P.O. Box 795
Berkeley, CA 94701
August 12, 1986
To the members of the TNS Executive Committee and others:
In response to Rita Beechey's letter of July 14:
The founders of the Triple Nine Society intended to create a
society in which individual members would be free from coercion
and intimidation by the acts of officers.
Knowing that people in the society vary in their ability to
achieve very high I.Q. scores, and that these scores are
imperfect measures at best, we had no intention of creating
absolute intellectual equality among the members of TNS; what
we did intend was to establish an atmosphere in which any
member would be free to speak his mind and in which all would
have equal rights under the Constitution.
Sadly, our intentions have been undermined by the current
attempt to remove Anne Paradise from membership in the society
and from the post of Ombudsman, to which she was duly elected.
Whether the creation of a category of honorary membership
was a mistake, in the absence of constitutional guidelines, is
questionable. Alice's conversion of Anne's membership probably
was a mistake from a narrowly technical viewpoint, but was very
much in accord with our intention that all members should be
entitled to equal rights.
The logical problem raised in Rita's letter is very simply
resolved. While it is true that the sole requirement for
membership in TNS is an I.Q. score within the top .1% of the
general population, there was a moment in our history when it
was not completely true. This is not a problem if we just let it be.
Anne accepted an honor graciously offered by those who had
taken on the task of guiding the society through its difficult
early days. She did so in good faith. She is a member of the
Triple Nine Society by virtue of the acts of our elected officers,
by the laws of the United States, and by vote of this Committee.
If Anne is a member, she has as much right to run for office as
any other member. She ran for Ombudsman, won election
twice (most recently by a two-to-one margin), and has served
the society well and faithfully. We owe her freedom from any
further impugning of her credentials or her honor.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds."
--Emerson. Integrity is not a matter of impeccable attention to
technical details, but of carrying out honorably one's obligations.
In conferring membership on Anne Paradise, the Triple Nine
Society incurred the obligation not to subject her to the insult
of further deliberations on her qualifications.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of July 15:
While I agree that the Membership Officer is exceeding his
authority in reviewing past membership decisions, I don't think
there's anything wrong with the Executive Committee's reviewing
past decisions about which it has the power and the right to
act.
Reviewing Anne's admission to the society (in the absence of
evidence of fraud on her part) is like reconsidering whether to
pay a bill legally owed and already paid.
I faced the problem Norm refers to with regard to renorming
of tests in the early days of Four Sigma. My norms were revised
by about five points with a larger data base, raising the Four
Sigma qualifying level significantly. It was clear to me then that it
would not be honorable to boot anybody out of the club on this
basis and I didn't do it.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of July 16:
Patrick's Vidya Catalog is a superb contribution to the
society! It makes the thought which has appeared in Vidya over
the years accessible to those interested in particular subjects
or in reviewing discussions spanning many issues.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of July 18:
I'm glad to see Ron's ideas regarding the elimination of the
members-at-large in favor of working officers. As I found myself
not in full agreement regarding which officers should be added to
the committee and with a preference for a parliamentary system--
election of officers first and assignment of portfolios afterwards--
I telephoned Ron and spoke with him about it, hoping to find a
proposal that we could agree upon.
Ron suggested an executive/legislative/judicial system of
government, a suggestion I see a good deal of merit in, but,
in thinking about this issue, I have concluded that there are
problems with all of these suggestions (as well as with our
current system of governance).
We are faced with conflicting principles, in several ways:
Representation of the membership conflicts with voting for
separate offices separately. As a voter, I would rather have the
choice of voting for A and B, rather than having to choose
between them if A is running against B and C is running against
D. If people run for the Executive Committee without commiting
themselves to a specific office, it may be hard to find people
willing to take on the editorship and other relatively burdensome
tasks. Exercise of decision-making power by working officers
conflicts with separation of powers and with freedom from
conflict of interest in making decisions regarding the tenure of
appointive officers. An independent judiciary conflicts with
accountability to the membership.
No perfect solution is possible, but I think that a hybrid system
could work significantly better than the present arrangement,
which, as we have all discovered of recent months, is more
than a little cumbersome.
I suggest that there should be a small Executive Committee,
composed of five or seven members elected at large, with
overall authority to oversee the activities of the society, within
constitutional limits; a number of appointive officers to be
determined and subject to increase as additional functions are
needed, appointed for one-year terms expiring three months
after a new Executive Committee is installed (but terminable
at any time); and an independently elected Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman would perform the investigative functions
of the judicial branch and would present his findings to the
Executive Committee. He would also have the option of
bringing any matter not satisfactorily resolved to the
membership.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of July 21:
I agree that it's hard to sort out exactly which officers were
involved in Anne's admission to the TNS, but I don't think
it's terribly important to the issues involved.
As I have stated above, I don't disapprove of review of past
Executive Committee decisions in general. What I disapprove
of is abrogation of commitments to parties inside or outside
the society made by past Committees (or pre-Constitution
officers).
I don't see the relevance of many of the arguments advanced
in Patrick's letter, but I do agree that "Ms. Paradise must be
considered the blameless victim of some unspecified
officer(s)..." and wonder, therefore, why anyone still proposes
to punish her by depriving her of her membership or by calling
for her resignation from the position of Ombudsman.
Patrick calls upon Anne to repudiate my statement that she
has been vilified by Barry and Scott. I have discussed this
matter with her and she agrees with my report of her remarks.
If anyone has any doubts as to the accuracy of this
characterization of what has been said about Anne, they
should be resolved by the following passage from Scott
McFarland's letter of May 3, written, Barry claims, on the
basis of Barry's research:
I find, though that in this instance, you have
failed to properly apply to this issue, the very ethics
of the office you have held. You have violated the
basic rules of the Society you have represented.
It is difficult to imagine a more personally offensive accusation
than that of unethical behavior and violation of trust. I suppose
that Barry and Scott, whose behavior I have so characterized,
must also feel deeply injured, but I must speak the truth as I
see it.
Patrick's contention that Anne's grievance against Barry and
Scott for their accusations regarding her ethics puts her in a
position of conflict of interest sufficient to require her
resignation as Ombudsman is arrant sophistry. This poses no
danger to the society; if anyone is in a difficult position here,
it is Anne. I suggest that the Executive Committee is the
appropriate body to determine whether false accusations have
been made and whether this requires action by the society.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of July 24:
Norm has done an excellent job of summarizing the positions
of those on both sides of the current controversy, but I doubt if
anyone didn't already have a pretty clear idea of where everyone
stands.
I agree that Patrick's proposed voting procedure is simple
and workable, with the reservation I have expressed before
about allowing long delays in voting. I do believe it is essential
that everyone have a chance to debate a proposal before it is
voted on, but 30 days (let's make that one month; counting
days isn't worth the trouble) should be adequate.
A majority of the Commitee should be required to enact
anything, but tabulation of the results shouldn't be delayed
because someone hasn't voted, if the required time for debate
has been observed.
The Chairman of the Committee should tabulate votes.
I vote yes on all three of Norm's proposals.
In response to Ron Penner's letter of July 27:
I agree that there is a point of disagreement beyond which
one can only maintain a formal relationship and that this has
been lost sight of at times, to the detriment of our ability to
conduct the society's business.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of July 28:
Sooner or later, we have to come to decisions about the
matters before us. When there are no decision-making
procedures in force, someone has to take the initiative to
bring things to a conclusion. In this case, I did so, making
sure, with the election of a Chairman, to set things on a
more orderly course for the future.
The Truman/Dewey upset didn't happen after a poll of all
the voters.
It is true that I spoke with Patrick about the reasons
behind his vote on Anne Paradise's membership status
during my telephone poll--after Patrick began talking
about them and challenging me to rebut his arguments
and after I had noted his vote.
Not greatly to my surprise, no one changed his vote during
my poll of the Committee.
It's possible that Patrick was simply mistaken about Bill
Hoon's position, but Bill says that he told Barry that making
an issue of this matter was ridiculous the first time Barry
mentioned it to him.
With regard to Patrick's guidelines for telephone polling:
1. I didn't attempt to influence votes; I just collected
them. I did engage in discussion of the issues involved with
Patrick and Rita after recording their votes, but I didn't seek
these discussions with either of them.
2. The idea that I acted to cut off debate in a poll in July
on an issue first raised in writing in Barry Kington's letter of
March 31 is plainly absurd.
3. I asked each Committee member I contacted to vote on
whether Anne Paradise should retain her status as a member
of TNS and for his or her choice for Chairman of the
Executive Committee. Nothing could have been more clearly
defined.
4. All responses were unambiguous and verifiable, as they
were printed in my letter of July 19.
5. Everyone had the opportunity to participate except Barry
Kington, whose views were already known to me as a result
of a telephone conversation before my poll and from written
comments in his letter of June 29.
Patrick's allegation that I characterized my opponents in
the Anne Paradise matter as "despicable" is incorrect; I
characterized certain actions as despicable, and I stand by
that characterization.
Similarly, it is the demand for psychometric purity without
regard for circumstances or for the society's ethical obligations
that seems to me to bear a certain resemblance to narrow-
minded insistence on racial, ethnic, and religious purity.
I did not threaten litigation. I said that some of the
statements which have been made by certain parties are
actionable and that Anne would have a cause of action if she
were ejected from the society; a careful reading of my July
19 letter will make this distinction clear. It isn't prudent to go
to court when no provable physical or financial damages have
been sustained.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of August 1:
I don't know about this "both sides" business, but things
have become, to say the least, difficult in the Committee and it
would be very good if, since agreement about certain issues is
unlikely, we could disagree in a more civilized manner.
I vote yes on Norm's points 1-4, but I want to make it clear
that these are not offenses which have been engaged in by "both
sides," but have emanated from certain very particular quarters.
I also want to make it clear that I construe point 2 narrowly
and that we are constitutionally bound to evaluate the
performance of the appointive officers and to remove them if
their conduct in office is found wanting.
I do not fully agree with point 5, as I believe that Barry and
Scott have in fact been guilty of deception, as I have mentioned
in my letters; this fact is directly relevant to our duty to evaluate
their performance.
I understand and sympathize with Norm's concern for harmony
in the society, but as I have said with regard to Ron Hoeflin's
mention of the possibility of forming a competing society, I am
not about to be swayed by threats. I hope that Norm will not
resign, whatever the outcome of his call for votes on these
points.
I do feel that it is important that matters not be escalated
further, but I reserve the right to defend myself, Anne, and the
society from attack from any source and on any level.
After speaking with Marilyn Wyndham, whom I find to be a
sincere and sensible mother of a highly gifted child, I endorse
Norm's proposal that she publish a newsletter for parents of the
highly gifted in TNS. A notice in Vidya should be printed to
inform members of this service.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of August 4:
Even if I wished to prevent other voices from being heard in
"speaking to a wider audience" I do not have the means to do so,
but I have already stated that I will not be the first to take up
this matter in the forum of the general membership.
A note on Scott McFarland's status:
While I feel that Scott has been guilty of inappropriate
advocacy in presenting his findings regarding Anne's membership
status and has been less than candid with us, I do not consider
his offenses to be as serious as Barry's and would be inclined to
forgive his past transgressions if he were to acknowledge them as
errors on his part.
I do feel, however, that it is not in the best interest of the society
for one member to hold three positions (Publicity Officer,
Elections Officer, and Data Processing [mailing labels] Officer).
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon