This part of the article focuses on those suggestions about the Draft Bylaws (Going Forward, September 2003 special issue) that are not currently being included, accompanied by my reasons for excluding them. For ease of reading, the suggestions will appear in plain type, while my reasons will appear in italics. As with the Bylaws themselves, and the suggestions included in the first part of this article (Going Forward, December 2003), I encourage comments on these suggestions either for or against. I can be reached at neunerdude@cs.com.

Article I (General Information): Switch the positions of sections 2 (governing documents) and 3 (rights to name and logo). A new term, entity, or relationship should be defined the first time it is used, before a relationship or effect is described. I prefer to say "because of THIS, we do THAT" rather than saying "we do THAT" and later saying "THIS exists." I don't see the causal link between these two sections. We do not have the exclusive use rights to the name and logo because we are subordinate to MIL, nor are we subordinate to MIL because we have exclusive use rights to the name and logo. Therefore, I don't see a compelling reason to change the order of these two sections.

Article III (Officers), section 3: It is a good idea to say that AMC members cannot also be on their own local group's governing body, but this may hurt some local groups. The section says AMC members cannot be voting members of their local group's governing body. For the AMC member, one possibility is to serve on the local group's governing body in a non-voting capacity; another is to make the hard choice between serving on the local group's governing body and serving on AMC. In this section, the goal was to keep too much Mensa power on too many levels from being concentrated in the hands of one person, and to encourage more volunteers to serve on their local group's governing body.

Article VI (AMC), section 4 (regular and special meetings): If we say that all meetings of the AMC must be open to all members (Article VI, section 13), is 10 days' notice enough for a special meeting? It might be for the members of the AMC, but how do you notify all the members in time? You don't. Special meetings are called for urgent reasons that cannot wait for the next regular meeting and cannot be handled by the Executive Committee. Such meetings cannot wait until the full membership is notified, but would still be subject to the provisions of section 13. There has never been a requirement that the full membership be informed of the holding of every meeting.

Article VI, section 5 (authority of AMC), subsection a (appointments): We need to think carefully whether we need to specify what offices we'd like. Assuming that each of these people will have a liaison, how do we ensure that the liaison has a clue about what the appointed officer is doing? Taking the last point first, how do we ensure that now? There is nothing in this subsection that says anything about liaisons, nor are they always required. Specifying functionary offices in the Bylaws takes flexibility in assessing needs away from the AMC and mandates that the Bylaws be amended whenever it is determined that the status of a specified functionary has changed. Also, specifying functionary offices removes, to a degree, the responsibility of periodic re-evaluation of the need for any or all of the functionaries from AMC.

Article VI, section 12 (business relationships): "Conflict of interest" is not defined. "A conflict is anything I say it is, and if I don't say it, it isn't!" It never has been. If such a definition is put in the Bylaws, the loophole hunters will have a field day. How many times will we be amending the Bylaws to cover the loopholes? This is ASIE material.

Article VII (Ombudsman), section 2 (duties): "Resolve" is not defined. "Yeah, I resolved 'em all over a case of beer last night. I ruled against everybody! There are no unresolved problems now, 'cause I say so!" That's right. The Ombudsman has a great deal of power but a limited sphere of authority. The last thing wanted is to block his/her access to any way to resolve a dispute.

Article VIII (Hearings Committee), section 1 (sphere of authority): Change to read: "The Hearings Committee process may be invoked when an act inimical to Mensa has been committed." "Act inimical" must be defined to exclude clearly matters of opinion. There should be an actual act, and an actual harmful result, not a speculative one. The Hearings Committee should not be directed to "settle disputes." Its sole charge should be to judge whether an "act inimical to Mensa" has been committed, by whom, and what, if any, sanctions should be applied. Most disputes in Mensa are of a political nature, which should not be settled by judicial procedures. The concept of "acts inimical to Mensa" has been removed from this draft entirely. To insist that Hearings Committees be restricted to handling something left vague in the current Bylaws, and undefined in both current and draft versions of the Bylaws, is a reactionary approach to dispute resolution. The description of the nature of disputes in Mensa is a statement of opinion with which people may disagree.

Article VIII, section 3 (formation of Hearings Committee): There is nothing in here about the rights of the respondent, such as counsel and confrontation. The Bylaws should contain a requirement that Hearings Committee rules must provide for fairness in procedures. This is a matter better left for a code of procedures for hearings. "Fairness" is a vague term that should not be written into the Bylaws.

Article VIII, section 4 (timetable for reports): Change to read: "… the Hearings Committee Chairman shall promptly report the committee's findings and its decision, …" "Promptly" is another vague term that should not be written into the Bylaws.

Article IX (Elections), section 3 (candidate petitions), subsection a (Chairman, etc.): There should be a requirement that candidates for Chairman and Vice-Chairman have to have served on the AMC in some other capacity. By eliminating the Past and Past Past Chairmen, you create a situation where you could have an entire AMC of rookies. Based on the life term of the Ombudsman and the presence of the Chairman Emeritus, both of whom sit on AMC, no AMC would be composed of all rookies. The idea of making candidates for these offices serve at least one term on AMC serves to perpetuate "Group-think" from one AMC to the next, defeats the purpose of "voting the rascals out" and replacing them with non-politicos, discourages the volunteer with proven achievements from running for office and gives the impression that other AMC offices are to be used merely as steppingstones to the Chairmanship.

Article X (Local Groups), section 5 (disposal of group assets): Maybe there is something in the minimum standard local bylaws about this, but we don't address disposal of group assets if a local group disbands. True, we don't. However, this is something that should be dealt with in an ASIE.

General comment 1: Should there be something about being incorporated in the state where the office is located, or in the state that is the most "pro" Mensa? Stating that Mensa must be incorporated where the office is located restricts moving the office expeditiously if and when it's necessary. As for which state is most "pro" Mensa, that could change quickly and without warning.

General comment 2: We should not put past chairmen out to pasture as soon as their terms are done. Most of them have valuable knowledge and experience. A natural required duty for an AMC past chairman would be as a National Representative who was expected to actually do some work at the international level. We cannot impose a duty on someone once they are out of office. Besides, can you imagine any past chairmen refusing to give of their knowledge and experience if asked — or even if not asked? One does not need a title to make suggestions, ask questions and generally share knowledge.

General comment 3: We need to be sure that the legal association between Mensa and MERF is still acknowledged in our Bylaws, and it is important to have MERF represented on the AMC. The association between Mensa and MERF is not currently mentioned anywhere in the Bylaws. Also, while it has been the custom for the Director of Science and Education to be connected to MERF, it has never been stated in the Bylaws that MERF must be represented on the AMC.

General comment 4: Nothing says the election committee shall create the code of election procedures. I believe it is necessary for each election committee to revise the code of election procedures to accommodate issues that arose in the previous election, to address changing technology, to include any changes that have taken place in the Bylaws and any ASIEs that affect the election process. The responsibility for creating procedures covering the election is given to the AMC in Article VI, section 5(d). I believe this power should be given to AMC because they are subject to removal by recall if they should abuse the power or abdicate the responsibility. Appointed committee members are not subject to recall in cases of abuse or irresponsibility; and, in the case of the Election Committee in particular, any action taken by AMC, even if justified, can be interpreted as interference with the election process.

— Allen Neuner