty of informing
someone that the scores he or she has submitted do not meet the
admission standards of the society because one member was
admitted on other grounds at some time in the past is to take
himself, I.Q., and the society far too seriously. Anne's presence
is not going to destroy the Triple Nine Society.
The Ombudsman has nothing to do with the member selection
process; the Ombudsman is charged with dealing with members'
complaints against the actions of officers of the society, not with
second-guessing admission decisions.
I would have preferred for this matter never to have been
raised, as I view the idea that anyone's membership status should
be reevaluated years down the road as highly objectionable, but,
once a vote has been called for, neither I nor anyone else is
suggesting that that vote should not be tabulated. We need to
tabulate it and dispose of this matter once and for all.
The question is not, and has never been, whether the Triple
Nine Society is a high-I.Q. club or a social club. It is whether
the credentials of people already in the club can be reexamined
at the whim of the officers of the society.
We do not admit people to the TNS provisionally. Once
you're in, you're in. When the officers certify someone as a
member of the society, the member has every right to assume
that that's the end of the matter. Reopening this matter five years
down the road is a violation of Anne's membership rights.
While it is true that, if a mistake has been made, it does
not cease to be a mistake with the passage of time, there is a
principle of law, which is firmly established as part of our
legal tradition, that some mistakes must be allowed to stand--
the more so when they are long in the past.
I have spoken to my attorney about this matter and she has
advised me that, if Anne were stripped of her TNS membership,
she would have a strong cause of action and would probably be
in a position to collect substantial damages from the society.
Such an eventuality would almost certainly lead to the demise of
the society. I am not suggesting that this a likely course of action
on Anne's part, but it would be a serious breach of fiduciary
duty for any member of this Committee to vote to place the
society in such a legally and financially compromised position.
I understand that many of the early admission records of the
society have been lost or misplaced. If we open the door to this
kind of second-guessing, any member might be subjected to
demands for new evidence of qualification for membership.
In a recent telephone conversation, Louis Mathe told me that
when Barry first mentioned the question of Anne's membership
to him he tried to talk him out of making an issue of it, but that
Barry persisted to the point where it began to seem as though
a decision had already been reached and all that was left to do
was to carry it out. Louis then tried to carry out this "decision"
as diplomatically as possible.
Louis kindly declined to interpret this as Barry's "practicing
deceit" on him, but this has been a part of Barry's mode of
operation all along--people are led to believe that what Barry
wants is inevitable. I am not just surmising this; before the
issue of Anne's membership ended our telephone relationship,
he tried to use the same technique on me.
Barry states that I was "WRONG" in writing that "It now ap-
pears 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." He states further that voting on this matter has
resulted in a 4 to 4 tie because Ron Hoeflin has changed his
position, and goes on to say:
Therefore, we have one of three options;
a. vote again
b. ask Anne to cast the deciding vote
c. go to the members.
Ron changed his vote all right--from favoring Barry's proposal
to strip Anne of membership in the society to opposing it!
I don't have any reason to think that Barry is engaging in
deceptive tactics here, but he got his totals wrong on the basis
of a misapprehension regarding Ron's position.
Even if there were a tie vote there would not be a standoff,
as Ron Penner has pointed out. According to parliamentary
rules, a tie vote results in the defeat of the proposition under
consideration.
I have made a canvass of the Committee with regard to this
matter within the past few days (except that I did not speak
with Barry Kington--but he has placed his vote on Anne's
membership status on record). The results of my canvass are
as follows:
For Anne's retaining her TNS membership:
Hoeflin, Hoon, Langdon, Mathe, Paradise, Treloar (6)
Against:
Beechey, Hill, Kington (3)
If anyone's vote has been misstated, that person, may, of
course, object to the above enumeration. Otherwise, the matter
has been settled. I hope that those on the losing side will accept
the result graciously and will not prolong this battle; it has not
been easy on Anne nor good for the society.
I am not demanding that Scott McFarland be removed from the
offices he holds in TNS. I believe that Scott and Barry have
violated the trust of their offices, as I have stated in my
earlier letters, and I have suggested that, following this
Committee's evaluation of their performance (mandated by the
Constitution to be done no less frequently than once a year--and
both Scott and Barry have served more than a year), it would be
preferable to find other candidates to fill these offices. It is up to
the Committee as a whole to make a final determination on these
appointments.
In the course of the Committee's deliberations, it is relevant to
note that Barry Kington is incapable of writing a grammatical
English sentence--surely not an asset in an officer who is
expected to communicate with candidates for membership in the
Triple Nine Society.
Scott has a right to an opinion about TNS business, but, in
an official report to the Committee on important pending
business, he has a duty to be objective and impartial. People
were misled by Scott's presentation of the matter of Anne's
membership status and changed their views as a result of
acquiring a more balanced picture of the situation.
Scott falsely stated that he had been asked by the Executive
Committee to conduct an investigation into this matter.
Barry's allegation that he did all the research regarding
Anne's position does not stand to the credit of either Barry
or Scott, as Scott presented his findings as his own, without
acknowledging Barry's part in collecting the information
presented, and Barry did nothing to set the record straight
until this late date. Now, in attempting to defend his agent, he
has shot himself in the foot.
Barry has made it clear that he thinks that everything he
has done is just fine and dandy; he has specifically declined to
admit that he may have been wrong, citing his "principals" [sic].
I think that something needs to be made clear here. Many
people are of the opinion that if something is done "on princi-
ple," one is bound to respect it as moral action, no matter how
much one may disagree with it.
I disagree strongly with this view. Bad principles are
worse than no principles at all. The torturers of the Inquisition
acted on principle. Hitler sent millions to the gas chamber on
principle. Terrorists kill innocent people and blow up airplanes
on principle. I am tired of such "principles."
I share the disdain for unprincipled, opportunistic action
on which the view that any principles are better than none is
based, but, in the history of the world, there is no doubt that
principles such as "doctrinal purity," "ideological purity," and
"racial purity" have done more harm than old-fashioned greed.
Now we are faced with a new demand for "psychometric
purity," despite the fact that I.Q. scores are problematic at best,
justifying a campaign of vilification against an innocent person
whose only crime was to accept an honor conferred on her by
our society in gratitude for the contribution of her late husband.
For shame! I view these actions as despicable and I call for the
resignation of those responsible.
Contrary to Barry's assertion, I am well aware that advertising
in the U.S. pages of the Mensa Bulletin is more expensive
than advertising in the International Section. These pages are
also much more lively.
I am suggesting that we try running an ad in the U.S. section
(and in the comparable pages of the British and Canadian
Mensa newsletters) and see whether it's cost effective. I also
think that we should print our qualifying scores as part of our
advertising; why should people have to embarrass themselves by
submitting evidence they're not sure is qualifying?
Why is Barry's "girlfriend," Dr. Estes, being given access
to information (the ages of young members) not contained in the
published TNS roster for the purpose of running a program for
gifted children without consultation with or approval by the
Executive Committee? The matter of gifted children is a delicate
one and the question of liability needs to be addressed before we
give our approval to any program in this area.
Barry is quite right that he talked with me on the phone
about having the annual meeting in Dallas. What I told him then
remains my position now: I have no objection to Dallas or any
other city as a site for the annual meeting if at least three
local members will take responsibility for organizing the meet-
ing and doing the work necessary to put it on.
I understand that Eva Penn is moving to San Francisco and
may not even be in Dallas when the meeting is held. This is
precisely the sort of eventuality that makes me believe a
committee on the spot is a necessity.
When Barry spoke to me, I had no idea that the meeting would
be at the Dallas airport. I object to this, as airports are
noisy, full of air pollution, and among the most artificial
environments created by man. In my opinion, we need to ask for
volunteers to organize a host committee for the annual meeting,
not just go along with Barry's unilateral action.
I urge the Committee to disapprove this ill-advised plan.
I must join Barry Kington in regretting that "certain mem-
bers must regress to name-calling and making misleading state-
ments," but the names I am thinking of are "juvenile," "sick,"
"childish," etc., and the one guilty of gratuitous insults and
misleading statements is Barry himself.
Barry has made some accusations about Ron Penner's telephone
courtesy; Ron denies them. I am inclined to believe Ron. In any
case, Ron's actions are of no concern to us at this point, as he
is no longer a member of this Committee.
I see no reason to apologize to Barry or Scott for my statements
regarding their performance as officers of the Triple Nine Society,
as Barry demands. I stand behind every word I've written on this
subject.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of July 15:
I agree with everything Norm has to say regarding Anne's
membership and Barry's allegations and opinion of his mandate as
Membership Officer.
The point raised in the P.S. regarding tabulation of the
vote on the many issues before the Committee is a vital one; we
need to have some voting procedures in place before we can deal
with the business at hand.
Both Rita and Louis informed me that they had received no
votes at all on any of the matters to be voted upon; I understand
that Scott is on vacation and has not tabulated votes received by
him for this reason.
The suggestion that all votes be sent to Louis Mathe is a
reasonable one, but a more definitive solution is needed.
It seems to me that the first order of business is to elect
a Chairman of this Committee. To that end, I have canvassed the
Committee, with the following result:
For Patrick Hill:
Beechey, Treloar (1/2 vote) (1-1/2)
For Kevin Langdon
Treloar (1/2 vote) (1/2)
For Louis Mathe
Kington (1) NOTE: Mathe is constitutionally ineligible.
For Norm Treloar
Hill, Hoeflin, Hoon, Langdon, Mathe, Paradise (6)
Norm Treloar has been elected Chairman of the Executive
Committee. I have informed him of his election and he has accepted.
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon