P.O. Box 795
Berkeley, CA 94701
December 30, 1986
Members of the TNS Executive Committee and Others:
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of November 10:
I, too, hope that a satisfactory arrangement can be made for
transmission of funds for Vidya from the Financial Officer to the
Editor. I have spoken with both Ron and Bill and each seems to
be willing to cooperate in coming to a resolution of this matter.
All copies of the October issue seem to have been mailed at this
writing. The November issue has been printed; Ron tells me it
will soon be mailed, so we're behind, but at least Vidya is being
produced. Patrick Hill has informed me that there are still
problems in working out a more durable arrangement between
Ron and Bill; I hope that we will not see further delays for this
reason. Louis and Patrick are right about the members' first
priority being the regular production and high quality of Vidya.
I agree, also, that the present constitutional arrangements are
not satisfactory and have contributed to the present disputatious
atmosphere in this Committee, to the detriment of the Society's
business. Accordingly, I have been working on some ideas for
correcting the inadequacies in the present document and I have
prepared a new constitution draft.
The idea that appointed officers are too vulnerable politically is
one interpretation of the current situation. I'm inclined to look
at it in a different way. Elected officers are vulnerable only to
recall and appointed officers who are members of the
Committee that reviews their tenure in office are difficult to
remove even if they can't cast a vote on their own tenure
directly.
Every officer of the Society should be subject to frequent
review by the elected representatives of the membership.
Terms of office should have a definite expiration date, so that
a positive reappointment is necessary for continuance in office.
This, in a way, means that the officers providing vital functions
of the Society should be subject to more "political" pressure,
not less, to insure that they're following the constitution and
acting in the interest of the membership.
I agree that the Executive Committee should be separate from
the working officers, but I don't like the idea of two-year terms
of office; people are capable of doing quite enough mischief in
one year before they have to face the voters again. Appointive
officers should not be permitted to serve simultaneously on the
Executive Committee; it's a built-in conflict of interest. Of
course, the argument can be made that the people who do the
work should make the decisions, but I believe it's the members,
not the officers, of the Society who ought to be in control.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of November 16:
It is clear that, with regard to the most serious issues which
have divided us, factions have formed whose members tend to
cast similar votes. Whether there is some kind of "conspiracy"
in this is not particularly relevant. People with similar interests
tend to respond similarly, quite independently of prior
agreements or the ethics of placing high priority on those
particular interests; e.g., lumber companies tend to oppose
wilderness protection bills.
I am willing to avoid the use of the label "logician" if
Patrick feels personally offended by it. I certainly agree with
Patrick that this is not an accurate label for the members of
the group that voted to remove Anne from office and let
Barry remain as Membership Officer.
Patrick talks about putting an end to the warfare in the
Executive Committee, but his own letters are consistently
among the most judgemental, self-righteous, and inflammatory
of all those circulated in the Committee, containing new
provocations on almost every page and many factual mistakes
and conclusions based on false assumptions. I will be more
specific with regard to matters mentioned in Patrick's letters
further on.
I agree with Patrick that the members must be provided with
the facts about what's been going on in this Committee so they
can make up their own minds about the matters at issue.
I cannot go along with Patrick in supporting Norm's Option 1
in his leter of October 31 nor the wording of the proposed
statement. Paragraph two of the original statement is
objectionable in its entirety (the revision in Norm's letter of
November 26 is an improvement but is still unsatisfactory to
me) and the rest of the statement is wishy-washy, giving the
membership no real representation of debate in the Committee.
Members of the Committee are too far apart on too many
issues for one statement to fairly represent our concerns.
I have no problem with Option 2, except that the space
allowed for each member of the Committee to express his
views should be more like three pages than 1-1/2.
But, as I have stated before, I think that only Option 3,
publication of the full correspondence, will provide the
membership with the facts needed to resolve the current
situation.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of November 18:
I did not state that the Executive Committee was unable to
help in resolving the questions having to do with timing of
payments for Vidya; I pointed out that the Committee has
no power to remove an elected officer. I have done what
I could to help bring this matter to an amicable resolution.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of November 23:
I agree with Ron that the Editor has as much right as anyone
else to make his views known through Vidya. Naturally, as
he exercises control over access to Vidya, he must
scrupulously permit equal access to others with differing views.
I objected to Ron's frequent exercise of the Editor's unique
"instant comment" opportunity some months ago as tending
to have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas; Ron
responded quickly and appropriately. If this criterion of
fairness is observed, I see no reason why Ron should not
speak his mind.
Ron's remarks in Vidya #72 provided a brief glimpse of our
deliberations this year. His first six points were generally
correct, though necessarily incomplete. Point seven, that
Norm and I objected to the holding of an annual meeting
this year, is not correct; the point that we raised had to do
with selection of a site and organizing committee, which
should, in my opinion, have been submitted to a vote of the
Executive Committee before being announced as an official
decision in Vidya. Point eight is extremely misleading, in that
Ron presented only one side of his dispute with Bill Hoon,
repeating an unsubstantiated rumor about Bill's remarks
about TNS in the ISPE.
In response to Bill Hoon's letter of November 24:
I am very concerned about Bill's report that TNS is running
at a $250/month deficit. We must see full particulars of the
Society's financial affairs immediately, in the form of detailed
reports from all officers making expenditures on behalf of
the Society, in order to exercise our duty of responsible
management.
I don't feel that reduction of the number of issues of Vidya
per year is an acceptable way to meet a financial crisis. I do
agree with Bill that the Editor should be a volunteer. I'd
rather not cut people off exactly when their dues run out, as
many people have a tendency to be slow in paying routine
bills and I'd like to retain as many members as possible.
Separate renewal notices are a necessity. A dues increase
may be necessary, but should not be enacted without a vote
of the membership.
There is a history of difficulty between Bill and Ron in the
timing of payments for production of Vidya. I would rather
we not rehash what has gone before. I'd like to see Ron
and Bill work out a system which will work for both of
them; failing that, I'd like to see specific proposals from
each of them as to procedures to be followed in the future.
(A couple of notes: Many nonprofit organizations have full-
time staff, so that isn't a problem for our nonprofit status.
Ron's bank stamps the checks when he deposits them, but
gives him credit only after a "clearing period" established
by the bank--which may not have anything to do with how
fast the funds actually clear.)
In response to Ron Penner's letter of November 24:
Ron is right that no one has a right to reproduce his
correspondence without his consent. The pertinent statutes
are those concerning copyright of an unpublished work.
Ownership of a letter as a literary work remains with the
writer (though ownership of the physical document passes
to the recipient) and it may not be reproduced without his
permission. The statutes further provide a $250 minimum
for copyright infringement damages.
Quotation of brief passages is permitted under the doctrine
of "fair use," which is sometimes difficult to apply in practice;
200 words is sometimes cited as a limit for fair use, though
a shorter quotation could compromise protection of, e.g., a
poem.
We, as members of the Executive Committee engaging in
official correspondence, are in a different position, having
given implicit consent to publication of our correspondence
within the Society.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of November 26:
Norm's data do show the presence of a voting bloc in the TNS
Executive Committee, but that was obvious anyway. I don't care
whether people vote the same, if the way they vote is intelligent
and humane; unfortunately, that hasn't always been the case.
I agree with Norm regarding the problems with funds for
publishing Vidya.
Norm reports that my motion to advertise TNS in the Mensa
Journal International and in the U.S. Bulletin and its Canadian
counterpart in alternate months has passed. Barry, what has been
done to put this into effect?
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of November 26:
I wonder if anyone else noticed the self-contradiction in
Patrick's letter. In the first paragraph, he says:
Mr. Penner--and anyone else--is free to include
previous or subsequent ExComm correspondence as
they see fit, either in conjunction with my effort or
independently. I can only hope that any such effort will
adhere to the standards I have adopted: that they are
reasonably accurate, include all correspondence
between cut-off dates, and do not knowingly edit or
interject any material.
On the very next page, Patrick reproduces a private letter
from Ron Penner, interjecting his own comments following
each paragraph.
At the bottom of page 1, Patrick says:
In your [Penner's] letter of July 27, you said that I
"...wrote that if a majority of the voting membership
wished to eliminate some memberships when a test
was renormed, that would be alright [sic]." My
response, on August 4, was that I had neither written
nor implied this. To date, you have not acknowledged
this deliberate misrepresentation of my position. This
is a false attribution--in other words, a lie--presented to
the ExComm in an attempt to discredit me personally
by linking me to a concept I do not embrace. On
September 7, you wrote, "Why if anyone is going to call
me a liar by implication are they not forthright enough
to call me a liar outright?" OK, Mr. Penner, have it
your way: in this case, you are a liar.
The passage to which Penner was referring from Patrick's
July 27 letter is reproduced below:
Whatever actually happened, I believe that if any
ExComm passed a resolution which was illegal, then
that decision ought to be reviewed--such as ones, for
instance, abridging the members [sic] rights to free
speech, or contrary to the intent of the TNS
Constitution's Article III,7, prohibiting the inspection
of records which contain information of an individual's
test scores, as Mr. Treloar fears may happen,
"Suppose that an IQ test used for TNS admission is
re-normed, and that we find that several dozen
members no longer meet the revised TNS admission
standards. Should we then root out these people and
withdraw their memberships?" -N. Treloar [7/15]. I
believe the principle of review also applies to the
actions of officers if those actions are contrary to the
expressed will of the Society.
This is a peculiar passage. The intent of the final sentence is
not clear to me. If the officers acted before the test in
question was renormed could they be said to have acted
contrary to the expressed will of the Society? That doesn't
seem reasonable. But if this is not what was intended, what
is the relevance of placing this sentence after Norm's question?
I would not have drawn as strong an inference as Ron Penner
did from this passage, but this is at most an unfortunate
misreading. Why does Patrick find it necessary to insult Penner
by calling him a liar and presuming to guess his motive in
characterizing the import of this ambiguous passage?
In response to Bill Hoon's letter of November 30:
Ron Hoeflin is not an employee of TNS; God forbid that we
should get involved in all the red tape that involves. He is an
independent contractor performing a service to the Society
at a per-piece rate negotiated with the Executive Committee.
The Committee, in accordance with Ron's request and
against my advice, voted to grant Ron a one-year term as
Editor, though the date of commencement of this period is
not clear to me; it is also questionable whether a future
Executive Committee would be bound by this arrangement.
Nonetheless, having asked us to give him a measure of
security by ratifying the terms of our arrangement with him
for production of Vidya, he was out of line, in my opinion,
in making an ultimatum to the Society beyond the terms of
the agreement under which he has been doing the job. He
clearly was in the wrong legally in accepting money to
produce the October issue and then refusing to deliver it
to the members.
But we are past this particular sticking point. The important
thing here is to keep Vidya on schedule now and begin to
assess the Society's financial position with an eye toward
practicing some economies in the future.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of December 1:
I am sympathetic to Ron's personal financial needs and the
difficulties occasioned by timing of payments and his printer's
uncertain schedule, but I would rather see attempts to work
out a mutually acceptable arrangement for future fund
transfers than more accusations and demands.
In response to Barry Kington's letter of December 2:
I accept Barry's apology for his use of TNS envelopes in
corresponding with the postal authorities. I trust that he will
take pains to disassociate his private crusades from the Society
in the future.
I'd appreciate it if Barry would inform the Executive
Committee of the name of the "person" he's asked to take over
the label-making function for the Society. Barry also mentions
this anonymous "person" in his letter of December 15. The
membership data base from which labels are made is a vital
resource; I'm not comfortable about the Committee's ignorance
of who has custody of it.
My letter immediately previous to the one of November 11 is
dated September 2. Barry was mailed a copy of that letter,
along with everyone else on the Committee, but if he needs a
copy I'll be glad to send him one.
As Barry stated, the question of whether Omni obtained a
judgement against me is a matter of court record for all to see.
I find it amazing that, in the face of apparently contradictory
statements from opposing sides of a matter which is the subject
of litigation, Barry and Patrick take the word of the attorneys
for one side as factual without bothering to verify the facts
themselves. Barry urges others to do the same by suggesting
that they contact Omni Publications International.
For the record, once again, Omni did not obtain a judgement
against me, the Four Sigma Society, or Polymath Systems.
Those who make statements to the contrary in the future or fail
to retract past statements risk legal action.
On the other hand, I have no objection to true statements,
such as Barry's allegation that some people who paid for certain
products or test scoring service have not received anything for
their money. This is, regrettably, true at the present time, but
everyone who paid will receive what he or she paid for.
Also, anyone who is tired of waiting will receive a refund upon
application to Polymath Systems.
I'm as close to on time and within budget as the Space Shut-
tle and countless other large scale projects out in the real
world. Things often take longer and involve more difficulties
than reasonable people think they will. This is not an
indication of dishonesty, or even of incompetence. Why are
Barry and Patrick harping on this matter, which is quite
irrelevant to the responsibilities of the Executive Committee?
I was a member of a six-member Psychometrics Committee
of the Triple Nine Society in the early 1980's. The committee
attempted to review the tests which TNS accepts for
admission and made several recommendations, which I
reproduced in my letter of November 11. The committee's
recommendations were not presented formally to the
Executive Committee at that time, as we felt that a great deal
of work remained to be done. It is time to reexamine the
psychometric criteria on which admission to the Society is
based in light of questions which have recently been raised
about the limits of high-range tests.
Quite true; The Mobius Test has not been normed, as it has
been taken by only a very small sample to date. However,
this sample included a number of members of The 606
Society, Mega's predecessor. I had the highest score on the
test. Chris Harding offered me membership in 606,
presumably on the basis of my performance on The Mobius
Test. I didn't "use" this test score; Chris took the initiative
and I accepted his invitation to join 606. But again, I fail to
see the relevance to TNS business.
[Historical Note: A revised version of the Mobius Test,
including a few items of my authorship, was eventually
published. Norms for the Mobius Test were computed on
October 29, 1996.]
Conflict of interest is a legal concept. Whether or not
there is an intention to obtain favors in exchange for gifts
(and the use of money for a period of time, especially if it
is interest-free, is included here), the giving of such gifts to
public officials or officers of private organizations with
whom one also has business in the context of public or
organizational affairs is unethical and requires that the
recipient of such a gift refuse to accept it or disqualify
himself from voting on matters with regard to which such
a conflict exists.
This clearly applies to Ron's voting on Barry's tenure in
office. How can Ron vote to remove Barry from office,
as he must if he becomes convinced that this is necessary
in the interest of the Society, if he owes Barry money?
Barry's allegation that I had my associate, Virginia Vernon
[whom I married in 1987], make false representations
about having written to him, is one more in a long string of
actionable charges made without a shred of evidence.
I never claimed not to have been sued by Omni. I said that
Omni did not obtain a judgement.
In response to Patrick Hill's letter of December 5:
I agree that an expression of appreciation for Scott
McFarland's work in the offices he occupied is in order,
but I find the wording unsatisfactory. I therefore propose
the following alternative resolution for publication in Vidya:
The Executive Committee regrets the circumstances
which have led to the resignation of Mr. Scott
McFarland as Elections Officer, Publicity Officer,
and Data Processing Officer, and wishes to express
its appreciation for his efforts on behalf of the Triple
Nine Society.
Norm, please consolidate voting on these resolutions.
I apologize for what appears to have been a mistaken
attribution of responsibility for the misquotation of room
rates for the annual meeting, which appeared in Vidya #70,
as $29 rather than $39. I would like to point out, however,
that the rate for Thursday night (relevant for a four day--
Thursday through Sunday--meeting) was $55, not $39.
In regard to Patrick's attempt to refute my charges against
Barry Kington, I won't bother to respond to Patrick's mere
denials of the validity of conclusions drawn from specific
instances of Barry's misconduct which I have enumerated
in my previous letters to the Committee. I will respond to
certain more specific remarks.
Whether Louis thought Barry was deceiving him is not the
point; it wouldn't have been deception if he did! Barry tried
to pull a fast one on the Committee; when things slowed
down and votes were counted, the vote was 6 to 3, with
Barry on the losing end.
I don't see the relevance of the listing of my name which
appeared in Guiness (1982 edition) under "Highest I.Q.,"
attributing to me a non-existent score on the Stanford-
Binet, but, as Patrick has brought up yet another red
herring, I must digress to respond.
Where did Patrick get the idea that I approved publication
of the Guiness listing? I found out about it when a friend
told me that he had seen it, and was incredulous that such
a listing could have appeared without my knowledge.
I wrote to Chris Harding and, as he was the source of the
Guiness listing, asked him to correct the matter with the
Guiness people in a letter reproduced in the Megarian.
Chris subsequently denied misrepresenting my Binet score,
but comparison of the following items clearly shows he
was the source (though I don't believe he intended any
misrepresentation):
From Guiness (1982 edition):
Highest I.Q.
On the Stanford-Binet or Terman index for
Intelligence Quotients (ceiling 200) 150 represents
genius level. Comparison close to the ceiling are
[sic] impracticable as are comparabilities [sic]
between one scale and another.
Those closest to the ceiling are Dr Bruce R.
Whiting PhD (Boston) (b 1947) of the International
Society for Philosophical Enquiry; Kevin Langdon
of Berkeley, California; Chris Harding (606 Society)
of Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia; Robert
Bryzman of Baltimore Md and Ms Leta Speyer of
NYC, all reported to have returned 196 on the
Stanford-Binet scale.
From a letter to me from Chris Harding, dated Jan. 20, 1982:
I believe the scores in Guiness are mostly non-Binet
scores on a Binet equivalent scale. They are
undoubtedly "highest performances" for each of the
people mentioned. Ceiling was 200. None reached
this figure though. Partly it is due to the ceiling bumping
effect. I have written to Guiness pointing out that
Wyndum-Jones [sic] who died in Auckland last year
had a Binet equiv of 199, making him the highest IQ
person ever to have lived in this world. Figures of 200
or more are false, being on a larger base, and so
incomparable. I have heard of scores up to 230 but
the results are due to standard deviations of 24 or
more points in a lot of cases. Binet is on a base of
approx 16 points, as are most other tests. So the
figures they now quote are more realistic. One can of
course never really make comparisons out to this level
(200). The comparisons are just the best that can be
done under the circumstances. They did note, after
advice was received from various competent
authorities, that comparisons and comparabilities [sic]
were impractical.
No one familiar with Chris' unique writing style can doubt
that he is the source of the Guiness listing.
I don't care if four members of the Executive Committee
wereinvolved in planning the annual meeting (how was this
planning accomplished and why didn't we know about it at
the time?); the point is that the Executive Committee, which
alone has the power to act in the name of the Society, was
bypassed.
It's too bad if the East Texans Patrick polled are uncivilized,
but that's no excuse for the West Kentuckians. Violent
language is a form of violence; I find it intolerable in a
member of the Executive Committee.
Patrick asks for evidence of the poor quality of Barry's
correspondence to candidates for TNS membership. A
copy of his letter to Virginia Vernon in response to her
inquiry (and to a complaint to the Ombudsman) is enclosed.
The first paragraph is from the preamble to the TNS
Constitution. Note Barry's omission of the LAIT in his list
of qualifying scores.
Patrick writes (beginning with a quote from my letter of
September 2):
"I find the innuendo in the second line of Barry's
first paragraph [letter dated August 20] offensive, not
in keeping with the democratic tradition of the Triple
Nine Society, and injurious to the deliberations of
this Committee." (That line reads: "It is sorrowful
to note the extreme efforts some people will go through
to circumvent or convolute the simple fact that Ann
[sic] was GIVEN membership in a club whose only
requirement for membership is an acceptable score on
one of a certain number of tests." Perhaps Mr.
Langdon could similarly interpret the Sermon on the
Mount or the Gettysburg Address for us.)
Sorry, Patrick, that's the second paragraph. The first
sentence of the first paragraph reads, "I have been sitting
back to see what this collection of august people, that
have very 'High IQs' (will [sic] almost everyone), are
going to do about the ethical matter concerning Ann's
[sic] position on the Excom." [my emphasis].
I never made a claim that Scott McFarland's August 25
letter was lost in the mail. I know I didn't get it, but I
don't know (or care) why. I'm interested in seeing it
because it's included in the transcript of Executive
Committee correspondence circulated by Patrick Hill.
Once again Patrick is in error when he accuses me of
libeling his intentions and character. I have only asserted
that Barry's and Patrick's own words reveal their
intentions and character.
Patrick says (again beginning by quoting me):
Then, "The gist of the criticisms can be
summarized in these two propositions:
1. People have not received items they have
paid for.
2. I am intentionally defrauding people for
financial gain." Proposition 1 is undeniable.
Speaking only for myself, proposition 2 is a
misrepresentation of my letter of September
8, in which I NEVER mentioned fraud.
I didn't say that Patrick mentioned fraud in his letter of
September 8. Barry's the one who's been pushing that idea.
Patrick completely fails to grasp the idea of conflict of
interest when he suggests that my involvement in individual
transactions involving very small amounts of money with
individual members of the Triple Nine Society constitutes
such a conflict. I can understand that Patrick would rather
not have me on the Committee, but this is another red
herring. According to this reasoning, no one who is in
business could ever run for political office. The fact that
there are problems with some of these transactions has no
bearing on the question of whether a conflict exists.
Connie Jessen's order was filled; I saw it go into the mail
myself. If she got two different score reports, it's because
she submitted two different answer sheets. The test is
scored by a computer; it follows the same algorithm every
time. If she has further problems, she is welcome to write
to us again.
Patrick also fails to grasp the concept of fiduciary duty.
This has to do with a relationship in which one has
custody of money or property belonging to another
person or an organization. We have a fiduciary duty to
the members to manage Society funds judiciously. This
has absolutely nothing to do with my private transactions
with individual members.
I don't give a damn whether Patrick's constituents want
him to take some action with regard to my business
affairs; other people's transactions with Polymath
Systems are none of his business and I resent his use of
them for political purposes within this Committee.
Sorry, again, Patrick. I intend to run for office this time
because I can't in good conscience fail to oppose those
with views like yours and Barry's.
I agree that it would be better to come to a meeting of
minds with Barry and Scott than to continue on the
present path of confrontation, but this is not possible as
long as there is disagreement on fundamental principles.
I did write to Barry, as Patrick suggested; Barry's
response in his letter to the Committee of December
15 gives little ground for hope of an amicable resolution
of our differences. I will write to Scott after I see his
letter of August 25.
In response to Norm Treloar's letter of December 9:
I don't like to see distorted views put forward as
representative of business before the Executive Committee,
as I found to be the case with the Dallas transcript and (to
some extent, as noted above) Ron Hoeflin's summary of
Executive Committee problems in Vidya, but I believe that
the membership has a right to know what we're up to, so I
don't, in principle, oppose anyone's taking the initiative to
make his views known. The best defense against material
quoted out of context is to make the entire transcript
available.
Therefore, while I agree that officers must not take
unilaterial actions representing a commitment of the Society,
I don't see Patrick's circulation of the transcript as falling into
that category.
I like the idea of simultaneous East and West Coast meetings
--this would make it possible for many more people to attend
--but I don't like the idea of linking the annual meeting to the
Executive Committee; I think we should continue to conduct
all business by mail.
I am strongly opposed to financial aid, from the Society or
from private individuals, for those who are unable to finance
their trips to the annual meetings. The meetings are and should
be social events, and strictly optional.
In response to Bill Hoon's letter of December 12:
Bill's concern about Ron's accountability for mailing Vidya
as a precondition for receiving further funds is well taken. I
think that Ron is making an effort to catch up. He indicated
to me by telephone that he will mail half the copies of the
November issue within the next few days and will try to get
the other half out shortly thereafter. I hope that this will
actually be done, as it is the only way that Bill's legitimate
concerns can be met.
Assuming that Ron becomes current in mailing Vidya, it will
then become critical to transmit funds to him quickly for the
December issue, which is already at the printer. Any further
delays in Vidya will further delay the election.
In response to Barry Kington's letter of December 15:
"...is not Kevin using his affiliation with the different IQ
clubs to promote the services of himself and his company.
Is this not a direct CONFLICT OF INTEREST." No,
Barry, it isn't (see my comments on Patrick Hill's letter,
above). Many business people advertise routinely in
Mensa's publications. And aren't you operating a consulting
group of TNS members?
Since Barry has cited my letter to him of November 26, I
am including it as an appendix to this letter. I think that the
concerns I expressed in my letter are reasonable.
In response, Barry once again insultingly implied that I am
motivated only by selfish interests and goes on to say:
I totally reject any offer that Kevin has made or
will make. I flatly refuse to deal with someone such
as he has proven himself to be. A person such as
Kevin does not need to be associated with this or
any other IQ club because he is a parasite on all
these types of clubs. He is the worst type of parasite,
like the "Dwarf Mistletoe" that kills its host, Kevin
adversely effects [sic] everything he touches as well.
Merry Christmas to you, too, Barry!
Barry's refusal "to deal with" a member of the Committee
to which the Membership Officer is responsible for the
performance of his function is yet another instance of
misconduct in office.
His threat to call for my removal from office is absurd in
the light of the upcoming election, in which the members
of the Society will have the opportunity to make up their
own minds as to whether I am fit to serve as an officer.
How the hell does Barry know that there are five people
who are not paying dues? Dues waivers are confidential
and should be known only to the Financial Officer. Bill,
did you report this figure to Barry or has he gotten
information on who these people are in some way?
Barry's point that members of the Society have paid for
copies of Vidya they have not received is correct; in my
opinion, if a member pays his dues he should not be
asked to pay again until he has received twelve issues
of Vidya.
If six months or so are elapsing between people's paying
their dues and their receiving their first issue, something is
wrong in the way things are being handled. Perhaps the
Membership Officer and the Financial Officer could give
us a summary of the details of the admission procedure.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of December 15:
I agree that renewal notices should receive top priority.
Mailing labels for Vidya should indicate each member's
renewal date. The Data Processing Officer should
generate renewal notices at the same time as mailing
labels each month.
In response to Ron's questions regarding my DMP:
1. Passage of any proposal should take a majority of
members eligible to vote on the matter under consideration.
2. The constitution provides that "the Editor and the
Membership Officer shall not participate in their own
evaluations unless the Executive Committee decides that
self evaluation would be a useful tool." I take this to mean
that appointive officers may not vote for themselves unless
a majority of the Committee votes to permit it (I would not
vote to allow this).
3. I agree; a member of the Committee should have the
same right as any other member to take an initiative to the
membership at any time.
4. I also agree that any member ought to be able to ask the
Committee to vote on any issue. A vote is only required,
however, if a member of the Committee makes a proposal.
5. A vote to reconsider an issue should be in order at any
time, at the initiation of any member of the Committee.
6. If a DMP is adopted, it should remain in force until
amended by the Executive Committee, regardless of
changes in personnel.
7. The Editor should be able to report on Executive
Committee business in Vidya as long as he is careful not
to use his position to push his views forward ahead of
everyone else's. I agree that a half-page statement of
candidacy doesn't give one a lot of sroom to maneuver.
I'd like to ask Ron to break up his proposal for additions
to my proposed DMP so that we can vote on the various
provisions individually.
I don't like the idea of giving the Executive Committee the
power to expell an officer elected by the membership.
In response to Catherine Brueckel's letter of December
16:
I'm very sorry to see that Catherine has withdrawn her offer
to serve as interim Membership Officer, but she certainly can't
be blamed for refusing to be drawn into the rhetorical firestorm
of the current state of affairs in the Executive Committee.
In response to Ron Hoeflin's letter of December 24:
The decline in membership from 739 members and subscribers
to 625 reflected in Scott's and Barry's membership labels,
respectively, is alarming to me. Again, I must call on the
Membership Officer and the Financial Officer to provide an
explanation for this state of affairs. If this goes on much longer,
we won't have a society.
Proposals pending:
As more than a month has elapsed since the three proposals I
made in my letter of November 11 (to publish the full
correspondence of the Executive Committee from March 31,
publish a call for volunteers for the vacant offices in Vidya, and
publish a notice to the membership asking for groups interested
in hosting the next annual meeting to submit bids), I now
request that the Chairman tabulate votes on these matters.
Sincerely,
Kevin Langdon