Connections

Letters to the editor are one of the best ways we know of to make connections. Please write to Going Forward with your opinions.

I especially appreciate the letters and articles in Going Forward that offer alternative solutions to the things which the writer thinks need changing, and those that provide thorough explanations to readers not familiar with an issue. For examples, see the articles by Jonathan Elliott and Brian Bloch in Volume 1, Issue 2.

Rebecca Barbour (Volume 1, Issue 2) throws out the suggestion of local groups leaving American Mensa if the AMC is not responsive to local group needs. This idea perennially raises its head somewhere in the Mensa organization. Way back in the 1960s, when Oregon Mensa was just being formed, the Oregon LocSec received a letter from the LocSec of San Francisco Mensa, saying something to the effect of "we don't want to be told what to do by a Board in New York City; will you join us in seceding?" Ann Hinds (then) Oregon LocSec, gave a reply which I think is classic: "If we are going to be dominated by a parochial group, it might as well be New York as San Francisco."

If a local group secedes from American Mensa, Ltd., it will no longer have access to the services of American Mensa, such as testing, records, etc. The Constitution of MIL provides for the recognition of "National Mensas." There is no provision for smaller units. The Constitution (Section IX.A.2) imposes on National Mensa Committees the duty to "supervise their local groups."

As has been often stated, if members are unhappy with the way the AMC handles things, the option is to vote individuals out of office. That, of course, would require that members keep informed about what is going on and who is for or against any specific course of action.

Judy Dosse ("New Traditions for Mensa," Volume 1, Issue 2) commented on an action by the International Board of Directors (IBD) at its meeting in October 1999. The action cited would allow members to omit their street addresses in published Mensa listings. In my opinion, this was an invalid decision. Here is my reasoning:

The Constitution specifies that as a condition of membership, members must "Permit their names and addresses to be published in duly authorized Mensa listings" (Section III.C.1.c.).

The very first principle in construing a document in court is that words shall be given their usual and common meaning, unless the context makes that meaning ambiguous. The word "addresses" certainly does have a usual and common meaning; there is nothing in the context of III.C.1.c. that makes it ambiguous. Therefore, it is not subject to interpretation by vote of the IBD.

"Addresses" was used in Mensa for fifty years in its common usage to include all designations necessary to allow delivery of mail to the individual member. With the plain language of the Constitution and that long precedent, the IBD exceeded its power in attributing a different meaning to the word. In my opinion, the only legitimate way to change the requirement is to change the Constitution by vote of the members.

—Velma Jeremiah
    OldVJ@aol.com

[Ed. Note: Velma Jeremiah served as International Mensa's Chairman from 1991-1995.]

Regarding the article "States' Rights" by Rebecca Barbour, my comment about her take on the Federal Government is:

Yes! Another Mensan that "gets it." Well said!

But I'm not sure it makes a good analogy when it comes to Mensa. Read the Bylaws and you will see the local groups never had any rights. As one former RVC, known for his overly enthusiastic exercise of power, said, "All my problems with locals come from the fact that the LocSecs don't understand that all power comes from the AMC."

And, in this case, he was/is right! Whatever "rights" we have in Mensa are parceled out to us from the AMC. Our rights at the local level are not "slipping into oblivion" because we never had any! While I certainly agree with Rebecca's take on the situation, we are indeed the subjects of the AMC.

What I find interesting is that even though the AMC has the bulk of the power, they still play fast and loose with the Bylaws whenever it is convenient, and make ASIEs that are contradictory to the Bylaws. I think the AMC as a body writes itself into a corner and then must fudge its way out.

Right now the "powers that be" seem to be on a "control" kick. They take themselves too seriously, imagining all sorts of "what if someone sues us" scenarios that they then "fix" by trying to exercise total control over statements and actions at the local and individual level.

I suggest three things we can do:

1. Replace the officers who act that way with those less interested in "power";

2. Ignore edicts as often as possible; and

3. Laugh a lot at the ridiculousness of such actions, preferably where the AMC can hear it.

—Bill Melms
    tbil@yahoo.com

I want to take this opportunity to thank Ted Elzinga for his feedback in the March issue of Going Forward.

For our Mensa to go forward there must be an open environment, regardless of our interpretation of facts and the conclusion(s) that may follow. Our perception of our own unique vision of truth makes us all a little more human.

"We see the world not as it is, but as we are."

One of the ways our organization will grow is to value our differences, both of opinion and of interpretation. The way we see the problem is the problem. With constructive feedback and true listening, we should be able to feed our opportunities and starve our problems.

But, if we allow our assumptions to shape our attitudes and behavior without first validating these assumptions through another perspective, then we have taken a step backwards. Thanks to Ted for voicing his opinion. The feedback process has begun.

—Don Taylor
    TaylorD@amerch.com

[Ed. Note: The author of the following letter states that it was submitted to both Going Forward and InterLoc. As of publication date, we do not know if InterLoc will be printing it, but we feel it merits publication here since the problem to which it refers goes beyond the specific situation addressed about InterLoc.]

In the April/May 2002 issue of InterLoc, Jean Becker takes issue with Angie Richardson's letter decrying the appearance of modern Mensa as a "vending machine … instead of the round table with which we started out," and a "social club [upon which] we have overlaid all the structure of a government."  Angie asks, "Why are we, a social society, so much more … vertically stratified than we were a mere 20 years ago?"

Jean says that the "round table image of the founding fathers was Mensa as a think-tank to solve world problems."  She then goes on with an apologetic for the structure of AMC and its current way of functioning, without further addressing the question of whether Mensa is in fact a "round table of equals," a "think tank," or a social organization of peers, instead of what it now appears to many of us to be, an undemocratic organization governed by an elite within an elite, in which the wishes of the membership are generally ignored, and upon whom a series of commands are imposed with the implied threat of withholding funds or of decertification if the local groups do not comply.

According to the Constitution, Mensa has three stated purposes: to identify and foster human intelligence for the benefit of humanity, to encourage research in the nature, characteristics and uses of intelligence, and to promote stimulating intellectual and social opportunities for its members.

None of this includes the notion of a "think tank."  None of it implies that Mensa needs to have a "governing body" that tells local groups and members what they must do or cannot do.  None of it suggests that AMC should, or has the right to, threaten non-compliers with decertification or accusations of "acts inimicable [sic]."  Frankly, this annoys me.  Why should we have to live in fear of punishment from above, and cravenly modify our local actions or opinions because of that?

I, and everyone else in Mensa that I know, think of Mensa only in terms of the third purpose listed above.  We think of Mensa as a social organization, unique in that we can meet with our peers and not be uncomfortable with having to edit our vocabulary or our concepts to the different intellectual level of those around us, or with having to conceal the fact that we think on the level that we do.  I think of Mensa as a group in which I can feel at home, and be accepted as what I am, without having to explain anything.  A group, incidentally, in which I feel no need to flaunt my doctorate (as if I would anyhow), because most of my group also have one, and those who don't are still just as bright and capable as those who do.

But we are also bright enough to be able to do the right thing without having it imposed on us from above.  Nor does the "right thing" need to be the same from group to group.  A group of 50 does not need to have as elaborate a group of guidelines as one of 1500.  (When I was a Girl Friday, and worked for many different businesses, I noticed that when there was just the owner and a half-dozen employees, the rules were few or non-existent, and the business got along fine.  But when the business got big, with 10,000 employees or more, human nature forced it to need many rules.  One company I was at had three 3-inch loose-leaf books full of "Operating Procedures.")

What I see, and I believe what Angie was trying to express, is that we have now a bigger organization than when we started, and that the governing body seems to believe that, because we are bigger, we need a lot of rules.  What this governing body seems not to believe is that we are not your ordinary group of members, and do not need to be told in such excruciating detail what to do.  Nor are we your feckless mob who needs to be told what is good for us.  Nor are we, at the local group level, unable to solve our own problems, but must be governed from above without consultation. We expect, with reason, to be consulted, and feel that we are not.

Take the "Nominating Committee."  At the local level, in Los Angeles, we have no such thing.  Every person who aspires to serve (my emphasis) on our board must submit a petition, signed by at least nine others and him/herself.  I see no reason why this cannot be the case at the national level.

We see a lot of "ASIEs," which appear to have the force of Bylaws.  No one has asked our opinion on them — they are just imposed on us.  We don't see any "sunset rules," which would set a term limit on such things.  For that matter, there's no "sunset" limit on the Bylaws either, and there should be. 

And when it comes to the disposition of the dues, what say do the members have in how they are allocated?  We may have "input" about the budget, but this has no force, and can be and is ignored.  The budget should be subject to approval by the membership, not unilaterally determined at the national level.  Or are we all not equal, after all?

My concept of AMC is that it should limit itself to administrative duties, keeping track of memberships (past and present), and accounting for the dues.  It may recommend and suggest, to help local groups manage themselves effectively, but it should not order and demand.  If it's so fearful of legal consequences from this and that, they should get competent legal advice as to how to hold Mensa as a whole immune to the consequences of what some local group or member might do, just as we state publicly that Mensa holds no opinions, supports no causes, and the opinions of the members are theirs alone. Jean wants "ideas or suggestions." 

These are my suggestions, for what they are worth:  Consultation.  Administration.  Bookkeeping. And RESPECT, for individual members, local groups, and the caliber of what Mensans are.

—Mary E. Kimball
    MQUITE@aol.com