P.O. Box 795
Berkeley, CA 94701
November 11, 1986
Members of the TNS Executive Committee and Others:
We are faced at this time with the necessity of taking
action, without further delay, to resolve the current crisis in
the affairs of the society, either among ourselves or by
submitting the whole business to a vote of the membership.
I agree with Patrick Hill's proposal to make the
correspondence of the Executive Committee available to
the membership, but I believe that, in order to insure
informed decision-making in the future guidance of the
society, our constituents must have access to the complete
set of information regarding the disputes which have so
sharply divided the Committee.
Therefore, I propose that the Triple Nine Society publish
and send to all members all Executive Committee
correspondence from Barry Kington's letter of March 31,
1986, in which he first raises the question of the legitimacy
of Anne Paradise's TNS membership, including Patrick
Hill's transcript of the conversation at the annual meeting.
I am aware that this will be costly, but I think that the
membership has a right to know what we're up to and a
need to be informed before the next election.
I am convinced of the need to present my position on the
matters which confront us to the membership, but I don't
want to make a one-sided presentation. The best way to
insure balance is to print everything.
Exacerbating our personal difficulties with one another has
been the ambiguity and mechanical failure of the rules we
operate under. It is important that we establish more
explicit rules to operate under. The present constitution is
inadequate. I support the current debate on changes to
our system of governance. The present situation
underscores the need to keep power in the hands of the
members. Officers are a necessary evil and their powers
must be narrowly circumscribed. I will have more specific
proposals to offer in my next letter.
I hope that we can find a way to conduct our business with
less acrimony, but it is unacceptable to me to buy peace at
the cost of principle. I intend to continue to state my views
candidly.
I would suggest that if members of the Committee find one
another's positions dishonorable or irrational in the future
that they confine themselves to saying so, without
descending to characterizations of their opponents'
motivations or actions outside their official capacity as
officers of the society.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of August 27:
Norm's letter is not calculated to win friends and influence
people, but there is a good deal of truth in it.
Barry's attempts to bring the wrath of the postal service
down on me do not amuse me at all and seem to me totally
inappropriate as a response to my actions within the context
of the business of the Executive Committee.
This is the type of violent overreaction which we have seen
before from Barry. This, and his consistent failure to consult
the Executive Committee on decisions beyond the scope of
his office, have caused me to lose confidence in Barry as an
officer of the Society.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of September 3:
Patrick's points about the question I asked in my telephone
poll are moot in the light of later developments, but I, frankly,
do not understand how someone can be a member and not
be entitled to run for office. I don't want to belong to a
society that distinguishes between first- and second-class
members.
Patrick claims to have "offered several ways out of this
debacle," which is quite true. The trouble with this is that
none of Patrick's alternatives recognize the Society's legal
and moral obligation to accept that it is bound by its officers'
past actions with regard to the acceptance of Anne Paradise
as a member of the Society, and therefore none of them, in
my opinion, are honorable courses of action.
Norm Treloar is not a hypocrite. He wants to please everyone,
which is impossible, and allows himself to be swayed too
easily. Every time he takes a position he thinks he is doing the
right thing, alathough it may not be consistent with what he did
or said in the past.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of September 4:
It wasn't very realistic of Norm to expect everybody to stop
contending with one another on his say so, but it's equally
unrealistic to expect him to resign and let those with whom
he is in disagreement carry the day.
In response to Barry Kington's letter of September 4:
I disagree with the "old sage" quoted. More wisdom means
less disagreement and much less acrimony.
Invitations to the annual meeting are Society business and
should not be issued by one officer without consultation with
the Executive Committee. In inviting the reporter from USA
Today, Barry has once again overstepped the bounds of the
authority delegated to him by the Committee.
In response to Ron Penner's letter of September 7:
Ron's point that the Constitution prohibits anyone but the
Regent from representing the Society is also relevant to
Barry's contact with the USA Today reporter. Barry has
sought publicity in the past without consulting the Committee
and the results have been sensationalistic and thus
counterproductive.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of September 8:
As I pointed out above, the appropriate starting point for a
compilation of Executive Committee correspondence is Barry's
letter of March 31, in which the matter of Anne Paradise's
membership status is first mentioned.
I have no record of a letter from Scott McFarland dated
August 25. Patrick, can you supply a copy?
I recognize, of course, that Scott labored in the service of
the Society. I feel that more than that must be expected of our
officers. Scott was guilty of misconduct for which he expressed
no remorse. I wasn't sorry to see him resign his offices.
The personal attacks and inflammatory language on pages two
and three of Patrick's letter serve no legitimate purpose and
are not deserving of a reply, but I do wish to set the record
straight with regard to certain matters mentioned.
Patrick is not talking about the real world when he says,
"Evidently, Mr. Langdon, you were unwilling or unable to
produce a reasoned rebuttal and chose instead to discredit
those who disagreed with you..." No other party to the debate
which has been raging over the past several months has been
as thorough as I have been in addressing the arguments raised.
If there is some point in particular to which I have somehow
failed to reply, I will be happy to do so in my next letter.
Ron Hoeflin is mistaken. Omni did not obtain a judgement
against me. I suggest that Ron, Patrick , and Barry (who has
also repeated this allegation) would do well to check their facts
before making actionable statements.
Over 20,000 people have received their scores on the LAIT.
Those who have been kept waiting will all, without exception,
receive what they have paid for. Publication of the third issue
of NET has been delayed, but all subscribers (and a lot of
other folks) will get their copies. All orders for other products
announced as available have been fulfilled. Not that it's any of
the Executive Committee's business.
It is not the business of the Ombudsman to investigate the
complaints of members against other members. The function
of the Ombudsman is to investigate complaints by members
against the officers of the Society in the performance of their
official duties. Period.
According to the TNS Constitution (Article II, Section 5):
The Ombudsman shall receive complaints from members
and prospective members concerning irregularities in the
conduct of the Society's business, investigate such
complaints, and publish findings concerning matters
that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all
parties in the pages of the Society's journal...
In response to Ron Penner's letter of September 12:
I agree with Ron that it was the intent of the founders of
TNS that the appointive officers serve at the pleasure of the
Executive Committee and that no officer has the right to retain
an office indefinitely by virtue of his performance of the duties
of the office.
In response to Louis Mathe's letter of September 17:
I agree with Louis that it is unfortunate that the Executive
Committee has been preoccupied with disputes recently. Still,
we must face the situation which exists in fact, not live in a
fantasy of how we would like things to be. We must resolve
the problems we face; they won't go away by themselves.
In response to Barry Kington's letter of September 18:
I am opposed to running advertisements in Vidya.
I told Barry that the LAIT was available for testing applicants
for membership, but the main thrust of my remarks was that
the Society should not be sending out copies of the BAT, as
the Psychometrics Committee recommended that we cease
accepting BAT scores for admission purposes unless Phil
Bloom provides data on the test norming. I also mentioned
that LAIT scoring is not current.
The test score that got me into Mega was the highest ever
recorded on the very difficult Mobius Test, on which a number
of Mega members had performed considerably less well.
Barry mentions that there was a period during which TNS did
not advertise (I am not aware that any officer "suppressed
advertisement of TNS"), to the detriment of membership figures.
I raised the issue of advertising, with the result that we resumed
advertising and regained the membership that we had lost.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of September 26:
I am in favor of full disclosure of the Executive Committee
correspondence, as I have stated above. I have no interest in
preserving appearances. I think it is better that people should
know the truth, even if it is unpleasant. Surely our members
are intelligent enough not to expect that disputes will not arise
from time to time.
Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution has nothing to do
with the question of disclosure. It reads, in full:
Independent committees or other bodies of members which
do not infringe upon the responsibilities of the Executive
Committee are not precluded, rather they are encouraged.
I do not believe that official correspondence of the Executive
Committee is privileged. The members have a right to know
how we are conducting the business of the Society. I objected
to the invasion of Anne's privacy, but Ron's announcement in
Vidya makes that moot.
I'd be sorry to see Louis leave the Executive Committee or
the Society, but I believe that our correspondence should be
published and I won't be swayed by threats from any quarter.
In response to Anne Paradise's letter of October 18:
I fully support Anne's decision to remain in office. It
took a lot of courage to stand up for her rights and her duty
to the members who elected her, rather than bowing to
pressure from the "logicians."
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of October 24:
It isn't necessary to provide explicitly that members may
communicate freely, as they will do so regardless of what
procedures are in effect.
I have reservations about the idea of privileged
communications. There are things that the Committee and/
or the membership has a right to know, and if someone
tells me something that falls into that category I won't let
the notion that telephone conversations are privileged
stand in my way.
Taping conversations seems like a lot of trouble. I agree
that telephone conversations should be verified in writing
when possible.
I agree that any member should be able to raise an issue.
Of the terms presented, I prefer "proposal." "Initiative"
has another meaning, while a "resolution" normally
expresses a statement of opinion rather than an action. I
agree that all members of the Committee should have the
right to make proposals. Once made, a proposal must be
voted on; the Chairman's discretion extends only to the
grouping of conflicting alternatives to provide clear-cut
choices.
I agree, also, that members of the Committee ought to be
able to vote by means of their circular letters, as long as
such letters are sent to all members of the Committee.
We have agreed that votes should go to the Chairman. The
Constitution prohibits the Regent from serving as Chairman.
When the deadline for voting on a particular proposal has
passed, the Chairman should notify all members of the
Committee of the result without delay.
I like the idea of reporting all proposals and the votes cast
for or against them to the membership.
I'd be willing to go along with an additional month for
debate on a proposal if three members of the Committee
feel more time is needed.
Normally, I agree, five votes should be required to pass a
proposal, but situations may arise in which there are seven or
fewer members of the Committee eligible to vote (vacancies,
self-declared conflict of interest, and voting on appointive
officers' own tenure all could reduce the number eligible).
A majority of those eligible to vote should be required in all
cases. This is simpler than what Patrick has proposed, but
in the same general direction.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of October 31:
Anne Paradise is a full member of TNS, by law and ethically.
This fact has recently been ratified by vote of the Executive
Committee. We don't need any new proposals to that effect.
The Executive Committee is not, and should not be, in the
business of endorsing or withholding endorsement from
candidates for office. The electoral process is governed by
the Constitution. We can't add or subtract anything
procedurally and we sure as hell shouldn't be giving any
candidate an advantage or disadvantage by passing
resolutions affecting anyone's candidacy.
Norm's chairmanship of the Executive Committee is another
matter that has already been decided by vote of the
Committee.
I don't regard it as much of a compromise to agree to go
along with what the majority has already decided, though I
am pleased that there is some indication of willingness to
compromise on the issues before us.
I called Louis to discover how he voted on the three items
which Norm reported four votes for. He has voted for giving
Ron a 12-month contract, against an official business journal,
and for the proposal to increase TNS advertising in Mensa
publications as specified in my letter of May 29.
The idea of giving an appointive officer a guarantee of
continued tenure is one I oppose in general, but I am satisfied
with Ron's performance, for the most part, so I consider the
matter settled. The next Executive Committee will take this
up some time next year.
I don't really care whether we have an official business
journal, as long as a method of doing business within the
Committee is adopted. Everyone now seems to realize that
we need to work out a decision-making procedure.
Here's my DMP in its entirety: Any Committee member can
make a proposal on any subject within our jurisdiction at any
time; one month (postmark to postmark) is allowed for voting;
votes go to the Chairman, who will promptly notify everyone
of the results.
Now that we have decided to print all logos, the next step
is for the Editor to print a final call for logo submissions.
I agree that the precise format of Vidya (within the one
ounce limitation imposed by first class mailing costs) can be
left to the discretion of the Editor.
The membership records can easily be duplicated if they are
completely computerized. This should be done immediately.
We cannot afford to have vital records of the Society solely
in the hands of one person. People have died in office in the
past and transitions when new officers have been installed
have not always been smooth. Members' evidence of
qualification cannot be computerized; these documents should
be photocopied, with one copy deposited with the Archivist.
My proposal to remove Barry from office has apparently been
defeated. I'm not happy about this, but I accept that it is the
situation. I still believe that Barry's presence as an officer
is detrimental to the Society and I will continue to call
attention to irregularities in the conduct of his office, such as
his misquoting of the room rates for the annual meeting (he
announced that rooms would cost $29 per night; the actual
rates were $39 for Friday and Saturday nights and $55 for
Thursday night) and his loan to Ron Hoeflin, a member of the
Committee charged with oversight of his performance, so Ron
could attend the annual meeting, a clear conflict of interest.
I have no objection to withdrawal of Norm's censure motions,
as I am interested in action, not words.
I disagree with the second paragraph of the proposed
statement from the Executive Committee in its entirety. I believe
that anything less than complete acceptance of the membership
status of all members, without any qualifications whatever, is
unacceptable.
I like the idea of giving each member of the Executive
Committee space to state his or her views in Vidya better than
that of a statement from the Committee as a whole, but I think
the amount of space should be at least three pages, as there are
complex issues involved. (Of course, not all Committee members
would make use of that much space.)
The third option (making available correspondence) is the
best of the lot, but doesn't go far enough, as I have said above.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of November 6:
I suggest that Ron and Bill Hoon submit detailed proposals
for a procedure for making payments for production of Vidya
and let the Executive Committee vote on them and put this
matter to rest.
The Executive Committee has no authority to replace the
Treasurer [Financial Officer], an officer elected by the
membership.
In response to Patrick Hill's transcript from the annual
meeting:
I was not pleased to see the airing of so many personal
grievances at the annual meeting. Despite the limited accords
which were reached, it is apparent that there are still deep
divisions within the Executive Committee.
Norm didn't do a very good job of presenting the position of
the "humanists." The discussion was rather one-sided.
Still, limited accords seem to have emerged, so some good
came of the meeting.
There is no definitive record of the events leading to Anne
Paradise's enrollment as a regular member, but, as there is
substantial agreement that it was done by some officer or
officers, that point needn't be established more precisely.
The Executive Committee has no power to act contrary to
law or to the TNS Constitution, so the discussion of possible
action by the Committee is irrelevant.
Once again, Barry shows his belligerent attitude in his
intransigence regarding matters not within the authority of
the Executive Committee to decide and already voted upon
and in his relentless badgering of Norm Treloar.
I was impressed with Gregory Platten's common sense
approach to disagreements within the Society. Business
is business; the fact that we disagree, even deeply and on
matters of principle, must not be allowed to disrupt the
functioning of the Executive Committee and the affairs of
the Society.
Whether the membership should have been informed of
Anne's unique status when they were asked to vote on
her candidacy for Ombudsman is no longer relevant. You
don't have to believe her statement that she won't run
again; if she does run again, people will know.
Barry's version of my involvement in the controversy over
Ron Hoeflin's editorship is wrong on certain points.
I objected to the current paid-editor arrangement from
before it was ratified but went along with it because the
alternatives seemed much worse. I didn't get on Ron's
case about his performance as Editor until several months
later. When my concerns were responded to, I stated
that I was satisfied; I still am.
Barry is also wrong about my initial response to the matter
of Anne's membership status. I said that making a public
issue of this matter could cause a scandal and told Barry
that he should refrain from pursuing it. Unfortunately, he
chose to ignore my advice, which has led to a great deal
of acrimony and a great deal of suffering.
Gregory Platten's proposal for a vote of the membership
on the matter of Anne's membership status does not take
into account the fact that the rights of long-time members
of organizations are protected by law.
Contrary to Patrick's assertion, my proposal that Barry
and Scott be removed from office had nothing to do with
punishment. I was appalled that any officer of the Society
could have such bad judgement as to call for someone's
membership to be revoked without any evidence of fraud
on her part in seeking admission. After that, I had no
confidence in these appointive officers. I therefore felt that
I must call for their removal from office.
There's also a misunderstanding in Patrick's phrase "punish
the person by taking their [sic] office away from them [sic]."
All of the officer posts in the Society belong to the
membership, not to their incumbents. The Executive
Committee has a duty to insure that the appointive officers
serve the best interests of the Society.
Patrick is right that the question of Anne's suitability for
office is separate from that of her membership status. If she
runs again, he or anyone else is free to raise the issue and
let the members decide whether they want to vote for her
(I will). But the Executive Committee has no authority to limit
the right of any member to run for office.
Patrick is wrong that my proposals to remove Barry and
Scott were based on the raising of an issue. What I was
concerned about was the invasion of Anne's privacy over a
non-issue, something that is moot because it cannot legally
be enacted, as well as contrary to the intent of the founders
of TNS.
The point about the need for the officers to feel free to
raise issues without fearing for their jobs does make some
sense, but to me the conclusion is that appointive officers
should not be members of the Executive Committee.
Decision making in the Society should be done by officers
who are directly accountable to the membership and must
act for the good of the Society if they expect to be reelected.
Other business:
We must act to fill the offices vacated by Scott McFarland.
I propose that a call for volunteers be published in Vidya to
provide a pool of talent for us to choose from.
It is not too early to think about next year's annual meeting.
I propose that we publish a notice in Vidya asking for
groups of members from local areas who are interested in
hosting the meeting to submit proposals for publication in
Vidya in time to be voted on in the next election.
The work of the Psychometrics Committee was left unfinished.
We did come to several recommendations:
1. That only those tests should be accepted for admission
purposes for which norming data have been submitted to
us or to a peer-reviewed psychometric journal.
2. That age-based childhood scores should not be accepted.
3. That the California Test of Mental Maturity should not be
accepted, as it is a badly flawed test.
We should accept these recommendations, constitute a new
Psychometrics Committee, or both.
It would be good to see detailed reports from the Financial
Officer, the Membership Officer, and the Ombudsman on the
status of matters within the scope of their offices.
The Financial Officer should also present us with a draft budget,
as called for by Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.
I am including with this letter copies of letters written by
Barry Kington to the postal inspectors concerning transactions
with Polymath Systems. The letters were mailed in Triple Nine
Society envelopes.
Barry's letters contain various unsupported and speculative
accusationsof criminal wrongdoing.
I call attention particularly to Barry's imputation of motives
to me of which he could have no knowledge.
Is there no limit to the misconduct we will tolerate in
appointive officers of the Society?
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon